FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > What's the point

What's the point

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

It's pretty clear to anyone with eyes by now that restrictions aren't going to make a blind bit of difference.

Unless literally everything is shut again this virus will keep on going - and we need to let it do just that.

Focus our attention on protecting those most at risk as best we can and the rest of us will just need to take our chances.

It's what's happening anyway so surely better to accept it and provide the resources needed to help make it work than to pursue a clearly broken policy of restriction that will only lead to increased all-causes deaths, economic disaster and potentially civil unrest.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ap d agde coupleCouple over a year ago

Broadstairs

[Removed by poster at 17/09/20 09:04:47]

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ap d agde coupleCouple over a year ago

Broadstairs

"It's pretty clear to anyone with eyes by now that restrictions aren't going to make a blind bit of difference.

Unless literally everything is shut again this virus will keep on going - and we need to let it do just that.

Focus our attention on protecting those most at risk as best we can and the rest of us will just need to take our chances.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

The point is to keep infection rates low enough so the hospitals can cope so there is a point.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ap d agde coupleCouple over a year ago

Broadstairs

"The point is to keep infection rates low enough so the hospitals can cope so there is a point."
The hospitals built for this virus are and where empty

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

"The point is to keep infection rates low enough so the hospitals can cope so there is a point. The hospitals built for this virus are and where empty "

And your point is?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

"It's pretty clear to anyone with eyes by now that restrictions aren't going to make a blind bit of difference.

Unless literally everything is shut again this virus will keep on going - and we need to let it do just that.

Focus our attention on protecting those most at risk as best we can and the rest of us will just need to take our chances.

I'm not a fan of the party in govt, but what is wrong with hands, face, space mantra, groups of 6, and local lockdowns?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ap d agde coupleCouple over a year ago

Broadstairs

"The point is to keep infection rates low enough so the hospitals can cope so there is a point. The hospitals built for this virus are and where empty

And your point is?"
The capacity was never used totally empty ,so if the only point of lockdown is so Hospitals can cope but they can Lockdown does and never will cure this Virus

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

"The point is to keep infection rates low enough so the hospitals can cope so there is a point. The hospitals built for this virus are and where empty

And your point is? The capacity was never used totally empty ,so if the only point of lockdown is so Hospitals can cope but they can Lockdown does and never will cure this Virus "

So whats your point do I have to ask twice???

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ap d agde coupleCouple over a year ago

Broadstairs

"The point is to keep infection rates low enough so the hospitals can cope so there is a point. The hospitals built for this virus are and where empty

And your point is? The capacity was never used totally empty ,so if the only point of lockdown is so Hospitals can cope but they can Lockdown does and never will cure this Virus

So whats your point do I have to ask twice???"
The point is what does Lockdown actually achieve apart from wrecking what the OP quoted

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

"It's pretty clear to anyone with eyes by now that restrictions aren't going to make a blind bit of difference.

Unless literally everything is shut again this virus will keep on going - and we need to let it do just that.

Focus our attention on protecting those most at risk as best we can and the rest of us will just need to take our chances.

I couldn't agree more, unfortunately I think most people can't see the level of future death and destruction that todays decisions will make.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *riar BelisseWoman over a year ago

Delightful Bliss

"The point is to keep infection rates low enough so the hospitals can cope so there is a point."

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

"The point is to keep infection rates low enough so the hospitals can cope so there is a point. The hospitals built for this virus are and where empty

And your point is? The capacity was never used totally empty ,so if the only point of lockdown is so Hospitals can cope but they can Lockdown does and never will cure this Virus

So whats your point do I have to ask twice??? The point is what does Lockdown actually achieve apart from wrecking what the OP quoted "

I know that I can read I asked you what your point was which you clearly lack the ability to explain.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ap d agde coupleCouple over a year ago

Broadstairs

"The point is to keep infection rates low enough so the hospitals can cope so there is a point.

"
But they can cope the extra capacity put in was hardly used

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

"The point is to keep infection rates low enough so the hospitals can cope so there is a point.

But they can cope the extra capacity put in was hardly used "

You need to read what the OP was asking you really do.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

"The point is to keep infection rates low enough so the hospitals can cope so there is a point.

But they can cope the extra capacity put in was hardly used "

Yeah, because we were in lockdown

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ophieslutTV/TS over a year ago

Central

It's fairly clear that the measures today are probably not going to be enough to eradicate the virus here but that isn't the governments goal unfortunately.

Will restrictions, of the llke that they are implementing, suppress infection levels? Probably to some extent, though it relies on public behaviour. Suppressing infection levels buys time, whilst newer treatments are found and deployed. The biggest success was from the lockdown that we had and I don't think Johnson has the guts to do it again soon.

The testing, tracing and fast isolation of those infected, if done effectively, would definitely suppress levels but would require a much better implementation than they are currently trying to pass off as world beating.

Just that would require more investment from the public and probably means that 100% of the people infected get full financial payments to the same level as if they worked. A much better investment than furlough now.

Vulnerable people should still be supported. Those with compromised immune systems should be given gold standard care.

We can do some of the things we're bodging significantly better, to create much more effective results. We should also target the BAME citizens with greater support, due to their significantly higher vulnerability to infection and death. Some things a good dose of common sense highlights who to help and where to focus, though it's essential only to be led by evidence.

We've had many chances and missed them, to have made substantial reductions to infections here, especially very early on in this year. They've gone but we can still make substantial differences.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ackformore100Man over a year ago

Tin town

"The point is to keep infection rates low enough so the hospitals can cope so there is a point.

But they can cope the extra capacity put in was hardly used "

You've answered your own point. The lockdown measures worked (as you said, hospitals just about coped through March and April) . Now what we need is people to be responsible so the economy can keep moving.

Nobody thinks lockdown cures a virus.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *inkySeeKinkyDoWoman over a year ago

'tween PontyCarlo & CasVegas in West Yorks

"The point is to keep infection rates low enough so the hospitals can cope so there is a point. The hospitals built for this virus are and where empty

And your point is? The capacity was never used totally empty ,so if the only point of lockdown is so Hospitals can cope but they can Lockdown does and never will cure this Virus

So whats your point do I have to ask twice??? The point is what does Lockdown actually achieve apart from wrecking what the OP quoted

I know that I can read I asked you what your point was which you clearly lack the ability to explain. "

Hey i dont think bating them like this is very helpful

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *inkySeeKinkyDoWoman over a year ago

'tween PontyCarlo & CasVegas in West Yorks

"The point is to keep infection rates low enough so the hospitals can cope so there is a point. The hospitals built for this virus are and where empty

And your point is? The capacity was never used totally empty ,so if the only point of lockdown is so Hospitals can cope but they can Lockdown does and never will cure this Virus

So whats your point do I have to ask twice??? The point is what does Lockdown actually achieve apart from wrecking what the OP quoted "

Though we had the bed capacity to cope, we didnt have the workforce to staff the hospitals and the nightingales, and now that workforce has depleated further, so it makes sense to protect them

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *limmatureguyMan over a year ago

Tonbridge

"The point is to keep infection rates low enough so the hospitals can cope so there is a point. The hospitals built for this virus are and where empty

And your point is? The capacity was never used totally empty ,so if the only point of lockdown is so Hospitals can cope but they can Lockdown does and never will cure this Virus

So whats your point do I have to ask twice??? The point is what does Lockdown actually achieve apart from wrecking what the OP quoted

Though we had the bed capacity to cope, we didnt have the workforce to staff the hospitals and the nightingales, and now that workforce has depleated further, so it makes sense to protect them"

We had a thousand people a day dying in March and the NHS coped, now its more like 20 a day, we are a million miles from not coping.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

"The point is to keep infection rates low enough so the hospitals can cope so there is a point. The hospitals built for this virus are and where empty

And your point is? The capacity was never used totally empty ,so if the only point of lockdown is so Hospitals can cope but they can Lockdown does and never will cure this Virus

So whats your point do I have to ask twice??? The point is what does Lockdown actually achieve apart from wrecking what the OP quoted

Though we had the bed capacity to cope, we didnt have the workforce to staff the hospitals and the nightingales, and now that workforce has depleated further, so it makes sense to protect them

We had a thousand people a day dying in March and the NHS coped, now its more like 20 a day, we are a million miles from not coping."

