FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > does anyone think lockdown is a bad idea?

does anyone think lockdown is a bad idea?

By *rbrooks OP Man over a year ago

birmingham

i mean we are supposed to go along with it becuase it 'protects the NHS' - but what if you think its consequences will be more damaging than the virus?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ionelhutzMan over a year ago

liverpool

"i mean we are supposed to go along with it becuase it 'protects the NHS' - but what if you think its consequences will be more damaging than the virus?"

Nope.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It's a no from me.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hetalkingstoveMan over a year ago

London

What do you mean by 'the consequences'? economic consequences? Because just letting the virus run through the country would not be good for the economy.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What do you mean by 'the consequences'? economic consequences? Because just letting the virus run through the country would not be good for the economy."

Wel it would because the less unfortunate would/died so the government have more money .We are in the long run cannon fodder When this first starte it was about lives now its about economy?Doesnt take much working out,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Worse than death?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rbrooks OP Man over a year ago

birmingham

"What do you mean by 'the consequences'? economic consequences? Because just letting the virus run through the country would not be good for the economy."

A crash bigger than that seen in the 1920's will be devestating. I just dont think people are ready for what is coming

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rbrooks OP Man over a year ago

birmingham

"Worse than death? "

the economy pays for the NHS. Austerity was bad but we are now facing austerity on steroids

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 18/04/20 00:36:33]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Worse than death?

the economy pays for the NHS. Austerity was bad but we are now facing austerity on steroids"

I agree 100%

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ykmwyldTV/TS over a year ago

Belpre

Of course not, it's absolutely necessary at this point, because governments didn't close their borders soon enough to stop the spread of the virus. Now we have to suffer the lose of lives, economy, and normal freedoms we all enjoy, until they can develop a vaccine against this virus. It's going to take quite awhile, so keep your chins up people, it's a long road back to what will be the new normal.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hetalkingstoveMan over a year ago

London

"What do you mean by 'the consequences'? economic consequences? Because just letting the virus run through the country would not be good for the economy.

No, even putting aside the moral argument of letting people die, that's not correct.

If we let covid spread through the population then it doesn't just mean everyone gets it and then gets back to work with no economic impact. It means we get a huge demand on health services in a short time that costs us a load more money to deal with. And it means many people are suddenly all at once unable to work.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hetalkingstoveMan over a year ago

London

"Worse than death?

the economy pays for the NHS. Austerity was bad but we are now facing austerity on steroids

I agree 100%"

Nope. Austerity was always a choice, and it will be again.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *xtrafun4youMan over a year ago

Dunstable

"i mean we are supposed to go along with it becuase it 'protects the NHS' - but what if you think its consequences will be more damaging than the virus?"
yep I have to go bankrupt now loose everything. As the government shut building sites down. But I could keep a 2 meter or more away from anyone. !

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

A large proportion of the workforce are asymptomatic and don't live with anyone immunocompromised. The government should have had a better strategy for identifying those people rather than the knee jerk reaction to close everything non-essential. South korea did not have a lockdown at all. We wouldn't have needed a severe lockdown if we had testing and contact tracing. 'Lockdown and print money' is the lazy option that shows the incompetence of the leaders.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *arentsgonebadCouple over a year ago

sheffield

Not necessarily the goverment need us to spend once this is over austerity will not work your more likely to see a boom and busy approach is easier access to loans mortgages credit cards even for people with poor credit to inject the market

"Worse than death?

the economy pays for the NHS. Austerity was bad but we are now facing austerity on steroids"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 18/04/20 01:53:34]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rFunBoyMan over a year ago

Longridge

[Removed by poster at 18/04/20 01:57:27]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rFunBoyMan over a year ago

Longridge

If Boris had pulled his fingers out of his backside in January when it started to look frightening on the news reports from China, then closer to home in Italy then we would have had testing, adequate PPE and everying else in place for the arrival and control of on our shores.

Germany and South Korea are doing well, why? Testing, tracing and a lot if it.

Caught with his pants down is an understatement thats cost countless lives and money.

It didn't need confirmation from the WHO to see what was heading our way and yet, they told us it would be no worse than a good dose of flu and many without symptoms at all.

It was that stupidity that is causing children to now having to adjust and live without parents and grandparents who have died sooner than they should.

The response is a complete and total fuck-up from the outset.

Herd Immunity to a highly contagious and high mortality disease is complete bollox. Even if China wasn't completly straight, Italy should have been good enough warning.

For Hancock yesterday claiming that there is a shortage of gowns due to the 'wrong type' of virus in that full body covering is required is an insult to NHS frontline workers and families.

Canon Fodder comes to mind, the outcries over the military being under abd wrongly equipped, yet NHS and Care Workers are expected to fight without adequate protection.

My mother has been a prisioner in her own home for a month and looks likely will be until a vaccine us available - a small but needless price to pay.

Are people seriously suggesting we sacrifice our parents in order to save the economy and way of life?

These people made thier sacrifices for this country between 1935 and the late 1950's and wrong to ask them to fall again for the benefit of an ungrateful few.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *arentsgonebadCouple over a year ago

sheffield

Sorry but I don't agree with that the response was justified was all in accordance to the chef medical expert and inaccordance who guidelines.

You cannot prepare 100% for a pandemic hence the term pandemic doesn't matter of you know it's coming or not , they know tsunamis and hurricanes coming and where they will land but the can't stop the deviation it causes no matter the preparation , all you can do is act at the time on the best available evidence which they have and did

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *arentsgonebadCouple over a year ago

sheffield

It is what it is we are following other country's with the lockdown my grandma and grandad remember the war and the sacrifices they made and are educated enough to understand that staying at home for 12 weeks is better than staying 6ft under unnecessary , yes it's hard , yes it's not great but it's better than the alternative.

Playing the blame game doesn't get you anywhere it's tit for tat no right and wrong answer only the evidence based facts which guide the policy's.

no one alive has dealt with a world wide pandemic before .... Just bare that in mind

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ait88Man over a year ago

Plymouth

It seems that the best course would have been for the vulnerable to have self-isolated, and to let the virus run its course through the rest of the population in the normal way, like colds and flu.

This didn’t happen because we live in a Democracy governed by the best liars, cheats and thieves, rather than by the people best able to do the job.

Ever seen a politician’s C.V.?

This country is like a lunatic asylum, with the lunatics are in control!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Well young man you will need to get used to a new way of life as things cannot go back to normal until vacine is developed that's not going to be for quite some time I can assure you you keep safe

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"i mean we are supposed to go along with it becuase it 'protects the NHS' - but what if you think its consequences will be more damaging than the virus? yep I have to go bankrupt now loose everything. As the government shut building sites down. But I could keep a 2 meter or more away from anyone. ! "

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *arentsgonebadCouple over a year ago

sheffield

You are aware that the virus doesn't not just kill the elderly and thr vulnrable lol

And then you say it's run by lunatics ! Talk about hypocrisy

"It seems that the best course would have been for the vulnerable to have self-isolated, and to let the virus run its course through the rest of the population in the normal way, like colds and flu.

This didn’t happen because we live in a Democracy governed by the best liars, cheats and thieves, rather than by the people best able to do the job.

Ever seen a politician’s C.V.?

This country is like a lunatic asylum, with the lunatics are in control!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"i mean we are supposed to go along with it becuase it 'protects the NHS' - but what if you think its consequences will be more damaging than the virus?"

