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 |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What can we infer from tbis?" that the average age of Covid deaths are over 82 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What can we infer from tbis? that the average age of Covid deaths are over 82 " I would say that it shows that a significant number of deaths under 82 are covid deaths. I was really asking what use this information is? Not in an aggressive way but more to open up the discussion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 " Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think a lot of people are aware of society crumbling away and a large majority of younger people feel their lives are being curtailed to be life support poorly older people. maybe its like the Brexit or climate change thing, younger people feel that older people have lived lives that have polluted the earth or who ironically won't live to see the effects of Brexit or the climate changed world when they drove the cars.. smoked the fags... plundered the rainforest etc just s thought i work on covid testing sites but think the approach has to change soon " Indeed a lot of younger people do feel that way. Once they're old their children and grandchildren will hold them responsible for the bad things they've done unwittingly. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What can we infer from tbis?" We need to send all the old folks to another island until there is a vaccine ... Isle of Man would be ideal.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What can we infer from tbis? We need to send all the old folks to another island until there is a vaccine ... Isle of Man would be ideal. "I was thinking more Minorca or one of the Canary Islands please | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? " obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring " COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off " That’s the past the figures are whats happing now | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it boils down to how acceptable one finds treating older people as collateral damage. It's possible that it will be unavoidable. Just put me in the ice floe now "as I've written in another thread my mums dementia has spiralled out of control during this.. lockdown hasn't helped her mental health.. how many others? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off That’s the past the figures are whats happing now " Yes, because if all the measures put in place, I am not sure what your point is?? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off That’s the past the figures are whats happing now Yes, because if all the measures put in place, I am not sure what your point is??" I think their point is that they want to go to the pub and fuck people off the internet, that old and disabled people die to allow them to do it is an acceptable level of collateral damage. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The average age of people who have died from Covid is 82.4 this figure is computed from the office of National statistics, this is significantly higher than the average age of deaths from other causes which is 81.5 " I've been pointing this out for weeks, the other interesting point was the average comorbiditiy was 2.7. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off " . That's just not true, there was a paper released the other day from Birmingham university that showed lockdown had a very minimal effect. Washing hands works, leaving space works, masks well no, a little bit maybe nothing significant. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off . That's just not true, there was a paper released the other day from Birmingham university that showed lockdown had a very minimal effect. Washing hands works, leaving space works, masks well no, a little bit maybe nothing significant." Is there? Do you have a link? So this one paper from Birmingham is more reliable and credible than all the other scientific advice ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off That’s the past the figures are whats happing now Yes, because if all the measures put in place, I am not sure what your point is?? I think their point is that they want to go to the pub and fuck people off the internet, that old and disabled people die to allow them to do it is an acceptable level of collateral damage." A bit harsh | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring " Interesting where the numbers come from. Statistics, damn statistics and lies. Not saying these are more accurate but from worldometer the last 10 days deaths due to covid are... 77,76,70,19,33, 49,66, 59,71,13, 17... Not sure how those add up to 56... That aside. I was curious about the suicides number was only 18. I have no idea how that compares with last year but given the huge emotional strain this is placing on everybody and given it is the highest cause of deaths of males 18 to 40... I'm surprised its as low as it is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off That’s the past the figures are whats happing now Yes, because if all the measures put in place, I am not sure what your point is?? I think their point is that they want to go to the pub and fuck people off the internet, that old and disabled people die to allow them to do it is an acceptable level of collateral damage. A bit harsh "Really? That’s essentially what it comes down to though, people use statistics about a particular group being affected and then say that we should ‘protect’ them in the full knowledge that said ‘protection’ means locking the group away so the rest of us can get on with what we want to do and pretend we’ve done it for their own good. I hear so many people talking about how people are being negatively affected by the lockdown etc. but I’m pretty certain it’s the first time they’ve ever shown any concern to said people in their entire lives. It’s the same as people who say we should help homeless veterans before asylum seekers but pass beggars in the street without a second thought because they read once someone saw a beggar getting into a BMW. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off . That's just not true, there was a paper released the other day from Birmingham university that showed lockdown had a very minimal effect. Washing hands works, leaving space works, masks well no, a little bit maybe nothing significant. Is there? Do you have a link? So this one paper from Birmingham is more reliable and credible than all the other scientific advice ? " . Actually there's been dozens of papers from various top level universities released over the summer showing lockdowns have very little effect and an even worse cost benefit. That's why they were never part of any government epidemic plans pre covid, it was literally used by China so everybody else followed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off That’s the past the figures are whats happing now Yes, because if all the measures put in place, I am not sure what your point is?? I think their point is that they want to go to the pub and fuck people off the internet, that old and disabled people die to allow them to do it is an acceptable level of collateral damage. A bit harsh
Really? That’s essentially what it comes down to though, people use statistics about a particular group being affected and then say that we should ‘protect’ them in the full knowledge that said ‘protection’ means locking the group away so the rest of us can get on with what we want to do and pretend we’ve done it for their own good.
I hear so many people talking about how people are being negatively affected by the lockdown etc. but I’m pretty certain it’s the first time they’ve ever shown any concern to said people in their entire lives.
It’s the same as people who say we should help homeless veterans before asylum seekers but pass beggars in the street without a second thought because they read once someone saw a beggar getting into a BMW."I agree that some people are inherently selfish but People need to realise this is a highly contagious virus and have to stop comparing it with other causes of death. The lockdowns and other restrictions have been difficult but necessary to stop the death rate sky rocketing again. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off . That's just not true, there was a paper released the other day from Birmingham university that showed lockdown had a very minimal effect. Washing hands works, leaving space works, masks well no, a little bit maybe nothing significant. Is there? Do you have a link? So this one paper from Birmingham is more reliable and credible than all the other scientific advice ? . Actually there's been dozens of papers from various top level universities released over the summer showing lockdowns have very little effect and an even worse cost benefit. That's why they were never part of any government epidemic plans pre covid, it was literally used by China so everybody else followed." Dozens? There are dozens of scientists that state the lockdown works? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off That’s the past the figures are whats happing now Yes, because if all the measures put in place, I am not sure what your point is?? I think their point is that they want to go to the pub and fuck people off the internet, that old and disabled people die to allow them to do it is an acceptable level of collateral damage. A bit harsh
Really? That’s essentially what it comes down to though, people use statistics about a particular group being affected and then say that we should ‘protect’ them in the full knowledge that said ‘protection’ means locking the group away so the rest of us can get on with what we want to do and pretend we’ve done it for their own good.
I hear so many people talking about how people are being negatively affected by the lockdown etc. but I’m pretty certain it’s the first time they’ve ever shown any concern to said people in their entire lives.
It’s the same as people who say we should help homeless veterans before asylum seekers but pass beggars in the street without a second thought because they read once someone saw a beggar getting into a BMW.
I agree that some people are inherently selfish but People need to realise this is a highly contagious virus and have to stop comparing it with other causes of death. The lockdowns and other restrictions have been difficult but necessary to stop the death rate sky rocketing again. "Exactly, the percentage of the world’s population that died in the Holocaust was about 0.003 and it was largely one group that was affected but that doesn’t make it any less of a horrific tragedy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On a positive note. No one has died from old age since March." I think that joke just died though | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off That’s the past the figures are whats happing now Yes, because if all the measures put in place, I am not sure what your point is?? I think their point is that they want to go to the pub and fuck people off the internet, that old and disabled people die to allow them to do it is an acceptable level of collateral damage." For some it is totally that I agree but as to what percentage we'll never know, others want to not lose their businesses in etc and for many on both sides of the debate it's just about dealing with what is a lot of uncertainty, change and no real idea of what the plan or a possible end date might be.. A lot of which bring their own stresses.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What can we infer from tbis? We need to send all the old folks to another island until there is a vaccine ... Isle of Man would be ideal.
I was thinking more Minorca or one of the Canary Islands please "Was'nt Ascension Island mentioned in another context ? Maybe this is the grand plan. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I hear so many people talking about how people are being negatively affected by the lockdown etc. but I’m pretty certain it’s the first time they’ve ever shown any concern to said people in their entire lives. " I think there's a lot of truth in this, the casual way some are happy to trot out other figures in some death 'top trumps' has been shitty although their counter argument would be we need to make comparisons etc.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As seen on other posts, a minority are pushing the poorly thought through concept of isolating c. 25% of the population, whilst letting the virus ravage through the rest of us and the NHS, stopping health services being able to support others, as death rates rise. Not a solution for a humane, intelligent society " Perhaps not unsurprisingly on a site where the most basic of desires for some comes before all else.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As seen on other posts, a minority are pushing the poorly thought through concept of isolating c. 25% of the population, whilst letting the virus ravage through the rest of us and the NHS, stopping health services being able to support others, as death rates rise. Not a solution for a humane, intelligent society Perhaps not unsurprisingly on a site where the most basic of desires for some comes before all else.. "  you are spot on there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the message here is - If you are old (or otherwise vulnerable) then shield otherwise, get on with life. A blanket lockdown is madness while the NHS is coping but those not shielding should still take precautions to help keep it that way." Agree obviously the old and vulnerable have to be extra cautious but shutting down the economy in the long run will in our opinion cause more deaths | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the message here is - If you are old (or otherwise vulnerable) then shield otherwise, get on with life. A blanket lockdown is madness while the NHS is coping but those not shielding should still take precautions to help keep it that way." Can i ask if you are in these categories? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off That’s the past the figures are whats happing now Yes, because if all the measures put in place, I am not sure what your point is?? I think their point is that they want to go to the pub and fuck people off the internet, that old and disabled people die to allow them to do it is an acceptable level of collateral damage. For some it is totally that I agree but as to what percentage we'll never know, others want to not lose their businesses in etc and for many on both sides of the debate it's just about dealing with what is a lot of uncertainty, change and no real idea of what the plan or a possible end date might be.. A lot of which bring their own stresses.." That’s a fair point and my heart goes out to those not supported by the government but we simply cannot allow the idea that picking people away ‘for their own good’ to be normalised. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As seen on other posts, a minority are pushing the poorly thought through concept of isolating c. 25% of the population, whilst letting the virus ravage through the rest of us and the NHS, stopping health services being able to support others, as death rates rise. Not a solution for a humane, intelligent society " Not just a thought ... that experiment has begun already with students. I thought the rush to get them back to Uni was a fees and rent grab but looking at COVID numbers in uni towns it's looking like herd immunity with the blame laid at the door of the exuberant youth. One of the many cases is my son who had a positive test earlier in the week. Inevitable in my mind but does appear to be part of an unwritten plan | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Another thing that will skew the stats a little is the change in the way covid deaths are recorded now , ie anyone that dies from covid more than 28 days after testing positive isn't counted in the headline number. A fit younger person will quite likely take longer than 28 to die of covid." Yes, probably about 60 years. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As seen on other posts, a minority are pushing the poorly thought through concept of isolating c. 25% of the population, whilst letting the virus ravage through the rest of us and the NHS, stopping health services being able to support others, as death rates rise. Not a solution for a humane, intelligent society " You mean ravage through the population like flu does. