Remove ads from site

KevBrads1
04 May 2020 20:33:32


 


Sums up some American leaders. 


MANCHESTER SUMMER INDEX for 2021: 238
Timelapses, old weather forecasts and natural phenomena videos can be seen on this site
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgrSD1BwFz2feWDTydhpEhQ/playlists
Joe Bloggs
04 May 2020 20:52:40


 


I know I've said it before but I think it's worth mentioning again, if nothing else just to add some balance to things.


The lockdown is killing people -this clearly shows up in the stats. Our clearing of people from hospitals as part of the lockdown has killed people. The mental health of hundreds of thousands of people is being adversely impacted, which medically will kill some of them, lead to significant additional health problems for others and lead to shorter life expectancy with a significantly lower quality of life for some too. Poverty will increase due to the lockdown, which we know kills people and has a significant detrimental impact on life expectancy and good health.


Our closing of cancer screening and treatment will kill people. The media hype of the virus (it's dangerous, sure I get that but you'd think no one died in the UK before this happened) and the constant bombardment of 'stay at home' messages and stats of how many people have died, has lead to people avoiding hospitals, which undoubtedly forms part of the extra deaths stats. It will also undoubtedly mean people who should have been diagnosed with all sorts of treatable illnesses/conditions haven't been, with a knock on effect for their health and life expectancy.  


Whilst some kind of self isolation for the most at risk groups if they wished to do so seems like a good idea, the negative impact of the measures we have taken may not be. IMO it's certainly no where near as clear cut as people seem to think judging by the comments made. A softer approach, with targeted lockdowns and preferably schools staying open would IMO have been a better idea.


Perhaps those stating life is sacrosanct etc. can take a moment to explain why therefore they fail to acknowledge the deaths the actions they're championing are causing? I take it death by coronavirus is something to be avoided at all costs, death by the measures taken (particularly as it's not newsworthy and highlighted in daily graphs) is irrelevant? Or are you just not considering it at all?


I suspect we may never know if what we're doing at the moment was right or wrong (or  which shade in between) but just as I can see why people would be upset/angry about suggestions that letting the most at risk people risk death because most people would be fine, it's equally annoying when the same people are just focussing on deaths by covid-19 and ignoring the deaths being caused (and which will continue to result long after this is over), along with the myriad of other problems we're creating.


 


 


 


 


Originally Posted by: Hippydave 


Another fantastic contribution from you today, and on the other side of the coin Mark’s post is very strong too. This is such a complex issue. 



Manchester City Centre, 31m ASL

John p
04 May 2020 21:08:48

Let’s hope there’s something in this. 


 




Camberley, Surrey
fairweather
04 May 2020 21:15:12


Let’s hope there’s something in this. 


 




Originally Posted by: John p 


We can but hope. I do fear though that a lot of Countries want to be first to get the Kudos should something work and make some fairly optimistic claims for the stage of development they are at.


S.Essex, 42m ASL
Sevendust
04 May 2020 21:38:31

Economics v Humanity


An age old conflict...and I guess for some it's about whether you are personally affected by a tragedy that influences where you come from in this debate


In the end, nothing comes without cost

Polar Low
04 May 2020 21:40:45

Hello Dave Im not ignoring any death this is causing by any other which way did I say that?Christ I know what death feels like I’ve lost a 5 year old.


As for cancer and it’s screening and treatment as far as I’m aware it has not been cancelled in this area it’s a matter of risk awareness to attend  for treatment and screening and giving those confidence to attend.


Problems with softer lockdowns,yeah right this ones been bad enough to maintain I can see  Joe public saying I can’t do that but he does this, do you want one or not or do you go against science that we don’t need one.


Perhaps most of the world was wrong?


I do admit no which way is prefect and as you say it does bring mental health issues but I can’t see imo only what the better options could have been.


 




 


I know I've said it before but I think it's worth mentioning again, if nothing else just to add some balance to things.


The lockdown is killing people -this clearly shows up in the stats. Our clearing of people from hospitals as part of the lockdown has killed people. The mental health of hundreds of thousands of people is being adversely impacted, which medically will kill some of them, lead to significant additional health problems for others and lead to shorter life expectancy with a significantly lower quality of life for some too. Poverty will increase due to the lockdown, which we know kills people and has a significant detrimental impact on life expectancy and good health.


Our closing of cancer screening and treatment will kill people. The media hype of the virus (it's dangerous, sure I get that but you'd think no one died in the UK before this happened) and the constant bombardment of 'stay at home' messages and stats of how many people have died, has lead to people avoiding hospitals, which undoubtedly forms part of the extra deaths stats. It will also undoubtedly mean people who should have been diagnosed with all sorts of treatable illnesses/conditions haven't been, with a knock on effect for their health and life expectancy.  


Whilst some kind of self isolation for the most at risk groups if they wished to do so seems like a good idea, the negative impact of the measures we have taken may not be. IMO it's certainly no where near as clear cut as people seem to think judging by the comments made. A softer approach, with targeted lockdowns and preferably schools staying open would IMO have been a better idea.


Perhaps those stating life is sacrosanct etc. can take a moment to explain why therefore they fail to acknowledge the deaths the actions they're championing are causing? I take it death by coronavirus is something to be avoided at all costs, death by the measures taken (particularly as it's not newsworthy and highlighted in daily graphs) is irrelevant? Or are you just not considering it at all?


I suspect we may never know if what we're doing at the moment was right or wrong (or  which shade in between) but just as I can see why people would be upset/angry about suggestions that letting the most at risk people risk death because most people would be fine, it's equally annoying when the same people are just focussing on deaths by covid-19 and ignoring the deaths being caused (and which will continue to result long after this is over), along with the myriad of other problems we're creating.