Depending on how long we have to be kept in lockdown I can see the question being raised "was it really worth it" taking into account the economic ruin and everything that it brings could be a far bigger cost to life than the virus itself.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *abs..Woman over a year ago

No I don’t think it’s a bad idea at all. I believe it is the right thing to do. The numbers of deaths would be so much higher and that in itself would also have an effect on the economy.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *erdyWoman over a year ago

wiltshire

"i mean we are supposed to go along with it becuase it 'protects the NHS' - but what if you think its consequences will be more damaging than the virus?"
absolutely not. Protecting life is all that matters.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *arentsgonebadCouple over a year ago

sheffield

It doesn't matter how long lockdown lasts life's are more important
"i mean we are supposed to go along with it becuase it 'protects the NHS' - but what if you think its consequences will be more damaging than the virus?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orksRockerMan over a year ago

Bradford

This is why I try to avoid the threads in this part of the forum......

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *uttyjonnMan over a year ago

SEA

"i mean we are supposed to go along with it becuase it 'protects the NHS' - but what if you think its consequences will be more damaging than the virus?absolutely not. Protecting life is all that matters. "

The strategy is to manage the strain on the NHS. I'm sure they are hoping to protect lives too but if this was the primary objective we would be in real lockdown, non if this stay at home if you can

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *erdyWoman over a year ago

wiltshire

"Sorry but I don't agree with that the response was justified was all in accordance to the chef medical expert and inaccordance who guidelines.

"
Totally agree. No country in the world could prepare or cope 100% with what is happening right now. There is no perfect in any of this

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By * and M lookingCouple over a year ago

Worcester

"i mean we are supposed to go along with it becuase it 'protects the NHS' - but what if you think its consequences will be more damaging than the virus?"

More damaging than death for thousands, nope.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"This is why I try to avoid the threads in this part of the forum......"

You've not done a very good job then have you

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ncutgemMan over a year ago

Bath ish

IF the world had 100%locked down on Jan 1 for three weeks this would be over by world I mean locked out china and forced all travellers into isolation for three weeks and then tracked them it would be all over

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *vilgasamWoman over a year ago

The dot in the i

"This is why I try to avoid the threads in this part of the forum......"

I agree, you’re facing a choice between saving lives and saving money and the government you’re trusting with your life is hesitant, that in itself is a clue

I’m following this guy and leaving

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oan of DArcCouple over a year ago

Glasgow

"Sorry but I don't agree with that the response was justified was all in accordance to the chef medical expert and inaccordance who guidelines.

Totally agree. No country in the world could prepare or cope 100% with what is happening right now. There is no perfect in any of this

I don't think anyone was expecting a perfect 100% response to the crisis, but given the UK wasn't the first country to encounter this virus we had time to prepare based on the experience of others.

It was only when the virus overwhelmed Italy & Spain that the UK response was intensified but by then it was too late.

Germany, continental neighbours of Italy and Spain, have had far few deaths because they were better prepared, but to the families of their dead they weren't 100% perfect either.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It's an important question, and one a lot of people aren't equipt to consider.

At which point do you say the long-term implications outweigh the short and medium term death count? It's a difficult equation to balance.

Some of the government interviews I've heard recently indicate we're not a million miles away from having to call it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"i mean we are supposed to go along with it becuase it 'protects the NHS' - but what if you think its consequences will be more damaging than the virus?

More damaging than death for thousands, nope."

The angle I'm looking at is the detrimental affects in mental health that could lead to a massive increase of suicide rates if we have a deep long extremely damaging recession.

I'm not saying the lockdown isn't worth it, I'm saying the question could well be raised down the line depending on how long it goes on for and the knock on effects it could bring.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *arentsgonebadCouple over a year ago

sheffield

Seen as ot wasn't declared a pandemic untill march what evidence did they have to warrant at the time such a massive change to life
"IF the world had 100%locked down on Jan 1 for three weeks this would be over by world I mean locked out china and forced all travellers into isolation for three weeks and then tracked them it would be all over "

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *arentsgonebadCouple over a year ago

sheffield

Of course their willno doubt be further knock on implications however the NHS will have the bed capacity to attempt to stem this,their is no right and wrong Sameer as i said before the only thing that's can be done is what the scientific evidence suggests
"i mean we are supposed to go along with it becuase it 'protects the NHS' - but what if you think its consequences will be more damaging than the virus?

More damaging than death for thousands, nope.

The angle I'm looking at is the detrimental affects in mental health that could lead to a massive increase of suicide rates if we have a deep long extremely damaging recession.

I'm not saying the lockdown isn't worth it, I'm saying the question could well be raised down the line depending on how long it goes on for and the knock on effects it could bring. "

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *anejohnkent6263Couple over a year ago

canterbury

People leaving the threads ....bye bye ..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ait88Man over a year ago

Plymouth

"It doesn't matter how long lockdown lasts life's are more important"

Tell that to the 8,000 people who die of flu every year. No self isolation, no lock-down, no long-term economic ruin, which, as Just-Andy wrote above, will be far more fatal than the virus.

The NHS was seriously under-funded before the pandemic. Do you think it will fare any better during the worst depression since the 1930s? What about the police service, the fire service, the legal system, the education system, etc., etc. The pot-holes in the roads will become impassable!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *andy 1Couple over a year ago

northeast

wonder what some people would be saying if it was 1939 and they had 5 or 6 years of war to look forward to let hitler have hes way so we can have a holiday

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *arentsgonebadCouple over a year ago

sheffield

Seasonal flu of which all staff members are encouraged to have the vaccination for against Corona virus a world wide pandemic the first in any of our lifetimes ... Jesus that's me done in this thread

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It doesn't matter how long lockdown lasts life's are more important

Tell that to the 8,000 people who die of flu every year. No self isolation, no lock-down, no long-term economic ruin, which, as Just-Andy wrote above, will be far more fatal than the virus.

Exactly.

If lives was more important there would be a yearly flu season lock down to stop people spreading flu germs around.

Our foods wouldnt be inundated with so much sugar.

Alcolhol would be banned as would smoking if lives mattered.

If you think our goverments care about us and our health think again.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *teveuk77Man over a year ago

"Sorry but I don't agree with that the response was justified was all in accordance to the chef medical expert and inaccordance who guidelines.

Totally agree. No country in the world could prepare or cope 100% with what is happening right now. There is no perfect in any of this

What about Exercise Cygnus in 2016 which was a pandemic drill. It identified shortages of ITU and equipment. Did the government act on this? The UK could certainly have been better prepared and the main concerns such as ventilators and PPE we have now could have been addressed.

The UK is also behind Italy and spain by at least 10 days. Spreads of diseases are modelled by experts so they knew we would be impacted but the choice was made not to act by lockdown.

Also, rejected joining the EU procurement scheme and then made excuses about not getting emails. That decision would have been taken for political reasons...We don't need the EU....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Quite like my family and friends so no don’t wish them dead !!! Any other consequence can be resolved

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ap d agde coupleCouple over a year ago

Broadstairs

"It doesn't matter how long lockdown lasts life's are more important

Tell that to the 8,000 people who die of flu every year. No self isolation, no lock-down, no long-term economic ruin, which, as Just-Andy wrote above, will be far more fatal than the virus.

Exactly.

If lives was more important there would be a yearly flu season lock down to stop people spreading flu germs around.

Our foods wouldnt be inundated with so much sugar.

Alcolhol would be banned as would smoking if lives mattered.