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As seen on other posts, a minority are pushing the poorly thought through concept of isolating c. 25% of the population, whilst letting the virus ravage through the rest of us and the NHS, stopping health services being able to support others, as death rates rise. Not a solution for a humane, intelligent society You mean ravage through the population like flu does." COVID isn’t flu | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As seen on other posts, a minority are pushing the poorly thought through concept of isolating c. 25% of the population, whilst letting the virus ravage through the rest of us and the NHS, stopping health services being able to support others, as death rates rise. Not a solution for a humane, intelligent society You mean ravage through the population like flu does. COVID isn’t flu " The same effect but slightly higher mortality rate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As seen on other posts, a minority are pushing the poorly thought through concept of isolating c. 25% of the population, whilst letting the virus ravage through the rest of us and the NHS, stopping health services being able to support others, as death rates rise. Not a solution for a humane, intelligent society You mean ravage through the population like flu does. COVID isn’t flu The same effect but slightly higher mortality rate." Slightly higher, you must have the statistics to back that up? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the message here is - If you are old (or otherwise vulnerable) then shield otherwise, get on with life. A blanket lockdown is madness while the NHS is coping but those not shielding should still take precautions to help keep it that way. Agree obviously the old and vulnerable have to be extra cautious but shutting down the economy in the long run will in our opinion cause more deaths " Who gets a to decide who the old & the ‘vulnerable’ are? Who looks after and shields these people? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Erm, Flu and Covid are NOT the same. Covid is a respiratory disease with SYMPTOMS similar to flu. Covid causes permanent damage to your lungs." Covid can affect all your major organs in extreme cases. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As seen on other posts, a minority are pushing the poorly thought through concept of isolating c. 25% of the population, whilst letting the virus ravage through the rest of us and the NHS, stopping health services being able to support others, as death rates rise. Not a solution for a humane, intelligent society You mean ravage through the population like flu does. COVID isn’t flu The same effect but slightly higher mortality rate. Slightly higher, you must have the statistics to back that up? " If you catch flu the survival rate is 99.9% if you catch covid the survival rate is 99.4%. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As seen on other posts, a minority are pushing the poorly thought through concept of isolating c. 25% of the population, whilst letting the virus ravage through the rest of us and the NHS, stopping health services being able to support others, as death rates rise. Not a solution for a humane, intelligent society You mean ravage through the population like flu does. COVID isn’t flu The same effect but slightly higher mortality rate. Slightly higher, you must have the statistics to back that up? If you catch flu the survival rate is 99.9% if you catch covid the survival rate is 99.4%." So your 5 time more likely to die of COVID than the flu? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the message here is - If you are old (or otherwise vulnerable) then shield otherwise, get on with life. A blanket lockdown is madness while the NHS is coping but those not shielding should still take precautions to help keep it that way. Agree obviously the old and vulnerable have to be extra cautious but shutting down the economy in the long run will in our opinion cause more deaths Who gets a to decide who the old & the ‘vulnerable’ are? Who looks after and shields these people? " They decide themselves not every vulnerable person will want to hide away many will want to live there lives | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the message here is - If you are old (or otherwise vulnerable) then shield otherwise, get on with life. A blanket lockdown is madness while the NHS is coping but those not shielding should still take precautions to help keep it that way. Agree obviously the old and vulnerable have to be extra cautious but shutting down the economy in the long run will in our opinion cause more deaths Who gets a to decide who the old & the ‘vulnerable’ are? Who looks after and shields these people? They decide themselves not every vulnerable person will want to hide away many will want to live there lives" So if they die it’s on them as they could’ve stayed locked away in their houses? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the message here is - If you are old (or otherwise vulnerable) then shield otherwise, get on with life. A blanket lockdown is madness while the NHS is coping but those not shielding should still take precautions to help keep it that way. Agree obviously the old and vulnerable have to be extra cautious but shutting down the economy in the long run will in our opinion cause more deaths Who gets a to decide who the old & the ‘vulnerable’ are? Who looks after and shields these people? " At the moment I suppose individuals do, soon it will be Boris ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the message here is - If you are old (or otherwise vulnerable) then shield otherwise, get on with life. A blanket lockdown is madness while the NHS is coping but those not shielding should still take precautions to help keep it that way. Agree obviously the old and vulnerable have to be extra cautious but shutting down the economy in the long run will in our opinion cause more deaths Who gets a to decide who the old & the ‘vulnerable’ are? Who looks after and shields these people? They decide themselves not every vulnerable person will want to hide away many will want to live there lives" Do you know if you are vulnerable? Who will look after these people? Who will pay for them to be off work? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As seen on other posts, a minority are pushing the poorly thought through concept of isolating c. 25% of the population, whilst letting the virus ravage through the rest of us and the NHS, stopping health services being able to support others, as death rates rise. Not a solution for a humane, intelligent society You mean ravage through the population like flu does. COVID isn’t flu The same effect but slightly higher mortality rate. Slightly higher, you must have the statistics to back that up? If you catch flu the survival rate is 99.9% if you catch covid the survival rate is 99.4%. So your 5 time more likely to die of COVID than the flu? " It shows you have bugger all chance of dying from the flu and almost bugger all chance of dying from covid. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the message here is - If you are old (or otherwise vulnerable) then shield otherwise, get on with life. A blanket lockdown is madness while the NHS is coping but those not shielding should still take precautions to help keep it that way. Agree obviously the old and vulnerable have to be extra cautious but shutting down the economy in the long run will in our opinion cause more deaths Who gets a to decide who the old & the ‘vulnerable’ are? Who looks after and shields these people? They decide themselves not every vulnerable person will want to hide away many will want to live there lives So if they die it’s on them as they could’ve stayed locked away in their houses?" Looks that way, and who decides if they entitled to financial help?  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the message here is - If you are old (or otherwise vulnerable) then shield otherwise, get on with life. A blanket lockdown is madness while the NHS is coping but those not shielding should still take precautions to help keep it that way. Agree obviously the old and vulnerable have to be extra cautious but shutting down the economy in the long run will in our opinion cause more deaths Who gets a to decide who the old & the ‘vulnerable’ are? Who looks after and shields these people? They decide themselves not every vulnerable person will want to hide away many will want to live there lives So if they die it’s on them as they could’ve stayed locked away in their houses?" I little bit like deciding to give up your driving licence when you get old so you don't kill yourself (or others). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As seen on other posts, a minority are pushing the poorly thought through concept of isolating c. 25% of the population, whilst letting the virus ravage through the rest of us and the NHS, stopping health services being able to support others, as death rates rise. Not a solution for a humane, intelligent society You mean ravage through the population like flu does. COVID isn’t flu The same effect but slightly higher mortality rate. Slightly higher, you must have the statistics to back that up? If you catch flu the survival rate is 99.9% if you catch covid the survival rate is 99.4%. So your 5 time more likely to die of COVID than the flu? It shows you have bugger all chance of dying from the flu and almost bugger all chance of dying from covid." Ah, so 42,000 dead in the UK and 210,000 in the USA in 8 months is ‘almost bugger all’ ? gotcha | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the message here is - If you are old (or otherwise vulnerable) then shield otherwise, get on with life. A blanket lockdown is madness while the NHS is coping but those not shielding should still take precautions to help keep it that way. Agree obviously the old and vulnerable have to be extra cautious but shutting down the economy in the long run will in our opinion cause more deaths Who gets a to decide who the old & the ‘vulnerable’ are? Who looks after and shields these people? They decide themselves not every vulnerable person will want to hide away many will want to live there lives So if they die it’s on them as they could’ve stayed locked away in their houses?" We are all Adults surely in a free world we decide for ourselves or do you want the State to decide how you live your life ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the message here is - If you are old (or otherwise vulnerable) then shield otherwise, get on with life. A blanket lockdown is madness while the NHS is coping but those not shielding should still take precautions to help keep it that way. Agree obviously the old and vulnerable have to be extra cautious but shutting down the economy in the long run will in our opinion cause more deaths Who gets a to decide who the old & the ‘vulnerable’ are? Who looks after and shields these people? They decide themselves not every vulnerable person will want to hide away many will want to live there lives So if they die it’s on them as they could’ve stayed locked away in their houses? Looks that way, and who decides if they entitled to financial help? "I’m not sure that really matters so long as we can all have a pint and fuck internet people again. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As seen on other posts, a minority are pushing the poorly thought through concept of isolating c. 25% of the population, whilst letting the virus ravage through the rest of us and the NHS, stopping health services being able to support others, as death rates rise. Not a solution for a humane, intelligent society You mean ravage through the population like flu does. COVID isn’t flu The same effect but slightly higher mortality rate. Slightly higher, you must have the statistics to back that up? If you catch flu the survival rate is 99.9% if you catch covid the survival rate is 99.4%. So your 5 time more likely to die of COVID than the flu? It shows you have bugger all chance of dying from the flu and almost bugger all chance of dying from covid. Ah, so 42,000 dead in the UK and 210,000 in the USA in 8 months is ‘almost bugger all’ ? gotcha " Compared to all cause deaths and numbers infected, yes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the message here is - If you are old (or otherwise vulnerable) then shield otherwise, get on with life. A blanket lockdown is madness while the NHS is coping but those not shielding should still take precautions to help keep it that way. Agree obviously the old and vulnerable have to be extra cautious but shutting down the economy in the long run will in our opinion cause more deaths Who gets a to decide who the old & the ‘vulnerable’ are? Who looks after and shields these people? They decide themselves not every vulnerable person will want to hide away many will want to live there lives So if they die it’s on them as they could’ve stayed locked away in their houses? We are all Adults surely in a free world we decide for ourselves or do you want the State to decide how you live your life ? " The state already decides how you live your life, this is about be selfless and protecting people, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As seen on other posts, a minority are pushing the poorly thought through concept of isolating c. 25% of the population, whilst letting the virus ravage through the rest of us and the NHS, stopping health services being able to support others, as death rates rise. Not a solution for a humane, intelligent society You mean ravage through the population like flu does. COVID isn’t flu The same effect but slightly higher mortality rate. Slightly higher, you must have the statistics to back that up? If you catch flu the survival rate is 99.9% if you catch covid the survival rate is 99.4%. So your 5 time more likely to die of COVID than the flu? It shows you have bugger all chance of dying from the flu and almost bugger all chance of dying from covid. Ah, so 42,000 dead in the UK and 210,000 in the USA in 8 months is ‘almost bugger all’ ? gotcha Compared to all cause deaths and numbers infected, yes." Ah, so you must have the statistics for other deaths caused by contagious viruses in the last 8 months then? You can’t compare COVID to cancer etc as cancer is not contagious | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the message here is - If you are old (or otherwise vulnerable) then shield otherwise, get on with life. A blanket lockdown is madness while the NHS is coping but those not shielding should still take precautions to help keep it that way. Agree obviously the old and vulnerable have to be extra cautious but shutting down the economy in the long run will in our opinion cause more deaths Who gets a to decide who the old & the ‘vulnerable’ are? Who looks after and shields these people? They decide themselves not every vulnerable person will want to hide away many will want to live there lives So if they die it’s on them as they could’ve stayed locked away in their houses? We are all Adults surely in a free world we decide for ourselves or do you want the State to decide how you live your life ? " To be fair the state do determine what we do, we cant drive at 150mph on the M1 and that is decided by the state, we cant kill the annoying twat next door for playing Queen at 3am decided by the state, but some things they restrict us from doing make sense, and have a solid basis in fact and reasonable logic; at the moment some of what they are deciding has neither, and it is going to get worse before it gets better. Free world .... hmm i am not sure that applies now ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the message here is - If you are old (or otherwise vulnerable) then shield otherwise, get on with life. A blanket lockdown is madness while the NHS is coping but those not shielding should still take precautions to help keep it that way. Agree obviously the old and vulnerable have to be extra cautious but shutting down the economy in the long run will in our opinion cause more deaths Who gets a to decide who the old & the ‘vulnerable’ are? Who looks after and shields these people? They decide themselves not every vulnerable person will want to hide away many will want to live there lives So if they die it’s on them as they could’ve stayed locked away in their houses? We are all Adults surely in a free world we decide for ourselves or do you want the State to decide how you live your life ? " The state already decides how you live your life in thousands of ways, they’re called laws. What I want the state to do is to allow everyone the same chance to live their lives without having to worry about dying of a highly infectious virus. If that means we all have to suffer some form of inconvenience then so be it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 " Of those listed only one is contagious. We can limit the spread by being sensible.Following the guidelines and maybe just maybe next year will be be better. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As seen on other posts, a minority are pushing the poorly thought through concept of isolating c. 25% of the population, whilst letting the virus ravage through the rest of us and the NHS, stopping health services being able to support others, as death rates rise. Not a solution for a humane, intelligent society You mean ravage through the population like flu does. COVID isn’t flu The same effect but slightly higher mortality rate. Slightly higher, you must have the statistics to back that up? If you catch flu the survival rate is 99.9% if you catch covid the survival rate is 99.4%. So your 5 time more likely to die of COVID than the flu? It shows you have bugger all chance of dying from the flu and almost bugger all chance of dying from covid. Ah, so 42,000 dead in the UK and 210,000 in the USA in 8 months is ‘almost bugger all’ ? gotcha Compared to all cause deaths and numbers infected, yes. Ah, so you must have the statistics for other deaths caused by contagious viruses in the last 8 months then? You can’t compare COVID to cancer etc as cancer is not contagious "Well said, as someone who’s been through and is still going through cancer I get really pissed if when people link it to COVID. I didn’t get cancer by going out on the piss whilst advised not to | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it boils down to how acceptable one finds treating older people as collateral damage. It's possible that it will be unavoidable. Just put me in the ice floe now