You are not getting it are you

It's already rising like fuck...I know I know your not yet seeing a steep rise in deaths. But they will follow now it's getting colder and winter is just around the corner.

There may not be a 1000 cut off point this winter.

It's a ongoing virus...it hasn't stopped just because you want it to and the actions we take now are vital.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ylonSlutTV/TS over a year ago

Durham

"The point is to keep infection rates low enough so the hospitals can cope so there is a point. The hospitals built for this virus are and where empty

And your point is? The capacity was never used totally empty ,so if the only point of lockdown is so Hospitals can cope but they can Lockdown does and never will cure this Virus

So whats your point do I have to ask twice??? The point is what does Lockdown actually achieve apart from wrecking what the OP quoted

Though we had the bed capacity to cope, we didnt have the workforce to staff the hospitals and the nightingales, and now that workforce has depleated further, so it makes sense to protect them

We had a thousand people a day dying in March and the NHS coped, now its more like 20 a day, we are a million miles from not coping."

Didn't have a 1000 people dying til into april a couple of weeks after lockdown. Deaths hit a peak at 5000 a day towards the end of april. At the time the NHS was very stretched. Thankfully the death rate slowly started to drop but it took 3 months of lockdown to bring it down to less than a 1000 a day. My point is if you only lockdown when death rate rockets. It is probably at least a month too late.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

"The point is to keep infection rates low enough so the hospitals can cope so there is a point. The hospitals built for this virus are and where empty

And your point is? The capacity was never used totally empty ,so if the only point of lockdown is so Hospitals can cope but they can Lockdown does and never will cure this Virus

So whats your point do I have to ask twice??? The point is what does Lockdown actually achieve apart from wrecking what the OP quoted

Though we had the bed capacity to cope, we didnt have the workforce to staff the hospitals and the nightingales, and now that workforce has depleated further, so it makes sense to protect them

We had a thousand people a day dying in March and the NHS coped, now its more like 20 a day, we are a million miles from not coping.

Think you need to re check your figures there friend

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

"The point is to keep infection rates low enough so the hospitals can cope so there is a point. The hospitals built for this virus are and where empty

And your point is? The capacity was never used totally empty ,so if the only point of lockdown is so Hospitals can cope but they can Lockdown does and never will cure this Virus

So whats your point do I have to ask twice??? The point is what does Lockdown actually achieve apart from wrecking what the OP quoted

Though we had the bed capacity to cope, we didnt have the workforce to staff the hospitals and the nightingales, and now that workforce has depleated further, so it makes sense to protect them

We had a thousand people a day dying in March and the NHS coped, now its more like 20 a day, we are a million miles from not coping.

You really need to check your figures no country has seen 5000 deaths per day or close to that.

This isn't the first post where you have listed totally incorrect figures.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ugby 123Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

O o O oo

"The point is to keep infection rates low enough so the hospitals can cope so there is a point. The hospitals built for this virus are and where empty

And your point is? The capacity was never used totally empty ,so if the only point of lockdown is so Hospitals can cope but they can Lockdown does and never will cure this Virus

So whats your point do I have to ask twice??? The point is what does Lockdown actually achieve apart from wrecking what the OP quoted

I know that I can read I asked you what your point was which you clearly lack the ability to explain. "

There is no need to be so rude, twice.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ugby 123Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

O o O oo

"The point is to keep infection rates low enough so the hospitals can cope so there is a point. The hospitals built for this virus are and where empty

And your point is? The capacity was never used totally empty ,so if the only point of lockdown is so Hospitals can cope but they can Lockdown does and never will cure this Virus "

I am guessing the capacity wasn't used because the lock down was working as they hoped it would

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ungblackbullMan over a year ago

scotland

"The point is to keep infection rates low enough so the hospitals can cope so there is a point.

But they can cope the extra capacity put in was hardly used "

This is like pulling teeth..

When covid first struck, admission rate to hospital jumped. Lockdown was implemented to reduce the pressure on the NHS. As a contingency, additional hospitals were established to cope with the potential demand. However, lockdown did enough to prevent them from being used and hospitals from becoming overwhelmed.

The situation that we may shortly find ourselves in is that hospital admissions rocket and hospitals become overwhelmed. Without a lockdown the existing hospitals will become overwhelmed which puts non-covid patients at risk. Good job there are contingency options...

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ylonSlutTV/TS over a year ago

Durham

"The point is to keep infection rates low enough so the hospitals can cope so there is a point. The hospitals built for this virus are and where empty

And your point is? The capacity was never used totally empty ,so if the only point of lockdown is so Hospitals can cope but they can Lockdown does and never will cure this Virus

So whats your point do I have to ask twice??? The point is what does Lockdown actually achieve apart from wrecking what the OP quoted

Though we had the bed capacity to cope, we didnt have the workforce to staff the hospitals and the nightingales, and now that workforce has depleated further, so it makes sense to protect them

We had a thousand people a day dying in March and the NHS coped, now its more like 20 a day, we are a million miles from not coping.

You really need to check your figures no country has seen 5000 deaths per day or close to that.

This isn't the first post where you have listed totally incorrect figures.

KJ"

I apologise KJ my figure were weekly rolling 7 day average. My main point stands the approx 1000 daily deaths were a long time after lockdown and if we wait for deaths to rise before lockdown it is far far too late.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By * and BCouple over a year ago

Durham

[Removed by poster at 17/09/20 14:19:17]

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By * and BCouple over a year ago

Durham

"The point is to keep infection rates low enough so the hospitals can cope so there is a point. The hospitals built for this virus are and where empty "

Didn't that only go to prove lockdown worked

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

"The point is to keep infection rates low enough so the hospitals can cope so there is a point. The hospitals built for this virus are and where empty "

They were a fallback, a what if and tbh I think we should all be glad they were not needed rather than them being rammed..

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *limmatureguyMan over a year ago

Tonbridge

"The point is to keep infection rates low enough so the hospitals can cope so there is a point.

But they can cope the extra capacity put in was hardly used

This is like pulling teeth..

Sweden shows that the lockdown was not what reduced the deaths. They had no lockdown and their deaths reduced in just the same way as the counties that did have a lockdown.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ylonSlutTV/TS over a year ago

Durham

[Removed by poster at 17/09/20 15:09:16]

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ylonSlutTV/TS over a year ago

Durham

"The point is to keep infection rates low enough so the hospitals can cope so there is a point.

But they can cope the extra capacity put in was hardly used

This is like pulling teeth..

Sweden shows that the lockdown was not what reduced the deaths. They had no lockdown and their deaths reduced in just the same way as the counties that did have a lockdown."

How does it show that lockdown doesn't work? sweden has one of the highest death rates in the world. Much high than any other sparsely populated country. The swedes are still social distancing and following hygiene procedures as a nation they are pretty good at doing what they are asked. The UK population don't able or want to do these things which leaves lockdown as the only answer at the moment til a vaccine appears.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

Sweden don't compare at all well with their Scandinavian neighbours yet people keep lauding them as some sort of best practise ..

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *he-Hosiery-GentMan over a year ago

Older Hot Bearded Guy

"It's pretty clear to anyone with eyes by now that restrictions aren't going to make a blind bit of difference.

Unless literally everything is shut again this virus will keep on going - and we need to let it do just that.

Focus our attention on protecting those most at risk as best we can and the rest of us will just need to take our chances.

Finally! Someone’s got it. I wonder how many months it’ll take for the penny to drop with others. All lockdowns do is postpone the rise of infections, until restrictions are lifted. The virus can’t be ‘beaten’ as the government keep saying.

There’s only 3 ways out of this. A full lockdown that never ends, which isn’t an option. A vaccine, which may or may never arrive, or we go back to normality and the virus eventually runs out of new hosts to infect.. again you can’t beat it.

