Coronavirus Super Thread ( merged )

[Footballfirst]

23 minutes ago, heartstastic said:

You say it's about saving as much of that 1% as possible...what about the other 99% that need to open their businesses to support there familys and communites...the schools being closed robbing children of vital education (especially primary school age)....the reports coming through of large increases in mental health problems and suicides...just the tip of the iceberg as these lockdowns continue...to save a fraction of 1% of the population. That doesn't add up to me no matter what angle i choose to look at it from.

So your plan would be to allow the 1% to die should they contract the virus.  That is potentially over 600,000 people in the UK that you are willing to sacrifice. Do you not realise what would happen to the NHS is they were faced with such numbers that don't make it, in addition to the 5 or 10 times that amount that would need hospital care should they contract the virus.

 

Have you considered the additional impact on other illnesses, diseases or emergencies if the NHS was overwhelmed. I'd suggest that the social impact would be many times greater than that currently being faced. 

Edited January 19, 2021 by Footballfirst

[Spellczech]

3 hours ago, Robbofan99 said:

"They must be doing something right."    Try telling that to those who have lost their jobs. those signing on for the bureaucratic nightmare of UC. those who cant pay their rent or council, those who are at risk of homelessness,  recovering addicts who are back on the drugs / drinks due  to the stress, children who are not receiving a full time education in a safe environment, those who are experiencing family breakdowns due to the stresses of lockdown, those who are considering topping themselves , those whose mental and physical health has deteriorated dramatically since the lock down, those who are experienced isolation and loneliness.. I could go on but you crack on with " they must be doing something right".

Was it ever possible to have gone any other way? When the politicians failed to act in February the die was cast...

[sadj]

1 minute ago, Footballfirst said:

So your plan would be to allow the 1% to die should they contract the virus.  That is potentially over 600,000 people in the UK that you are willing to sacrifice. Do you not realise what would happen to the NHS is they were faced with such numbers that don't make it, in addition to the 5 or 10 times that amount that would need hospital care should they contract the virus.

 

Have you considered the additional impact on other illnesses, diseases or emergencies if the NHS was overwhelmed. I'd suggest that the social impact would be many times greater than that currently being faced. 

An NHS that is almost at breaking point already without a free for all. Military helping out in some hospitals due to staff absence due to Covid

[CJGJ]

3 hours ago, Robbofan99 said:

"They must be doing something right."    Try telling that to those who have lost their jobs. those signing on for the bureaucratic nightmare of UC. those who cant pay their rent or council, those who are at risk of homelessness,  recovering addicts who are back on the drugs / drinks due  to the stress, children who are not receiving a full time education in a safe environment, those who are experiencing family breakdowns due to the stresses of lockdown, those who are considering topping themselves , those whose mental and physical health has deteriorated dramatically since the lock down, those who are experienced isolation and loneliness.. I could go on but you crack on with " they must be doing something right".

Just how we can claim to be doing well amazes me

 

The UK has recorded the fifth-highest number of deaths globally, according to Johns Hopkins University - behind the US, Brazil, India and Mexico.

 

 

The number of vaccinations also continues to rise.

It seems unlikely the NHS will manage its target of two million doses a week just yet.

 

A further 1,610 people have died in the UK within 28 days of a positive Covid test - the biggest figure reported in a single day since the pandemic began.

It means the total number of deaths by that measure is now above 90,000.

And it is likely that the coming weeks will see figures even higher than this.

 

Oh and in Scotland we seem unable to get the vaccine to the right places but still the FM tells us we'll get there in February

 

Dr Buist claimed that as of Monday, the Scottish government had taken receipt of more than 700,000 vaccines - but only used 264,991.

He said: "The work force is there and that's why it's so incredibly frustrating when the patients want the vaccine, we're very keen to give it to our patients but we just don't have the vaccine in our fridge."

 

Still its been well handled since the start !!! and when we get to the vital part when there has been more than enough time to plan the distribution the incompetence of government has continued to shine through..congratulations to the government is certainly due....aye right

[Victorian]

3 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

So your plan would be to allow the 1% to die should they contract the virus.  That is potentially over 600,000 people in the UK that you are willing to sacrifice. Do you not realise what would happen to the NHS is they were faced with such numbers that don't make it, in addition to the 5 or 10 times that amount that would need hospital care should they contract the virus.