If you think our goverments care about us and our health think again.

"
you have made a good point there was 78000 deaths due to smoking god knows how many due to drink

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I don’t usually post on a lot of threads but here we go

Is the lockdown doing more damage than good?

-put your hands up if you fancy having COVID?.....yeah I don’t either...

Seen COVID first hand?yes I have and seen it kill first hand too.....

Think the lockdown isn’t working?it is actually just slowly due to the amount that already have COVID....

I’m an NHS professional and trust me COVID isn’t just killing the sick and elderly any more..it can kill anyone...it’s not to be messed with.it comes in and takes no prisoners...

Many of the patients in ICU atm are under 60 and trust me..some aren’t doing too well.

Think when you go out..is it necessary...if it isn’t,then stay indoors...I appreciate that social isolation isn’t nice but trust me it is saving lives

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ch WellMan over a year ago

Scotland

"It doesn't matter how long lockdown lasts life's are more important

Tell that to the 8,000 people who die of flu every year. No self isolation, no lock-down, no long-term economic ruin, which, as Just-Andy wrote above, will be far more fatal than the virus.

Exactly.

If lives was more important there would be a yearly flu season lock down to stop people spreading flu germs around.

Our foods wouldnt be inundated with so much sugar.

Alcolhol would be banned as would smoking if lives mattered.

If you think our goverments care about us and our health think again.

you have made a good point there was 78000 deaths due to smoking god knows how many due to drink "

But how many drinks and fags did these people have before they died compared to how often people caught Covid before they died?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *anejohnkent6263Couple over a year ago

canterbury

The lockdown is a slowing down the spread so that the nhs can almost cope ....simple as that

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *aughtycp1Couple over a year ago

Leicestershire

Lockdown is saving lives. The elderly and at risk especially

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ch WellMan over a year ago

Scotland

"The lockdown is a slowing down the spread so that the nhs can almost cope ....simple as that"

Indeed. And on the whole that is happening. Some areas are still harder hit than others depending on population but on the whole things are slowing. Too many folk seem to think we should be in lockdown til the virus is gone. That was never the plan nor could be the plan as the virus is going nowhere. We just need to learn to live with it. All the cries at the start of what's the fuss as it's just another flu. It clearly isn't just another flu but in time it will come to live with it same as we do the flu. We will see some relaxation after this 3 weeks.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ap d agde coupleCouple over a year ago

Broadstairs

"It doesn't matter how long lockdown lasts life's are more important

Tell that to the 8,000 people who die of flu every year. No self isolation, no lock-down, no long-term economic ruin, which, as Just-Andy wrote above, will be far more fatal than the virus. The point was why are Fags and drink not banned as proven killers

Exactly.

If lives was more important there would be a yearly flu season lock down to stop people spreading flu germs around.

Our foods wouldnt be inundated with so much sugar.

Alcolhol would be banned as would smoking if lives mattered.

If you think our goverments care about us and our health think again.

you have made a good point there was 78000 deaths due to smoking god knows how many due to drink

But how many drinks and fags did these people have before they died compared to how often people caught Covid before they died? "

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Can’t believe COVID is being compared to smoking and drinking !!

Yes it’s Flu like but we have a flu vaccine

Yes smoking and drinking kills people but it’s a choice to smoke and drink

Such arguments are usually used by those who wish to go against the guidelines and feel a need to justify themselves

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ab jamesMan over a year ago

ribble valley

Love the armchair politicians saying in hindsight the government's got it wrong. I presume this knowledge is from their own scientific advisors. We are where we are. This is a fight we all never wanted. We just gotta knuckle on with it the best we can. Life is more precious than cash. I'd rather be alive and poor than seeing more deaths.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It doesn't matter how long lockdown lasts life's are more important

Tell that to the 8,000 people who die of flu every year. No self isolation, no lock-down, no long-term economic ruin, which, as Just-Andy wrote above, will be far more fatal than the virus.

Exactly.

If lives was more important there would be a yearly flu season lock down to stop people spreading flu germs around.

Our foods wouldnt be inundated with so much sugar.

Alcolhol would be banned as would smoking if lives mattered.

If you think our goverments care about us and our health think again.

you have made a good point there was 78000 deaths due to smoking god knows how many due to drink

But how many drinks and fags did these people have before they died compared to how often people caught Covid before they died? "

Ok forget about drink and cigs for a moment.

If all lives matter more than anything else full stop.

Why do 8000 children die every single day due to a virus called hunger?

Completely proventable yet be allow 10 million a year to die o hunger 3 million of that is children.

So if we can halt a trillion dollar economy world wide why havnt we delt with the millions that die from somthing we actually do have a cure for.

Again truth is world goverments do not care about loss of life.

Not mine, not yours not anyones.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"i mean we are supposed to go along with it becuase it 'protects the NHS' - but what if you think its consequences will be more damaging than the virus?"

More damaging than death?.uumm

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"i mean we are supposed to go along with it becuase it 'protects the NHS' - but what if you think its consequences will be more damaging than the virus?

More damaging than death?.uumm"

Think they mean money. Money might be being harmed at this time .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oan of DArcCouple over a year ago

Glasgow

"Love the armchair politicians saying in hindsight the government's got it wrong. I presume this knowledge is from their own scientific advisors. We are where we are. This is a fight we all never wanted. We just gotta knuckle on with it the best we can. Life is more precious than cash. I'd rather be alive and poor than seeing more deaths.

The government are in a position to do something about impending crises, we 'armchair politicians' aren't, but we can question the actions of the real ones and hold them to account.

C-19 was never messing about, politicians, whose duty is to protect the interests of this country and it's people, were slow to respond to a tidal wave heading to our shores that started thousands of miles away, I don't need a scientific advisor to tell me that!

Btw my rant isn't a party political one, in other areas I support the government and I do understand it's quite a challenge that Corona has presented them with.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Fuck no!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It doesn't matter how long lockdown lasts life's are more important

Tell that to the 8,000 people who die of flu every year. No self isolation, no lock-down, no long-term economic ruin, which, as Just-Andy wrote above, will be far more fatal than the virus.

Exactly.

If lives was more important there would be a yearly flu season lock down to stop people spreading flu germs around.

Our foods wouldnt be inundated with so much sugar.

Alcolhol would be banned as would smoking if lives mattered.

If you think our goverments care about us and our health think again.

you have made a good point there was 78000 deaths due to smoking god knows how many due to drink

But how many drinks and fags did these people have before they died compared to how often people caught Covid before they died?

Ok forget about drink and cigs for a moment.

If all lives matter more than anything else full stop.

Why do 8000 children die every single day due to a virus called hunger?

Completely proventable yet be allow 10 million a year to die o hunger 3 million of that is children.

So if we can halt a trillion dollar economy world wide why havnt we delt with the millions that die from somthing we actually do have a cure for.

Again truth is world goverments do not care about loss of life.

Not mine, not yours not anyones.

Not sure it’s relevant how we feel about our government follow the scientific facts social distancing will save lives

Many of us give to food banks and charities to tackle other issues in the world abiding by social distancing is another way of being socially responsible

Governments are following scientific facts and advice I’m happy with that not all will be though

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iss_tressWoman over a year ago

London

"i mean we are supposed to go along with it becuase it 'protects the NHS' - but what if you think its consequences will be more damaging than the virus?"

No.

I will probably lose my job and home at the end of this. I can find alternate work and downsize.