as I've written in another thread my mums dementia has spiralled out of control during this.. lockdown hasn't helped her mental health.. how many others? "My Dad (81) the same. He is deeply unhappy. We've formed a bubble with him but he lives over 40 miles away so we can't drop in regularly and if restrictions on travel between regions is enforced, he's stranded. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As seen on other posts, a minority are pushing the poorly thought through concept of isolating c. 25% of the population, whilst letting the virus ravage through the rest of us and the NHS, stopping health services being able to support others, as death rates rise. Not a solution for a humane, intelligent society You mean ravage through the population like flu does. COVID isn’t flu The same effect but slightly higher mortality rate. Slightly higher, you must have the statistics to back that up? If you catch flu the survival rate is 99.9% if you catch covid the survival rate is 99.4%. So your 5 time more likely to die of COVID than the flu? It shows you have bugger all chance of dying from the flu and almost bugger all chance of dying from covid. Ah, so 42,000 dead in the UK and 210,000 in the USA in 8 months is ‘almost bugger all’ ? gotcha Compared to all cause deaths and numbers infected, yes. Ah, so you must have the statistics for other deaths caused by contagious viruses in the last 8 months then? You can’t compare COVID to cancer etc as cancer is not contagious "Not sure that if you die of something that is not contagious you are any less dead. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As seen on other posts, a minority are pushing the poorly thought through concept of isolating c. 25% of the population, whilst letting the virus ravage through the rest of us and the NHS, stopping health services being able to support others, as death rates rise. Not a solution for a humane, intelligent society You mean ravage through the population like flu does. COVID isn’t flu The same effect but slightly higher mortality rate. Slightly higher, you must have the statistics to back that up? If you catch flu the survival rate is 99.9% if you catch covid the survival rate is 99.4%. So your 5 time more likely to die of COVID than the flu? It shows you have bugger all chance of dying from the flu and almost bugger all chance of dying from covid. Ah, so 42,000 dead in the UK and 210,000 in the USA in 8 months is ‘almost bugger all’ ? gotcha Compared to all cause deaths and numbers infected, yes. Ah, so you must have the statistics for other deaths caused by contagious viruses in the last 8 months then? You can’t compare COVID to cancer etc as cancer is not contagious
Not sure that if you die of something that is not contagious you are any less dead."Not funny! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it boils down to how acceptable one finds treating older people as collateral damage. It's possible that it will be unavoidable. Just put me in the ice floe now
as I've written in another thread my mums dementia has spiralled out of control during this.. lockdown hasn't helped her mental health.. how many others?
My Dad (81) the same. He is deeply unhappy. We've formed a bubble with him but he lives over 40 miles away so we can't drop in regularly and if restrictions on travel between regions is enforced, he's stranded. "I think that would be exempt ? My family are in Cardiff area and they can still travel to look after an elderly relative if part of their bubble | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off . That's just not true, there was a paper released the other day from Birmingham university that showed lockdown had a very minimal effect. Washing hands works, leaving space works, masks well no, a little bit maybe nothing significant. Is there? Do you have a link? So this one paper from Birmingham is more reliable and credible than all the other scientific advice ? . Actually there's been dozens of papers from various top level universities released over the summer showing lockdowns have very little effect and an even worse cost benefit. That's why they were never part of any government epidemic plans pre covid, it was literally used by China so everybody else followed. Dozens? There are dozens of scientists that state the lockdown works? " . They may say that but there's little science to show it does, all you've got is correlation at best. And dozens yes wow, there's just as many say it didn't read the Barrington declaration. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Another thing that will skew the stats a little is the change in the way covid deaths are recorded now , ie anyone that dies from covid more than 28 days after testing positive isn't counted in the headline number. A fit younger person will quite likely take longer than 28 to die of covid." Only 2500 people under 60 have died with covid so that is not going to skew the figures much if the do take longer | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off . That's just not true, there was a paper released the other day from Birmingham university that showed lockdown had a very minimal effect. Washing hands works, leaving space works, masks well no, a little bit maybe nothing significant. Is there? Do you have a link? So this one paper from Birmingham is more reliable and credible than all the other scientific advice ? . Actually there's been dozens of papers from various top level universities released over the summer showing lockdowns have very little effect and an even worse cost benefit. That's why they were never part of any government epidemic plans pre covid, it was literally used by China so everybody else followed. Dozens? There are dozens of scientists that state the lockdown works? . They may say that but there's little science to show it does, all you've got is correlation at best. And dozens yes wow, there's just as many say it didn't read the Barrington declaration. " When did cases of COVID start to slow down and when did that start you increase again? Any ideas? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? " No, but you could argue that a lot of cancers are avoidable, as is a lot of heart disease. Meaningful mental health support could also reduce the suicide figures. The amount of money thrown at Covid prevention/education/control is unlikely to be replicated in the prevention of deaths by any of the above. But in reality more people are likely to be affected by, directly or indirectly, cancer , dementia,heart disease or mental health issues than Covid. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off . That's just not true, there was a paper released the other day from Birmingham university that showed lockdown had a very minimal effect. Washing hands works, leaving space works, masks well no, a little bit maybe nothing significant. Is there? Do you have a link? So this one paper from Birmingham is more reliable and credible than all the other scientific advice ? . Actually there's been dozens of papers from various top level universities released over the summer showing lockdowns have very little effect and an even worse cost benefit. That's why they were never part of any government epidemic plans pre covid, it was literally used by China so everybody else followed. Dozens? There are dozens of scientists that state the lockdown works? . They may say that but there's little science to show it does, all you've got is correlation at best. And dozens yes wow, there's just as many say it didn't read the Barrington declaration. When did cases of COVID start to slow down and when did that start you increase again? Any ideas? "Did they increase again  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off . That's just not true, there was a paper released the other day from Birmingham university that showed lockdown had a very minimal effect. Washing hands works, leaving space works, masks well no, a little bit maybe nothing significant. Is there? Do you have a link? So this one paper from Birmingham is more reliable and credible than all the other scientific advice ? . Actually there's been dozens of papers from various top level universities released over the summer showing lockdowns have very little effect and an even worse cost benefit. That's why they were never part of any government epidemic plans pre covid, it was literally used by China so everybody else followed. Dozens? There are dozens of scientists that state the lockdown works? . They may say that but there's little science to show it does, all you've got is correlation at best. And dozens yes wow, there's just as many say it didn't read the Barrington declaration. When did cases of COVID start to slow down and when did that start you increase again? Any ideas? "they picked up 2 and a half months after lockdown finished, it's a respiratory illness and a close cousin of the common cold, it was ALWAYS going to pick up in the autumn. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? No, but you could argue that a lot of cancers are avoidable, as is a lot of heart disease. Meaningful mental health support could also reduce the suicide figures. The amount of money thrown at Covid prevention/education/control is unlikely to be replicated in the prevention of deaths by any of the above. But in reality more people are likely to be affected by, directly or indirectly, cancer , dementia,heart disease or mental health issues than Covid. " True, but that is something that should have been rectified years ago. COVID is here now and the world wasn’t even slightly prepared hence the huge amount of money that has had to be spent trying to catch up . I like to think that a future pandemic will be easier to cope with | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off . That's just not true, there was a paper released the other day from Birmingham university that showed lockdown had a very minimal effect. Washing hands works, leaving space works, masks well no, a little bit maybe nothing significant. Is there? Do you have a link? So this one paper from Birmingham is more reliable and credible than all the other scientific advice ? . Actually there's been dozens of papers from various top level universities released over the summer showing lockdowns have very little effect and an even worse cost benefit. That's why they were never part of any government epidemic plans pre covid, it was literally used by China so everybody else followed. Dozens? There are dozens of scientists that state the lockdown works? . They may say that but there's little science to show it does, all you've got is correlation at best. And dozens yes wow, there's just as many say it didn't read the Barrington declaration. When did cases of COVID start to slow down and when did that start you increase again? Any ideas? they picked up 2 and a half months after lockdown finished, it's a respiratory illness and a close cousin of the common cold, it was ALWAYS going to pick up in the autumn."And did the figures go down during the first lockdown? Are you suggesting that if we just all go back to ‘normal ‘ the infection rate won’t rise even further? I don’t think we should go back into a full lockdown but the measures we currently have aren’t working? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off . That's just not true, there was a paper released the other day from Birmingham university that showed lockdown had a very minimal effect. Washing hands works, leaving space works, masks well no, a little bit maybe nothing significant. Is there? Do you have a link? So this one paper from Birmingham is more reliable and credible than all the other scientific advice ? . Actually there's been dozens of papers from various top level universities released over the summer showing lockdowns have very little effect and an even worse cost benefit. That's why they were never part of any government epidemic plans pre covid, it was literally used by China so everybody else followed. Dozens? There are dozens of scientists that state the lockdown works? . They may say that but there's little science to show it does, all you've got is correlation at best. And dozens yes wow, there's just as many say it didn't read the Barrington declaration. When did cases of COVID start to slow down and when did that start you increase again? Any ideas? they picked up 2 and a half months after lockdown finished, it's a respiratory illness and a close cousin of the common cold, it was ALWAYS going to pick up in the autumn."A common cousin?? Haha, is that a medical term? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" A common cousin?? Haha, is that a medical term? " Just talking out of their arse now | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As seen on other posts, a minority are pushing the poorly thought through concept of isolating c. 25% of the population, whilst letting the virus ravage through the rest of us and the NHS, stopping health services being able to support others, as death rates rise. Not a solution for a humane, intelligent society " And the alternative...oh, yes...vaccinate the vulnerable so they can live normally and leave the rest of us to take our chances anyway. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off That’s the past the figures are whats happing now Yes, because if all the measures put in place, I am not sure what your point is?? I think their point is that they want to go to the pub and fuck people off the internet, that old and disabled people die to allow them to do it is an acceptable level of collateral damage. For some it is totally that I agree but as to what percentage we'll never know, others want to not lose their businesses in etc and for many on both sides of the debate it's just about dealing with what is a lot of uncertainty, change and no real idea of what the plan or a possible end date might be.. A lot of which bring their own stresses.. That’s a fair point and my heart goes out to those not supported by the government but we simply cannot allow the idea that picking people away ‘for their own good’ to be normalised." Totally agree..