 

Have you considered the additional impact on other illnesses, diseases or emergencies if the NHS was overwhelmed. I'd suggest that the social impact would be many times greater than that currently being faced. 

 

Well said.  The deniers have never been able (or willing) to explain how the country and the NHS would deal with the scale/volume/flow of people in hospital without extreme social distancing measures.  

 

Here's another unfortunate truth for the deniers.  25% of hospitalised cases are under 55 years of age.  So much for 'lock up the vulnerable and let the rest get on with it'.  

[Taffin]

2 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Well said.  The deniers have never been able (or willing) to explain how the country and the NHS would deal with the scale/volume/flow of people in hospital without extreme social distancing measures.  

 

Here's another unfortunate truth for the deniers.  25% of hospitalised cases are under 55 years of age.  So much for 'lock up the vulnerable and let the rest get on with it'.  

 

How many of those have co-morbibities? The vulnerable would certainly include them.

[The Gorgie]

40 minutes ago, IronJambo said:

Fair play to you then. What you really mean though is you want the LRT bosses to back you because it's surely within your own remit to refuse people without masks. You must have a safe stop (or similar) procedure.

I work on trains and I've refused point blank to have anything to do with tickets since March. Being involved operationally is as much as I'll entertain with as little interaction with customers as possible. I make announcements about face coverings and social distancing but it's up to them travelling to adhere to it and I won't get involved face to face.

It would be nice if the bosses back us but to be fair 98% of people do wear one anyway. Some do get on with a pass saying they are exempt but the others get on not giving a **** about anyone else.

[DETTY29]

Just now, sadj said:

An NHS that is almost at breaking point already without a free for all. Military helping out in some hospitals due to staff absence due to Covid

Increase your annual deaths by what is it, a third of normal annual dearhs (not excess average).

 

Unbelievable pressure on

 

Funeral directors

Morgues

Crematorium

Grave services

 

Lack of end of life care that we are used to

Significantly more grief in a shortened space of time.

 

Army taken away from supporting hospitals and vaccination to funeral services.

 

Doesn't bear thinking about.

[Enzo Chiefo]

3 minutes ago, Brian Dundas said:

That is all great, I'd love the kids to be back in school, however - There are certain things that the data shows in very simple terms to be true - if you ease restrictions case numbers go up, then hospital admissions go up, then excess deaths all causes go up - when you then increase restrictions case numbers go down, then hospital admissions go down, then excess deaths of all causes go down. This has been seen all over Europe all year, so until you address those issues (Vaccine!!) you will continue as we have done........

 

It's easy to blame politicians and shout about incompetence from the sidelines when in truth they are faced with very little options and very hard decisions at the moment. (Obviously alleged corruption aside)

However, that doesn't factor in the non- covid deaths , caused by lockdown measures. Mental health, education, lack of exercise, not to mention the devastating effects on the economy and people's jobs and businesses.  There were 6690 excess deaths, in Scotland in 2020. Hospital deaths were actually  lower than the 5 year average while home deaths increased by nearly 5,000. The obsession with Covid and the harsh lockdown measures have, arguably, been counter productive.  We are where we are though. One thing that is not in doubt though is that as soon as the first 4 category groups are vaccinated, the economy and non-Covid matters need to be prioritised and lockdown quickly lifted.

[The Gorgie]

23 minutes ago, Jambo 4 Ever said:

So why can drivers enforce ticket paying but not mask wearing?

 

ive actually been on a bus when the driver turned the engine off because one person had a bus pass that had expired.

 

so why can they not do the same when twits get on bus with no face mask which is a far worse issue...?

I wish i could answer that but i really don't know. Id take a guess and say cash is king. 

[Victorian]

Just now, Taffin said:

 

How many of those have co-morbibities? The vulnerable would certainly include them.

 

Some no doubt.  There is a vast amount of people in the country who occupy a place on a spectrum of co-morbidities and/or more mild vulnerabilities.  Millions of people with some vulnerability who have zero option other than to continue going to work and being at risk.

 

The moral is that there never was a practical and identifiable group who could be shielded and no mythical group who should be allowed to get on with it.  Even a group of young to middle aged people of fairly good general health amidst no social distancing measures would present too great a volume of hospitalisations for the NHS.  The hospitals cam barely cope against a backdrop of virus prevalence of 2 or 3%.

