Jump to content

Coronavirus


robf

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, geosname said:

You have a very simple view of people mate.

Do you restrict essential workers who can't wear masks?

I've lived in areas where I didn't have a relative within the "local area" to do my shopping or bring me essentials.

I lived in Hanley for a number of years and I didn't know who my neighbours were. I didn't need to know I didn't want to know there was no reason to know.

My mother lived on a council estate for over 50 years, at the end she didn't know any of her neighbours. When she fell in her street only one person offered help, although many witnessed the incident. A young Indian lady helped her up and to her door but wasn't allowed in. She later brought her food which was imediately binned (Foreign muck)... my mother was a racist.

It is a simple  rule, if you cant wear a mask, you cannot go on public transport or go shopping. Similar to the millions who were not allowed out of their homes in the first lockdown. Neighbours and volunteer groups helped out, there was even a Govt food delivery system. Hospitals and workplaces will set their own rules for the safety of their staff and  the people they have to deal with,  within the rules/laws etc. It may well be that masks will be needed when out of doors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


21 minutes ago, leedsvaliant said:
44 minutes ago, WV said:
When you consistently use false figures to prove a point that is dangerous. 
Comparing long covid to a munchausen syndrome is bizarre. 
Getting your facts from debunked sources and spreading them online is again dangerous. Fake news!
Where is the proof that a lockdown will cause more deaths than it would save? Is this other patients missing treatment? Dont you think the hospitals would be overwhelmed and those people would be more likely to miss treatment because of covid? Suicides? Well using the logic of LV and other covid conspiracy nuts won't these people kill themselves anyway in the future? (Just like the people who have lived over average age of death keeps getting rolled out) 
 
I think the government are highly incompetent and have done an awful job of covid but it would have been a hell of a lot worse without any lockdown or social distancing measures. Can you even argue that point its ridiculous.  
 

Equally, where is the proof that lockdown will save more lives than it costs? This works both ways.

So for that reason you will use your time now to argue something that may or may not be proven until way into the future? 

Ok then, I'm out. Crack on. 

 

 

Just have a read of this first 

 

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3853/rr-0

Edited by WV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Fosse69 said:

It is a simple  rule, if you cant wear a mask, you cannot go on public transport or go shopping. Similar to the millions who were not allowed out of their homes in the first lockdown. Neighbours and volunteer groups helped out, there was even a Govt food delivery system. Hospitals and workplaces will set their own rules for the safety of their staff and  the people they have to deal with,  within the rules/laws etc. It may well be that masks will be needed when out of doors.

But that isn't the rule mate.

The rule states you can go without a mask if you are exempt...... and you are in breach of other rules /laws if you demand or in some cases ask for proof of exemption or even why they are exempt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, geosname said:

But that isn't the rule mate.

The rule states you can go without a mask if you are exempt...... and you are in breach of other rules /laws if you demand or in some cases ask for proof of exemption or even why they are exempt.

That is the problem, it should be the rule, there is no reason why it should not be. People who cant wear masks for medical or other reasons are risking themselves in confined public spaces and other people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Nofinikea said:

I think its pretty obvious that the lockdowns will cause far more premature deaths over the next 5-10 years than Covid will kill.  Just the people not getting cancer treatments or being seen in the 2 week window that we know is so important, will cause alot of cancer victims to die sooner than they would have done.  Covid is generally killing people that have conditions that will kill them sooner or later so is generally causing victims to die sooner than they would have done.

The difference is, covid is all over the press and so its highlighted.  The Covid deaths are happening in a relatively short space of time and so that exasperates the impact.  The early cancer deaths, whilst being larger in numbers will happen over a long period of time, without media attention and so will go completely unnoticed by most.

Its not a case of it may or may not be proven.  It is definitely the case.  Factor in other health conditions that require early diagnosis, people having conditions now that require medical attention but they won't go to hospital because of covid etc...  factor in the suicide rates due to lockdowns, poverty caused by the closure of businesses and the long term effects that has on health and mental stability, the list goes on.  I think the estimate of 500,000 is Conservative over the next 10 years.

However, as I have already said, the fire is burning now and that's what is being focused on.

Just because you don't want to hear it, just like Boris and Co don't want to hear it either, just because we have chosen to fight the fire and ignore the consequences does not mean that people who do want to hear it and do have concerns over the long term effects of lockdowns are dangerous crackpots.

Would I have let it run riot and not used lockdowns?  Would I <ovf censored>.  I would have done exactly the same apart from letting London run riot before Xmas but I would have a very strong sense that by doing so, I have killed more people prematurely.  Hobsons choice mind!

What you are saying is just not logical in my mind. 

 

To know if lockdown killed more than it saved would need the figures of deaths with no lockdown. 

With no lockdown do you think the hospitals would have coped? Countless medical experts have said they wouldn't have coped. 

How would someone get any treatment for anything with hospitals overwhelmed? 

So with or without lockdown the same people (but much less of them) are missing out on other treatments due to covid. 

So I dont get how you can know in the future how many people would have died from Covid without any restrictions? I will tell you one thing for sure though, it wouldn't have been less people dying than are now. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


Avoidable cancer deaths are not due to lockdown but due to lack of adequate nursing/medical capacity to deal with Covid  at the same time.  It can be argued that insufficient and late lockdowns have increased the number of Covid cases requiring hospital training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fosse69 said:

That is the problem, it should be the rule, there is no reason why it should not be. People who cant wear masks for medical or other reasons are risking themselves in confined public spaces and other people.