If I'm dead however...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

Playing the blame game doesn't get you anywhere it's tit for tat no right and wrong answer only the evidence based facts which guide the policy's.

no one alive has dealt with a world wide pandemic before .... Just bare that in mind "

They have though. There are at least 4 countries unscathed by this and some didn't even do a lockdown. Blame is important because people are paid good money to ensure this kind of thing doesn't happen and they will be held accountable.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *layfullsamMan over a year ago

Solihull

"i mean we are supposed to go along with it becuase it 'protects the NHS' - but what if you think its consequences will be more damaging than the virus?"

I doubt the consequences will be more damaging than dying.

The thing is I'm all for people ignoring rules if it's only themselves that suffer and I'm all for it if they catch it, don't tie up a bed in the hospital and fall very ill through their own stupidity.

But unfortunately the selfish rule breakers will either be ok themselves or tie up the NHS doctors and nurses or worse case pass it to someone frail and they'll die.

We've come through a recession before IF that's the result of this and obviously it's not ideal but other countries results look like there is light at the end of the tunnel if we do the right things.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rafficvanMan over a year ago

Middletown

"i mean we are supposed to go along with it becuase it 'protects the NHS' - but what if you think its consequences will be more damaging than the virus?"

TO be honest it hasn't affected me still working and still keeping busy.my house still going through "touch wood" I'll be moving in that soon. Just hard to get paint and things. Saving up not at the pub

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *omplexchiqueTV/TS over a year ago

Sale

"i mean we are supposed to go along with it becuase it 'protects the NHS' - but what if you think its consequences will be more damaging than the virus?"

Two issues .....1. the notion of lockdown being a ‘bad idea’ is far too polarising. A more enlightened question may have asked ... ‘is there an alternative approach to lockdown which could have delivered the same outcome?’ 2. The UK slogan ‘is stay at home and protect the NHS’, given the NHS is unique to this country what are the rest of the world telling their citizens?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eddy and legsCouple over a year ago

the wetlands

We'll find out for sure when the movie comes out.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"i mean we are supposed to go along with it becuase it 'protects the NHS' - but what if you think its consequences will be more damaging than the virus?

The answer to 1 is a resounding "yes" there is. But the government backed themselves into a corner by doing exactly fuck all for January, February and most of March.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ty31Man over a year ago

NW London

"i mean we are supposed to go along with it becuase it 'protects the NHS' - but what if you think its consequences will be more damaging than the virus?"

That's why lockdown isn't a viable strategy for more than a few months.

Right now it's probably needed to relieve the burden on the NHS but it is not possible to sustain a prolonged period of economic paralysis.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ab jamesMan over a year ago

ribble valley

The government are in a position to do something about impending crises, we 'armchair politicians' aren't, but we can question the actions of the real ones and hold them to account.

Btw my rant isn't a party political one, in other areas I support the government and I do understand it's quite a challenge that Corona has presented them with."

So I presume you've contacted your mp, and held them to account. As for slow to respond, remember sars and mers. We could have locked down then, but it wasn't necessary.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oan of DArcCouple over a year ago

Glasgow

The government are in a position to do something about impending crises, we 'armchair politicians' aren't, but we can question the actions of the real ones and hold them to account.

Btw my rant isn't a party political one, in other areas I support the government and I do understand it's quite a challenge that Corona has presented them with.

So I presume you've contacted your mp, and held them to account. As for slow to respond, remember sars and mers. We could have locked down then, but it wasn't necessary. "

I'm more than happy with my MPs approach to dealing with the spread of C19, as an example recognising the threat posed, by the end of February she was calling for parliamentary business to be conducted through video conference calls, rather than face to face meetings and commons sessions.

Incidentally we're not talking about mers or SARS, we're talking about a virus that we watched creep towards the UK which was having a devastating effect on the people who came into contact with it, generally we learn from experience..it's that learning which I believe the government were slow to respond to.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ionelhutzMan over a year ago

liverpool

"Quite like my family and friends so no don’t wish them dead !!! Any other consequence can be resolved "

Very succinct.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ionelhutzMan over a year ago

liverpool

"I don’t usually post on a lot of threads but here we go

Is the lockdown doing more damage than good?

-put your hands up if you fancy having COVID?.....yeah I don’t either...

Seen COVID first hand?yes I have and seen it kill first hand too.....

Think the lockdown isn’t working?it is actually just slowly due to the amount that already have COVID....

I’m an NHS professional and trust me COVID isn’t just killing the sick and elderly any more..it can kill anyone...it’s not to be messed with.it comes in and takes no prisoners...

Many of the patients in ICU atm are under 60 and trust me..some aren’t doing too well.

Think when you go out..is it necessary...if it isn’t,then stay indoors...I appreciate that social isolation isn’t nice but trust me it is saving lives"

I cant believe people still think it only kills the vulnerable

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittleMissCaliWoman over a year ago

all loved up

I personally was a little disappointed that we had to go into full lockdown as the issue as we are seeing in places lifting them, is that they are now seeing the virus flaring up again.

Sweden took a much more measured approach and while they admit they failed to protect their care home residents ( something many locked down countries are also failing to do) they seem to be managing okay without a full lock down.

But we wont really know what was the right course of action till years down the line x

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Doesn’t it all add up to the same thing? Capitalism is fucked without consumers so massive death rates are in no-ones’ interests whether coming from a human or economic angle.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Doesn’t it all add up to the same thing? Capitalism is fucked without consumers so massive death rates are in no-ones’ interests whether coming from a human or economic angle. "

Not unless you want to have a larger slice of the cake. Even if the overall cake is now smaller.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eeBee67Man over a year ago

Masked and Distant

I dont understand why people think we are in full lockdown.

China had a full lock down, welding doors shut to stop people leaving their apartment blocks.

India had a film lockdown, not allowed out even for food.

Spain had a full lock down, army on the streets.

We have restrictions, we are allowed to work if we can at home and if not "go to work" but keep 2m apart.

There were 6000 extra deaths in March, only 3500 ish linked to covid-19. I think the other extras can be attributed to our so called lockdown. And the longer it continues the worse it will be. Not just for the economy but for the mental health of the nation.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ionelhutzMan over a year ago

liverpool

"I dont understand why people think we are in full lockdown.

China had a full lock down, welding doors shut to stop people leaving their apartment blocks.

India had a film lockdown, not allowed out even for food.

Spain had a full lock down, army on the streets.

We have restrictions, we are allowed to work if we can at home and if not "go to work" but keep 2m apart.

So 3 and a half thousand deaths in a month?

What would that have been if we had done nothing?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I dont understand why people think we are in full lockdown.

China had a full lock down, welding doors shut to stop people leaving their apartment blocks.

India had a film lockdown, not allowed out even for food.

Spain had a full lock down, army on the streets.

We have restrictions, we are allowed to work if we can at home and if not "go to work" but keep 2m apart.

So 3 and a half thousand deaths in a month?

What would that have been if we had done nothing?"

Hey they have moved a thread to politics...keep your eye on the ball

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"i mean we are supposed to go along with it becuase it 'protects the NHS' - but what if you think its consequences will be more damaging than the virus?"
No ,the roads are cleaner

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *bi HaiveMan over a year ago
Forum Mod

Cheeseville, Somerset

Lockdown is needed at present to prevent the NHS being overrun. But the virus is going nowhere and permanent lockdown until a vaccine is developed is unsustainable.

If the UK was to test the whole population, doing 30,000 tests a day it would take around 7 years.