It's as incongruous as killing for peace.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Can i ask if you are in these categories? " No I am not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who gets a to decide who the old & the ‘vulnerable’ are? Who looks after and shields these people? " Statistics - 83% of covid deaths are in the over 70s Additionally, the known high risk categories - diabetics, those with compromised immune systems etc but people should really be able to make the decision for themselves rather than let the nanny state decide. My point is that we shouldn't be locking down 100% of the population for the 20% who are vulnerable. It isn't working anyway and causing huge damage in other ways. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you know if you are vulnerable? Who will look after these people? Who will pay for them to be off work?" They are mostly already shielding and given that most are 70 they are already off work. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you know if you are vulnerable? Who will look after these people? Who will pay for them to be off work? They are mostly already shielding and given that most are 70 they are already off work." Only about 16% of the popular is over 70, what about the other 20-25% who are vulnerable for other reasons? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you know if you are vulnerable? Who will look after these people? Who will pay for them to be off work? They are mostly already shielding and given that most are 70 they are already off work." A sweeping generalization. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As seen on other posts, a minority are pushing the poorly thought through concept of isolating c. 25% of the population, whilst letting the virus ravage through the rest of us and the NHS, stopping health services being able to support others, as death rates rise. Not a solution for a humane, intelligent society You mean ravage through the population like flu does." Thankfully flu doesn't ravage through society like covid-19 does. It's much less infectious, doesn't inflict the scale of catastrophic damage to health that this virus does, leaving people with the high levels of organ damage and failure that this coronavirus does, nor does it not have a vaccine programme yet existing. It's worth a look at the ONS infection and the causes of death for this year, from flu, pneumonia and associated illnesses as well as this coronavirus - and that's despite the partial lockdown that we had. Shielding c. 40% of the population, so that the rest can do the few things not currently possible in most places, so that they can overload hospitals and the health services, whilst waiting lists are the worst over the 10 years of conserve governments, throwing cancer and other illness sufferers to possibly survive etc, is such a poorly thought through concept, lacking even any simple thinking, it's as ridiculous as imposing refugees on dinghies etc to Britain to have to go to Papua New Guinea or Hamilton Island, to wait and be processed there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wonder how many of the people now citing people dying from ailments other than Covid-19 as a reason not to lockdown again voted for the Conservative party? The party that has throughout its history starved the NHS of the required investment. I’d like to think they will take their concern with them to the ballot box at the next election and vote the Conservatives out. After all waiting lists were the longest they have been, and patient satisfaction the lowest it has ever been, prior to the pandemic." Waiting lists the longest they have been in more than a decade. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off That’s the past the figures are whats happing now Yes, because if all the measures put in place, I am not sure what your point is?? I think their point is that they want to go to the pub and fuck people off the internet, that old and disabled people die to allow them to do it is an acceptable level of collateral damage." Assumption is the mother of all fuckups | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wonder how many of the people now citing people dying from ailments other than Covid-19 as a reason not to lockdown again voted for the Conservative party? The party that has throughout its history starved the NHS of the required investment. I’d like to think they will take their concern with them to the ballot box at the next election and vote the Conservatives out. After all waiting lists were the longest they have been, and patient satisfaction the lowest it has ever been, prior to the pandemic." I can assure you I was not one of them who voted them in | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off That’s the past the figures are whats happing now Yes, because if all the measures put in place, I am not sure what your point is?? I think their point is that they want to go to the pub and fuck people off the internet, that old and disabled people die to allow them to do it is an acceptable level of collateral damage. Assumption is the mother of all fuckups" One can only work on the evidence provided. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off That’s the past the figures are whats happing now Yes, because if all the measures put in place, I am not sure what your point is?? I think their point is that they want to go to the pub and fuck people off the internet, that old and disabled people die to allow them to do it is an acceptable level of collateral damage. Assumption is the mother of all fuckups One can only work on the evidence provided." So you know them personally? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What can we infer from tbis? We need to send all the old folks to another island until there is a vaccine ... Isle of Man would be ideal.
I was thinking more Minorca or one of the Canary Islands please
Was'nt Ascension Island mentioned in another context ? Maybe this is the grand plan.
"I lived on Ascension for 3 years, one of the remotest places on earth. I still follow closely what goes on there. Think the person who suggested using it didnt know the runway has been out of commission for 2 years since it collapsed after multiple rain storms & wont be repaired for an other 2! Unless using RAF transport doing tactical landings only access is by boat bearing in mind they only have a pier to off load to with an average sea swell of 2 metres. Its hairy getting off to say the least! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wonder how many of the people now citing people dying from ailments other than Covid-19 as a reason not to lockdown again voted for the Conservative party? The party that has throughout its history starved the NHS of the required investment. I’d like to think they will take their concern with them to the ballot box at the next election and vote the Conservatives out. After all waiting lists were the longest they have been, and patient satisfaction the lowest it has ever been, prior to the pandemic." This | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As seen on other posts, a minority are pushing the poorly thought through concept of isolating c. 25% of the population, whilst letting the virus ravage through the rest of us and the NHS, stopping health services being able to support others, as death rates rise. Not a solution for a humane, intelligent society You mean ravage through the population like flu does. Thankfully flu doesn't ravage through society like covid-19 does. It's much less infectious, doesn't inflict the scale of catastrophic damage to health that this virus does, leaving people with the high levels of organ damage and failure that this coronavirus does, nor does it not have a vaccine programme yet existing. It's worth a look at the ONS infection and the causes of death for this year, from flu, pneumonia and associated illnesses as well as this coronavirus - and that's despite the partial lockdown that we had. Shielding c. 40% of the population, so that the rest can do the few things not currently possible in most places, so that they can overload hospitals and the health services, whilst waiting lists are the worst over the 10 years of conserve governments, throwing cancer and other illness sufferers to possibly survive etc, is such a poorly thought through concept, lacking even any simple thinking, it's as ridiculous as imposing refugees on dinghies etc to Britain to have to go to Papua New Guinea or Hamilton Island, to wait and be processed there. " Two things. 1 this current virus is only slightly more infectious than a standard strain of influenza according to all research!. 2 it wouldn't be anything like 40% of the population, according to data and research less than 10 would require ANY medical intervention at all, that includes just a simple doctors visit let alone ICU. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off . That's just not true, there was a paper released the other day from Birmingham university that showed lockdown had a very minimal effect. Washing hands works, leaving space works, masks well no, a little bit maybe nothing significant. Is there? Do you have a link? So this one paper from Birmingham is more reliable and credible than all the other scientific advice ? . Actually there's been dozens of papers from various top level universities released over the summer showing lockdowns have very little effect and an even worse cost benefit. That's why they were never part of any government epidemic plans pre covid, it was literally used by China so everybody else followed. Dozens? There are dozens of scientists that state the lockdown works? . They may say that but there's little science to show it does, all you've got is correlation at best. And dozens yes wow, there's just as many say it didn't read the Barrington declaration. When did cases of COVID start to slow down and when did that start you increase again? Any ideas? they picked up 2 and a half months after lockdown finished, it's a respiratory illness and a close cousin of the common cold, it was ALWAYS going to pick up in the autumn.
And did the figures go down during the first lockdown? Are you suggesting that if we just all go back to ‘normal ‘ the infection rate won’t rise even further? I don’t think we should go back into a full lockdown but the measures we currently have aren’t working? ". No shit, it's almost like the virus is doing what it likes and your correlating figures to it to presume an outcome. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off . That's just not true, there was a paper released the other day from Birmingham university that showed lockdown had a very minimal effect. Washing hands works, leaving space works, masks well no, a little bit maybe nothing significant. Is there? Do you have a link? So this one paper from Birmingham is more reliable and credible than all the other scientific advice ? . Actually there's been dozens of papers from various top level universities released over the summer showing lockdowns have very little effect and an even worse cost benefit. That's why they were never part of any government epidemic plans pre covid, it was literally used by China so everybody else followed. Dozens? There are dozens of scientists that state the lockdown works? . They may say that but there's little science to show it does, all you've got is correlation at best. And dozens yes wow, there's just as many say it didn't read the Barrington declaration. When did cases of COVID start to slow down and when did that start you increase again? Any ideas? they picked up 2 and a half months after lockdown finished, it's a respiratory illness and a close cousin of the common cold, it was ALWAYS going to pick up in the autumn.
And did the figures go down during the first lockdown? Are you suggesting that if we just all go back to ‘normal ‘ the infection rate won’t rise even further? I don’t think we should go back into a full lockdown but the measures we currently have aren’t working? .
No shit, it's almost like the virus is doing what it likes and your correlating figures to it to presume an outcome."Here are the facts (can you handle facts ?), we went into lockdown, infection rates decreased significantly, we came out of lockdown , infection rates increased significantly. Can you remind me what was your initial point again? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off That’s the past the figures are whats happing now Yes, because if all the measures put in place, I am not sure what your point is?? I think their point is that they want to go to the pub and fuck people off the internet, that old and disabled people die to allow them to do it is an acceptable level of collateral damage. Assumption is the mother of all fuckups One can only work on the evidence provided. So you know them personally?" No, which is why I’m saying one can only work on the evidence provided. Outside of these forums they may be the most caring people on earth but that’s not what their posts on here portray. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off . That's just not true, there was a paper released the other day from Birmingham university that showed lockdown had a very minimal effect. Washing hands works, leaving space works, masks well no, a little bit maybe nothing significant. Is there? Do you have a link? So this one paper from Birmingham is more reliable and credible than all the other scientific advice ? . Actually there's been dozens of papers from various top level universities released over the summer showing lockdowns have very little effect and an even worse cost benefit. That's why they were never part of any government epidemic plans pre covid, it was literally used by China so everybody else followed. Dozens? There are dozens of scientists that state the lockdown works? . They may say that but there's little science to show it does, all you've got is correlation at best. And dozens yes wow, there's just as many say it didn't read the Barrington declaration. When did cases of COVID start to slow down and when did that start you increase again? Any ideas? they picked up 2 and a half months after lockdown finished, it's a respiratory illness and a close cousin of the common cold, it was ALWAYS going to pick up in the autumn.
And did the figures go down during the first lockdown? Are you suggesting that if we just all go back to ‘normal ‘ the infection rate won’t rise even further? I don’t think we should go back into a full lockdown but the measures we currently have aren’t working? .
No shit, it's almost like the virus is doing what it likes and your correlating figures to it to presume an outcome.
Here are the facts (can you handle facts ?), we went into lockdown, infection rates decreased significantly, we came out of lockdown , infection rates increased significantly. Can you remind me what was your initial point again? ". There not facts, the original spike came late February/march as all respiratory infections do, we came out of lockdown months ago and no spike at all whatsoever despite millions packing restaurants beaches and Cornwall Devon Dorset in general the spike has merely come in autumn as all respiratory infections do. It's doing what it wants and lockdowns hardly work as shown by lots of university papers that have been released recently. We're shooting ourselves in the foot economically speaking while under attack. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off . That's just not true, there was a paper released the other day from Birmingham university that showed lockdown had a very minimal effect. Washing hands works, leaving space works, masks well no, a little bit maybe nothing significant. Is there? Do you have a link? So this one paper from Birmingham is more reliable and credible than all the other scientific advice ? . Actually there's been dozens of papers from various top level universities released over the summer showing lockdowns have very little effect and an even worse cost benefit. That's why they were never part of any government epidemic plans pre covid, it was literally used by China so everybody else followed. Dozens? There are dozens of scientists that state the lockdown works? . They may say that but there's little science to show it does, all you've got is correlation at best. And dozens yes wow, there's just as many say it didn't read the Barrington declaration. When did cases of COVID start to slow down and when did that start you increase again? Any ideas? they picked up 2 and a half months after lockdown finished, it's a respiratory illness and a close cousin of the common cold, it was ALWAYS going to pick up in the autumn.
