Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Virus |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does it mean to you? Does it mean there is an acceptable level of deaths or acceptable level of infections. Does it mean modifying your behaviour? What do you understand by that expression?" My learning to live with involves good hand hygiene, social distancing and wearing a mask indoors. Death rates hospitalisations etc I have no other control of. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does it mean to you? Does it mean there is an acceptable level of deaths or acceptable level of infections. Does it mean modifying your behaviour? What do you understand by that expression?" It means the latter to me ..... less contact with vulnerable  better hand hygiene, new rituals for the kids etc etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does it mean to you? Does it mean there is an acceptable level of deaths or acceptable level of infections. Does it mean modifying your behaviour? What do you understand by that expression?" There are NO acceptable levels....either of death or infection. Doesn't mean that there wont be some, but we must strive to our utmost to keep them as low as possible. Said it before, will say it again. If we accept that the deaths of a relatively few people mean that we can get back to normal, then we are all dehumanised by it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does it mean to you? Does it mean there is an acceptable level of deaths or acceptable level of infections. Does it mean modifying your behaviour? What do you understand by that expression?" Learning to live with it in my view means people at high risk isolating as much as possible but the rest of society and business trying to get on with life as normal as possible with much improved sanitary and compulsory face coverings like Asia has successfully been doing since SARS etc, not destroying vast swathes of commerce, jobs & millions of livelihoods with lockdowns. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does it mean to you? Does it mean there is an acceptable level of deaths or acceptable level of infections. Does it mean modifying your behaviour? What do you understand by that expression? Learning to live with it in my view means people at high risk isolating as much as possible but the rest of society and business trying to get on with life as normal as possible with much improved sanitary and compulsory face coverings like Asia has successfully been doing since SARS etc, not destroying vast swathes of commerce, jobs & millions of livelihoods with lockdowns. " What people fail to mention is that a lot of asia have had a test and trace system in place for around 5 years. Europe is starting from scratch. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does it mean to you? Does it mean there is an acceptable level of deaths or acceptable level of infections. Does it mean modifying your behaviour? What do you understand by that expression? There are NO acceptable levels....either of death or infection. Doesn't mean that there wont be some, but we must strive to our utmost to keep them as low as possible. Said it before, will say it again. If we accept that the deaths of a relatively few people mean that we can get back to normal, then we are all dehumanised by it. " Why don't we lockdown then to reduce the deaths from seasonal Flu every single year? Society cannot live in lockdown unfortunately. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does it mean to you? Does it mean there is an acceptable level of deaths or acceptable level of infections. Does it mean modifying your behaviour? What do you understand by that expression?" Look at Italy they have learned to live with it by following restrictions and great police enforcement If we learn to change lifestyle for a while we can get trough this | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does it mean to you? Does it mean there is an acceptable level of deaths or acceptable level of infections. Does it mean modifying your behaviour? What do you understand by that expression? There are NO acceptable levels....either of death or infection. Doesn't mean that there wont be some, but we must strive to our utmost to keep them as low as possible. Said it before, will say it again. If we accept that the deaths of a relatively few people mean that we can get back to normal, then we are all dehumanised by it. Why don't we lockdown then to reduce the deaths from seasonal Flu every single year? Society cannot live in lockdown unfortunately. " We have a vaccine for seasonal flu | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does it mean to you? Does it mean there is an acceptable level of deaths or acceptable level of infections. Does it mean modifying your behaviour? What do you understand by that expression? There are NO acceptable levels....either of death or infection. Doesn't mean that there wont be some, but we must strive to our utmost to keep them as low as possible. Said it before, will say it again. If we accept that the deaths of a relatively few people mean that we can get back to normal, then we are all dehumanised by it. " I hate the expression, there is a horrible implied meaning often inferred when someone uses it. "She were old, or he had poor health for a while" It's horribly reminiscent of those guys with the snappy uniforms that were popular in Europe in the 1930s and 40s | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does it mean to you? Does it mean there is an acceptable level of deaths or acceptable level of infections. Does it mean modifying your behaviour? What do you understand by that expression? There are NO acceptable levels....either of death or infection. Doesn't mean that there wont be some, but we must strive to our utmost to keep them as low as possible. Said it before, will say it again. If we accept that the deaths of a relatively few people mean that we can get back to normal, then we are all dehumanised by it. Why don't we lockdown then to reduce the deaths from seasonal Flu every single year? Society cannot live in lockdown unfortunately. We have a vaccine for seasonal flu" And seasonal flu has mortality of around (maximum) 8k per annum - a fifth of the fatalities caused by COVID in six months... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does it mean to you? Does it mean there is an acceptable level of deaths or acceptable level of infections. Does it mean modifying your behaviour? What do you understand by that expression?" To me it means crack on, and LIVE WITH IT. Folks die, its all part of the cycle, just cuz its one extra risk dont mean life should be put on hold | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does it mean to you? Does it mean there is an acceptable level of deaths or acceptable level of infections. Does it mean modifying your behaviour? What do you understand by that expression? There are NO acceptable levels....either of death or infection. Doesn't mean that there wont be some, but we must strive to our utmost to keep them as low as possible. Said it before, will say it again. If we accept that the deaths of a relatively few people mean that we can get back to normal, then we are all dehumanised by it. Why don't we lockdown then to reduce the deaths from seasonal Flu every single year? Society cannot live in lockdown unfortunately. We have a vaccine for seasonal flu And seasonal flu has mortality of around (maximum) 8k per annum - a fifth of the fatalities caused by COVID in six months... " That's still 8,000 preventable deaths Or is 8,000 an acceptable number? If you shut everything down for one disease surely you have to do it for every disease? I don't get the pick and choose mentality around this one | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does it mean to you? Does it mean there is an acceptable level of deaths or acceptable level of infections. Does it mean modifying your behaviour? What do you understand by that expression? There are NO acceptable levels....either of death or infection. Doesn't mean that there wont be some, but we must strive to our utmost to keep them as low as possible. Said it before, will say it again. If we accept that the deaths of a relatively few people mean that we can get back to normal, then we are all dehumanised by it. " what about those graphs, we aren't meant to see being published today that show, since, June around 1000 people, have, died of flu or pneumonia every single week. Is that normal? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does it mean to you? Does it mean there is an acceptable level of deaths or acceptable level of infections. Does it mean modifying your behaviour? What do you understand by that expression?" Good question and an intelligent one too... It appears through the data from epidemics that a lot of susceptible people are bound to sadly pass away. "Living with the virus" may mean that we protect vulnerable people as much as possible with distancing, proper PPE and training for their carers too if they need care. People of working age, students and children continue as normal but pay special attention to being careful around older folks and people with underlying conditions. Those that come in to contact with susceptible people might have to test more often too. Hopefully, personal testing devices are not too far away so it should be easier for us to monitor if we are positive or not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" To me it means crack on, and LIVE WITH IT. Folks die, its all part of the cycle, just cuz its one extra risk dont mean life should be put on hold" That sounds very tempting alright - but we gotta look out for older, susceptible people and those who are immuno-compromised. Unfortunately, it may mean that their lives are less free then before tho. People of working age and young folks are all very likely to get by but we are hearing of a lot of long-term effects from this disease too...it's up to everyone to establish their own level of risk and act accordingly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe some good news. I know good news is a rarity in this forum but here goes. Weekly use of a nasal spray could give 96 per cent protection from coronavirus, new research from Public Health England (PHE) shows. The new preventive treatment could move to human trials within months following successful results on ferrets. The spray was originally developed to boost natural human immunity to common colds and the flu, but has been retested to see if it would also work for coronavirus. It is produced by Australian biotech company Ena Respiratory and works by preventing the virus from replicating in the respiratory tract. “We’ve been amazed with just how effective our treatment has been,” said Dr Christophe Demaison, managing director of Ena Respiratory. “By boosting the natural immune response of the ferrets with our treatment, we’ve seen a rapid eradication of the virus. If humans respond in a similar way, the benefits of treatment are two-fold. Individuals exposed to the virus would most likely rapidly eliminate it, with the treatment ensuring that the disease does not progress beyond mild symptoms. This is particularly relevant to vulnerable members of the community. In addition, the rapidity of this response means that the infected individuals are unlikely to pass it on, meaning a swift halt to community transmission.” The study was led by Prof Miles Carroll, PHE’s deputy director, and is posted today on the biomedical prepublication research site, medRxiv. The results show that by boosting the immune response, the spray dramatically decreased the chance of infection, even when the ferrets were deliberately infected with the virus." Cool ! I would much rather have a nasal spray than an injection. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does it mean to you? Does it mean there is an acceptable level of deaths or acceptable level of infections. Does it mean modifying your behaviour? What do you understand by that expression?" Its what people say when they want to do exactly as they wish and don't want to follow sensible advice.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does it mean to you? Does it mean there is an acceptable level of deaths or acceptable level of infections. Does it mean modifying your behaviour? What do you understand by that expression? Its what people say when they want to do exactly as they wish and don't want to follow sensible advice. "So I presume you’re not going to learn to live with it then. So what are your plans for the near future. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does it mean to you? Does it mean there is an acceptable level of deaths or acceptable level of infections. Does it mean modifying your behaviour? What do you understand by that expression? Its what people say when they want to do exactly as they wish and don't want to follow sensible advice.
