Coronavirus

[BoniO]

Re-printing a rant I saw elsewhere, because it sums up my feelings right now:

Some rant.

No doubt what part of the political spectrum he or she is from.

Last paragraph is the usual get-out clause following such rants - hedge your bets, if it all turns out ok then great, if it doesn't it's "I told you so".

It really doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum he/she is from and your second paragraph is just waffle. He/she is correct. There is no scientific background to the current rate of easing of restrictions. It is just Boris looking for popularity.

[Currywurst and Chips]

Some rant.

No doubt what part of the political spectrum he or she is from.

Last paragraph is the usual get-out clause following such rants - hedge your bets, if it all turns out ok then great, if it doesn't it's "I told you so".

It really doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum he/she is from and your second paragraph is just waffle. He/she is correct. There is no scientific background to the current rate of easing of restrictions. It is just Boris looking for popularity.

Well, given you wanted him to have powers to bypass parliament you must be celebrating.

[BoniO]

No doubt what part of the political spectrum he or she is from.

Last paragraph is the usual get-out clause following such rants - hedge your bets, if it all turns out ok then great, if it doesn't it's "I told you so".

It really doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum he/she is from and your second paragraph is just waffle. He/she is correct. There is no scientific background to the current rate of easing of restrictions. It is just Boris looking for popularity.

Well, given you wanted him to have powers to bypass parliament you must be celebrating.

Christ you could bore for England. You tried to pick me up on that before and as I said then, I just wanted him to do something. As we all know he sat on his fat arse and failed to take decisive action at the beginning of the virus. The huge number of deaths we've experienced so far is totally down to his, and his governments ineptitude.

And, of course, this has nothing to do with the thrust of the statement Slacker posted. Deflection being your very obvious intent, as it always is for Government apologists.

[Currywurst and Chips]

It really doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum he/she is from and your second paragraph is just waffle. He/she is correct. There is no scientific background to the current rate of easing of restrictions. It is just Boris looking for popularity.

Well, given you wanted him to have powers to bypass parliament you must be celebrating.

Christ you could bore for England. You tried to pick me up on that before and as I said then, I just wanted him to do something. As we all know he sat on his fat arse and failed to take decisive action at the beginning of the virus. The huge number of deaths we've experienced so far is totally down to his, and his governments ineptitude.

And, of course, this has nothing to do with the thrust of the statement Slacker posted. Deflection being your very obvious intent, as it always is for Government apologists.

I mean you can try and spin that way if you like.

The reality is he was legislating for lockdown and you said Boris Johnson should've enacted emergency legislation to bypass parliament

Surprised you've forgotten given it was on this very thread

[faldO]

A snap YouGov poll of yesterday’s announcements finds Britons largely support the loosening of the lockdown. Close to two-thirds (64%) support proposals to open venues like hairdressers, cinemas, museums and galleries, while 73% support being able to be indoors with another household. Six in ten (60%) support both changes.

[Disoriented]

A snap YouGov poll of yesterday’s announcements finds Britons largely support the loosening of the lockdown. Close to two-thirds (64%) support proposals to open venues like hairdressers, cinemas, museums and galleries, while 73% support being able to be indoors with another household. Six in ten (60%) support both changes.

Your point is?

[slacker]

Well, I guess the point is the survey suggests the majority of people welcome and agree with the easing of restrictions announced. Which makes me one of the minority who don’t agree and will continue to exercise greater caution and social distancing at the moment.

[kokomO]

A snap YouGov poll of yesterday’s announcements finds Britons largely support the loosening of the lockdown. Close to two-thirds (64%) support proposals to open venues like hairdressers, cinemas, museums and galleries, while 73% support being able to be indoors with another household. Six in ten (60%) support both changes.

Sadly the vast majority of people in this country are thick so this would be the last point of reference I would use to help with making such a decision.

[Currywurst and Chips]

Well, I guess the point is the survey suggests the majority of people welcome and agree with the easing of restrictions announced. Which makes me one of the minority who don’t agree and will continue to exercise greater caution and social distancing at the moment.

Didn't know "Wimpy liberal" was a shielding category

[faldO]

Well, I guess the point is the survey suggests the majority of people welcome and agree with the easing of restrictions announced. Which makes me one of the minority who don’t agree and will continue to exercise greater caution and social distancing at the moment.