 


 


 


 


 


Originally Posted by: Hippydave 

Polar Low
04 May 2020 21:49:10

I’ve fixed that slightly



Economics v Humanity


An age old conflict...and I guess for some it's about whether you are personally affected by a tragedy that influences where you come from in this debate


In the end, nothing good comes without cost


Originally Posted by: Sevendust 

Hippydave
04 May 2020 21:57:08


Hello Dave Im not ignoring any death this is causing by any other which way did I say that?Christ I know what death feels like I’ve lost a 5 year old.


As for cancer and it’s screening and treatment as far as I’m aware it has not been cancelled in this area it’s a matter of risk awareness to attend  for treatment and screening and giving those confidence to attend.


Problems with softer lockdowns,yeah right this ones been bad enough to maintain I can see  Joe public saying I can’t do that but he does this, do you want one or not or do you go against science that we don’t need one.


Perhaps most of the world was wrong?


I do admit no which way is prefect and as you say it does bring mental health issues but I can’t see imo only what the better options could have been.


 


 


Originally Posted by: Polar Low 


Did I miss where you considered the harm and death the lockdown is and will cause, when you were advocating the current action? It's a little hard for that not to be either implied or unconsidered if you advocate a cause of action that will lead to it without any reference.


AFAIK the NHS cancelled most routine checkups etc, including cancer screenings, which the various charities have been quite vocal about, as have some consultants etc. 


Your comment on Joe Public is a bit odd - would someone self isolating with a serious heart condition decide 'I'm going to have a bit of that' because they can see a bunch of ladies what lunch sat at a restaurant? The whole point is given the majority of people are at a very low risk of serious illness or death, you don't need to stop them going about their business outside of some precautions about mass gatherings etc. Those at highest risk should be sheltered, if they wish to be, with plenty of folk available to help with deliveries etc. Localised targeted measures could be used to help control spikes if they occurred.


How far you go with measures I have no idea but I'm not convinced what we're currently doing is right, or that the impacts of our actions aren't serious enough to consider them at least partly wrong.


I think we both agree what's right or wrong is an unknown, but clearly are on different sides of whether that means a more balanced approach or the lockdown we have. All a bit irrelevant in the long run I guess as it's what we're doing and neither of us can influence that at all


 


 


Home: Tunbridge Wells
Work: Tonbridge
four
  • four
  • Advanced Member
04 May 2020 22:18:06


Economics v Humanity


 


Originally Posted by: Sevendust 


But it's far from that simple, the effects of Lockdown are storing up untold problems and already killing people and will prematurely finish off many more not having other issues diagnosed because all other medical procedures are on hold unless it's an emergency.
The CV death rate peaked in early April so new infections already were declining before it even started.
Probably due to avoiding large gatherings and herd immunity starting to slow it in main centres.


Polar Low
04 May 2020 22:43:17

You know what I mean about Joe public give a inch and take a mile how many deaths do we want in any softer lockdown 200k or more v unknown minority unfortunately waiting for treatment.


,posts are going to get boring if we have to cross reference each one


and four


your words are bit wrong urgent procedures are still going ahead



 


Did I miss where you considered the harm and death the lockdown is and will cause, when you were advocating the current action? It's a little hard for that not to be either implied or unconsidered if you advocate a cause of action that will lead to it without any reference.


AFAIK the NHS cancelled most routine checkups etc, including cancer screenings, which the various charities have been quite vocal about, as have some consultants etc. 


Your comment on Joe Public is a bit odd - would someone self isolating with a serious heart condition decide 'I'm going to have a bit of that' because they can see a bunch of ladies what lunch sat at a restaurant? The whole point is given the majority of people are at a very low risk of serious illness or death, you don't need to stop them going about their business outside of some precautions about mass gatherings etc. Those at highest risk should be sheltered, if they wish to be, with plenty of folk available to help with deliveries etc. Localised targeted measures could be used to help control spikes if they occurred.


How far you go with measures I have no idea but I'm not convinced what we're currently doing is right, or that the impacts of our actions aren't serious enough to consider them at least partly wrong.


I think we both agree what's right or wrong is an unknown, but clearly are on different sides of whether that means a more balanced approach or the lockdown we have. All a bit irrelevant in the long run I guess as it's what we're doing and neither of us can influence that at all


 


 


Originally Posted by: Hippydave 

ozone_aurora
04 May 2020 23:48:02

New military test can detect Coronavirus before it is infectious.


https://futurism.com/neoscope/military-test-detects-covid19-before-infectious

CreweCold
04 May 2020 23:54:02


 


I have no elderly relatives, so there is no one I care about who is likely to die. I am in the 40-59 category and will have to be very unlucky to be one of the 34,000 that die - I am more likely to die crossing the road


If a vaccine is not going to be widely available till next year, we will have to make hard ethical choices. Money talks at the end of the day unless the govt is willing to pay everyone to stay at home, pay their rent, etc for another year


 


Originally Posted by: The Beast from the East 


It's not about YOU



Crewe, Cheshire
55 metres above sea level
CreweCold
04 May 2020 23:59:12



I posted this late yesterday, makes sense to me.
The sooner lockdown is more or less abandoned for those under 60 the better.
The costs (and not just economic) of continuing with it are infinitely worse than the disease.


Originally Posted by: four 


Tell that to the guy who came into work tonight whose wife had been admitted to hospital for the second time, unable to breathe. Tell that to kids who have lost parents and grandparents, tell it to others who have lost family members. 


No amount of money can bring these people back and I'm sure the economy is far far from people's minds who have lost loved ones.



Crewe, Cheshire
55 metres above sea level

Remove ads from site

Ads