[Pasquale for King]

2 hours ago, Taffin said:

 

It's certainly catchy...the time warp that is. It'll probably be in my head all evening now. Thanks 😂

Oops,sorry 😆. 

[Spellczech]

28 minutes ago, heartstastic said:

Here the world stats for tuberculosis for 2018. 1.5 million died from a well known disease that's had billions of funding thrown at it...still killed 1.5 million. Did not see even the remotely same response to lockdown the world in such a ridiculous manner.

https://www.who.int/teams/global-tuberculosis-programme/tb-reports/global-report-2019

 

You say it's about saving as much of that 1% as possible...what about the other 99% that need to open their businesses to support there familys and communites...the schools being closed robbing children of vital education (especially primary school age)....the reports coming through of large increases in mental health problems and suicides...just the tip of the iceberg as these lockdowns continue...to save a fraction of 1% of the population. That doesn't add up to me no matter what angle i choose to look at it from.

 

The fact that all big multi nationals (amazon, mcdonalds etc) are still running through this  pandemic but most of small to medium businesses (the real economy driver for most communites) are forced to close should tell you this isn't about the health of the population.

You can talk practically and in a detached manner about percentages etc but Lockdown is about one thing and one thing only: Slowing the spread to protect the NHS. Hopefully you saw the films in the 6 O'Clock news today from English hospitals where there are really beginning to struggle now. My wife is an NHS nurse and she was working the ICU in the previous wave, not so far in the second wave....Her observation watching tonight was "Thank God we're not in as bad a position as they are in England". There are a couple of reasons for this: The Scottish Govt has communicated far, far better with its people than the Westminster Govt has, and thus Scottish people have by and large behaved better than those in England have, particularly in relation to facemasks and distancing... 

 

My business has been killed by Covid. I lost all my clients, though one gave me some days work each month up to December - not enough to cover the bills but at least something. Fortunately I've always been a saver so I'm ok dipping into savings. The flipside to that is that I pumped so much into my pension in the last couple of years, that it wasn't worth me claiming money from the Govt's business reliefs...so I get nothing from the Govt.

 

For what it is worth, I think the Govt would've been far better offering Council Tax relief than some of the ways they did splash the cash...

[Footballfirst]

11 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

 The obsession with Covid and the harsh lockdown measures have, arguably, been counter productive.  We are where we are though. One thing that is not in doubt though is that as soon as the first 4 category groups are vaccinated, the economy and non-Covid matters need to be prioritised and lockdown quickly lifted.

I don't believe that the restrictions have been counter productive. They do work. However each time that you impose tighter restrictions, the law of diminishing returns (adherence) come into play.

 

I agree that a different approach is required once the combined impact of the current lockdown and the vaccine programme starts to take effect.  We should already be looking to switch the focus away from raw case numbers and concentrate on outcomes (hospital/ICU bed occupancy and deaths). Once those elements are at manageable levels then restrictions can be eased and, hopefully, won't need to be re-imposed because of the vaccination coverage.  

 

Edit: I would add that I do expect some restrictions/guidelines to be maintained for an extended period, e.g. wearing masks, availability of hand sanitizers etc.  I see those as no-cost options which could be sustained.

Edited January 19, 2021 by Footballfirst

[scott herbertson]

3 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

However, that doesn't factor in the non- covid deaths , caused by lockdown measures. Mental health, education, lack of exercise, not to mention the devastating effects on the economy and people's jobs and businesses.  There were 6690 excess deaths, in Scotland in 2020. Hospital deaths were actually  lower than the 5 year average while home deaths increased by nearly 5,000. The obsession with Covid and the harsh lockdown measures have, arguably, been counter productive.  We are where we are though. One thing that is not in doubt though is that as soon as the first 4 category groups are vaccinated, the economy and non-Covid matters need to be prioritised and lockdown quickly lifted.

 

 

Though I wouldn't agree with the pejorative adjectives, that's certainly worth studying/ arguing about. It's a benefit of hindsight analysis though - as you say the decisions have been taken. One of the aspects that strikes me is that we should have been having these decisions locked in before the pandemic struck. Risk assessments were done (throughout the world not here) and it is notable that the countries who responded well at first were those who had had or been near pandemics or scares before, primarily in the far east.