Also, it’s worth pointing out, at the height of the virus on April 11th, NHS capacity across the U.K. was at 42% due to Covid (A Supreme Court judge mentioned this on Radio 2 the other day). So, we were nowhere near breaching capacity.

Don’t believe everything this government are telling you.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ylonSlutTV/TS over a year ago

Durham

"It's pretty clear to anyone with eyes by now that restrictions aren't going to make a blind bit of difference.

Unless literally everything is shut again this virus will keep on going - and we need to let it do just that.

Focus our attention on protecting those most at risk as best we can and the rest of us will just need to take our chances.

Don’t believe everything this government are telling you.

Why will the virus run out of hosts to infect?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *eddy and legsCouple over a year ago

the wetlands

"It's pretty clear to anyone with eyes by now that restrictions aren't going to make a blind bit of difference.

Unless literally everything is shut again this virus will keep on going - and we need to let it do just that.

Focus our attention on protecting those most at risk as best we can and the rest of us will just need to take our chances.

Having a pair of eyes is good, but you have to open them to see

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *limmatureguyMan over a year ago

Tonbridge

"Sweden don't compare at all well with their Scandinavian neighbours yet people keep lauding them as some sort of best practise .."

Sweden achieved exactly the same result as the uk without closing any businesses, without closing any schools without wearing masks, without putting their citizens under house arrest, without causing a drop of 20% in their gdp. When Sweden started down this route modellers in the lockdown countries predicted up to 100,000 deaths in Sweden from the virus running wild. Instead the virus peaked much as it did in other countries and then declined in the same way as the countries that locked down. What's not to be lauded.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ylonSlutTV/TS over a year ago

Durham

"Sweden don't compare at all well with their Scandinavian neighbours yet people keep lauding them as some sort of best practise ..

You are not comparing like with like. Uk is a densely populated country with many large towns and cities. Sweden is sparsely populated with few big cities or towns. Compare sweden with norway or finland you will see how sweden has been a disaster.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ylonSlutTV/TS over a year ago

Durham

Also swedens spend per head on the health is many times that of the uk.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

I read people saying when a vaccine appears or is ready - as a professional working in the science industry - you do understand we've never made a vaccine for the common cold so there is absolutely no guarantee we'll actually find one for Covid.

This will be going on for a very long time to come - the sooner people grip this idea and understand the importance of social distancing and complying with regulations the better. In fact, better than that, why don't people treat there own health with the up most priority and try help others do the same

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ap d agde coupleCouple over a year ago

Broadstairs

[Removed by poster at 17/09/20 15:59:22]

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ewcouplemidsCouple over a year ago

walsall

Lock downs only postpone the rises like its already been said its not going away

Luckily at the moment the high rise in cases aren't matched by deaths

Time will only tell if having the virus helps immunity for a second bout if it does then like someone said earlier we will become immune to it

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *est Wales WifeCouple over a year ago

Near Carmarthen

"It's pretty clear to anyone with eyes by now that restrictions aren't going to make a blind bit of difference.

Unless literally everything is shut again this virus will keep on going - and we need to let it do just that.

Focus our attention on protecting those most at risk as best we can and the rest of us will just need to take our chances.

Glad that you have seen what I have been saying here for months (to much abuse). You cannot stop a virus spreading or have zero Covid (unless you live on an island). All you can do is change the rate of progression. Testing for cases is pointless. The only thing that matters is deaths and they are very, very low.

Twice as many are currently dying each day from suicide and ten times as many from air pollution.

The vast majority who have unfortunately died are mostly the very old with comorbidities. Many were 'dry tinder' following a very soft flu season that did not kill as many as usual.

People need to wake up and start thinking for themselves.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *LIRTWITHUSCouple over a year ago

Chester

Pcr tests inaccurate as can't distinguish between dead or alive corona virus ie if you'd had cold or flu few months ago. This is all we have atm and it's dangerous to keep fear going on this evidence. Masks don't work either infact detrimental as we need strong immune system to fight all infections. This isn't just opinion had good chat with virologists earlier

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

"Pcr tests inaccurate as can't distinguish between dead or alive corona virus ie if you'd had cold or flu few months ago. This is all we have atm and it's dangerous to keep fear going on this evidence. Masks don't work either infact detrimental as we need strong immune system to fight all infections. This isn't just opinion had good chat with virologists earlier

Fi"

So whats your suggestion to resolve this ? Yes, i agree polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests are less than perfect - are you suggesting we should just stop doing everything we're doing, or does your "virologist" friend have a better suggestion?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ylonSlutTV/TS over a year ago

Durham

Fi"

This is rubbish the pcr test doesn't get false positives from cold or flu viruses. Flu isn't even a corona virus and neither are a lot of common cold viruses. What you say about masks is complete rubbish i am afraid. How does a mask make any difference to your immune system. Answer it doesn't. If masks were infective for helping prevent the spread of disease why do operating staff wear them. Answer to stop the spread of infection to the patient. Does a mask protect the wearer the evidence is less clear cut but the evidence tends to point towards that it does even if just a little.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

Can't its not available for me to view - so therefore not a credible source of information.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *LIRTWITHUSCouple over a year ago

Chester

"Can't its not available for me to view - so therefore not a credible source of information.

How does that not make it not credible, merely giving you info subject it's Talk Radio interview 4hrs ago. Sums up everything in nutshell

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

"The point is to keep infection rates low enough so the hospitals can cope so there is a point. The hospitals built for this virus are and where empty "

Is that not a good thing. In a pandemic you plan for the worse case scenario and hope for the best. What we seen from Italy was frightening, we should be thankful that those extra spaces have not been needed yet and thankful they were available if and when needed.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

"Can't its not available for me to view - so therefore not a credible source of information.

How does that not make it not credible, merely giving you info subject it's Talk Radio interview 4hrs ago. Sums up everything in nutshell"

sorry - is this you "special friend" that knows it all ? really? A facebook posting of some link that i cannot view because the content poster only shared it with a small group ? Really?

Come on... Stop trying to post false information or propaganda you cannot back up. What are you on about ? Please inbox me for a conversation

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

"It's pretty clear to anyone with eyes by now that restrictions aren't going to make a blind bit of difference.

Unless literally everything is shut again this virus will keep on going - and we need to let it do just that.

Focus our attention on protecting those most at risk as best we can and the rest of us will just need to take our chances.

Don’t believe everything this government are telling you.

100%

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

"It's pretty clear to anyone with eyes by now that restrictions aren't going to make a blind bit of difference.

Unless literally everything is shut again this virus will keep on going - and we need to let it do just that.

Focus our attention on protecting those most at risk as best we can and the rest of us will just need to take our chances.

Twice as many are currently dying each day from suicide and ten times as many from air pollution.

The vast majority who have unfortunately died are mostly the very old with comorbidities. Many were 'dry tinder' following a very soft flu season that did not kill as many as usual.

People need to wake up and start thinking for themselves."

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *limmatureguyMan over a year ago

Tonbridge

"Sweden don't compare at all well with their Scandinavian neighbours yet people keep lauding them as some sort of best practise ..

A large number of the deaths were in care homes so in hindsight they could have done a better job of isolating the care home population as could have the UK

Most of the deaths were in Stockholm with a population density of 5000 per square kilometre, very comparable with London at 5000 per square kilometre.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *LIRTWITHUSCouple over a year ago

Chester

"Can't its not available for me to view - so therefore not a credible source of information.

How does that not make it not credible, merely giving you info subject it's Talk Radio interview 4hrs ago. Sums up everything in nutshell

sorry - is this you "special friend" that knows it all ? really? A facebook posting of some link that i cannot view because the content poster only shared it with a small group ? Really?

Come on... Stop trying to post false information or propaganda you cannot back up. What are you on about ? Please inbox me for a conversation

Open discussion on forum, no need for this. No this is talk radio interview by Julia Hartley-Brewer. No conspiracy theories for me just facts not mainstream brainwashing.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ikedecsMan over a year ago

Wolverhampton

The economy is already wrecked and will take a long time to recover as far as im concerned through own experience hospitals were never overrun with c19 patients and had the staff taken from other depts. To cope

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ionelhutzMan over a year ago

liverpool

"Can't its not available for me to view - so therefore not a credible source of information.