And did the figures go down during the first lockdown? Are you suggesting that if we just all go back to ‘normal ‘ the infection rate won’t rise even further? I don’t think we should go back into a full lockdown but the measures we currently have aren’t working? .
No shit, it's almost like the virus is doing what it likes and your correlating figures to it to presume an outcome.
Here are the facts (can you handle facts ?), we went into lockdown, infection rates decreased significantly, we came out of lockdown , infection rates increased significantly. Can you remind me what was your initial point again? .
There not facts, the original spike came late February/march as all respiratory infections do, we came out of lockdown months ago and no spike at all whatsoever despite millions packing restaurants beaches and Cornwall Devon Dorset in general the spike has merely come in autumn as all respiratory infections do.
It's doing what it wants and lockdowns hardly work as shown by lots of university papers that have been released recently.
We're shooting ourselves in the foot economically speaking while under attack.
"I see, so the lockdowns are a waste of time and money and the infection spikes are completely unrelated to people not being in contact with each other? How do we stop the current rate of infections then without some kind of lockdown restrictions? Btw, Do you have a link to 2 of them? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off . That's just not true, there was a paper released the other day from Birmingham university that showed lockdown had a very minimal effect. Washing hands works, leaving space works, masks well no, a little bit maybe nothing significant. Is there? Do you have a link? So this one paper from Birmingham is more reliable and credible than all the other scientific advice ? . Actually there's been dozens of papers from various top level universities released over the summer showing lockdowns have very little effect and an even worse cost benefit. That's why they were never part of any government epidemic plans pre covid, it was literally used by China so everybody else followed. Dozens? There are dozens of scientists that state the lockdown works? . They may say that but there's little science to show it does, all you've got is correlation at best. And dozens yes wow, there's just as many say it didn't read the Barrington declaration. When did cases of COVID start to slow down and when did that start you increase again? Any ideas? they picked up 2 and a half months after lockdown finished, it's a respiratory illness and a close cousin of the common cold, it was ALWAYS going to pick up in the autumn.
And did the figures go down during the first lockdown? Are you suggesting that if we just all go back to ‘normal ‘ the infection rate won’t rise even further? I don’t think we should go back into a full lockdown but the measures we currently have aren’t working? .
No shit, it's almost like the virus is doing what it likes and your correlating figures to it to presume an outcome.
Here are the facts (can you handle facts ?), we went into lockdown, infection rates decreased significantly, we came out of lockdown , infection rates increased significantly. Can you remind me what was your initial point again? .
There not facts, the original spike came late February/march as all respiratory infections do, we came out of lockdown months ago and no spike at all whatsoever despite millions packing restaurants beaches and Cornwall Devon Dorset in general the spike has merely come in autumn as all respiratory infections do.
It's doing what it wants and lockdowns hardly work as shown by lots of university papers that have been released recently.
We're shooting ourselves in the foot economically speaking while under attack.
I see, so the lockdowns are a waste of time and money and the infection spikes are completely unrelated to people not being in contact with each other? How do we stop the current rate of infections then without some kind of lockdown restrictions? Btw, Do you have a link to 2 of them? ". No and I wouldn't post a link because it wouldn't be allowed. Try googling it, that usually works, something like Birmingham university paper on lockdown efficiency | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the message here is - If you are old (or otherwise vulnerable) then shield otherwise, get on with life. A blanket lockdown is madness while the NHS is coping but those not shielding should still take precautions to help keep it that way. Agree obviously the old and vulnerable have to be extra cautious but shutting down the economy in the long run will in our opinion cause more deaths Who gets a to decide who the old & the ‘vulnerable’ are? Who looks after and shields these people? They decide themselves not every vulnerable person will want to hide away many will want to live there lives So if they die it’s on them as they could’ve stayed locked away in their houses? We are all Adults surely in a free world we decide for ourselves or do you want the State to decide how you live your life ? The state already decides how you live your life in thousands of ways, they’re called laws. What I want the state to do is to allow everyone the same chance to live their lives without having to worry about dying of a highly infectious virus. If that means we all have to suffer some form of inconvenience then so be it." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off . That's just not true, there was a paper released the other day from Birmingham university that showed lockdown had a very minimal effect. Washing hands works, leaving space works, masks well no, a little bit maybe nothing significant. Is there? Do you have a link? So this one paper from Birmingham is more reliable and credible than all the other scientific advice ? . Actually there's been dozens of papers from various top level universities released over the summer showing lockdowns have very little effect and an even worse cost benefit. That's why they were never part of any government epidemic plans pre covid, it was literally used by China so everybody else followed. Dozens? There are dozens of scientists that state the lockdown works? . They may say that but there's little science to show it does, all you've got is correlation at best. And dozens yes wow, there's just as many say it didn't read the Barrington declaration. When did cases of COVID start to slow down and when did that start you increase again? Any ideas? they picked up 2 and a half months after lockdown finished, it's a respiratory illness and a close cousin of the common cold, it was ALWAYS going to pick up in the autumn.
And did the figures go down during the first lockdown? Are you suggesting that if we just all go back to ‘normal ‘ the infection rate won’t rise even further? I don’t think we should go back into a full lockdown but the measures we currently have aren’t working? .
No shit, it's almost like the virus is doing what it likes and your correlating figures to it to presume an outcome.
Here are the facts (can you handle facts ?), we went into lockdown, infection rates decreased significantly, we came out of lockdown , infection rates increased significantly. Can you remind me what was your initial point again? .
There not facts, the original spike came late February/march as all respiratory infections do, we came out of lockdown months ago and no spike at all whatsoever despite millions packing restaurants beaches and Cornwall Devon Dorset in general the spike has merely come in autumn as all respiratory infections do.
It's doing what it wants and lockdowns hardly work as shown by lots of university papers that have been released recently.
We're shooting ourselves in the foot economically speaking while under attack.
I see, so the lockdowns are a waste of time and money and the infection spikes are completely unrelated to people not being in contact with each other? How do we stop the current rate of infections then without some kind of lockdown restrictions? Btw, Do you have a link to 2 of them? .
No and I wouldn't post a link because it wouldn't be allowed.
Try googling it, that usually works, something like Birmingham university paper on lockdown efficiency "Really? I thought there were about a dozen ? How will we slow down the current infection rate without some kind of lockdown?? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If there is to be another lockdown, it should affect everyone, NOT just selectively target people because of their age, race, colour, disability etc. I am unconvinced that lockdown works, I know we must limit the spread and i know reducing contact between people will do that, but since there are so many fucking idiots totally ignoring any rules (current, or previous) is any new lockdown going to work. The ones of us who are staying in (except for work and buying food, and walking alone in the woods) are already limiting the contact as much as possible, the other idiots will do what they want anyway !" I know what you mean, unfortunately it is due to these idiots that we are now in this situation. It is the people who are refusing to wear masks, having parties, ignoring the current rules on social distances etc that will be moaning the loudest when we go back in a partial lockdown | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As seen on other posts, a minority are pushing the poorly thought through concept of isolating c. 25% of the population, whilst letting the virus ravage through the rest of us and the NHS, stopping health services being able to support others, as death rates rise. Not a solution for a humane, intelligent society You mean ravage through the population like flu does. Thankfully flu doesn't ravage through society like covid-19 does. It's much less infectious, doesn't inflict the scale of catastrophic damage to health that this virus does, leaving people with the high levels of organ damage and failure that this coronavirus does, nor does it not have a vaccine programme yet existing. It's worth a look at the ONS infection and the causes of death for this year, from flu, pneumonia and associated illnesses as well as this coronavirus - and that's despite the partial lockdown that we had. Shielding c. 40% of the population, so that the rest can do the few things not currently possible in most places, so that they can overload hospitals and the health services, whilst waiting lists are the worst over the 10 years of conserve governments, throwing cancer and other illness sufferers to possibly survive etc, is such a poorly thought through concept, lacking even any simple thinking, it's as ridiculous as imposing refugees on dinghies etc to Britain to have to go to Papua New Guinea or Hamilton Island, to wait and be processed there. Two things. 1 this current virus is only slightly more infectious than a standard strain of influenza according to all research!. 2 it wouldn't be anything like 40% of the population, according to data and research less than 10 would require ANY medical intervention at all, that includes just a simple doctors visit let alone ICU. " Little comfort in the context if true. Estimates of the proportion of the population that's vulnerable seem to be 25-40%. I initially used 25% though others reference 40%. The BAME populations here are vulnerable, so somebody is presumably proposing ghettos where these will be shielded, separate from or with the rest of the vulnerable people in our society. I've still not seen any detailed proposals and costings for this  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If there is to be another lockdown, it should affect everyone, NOT just selectively target people because of their age, race, colour, disability etc. I am unconvinced that lockdown works, I know we must limit the spread and i know reducing contact between people will do that, but since there are so many fucking idiots totally ignoring any rules (current, or previous) is any new lockdown going to work. The ones of us who are staying in (except for work and buying food, and walking alone in the woods) are already limiting the contact as much as possible, the other idiots will do what they want anyway ! I know what you mean, unfortunately it is due to these idiots that we are now in this situation. It is the people who are refusing to wear masks, having parties, ignoring the current rules on social distances etc that will be moaning the loudest when we go back in a partial lockdown "They are unlikely to moan, they will just do what they want and totally disobey common sense (I dont think the government is applying any by the way). they will do what they did before, have parties, meet off fab, and have granny round for tea ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If there is to be another lockdown, it should affect everyone, NOT just selectively target people because of their age, race, colour, disability etc. I am unconvinced that lockdown works, I know we must limit the spread and i know reducing contact between people will do that, but since there are so many fucking idiots totally ignoring any rules (current, or previous) is any new lockdown going to work. The ones of us who are staying in (except for work and buying food, and walking alone in the woods) are already limiting the contact as much as possible, the other idiots will do what they want anyway ! I know what you mean, unfortunately it is due to these idiots that we are now in this situation. It is the people who are refusing to wear masks, having parties, ignoring the current rules on social distances etc that will be moaning the loudest when we go back in a partial lockdown
They are unlikely to moan, they will just do what they want and totally disobey common sense (I dont think the government is applying any by the way). they will do what they did before, have parties, meet off fab, and have granny round for tea ! "True, unfortunately you can’t educate stupid | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"if that's true that's very interesting i knew it was high but not that high (old) " It's easy to be confused by figures and statistics In this case the "average" age "appears" skewed because the fatality rate of over 75 is much much higher in fact possibly near 100% and that's used by some rather silly people claiming the virus isn't dangerous. That's not to say if you're under 40 and perfectly fit with no underlying conditions that you won't die if you get it. And even if you get it and don't die you could kill your closest friend or family member. Take the average age of deaths over the last two months or so since lockdown had an effect and you'll get a different answer. Some people just don't care about that as long as they can do whatever the fk they want. Sad really. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off . That's just not true, there was a paper released the other day from Birmingham university that showed lockdown had a very minimal effect. Washing hands works, leaving space works, masks well no, a little bit maybe nothing significant. Is there? Do you have a link? So this one paper from Birmingham is more reliable and credible than all the other scientific advice ? . Actually there's been dozens of papers from various top level universities released over the summer showing lockdowns have very little effect and an even worse cost benefit. That's why they were never part of any government epidemic plans pre covid, it was literally used by China so everybody else followed. Dozens? There are dozens of scientists that state the lockdown works? . They may say that but there's little science to show it does, all you've got is correlation at best. And dozens yes wow, there's just as many say it didn't read the Barrington declaration. When did cases of COVID start to slow down and when did that start you increase again? Any ideas? they picked up 2 and a half months after lockdown finished, it's a respiratory illness and a close cousin of the common cold, it was ALWAYS going to pick up in the autumn.