So I presume you’re not going to learn to live with it then.
So what are your plans for the near future."I will work my arse off and hope my family wants for nothing. That's my normality. Wash hands wear masks when indoors in public. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does it mean to you? Does it mean there is an acceptable level of deaths or acceptable level of infections. Does it mean modifying your behaviour? What do you understand by that expression? There are NO acceptable levels....either of death or infection. Doesn't mean that there wont be some, but we must strive to our utmost to keep them as low as possible. Said it before, will say it again. If we accept that the deaths of a relatively few people mean that we can get back to normal, then we are all dehumanised by it. Why don't we lockdown then to reduce the deaths from seasonal Flu every single year? Society cannot live in lockdown unfortunately. We have a vaccine for seasonal flu" Yet we have around 10 thousand deaths every year so do them 10, 000 not count. The question still stands  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does it mean to you? Does it mean there is an acceptable level of deaths or acceptable level of infections. Does it mean modifying your behaviour? What do you understand by that expression? There are NO acceptable levels....either of death or infection. Doesn't mean that there wont be some, but we must strive to our utmost to keep them as low as possible. Said it before, will say it again. If we accept that the deaths of a relatively few people mean that we can get back to normal, then we are all dehumanised by it. Why don't we lockdown then to reduce the deaths from seasonal Flu every single year? Society cannot live in lockdown unfortunately. We have a vaccine for seasonal flu And seasonal flu has mortality of around (maximum) 8k per annum - a fifth of the fatalities caused by COVID in six months... That's still 8,000 preventable deaths Or is 8,000 an acceptable number? If you shut everything down for one disease surely you have to do it for every disease? I don't get the pick and choose mentality around this one " Exactly  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does it mean to you? Does it mean there is an acceptable level of deaths or acceptable level of infections. Does it mean modifying your behaviour? What do you understand by that expression?" No acceptable level of deaths. No acceptable level of infections. . . Yes, completely modifying my behaviour. My wants/needs pale in to insignificance compared to the well-being and safety of others. . If I caught the virus, and passed it on to someone else and they suffered harm/death from my actions, that is on me. I'm culpable for that. I will not take that risk, with loved ones, work colleagues, friends or even complete strangers. . It means, for me, modifying my behaviour to mitigate the risk as much as possible of either catching the virus or passing it on to others. . Mitigation means no-half arsed measures in my mind. Lockdown and isolation. Leaving the home only for medical emergencies (once since Mar 23). Leveraging online deliveries. Quarantine protocols and procedures of all items coming in to the property. . Once you slip in to the mindset, I find a vigilant and calm, steady and focussed-stoic approach sees me through. . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"what about the 1 million plus women who have missed breast cancer screening because of covid-19. how are they going to live with it?" Yup, the cost is wildly disproportionate now, we have to get on with living. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does it mean to you? Does it mean there is an acceptable level of deaths or acceptable level of infections. Does it mean modifying your behaviour? What do you understand by that expression?" Realistically, "Living with it" to me would mean: 1. Being able to return to normallity, with no activities or past-times restricted. 2. Having successful treatments available and sufficient financial protections so infected/symptomatic people can afford to isolate. 3. Having a vaccination plan in place to start mass vaccinations as soon as possible. Cal | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does it mean to you? Does it mean there is an acceptable level of deaths or acceptable level of infections. Does it mean modifying your behaviour? What do you understand by that expression? No acceptable level of deaths. No acceptable level of infections. . . Yes, completely modifying my behaviour. My wants/needs pale in to insignificance compared to the well-being and safety of others. . If I caught the virus, and passed it on to someone else and they suffered harm/death from my actions, that is on me. I'm culpable for that. I will not take that risk, with loved ones, work colleagues, friends or even complete strangers. . It means, for me, modifying my behaviour to mitigate the risk as much as possible of either catching the virus or passing it on to others. . Mitigation means no-half arsed measures in my mind. Lockdown and isolation. Leaving the home only for medical emergencies (once since Mar 23). Leveraging online deliveries. Quarantine protocols and procedures of all items coming in to the property. . Once you slip in to the mindset, I find a vigilant and calm, steady and focussed-stoic approach sees me through. . " Hancock, Vallance & all have done a job on you, haven't they. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does it mean to you? Does it mean there is an acceptable level of deaths or acceptable level of infections. Does it mean modifying your behaviour? What do you understand by that expression? No acceptable level of deaths. No acceptable level of infections. . . Yes, completely modifying my behaviour. My wants/needs pale in to insignificance compared to the well-being and safety of others. . If I caught the virus, and passed it on to someone else and they suffered harm/death from my actions, that is on me. I'm culpable for that. I will not take that risk, with loved ones, work colleagues, friends or even complete strangers. . It means, for me, modifying my behaviour to mitigate the risk as much as possible of either catching the virus or passing it on to others. . Mitigation means no-half arsed measures in my mind. Lockdown and isolation. Leaving the home only for medical emergencies (once since Mar 23). Leveraging online deliveries. Quarantine protocols and procedures of all items coming in to the property. . Once you slip in to the mindset, I find a vigilant and calm, steady and focussed-stoic approach sees me through. . " That's all fine and is your choice, however millions dont have that choice, food needs producing,processing delivering, hospitals need staff as do the police, fire and council services, water sewage, gas and electric service need staff, plus all the thousands of others in essential services, we have been working. YOU have have relied on all those workers | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does it mean to you? Does it mean there is an acceptable level of deaths or acceptable level of infections. Does it mean modifying your behaviour? What do you understand by that expression? No acceptable level of deaths. No acceptable level of infections. . . Yes, completely modifying my behaviour. My wants/needs pale in to insignificance compared to the well-being and safety of others. . If I caught the virus, and passed it on to someone else and they suffered harm/death from my actions, that is on me. I'm culpable for that. I will not take that risk, with loved ones, work colleagues, friends or even complete strangers. . It means, for me, modifying my behaviour to mitigate the risk as much as possible of either catching the virus or passing it on to others. . Mitigation means no-half arsed measures in my mind. Lockdown and isolation. Leaving the home only for medical emergencies (once since Mar 23). Leveraging online deliveries. Quarantine protocols and procedures of all items coming in to the property. . Once you slip in to the mindset, I find a vigilant and calm, steady and focussed-stoic approach sees me through. . That's all fine and is your choice, however millions dont have that choice, food needs producing,processing delivering, hospitals need staff as do the police, fire and council services, water sewage, gas and electric service need staff, plus all the thousands of others in essential services, we have been working. YOU have have relied on all those workers" So all that aside, what is your understanding of 'learning to live with it' | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does it mean to you? Does it mean there is an acceptable level of deaths or acceptable level of infections. Does it mean modifying your behaviour? What do you understand by that expression? There are NO acceptable levels....either of death or infection. Doesn't mean that there wont be some, but we must strive to our utmost to keep them as low as possible. Said it before, will say it again. If we accept that the deaths of a relatively few people mean that we can get back to normal, then we are all dehumanised by it. " Are you on drugs? Stupidity & ignorance has no bounds. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does it mean to you? Does it mean there is an acceptable level of deaths or acceptable level of infections. Does it mean modifying your behaviour? What do you understand by that expression? No acceptable level of deaths. No acceptable level of infections. . . Yes, completely modifying my behaviour. My wants/needs pale in to insignificance compared to the well-being and safety of others. . If I caught the virus, and passed it on to someone else and they suffered harm/death from my actions, that is on me. I'm culpable for that. I will not take that risk, with loved ones, work colleagues, friends or even complete strangers. . It means, for me, modifying my behaviour to mitigate the risk as much as possible of either catching the virus or passing it on to others. . Mitigation means no-half arsed measures in my mind. Lockdown and isolation. Leaving the home only for medical emergencies (once since Mar 23). Leveraging online deliveries. Quarantine protocols and procedures of all items coming in to the property. . Once you slip in to the mindset, I find a vigilant and calm, steady and focussed-stoic approach sees me through. . Hancock, Vallance & all have done a job on you, haven't they. " None of them have made the decision to isolate for me. That is my decision and each person is free to make their own decision too. I'm very happy with my choice, thank you very much. I'm not interested in why others make the choices they have made, as that is their business, not mine. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does it mean to you? Does it mean there is an acceptable level of deaths or acceptable level of infections. Does it mean modifying your behaviour? What do you understand by that expression? No acceptable level of deaths. No acceptable level of infections. . . Yes, completely modifying my behaviour. My wants/needs pale in to insignificance compared to the well-being and safety of others. . If I caught the virus, and passed it on to someone else and they suffered harm/death from my actions, that is on me. I'm culpable for that. I will not take that risk, with loved ones, work colleagues, friends or even complete strangers. . It means, for me, modifying my behaviour to mitigate the risk as much as possible of either catching the virus or passing it on to others. . Mitigation means no-half arsed measures in my mind. Lockdown and isolation. Leaving the home only for medical emergencies (once since Mar 23). Leveraging online deliveries. Quarantine protocols and procedures of all items coming in to the property. . Once you slip in to the mindset, I find a vigilant and calm, steady and focussed-stoic approach sees me through. . That's all fine and is your choice, however millions dont have that choice, food needs producing,processing delivering, hospitals need staff as do the police, fire and council services, water sewage, gas and electric service need staff, plus all the thousands of others in essential services, we have been working. YOU have have relied on all those workers" Oh I know, very much so, and I grateful to those who don't have the same choice. I do count my lucky stars. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does it mean to you? Does it mean there is an acceptable level of deaths or acceptable level of infections. Does it mean modifying your behaviour? What do you understand by that expression? No acceptable level of deaths. No acceptable level of infections. . . Yes, completely modifying my behaviour. My wants/needs pale in to insignificance compared to the well-being and safety of others. . If I caught the virus, and passed it on to someone else and they suffered harm/death from my actions, that is on me. I'm culpable for that. I will not take that risk, with loved ones, work colleagues, friends or even complete strangers. . It means, for me, modifying my behaviour to mitigate the risk as much as possible of either catching the virus or passing it on to others. . Mitigation means no-half arsed measures in my mind. Lockdown and isolation. Leaving the home only for medical emergencies (once since Mar 23). Leveraging online deliveries. Quarantine protocols and procedures of all items coming in to the property. . Once you slip in to the mindset, I find a vigilant and calm, steady and focussed-stoic approach sees me through. . That's all fine and is your choice, however millions dont have that choice, food needs producing,processing delivering, hospitals need staff as do the police, fire and council services, water sewage, gas and electric service need staff, plus all the thousands of others in essential services, we have been working. YOU have have relied on all those workers So all that aside, what is your understanding of 'learning to live with it'" Implementing a tactical plan, as previously outlined, to mitigate as much risk as possible, and to stay constantly vigilant and refine the plan as circumstances change. For me, the worse thing than having a plan, is having NO plan. Does that answer your question ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does it mean to you? Does it mean there is an acceptable level of deaths or acceptable level of infections. Does it mean modifying your behaviour? What do you understand by that expression?" Yes there is an acceptable level of death, just as there is with flu, driving, flying, over eating and every other activity and disease. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does it mean to you? Does it mean there is an acceptable level of deaths or acceptable level of infections. Does it mean modifying your behaviour? What do you understand by that expression? There are NO acceptable levels....either of death or infection. Doesn't mean that there wont be some, but we must strive to our utmost to keep them as low as possible. Said it before, will say it again. If we accept that the deaths of a relatively few people mean that we can get back to normal, then we are all dehumanised by it. " Agreed. Good to read a compassionate and humane view. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe some good news. I know good news is a rarity in this forum but here goes. Weekly use of a nasal spray could give 96 per cent protection from coronavirus, new research from Public Health England (PHE) shows. The new preventive treatment could move to human trials within months following successful results on ferrets. The spray was originally developed to boost natural human immunity to common colds and the flu, but has been retested to see if it would also work for coronavirus. It is produced by Australian biotech company Ena Respiratory and works by preventing the virus from replicating in the respiratory tract. “We’ve been amazed with just how effective our treatment has been,” said Dr Christophe Demaison, managing director of Ena Respiratory. “By boosting the natural immune response of the ferrets with our treatment, we’ve seen a rapid eradication of the virus. If humans respond in a similar way, the benefits of treatment are two-fold. Individuals exposed to the virus would most likely rapidly eliminate it, with the treatment ensuring that the disease does not progress beyond mild symptoms. This is particularly relevant to vulnerable members of the community. In addition, the rapidity of this response means that the infected individuals are unlikely to pass it on, meaning a swift halt to community transmission.” The study was led by Prof Miles Carroll, PHE’s deputy director, and is posted today on the biomedical prepublication research site, medRxiv. The results show that by boosting the immune response, the spray dramatically decreased the chance of infection, even when the ferrets were deliberately infected with the virus." out of interest... if the virus had to mutate to be viable in a human host ... how were we able to just give it to ferrets | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does it mean to you? Does it mean there is an acceptable level of deaths or acceptable level of infections. Does it mean modifying your behaviour? What do you understand by that expression? There are NO acceptable levels....either of death or infection. Doesn't mean that there wont be some, but we must strive to our utmost to keep them as low as possible. Said it before, will say it again. If we accept that the deaths of a relatively few people mean that we can get back to normal, then we are all dehumanised by it. Agreed. Good to read a compassionate and humane view." its compassionate but also naive and unrealistic the virus is a bit like that morality/ethics conundrum where the train can choose one of 2 tracks but either way people are going to die | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does it mean to you? Does it mean there is an acceptable level of deaths or acceptable level of infections. Does it mean modifying your behaviour? What do you understand by that expression? There are NO acceptable levels....either of death or infection. Doesn't mean that there wont be some, but we must strive to our utmost to keep them as low as possible. Said it before, will say it again. If we accept that the deaths of a relatively few people mean that we can get back to normal, then we are all dehumanised by it. Agreed. Good to read a compassionate and humane view. its compassionate but also naive and unrealistic the virus is a bit like that morality/ethics conundrum where the train can choose one of 2 tracks but either way people are going to die " The virus doesn't care about a zero-sum situation where one person's gain is another's loss. The virus is ambivalent to groups of people on train tracks. Sacrificing one group doesn't confer immunity or protection to the other. At most, it may delay the train, but it won't derail it. At worst, with the increased infection of the sacrificial group, the virus further propagates itself when said infected go for hospital care, causing additional transmission. Until an effective vaccine is found, there is no way to stop the virus doing what it is most effective at doing, and that is infecting hosts and propagating itself. There are no two train tracks in the ethical dilemma. Just one train track. And we're all on it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To say that there is no acceptable level of death is naive and unrealistic. The debate should be about what that level is. When we send soldiers into battle we know that there will be deaths. We may not like it but we know that is what happens. And if the deaths get too many we give up and withdraw. We are fighting a war here with an invisible enemy. There will be deaths. That is the way of all wars. We must decide if there is a number we can tolerate without wrecking society in other ways. Any other course is futile. We can no more protect everyone than any an army can fight without losing any men. We have to decide what is an acceptable level." You try to prevent deaths though . You certainly do not throw it the towel at signs of difficulty in a war or fighting diseases. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You try to prevent deaths though . You certainly do not throw it the towel at signs of difficulty in a war or fighting diseases." You try to prevent ALL deaths, and that includes the ones we're CAUSING through trying to prevent deaths from Covid. Humans do not live forever. It's accepted that we die from a huge range of treatable illness, what is so different about Covid? Truth is, there is absolutely nothing different about covid. It's not especially lethal. It doesn't tend to kill the healthy. It doesn't mutate rapidly into forms that could be more threatening. It's not even the most infectious disease we have to contend with. As a disease, Covid is remarkably unremarkable. That's cold comfort to those who suffer seriius illness from it or the relatives of those who die from it but it IS the reality. What's so different with Covid is the level of media attention focused on it for such an extended period. It's natural, understandable and useful for a new threat to recieve a great deal of attention BUT the level of attention on Covid has become harmful. It's driving political responses and fuelling a level fear within the population that are out of all proportion to the actual threat. In effect, it's become a feedback loop that will if left unchecked, cause far more death & distress than the illness. It's up to us to stop that loop. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To say that there is no acceptable level of death is naive and unrealistic. The debate should be about what that level is. When we send soldiers into battle we know that there will be deaths. We may not like it but we know that is what happens. And if the deaths get too many we give up and withdraw. We are fighting a war here with an invisible enemy. There will be deaths. That is the way of all wars. We must decide if there is a number we can tolerate without wrecking society in other ways. Any other course is futile. We can no more protect everyone than any an army can fight without losing any men. We have to decide what is an acceptable level." And how, exactly, do we decide that? Who chooses what is acceptable? If that particular level of death includes you and all your family and friends - and everyone else is just fine with that; are you happy to make the sacrifice so the rest of us can "get back to normal"? The "I want my life back and I don't care who has to die to make it happen" argument is not a popular one. As for damage to the economy, it's been done. The economy and the people in it are going to have to adapt; hopefully, for the better. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Surely learning to live with really means accepting it as an everyday hazard/risk. Obviously taking reasonable steps to limit is spread amongst the population but accepting it as a part of life so we can continue to live life. Disease has always been present throughout human history. We have only in living memory eradicated or nearly eradicated many more deadly diseases. So if we can't find an effective vaccine surely we have to return back to normal service, like we did in the past? After all are efforts to contain the virus has done so much damage and I think people just want to live their lives to the full accepting life in general is not with out risk. Also are treatment of the virus is getting better and more skillful so at least that will help offset some deaths." Isn't this what the orange one is trying to say, forgive me if I have the wrong end of the stick as usual. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To say that there is no acceptable level of death is naive and unrealistic. The debate should be about what that level is. When we send soldiers into battle we know that there will be deaths. We may not like it but we know that is what happens. And if the deaths get too many we give up and withdraw. We are fighting a war here with an invisible enemy. There will be deaths. That is the way of all wars. We must decide if there is a number we can tolerate without wrecking society in other ways. Any other course is futile. We can no more protect everyone than any an army can fight without losing any men. We have to decide what is an acceptable level." The comparison with war doesnt work in the slightest. We choose to go to war. Soldiers choose to join the army. People dont choose to catch covid. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You try to prevent deaths though . You certainly do not throw it the towel at signs of difficulty in a war or fighting diseases. You try to prevent ALL deaths, and that includes the ones we're CAUSING through trying to prevent deaths from Covid. Humans do not live forever. It's accepted that we die from a huge range of treatable illness, what is so different about Covid? Truth is, there is absolutely nothing different about covid. It's not especially lethal. It doesn't tend to kill the healthy. It doesn't mutate rapidly into forms that could be more threatening. It's not even the most infectious disease we have to contend with. As a disease, Covid is remarkably unremarkable. That's cold comfort to those who suffer seriius illness from it or the relatives of those who die from it but it IS the reality. What's so different with Covid is the level of media attention focused on it for such an extended period. It's natural, understandable and useful for a new threat to recieve a great deal of attention BUT the level of attention on Covid has become harmful. It's driving political responses and fuelling a level fear within the population that are out of all proportion to the actual threat. In effect, it's become a feedback loop that will if left unchecked, cause far more death & distress than the illness. It's up to us to stop that loop. " Wrong again .. It's very remarkable in many ways where have you been in 2020???? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The comparison with war doesnt work in the slightest. We choose to go to war. Soldiers choose to join the army. People dont choose to catch covid." Doesn't matter if we choose it or not, we are still fighting a war with this thing. Many people don't choose to go to war but have war thrust upon them. They defend themselves as best they can but they know there will be deaths. If the price of liberty is a certain number of deaths then they may choose that. As far as I can see there are no good options here - we have to pick the least worst one. It's a balance between having a smaller possible number of deaths by trying to contain the virus, but at a cost of ruining many other peoples lives by ruining the economy, or accepting a larger number of virus deaths but saving people jobs and lives in other ways. It's about time we had that national debate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The comparison with war doesnt work in the slightest. We choose to go to war. Soldiers choose to join the army. People dont choose to catch covid. Doesn't matter if we choose it or not, we are still fighting a war with this thing. Many people don't choose to go to war but have war thrust upon them. They defend themselves as best they can but they know there will be deaths. If the price of liberty is a certain number of deaths then they may choose that. As far as I can see there are no good options here - we have to pick the least worst one. It's a balance between having a smaller possible number of deaths by trying to contain the virus, but at a cost of ruining many other peoples lives by ruining the economy, or accepting a larger number of virus deaths but saving people jobs and lives in other ways. It's about time we had that national debate. " Peoples lives come before jobs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Peoples lives come before jobs." * How many lives and how many jobs ? How do you measure the worth of each option? In an extreme example would one person's death be worth 10,000 jobs ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Peoples lives come before jobs. * How many lives and how many jobs ? How do you measure the worth of each option? In an extreme example would one person's death be worth 10,000 jobs ?" You do everything you can to stop as many people people from possible as dying from it (or to prevent an already overburdened nhs get swamped which would have a knock on effect) I don't see how you can see an actual target for how many 'acceptable'deaths there are. What makes me laugh about the evomony, is people didnt seem too arsed about the devestating effects of poverty, during 8 years of austerity,now suddenly its the no 1 issue. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Peoples lives come before jobs. * How many lives and how many jobs ? How do you measure the worth of each option? In an extreme example would one person's death be worth 10,000 jobs ? You do everything you can to stop as many people people from possible as dying from it (or to prevent an already overburdened nhs get swamped which would have a knock on effect) I don't see how you can see an actual target for how many 'acceptable'deaths there are. What makes me laugh about the evomony, is people didnt seem too arsed about the devestating effects of poverty, during 8 years of austerity,now suddenly its the no 1 issue." * It's about the relative cost of either option. It's the only rational way to look at it. Many people have not been able to get treatment for cancer and many other illnesses because of Covid Do their lives not count ? Does the depression and suicide caused by being thrown out of work not count ? It's easy to react emotionally and say all lives matter - but what you seem to be saying is some lives matter more than others. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Peoples lives come before jobs. * How many lives and how many jobs ? How do you measure the worth of each option? In an extreme example would one person's death be worth 10,000 jobs ? You do everything you can to stop as many people people from possible as dying from it (or to prevent an already overburdened nhs get swamped which would have a knock on effect) I don't see how you can see an actual target for how many 'acceptable'deaths there are. What makes me laugh about the evomony, is people didnt seem too arsed about the devestating effects of poverty, during 8 years of austerity,now suddenly its the no 1 issue. * It's about the relative cost of either option. It's the only rational way to look at it. Many people have not been able to get treatment for cancer and many other illnesses because of Covid Do their lives not count ? Does the depression and suicide caused by being thrown out of work not count ? It's easy to react emotionally and say all lives matter - but what you seem to be saying is some lives matter more than others." Why was suicide not an issue before? The Nhs has been under funded for years..should they just have ignored this pandemic? How would that have worked out? I'm not for 1 second suggesting some lives are worth more than others but they had to prioritise and a deadly worldwide pandemic was bound to take precedence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Adapting life so that things can still function on a reasonable level whilst keeping infections etc down" This | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Peoples lives come before jobs. Why was suicide not an issue before? The Nhs has been under funded for years..should they just have ignored this pandemic? How would that have worked out? I'm not for 1 second suggesting some lives are worth more than others but they had to prioritise and a deadly worldwide pandemic was bound to take precedence. * I would have agreed with you eight months ago. The lockdown then was probably necessary. But now we are five weeks into the second spike and despite the4 great increase in infections, the deaths are very low, nowhere near what they were in March and April. And they are doing local lockdowns and talking about another national one. Is the small number of deaths we are having now worth another wrecking ball to the economy ? Yes I know there is a lag between infections and deaths. Previously they said the lag was 2-3 weeks. Five weeks in now the increase in deaths hasn't happened. I still say it's now time for the national debate - the the small number of deaths worth all the lockdowns. "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does it mean to you? Does it mean there is an acceptable level of deaths or acceptable level of infections. Does it mean modifying your behaviour? What do you understand by that expression? There are NO acceptable levels....either of death or infection. Doesn't mean that there wont be some, but we must strive to our utmost to keep them as low as possible. Said it before, will say it again. If we accept