How does that not make it not credible, merely giving you info subject it's Talk Radio interview 4hrs ago. Sums up everything in nutshell

sorry - is this you "special friend" that knows it all ? really? A facebook posting of some link that i cannot view because the content poster only shared it with a small group ? Really?

Come on... Stop trying to post false information or propaganda you cannot back up. What are you on about ? Please inbox me for a conversation

Open discussion on forum, no need for this. No this is talk radio interview by Julia Hartley-Brewer. No conspiracy theories for me just facts not mainstream brainwashing. "

A daily mail columnist?

No ta.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

"The economy is already wrecked and will take a long time to recover as far as im concerned through own experience hospitals were never overrun with c19 patients and had the staff taken from other depts. To cope"

That's a good thing, must better to be prepared and not required then to be unprepared and be overrun with death, pain and suffering.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

"Can't its not available for me to view - so therefore not a credible source of information.

How does that not make it not credible, merely giving you info subject it's Talk Radio interview 4hrs ago. Sums up everything in nutshell

sorry - is this you "special friend" that knows it all ? really? A facebook posting of some link that i cannot view because the content poster only shared it with a small group ? Really?

Come on... Stop trying to post false information or propaganda you cannot back up. What are you on about ? Please inbox me for a conversation

Open discussion on forum, no need for this. No this is talk radio interview by Julia Hartley-Brewer. No conspiracy theories for me just facts not mainstream brainwashing. "

No need for what exactly?

Asking you to backup your statements with scientific and factual evidence - your saying a journalist on television is an expert in epidemiology. You previously said in public - to everybody on this site, reading this forum topic you have a friend that is an expert in this field - and i am questioning that right now. What is this no need for exactly? You a lier ? Telling a Porky Poo ? Maybe wnat to retract something, are somebody that has to have the final say, on any matter even if you know nothing about it?

To say...i work in a lab in Cambs trying to identify a possible solution and your lovely supportive comments about my work are really unhelpful and sorry.... please stop posting anymore comments about subjects you obviously are out on your depth on. please.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

"Can't its not available for me to view - so therefore not a credible source of information.

How does that not make it not credible, merely giving you info subject it's Talk Radio interview 4hrs ago. Sums up everything in nutshell

sorry - is this you "special friend" that knows it all ? really? A facebook posting of some link that i cannot view because the content poster only shared it with a small group ? Really?

Come on... Stop trying to post false information or propaganda you cannot back up. What are you on about ? Please inbox me for a conversation

Open discussion on forum, no need for this. No this is talk radio interview by Julia Hartley-Brewer. No conspiracy theories for me just facts not mainstream brainwashing.

No need for what exactly?

There’s really no need to be so rude.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

"Can't its not available for me to view - so therefore not a credible source of information.

How does that not make it not credible, merely giving you info subject it's Talk Radio interview 4hrs ago. Sums up everything in nutshell

sorry - is this you "special friend" that knows it all ? really? A facebook posting of some link that i cannot view because the content poster only shared it with a small group ? Really?

Come on... Stop trying to post false information or propaganda you cannot back up. What are you on about ? Please inbox me for a conversation

Open discussion on forum, no need for this. No this is talk radio interview by Julia Hartley-Brewer. No conspiracy theories for me just facts not mainstream brainwashing.

No need for what exactly?

There’s really no need to be so rude."

Rude? Oh really?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

"Sweden don't compare at all well with their Scandinavian neighbours yet people keep lauding them as some sort of best practise ..

A large number of the deaths were in care homes so in hindsight they could have done a better job of isolating the care home population as could have the UK

Most of the deaths were in Stockholm with a population density of 5000 per square kilometre, very comparable with London at 5000 per square kilometre."

Exactly but the against Sweden crowd like to ignore those facts.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *aisyDoandDaisyDontWoman over a year ago

little old town of Reading!

"Sweden don't compare at all well with their Scandinavian neighbours yet people keep lauding them as some sort of best practise ..

A large number of the deaths were in care homes so in hindsight they could have done a better job of isolating the care home population as could have the UK

Most of the deaths were in Stockholm with a population density of 5000 per square kilometre, very comparable with London at 5000 per square kilometre.

Exactly but the against Sweden crowd like to ignore those facts.

KJ"

It’s not convenient. Sad really- they like to spit and fizz about numbers and science, but ignore every fact that comes their way in return.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *D835Man over a year ago

London

"Sweden don't compare at all well with their Scandinavian neighbours yet people keep lauding them as some sort of best practise ..

A large number of the deaths were in care homes so in hindsight they could have done a better job of isolating the care home population as could have the UK

Most of the deaths were in Stockholm with a population density of 5000 per square kilometre, very comparable with London at 5000 per square kilometre."

Facts about Sweden :

Among all the Nordic countries, Sweden has the highest death rate per capita, the highest number of infections, plus they’ve had a worse economic outcome compared to neighbours Norway and Finland.

They failed in their care homes too.

Sweden’s strategy did not save lives nor their economy.

As it stands, that’s not a successful strategy, and not one to emulate.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

"The point is to keep infection rates low enough so the hospitals can cope so there is a point."

Exactly! It would be disaster and unforgivable if we let it run riot and unable to treat the unfortunate who this affected

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *eddy and legsCouple over a year ago

the wetlands

"Sweden don't compare at all well with their Scandinavian neighbours yet people keep lauding them as some sort of best practise ..

A large number of the deaths were in care homes so in hindsight they could have done a better job of isolating the care home population as could have the UK

Most of the deaths were in Stockholm with a population density of 5000 per square kilometre, very comparable with London at 5000 per square kilometre.

Facts about Sweden :

Among all the Nordic countries, Sweden has the highest death rate per capita, the highest number of infections, plus they’ve had a worse economic outcome compared to neighbours Norway and Finland.

They failed in their care homes too.

Sweden’s strategy did not save lives nor their economy.

As it stands, that’s not a successful strategy, and not one to emulate."

Surely you can't let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy.

What's fab turning into

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

Thanks to lockdown.....

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

Claiming one country has handled this pandemic better than another is like announcing the result of a football match in the 30th minute.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

Facts about Sweden :

Among all the Nordic countries, Sweden has the highest death rate per capita, the highest number of infections, plus they’ve had a worse economic outcome compared to neighbours Norway and Finland.

They failed in their care homes too.

Sweden’s strategy did not save lives nor their economy.

As it stands, that’s not a successful strategy, and not one to emulate."

We will see whether or not they got it right when the dust finally settles.

I strongly suspect we'll find that the overall mortality rate (adjusted for population) is much the same across the board, lockdown or no lockdown.

Lockdowns delay infections, they do not prevent them in the long term. Only the arrival of a vaccine or effective treatment can prevent a statistically significant number of deaths - lockdowns can't because they cannot be sustained indefinately.

I said that right back at the very start of this and I've kept on saying it ever since. You don't need a fancy degree to apply basic logic to the situation... we have a highly contagious virus, little natural immunity and a dense, mobile population. If you reduce the mobility of the population (lockdown) you reduce the ability of the virus to spread BUT what we all seem to be forgetting is that the virus is still in circulation at a low level, waiting for that mobility to increase again (easing of lockdown). As soon as that happens, infections rise again. Result, lockdown has no appreciable effect on overall mortality.

Do what we can to protect our most vulnerable and end this rollercoaster ride to social disfunction, economic ruin & genuinely avoidable deaths.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *D835Man over a year ago

London

Facts about Sweden :

Among all the Nordic countries, Sweden has the highest death rate per capita, the highest number of infections, plus they’ve had a worse economic outcome compared to neighbours Norway and Finland.

They failed in their care homes too.

Sweden’s strategy did not save lives nor their economy.

As it stands, that’s not a successful strategy, and not one to emulate.