At some point the strategy will have to change, whether the focus shifts to longer isolation for the higher risk groups, contact tracing and testing, or just the herd immunity approach.

But that time has not yet come.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eeBee67Man over a year ago

Masked and Distant

"I dont understand why people think we are in full lockdown.

China had a full lock down, welding doors shut to stop people leaving their apartment blocks.

India had a film lockdown, not allowed out even for food.

Spain had a full lock down, army on the streets.

We have restrictions, we are allowed to work if we can at home and if not "go to work" but keep 2m apart.

So 3 and a half thousand deaths in a month?

What would that have been if we had done nothing?"

I'm not saying the restrictions are a bad idea, in fact they are a good idea, just saying we are not in a lockdown. Basically we have had our leisure and social activities curtailed; shopping, eating, drinking, clubbing, visiting families, partying, going to the gym, travelling. And been asked to work at home if we can, if not possible then go to work. And stay 2m away from other people.

It is having a positive effect (slowly) on deaths from Covid19, but almost an equal negative effect on other deaths.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ionelhutzMan over a year ago

liverpool

"I dont understand why people think we are in full lockdown.

China had a full lock down, welding doors shut to stop people leaving their apartment blocks.

India had a film lockdown, not allowed out even for food.

Spain had a full lock down, army on the streets.

We have restrictions, we are allowed to work if we can at home and if not "go to work" but keep 2m apart.

So 3 and a half thousand deaths in a month?

What would that have been if we had done nothing?

It is having a positive effect (slowly) on deaths from Covid19, but almost an equal negative effect on other deaths."

I agree it's only a partial lockdown.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ionelhutzMan over a year ago

liverpool

"I dont understand why people think we are in full lockdown.

China had a full lock down, welding doors shut to stop people leaving their apartment blocks.

India had a film lockdown, not allowed out even for food.

Spain had a full lock down, army on the streets.

We have restrictions, we are allowed to work if we can at home and if not "go to work" but keep 2m apart.

So 3 and a half thousand deaths in a month?

What would that have been if we had done nothing?

Hey they have moved a thread to politics...keep your eye on the ball

I was wondering why there was 2 threads

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rog1664Couple over a year ago

middx

If China had been honest from the beginning all countries could have planned better, they really need to take some accountability what does everyone else think

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If China had been honest from the beginning all countries could have planned better, they really need to take some accountability what does everyone else think "

If that were true? Whose to say Boris wouldn't have ignored the scientific reccomendations anyway. Like he did in actuality.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ophieslutTV/TS over a year ago

Central

Finally it seems that they are seeing some sense and reintroducing contact tracing of those infected. It has to be in conjunction with millions of people tested and full isolation of those infected.

Testing and contact tracing, with isolation is what, for example, worked in Hong Kong and they've not had the lockdown faced here. Other successful management strategies have had huge testing activities, such as Germany.

The lockdown is necessary as the government didn't create the right management strategy in January, including ordering PPE, testing resources and having a crystal clear plan that was appropriate from that point onwards.

We need to stay in lockdown until cases reduced and we should be ramping up testing and contact tracing facilities to enormous numbers, so that we hammer the transmission of it. If we did it right, subject to no new people entering the country, it would be possible to eradicate it. That's unlikely to be the case but we could be getting much closer to this than they're likely planning. Progressive easing of lockdown could progress as trained resources battle new infection hotspots, with comprehensive testing and contact tracing underway.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *arentsgonebadCouple over a year ago

sheffield

Agreed totally the covid death is horrendous not been able to get on top of secretions with no family present ... Id rather stay in lockdown thanks
"I don’t usually post on a lot of threads but here we go

Is the lockdown doing more damage than good?

-put your hands up if you fancy having COVID?.....yeah I don’t either...

Seen COVID first hand?yes I have and seen it kill first hand too.....

Think the lockdown isn’t working?it is actually just slowly due to the amount that already have COVID....

I’m an NHS professional and trust me COVID isn’t just killing the sick and elderly any more..it can kill anyone...it’s not to be messed with.it comes in and takes no prisoners...

Many of the patients in ICU atm are under 60 and trust me..some aren’t doing too well.

Think when you go out..is it necessary...if it isn’t,then stay indoors...I appreciate that social isolation isn’t nice but trust me it is saving lives"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

"If China had been honest from the beginning all countries could have planned better, they really need to take some accountability what does everyone else think "

Everyone at government level in all countries apart from some for whom Chinese investment is crucial would say privately that to take at face value what China says on this or other issues is at best naive, at worst its incompetence..

So when they were saying its x amount, multiply it by y..

Iran were still saying only a few score of deaths yet satellite imagery was sowing they were vastly under reporting it..

And our own figures are not true albeit for less sinister motives than others perhaps..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"IF the world had 100%locked down on Jan 1 for three weeks this would be over by world I mean locked out china and forced all travellers into isolation for three weeks and then tracked them it would be all over "

Hindsight is a wonderful thing isn’t it. If I’d picked 6 different numbers last week I’d have won the euro millions

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"i mean we are supposed to go along with it becuase it 'protects the NHS' - but what if you think its consequences will be more damaging than the virus?

More damaging than death for thousands, nope."

I think th OP meant the economic conequences could actually lead to more deaths in the long run....that remains to be seen....for now all we can do is follow the plan and hope.....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Hindsight is a wonderful thing isn’t it. If I’d picked 6 different numbers last week I’d have won the euro millions "

If only there had been some kind of Organisation, that dealt with Health matters on a World scale that could have advised us what to do.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan over a year ago

here

"If China had been honest from the beginning all countries could have planned better, they really need to take some accountability what does everyone else think

So when they were saying its x amount, multiply it by y..

Iran were still saying only a few score of deaths yet satellite imagery was sowing they were vastly under reporting it..

And our own figures are not true albeit for less sinister motives than others perhaps.. "

This could lead you to think the WHO should have pressured China to be more open and transparent with their actual data?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Finally it seems that they are seeing some sense and reintroducing contact tracing of those infected. It has to be in conjunction with millions of people tested and full isolation of those infected.

Manufacturing, manufacturing, manufacturing.....

Why have countries like Germany and South Korea and (maybe?) China managed better? Because they manufacture PPE. They manufacture the stuff needed for testing, they manufacture ventilators....hence had the capacity for these things.

We...along with France, Italy and many others depend on buying in....there is a GLOBAL shortage of all of these things not just in UK.

The lesson for me is, once we get back to whatever nirmal will be, to stop bringing in so much stuff from abroad....ramp up support for manufacturing across the board and be more independent. Our economy is far too "service" based and needs to change....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *he James gangCouple over a year ago

NEWTOWNABBEY

"What do you mean by 'the consequences'? economic consequences? Because just letting the virus run through the country would not be good for the economy.

It's an ideal situation for governments. Two of the most costly matters, pensions and sickness, got rid of in one go!. Its a win win for the exchequer.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *olly_chromaticTV/TS over a year ago

Stockport

"If China had been honest from the beginning all countries could have planned better, they really need to take some accountability what does everyone else think

So when they were saying its x amount, multiply it by y..

Iran were still saying only a few score of deaths yet satellite imagery was sowing they were vastly under reporting it..

And our own figures are not true albeit for less sinister motives than others perhaps..

This could lead you to think the WHO should have pressured China to be more open and transparent with their actual data?