And did the figures go down during the first lockdown? Are you suggesting that if we just all go back to ‘normal ‘ the infection rate won’t rise even further? I don’t think we should go back into a full lockdown but the measures we currently have aren’t working? .
No shit, it's almost like the virus is doing what it likes and your correlating figures to it to presume an outcome.
Here are the facts (can you handle facts ?), we went into lockdown, infection rates decreased significantly, we came out of lockdown , infection rates increased significantly. Can you remind me what was your initial point again? .
There not facts, the original spike came late February/march as all respiratory infections do, we came out of lockdown months ago and no spike at all whatsoever despite millions packing restaurants beaches and Cornwall Devon Dorset in general the spike has merely come in autumn as all respiratory infections do.
It's doing what it wants and lockdowns hardly work as shown by lots of university papers that have been released recently.
We're shooting ourselves in the foot economically speaking while under attack.
"Its a new virus that efficiently overtook a lot of people in a short space of time, we were on the herd immunity band wagon for a week before officials panicked and boom straight into lockdown, as did most of the other countries, we ended up slowing it down too far that people became ignorant of it and boom off we go again We weren't all wearing germ infested masks and touching everything in the summer, we actually were social distancing and washing hands frequently | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"if that's true that's very interesting i knew it was high but not that high (old) It's easy to be confused by figures and statistics In this case the "average" age "appears" skewed because the fatality rate of over 75 is much much higher in fact possibly near 100% and that's used by some rather silly people claiming the virus isn't dangerous. That's not to say if you're under 40 and perfectly fit with no underlying conditions that you won't die if you get it. And even if you get it and don't die you could kill your closest friend or family member. Take the average age of deaths over the last two months or so since lockdown had an effect and you'll get a different answer. Some people just don't care about that as long as they can do whatever the fk they want. Sad really." . Again that's just completely untrue, your just plucking figures out of your you know where. According to ONS the survival rate of 70-80 year old is 8 out 10 from 80-90 it drops to 5 out of 10 and from 90-100 it drops again to 3 out of 10 so in actual fact way more people over 70 survive than die. To claim it's a near 100% fatal is just plain fear mongering nonsense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If there is to be another lockdown, it should affect everyone, NOT just selectively target people because of their age, race, colour, disability etc. I am unconvinced that lockdown works, I know we must limit the spread and i know reducing contact between people will do that, but since there are so many fucking idiots totally ignoring any rules (current, or previous) is any new lockdown going to work. The ones of us who are staying in (except for work and buying food, and walking alone in the woods) are already limiting the contact as much as possible, the other idiots will do what they want anyway ! I know what you mean, unfortunately it is due to these idiots that we are now in this situation. It is the people who are refusing to wear masks, having parties, ignoring the current rules on social distances etc that will be moaning the loudest when we go back in a partial lockdown "And instead of being honest and open with themselves by and their own behaviours will say it's only like flu, the ones dying are old, unhealthy and obese so lock them away whilst we carry on.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"if that's true that's very interesting i knew it was high but not that high (old) It's easy to be confused by figures and statistics In this case the "average" age "appears" skewed because the fatality rate of over 75 is much much higher in fact possibly near 100% and that's used by some rather silly people claiming the virus isn't dangerous. That's not to say if you're under 40 and perfectly fit with no underlying conditions that you won't die if you get it. And even if you get it and don't die you could kill your closest friend or family member. Take the average age of deaths over the last two months or so since lockdown had an effect and you'll get a different answer. Some people just don't care about that as long as they can do whatever the fk they want. Sad really.. Again that's just completely untrue, your just plucking figures out of your you know where. According to ONS the survival rate of 70-80 year old is 8 out 10 from 80-90 it drops to 5 out of 10 and from 90-100 it drops again to 3 out of 10 so in actual fact way more people over 70 survive than die. To claim it's a near 100% fatal is just plain fear mongering nonsense." Ah, so it’s 20% chance of death for 70-80, 50% for 80-90 & 70% for 90-100 year olds? Would you take your chances at that age? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As seen on other posts, a minority are pushing the poorly thought through concept of isolating c. 25% of the population, whilst letting the virus ravage through the rest of us and the NHS, stopping health services being able to support others, as death rates rise. Not a solution for a humane, intelligent society You mean ravage through the population like flu does. Thankfully flu doesn't ravage through society like covid-19 does. It's much less infectious, doesn't inflict the scale of catastrophic damage to health that this virus does, leaving people with the high levels of organ damage and failure that this coronavirus does, nor does it not have a vaccine programme yet existing. It's worth a look at the ONS infection and the causes of death for this year, from flu, pneumonia and associated illnesses as well as this coronavirus - and that's despite the partial lockdown that we had. Shielding c. 40% of the population, so that the rest can do the few things not currently possible in most places, so that they can overload hospitals and the health services, whilst waiting lists are the worst over the 10 years of conserve governments, throwing cancer and other illness sufferers to possibly survive etc, is such a poorly thought through concept, lacking even any simple thinking, it's as ridiculous as imposing refugees on dinghies etc to Britain to have to go to Papua New Guinea or Hamilton Island, to wait and be processed there. Two things. 1 this current virus is only slightly more infectious than a standard strain of influenza according to all research!. 2 it wouldn't be anything like 40% of the population, according to data and research less than 10 would require ANY medical intervention at all, that includes just a simple doctors visit let alone ICU. Little comfort in the context if true. Estimates of the proportion of the population that's vulnerable seem to be 25-40%. I initially used 25% though others reference 40%. The BAME populations here are vulnerable, so somebody is presumably proposing ghettos where these will be shielded, separate from or with the rest of the vulnerable people in our society. I've still not seen any detailed proposals and costings for this ". Again I'm quoting British medical journal published figures, less than 10% of the population will even require ANY medical intervention at all. GHETTOS!! is there any more drama you'd like to insert . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If there is to be another lockdown, it should affect everyone, NOT just selectively target people because of their age, race, colour, disability etc. I am unconvinced that lockdown works, I know we must limit the spread and i know reducing contact between people will do that, but since there are so many fucking idiots totally ignoring any rules (current, or previous) is any new lockdown going to work. The ones of us who are staying in (except for work and buying food, and walking alone in the woods) are already limiting the contact as much as possible, the other idiots will do what they want anyway ! I know what you mean, unfortunately it is due to these idiots that we are now in this situation. It is the people who are refusing to wear masks, having parties, ignoring the current rules on social distances etc that will be moaning the loudest when we go back in a partial lockdown
And instead of being honest and open with themselves by and their own behaviours will say it's only like flu, the ones dying are old, unhealthy and obese so lock them away whilst we carry on.. "Exactly, or try and twist or use false statistics to suit and justify their selfish agenda | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As seen on other posts, a minority are pushing the poorly thought through concept of isolating c. 25% of the population, whilst letting the virus ravage through the rest of us and the NHS, stopping health services being able to support others, as death rates rise. Not a solution for a humane, intelligent society You mean ravage through the population like flu does. Thankfully flu doesn't ravage through society like covid-19 does. It's much less infectious, doesn't inflict the scale of catastrophic damage to health that this virus does, leaving people with the high levels of organ damage and failure that this coronavirus does, nor does it not have a vaccine programme yet existing. It's worth a look at the ONS infection and the causes of death for this year, from flu, pneumonia and associated illnesses as well as this coronavirus - and that's despite the partial lockdown that we had. Shielding c. 40% of the population, so that the rest can do the few things not currently possible in most places, so that they can overload hospitals and the health services, whilst waiting lists are the worst over the 10 years of conserve governments, throwing cancer and other illness sufferers to possibly survive etc, is such a poorly thought through concept, lacking even any simple thinking, it's as ridiculous as imposing refugees on dinghies etc to Britain to have to go to Papua New Guinea or Hamilton Island, to wait and be processed there. Two things. 1 this current virus is only slightly more infectious than a standard strain of influenza according to all research!. 2 it wouldn't be anything like 40% of the population, according to data and research less than 10 would require ANY medical intervention at all, that includes just a simple doctors visit let alone ICU. Little comfort in the context if true. Estimates of the proportion of the population that's vulnerable seem to be 25-40%. I initially used 25% though others reference 40%. The BAME populations here are vulnerable, so somebody is presumably proposing ghettos where these will be shielded, separate from or with the rest of the vulnerable people in our society. I've still not seen any detailed proposals and costings for this .
Again I'm quoting British medical journal published figures, less than 10% of the population will even require ANY medical intervention at all.
GHETTOS!! is there any more drama you'd like to insert ."10% of the UKs population is 6.7 million people | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 " Wow that really puts it into perspective... i wonder what science the gvt are using to impose restrictions and lockdowns? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Wow that really puts it into perspective... i wonder what science the gvt are using to impose restrictions and lockdowns?" Apart from COVID are any of those causes of death highly contagious? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"if that's true that's very interesting i knew it was high but not that high (old) It's easy to be confused by figures and statistics In this case the "average" age "appears" skewed because the fatality rate of over 75 is much much higher in fact possibly near 100% and that's used by some rather silly people claiming the virus isn't dangerous. That's not to say if you're under 40 and perfectly fit with no underlying conditions that you won't die if you get it. And even if you get it and don't die you could kill your closest friend or family member. Take the average age of deaths over the last two months or so since lockdown had an effect and you'll get a different answer. Some people just don't care about that as long as they can do whatever the fk they want. Sad really.. Again that's just completely untrue, your just plucking figures out of your you know where. According to ONS the survival rate of 70-80 year old is 8 out 10 from 80-90 it drops to 5 out of 10 and from 90-100 it drops again to 3 out of 10 so in actual fact way more people over 70 survive than die. To claim it's a near 100% fatal is just plain fear mongering nonsense. Ah, so it’s 20% chance of death for 70-80, 50% for 80-90 & 70% for 90-100 year olds? Would you take your chances at that age? ". So to be clear even you admit it's not 100% fatal for over 70 year olds .
The risk of death increases with age just like every other virus and medical procedure, the older you get the more comorbidities you rack up in general, it's this combined with age that makes you vulnerable hence the average age compiled from the 50k deaths so far is 82 with an average of 2.7 comorbidities each.
It is entirely possible with a good plan and spending alot of money to shield this group as best as possible while the rest of us (who according to the British medical journal 90% of us won't even require any medical intervention at all) crack on with life and economic income that will be needed to pay for the cost of this epidemic.