We will see whether or not they got it right when the dust finally settles.

I strongly suspect we'll find that the overall mortality rate (adjusted for population) is much the same across the board, lockdown or no lockdown.

Do what we can to protect our most vulnerable and end this rollercoaster ride to social disfunction, economic ruin & genuinely avoidable deaths."

“.... Lockdowns delay infections...”

—————————

And that’s exactly the purpose of lockdowns - to prevent the virus from spreading exponentially. And lockdowns have been successful in doing so.

When we have better control measures like a vaccine, effective treatments, better track and trace, then there will be no need for lockdowns. Until then lockdown is one of the tools we have to use.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

Facts about Sweden :

Among all the Nordic countries, Sweden has the highest death rate per capita, the highest number of infections, plus they’ve had a worse economic outcome compared to neighbours Norway and Finland.

They failed in their care homes too.

Sweden’s strategy did not save lives nor their economy.

As it stands, that’s not a successful strategy, and not one to emulate.

We will see whether or not they got it right when the dust finally settles.

I strongly suspect we'll find that the overall mortality rate (adjusted for population) is much the same across the board, lockdown or no lockdown.

Do what we can to protect our most vulnerable and end this rollercoaster ride to social disfunction, economic ruin & genuinely avoidable deaths.

“.... Lockdowns delay infections...”

—————————

And that’s exactly the purpose of lockdowns - to prevent the virus from spreading exponentially. And lockdowns have been successful in doing so.

When we have better control measures like a vaccine, effective treatments, better track and trace, then there will be no need for lockdowns. Until then lockdown is one of the tools we have to use. "

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

And that’s exactly the purpose of lockdowns - to prevent the virus from spreading exponentially. And lockdowns have been successful in doing so.

When we have better control measures like a vaccine, effective treatments, better track and trace, then there will be no need for lockdowns. Until then lockdown is one of the tools we have to use. "

And just how long do you think we can realistically continue on this path?

There is NO guarantee of a vaccine and NO guarantee of a treatment/cure. If you want to wait & hope, fine, but remember someone has to explain to all the families who lose people as a result of avoidable/treatable illness that went untreated because of lockdown why those lives matter less than the those of people who might catch covid.

Track and trace... impractical with widespread infection. We had our chance with that first time round and blew it.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

We unfortunately need to prevent the virus from spreading and lockdowns are the only method atm otherwise the hospitals will not able to cope, especially as we are heading into flu season.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

"It's pretty clear to anyone with eyes by now that restrictions aren't going to make a blind bit of difference.

Unless literally everything is shut again this virus will keep on going - and we need to let it do just that.

Focus our attention on protecting those most at risk as best we can and the rest of us will just need to take our chances.

I'm not a fan of the party in govt, but what is wrong with hands, face, space mantra, groups of 6, and local lockdowns?"

Thanks for your response OP

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *unloversCouple over a year ago

rotherham

Why are some people in these threads so rude and sarcastic

Thought we where all suppose to be sticking together and trying to sort things out

I don’t usually attatched to these threads for the fear of someone biting your head off

Good reading tho

Lol

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *xpressionistMan over a year ago

ST. ALBANS

"It's pretty clear to anyone with eyes by now that restrictions aren't going to make a blind bit of difference.

Unless literally everything is shut again this virus will keep on going - and we need to let it do just that.

Focus our attention on protecting those most at risk as best we can and the rest of us will just need to take our chances.

Agree, locking everyone away is not a cure, it's delaying the inevitable. Humans may have to realise that we are not the top of the food chain.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *r_FaustusMan over a year ago

Northampton

"It's pretty clear to anyone with eyes by now that restrictions aren't going to make a blind bit of difference.

Unless literally everything is shut again this virus will keep on going - and we need to let it do just that.

Focus our attention on protecting those most at risk as best we can and the rest of us will just need to take our chances."

Ok - if we do that (or if we had done that in March), and follow Dominic Cummings’ policy of herd immunity:

1. ICUs would be full; operating theatres would be used as overflow ICUs; hospitals would be full

2. If we assume 80% of the population get COVID in the next few months, and as few as 1 in 20 need to go to hospital, and as few as a tenth of those in hospital die:

80% of 60 million: 48 million cases

1 in 20 of those: 2.4 million admissions

A tenth of those: 240000 deaths

That’s being optimistic; more likely to be 600000 deaths, if no measures taken.

....plus all the “collateral damage” from non-COVID patients not being able to be treated, or treated sub-optimally because there simply isn’t the space or resources.

Re Nightingale Hospitals: other units that send patients to the Nightingale Hospitals are also supposed to supply staff (+/- ventilators), thus undermining local hospitals. The UK does not have the medical, nursing or AHP staff it requires.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *D835Man over a year ago

London

"It's pretty clear to anyone with eyes by now that restrictions aren't going to make a blind bit of difference.

Unless literally everything is shut again this virus will keep on going - and we need to let it do just that.

Focus our attention on protecting those most at risk as best we can and the rest of us will just need to take our chances.

Ok - if we do that (or if we had done that in March), and follow Dominic Cummings’ policy of herd immunity:

1. ICUs would be full; operating theatres would be used as overflow ICUs; hospitals would be full

2. If we assume 80% of the population get COVID in the next few months, and as few as 1 in 20 need to go to hospital, and as few as a tenth of those in hospital die:

80% of 60 million: 48 million cases

1 in 20 of those: 2.4 million admissions

A tenth of those: 240000 deaths

That’s being optimistic; more likely to be 600000 deaths, if no measures taken.

....plus all the “collateral damage” from non-COVID patients not being able to be treated, or treated sub-optimally because there simply isn’t the space or resources.

This

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ungblackbullMan over a year ago

scotland

"I read people saying when a vaccine appears or is ready - as a professional working in the science industry - you do understand we've never made a vaccine for the common cold so there is absolutely no guarantee we'll actually find one for Covid.

As a professional working in the science industry (wtf does that mean? Astronomer? Astronaut?) you would understand the reasons why a vaccine has never been produced for the common cold.

Making a comparison to covid is therefore ridiculous...

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

Ok - if we do that (or if we had done that in March), and follow Dominic Cummings’ policy of herd immunity:

1. ICUs would be full; operating theatres would be used as overflow ICUs; hospitals would be full

2. If we assume 80% of the population get COVID in the next few months, and as few as 1 in 20 need to go to hospital, and as few as a tenth of those in hospital die:

80% of 60 million: 48 million cases

1 in 20 of those: 2.4 million admissions

A tenth of those: 240000 deaths

That’s being optimistic; more likely to be 600000 deaths, if no measures taken.

....plus all the “collateral damage” from non-COVID patients not being able to be treated, or treated sub-optimally because there simply isn’t the space or resources.

I'll bite.

Please explain just how a lockdown will change those nunbersmin the long term.

It WON'T.

It will mean it drags on, and on, and on...but the same 80% will eventually get covid, the same 20% will end up in hospital and the same number will die from it. It'll just take years instead of months.

And as for your 'collateral damage', it's already happening BECAUSE of lockdown. Oh, and the lockdown is adding social disfunction and economic misery to that as well.

Tell me again what the advantage of a lockdown is?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *D835Man over a year ago

London

And that’s exactly the purpose of lockdowns - to prevent the virus from spreading exponentially. And lockdowns have been successful in doing so.

When we have better control measures like a vaccine, effective treatments, better track and trace, then there will be no need for lockdowns. Until then lockdown is one of the tools we have to use.

And just how long do you think we can realistically continue on this path?

Track and trace... impractical with widespread infection. We had our chance with that first time round and blew it.

“..... but remember someone has to explain to all the families who lose people as a result of avoidable/treatable illness.....”

———————————

The same way someone has to explain to all the families who lose people, if NO action is taken to control the spread of the virus.

You also need to remember that death is not the only consequence of covid. Some of those who recover end of up suffering from ‘Long Tail Covid’ and end up with long term health problems which will require treatment. This does not just affect the old and vulnerable, it affects the young and healthy as well.