 

The problem was for us IMO was that although we assessed the risks we didn't in our heart of hearts believe it would happen here - the previous scares (avian flu, ebola etc) hadn't affected many people at all and despite risk assessments highlighted this as the biggest risk, resources were not put into preparation (PPE/ scaling of ICU units for example, plus locking down of international travel and early adoption of masks in public areas) 

[sadj]

13 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

Increase your annual deaths by what is it, a third of normal annual dearhs (not excess average).

 

Unbelievable pressure on

 

Funeral directors

Morgues

Crematorium

Grave services

 

Lack of end of life care that we are used to

Significantly more grief in a shortened space of time.

 

Army taken away from supporting hospitals and vaccination to funeral services.

 

Doesn't bear thinking about.

Indeed , i know the stress any friends of mine in hospitals were feeling in April nevermind now. Their mental health and wellbeing is as important as those of us lockeddown. Difference is they have no choice but to go on day to day putting themselves through it with no ability to try and change routines to help them through. 
 

As an aside I found a reprt by the Samaritans (i think from around July) that stated although more people are feeling anxious or distressed there is no increase of suicide rates at present. That of course may not be the case now. However as a mental health advocate and someone associated to a mental health charity and someone who was in the process of putting one together before Covid struck I do not like it being thrown out there without rationale that there is a huge rise in the numbers. 
 

That lack of community help this lockdown I would imagine will have an adverse effect(??) whereas last lockdown that sense of spirit will have helped some more fragile persons. Only my opinion though

Edited January 19, 2021 by sadj

[DETTY29]

27 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

It's still the restrictions killing the economy though, the why behind them may make it the right/wrong choice but the virus isn't killing the economy, our response to it is.

 

We can't lift the restrictions until the virus is controlled.

 

She has argued from pretty much from the outset the only way to control is eliminate.

 

And she is against in, out lockdown, tiering.

 

It's take the bull by the horns approach.

 

I suppose we'll find out soon enough if all eggs in vaccine basket for 50s + works.

Edited January 19, 2021 by DETTY29

[scott herbertson]

1 minute ago, Spellczech said:

You can talk practically and in a detached manner about percentages etc but Lockdown is about one thing and one thing only: Slowing the spread to protect the NHS. Hopefully you saw the films in the 6 O'Clock news today from English hospitals where there are really beginning to struggle now. My wife is an NHS nurse and she was working the ICU in the previous wave, not so far in the second wave....Her observation watching tonight was "Thank God we're not in as bad a position as they are in England". There are a couple of reasons for this: The Scottish Govt has communicated far, far better with its people than the Westminster Govt has, and thus Scottish people have by and large behaved better than those in England have, particularly in relation to facemasks and distancing... 

 

My business has been killed by Covid. I lost all my clients, though one gave me some days work each month up to December - not enough to cover the bills but at least something. Fortunately I've always been a saver so I'm ok dipping into savings. The flipside to that is that I pumped so much into my pension in the last couple of years, that it wasn't worth me claiming money from the Govt's business reliefs...so I get nothing from the Govt.

 

For what it is worth, I think the Govt would've been far better offering Council Tax relief than some of the ways they did splash the cash...

 

 

sorry to hear about your business - it has been very uneven and unfair in many cases. What is it you do?

[Peakybunnet]

2 hours ago, heartstastic said:

As everyone is preocupied with a illness with a 99%+ survival rate...this which i alluded to months ago is rolling out at full tilt but you all still think it's about a virus....anyone calling this a conspiracy is a moron..it's a fact and it's happening.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQgF-5hqaSE

 

Anyone that thinks these people with obscene wealth and influence care even a jot about you are the reason we find ourselves in this mess. They are laughing there behinds of at the general public (look at Matt Hancock's 'tears'  or Bill Gates talking about 2nd pandemics coming with a huge grin on his face whilst the 1st one was barely in it's infancy to name but 2 examples).

 

Just because  in your own mind, you think that you wouldn't be capable of such decietful acts...there's people out there that would sell their mother for some power and most of the time they find there way into these postions.

 

If you could be bothered to tear yourself away from the mainstream media, you'll find there's huge awareness and pushback of this agenda and sections of the public now fighting back..including 50000 restuarants in Italy opening back up in defiance of lockdown rules.