It's winter coming, cases of respiratory illness will rise, hospitals fill up with them every year they have done for time and memorial, we've wasted the entire summer with this bullshit lockdown unproven nonsense which has got us nowhere as Swedens epidemiologist said from day one. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"if that's true that's very interesting i knew it was high but not that high (old) It's easy to be confused by figures and statistics In this case the "average" age "appears" skewed because the fatality rate of over 75 is much much higher in fact possibly near 100% and that's used by some rather silly people claiming the virus isn't dangerous. That's not to say if you're under 40 and perfectly fit with no underlying conditions that you won't die if you get it. And even if you get it and don't die you could kill your closest friend or family member. Take the average age of deaths over the last two months or so since lockdown had an effect and you'll get a different answer. Some people just don't care about that as long as they can do whatever the fk they want. Sad really.. Again that's just completely untrue, your just plucking figures out of your you know where. According to ONS the survival rate of 70-80 year old is 8 out 10 from 80-90 it drops to 5 out of 10 and from 90-100 it drops again to 3 out of 10 so in actual fact way more people over 70 survive than die. To claim it's a near 100% fatal is just plain fear mongering nonsense. Ah, so it’s 20% chance of death for 70-80, 50% for 80-90 & 70% for 90-100 year olds? Would you take your chances at that age? .
So to be clear even you admit it's not 100% fatal for over 70 year olds .
The risk of death increases with age just like every other virus and medical procedure, the older you get the more comorbidities you rack up in general, it's this combined with age that makes you vulnerable hence the average age compiled from the 50k deaths so far is 82 with an average of 2.7 comorbidities each.
It is entirely possible with a good plan and spending alot of money to shield this group as best as possible while the rest of us (who according to the British medical journal 90% of us won't even require any medical intervention at all) crack on with life and economic income that will be needed to pay for the cost of this epidemic.
It's winter coming, cases of respiratory illness will rise, hospitals fill up with them every year they have done for time and memorial, we've wasted the entire summer with this bullshit lockdown unproven nonsense which has got us nowhere as Swedens epidemiologist said from day one."You think Sweden go it right from the start? https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-europe-52903717 Have a read | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Wow that really puts it into perspective... i wonder what science the gvt are using to impose restrictions and lockdowns? Apart from COVID are any of those causes of death highly contagious? "Or likely to mutate. The next covid type virus, and there will be one, could kill 95% of those that get infected irrespective of age. Let's not give the current one a headstart in mutating. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"if that's true that's very interesting i knew it was high but not that high (old) It's easy to be confused by figures and statistics In this case the "average" age "appears" skewed because the fatality rate of over 75 is much much higher in fact possibly near 100% and that's used by some rather silly people claiming the virus isn't dangerous. That's not to say if you're under 40 and perfectly fit with no underlying conditions that you won't die if you get it. And even if you get it and don't die you could kill your closest friend or family member. Take the average age of deaths over the last two months or so since lockdown had an effect and you'll get a different answer. Some people just don't care about that as long as they can do whatever the fk they want. Sad really.. Again that's just completely untrue, your just plucking figures out of your you know where. According to ONS the survival rate of 70-80 year old is 8 out 10 from 80-90 it drops to 5 out of 10 and from 90-100 it drops again to 3 out of 10 so in actual fact way more people over 70 survive than die. To claim it's a near 100% fatal is just plain fear mongering nonsense. Ah, so it’s 20% chance of death for 70-80, 50% for 80-90 & 70% for 90-100 year olds? Would you take your chances at that age? .
So to be clear even you admit it's not 100% fatal for over 70 year olds .
The risk of death increases with age just like every other virus and medical procedure, the older you get the more comorbidities you rack up in general, it's this combined with age that makes you vulnerable hence the average age compiled from the 50k deaths so far is 82 with an average of 2.7 comorbidities each.
It is entirely possible with a good plan and spending alot of money to shield this group as best as possible while the rest of us (who according to the British medical journal 90% of us won't even require any medical intervention at all) crack on with life and economic income that will be needed to pay for the cost of this epidemic.
It's winter coming, cases of respiratory illness will rise, hospitals fill up with them every year they have done for time and memorial, we've wasted the entire summer with this bullshit lockdown unproven nonsense which has got us nowhere as Swedens epidemiologist said from day one.
You think Sweden go it right from the start?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-europe-52903717
Have a read ". Are you telling me there team of crack scientific epidemiologist, virologists, statisticans, modellers and experts got it wrong?. If that's the case what makes you think ours haven't as well  .
See for as many countries that seem to have done well via lockdowns there's just as many didn't with them, Sweden didn't lockdown yet did better than some that did and worse than others, of course it's not over yet? This winter will tell if Sweden got it right or the others didn't, right now in Sweden is faring much better than most of Europe that did, spikes are jumping up in Denmark which only last month you were telling me was the model to follow, Germany which six months ago you were telling us is the model to follow.
To be honest you seem to pick any model at any time that suits your narrative?.
I'm not here to say some won't die, many will, just like many always do, it's sad but it's life, the over whelming majority will be old and infirm and I think we should spend lots and lots of money shielding them the best we can and I think we can if we get a government that's at the very least competent, on that front I don't hold much hope, these people will still die under your plan but at least my plan might have been able to save there grandchildren, your plan will Doom them too.
  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"if that's true that's very interesting i knew it was high but not that high (old) It's easy to be confused by figures and statistics In this case the "average" age "appears" skewed because the fatality rate of over 75 is much much higher in fact possibly near 100% and that's used by some rather silly people claiming the virus isn't dangerous. That's not to say if you're under 40 and perfectly fit with no underlying conditions that you won't die if you get it. And even if you get it and don't die you could kill your closest friend or family member. Take the average age of deaths over the last two months or so since lockdown had an effect and you'll get a different answer. Some people just don't care about that as long as they can do whatever the fk they want. Sad really.. Again that's just completely untrue, your just plucking figures out of your you know where. According to ONS the survival rate of 70-80 year old is 8 out 10 from 80-90 it drops to 5 out of 10 and from 90-100 it drops again to 3 out of 10 so in actual fact way more people over 70 survive than die. To claim it's a near 100% fatal is just plain fear mongering nonsense. Ah, so it’s 20% chance of death for 70-80, 50% for 80-90 & 70% for 90-100 year olds? Would you take your chances at that age? .
So to be clear even you admit it's not 100% fatal for over 70 year olds .
The risk of death increases with age just like every other virus and medical procedure, the older you get the more comorbidities you rack up in general, it's this combined with age that makes you vulnerable hence the average age compiled from the 50k deaths so far is 82 with an average of 2.7 comorbidities each.
It is entirely possible with a good plan and spending alot of money to shield this group as best as possible while the rest of us (who according to the British medical journal 90% of us won't even require any medical intervention at all) crack on with life and economic income that will be needed to pay for the cost of this epidemic.
It's winter coming, cases of respiratory illness will rise, hospitals fill up with them every year they have done for time and memorial, we've wasted the entire summer with this bullshit lockdown unproven nonsense which has got us nowhere as Swedens epidemiologist said from day one.
You think Sweden go it right from the start?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-europe-52903717
Have a read .
Are you telling me there team of crack scientific epidemiologist, virologists, statisticans, modellers and experts got it wrong?. If that's the case what makes you think ours haven't as well .
See for as many countries that seem to have done well via lockdowns there's just as many didn't with them, Sweden didn't lockdown yet did better than some that did and worse than others, of course it's not over yet? This winter will tell if Sweden got it right or the others didn't, right now in Sweden is faring much better than most of Europe that did, spikes are jumping up in Denmark which only last month you were telling me was the model to follow, Germany which six months ago you were telling us is the model to follow.
To be honest you seem to pick any model at any time that suits your narrative?.
I'm not here to say some won't die, many will, just like many always do, it's sad but it's life, the over whelming majority will be old and infirm and I think we should spend lots and lots of money shielding them the best we can and I think we can if we get a government that's at the very least competent, on that front I don't hold much hope, these people will still die under your plan but at least my plan might have been able to save there grandchildren, your plan will Doom them too.
"You obviously didn’t read or watch the link. To summarise the Swedish epidemiologist apologise for getting it wrong and causing unnecessary deaths that could have been avoided with a lockdown. When did I suggest we should follow the Denmark model? You are starting to make a fool out of yourself, again | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"if that's true that's very interesting i knew it was high but not that high (old) It's easy to be confused by figures and statistics In this case the "average" age "appears" skewed because the fatality rate of over 75 is much much higher in fact possibly near 100% and that's used by some rather silly people claiming the virus isn't dangerous. That's not to say if you're under 40 and perfectly fit with no underlying conditions that you won't die if you get it. And even if you get it and don't die you could kill your closest friend or family member. Take the average age of deaths over the last two months or so since lockdown had an effect and you'll get a different answer. Some people just don't care about that as long as they can do whatever the fk they want. Sad really.. Again that's just completely untrue, your just plucking figures out of your you know where. According to ONS the survival rate of 70-80 year old is 8 out 10 from 80-90 it drops to 5 out of 10 and from 90-100 it drops again to 3 out of 10 so in actual fact way more people over 70 survive than die. To claim it's a near 100% fatal is just plain fear mongering nonsense." I stand by my statement | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hasn’t it been explained enough why comparisons with Sweden are pointless?" Obviously not, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Wow that really puts it into perspective... i wonder what science the gvt are using to impose restrictions and lockdowns? Apart from COVID are any of those causes of death highly contagious?