Welcoming the easing of the lockdown and exercising caution and social distancing (ie being sensible, especially if in a more vulnerable group) don't have to be mutually exclusive options.

[HeyO]

Well, I guess the point is the survey suggests the majority of people welcome and agree with the easing of restrictions announced. Which makes me one of the minority who don’t agree and will continue to exercise greater caution and social distancing at the moment.

Never trust majorities.

[tuffers#1]

Posted at 1730

Coming up: White House cornavirus task force briefing

US Vice President Mike Pence will soon take the podium for the first public meeting of the White House coronavirus task force in nearly two months.

Held at the Department of Health and Human Services, the press briefing comes amid a surge in cases across the US, with sharp spikes in Texas and Florida.

Hope ole Kent Teague & his Family stay Nice & Safe .

U.S re-opening Corona Virus meetings.

[NuneatonO's]

Improve test and trace before schools reopen, Sage report says

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... eport-says

Fully reopening schools without substantial improvements in the performance of the test-and-trace system could risk a new surge in cases of Covid-19, according to calculations by the government’s scientific advisers.

Meanwhile, the UK has announced 767 UK Coronavirus deaths in the last 96 hours.

Moreover, during the last 24 hours, we have learned:

• 148 UK education staff have died of coronavirus.
• There were 44 outbreaks of Coronavirus in schools last week, double the week before.

No doubt, some people on here still blame the Unions.

[NuneatonO's]

Jacob Rees-Mogg has suggested “the weather” is to blame for the UK’s sky-high death toll from coronavirus, in the latest extraordinary explanation given:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... edium=Feed

So now we know why the UK has fared so disastrously bad. It was due to the weather.

Good grief........Wee Smog has lost the plot!

[tuffers#1]

Jacob Rees-Mogg has suggested “the weather” is to blame for the UK’s sky-high death toll from coronavirus, in the latest extraordinary explanation given:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... edium=Feed

So now we know why the UK has fared so disastrously bad. It was due to the weather.

Good grief........Wee Smog has lost the plot!

The Weather

New Zealand was in autumn & now winter .

Jakub whys fogg .

[tuffers#1]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co ... a-53200834

Coronavirus: US has 'serious problem', says Fauci

[Dohnut]

Well, I guess the point is the survey suggests the majority of people welcome and agree with the easing of restrictions announced. Which makes me one of the minority who don’t agree and will continue to exercise greater caution and social distancing at the moment.

A really tricky judgement. Clearly lockdown helps reduce Covid deaths but it also leads to the risk of deaths in other areas. Numbers for avoidable cancer deaths I’ve read range from 10,000 to 50,000 depending on the length of lockdown. I know of 1. I have little doubt true numbers from all ailments could be much higher. In essence, lockdown saves some but kills others.

There is no win-win solution.

The easing of restrictions still allows people to take personal care to a degree. My sister, who is in the very high risk category, has no intention of leaving her house irrespective of relaxation. Being in the majority don’t mean it’s mandatory to avoid precautions. My wife has booked her hair appointment. She has received instructions from the hairdresser already about strict rules to limit risk.

Nobody wants a second spike.

[StillSpike]

Hate the use of spike as a perjortive.

Well, I guess the point is the survey suggests the majority of people welcome and agree with the easing of restrictions announced. Which makes me one of the minority who don’t agree and will continue to exercise greater caution and social distancing at the moment.

A really tricky judgement. Clearly lockdown helps reduce Covid deaths but it also leads to the risk of deaths in other areas. Numbers for avoidable cancer deaths I’ve read range from 10,000 to 50,000 depending on the length of lockdown. I know of 1. I have little doubt true numbers from all ailments could be much higher. In essence, lockdown saves some but kills others.

There is no win-win solution.

The easing of restrictions still allows people to take personal care to a degree. My sister, who is in the very high risk category, has no intention of leaving her house irrespective of relaxation. Being in the majority don’t mean it’s mandatory to avoid precautions. My wife has booked her hair appointment. She has received instructions from the hairdresser already about strict rules to limit risk.

Nobody wants a second spike.

What's the logic behind continuing lockdown increasing avoidable cancer deaths ? I'd have thought that medical resources would be less stretched if the healthy were kept indoors for longer, wouldn't they? Of course, there'd need to be instructions for people to visit their GP if they had any medical concerns (so that early detection could continue). I can't see how prolonging lockdown necessarily kills others.

[HeyO]

Hate the use of spike as a perjortive.