 

https://www.bitchute.com/video/WHuQdc4XtxtJ/

 

Oooft in one sentence you seem happy to let over 600k people in the UK die. Without lockdowns and now the vaccine this plus more would be dead. 

 

I work  in a 5 star hotel which  I wont name. We have been shut for six months and are losing millions but know there will be hospitality and life once we have the vaccine rolled out. 

 

Vaccine is King

[Enzo Chiefo]

19 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

So your plan would be to allow the 1% to die should they contract the virus.  That is potentially over 600,000 people in the UK that you are willing to sacrifice. Do you not realise what would happen to the NHS is they were faced with such numbers that don't make it, in addition to the 5 or 10 times that amount that would need hospital care should they contract the virus.

 

Have you considered the additional impact on other illnesses, diseases or emergencies if the NHS was overwhelmed. I'd suggest that the social impact would be many times greater than that currently being faced. 

Your figures are based on everyone in the country catching  Covid. It's not 1% of everyone, it's 1% of those who are susceptible to catching it. The most vulnerable, sadly, are vulnerable to whatever dominant respiratory virus is circulating and lockdown did protect a lot of those people. After the most vulnerable are vaccinated, the numbers susceptible to not only dying but, even catching Covid, dwindle away to become comparable with any one of life's many risks. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

40 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

It's definitely the restrictions not the virus killing the economy 😂😂

 

Rightly or wrongly, but to claim otherwise is madness.

Exactly she’s talking / writing pure pish 

[Nucky Thompson]

7 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Some no doubt.  There is a vast amount of people in the country who occupy a place on a spectrum of co-morbidities and/or more mild vulnerabilities.  Millions of people with some vulnerability who have zero option other than to continue going to work and being at risk.

 

The moral is that there never was a practical and identifiable group who could be shielded and no mythical group who should be allowed to get on with it.  Even a group of young to middle aged people of fairly good general health amidst no social distancing measures would present too great a volume of hospitalisations for the NHS.  The hospitals cam barely cope against a backdrop of virus prevalence of 2 or 3%.

Other than the elderly, the majority of people who are also being badly affected are the overweight.

The UK have one of the biggest rates of obesity.

Maybe that's why we have such a high death rate?

[Pasquale for King]

1 hour ago, DETTY29 said:

Liking the Devi of the last few days.

 

The vile trolls are getting to her and she is becoming more blunt and to the point.

She’s getting a bit pissed off, I mentioned she should maybe go for a walk the other day 😃. 

[Taffin]

5 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

We can't lift the restrictions until the virus is controlled.

 

She has argued from pretty much from the outset the only way to control is eliminate.

 

And she is against in, out lockdown, tiering.

 

It's take the bull by the horns approach.

 

I suppose we'll find out soon enough if all eggs in vaccine basket for 50s + works.

 

I agree with her about the in, out, shake it all about crap, absolutely.

 

I also get the point that the virus is forcing our hand regards restrictions...her phrasing around 'hint, it's not the restrictions' is laughable though. Take away the virus completely for a minute but impose the restrictions we're under...what would happen to the economy? By her logic, nothing, it would continue along tickety boo despite everything being shut and people losing their jobs or being paid to stay at home.

 

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

12 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

Increase your annual deaths by what is it, a third of normal annual dearhs (not excess average).

 

Unbelievable pressure on

 

Funeral directors

Morgues

Crematorium

Grave services

 

Lack of end of life care that we are used to

Significantly more grief in a shortened space of time.

 

Army taken away from supporting hospitals and vaccination to funeral services.

 

Doesn't bear thinking about.

 

Remember the footage from Bergamo at the height of the first wave, of the army trucks transporting the corpses down to numerous other towns/cities all over Italy, because the crematoria just couldn't keep up with the number of deaths.

 

Or Brazil when we seen row upon row of graves and Sao Paulo where the 6 or 7 crematoria in the city were working 24 hrs every day and they still couldn't keep up, that's what happens when you get overwhelmed, and I haven't even mentioned hospitals.

[Robbofan99]

26 minutes ago, Victorian said:

25% of hospitalised cases are under 55 years of age.  So much for 'lock up the vulnerable and let the rest get on with it

many of those 25% may have various underlying health conditions. 

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Nucky Thompson said:

Other than the elderly, the majority of people who are also being badly affected are the overweight.