that the deaths of a relatively few people mean that we can get back to normal, then we are all dehumanised by it. Agreed. Good to read a compassionate and humane view. its compassionate but also naive and unrealistic the virus is a bit like that morality/ethics conundrum where the train can choose one of 2 tracks but either way people are going to die The virus doesn't care about a zero-sum situation where one person's gain is another's loss. The virus is ambivalent to groups of people on train tracks. Sacrificing one group doesn't confer immunity or protection to the other. At most, it may delay the train, but it won't derail it. At worst, with the increased infection of the sacrificial group, the virus further propagates itself when said infected go for hospital care, causing additional transmission. Until an effective vaccine is found, there is no way to stop the virus doing what it is most effective at doing, and that is infecting hosts and propagating itself. There are no two train tracks in the ethical dilemma. Just one train track. And we're all on it. " i disagree, its an ethical dilemma metaphor so its not supposed to be an exact fit ... but if we lockdown entirely and continue to restrict bau nhs access, we will see increased deaths from other causes ... if we open everything up we have increased covid death ... when we target a balance in the middle we have some level of death from all angles so maybe we have an unlimited humber of train tracks with people on all of them actually ... my point really was no acceptable level of death is not a realistic choice ... there will be death and that is a fact ... and i wouldn’t want to be the one responsible for making the decisions that determines how many and from what cause | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's about the relative cost of either option. It's the only rational way to look at it. Many people have not been able to get treatment for cancer and many other illnesses because of Covid Do their lives not count ? Does the depression and suicide caused by being thrown out of work not count ? It's easy to react emotionally and say all lives matter - but what you seem to be saying is some lives matter more than others." Can we stop pedalling crap please, nobody has had cancer treatment stopped. Surgery has in the main been moved to private hospitals alongside the various therapies to reduce possible exposure to covid to a very vulnerable group of the population. Throughout the pandemic these services have remained open and emergency intervention has been there. Screening has been impacted but let’s be very clear, it’s been delayed in some circumstances ... not cancelled. Anything cancer related has been made as a clinical decision and the reality of the scenario is this... to perform a procedure, bring people into a hospital setting has a greater risk than to delay doing that for certain individuals. That’s nobodies fault, that’s just the reality Covid brings. Suicide and depression is a risk but actually the figures are down so far this year on average. Within the NHS and community nursing the mental health provision has been increased, everything is being done to help people through difficult times. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's about the relative cost of either option. It's the only rational way to look at it. Many people have not been able to get treatment for cancer and many other illnesses because of Covid Do their lives not count ? Does the depression and suicide caused by being thrown out of work not count ? It's easy to react emotionally and say all lives matter - but what you seem to be saying is some lives matter more than others. Can we stop pedalling crap please, nobody has had cancer treatment stopped. Surgery has in the main been moved to private hospitals alongside the various therapies to reduce possible exposure to covid to a very vulnerable group of the population. Throughout the pandemic these services have remained open and emergency intervention has been there. Screening has been impacted but let’s be very clear, it’s been delayed in some circumstances ... not cancelled. Anything cancer related has been made as a clinical decision and the reality of the scenario is this... to perform a procedure, bring people into a hospital setting has a greater risk than to delay doing that for certain individuals. That’s nobodies fault, that’s just the reality Covid brings. Suicide and depression is a risk but actually the figures are down so far this year on average. Within the NHS and community nursing the mental health provision has been increased, everything is being done to help people through difficult times." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's about the relative cost of either option. It's the only rational way to look at it. Many people have not been able to get treatment for cancer and many other illnesses because of Covid Do their lives not count ? Does the depression and suicide caused by being thrown out of work not count ? It's easy to react emotionally and say all lives matter - but what you seem to be saying is some lives matter more than others. Can we stop pedalling crap please, nobody has had cancer treatment stopped. Surgery has in the main been moved to private hospitals alongside the various therapies to reduce possible exposure to covid to a very vulnerable group of the population. Throughout the pandemic these services have remained open and emergency intervention has been there. Screening has been impacted but let’s be very clear, it’s been delayed in some circumstances ... not cancelled. Anything cancer related has been made as a clinical decision and the reality of the scenario is this... to perform a procedure, bring people into a hospital setting has a greater risk than to delay doing that for certain individuals. That’s nobodies fault, that’s just the reality Covid brings. Suicide and depression is a risk but actually the figures are down so far this year on average. Within the NHS and community nursing the mental health provision has been increased, everything is being done to help people through difficult times." i know people personally who have had screening and treatment wither cancelled or postponed ... for some postponed might aswell be cancelled i understand that its a risk assessment, nobody's fault and just a result of covid ... i am not even advocating we just open up to save cancer patients over covid ... but to say its peddling crap is not true because no matter the reasoning behind it, it is happening | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's about the relative cost of either option. It's the only rational way to look at it. Many people have not been able to get treatment for cancer and many other illnesses because of Covid Do their lives not count ? Does the depression and suicide caused by being thrown out of work not count ? It's easy to react emotionally and say all lives matter - but what you seem to be saying is some lives matter more than others. Can we stop pedalling crap please, nobody has had cancer treatment stopped. Surgery has in the main been moved to private hospitals alongside the various therapies to reduce possible exposure to covid to a very vulnerable group of the population. Throughout the pandemic these services have remained open and emergency intervention has been there. Screening has been impacted but let’s be very clear, it’s been delayed in some circumstances ... not cancelled. Anything cancer related has been made as a clinical decision and the reality of the scenario is this... to perform a procedure, bring people into a hospital setting has a greater risk than to delay doing that for certain individuals. That’s nobodies fault, that’s just the reality Covid brings. Suicide and depression is a risk but actually the figures are down so far this year on average. Within the NHS and community nursing the mental health provision has been increased, everything is being done to help people through difficult times. i know people personally who have had screening and treatment wither cancelled or postponed ... for some postponed might aswell be cancelled i understand that its a risk assessment, nobody's fault and just a result of covid ... i am not even advocating we just open up to save cancer patients over covid ... but to say its peddling crap is not true because no matter the reasoning behind it, it is happening" But if they are cant cope with both at the same time,what are they meant to do? Imagine if the nhs was totally overwhelmed..it would cause absolute chaos. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's about the relative cost of either option. It's the only rational way to look at it. Many people have not been able to get treatment for cancer and many other illnesses because of Covid Do their lives not count ? Does the depression and suicide caused by being thrown out of work not count ? It's easy to react emotionally and say all lives matter - but what you seem to be saying is some lives matter more than others. Can we stop pedalling crap please, nobody has had cancer treatment stopped. Surgery has in the main been moved to private hospitals alongside the various therapies to reduce possible exposure to covid to a very vulnerable group of the population. Throughout the pandemic these services have remained open and emergency intervention has been there. Screening has been impacted but let’s be very clear, it’s been delayed in some circumstances ... not cancelled. Anything cancer related has been made as a clinical decision and the reality of the scenario is this... to perform a procedure, bring people into a hospital setting has a greater risk than to delay doing that for certain individuals. That’s nobodies fault, that’s just the reality Covid brings. Suicide and depression is a risk but actually the figures are down so far this year on average. Within the NHS and community nursing the mental health provision has been increased, everything is being done to help people through difficult times. i know people personally who have had screening and treatment wither cancelled or postponed ... for some postponed might aswell be cancelled i understand that its a risk assessment, nobody's fault and just a result of covid ... i am not even advocating we just open up to save cancer patients over covid ... but to say its peddling crap is not true because no matter the reasoning behind it, it is happening But if they are cant cope with both at the same time,what are they meant to do? Imagine if the nhs was totally overwhelmed..it would cause absolute chaos. " i absolutely dont have the answer ... just saying no point in denying the issue exists | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's about the relative cost of either option. It's the only rational way to look at it. Many people have not been able to get treatment for cancer and many other illnesses because of Covid Do their lives not count ? Does the depression and suicide caused by being thrown out of work not count ? It's easy to react emotionally and say all lives matter - but what you seem to be saying is some lives matter more than others. Can we stop pedalling crap please, nobody has had cancer treatment stopped. Surgery has in the main been moved to private hospitals alongside the various therapies to reduce possible exposure to covid to a very vulnerable group of the population. Throughout the pandemic these services have remained open and emergency intervention has been there. Screening has been impacted but let’s be very clear, it’s been delayed in some circumstances ... not cancelled. Anything cancer related has been made as a clinical decision and the reality of the scenario is this... to perform a procedure, bring people into a hospital setting has a greater risk than to delay doing that for certain individuals. That’s nobodies fault, that’s just the reality Covid brings. Suicide and depression is a risk but actually the figures are down so far this year on average. Within the NHS and community nursing the mental health provision has been increased, everything is being done to help people through difficult times. i know people personally who have had screening and treatment wither cancelled or postponed ... for some postponed might aswell be cancelled i understand that its a risk assessment, nobody's fault and just a result of covid ... i am not even advocating we just open up to save cancer patients over covid ... but to say its peddling crap is not true because no matter the reasoning behind it, it is happening But if they are cant cope with both at the same time,what are they meant to do? Imagine if the nhs was totally overwhelmed..it would cause absolute chaos. i absolutely dont have the answer ... just saying no point in denying the issue exists " So perhaps the people who constantly post this type of stuff should come up with a solution? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I know one person who had their chemotherapy postponed during the lockdown I am sure there are many others " Yes my sister was included... because at the height of infection rates there was a greater chance of covid-19 killing them compared to postponing whilst covid secure facilities could be set up to do it as safely as possible. In other words, making the best clinical decision for the patients health. Covid impacts a huge number of things in our lives, we have to accept that when it comes to health nobody has been disregarded as you suggest. Cancer and mental health are at the very top of the NHS agenda because of covid not as you suggest forgotten areas | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i know people personally who have had screening and treatment wither cancelled or postponed ... for some postponed might aswell be cancelled i understand that its a risk assessment, nobody's fault and just a result of covid ... i am not even advocating we just open up to save cancer patients over covid ... but to say its peddling crap is not true because no matter the reasoning behind it, it is happening" Here’s the reality... at the height of this pandemic covid infected over 50% of our clinical staff within my trust. If you want a more “local” example the Royal in Liverpool had the small matter of 65% of clinical signed off with covid. Did we infect non covid patients? I don’t know but I’d be amazed if we didn’t. So let’s be clear, Hospitals where incredibly high risk environments for anyone entering them in terms of covid infection. I don’t know if you’re aware how many individuals attend cancer treatments in a city centre hospital but it’s in the 1000’s on a weekly basis. Imagine the results of 50% of them having covid. So, cancelled treatment as you term it... we had a grand total of 10 days whilst services where relocated to the Bupa and Macmillan hospitals in Manchester and our clinical specialists relocated and set up a safe working environment and practices. They then resumed treatments. Was there an impact, yes... where people disregarded in the slightest? No, they had every effort to ensure they could continue their treatment and receive the very best care levels. I’m sorry but to just whitewash a “cancelled treatments” implying mass deaths will occur is 100% pedalling crap. It entirely misrepresents what cancer services across the U.K. have done. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's about the relative cost of either option. It's the only rational way to look at it. Many people have not been able to get treatment for cancer and many other illnesses because of Covid Do their lives not count ? Does the depression and suicide caused by being thrown out of work not count ? It's easy to react emotionally and say all lives matter - but what you seem to be saying is some lives matter more than others. Can we stop pedalling crap please, nobody has had cancer treatment stopped. Surgery has in the main been moved to private hospitals alongside the various therapies to reduce possible exposure to covid to a very vulnerable group of the population. Throughout the pandemic these services have remained open and emergency intervention has been there. Screening has been impacted but let’s be very clear, it’s been delayed in some circumstances ... not cancelled. Anything cancer related has been made as a clinical decision and the reality of the scenario is this... to perform a procedure, bring people into a hospital setting has a greater risk than to delay doing that for certain individuals. That’s nobodies fault, that’s just the reality Covid brings. Suicide and depression is a risk but actually the figures are down so far this year on average. Within the NHS and community nursing the mental health provision has been increased, everything is being done to help people through difficult times. i know people personally who have had screening and treatment wither cancelled or postponed ... for some postponed might aswell be cancelled i understand that its a risk assessment, nobody's fault and just a result of covid ... i am not even advocating we just open up to save cancer patients over covid ... but to say its peddling crap is not true because no matter the reasoning behind it, it is happening But if they are cant cope with both at the same time,what are they meant to do? Imagine if the nhs was totally overwhelmed..it would cause absolute chaos. i absolutely dont have the answer ... just saying no point in denying the issue exists So perhaps the people who constantly post this type of stuff should come up with a solution?" realistically suggesting a solution on this forum isnt really likely to impact government policy BUT that isnt to say the general public couldnt be more understanding of a larger picture than their own experience or view both sides could just stop arguing black and white and pointing the finger at each other and crying out that everything the other person says is lies it is true that treatments have been cancelled it is also true that its been for good reason (ie not enough staff or to prevent them catching covid) and probably unavoidable to an extent when there is an ongoing pandemic its true that lockdowns have damaged the economy it is also true that letting a virus run rampant would have killed countless people and most likely still damaged our economy we have to stop looking at everything as either or extremes ... black bs white, lockdown vs roam free, economy vs life, red vs blue .... none of that works during covid or even general politics ... time for people to learn that everything in life takes balance and compromise and start the shift towards the middle | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's about the relative cost of either option. It's the only rational way to look at it. Many people have not been able to get treatment for cancer and many other illnesses because of Covid Do their lives not count ? Does the depression and suicide caused by being thrown out of work not count ? It's easy to react emotionally and say all lives matter - but what you seem to be saying is some lives matter more than others. Can we stop pedalling crap please, nobody has had cancer treatment stopped. Surgery has in the main been moved to private hospitals alongside the various therapies to reduce possible exposure to covid to a very vulnerable group of the population. Throughout the pandemic these services have remained open and emergency intervention has been there. Screening has been impacted but let’s be very clear, it’s been delayed in some circumstances ... not cancelled. Anything cancer related has been made as a clinical decision and the reality of the scenario is this... to perform a procedure, bring people into a hospital setting has a greater risk than to delay doing that for certain individuals. That’s nobodies fault, that’s just the reality Covid brings. Suicide and depression is a risk but actually the figures are down so far this year on average. Within the NHS and community nursing the mental health provision has been increased, everything is being done to help people through difficult times. i know people personally who have had screening and treatment wither cancelled or postponed ... for some postponed might aswell be cancelled i understand that its a risk assessment, nobody's fault and just a result of covid ... i am not even advocating we just open up to save cancer patients over covid ... but to say its peddling crap is not true because no matter the reasoning behind it, it is happening But if they are cant cope with both at the same time,what are they meant to do? Imagine if the nhs was totally overwhelmed..it would cause absolute chaos. i absolutely dont have the answer ... just saying no point in denying the issue exists So perhaps the people who constantly post this type of stuff should come up with a solution? realistically suggesting a solution on this forum isnt really likely to impact government policy BUT that isnt to say the general public couldnt be more understanding of a larger picture than their own experience or view both sides could just stop arguing black and white and pointing the finger at each other and crying out that everything the other person says is lies it is true that treatments have been cancelled it is also true that its been for good reason (ie not enough staff or to prevent them catching covid) and probably unavoidable to an extent when there is an ongoing pandemic its true that lockdowns have damaged the economy it is also true that letting a virus run rampant would have killed countless people and most likely still damaged our economy we have to stop looking at everything as either or extremes ... black bs white, lockdown vs roam free, economy vs life, red vs blue .... none of that works during covid or even general politics ... time for people to learn that everything in life takes balance and compromise and start the shift towards the middle " Totally | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To me, learning to live with it means modifying my own behaviour. Modifying my behaviour to reduce the risk to myself and others. In reality this means mask, hand sanitising and distance. It also means having the app running when I leave my home. If I socialise, it's outside. I haven't set foot in a restaurant or pub since march." Agree, we have to get on with the new normal, and I guess this is different for everyone. The rules are there like them or not, we should all try to stick to them while getting on with living life. I've changed some what over the past few months, maybe I have slipped into this bracket of being lapse about the virus, but I've not been braking the rules doing doing more of what I used to do before, shopping, sports and work. I've not been a big drinker anyway but haven't been to the pub much at all, maybe once since March. The new normal and get on with it I say. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Wrong again .. It's very remarkable in many ways where have you been in 2020???? " Right here. The difference being I refuse to be brainwashed by an unrelenting media barrage over what is, really, a pretty unremarkable illness. Why is everyone so ready to give up the society we had, the freedoms we had, the businesses we built? Why are so few willing to stand up and face reality? We are being fed a very one sided story. Deaths make headlines, coughs don't. There are vastly more coughs than deaths but you never hear that because it doesn't make headlines. I stand by every word I said. Covid is not especially lethal to most healthy people. Covid is not especially remarkable as a disease. Covid is not even the most infectious of diseases. This has become a pandemic of fear, feeding off of media headlines that are driving bad decisions by government that create more headlines and start the whole cycle again. WE need to break that loop while there's still anything worth saving left of our society. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Wrong again .. It's very remarkable in many ways where have you been in 2020???? Right here. The difference being I refuse to be brainwashed by an unrelenting media barrage over what is, really, a pretty unremarkable illness. Why is everyone so ready to give up the society we had, the freedoms we had, the businesses we built? Why are so few willing to stand up and face reality? We are being fed a very one sided story. Deaths make headlines, coughs don't. There are vastly more coughs than deaths but you never hear that because it doesn't make headlines. I stand by every word I said. Covid is not especially lethal to most healthy people. Covid is not especially remarkable as a disease. Covid is not even the most infectious of diseases. This has become a pandemic of fear, feeding off of media headlines that are driving bad decisions by government that create more headlines and start the whole cycle again. WE need to break that loop while there's still anything worth saving left of our society." What do you suggest? The NHS ignores it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The only way to avoid contamination is to permanently avoid all social contact permanently . . . . and that is neither possible nor desirable. We've already been alerted to the fact that any vaccine is not going to be a magical solution. So we have to learn to live with it and let society and he economy function." That’s a true an eloquent answer. So the obvious question is what as individuals are you willing or not willing to sacrifice in order for society to “live with it” x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I stand by every word I said. Covid is not especially lethal to most healthy people. Covid is not especially remarkable as a disease. Covid is not even the most infectious of diseases. This has become a pandemic of fear, feeding off of media headlines that are driving bad decisions by government that create more headlines and start the whole cycle again. WE need to break that loop while there's still anything worth saving left of our society." You remind me of some armchair general who passes comment on a scenario without any first hand experience on the reality. Covid-19 is both serious and for those it affects absolutely horrific. You cannot use the term “unremarkable” for a virus that has had the global impact that it has had. I’ve seen over 100 individuals and their families suffer the very worst consequences during my shifts in a six month period. That’s well over 10 times what we’d expect from all other illnesses etc to deliver over the same period of time to our unit. To make the point that’s also a tally which is on the back of all the sacrifice and compromise people have made to their lives to limit the viruses impact. Your statement is just entirely self centred, it’s your justification for why you shouldn’t give up anything to help others Nothing more, the vague scientific claims you make are ridiculous to be frank. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe some good news. I know good news is a rarity in this forum but here goes. Weekly use of a nasal spray could give 96 per cent protection from coronavirus, new research from Public Health England (PHE) shows. The new preventive treatment could move to human trials within months following successful results on ferrets. The spray was originally developed to boost natural human immunity to common colds and the flu, but has been retested to see if it would also work for coronavirus. It is produced by Australian biotech company Ena Respiratory and works by preventing the virus from replicating in the respiratory tract. “We’ve been amazed with just how effective our treatment has been,” said Dr Christophe Demaison, managing director of Ena Respiratory. “By boosting the natural immune response of the ferrets with our treatment, we’ve seen a rapid eradication of the virus. If humans respond in a similar way, the benefits of treatment are two-fold. Individuals exposed to the virus would most likely rapidly eliminate it, with the treatment ensuring that the disease does not progress beyond mild symptoms. This is particularly relevant to vulnerable members of the community. In addition, the rapidity of this response means that the infected individuals are unlikely to pass it on, meaning a swift halt to community transmission.” The study was led by Prof Miles Carroll, PHE’s deputy director, and is posted today on the biomedical prepublication research site, medRxiv. The results show that by boosting the immune response, the spray dramatically decreased the chance of infection, even when the ferrets were deliberately infected with the virus." Now this could be a game changer | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The only way to avoid contamination is to permanently avoid all social contact permanently . . . . and that is neither possible nor desirable. We've already been alerted to the fact that any vaccine is not going to be a magical solution. So we have to learn to live with it and let society and he economy function. That’s a true an eloquent answer. So the obvious question is what as individuals are you willing or not willing to sacrifice in order for society to “live with it” x" For me the restrictions are ok and proportionate to the need if any thing they could be a bit tighter | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Covid-19 is both serious and for those it affects absolutely horrific. You cannot use the term “unremarkable” for a virus that has had the global impact that it has had. " How much of that impact has been from the virus and how much from the measures to 'control' the virus? As a disease, covid is NOT that remarkable. It makes a percentage of people very ill, some die. That's true of every disease. It tends to disproportionately impact the elderly and those with existing health problems. That's also true of almost every disease. It isn't particularly lethal as diseases go, particularly if you are otherwise healthy. So what's remarkable about it aside from the fact it's new? " I’ve seen over 100 individuals and their families suffer the very worst consequences during my shifts in a six month period. That’s well over 10 times what we’d expect from all other illnesses etc to deliver over the same period of time to our unit. To make the point that’s also a tally which is on the back of all the sacrifice and compromise people have made to their lives to limit the viruses impact. " I will not belittle the work you and other medical professonals do, nor am I in any position to argue with you on numbers. Loss,of life is always tragic and sadly not always avoidable even with the best of care. I will however ask this - are you disagreeing with the large and growing body of evidence that suggests Covid does not pose a hugely significant risk to people who are otherwise fit and of working age - in other words, the majority of the UK population? " Your statement is just entirely self centred, it’s your justification for why you shouldn’t give up anything to help others Nothing more, the vague scientific claims you make are ridiculous to be frank. " Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, give up things we've worked for, invested time, money and effort into in a futile attempt to hold back a tide? Can you show me any proof whatsoever that lockdowns and restrictions will eliminate this disease and allow us to return to normal life? You can't, because it doesn't exist. I on the other hand can show you cast iron proof that they are already doimg and will continue to do immense harm to the economy of this country. You find me ridiculous, so be it. I find people willing to quietly accept the loss of jobs, opportunities and freedoms proposed as the 'new normal' ridiculous. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How much of that impact has been from the virus and how much from the measures to 'control' the virus? As a disease, covid is NOT that remarkable. It makes a percentage of people very ill, some die. That's true of every disease. It tends to disproportionately impact the elderly and those with existing health problems. That's also true of almost every disease. It isn't particularly lethal as diseases go, particularly if you are otherwise healthy. So what's remarkable about it aside from the fact it's new? " It’s a disease that has travelled the globe, it’s topped a million deaths despite huge measures taken globally to limit its impact and it’s a long, long way from done... the last thing we could compare it with is Spanish Flu. How much more ‘remarkable’ do you want? "I will not belittle the work you and other medical professonals do, nor am I in any position to argue with you on numbers. Loss,of life is always tragic and sadly not always avoidable even with the best of care. I will however ask this - are you disagreeing with the large and growing body of evidence that suggests Covid does not pose a hugely significant risk to people who are otherwise fit and of working age - in other words, the majority of the UK population?" Totally disagree, in ICU I see those who are ventilated, they are on the last roll of the dice to save them. The seriously vulnerable, those with this notion of very limited life left anyway very rarely reach us, the clinical view for them is often they are highly unlikely to survive anyway and the procedure being as invasive as it is is not the correct choice for them. We’ve treated 100’s of people who have so much ahead of them in their lives, their underlying conditions can be anything from asthma, low level diabetes, a slight heart murmur.... I’ve bagged up plenty of people with less years on the clock than yourself. There’s no growing body of evidence. For reference the U.K. has 15,000,000 people classified as “underlying health issues”, this isn’t a few hundred people in end of life management who we need to protect, its potentially 1/5th of the population. "Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, give up things we've worked for, invested time, money and effort into in a futile attempt to hold back a tide? Can you show me any proof whatsoever that lockdowns and restrictions will eliminate this disease and allow us to return to normal life? You can't, because it doesn't exist. I on the other hand can show you cast iron proof that they are already doimg and will continue to do immense harm to the economy of this country." Restrictions aren’t there to eliminate this disease, they are there to limit its impact. Today we topped 550 admissions across the NW, that’s 500% up on two weeks ago... it’s