Yes, obviously the WHO should have mounted an armed invasion of China and conducted medical examinations at gun point on 20 million people. I mean what's the point of an organisation devoted to saving lives unless it's going to be prepared to use extreme force and threats against sovereign countries?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"If China had been honest from the beginning all countries could have planned better, they really need to take some accountability what does everyone else think "

Yes but there are at least 4 countries that still don't have a scratch on them despite the fact that China lied to everyone. China isn't the reason we've done fuck all testing, no contact tracing and are running out of PPE.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan over a year ago

here

"If China had been honest from the beginning all countries could have planned better, they really need to take some accountability what does everyone else think

So when they were saying its x amount, multiply it by y..

Iran were still saying only a few score of deaths yet satellite imagery was sowing they were vastly under reporting it..

And our own figures are not true albeit for less sinister motives than others perhaps..

This could lead you to think the WHO should have pressured China to be more open and transparent with their actual data?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Theres nothing worse than death...so no

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Buy British that message was sent out in the Brexit debate, but was shot down as little England. If we had a bigger manufacturing base things would be different, but EU feeds off multi trade now Europe is paying with lives.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ionelhutzMan over a year ago

liverpool

"Finally it seems that they are seeing some sense and reintroducing contact tracing of those infected. It has to be in conjunction with millions of people tested and full isolation of those infected.

Manufacturing, manufacturing, manufacturing.....

We...along with France, Italy and many others depend on buying in....there is a GLOBAL shortage of all of these things not just in UK.

There is also too much focus on the city.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illy999TV/TS over a year ago

Taunton

"Worse than death?

the economy pays for the NHS. Austerity was bad but we are now facing austerity on steroids"

'The economy' pays for the NHS....... ? Nonsense.

The govt prints money , gives it to banks & 'borrows' it to finance various projects. Nuclear submarines , an aircraft carrier with no planes & various..

The NHS is being privatised by stealth & is 'operated' by private companies like Virgin care , or lack of more like.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"If China had been honest from the beginning all countries could have planned better, they really need to take some accountability what does everyone else think

So when they were saying its x amount, multiply it by y..

Iran were still saying only a few score of deaths yet satellite imagery was sowing they were vastly under reporting it..

And our own figures are not true albeit for less sinister motives than others perhaps..

This could lead you to think the WHO should have pressured China to be more open and transparent with their actual data?

Maybe they could just get off their fat asses and book a plane ticket. Do you realise they didn't even visit wuhan before the virus had already infected other countries

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ionelhutzMan over a year ago

liverpool

"Buy British that message was sent out in the Brexit debate, but was shot down as little England. If we had a bigger manufacturing base things would be different, but EU feeds off multi trade now Europe is paying with lives. "

What are you saying?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oan of DArcCouple over a year ago

Glasgow

"If China had been honest from the beginning all countries could have planned better, they really need to take some accountability what does everyone else think

So when they were saying its x amount, multiply it by y..

Iran were still saying only a few score of deaths yet satellite imagery was sowing they were vastly under reporting it..

And our own figures are not true albeit for less sinister motives than others perhaps..

This could lead you to think the WHO should have pressured China to be more open and transparent with their actual data?

What kind of 'pressure', do you think the WHO could have applied? Sounds like a statement from a Trump briefing!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Whilst we are all concerned about the economy once we get through this. A young local family family has just lost their 41 year old healthy mum which has obviously devastated them. So the answer is a firm NO, still unbelievable people aren’t taking this seriously

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

We have read through this whole post and think everyone has missed the point?

The NHS has limited capacity and this lockdown is to ensure as far as possible that the NHS can cope, by controlling the infections.

Yes, a large percentage of people will get this Virus, some will need NHS treatment and many will not.

But imagine that you get COVID-19, you require NHS treatment, but there is no capacity or resources left to treat you and you are left to die?

This is why we are in lockdown!!!!!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"We have read through this whole post and think everyone has missed the point?

The NHS has limited capacity and this lockdown is to ensure as far as possible that the NHS can cope, by controlling the infections.

Yes, a large percentage of people will get this Virus, some will need NHS treatment and many will not.

But imagine that you get COVID-19, you require NHS treatment, but there is no capacity or resources left to treat you and you are left to die?

This is why we are in lockdown!!!!!!"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"i mean we are supposed to go along with it becuase it 'protects the NHS' - but what if you think its consequences will be more damaging than the virus?"

It is a fine balancing act of social/ economic effects while managing to maintain calm, order, infrastructure and the heakthcare system.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *omplexchiqueTV/TS over a year ago

Sale

"We have read through this whole post and think everyone has missed the point?

The NHS has limited capacity and this lockdown is to ensure as far as possible that the NHS can cope, by controlling the infections.

Yes, a large percentage of people will get this Virus, some will need NHS treatment and many will not.

But imagine that you get COVID-19, you require NHS treatment, but there is no capacity or resources left to treat you and you are left to die?

This is why we are in lockdown!!!!!!"

So what reason do governments of all the other countries of the planet tell their citizens as to why they should stay in lockdown. Only the UK has an NHS (it is unique), so there must be a myriad of different health care systems ranging from next to zero to the gold plated NHS..... this is a global pandemic not one centred on just the UK.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" So what reason do governments of all the other countries of the planet tell their citizens as to why they should stay in lockdown. Only the UK has an NHS (it is unique), so there must be a myriad of different health care systems ranging from next to zero to the gold plated NHS..... this is a global pandemic not one centred on just the UK."

Every Country has a Health system of sorts and not one could cope with all the COVID-19 cases if they all came at the same time.

Perhaps you would rather get COVID-19, require NHS treatment but be left to die in the corridors in agony because the NHS had run out of capacity and/or resources?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Cant fo ann good ro econemy if ùr deed

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"We have read through this whole post and think everyone has missed the point?

The NHS has limited capacity and this lockdown is to ensure as far as possible that the NHS can cope, by controlling the infections.

Yes, a large percentage of people will get this Virus, some will need NHS treatment and many will not.

But imagine that you get COVID-19, you require NHS treatment, but there is no capacity or resources left to treat you and you are left to die?

This is why we are in lockdown!!!!!!"

Or you have a stroke and need an ITU bed, but cant get one because it's full of Covid patients.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

Every Country has a Health system of sorts and not one could cope with all the COVID-19 cases if they all came at the same time.

Perhaps you would rather get COVID-19, require NHS treatment but be left to die in the corridors in agony because the NHS had run out of capacity and/or resources?

Or perhaps I'd rather have a government response that didn't require a lockdown because they managed to control the virus with testing and contact tracing, resulting in minimal deaths and less cases.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oan of DArcCouple over a year ago

Glasgow

"We have read through this whole post and think everyone has missed the point?

The NHS has limited capacity and this lockdown is to ensure as far as possible that the NHS can cope, by controlling the infections.

Yes, a large percentage of people will get this Virus, some will need NHS treatment and many will not.

But imagine that you get COVID-19, you require NHS treatment, but there is no capacity or resources left to treat you and you are left to die?

This is why we are in lockdown!!!!!!"

Your point's been made by others many times over the last few weeks.

Overwhelming demand on the NHS due to C19 admissions/deaths is one of a range of reasons for the lockdown, not the only one.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ionelhutzMan over a year ago

liverpool

Every Country has a Health system of sorts and not one could cope with all the COVID-19 cases if they all came at the same time.

Perhaps you would rather get COVID-19, require NHS treatment but be left to die in the corridors in agony because the NHS had run out of capacity and/or resources?