The UK have one of the biggest rates of obesity.

Maybe that's why we have such a high death rate?

 

It's a factor I would say.  The States have been clobbered as well.

 

Another reason why it was nothing but a myth that there could be a 'shield the vulnerable - open up' policy.  

 

It's always been an issue of scale of demand on the NHS.  It can't meet the scale of any policy of light touch suppression.

[Taffin]

15 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Some no doubt.  There is a vast amount of people in the country who occupy a place on a spectrum of co-morbidities and/or more mild vulnerabilities.  Millions of people with some vulnerability who have zero option other than to continue going to work and being at risk.

 

The moral is that there never was a practical and identifiable group who could be shielded and no mythical group who should be allowed to get on with it.  Even a group of young to middle aged people of fairly good general health amidst no social distancing measures would present too great a volume of hospitalisations for the NHS.  The hospitals cam barely cope against a backdrop of virus prevalence of 2 or 3%.

 

There's loads of people who are easily identifiable as being at significantly greater risk though. You wouldn't get them all, of course not, but anyone over 70, overweight or 'clinically extremely vulnerable' aren't hugely hard to identify. In fact, they've managed to find out 2 of those three categories and prioritise them for the vaccine. Lockdown is a blunt instrument that was needed and necessary first time around. Using it nearly one year on, I just can't be convinced that's the right approach.

[Robbofan99]

8 minutes ago, Nucky Thompson said:

Other than the elderly, the majority of people who are also being badly affected are the overweight.

The UK have one of the biggest rates of obesity.

Maybe that's why we have such a high death rate?

Yep

6 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

I agree with her about the in, out, shake it all about crap, absolutely.

 

I also get the point that the virus is forcing our hand regards restrictions...her phrasing around 'hint, it's not the restrictions' is laughable though. Take away the virus completely for a minute but impose the restrictions we're under...what would happen to the economy? By her logic, nothing, it would continue along tickety boo despite everything being shut and people losing their jobs or being paid to stay at home.

 

 

Shes similar to Leitch . Bauld etc loving their wee place in the media spotlight. She struggles with any opposing views to hers and has repeatedly blocked people. An arrogant idiot of a woman. 

[Taffin]

8 minutes ago, Nucky Thompson said:

Other than the elderly, the majority of people who are also being badly affected are the overweight.

The UK have one of the biggest rates of obesity.

Maybe that's why we have such a high death rate?

 

I'd say it's quite clearly a hugely significant factor:

 

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/09/why-covid-19-more-deadly-people-obesity-even-if-theyre-young

 

I'm not going to say too much as it's quite clearly an emotive topic anytime it comes up on here but given 68% of UK males are overweight I'd say opening gyms and telling people to move their arse might have as much effect on reducing the impact of the virus as shutting coffee shops etc.

[Enzo Chiefo]

2 minutes ago, Brian Dundas said:

You will notice I used excess deaths all causes go down with tighter restrictions. If restrictions caused more deaths it would go up when you tighten them, not down.

Yes, but what has caused the 5k extra home deaths? Unlikely to be Covid. Why are hospital deaths lower than the 5 year average? We know they've been busy and there has been relentless talk of the possibility of being "overwhelmed ". Official figures indicate about 7k deaths , with or from Covid. Yet hospital deaths are down.

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Taffin said:

 

There's loads of people who are easily identifiable as being at significantly greater risk though. You wouldn't get them all, of course not, but anyone over 70, overweight or 'clinically extremely vulnerable' aren't hugely hard to identify. In fact, they've managed to find out 2 of those three categories and prioritise them for the vaccine. Lockdown is a blunt instrument that was needed and necessary first time around. Using it nearly one year on, I just can't be convinced that's the right approach.

 

Then try to be convinced.  The truth is not to be found in the death figures.  It can be found by considering how many people would need to be hospitalised,  even if the so-called vulnerable are shielded,  when the virus was able to spread with exponential growth amongst the so-called 'rest of the country'.  

 

We are in strict suppression measures and the virus was still spreading fast.  The hospitals filled up to near saturation levels.  All amidst general virus prevalence of about 2% to 3%.  Allow it to spread and spread again with lighter suppression and the inevitability is that prevalence becomes 20%,  50%,  90%.   Somewhere along the line there would be people who would survive with hospital treatment not surviving due to not being able to get into a hospital.