These ‘Long Covid’ sufferers will then need NHS treatment..... which will require more time and resources from the NHS......which will then lead to longer waiting lists........which will then lead to more people being undiagnosed for other illness........which will lead to even more people dying due to lack of treatment.

So you can see the devastating chain-of-events that will occur if we just sit back and allow the virus to spiral out of control.

No action we take now will cause the virus to disappear overnight, but any action taken to reduce the spread will save lives and our health system. The worst decision to make - is to do nothing at all.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *r_FaustusMan over a year ago

Northampton

I'll bite.

Please explain just how a lockdown will change those nunbersmin the long term.

It WON'T.

And as for your 'collateral damage', it's already happening BECAUSE of lockdown. Oh, and the lockdown is adding social disfunction and economic misery to that as well.

Tell me again what the advantage of a lockdown is?"

The point of lockdown was to flatten the curve - and hopefully reduce the area under the curve (ie same number of deaths, but slower, or possibly reduced number of deaths).

Compared with what could have happened - and compared with what might happen in the next couple of months - what we’ve had so far is a minor inconvenience.

Now imagine, starting within the next month and continuing til March:

No ICU beds - so no major surgery can happen, for anything

No operating theatre space - so no surgery for anything (Appendicitis? Cross your fingers...! Broken bones? Suck it up...!)

No spare staff - because we could lose 10% of the workforce to COVID.

Medication shortages - including oxygen: very real possibility because of the numbers of patients; and nowhere else to get extra supplies because other countries are in the same pickle.

If you doubt this, have a look at the time course of the 1918/19 ‘flu’ pandemic. The first wave (spring 1918) was bad; the second wave (cOct 1918-Apr 1919) was much bigger and longer.

....and I’ve seldom hoped more that I’m wrong.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *r_FaustusMan over a year ago

Northampton

“..... but remember someone has to explain to all the families who lose people as a result of avoidable/treatable illness.....”

———————————

The same way someone has to explain to all the families who lose people, if NO action is taken to control the spread of the virus.

So you can see the devastating chain-of-events that will occur if we just sit back and allow the virus to spiral out of control.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

And that’s exactly the purpose of lockdowns - to prevent the virus from spreading exponentially. And lockdowns have been successful in doing so.

When we have better control measures like a vaccine, effective treatments, better track and trace, then there will be no need for lockdowns. Until then lockdown is one of the tools we have to use.

And just how long do you think we can realistically continue on this path?

Track and trace... impractical with widespread infection. We had our chance with that first time round and blew it.

“..... but remember someone has to explain to all the families who lose people as a result of avoidable/treatable illness.....”

———————————

The same way someone has to explain to all the families who lose people, if NO action is taken to control the spread of the virus.

So you can see the devastating chain-of-events that will occur if we just sit back and allow the virus to spiral out of control.

If the patient has similar experiences to me, they won't use up additional resources (cos it's only an infection

) and 18 months later STILL waiting for both cognitive AND physical rehab.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

"It's pretty clear to anyone with eyes by now that restrictions aren't going to make a blind bit of difference.

Unless literally everything is shut again this virus will keep on going - and we need to let it do just that.

Focus our attention on protecting those most at risk as best we can and the rest of us will just need to take our chances.

Ok - if we do that (or if we had done that in March), and follow Dominic Cummings’ policy of herd immunity:

1. ICUs would be full; operating theatres would be used as overflow ICUs; hospitals would be full

2. If we assume 80% of the population get COVID in the next few months, and as few as 1 in 20 need to go to hospital, and as few as a tenth of those in hospital die:

80% of 60 million: 48 million cases

1 in 20 of those: 2.4 million admissions

A tenth of those: 240000 deaths

That’s being optimistic; more likely to be 600000 deaths, if no measures taken.

....plus all the “collateral damage” from non-COVID patients not being able to be treated, or treated sub-optimally because there simply isn’t the space or resources.

Can I ask were you get those figures from ?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *D835Man over a year ago

London

And that’s exactly the purpose of lockdowns - to prevent the virus from spreading exponentially. And lockdowns have been successful in doing so.

When we have better control measures like a vaccine, effective treatments, better track and trace, then there will be no need for lockdowns. Until then lockdown is one of the tools we have to use.

And just how long do you think we can realistically continue on this path?

Track and trace... impractical with widespread infection. We had our chance with that first time round and blew it.

“..... but remember someone has to explain to all the families who lose people as a result of avoidable/treatable illness.....”

———————————

The same way someone has to explain to all the families who lose people, if NO action is taken to control the spread of the virus.

So you can see the devastating chain-of-events that will occur if we just sit back and allow the virus to spiral out of control.

If the patient has similar experiences to me, they won't use up additional resources (cos it's only an infection

) and 18 months later STILL waiting for both cognitive AND physical rehab. "

“......... If the patient has similar experiences to me.....”

—————————

It is *impossible* for all patients to have a similar experience like the one you had.

The effects of covid range from: having no symptoms at all - to death. There is such huge disparity in its effects, that it is impossible to predict what the end result would be like with every person that gets infected.

The uncertainty of the virus’ effects on each individual is all the more reason why we need to control its spread.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

And that’s exactly the purpose of lockdowns - to prevent the virus from spreading exponentially. And lockdowns have been successful in doing so.

When we have better control measures like a vaccine, effective treatments, better track and trace, then there will be no need for lockdowns. Until then lockdown is one of the tools we have to use.

And just how long do you think we can realistically continue on this path?

Track and trace... impractical with widespread infection. We had our chance with that first time round and blew it.

“..... but remember someone has to explain to all the families who lose people as a result of avoidable/treatable illness.....”

———————————

The same way someone has to explain to all the families who lose people, if NO action is taken to control the spread of the virus.

So you can see the devastating chain-of-events that will occur if we just sit back and allow the virus to spiral out of control.

If the patient has similar experiences to me, they won't use up additional resources (cos it's only an infection

) and 18 months later STILL waiting for both cognitive AND physical rehab.

“......... If the patient has similar experiences to me.....”

—————————

It is *impossible* for all patients to have a similar experience like the one you had.

The uncertainty of the virus’ effects on each individual is all the more reason why we need to control its spread. "

There will be patients who unfortunately will have a similar experience to me - the failure to be assessed and then provided with necessary rehab following a severe, life threatening infection!

BTW I stated "patient" initially. It's because I know not ALL patients will experience the nhs failing them.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *r_FaustusMan over a year ago

Northampton

Can I ask were you get those figures from ?

Based on figures from Imperial College about hospitalisation, ICU admission and death from COVID, by age group; and the UK’s current population by age group.

The assumption I’ve made is that 80% of the population will get it (which is the level you need for “herd immunity” - assuming that you can COVID once and then be immune, which may not be the case, of course).

I’ve been conservative (mortality around 1% of the population overall). if you want to be less conservative, the estimations could be as bad as 1.2 million deaths in the next 6 months.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

Even if we did nothing and let it rip till we got herd immunity, unless the rest of the world did the same, we would become a pariah nation with nobody wanting to come here and no Brits allowed to travel anywhere else.

Other countries might might not even want to trade with us.

Sadly we can’t do this thing isolation unless we are prepared to totally devastate the economy.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *old1974Man over a year ago

Manchester

"The point is to keep infection rates low enough so the hospitals can cope so there is a point."
nightingale hospitals= no patients the hospital's can cope no problems.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *rHotNottsMan over a year ago

Dubai & Nottingham

Government keeps making big mistakes , mon-weds eating out created spikes, unrestricted transport and school systems but rule of 6. While they keep fucking things up it’s going to be chaotic. Even if it runs through the entire population, if you live in a house where people have you only have a 1 in 3 chance of catching it , most people are immune already

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *D835Man over a year ago

London

And that’s exactly the purpose of lockdowns - to prevent the virus from spreading exponentially. And lockdowns have been successful in doing so.

When we have better control measures like a vaccine, effective treatments, better track and trace, then there will be no need for lockdowns. Until then lockdown is one of the tools we have to use.