Or likely to mutate. The next covid type virus, and there will be one, could kill 95% of those that get infected irrespective of age. Let's not give the current one a headstart in mutating. "Its rare for any infectious agent to mutate into something more lethal. Being too lethal isn't a good evolutionary strategy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What I get from this is if your old and or have existing problems you should be taking extra precautions as the rest of the population just aren't doing what they are told and won't no matter who tells them what. Just today in a shop I had to stop my self saying something to a bunch of elderly teenagers not wearing masks. I thought twice after last time though and the abuse I got on my part for asking why a group of people weren't wearing them. It's a simple thing but it just shows, the measures in place aren't working. Lockdown, masks, social distancing, washing hands may all work in theory but in reality people just aren't doing it. " What's an elderly teenager? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What I get from this is if your old and or have existing problems you should be taking extra precautions as the rest of the population just aren't doing what they are told and won't no matter who tells them what. Just today in a shop I had to stop my self saying something to a bunch of elderly teenagers not wearing masks. I thought twice after last time though and the abuse I got on my part for asking why a group of people weren't wearing them. It's a simple thing but it just shows, the measures in place aren't working. Lockdown, masks, social distancing, washing hands may all work in theory but in reality people just aren't doing it. What's an elderly teenager?" An OAP who acts irresponsibly, like a teenager?! Am hypothesising | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the message here is - If you are old (or otherwise vulnerable) then shield otherwise, get on with life. A blanket lockdown is madness while the NHS is coping but those not shielding should still take precautions to help keep it that way." No that is madness, there is more and more evidence coming to light that young people may be more likely to die due to their own defence mechanisms killing them in what is termed cytokine storm. There is also evidence showing young people suffering extensive lung damage which may require lung transplant later. The problem with covid is we do not yet know enough about it dangers partly because as with any new virus the old and the sick tend to be most affected in the first wave | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off " Covid is around more than before yet there are less deaths. I don't get it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the message here is - If you are old (or otherwise vulnerable) then shield otherwise, get on with life. A blanket lockdown is madness while the NHS is coping but those not shielding should still take precautions to help keep it that way. No that is madness, there is more and more evidence coming to light that young people may be more likely to die due to their own defence mechanisms killing them in what is termed cytokine storm. There is also evidence showing young people suffering extensive lung damage which may require lung transplant later. The problem with covid is we do not yet know enough about it dangers partly because as with any new virus the old and the sick tend to be most affected in the first wave" Who’s put the fear of god in you. What tosh! Get a grip. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the message here is - If you are old (or otherwise vulnerable) then shield otherwise, get on with life. A blanket lockdown is madness while the NHS is coping but those not shielding should still take precautions to help keep it that way. No that is madness, there is more and more evidence coming to light that young people may be more likely to die due to their own defence mechanisms killing them in what is termed cytokine storm. There is also evidence showing young people suffering extensive lung damage which may require lung transplant later. The problem with covid is we do not yet know enough about it dangers partly because as with any new virus the old and the sick tend to be most affected in the first wave Who’s put the fear of god in you. What tosh! Get a grip. " Tell that to the students in Manchester, read what the doctors and nurses who are treating them are saying. We do not fear covid, and apart from not meeting others for sex have made very few changes to our lifestyle. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"if that's true that's very interesting i knew it was high but not that high (old) It's easy to be confused by figures and statistics In this case the "average" age "appears" skewed because the fatality rate of over 75 is much much higher in fact possibly near 100% and that's used by some rather silly people claiming the virus isn't dangerous. That's not to say if you're under 40 and perfectly fit with no underlying conditions that you won't die if you get it. And even if you get it and don't die you could kill your closest friend or family member. Take the average age of deaths over the last two months or so since lockdown had an effect and you'll get a different answer. Some people just don't care about that as long as they can do whatever the fk they want. Sad really.. Again that's just completely untrue, your just plucking figures out of your you know where. According to ONS the survival rate of 70-80 year old is 8 out 10 from 80-90 it drops to 5 out of 10 and from 90-100 it drops again to 3 out of 10 so in actual fact way more people over 70 survive than die. To claim it's a near 100% fatal is just plain fear mongering nonsense. I stand by my statement" . Well all I can see to you is your either deliberately fear mongering or an idiot. I'm not bothered which | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
i'll email boris now | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the message here is - If you are old (or otherwise vulnerable) then shield otherwise, get on with life. A blanket lockdown is madness while the NHS is coping but those not shielding should still take precautions to help keep it that way." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the message here is - If you are old (or otherwise vulnerable) then shield otherwise, get on with life. A blanket lockdown is madness while the NHS is coping but those not shielding should still take precautions to help keep it that way. Agree obviously the old and vulnerable have to be extra cautious but shutting down the economy in the long run will in our opinion cause more deaths Who gets a to decide who the old & the ‘vulnerable’ are? Who looks after and shields these people? They decide themselves not every vulnerable person will want to hide away many will want to live there lives" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the message here is - If you are old (or otherwise vulnerable) then shield otherwise, get on with life. A blanket lockdown is madness while the NHS is coping but those not shielding should still take precautions to help keep it that way. Agree obviously the old and vulnerable have to be extra cautious but shutting down the economy in the long run will in our opinion cause more deaths Who gets a to decide who the old & the ‘vulnerable’ are? Who looks after and shields these people? They decide themselves not every vulnerable person will want to hide away many will want to live there lives So if they die it’s on them as they could’ve stayed locked away in their houses? We are all Adults surely in a free world we decide for ourselves or do you want the State to decide how you live your life ? To be fair the state do determine what we do, we cant drive at 150mph on the M1 and that is decided by the state, we cant kill the annoying twat next door for playing Queen at 3am decided by the state, but some things they restrict us from doing make sense, and have a solid basis in fact and reasonable logic; at the moment some of what they are deciding has neither, and it is going to get worse before it gets better. Free world .... hmm i am not sure that applies now !" Well you can drive at 150 and kill the annoying neighbour... You just got to be prepared for the consequences | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"well that looks like the cure to me. kill everyone close to or over 81. then we can all get back to normal
i'll email boris now". No according to ons figures it would be those that we need to shield, not once have I suggested we should just let this virus rip through the over 70s, with proper planning and some considerable spending it would be possible to shield that bracket most at risk is what I actually said while allowing those at minimal risk to continue life and economic prosperity that will allow us to pay for such grand schemes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the message here is - If you are old (or otherwise vulnerable) then shield otherwise, get on with life. A blanket lockdown is madness while the NHS is coping but those not shielding should still take precautions to help keep it that way. No that is madness, there is more and more evidence coming to light that young people may be more likely to die due to their own defence mechanisms killing them in what is termed cytokine storm. There is also evidence showing young people suffering extensive lung damage which may require lung transplant later. The problem with covid is we do not yet know enough about it dangers partly because as with any new virus the old and the sick tend to be most affected in the first wave Who’s put the fear of god in you. What tosh! Get a grip. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As seen on other posts, a minority are pushing the poorly thought through concept of isolating c. 25% of the population, whilst letting the virus ravage through the rest of us and the NHS, stopping health services being able to support others, as death rates rise. Not a solution for a humane, intelligent society Perhaps not unsurprisingly on a site where the most basic of desires for some comes before all else.. " You know.... there’s the thing.... I’ve stopped myself for weeks... but aren’t we as a group a bit rich for telling each other what we, and the wider public, should be doing. ‘We’, largely, are here to swap partners, saliva, sweat, cum, etc with others. We pass around infections, knowingly or unknowingly, to others. Treatment of infections has an impact on the NHS .... what the shite are we all doing here? Why is a single partner not enough for us filthy disease ridden animals? Why can’t we do what’s best for everyone? In ‘normal’ day to day society we have been responsible for transmitting infections .... how dare you! I don’t need figures, I don’t need a cost.... however great or small there is an impact so why are we arguing as though we are all the protectors of the nation? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 " Let’s also remember when Covid gets a real grip like it stated to earlier in the year, the weekly average Covid deaths can easily dwarf all other deaths | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Let’s also remember when Covid gets a real grip like it stated to earlier in the year, the weekly average Covid deaths can easily dwarf all other deaths" It’s like they can wipe them out! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off . That's just not true, there was a paper released the other day from Birmingham university that showed lockdown had a very minimal effect. Washing hands works, leaving space works, masks well no, a little bit maybe nothing significant. Is there? Do you have a link? So this one paper from Birmingham is more reliable and credible than all the other scientific advice ? . Actually there's been dozens of papers from various top level universities released over the summer showing lockdowns have very little effect and an even worse cost benefit. That's why they were never part of any government epidemic plans pre covid, it was literally used by China so everybody else followed." And despite these studies you quote many countries in Europe are already in or contemplating further lockdowns. Someone is wrong | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What is the point of this thread exactly?" It's a filter | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The average age of people who have died from Covid is 82.4 this figure is computed from the office of National statistics, this is significantly higher than the average age of deaths from other causes which is 81.5 " #old lives matter | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off . That's just not true, there was a paper released the other day from Birmingham university that showed lockdown had a very minimal effect. Washing hands works, leaving space works, masks well no, a little bit maybe nothing significant. Is there? Do you have a link? So this one paper from Birmingham is more reliable and credible than all the other scientific advice ? . Actually there's been dozens of papers from various top level universities released over the summer showing lockdowns have very little effect and an even worse cost benefit. That's why they were never part of any government epidemic plans pre covid, it was literally used by China so everybody else followed. And despite these studies you quote many countries in Europe are already in or contemplating further lockdowns. Someone is wrong "That's because there all run by megalomaniacs who run things for they're own and friends benefits. It's the age of cronyism. This virus didn't have to be politicised but they made a dammed good job of making sure it was, every politican, every media outlet and most of the fervent political heads on here!. All these groups have an agenda, I don't, I'm trying to give honest facts, I'm not lying, I don't think we can save every elderly vulnerable person, we can mitigate the best were can, we could have spent that 3.7 billion on eat out to help out on trying to shield them the best we can. Lockdowns are pointless scientifically proven poor cost benefit rubbish, there nothing but a way of stamping authoritarian dictate on anybody who disagrees, it's the masterclass of stazi like surveillance while empowering mob rule. What's the big data say is really the only talking point and unhindered by morality granny killing bullshit. Average age 82 average underlying comorbidities 2.7 these things matter when your saying we need to do stuff that's going to have serious affects on 90% of the population that wouldn't be effected by sars-cov2. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What can we infer from tbis? We need to send all the old folks to another island until there is a vaccine ... Isle of Man would be ideal. "wat like huge liquidation camps you Nazi | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Last week’s average of deaths in U.K. was Cancer 450, Dementia 214. ,Heart disease , 174 , Covid , 56 , suicide 18 Are any of those non COVID causes of death highly contagious? obviously not but puts it in perspective of what deaths are occurring COVID deaths are currently low because of all the measures in place, at its peak there were nearly 2000 deaths a day off . That's just not true, there was a paper released the other day from Birmingham university that showed lockdown had a very minimal effect. Washing hands works, leaving space works, masks well no, a little bit maybe nothing significant. Is there? Do you have a link? So this one paper from Birmingham is more reliable and credible than all the other scientific advice ? . Actually there's been dozens of papers from various top level universities released over the summer showing lockdowns have very little effect and an even worse cost benefit. That's why they were never part of any government epidemic plans pre covid, it was literally used by China so everybody else followed. And despite these studies you quote many countries in Europe are already in or contemplating further lockdowns. Someone is wrong
That's because there all run by megalomaniacs who run things for they're own and friends benefits.
It's the age of cronyism.
This virus didn't have to be politicised but they made a dammed good job of making sure it was, every politican, every media outlet and most of the fervent political heads on here!.
All these groups have an agenda, I don't, I'm trying to give honest facts, I'm not lying, I don't think we can save every elderly vulnerable person, we can mitigate the best were can, we could have spent that 3.7 billion on eat out to help out on trying to shield them the best we can.
Lockdowns are pointless scientifically proven poor cost benefit rubbish, there nothing but a way of stamping authoritarian dictate on anybody who disagrees, it's the masterclass of stazi like surveillance while empowering mob rule.
What's the big data say is really the only talking point and unhindered by morality granny killing bullshit.
Average age 82 average underlying comorbidities 2.7 these things matter when your saying we need to do stuff that's going to have serious affects on 90% of the population that wouldn't be effected by sars-cov2."Thankfully you opinion is worthless and the people in charge know more about the figures than you do. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This Gov & Trace App is the Virus" Really ? I'll be eternally grateful for that pearl of wisdom | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its ridiculous that we have all these lockdowns and restrictions for an illness where the average age of death is so high. That's older than average life expectancy (81.1 years) which would suggest the majority of people who have died, would have died anyhow. " Everyone dies, so I’m not sure what your point is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its ridiculous that we have all these lockdowns and restrictions for an illness where the average age of death is so high. That's older than average life expectancy (81.1 years) which would suggest the majority of people who have died, would have died anyhow. Everyone dies, so I’m not sure what your point is." Not everyone dies of Covid,in fact majority dont. Agreed everyone dies at some point in their life so my point was that these lockdowns/restrictions are totally ridiculous. We need to just learn to live with it and get things back to normal. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its ridiculous that we have all these lockdowns and restrictions for an illness where the average age of death is so high. That's older than average life expectancy (81.1 years) which would suggest the majority of people who have died, would have died anyhow. Everyone dies, so I’m not sure what your point is. Not everyone dies of Covid,in fact majority dont. Agreed everyone dies at some point in their life so my point was that these lockdowns/restrictions are totally ridiculous. We need to just learn to live with it and get things back to normal." Some dies solely of covid', that's a fact and some will have other pre conditions which they may have lived a lot longer with till covid came along.. So yes everyone dies, no one is saying otherwise but it's about looking after everyone we can.. Those who are elderly, those with underlying health issues, those who may not even be aware they have underlying health issues till they contract covid and of course those who think a lot of the above are expendable as long as they can get back to casual sex.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