 

Crunch the numbers.  Think of scale,  volume,  flow,  time.

[Spellczech]

4 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

There's loads of people who are easily identifiable as being at significantly greater risk though. You wouldn't get them all, of course not, but anyone over 70, overweight or 'clinically extremely vulnerable' aren't hugely hard to identify. In fact, they've managed to find out 2 of those three categories and prioritise them for the vaccine. Lockdown is a blunt instrument that was needed and necessary first time around. Using it nearly one year on, I just can't be convinced that's the right approach.

What about the bit between the first and second waves, where kids were going back to school, and it was the teachers complaining about it - yup the overweight, middle-aged teachers - and they had fears for themselves, not the children...

 

Covid is simply far too infectious to even consider coralling old people in homes and unhealthy people into isolation...

-Agency carers are still likely the main spreaders in care homes just as they were last time...

-Asking all the obese people to stay at home watching Netflix for 2 years will not solve the obesity crisis...

 

As I said above, lockdown has one purpose, to try to prevent the hospitals being overwhelmed as, if they are, then the death rates will rise exponentially...

[Enzo Chiefo]

26 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

 

Though I wouldn't agree with the pejorative adjectives, that's certainly worth studying/ arguing about. It's a benefit of hindsight analysis though - as you say the decisions have been taken. One of the aspects that strikes me is that we should have been having these decisions locked in before the pandemic struck. Risk assessments were done (throughout the world not here) and it is notable that the countries who responded well at first were those who had had or been near pandemics or scares before, primarily in the far east.

 

The problem was for us IMO was that although we assessed the risks we didn't in our heart of hearts believe it would happen here - the previous scares (avian flu, ebola etc) hadn't affected many people at all and despite risk assessments highlighted this as the biggest risk, resources were not put into preparation (PPE/ scaling of ICU units for example, plus locking down of international travel and early adoption of masks in public areas) 

We need more pejorative adjectives in my opinion, Scott😀. Seriously though, yes, I agree, hindsight is easy and we certainly had far less experience than those in Asia, in dealing with pandemics. That certainly put us at a disadvantage but, yes, our poor planning and preparation has been costly.  

My main point regarding lockdown is that it should no longer be on the table come late Spring.

[Weakened Offender]

46 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

However, that doesn't factor in the non- covid deaths , caused by lockdown measures. Mental health, education, lack of exercise, not to mention the devastating effects on the economy and people's jobs and businesses.  There were 6690 excess deaths, in Scotland in 2020. Hospital deaths were actually  lower than the 5 year average while home deaths increased by nearly 5,000. The obsession with Covid and the harsh lockdown measures have, arguably, been counter productive.  We are where we are though. One thing that is not in doubt though is that as soon as the first 4 category groups are vaccinated, the economy and non-Covid matters need to be prioritised and lockdown quickly lifted.

 

Bless. 

[Weakened Offender]

1600 deaths in one day and people in this country still think the UK government is doing a good job. 

 

What a country. 

[Footballfirst]

31 minutes ago, Brian Dundas said:

I don’t know. I know that Covid deaths are low in the at home deaths, but I’d need to see cause of deaths of those dying at home and then see what the numbers are for cause of deaths compared to averages. I think but might be wrong the dementia and Alzheimer’s deaths at home were up massively. 

Home deaths will include care homes.  It is, after all, the "home" for many elderly or vulnerable people

[Weakened Offender]

6 minutes ago, weehammy said:

Since the start of this pandemic, you have used a medical emergency and all the misery and grief that has gone along with it to lobby relentlessly for your SNP/independence and anti-UK agenda. Nobody’s paying attention anymore because you were sussed months ago.

 

 

 

😁😁😁

[Taffin]

48 minutes ago, Brian Dundas said:

Outdoor mass classes on football pitches might be better. You know think of the ones the Nazi or Communists did, seems appropriate. 

 

5am wake up music a la North Korea as well if possible.

[Konrad von Carstein]

10 minutes ago, weehammy said:

Since the start of this pandemic, you have used a medical emergency and all the misery and grief that has gone along with it to lobby relentlessly for your SNP/independence and anti-UK agenda. Nobody’s paying attention anymore because you were sussed months ago.