Or perhaps I'd rather have a government response that didn't require a lockdown because they managed to control the virus with testing and contact tracing, resulting in minimal deaths and less cases."

I think some sort of lockdown was necessary.Its happened almost every where else.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" Or perhaps I'd rather have a government response that didn't require a lockdown because they managed to control the virus with testing and contact tracing, resulting in minimal deaths and less cases."

What a fabulous idea, such a shame that not one Government in whole world thought of this. Largely because it took months to even develop a test and even now they are unsure of the predictability of results.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

Shows how little you know about the world and how narrow your information sources are

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Or vice versa of course!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

Every Country has a Health system of sorts and not one could cope with all the COVID-19 cases if they all came at the same time.

Perhaps you would rather get COVID-19, require NHS treatment but be left to die in the corridors in agony because the NHS had run out of capacity and/or resources?

Or perhaps I'd rather have a government response that didn't require a lockdown because they managed to control the virus with testing and contact tracing, resulting in minimal deaths and less cases.

I think some sort of lockdown was necessary.Its happened almost every where else."

South korea didn't have a lockdown, at least 4 other countries had partial lockdown that didn't entirely tank their economies or overwhelm their health services

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"i mean we are supposed to go along with it becuase it 'protects the NHS' - but what if you think its consequences will be more damaging than the virus?"

No as those thoughts would be ridiculous and wrong

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *tace 309TV/TS over a year ago

durham

"What do you mean by 'the consequences'? economic consequences? Because just letting the virus run through the country would not be good for the economy.

A crash bigger than that seen in the 1920's will be devestating. I just dont think people are ready for what is coming"
nothing is more devastating than death. Try telling that the econmony is more important to any relative that has lost someone close to this virus. An econmony can be repaired over time. You can't bring anyone who has died back.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" South korea didn't have a lockdown, at least 4 other countries had partial lockdown that didn't entirely tank their economies or overwhelm their health services "

I did say "Almost everywhere else", additionally, South Korea and others that did not lock down are vastly different countries to ours.

I for one certainly wouldn't want to live in any of those countries. They were only able to respond to the virus in the way that they did because of what they are!!!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What do you mean by 'the consequences'? economic consequences? Because just letting the virus run through the country would not be good for the economy.

A crash bigger than that seen in the 1920's will be devestating. I just dont think people are ready for what is comingnothing is more devastating than death. Try telling that the econmony is more important to any relative that has lost someone close to this virus. An econmony can be repaired over time. You can't bring anyone who has died back. "

During the last recession a report suggested that 10,000 suicides (EU, US and Canada) could be put down directly to the economic downturn. That’s just suicides, let alone long term affects to people lives.

We’re staring down the barrel of a far deeper depression. I shudder to think how many could take their own lives.

Lastly, good luck fighting the next war, pandemic or natural disaster with a wrecked economy.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

" South korea didn't have a lockdown, at least 4 other countries had partial lockdown that didn't entirely tank their economies or overwhelm their health services

I did say "Almost everywhere else", additionally, South Korea and others that did not lock down are vastly different countries to ours.

I for one certainly wouldn't want to live in any of those countries. They were only able to respond to the virus in the way that they did because of what they are!!!!"

Are you using multiple accounts then? The single guy said "almost". You said "not one Government in whole world thought of this".

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What do you mean by 'the consequences'? economic consequences? Because just letting the virus run through the country would not be good for the economy.

Totally agree .. A real common sense posting. Please read everyone and try to find some normal human traits like compassion and caring. The economy will bounce back so dont worry about that

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What do you mean by 'the consequences'? economic consequences? Because just letting the virus run through the country would not be good for the economy.

Absolutely agree.

I don’t think lockdown is a bad idea at all.

I’d rather live through a struggle than ever lose a loved one, I’m sure those who’ve lost loved ones feel the same.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *r_Jake70Man over a year ago

London

[Removed by poster at 18/04/20 14:37:18]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *r_Jake70Man over a year ago

London

"What do you mean by 'the consequences'? economic consequences? Because just letting the virus run through the country would not be good for the economy.

Totally agree .. A real common sense posting. Please read everyone and try to find some normal human traits like compassion and caring. The economy will bounce back so dont worry about that

I couldn’t agree more. Also, the virus doesn’t discriminate. It’s as likely to take out CEOs and leaders as the foot soldiers. Imagine a rudderless society, and how likely that would be without controlling our movements.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By * and M lookingCouple over a year ago

Worcester

"What do you mean by 'the consequences'? economic consequences? Because just letting the virus run through the country would not be good for the economy.

Totally agree .. A real common sense posting. Please read everyone and try to find some normal human traits like compassion and caring. The economy will bounce back so dont worry about that

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

Apparently every person has about 250 contacts on average. The death rate is about 3%.

Name 8 people you know who you're prepared to let die. More if the NHS is overloaded and can't save everyone.

Of course the lockdown is worth it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *abs..Woman over a year ago

"What do you mean by 'the consequences'? economic consequences? Because just letting the virus run through the country would not be good for the economy.

We’re staring down the barrel of a far deeper depression. I shudder to think how many could take their own lives.

Lastly, good luck fighting the next war, pandemic or natural disaster with a wrecked economy. "

There could many NHS workers amongst them - not economy related by virus related. I think people forget what they are seeing day in, day out. Undoubtedly it would be worse without a lockdown. Whichever way you look at it there is a cost to pay.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *est Wales WifeCouple over a year ago

Near Carmarthen

Yes, for numerous reasons but people don't generally want logic. So I wont go into the reasons why.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

Major loss of life will also cause huge economic consequences.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The stock markets need some confidence to draw on and the one thing that will help is that the virus is starting to be controlled.

Purely from an economic point of view, economists ideally want to see the infection R 0 value 1. It is 0.7 -0.8 at the moment because of the lockdown. We need more testing long term if we want to ease restrictions long term .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What do you mean by 'the consequences'? economic consequences? Because just letting the virus run through the country would not be good for the economy.

Your not saying if the old and sick die the government save money I would of never worked that out lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" Or you have a stroke and need an ITU bed, but cant get one because it's full of Covid patients."

You are completely missing the point of Lock Down!

If you have a Stroke, Heart Attack, serious illness or Car Accident, there will be capacity to treat you in ICU, separately from any COVID-19 Patients!

This is the whole point of Lock Down!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *penbicoupleCouple over a year ago

Northampton

"i mean we are supposed to go along with it becuase it 'protects the NHS' - but what if you think its consequences will be more damaging than the virus?"

It's consequences will be awful. And, I guess we can't guarantee it won't be more damaging than the virus.

But which 3% of the population do you want to gamble on?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *penbicoupleCouple over a year ago

Northampton

"Apparently every person has about 250 contacts on average. The death rate is about 3%.

Name 8 people you know who you're prepared to let die. More if the NHS is overloaded and can't save everyone.

Of course the lockdown is worth it."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" Are you using multiple accounts then? The single guy said "almost". You said "not one Government in whole world thought of this". "

I presumed that we had said it as you quoted it back - but never mind.

We have only one account.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oan of DArcCouple over a year ago

Glasgow

" Or you have a stroke and need an ITU bed, but cant get one because it's full of Covid patients.

You are completely missing the point of Lock Down!

If you have a Stroke, Heart Attack, serious illness or Car Accident, there will be capacity to treat you in ICU, separately from any COVID-19 Patients!