And just how long do you think we can realistically continue on this path?

Track and trace... impractical with widespread infection. We had our chance with that first time round and blew it.

“..... but remember someone has to explain to all the families who lose people as a result of avoidable/treatable illness.....”

———————————

The same way someone has to explain to all the families who lose people, if NO action is taken to control the spread of the virus.

So you can see the devastating chain-of-events that will occur if we just sit back and allow the virus to spiral out of control.

If the patient has similar experiences to me, they won't use up additional resources (cos it's only an infection

) and 18 months later STILL waiting for both cognitive AND physical rehab.

“......... If the patient has similar experiences to me.....”

—————————

It is *impossible* for all patients to have a similar experience like the one you had.

The uncertainty of the virus’ effects on each individual is all the more reason why we need to control its spread.

There will be patients who unfortunately will have a similar experience to me - the failure to be assessed and then provided with necessary rehab following a severe, life threatening infection!

BTW I stated "patient" initially. It's because I know not ALL patients will experience the nhs failing them. "

“....... There will be patients who unfortunately will have a similar experience to me - the failure to be assessed and then provided with necessary rehab.....”

————————

And that situation will become even worse if we allow covid 19 to spread and infect more people.

Allowing it to spread will inevitably lead to more people being hospitalised..... more ‘Long Covid’ patients needing treatment....which will in turn lead to longer waiting lists than we have already.

Like I said, any action taken to reduce the spread will save lives and our health system. The worst decision to make - is to do nothing at all.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

Can I ask were you get those figures from ?

Based on figures from Imperial College about hospitalisation, ICU admission and death from COVID, by age group; and the UK’s current population by age group.

I’ve been conservative (mortality around 1% of the population overall). if you want to be less conservative, the estimations could be as bad as 1.2 million deaths in the next 6 months."

The imperial college modelling which most of the world adopted, predicted a death toll of 500,000 without mitigation in the U.K. Of course as we implemented lockdown we can’t say if that modelling is correct, though we are still using it to drive policy.

The only country where we can judge the accuracy of the modelling is Sweden.

Uppsala university published a paper in April with predictions based on the imperial college modelling. They predicted with no mitigation that Sweden would have 96,000 deaths by the 1st July.

If they continued with their current mitigation of hand hygiene and social distancing they could reduce that 96,000 by 15%.

If they implemented a European style lockdown they could expect to reduce the 96,000 by 50%.

Famously or infamously depending on your viewpoint they chose to stick with their policy of hand hygiene and social distancing.

Their current death toll is under 6,000.

I can understand why the U.K. decided to implement the lockdown in March as the data wasn’t clear.

I would say to go back into a full National lockdown in future based on the imperial college modelling is questionable.

Before we get the usual compare Sweden with other Nordic countries rhetoric,this is about the imperial college modelling not the Swedish handling of the pandemic.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *sGivesWoodWoman over a year ago

ST. AUSTELL, CORNWALL

"It's pretty clear to anyone with eyes by now that restrictions aren't going to make a blind bit of difference.

Unless literally everything is shut again this virus will keep on going - and we need to let it do just that.

Focus our attention on protecting those most at risk as best we can and the rest of us will just need to take our chances.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *aisyDoandDaisyDontWoman over a year ago

little old town of Reading!

Can I ask were you get those figures from ?

Based on figures from Imperial College about hospitalisation, ICU admission and death from COVID, by age group; and the UK’s current population by age group.

I’ve been conservative (mortality around 1% of the population overall). if you want to be less conservative, the estimations could be as bad as 1.2 million deaths in the next 6 months.

The only country where we can judge the accuracy of the modelling is Sweden.

Uppsala university published a paper in April with predictions based on the imperial college modelling. They predicted with no mitigation that Sweden would have 96,000 deaths by the 1st July.

If they continued with their current mitigation of hand hygiene and social distancing they could reduce that 96,000 by 15%.

If they implemented a European style lockdown they could expect to reduce the 96,000 by 50%.

Famously or infamously depending on your viewpoint they chose to stick with their policy of hand hygiene and social distancing.

Their current death toll is under 6,000.

I can understand why the U.K. decided to implement the lockdown in March as the data wasn’t clear.

I would say to go back into a full National lockdown in future based on the imperial college modelling is questionable.

Before we get the usual compare Sweden with other Nordic countries rhetoric,this is about the imperial college modelling not the Swedish handling of the pandemic.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

And that’s exactly the purpose of lockdowns - to prevent the virus from spreading exponentially. And lockdowns have been successful in doing so.

When we have better control measures like a vaccine, effective treatments, better track and trace, then there will be no need for lockdowns. Until then lockdown is one of the tools we have to use.

And just how long do you think we can realistically continue on this path?

Track and trace... impractical with widespread infection. We had our chance with that first time round and blew it.

“..... but remember someone has to explain to all the families who lose people as a result of avoidable/treatable illness.....”

———————————

The same way someone has to explain to all the families who lose people, if NO action is taken to control the spread of the virus.

So you can see the devastating chain-of-events that will occur if we just sit back and allow the virus to spiral out of control.

If the patient has similar experiences to me, they won't use up additional resources (cos it's only an infection

) and 18 months later STILL waiting for both cognitive AND physical rehab.

“......... If the patient has similar experiences to me.....”

—————————

It is *impossible* for all patients to have a similar experience like the one you had.

The uncertainty of the virus’ effects on each individual is all the more reason why we need to control its spread.

There will be patients who unfortunately will have a similar experience to me - the failure to be assessed and then provided with necessary rehab following a severe, life threatening infection!

BTW I stated "patient" initially. It's because I know not ALL patients will experience the nhs failing them.

“....... There will be patients who unfortunately will have a similar experience to me - the failure to be assessed and then provided with necessary rehab.....”

————————

And that situation will become even worse if we allow covid 19 to spread and infect more people.

Like I said, any action taken to reduce the spread will save lives and our health system. The worst decision to make - is to do nothing at all. "

You're not telling me anything I don't already understand. I raised one point and covertly stated that Trusts vary in their standards. I was failed before covid (and continue to be).

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *he-Hosiery-GentMan over a year ago

Older Hot Bearded Guy

Facts about Sweden :

Among all the Nordic countries, Sweden has the highest death rate per capita, the highest number of infections, plus they’ve had a worse economic outcome compared to neighbours Norway and Finland.

They failed in their care homes too.

Sweden’s strategy did not save lives nor their economy.

As it stands, that’s not a successful strategy, and not one to emulate.

We will see whether or not they got it right when the dust finally settles.

I strongly suspect we'll find that the overall mortality rate (adjusted for population) is much the same across the board, lockdown or no lockdown.

Do what we can to protect our most vulnerable and end this rollercoaster ride to social disfunction, economic ruin & genuinely avoidable deaths.

“.... Lockdowns delay infections...”

—————————

And that’s exactly the purpose of lockdowns - to prevent the virus from spreading exponentially. And lockdowns have been successful in doing so.

When we have better control measures like a vaccine, effective treatments, better track and trace, then there will be no need for lockdowns. Until then lockdown is one of the tools we have to use. "

Some people are really struggling to grasp this. Lockdowns postpone the transmission All they achieve is delaying it & buying you some time. Whoever would have died, will still die. It's just spread out over a longer period of time. Exponential or whatever. They only work if you have a handful of cases from the outset & can effectively track and trace to nip it in the bud.

Nhs ICU capacity at the peak of the virus on April 11th only reached 42%, so despite the governments 'message' we've never been close to breaching this. And this occurred 19 days after lockdown, so there's your incubation period.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *riar BelisseWoman over a year ago

Delightful Bliss

Facts about Sweden :

Among all the Nordic countries, Sweden has the highest death rate per capita, the highest number of infections, plus they’ve had a worse economic outcome compared to neighbours Norway and Finland.

They failed in their care homes too.

Sweden’s strategy did not save lives nor their economy.

As it stands, that’s not a successful strategy, and not one to emulate.

We will see whether or not they got it right when the dust finally settles.