 

 

So you think that the UK government is doing a bang on job?

[Adam_the_legend]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

 

Well said.  The deniers have never been able (or willing) to explain how the country and the NHS would deal with the scale/volume/flow of people in hospital without extreme social distancing measures.  

 

Here's another unfortunate truth for the deniers.  25% of hospitalised cases are under 55 years of age.  So much for 'lock up the vulnerable and let the rest get on with it'.  

If they are “deniers” why would they have to explain that? They don’t think the virus exists. Unless your conflating those who don’t believe covid exists with other viewpoints on dealing with the virus...

[Weakened Offender]

13 minutes ago, Konrad von Carstein said:

So you think that the UK government is doing a bang on job?

 

The ridiculous little loveless moron probably does. 

[Governor Tarkin]

12 minutes ago, Konrad von Carstein said:

So you think that the UK government is doing a bang on job?

 

I'd be surprised if anyone bar those on the gravy train think that tbh.

 

They seem to be making a better fist of getting folk vaccinated than most other countries but the overall handling has been incredibly poor.

[Adam_the_legend]

1 hour ago, Spellczech said:

There are a couple of reasons for this: The Scottish Govt has communicated far, far better with its people than the Westminster Govt has, and thus Scottish people have by and large behaved better than those in England have, particularly in relation to facemasks and distancing...

Any evidence or data to support that view? 

[WoolfordsHearts]

"Deniers"

 

Is this the new buzzword on here🤣

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, weehammy said:

Since the start of this pandemic, you have used a medical emergency and all the misery and grief that has gone along with it to lobby relentlessly for your SNP/independence and anti-UK agenda. Nobody’s paying attention anymore because you were sussed months ago.

 

 

Yip, the ignore function was deployed for me after his disgraceful post earlier about the govt. being happy so many people are dead as it would mean less vaccines to administer.

[Konrad von Carstein]

3 minutes ago, Governor Tarkin said:

 

I'd be surprised if anyone bar those on the gravy train think that tbh.

 

They seem to be making a better fist of getting folk vaccinated than most other countries but the overall handling has been incredibly poor.

Agreed, but the poster I replied to is another of the snarky "anti-SNP no matter what" UJ waving eejits, who seem oblivious to the overall contribution the devastation we are experiencing on a UK wide basis, gets a bit wearying reading their shite TBH

[heartstastic]

Here are some headlines from 2015 about the NHS is crisis...you could look up any year from the last 10 and find the same headlines as we head into winter. The NHS has been not fit for purpose for a long time and is down to 2 things for me.

 

 

Despite the alleged increased funding there was as of November 2019 17000 less beds than 2010 (England data)

 

So despite this focus on protecting and making the nhs better we see far less capacity for it do so.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/25/hospital-beds-at-record-low-in-england-as-nhs-struggles-with-demand

 

Quite a decent chunk of the population don't take enough responsibliity for there own health. People like to fill there bodies with all sorts of toxic junk (alcohol being a massive part of that) and think there will be no repercussions..hence the obesity crisis.

 

If the governments wanted to protect the NHS then they would be better spent using resources telling people to eat a balanced diet and to stay away from toxic crap like sugar and processed meals. Subsidise and make available fresh produce....don't make ridiculous diktakts that close gyms and ask people to stay indoors that deprive them of getting vital vitamin d from the sun (in an already sun starved country) and stop trying to ban human interaction that is vital to human well being and society function.

 

They could also scrap things like abhorrent nuclear deterrents and pump that money into health services...that would happen in a sane world if governments had your best interests at heart imo.

 

 

Edited January 19, 2021 by heartstastic

[Victorian]

13 minutes ago, Adam_the_legend said:

If they are “deniers” why would they have to explain that? They don’t think the virus exists. Unless your conflating those who don’t believe covid exists with other viewpoints on dealing with the virus...

 

No.  Not virus deniers.  Deniers of the absolute necessity to have hard suppression measures.  

[Adam_the_legend]

1 hour ago, Nucky Thompson said:

Other than the elderly, the majority of people who are also being badly affected are the overweight.

The UK have one of the biggest rates of obesity.

Maybe that's why we have such a high death rate?

Im sure there are loads of reasons from government incompetence to poor national health to large numbers of elderly and frail. We might find out after the inevitable public inquiry.