This is the whole point of Lock Down!"

No. It's not the 'whole' point.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" Or you have a stroke and need an ITU bed, but cant get one because it's full of Covid patients.

You are completely missing the point of Lock Down!

If you have a Stroke, Heart Attack, serious illness or Car Accident, there will be capacity to treat you in ICU, separately from any COVID-19 Patients!

This is the whole point of Lock Down!"

No I wasn’t missing the point because that’s the point I was making.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ophieslutTV/TS over a year ago

Central

Have you reviewed how other countries have approached this? Not all have had lockdowns, nor given up on contact tracing - as the UK did in March - nor had their health service unable to cope. Look at Hong Kong, s Korea, Germany and a few other countries to learn what they did. Consider how the UK could be different today if it had created a plan in January, when it was seen as an issue. That would have invested reading the results of the last uk epidemic readiness evaluation done recently, which showed what we were lacking in. Some simple thinking and planning, plus ordering PPE, testing supplies, ventilators that we were short of, could have been done in advance of other countries, such as the USA.

As part of our planning and management, we'd have continued Observations and evaluation of the progress of the virus, readying more things, such as volume testing resources and increasing staff levels of our existing contact testing teams.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ools and the brainCouple over a year ago

couple, us we him her.

Look it's simple

Extensive testing or not.

A huge part of the British public have taken pretty much no notice of the lockdown.

How much worse could it have been without lockdown.

Look at the final weekend prior to lockdown people in their thousands going to beaches and parks etc...

Lots of those people are potentially sick or worse now.

So imagine no lockdown and the government trusting people to do the right thing?

It just wouldn't fucking happen.

Countries like Korea and Germany have a very different mindset and a tradition of working together.

The UK is one big mess of tribalism and classes with a huge part of the country having a sense of entitlement attitude plus me first fuck everyone else.

Shit look at the fact Scotland is still fighting for independence.

A tiny island and we still can't get along with each other.

But as always a minority seems to be spoiling it for the majority just because they are too fucking spoilt or ignorant and don't like being told what to do.

Yes lockdown was and is the only way to deal with it.

The deaths happening now are largely as a result of the free movement prior to lockdown.

Give it a few more weeks see what happens then.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

If people are getting going into hospital and dying from catching it before lockdown, where do they get wait 7 days before returning to work?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hickennchipsWoman over a year ago

up above the streets and houses

Look it's simple

Extensive testing or not.

A huge part of the British public have taken pretty much no notice of the lockdown.

How much worse could it have been without lockdown.

Look at the final weekend prior to lockdown people in their thousands going to beaches and parks etc...

Lots of those people are potentially sick or worse now.

So imagine no lockdown and the government trusting people to do the right thing?

It just wouldn't fucking happen.

Countries like Korea and Germany have a very different mindset and a tradition of working together.

The UK is one big mess of tribalism and classes with a huge part of the country having a sense of entitlement attitude plus me first fuck everyone else.

Shit look at the fact Scotland is still fighting for independence.

A tiny island and we still can't get along with each other.

But as always a minority seems to be spoiling it for the majority just because they are too fucking spoilt or ignorant and don't like being told what to do.

Yes lockdown was and is the only way to deal with it.

The deaths happening now are largely as a result of the free movement prior to lockdown.

Give it a few more weeks see what happens then."

How do you know those people are potentially sick or worse now? It's guesswork, nobody actually knows the impact yet...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hickennchipsWoman over a year ago

up above the streets and houses

"i mean we are supposed to go along with it becuase it 'protects the NHS' - but what if you think its consequences will be more damaging than the virus?"

In many ways, yes. Economy, def. Is lockdown a waste of time? Time will only tell

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orny PTMan over a year ago

Peterborough

Read my lips: ECONOMIES RECOVER, DEAD PEOPLE DON'T!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"Read my lips: ECONOMIES RECOVER, DEAD PEOPLE DON'T!"

How many people are you prepared to sacrifice? People you know. Go on. Think about it. At least 8.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hickennchipsWoman over a year ago

up above the streets and houses

"Read my lips: ECONOMIES RECOVER, DEAD PEOPLE DON'T!"

Don't shout, it's rude

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Read my lips: ECONOMIES RECOVER, DEAD PEOPLE DON'T!"

On a forum.... seriously

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ools and the brainCouple over a year ago

couple, us we him her.

"Read my lips: ECONOMIES RECOVER, DEAD PEOPLE DON'T!

Don't shout, it's rude

So people can say all sort of vile things spout complete nonsense and people don't say anything.

God forbid if some should post something in CAPITALS!!

The horror.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I am dutifully fulfilling my duty as a member of the human race that perceives this is the way to beat this virus.

I have not spoken to a soul apart from occasional nod and Hi to people on my daily 1 hour walk and conversations with my best friend Mrs n. I'm feeling a bit depressed about it but hey. I will not let it beat me.

Eventually we will find a way to beat this virus but along the way there will be 10,s of 1000s of casualtiesm maybe even me but hopefully an action I have taken over the next 3 weeks will not result in the death of someone else. That is all we can do while the "few", fight this battle on our behalf.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Be glad you aren't single living in a house by yourself.....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *avidnsa69Man over a year ago

Essex & Bridgend

Nonsense. Antigen tests are accurate and places like Germany are doing 500,000 or more a week. We are barely at 20,000 a day

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *arakiss12TV/TS over a year ago

Bedford

"i mean we are supposed to go along with it becuase it 'protects the NHS' - but what if you think its consequences will be more damaging than the virus?"

It depends on the overall health of a population. If there are alot of unfit unhealthy people about then not having a lockdown would be devastating.

Russia are now paying the consequences, California could go the same way as they are belly aching about being lockdown.

As for the UK just ask yourself out of all the people you know who is in perfect health probably alot less than you thought. Plus having perfect health isn't a guarantee you won't die from it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust RachelTV/TS over a year ago

Horsham

"If Boris had pulled his fingers out of his backside in January when it started to look frightening on the news reports from China, then closer to home in Italy then we would have had testing, adequate PPE and everying else in place for the arrival and control of on our shores.

Germany and South Korea are doing well, why? Testing, tracing and a lot if it.

Caught with his pants down is an understatement thats cost countless lives and money.

It didn't need confirmation from the WHO to see what was heading our way and yet, they told us it would be no worse than a good dose of flu and many without symptoms at all.

It was that stupidity that is causing children to now having to adjust and live without parents and grandparents who have died sooner than they should.

The response is a complete and total fuck-up from the outset.

Herd Immunity to a highly contagious and high mortality disease is complete bollox. Even China wasn't completly straight, Italy should have been good enough warning.

For Hancock yesterday claiming that there is a shortage of gowns due to the 'wrong type' of virus in that full body covering is required is an insult to NHS frontline workers and families.

Canon Fodder comes to mind, the outcries over the military being under abd wrongly equipped, yet NHS and Care Workers are expected to fight without adequate protection.

My mother has been a prisioner in her own home for a month and looks likely will be until a vaccine us available - a small but needless price to pay.

Are people seriously suggesting we sacrifice our parents in order to save the economy and way of life?

These people made thier sacrifices for this country between 1935 and the late 1950's and wrong to ask them to fall again for the benefit of an ungrateful few."

I have been saying this for a while, there should be total lockdown not allowing people out without restrictions.

NHS staff should have sealed suits, not gowns and masks. Ok this costs more, more training is needed. But a lot safer for them.