I strongly suspect we'll find that the overall mortality rate (adjusted for population) is much the same across the board, lockdown or no lockdown.

Do what we can to protect our most vulnerable and end this rollercoaster ride to social disfunction, economic ruin & genuinely avoidable deaths.

“.... Lockdowns delay infections...”

—————————

And that’s exactly the purpose of lockdowns - to prevent the virus from spreading exponentially. And lockdowns have been successful in doing so.

When we have better control measures like a vaccine, effective treatments, better track and trace, then there will be no need for lockdowns. Until then lockdown is one of the tools we have to use.

Can I ask what is your source please on nhs figures

Slowing it down gives people time to research this disease and experiment with different drugs to help alleviate symptoms, this can only be a good thing.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

if that were the point schools would be closed.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

Because in the end everybody will get infected in some way by the virus , the rules in place are to slow the infection down

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

"It's pretty clear to anyone with eyes by now that restrictions aren't going to make a blind bit of difference.

Unless literally everything is shut again this virus will keep on going - and we need to let it do just that.

Focus our attention on protecting those most at risk as best we can and the rest of us will just need to take our chances.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *he-Hosiery-GentMan over a year ago

Older Hot Bearded Guy

Facts about Sweden :

Among all the Nordic countries, Sweden has the highest death rate per capita, the highest number of infections, plus they’ve had a worse economic outcome compared to neighbours Norway and Finland.

They failed in their care homes too.

Sweden’s strategy did not save lives nor their economy.

As it stands, that’s not a successful strategy, and not one to emulate.

We will see whether or not they got it right when the dust finally settles.

I strongly suspect we'll find that the overall mortality rate (adjusted for population) is much the same across the board, lockdown or no lockdown.

Do what we can to protect our most vulnerable and end this rollercoaster ride to social disfunction, economic ruin & genuinely avoidable deaths.

“.... Lockdowns delay infections...”

—————————

And that’s exactly the purpose of lockdowns - to prevent the virus from spreading exponentially. And lockdowns have been successful in doing so.

When we have better control measures like a vaccine, effective treatments, better track and trace, then there will be no need for lockdowns. Until then lockdown is one of the tools we have to use.

Can I ask what is your source please on nhs figures

Slowing it down gives people time to research this disease and experiment with different drugs to help alleviate symptoms, this can only be a good thing. "

Sure you can. Meant to say. Was from Lord Sumption a former Supreme Court Judge being interviewed on radio during the week.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *assion and MoreCouple over a year ago

Here and There, Monaghan

"It's pretty clear to anyone with eyes by now that restrictions aren't going to make a blind bit of difference.

Unless literally everything is shut again this virus will keep on going - and we need to let it do just that.

Focus our attention on protecting those most at risk as best we can and the rest of us will just need to take our chances.

Actually restrictions do work, places that have implemented severe restrictions have seen a sharp decline in infections. As the restrictions are eased the infection rate rises again. The real question should be what level of restrictions vis_a_vis the infection rate and deaths do we as a society find acceptable.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

Can I ask were you get those figures from ?

Based on figures from Imperial College about hospitalisation, ICU admission and death from COVID, by age group; and the UK’s current population by age group.

I’ve been conservative (mortality around 1% of the population overall). if you want to be less conservative, the estimations could be as bad as 1.2 million deaths in the next 6 months.

The only country where we can judge the accuracy of the modelling is Sweden.

Uppsala university published a paper in April with predictions based on the imperial college modelling. They predicted with no mitigation that Sweden would have 96,000 deaths by the 1st July.

If they continued with their current mitigation of hand hygiene and social distancing they could reduce that 96,000 by 15%.

If they implemented a European style lockdown they could expect to reduce the 96,000 by 50%.

Famously or infamously depending on your viewpoint they chose to stick with their policy of hand hygiene and social distancing.

Their current death toll is under 6,000.

I can understand why the U.K. decided to implement the lockdown in March as the data wasn’t clear.

I would say to go back into a full National lockdown in future based on the imperial college modelling is questionable.

Before we get the usual compare Sweden with other Nordic countries rhetoric,this is about the imperial college modelling not the Swedish handling of the pandemic.

Was gonna say ahh the infamous Imperial College that predicted upto 100,000 deaths for Sweden if they didn't implement a lockdown which turned out to be less than 6000 but your response is way more detailed kudos.

Also Sweden's neighbours i.e Denmark who the anti Sweden bridgade say did better by locking down are now seeing rising cases much like us, France and Spain yet Sweden's cases are not rising. What this space.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

"Sweden don't compare at all well with their Scandinavian neighbours yet people keep lauding them as some sort of best practise ..

A large number of the deaths were in care homes so in hindsight they could have done a better job of isolating the care home population as could have the UK

Most of the deaths were in Stockholm with a population density of 5000 per square kilometre, very comparable with London at 5000 per square kilometre.

Facts about Sweden :

Among all the Nordic countries, Sweden has the highest death rate per capita, the highest number of infections, plus they’ve had a worse economic outcome compared to neighbours Norway and Finland.

They failed in their care homes too.

Sweden’s strategy did not save lives nor their economy.

As it stands, that’s not a successful strategy, and not one to emulate."

Here is a link if you want to see the true facts about how Swedens economy has performed this year.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-53664354

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

"The point is to keep infection rates low enough so the hospitals can cope so there is a point."

They're empty right now. And no one can prove lockdown or masks or social distancing has made any difference.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *eddy and legsCouple over a year ago

the wetlands

"The point is to keep infection rates low enough so the hospitals can cope so there is a point.

They're empty right now. And no one can prove lockdown or masks or social distancing has made any difference. "

Lol all you have to do is compare the rate of increase of infections during and post lockdown.

Not exactly brain taxing

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *D835Man over a year ago

London

Can I ask were you get those figures from ?

Based on figures from Imperial College about hospitalisation, ICU admission and death from COVID, by age group; and the UK’s current population by age group.

I’ve been conservative (mortality around 1% of the population overall). if you want to be less conservative, the estimations could be as bad as 1.2 million deaths in the next 6 months.

The only country where we can judge the accuracy of the modelling is Sweden.

Uppsala university published a paper in April with predictions based on the imperial college modelling. They predicted with no mitigation that Sweden would have 96,000 deaths by the 1st July.

If they continued with their current mitigation of hand hygiene and social distancing they could reduce that 96,000 by 15%.

If they implemented a European style lockdown they could expect to reduce the 96,000 by 50%.

Famously or infamously depending on your viewpoint they chose to stick with their policy of hand hygiene and social distancing.

Their current death toll is under 6,000.

I can understand why the U.K. decided to implement the lockdown in March as the data wasn’t clear.

I would say to go back into a full National lockdown in future based on the imperial college modelling is questionable.

Before we get the usual compare Sweden with other Nordic countries rhetoric,this is about the imperial college modelling not the Swedish handling of the pandemic.

KJ"

"....Also Sweden's neighbours i.e Denmark who the anti Sweden bridgade say did better by locking down are now seeing rising cases..."

--------------------

Have you checked the cases with Sweden's next door neighbours - Norway and Finland?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

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

"Sweden don't compare at all well with their Scandinavian neighbours yet people keep lauding them as some sort of best practise ..

A large number of the deaths were in care homes so in hindsight they could have done a better job of isolating the care home population as could have the UK

Most of the deaths were in Stockholm with a population density of 5000 per square kilometre, very comparable with London at 5000 per square kilometre.

Facts about Sweden :

Among all the Nordic countries, Sweden has the highest death rate per capita, the highest number of infections, plus they’ve had a worse economic outcome compared to neighbours Norway and Finland.

They failed in their care homes too.

Sweden’s strategy did not save lives nor their economy.

As it stands, that’s not a successful strategy, and not one to emulate.

Here is a link if you want to see the true facts about how Swedens economy has performed this year.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-53664354

KJ"

Thanks for this article comparing Sweden to France, Italy, Germany and Spain.

Population Germany 83 million

Population Sweden 10 million

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

» Add a new message to this topic