becoming very obvious we need to limit the infection rate dramatically and quickly. On current ratios that 550 for today will equate to around 200 deaths. As for loss of freedom, possessions etc... get a grip, this isn’t apartheid South Africa, ethnic cleansing in the balkans etc... it’s a friggin hard time for everyone but its short term hardship, it’s pubs closing at 10pm, less money and less opportunity... i don’t see it much different to living in Liverpool under Thatcher to be blunt, life will improve as time passes. As for damage to the economy... look at Sweden, look at New Zealand... their economy is also fucked. Whatever route was taken their would be long term, serious, economic damage. "You find me ridiculous, so be it. I find people willing to quietly accept the loss of jobs, opportunities and freedoms proposed as the 'new normal' ridiculous." I’d use the term selfish in honesty and yes, personally I do find that outlook ridiculous. life’s a team sport in my view... you look after your family, community, the weaker within that group. Your protest is very me, my possessions, my job, my savings etc... I find it very sad that you place that above others welfare, probably including a number with a close connection to you personally. For the record I lost my business of 5 years on day one of lockdown, it was no longer viable. I chose to work in constructing the NW Nightingale and then stayed on staff and transferred to one of the Manchester trusts when we hibernated... I’m on 20% of my former salary. I’ve not enjoyed the impact of this virus one bit but as much as I detest Boris and Co they aren’t to blame. These are hard times for all but I’ll get through them in a positive manner with my dignity and humanity in tact. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What I can't accept is getting tired really quickly, months after I've had it. That seems to me to be one of the things that I detest about it." You, me and thousands of others... but we don’t like to mention ‘non fatal’, ‘post 28 day fatal’ etc... it’s a fkn horrible virus. Speedy long term recovery x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’ll get through them in a positive manner with my dignity and humanity in tact. " It's clear that you and I have very different opinions. I respect that and so that we both get to keep our dignity (and our forum access) it's best we agree to disagree and move on. Stay safe and please understand that while we may have very different opinions I have nothing but respect for you and all the others workkng in your field. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just carry on doing what I do.. I wear a mask when I have to (wearing a mask on your own in a car is like wearing a condom to have wank) I work has a cleaner and especially at the doctors sergery I being reminded of it all the time.. But I don't let it worry me..sure I don't want to get it and have more time off work and I don't want to pass it on to my mum. But I blame the media and social media for having in drummed into us 24/7 If we did the same thing with the flu and had charts for how many are infected with the flu and how many died from the flu we be in a mass panic.. Yet we don't panic about the flu,unless you have ill parent or family members.. Because its not in the media 24/7 And taking a town into a local lockdown is stupid... Look at road accidents and deaths.. Say we ban all cars off the road for 1 month or 2 accidents and deaths will drop. But the moment they back on the roads the accidents and deaths will rise The only thing we need is a cure or something like when you get a flu jab Then covid will fade away to a bad memory " I think your doctor wood disagree... local lockdowns are vital otherwise it will go rampant nationwide | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" To me it means crack on, and LIVE WITH IT. Folks die, its all part of the cycle, just cuz its one extra risk dont mean life should be put on hold That sounds very tempting alright - but we gotta look out for older, susceptible people and those who are immuno-compromised. Unfortunately, it may mean that their lives are less free then before tho. People of working age and young folks are all very likely to get by but we are hearing of a lot of long-term effects from this disease too...it's up to everyone to establish their own level of risk and act accordingly. " Not really, as i and a lot of others are fully willing to take the "maverick" risk and carry on as normal, but are not being able to do so. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" To me it means crack on, and LIVE WITH IT. Folks die, its all part of the cycle, just cuz its one extra risk dont mean life should be put on hold That sounds very tempting alright - but we gotta look out for older, susceptible people and those who are immuno-compromised. Unfortunately, it may mean that their lives are less free then before tho. People of working age and young folks are all very likely to get by but we are hearing of a lot of long-term effects from this disease too...it's up to everyone to establish their own level of risk and act accordingly. Not really, as i and a lot of others are fully willing to take the "maverick" risk and carry on as normal, but are not being able to do so." So its "I'm all right Jack " is it? Because it's not all about YOU. YOU will spread it to others, it's really not difficult to understand if you think about it and dont just think of yourself? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes we have to find a way quickly of moving forward with this thing, and with a vaccine not far away now - something I am confident we'll have a few options on despite media hysteria - and also the emergence of existing and new therapeutics in the battle, then shielding certain sectors of society won't be that long an ordeal and certainly a price worth paying for a short period if it saves lives. The rest of us, and I say this totally accepting the reality of this disease, have to move forward otherwise society will deteriorate as well as the economy." It needs to be areas rather than sectors though | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"II think your doctor wood disagree... local lockdowns are vital otherwise it will go rampant nationwide "* Wait till you are in one and then let us know what you think. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes we have to find a way quickly of moving forward with this thing, and with a vaccine not far away now - something I am confident we'll have a few options on despite media hysteria - and also the emergence of existing and new therapeutics in the battle, then shielding certain sectors of society won't be that long an ordeal and certainly a price worth paying for a short period if it saves lives. The rest of us, and I say this totally accepting the reality of this disease, have to move forward otherwise society will deteriorate as well as the economy." How are we not moving forward exactly? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’ll get through them in a positive manner with my dignity and humanity in tact. It's clear that you and I have very different opinions. I respect that and so that we both get to keep our dignity (and our forum access) it's best we agree to disagree and move on. Stay safe and please understand that while we may have very different opinions I have nothing but respect for you and all the others workkng in your field." I’m not going to fall out with anyone over there view, there’s plenty of people who share yours and likewise mine so let’s just agree we are in different camps. As for respect, I appreciate the sentiment but I have to be honest, the words don’t marry up to the actions. I spend a lot of time helping families and relatives see their loved ones in the red zone and in truth there’s often people who shared your outlook who have the very worst levels of guilt and remorse. I sincerely hope fate is kind to you but let’s be clear, this surge we have seen begin over the past weeks is far worst than it could be due to people’s actions and choices. If ever “clap for the NHS” comes back as a fad... please don’t do it, the truth is that would truly take the biscuit x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And taking a town into a local lockdown is stupid... Look at road accidents and deaths.. Say we ban all cars off the road for 1 month or 2 accidents and deaths will drop. But the moment they back on the roads the accidents and deaths will rise " Possibly the worst analogy ever... if we must use non virus spreading cars perhaps think of it like this...multiple pile up, cars burning.... what do we do? CLOSE the road, deal with it and reopen... it’s not about negating all future death, it’s about stopping the localised issue escalating into carnage that keeps on building. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"this virus over time will become a non-killer. will still take those that have other medical issues, thats something that flu does. but this will be just one of those things that will become normal part of life. already more people died from flu in august than covid. keep the faith all" As published by the Sun... To quote full fact: “There isn’t evidence for this. Although we don’t have detailed data on recent deaths, there are almost certainly fewer deaths where flu is identified as the underlying cause compared to Covid-19.” This would tally entirely with my trusts experience which is running 6-1 in covid a favour. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"this virus over time will become a non-killer. will still take those that have other medical issues, thats something that flu does. but this will be just one of those things that will become normal part of life. already more people died from flu in august than covid. keep the faith all As published by the Sun... To quote full fact: “There isn’t evidence for this. Although we don’t have detailed data on recent deaths, there are almost certainly fewer deaths where flu is identified as the underlying cause compared to Covid-19.” This would tally entirely with my trusts experience which is running 6-1 in covid a favour." the sun eh  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://metro.co.uk/2020/08/12/nearly-five-times-people-dying-flu-pneumonia-coronavirus-13118709/" Yes, now check full facts site... The mirror, sun, metro etc are all part of the same newsgroup #lazyjournalism | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"this virus over time will become a non-killer. will still take those that have other medical issues, thats something that flu does. but this will be just one of those things that will become normal part of life. already more people died from flu in august than covid. keep the faith all As published by the Sun... To quote full fact: “There isn’t evidence for this. Although we don’t have detailed data on recent deaths, there are almost certainly fewer deaths where flu is identified as the underlying cause compared to Covid-19.” This would tally entirely with my trusts experience which is running 6-1 in covid a favour." This is actually simply a common typing era, the chart usually given is for flu and pneumonia as a totality and when combined they are higher than covid19. It's slightly misleading as both aren't mutually combined and you can die of both without having the other however for purposes of charts and stats there often combined. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