We could argue forever about what should be mate. Im not arguing about what should be simply stating what is.

A simply stated rule that gets clouded with enforcement.

The "local" rule is ambiguous too..... 7 mile is but 5 mile isn't? If you leave anything open to interpretation it becomes complicated and distorted to fit that's person's interpretation.

Is carrying a drink while you exercise a picnic? Is walking with another person for exercise allowed if you are distancing? Is driving to a chosen exercise spot allowed? Are you allowed to sit down for a break while exercising?

Individually some police forces think they are allowed some think they are not. Simple rules made complicated by interpretation and enforcement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Fosse69 said:

Avoidable cancer deaths are not due to lockdown but due to lack of adequate nursing/medical capacity to deal with Covid  at the same time.  It can be argued that insufficient and late lockdowns have increased the number of Covid cases requiring hospital training.

As I said earlier mate the government response to covid has been based on totally inadequate catch up.

Lockdown, PPE, track and trace, testing etc etc etc. Total shambles from day one. Billions of £s thrown away too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The impact of lockdown has been factored into decisions. I haven’t got the time to dig through it, but the impact has been looked into and publicly shared. 
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/907616/s0650-direct-indirect-impacts-covid-19-excess-deaths-morbidity-sage-48.pdf#page4

one thing that I did take from it is that if the nhs had been overwhelmed then the outcome was unthinkable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Andyregs said:

The impact of lockdown has been factored into decisions. I haven’t got the time to dig through it, but the impact has been looked into and publicly shared. 
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/907616/s0650-direct-indirect-impacts-covid-19-excess-deaths-morbidity-sage-48.pdf#page4

one thing that I did take from it is that if the nhs had been overwhelmed then the outcome was unthinkable.

Also the more people with the virus the more chances of different mutations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


What you are saying is just not logical in my mind. 
 
To know if lockdown killed more than it saved would need the figures of deaths with no lockdown. 
With no lockdown do you think the hospitals would have coped? Countless medical experts have said they wouldn't have coped. 
How would someone get any treatment for anything with hospitals overwhelmed? 
So with or without lockdown the same people (but much less of them) are missing out on other treatments due to covid. 
So I dont get how you can know in the future how many people would have died from Covid without any restrictions? I will tell you one thing for sure though, it wouldn't have been less people dying than are now. 
I'd actually take issue with your final point. The original model created by Imperial wrongly assumed that everyone was equally susceptible to catching the virus and that the ifr would be around 1%, making an assumption of around 500,000 deaths. This has since been downgraded. Ionnadis (I think that's how you spell his name) is a professor from the US had estimated between 0.2% and 0.6% of all those who get the virus go on to die based on all available data.

You're also assuming that nobody had natural immunity to the virus before it spread. Estimates vary on how many people have this but it is cited as the reason that some people get it and some people don't in the same household.

There is also the very valid argument of herd immunity, which could have occurred much sooner.

We had to take some actions, such as sensible social distancing rules, washing hands, masks. But the assumption that lockdown has saved more lives than it has cost does not look into the situation as a whole.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s not an answer, that’s a question. He’s saying it because he feels it may be necessary to save lives but we just don’t know yet. Now answer yourself? Why would he suggest that if we have reopened and it’s obvious everything is fine? There’s gaps in your logic here, and you’re either missing that part kit because you know it’s conspiracy or you haven’t thought it through.
He was saying that even with the vaccine roll out that restrictions may still be necessary. If the vaccine isn't the answer then what is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, leedsvaliant said:
5 hours ago, Andyregs said:
That’s not an answer, that’s a question. He’s saying it because he feels it may be necessary to save lives but we just don’t know yet. Now answer yourself? Why would he suggest that if we have reopened and it’s obvious everything is fine? There’s gaps in your logic here, and you’re either missing that part kit because you know it’s conspiracy or you haven’t thought it through.

He was saying that even with the vaccine roll out that restrictions may still be necessary. If the vaccine isn't the answer then what is?

Depends how  effective the vaccine is, for how long, and the % vaccinated, how many refuse it, maybe we will not know until next Winter. As with flu it will not be eliminated, and will travel around the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, leedsvaliant said:
5 hours ago, Andyregs said:
That’s not an answer, that’s a question. He’s saying it because he feels it may be necessary to save lives but we just don’t know yet. Now answer yourself? Why would he suggest that if we have reopened and it’s obvious everything is fine? There’s gaps in your logic here, and you’re either missing that part kit because you know it’s conspiracy or you haven’t thought it through.

He was saying that even with the vaccine roll out that restrictions may still be necessary. If the vaccine isn't the answer then what is?

Still refusing the answer then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Reporting Posts and Ignoring Users

    Admin don't read everything. Don't assume we'll spot rule breaking. Please report posts and we'll act on ASAP. If you're logged in use the orange report post button. If you're not logged in, please use the contact form

    If you can't get on with another user you can "ignore" them. Follow the link, type in their username and save - Click here

    Check with admin if you wish to sell/auction any items. We're happy to support good causes but check first - Contact us here

  • Friends of OVF




×
×
  • Create New...