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 

Let’s hope there’s something in this. 

#BREAKING: Joint statement by the Israeli Ministery of Defense and the Israel Institute for Biological Research: A significant breakthrough has been achieved in finding an antidote to the Corona virus that attacks the virus and can neutralize it in the sick body

— Amichai Stein (@AmichaiStein1) May 4, 2020

Originally Posted by: John p 

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 

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 

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 

Economics v Humanity

Originally Posted by: Sevendust 

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 

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 

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