Well, I guess the point is the survey suggests the majority of people welcome and agree with the easing of restrictions announced. Which makes me one of the minority who don’t agree and will continue to exercise greater caution and social distancing at the moment.

A really tricky judgement. Clearly lockdown helps reduce Covid deaths but it also leads to the risk of deaths in other areas. Numbers for avoidable cancer deaths I’ve read range from 10,000 to 50,000 depending on the length of lockdown. I know of 1. I have little doubt true numbers from all ailments could be much higher. In essence, lockdown saves some but kills others.

There is no win-win solution.

The easing of restrictions still allows people to take personal care to a degree. My sister, who is in the very high risk category, has no intention of leaving her house irrespective of relaxation. Being in the majority don’t mean it’s mandatory to avoid precautions. My wife has booked her hair appointment. She has received instructions from the hairdresser already about strict rules to limit risk.

Nobody wants a second spike.

What's the logic behind continuing lockdown increasing avoidable cancer deaths ? I'd have thought that medical resources would be less stretched if the healthy were kept indoors for longer, wouldn't they? Of course, there'd need to be instructions for people to visit their GP if they had any medical concerns (so that early detection could continue). I can't see how prolonging lockdown necessarily kills others.

Think again then.

[StillSpike]

No, explain it.

[Long slender neck]

People just too scared to go out and seek help, appointments cancelled etc I think.

[StillSpike]

People just too scared to go out and seek help, appointments cancelled etc I think.

i see that, but that could / should be countered by better instructions to seek help, keep appointments etc. Surely the country can manage a lockdown where people don't go to the pub or the cinema or have raves or trash throwing beach parties, but do keep appointments with their doctor.

It would take very clear messaging (and consistent leading by example) so I understand why it might be a problem with the current incumbents.

[faldO]

People just too scared to go out and seek help, appointments cancelled etc I think.

i see that, but that could / should be countered by better instructions to seek help, keep appointments etc. Surely the country can manage a lockdown where people don't go to the pub or the cinema or have raves or trash throwing beach parties, but do keep appointments with their doctor.

It would take very clear messaging (and consistent leading by example) so I understand why it might be a problem with the current incumbents.

It's not the lockdown per se but the wider impact of covid-19 on cancer treatment:

1) Appointments postponed/cancelled because NHS resources reallocated
2) Hospitals not safe environments for cancer patients due to the nature of their treatment (eg compromised immune systems) due to high levels of infection - so treatments postponed
3) Private hospitals that would treat some patients being re-assigned (not withstanding the contentiousness of private healthcare)
4) There is now quite a serious backlog of cancer referrals which will impact waiting times
5) Getting a GP appointment for a referral in the first place

A survey by Macmillan Cancer Support showed that almost half (45%) of cancer patients have seen their cancer treatment delayed, cancelled, or altered as a result of coronavirus, leaving many living in fear.

[StillSpike]

People just too scared to go out and seek help, appointments cancelled etc I think.

i see that, but that could / should be countered by better instructions to seek help, keep appointments etc. Surely the country can manage a lockdown where people don't go to the pub or the cinema or have raves or trash throwing beach parties, but do keep appointments with their doctor.

It would take very clear messaging (and consistent leading by example) so I understand why it might be a problem with the current incumbents.

It's not the lockdown per se but the wider impact of covid-19 on cancer treatment:

1) Appointments postponed/cancelled because NHS resources reallocated
2) Hospitals not safe environments for cancer patients due to the nature of their treatment (eg compromised immune systems) due to high levels of infection - so treatments postponed
3) Private hospitals that would treat some patients being re-assigned (not withstanding the contentiousness of private healthcare)
4) There is now quite a serious backlog of cancer referrals which will impact waiting times
5) Getting a GP appointment for a referral in the first place

A survey by Macmillan Cancer Support showed that almost half (45%) of cancer patients have seen their cancer treatment delayed, cancelled, or altered as a result of coronavirus, leaving many living in fear.

Absolutely, as you say, it's not the Lockdown - it's Covid that's the problem.

So when Dohnut says " Clearly lockdown helps reduce Covid deaths but it also leads to the risk of deaths in other areas. Numbers for avoidable cancer deaths I’ve read range from 10,000 to 50,000 depending on the length of lockdown. " and then goes on to say "In essence, lockdown saves some but kills others" - he's quite wrong.

We can't use increased cancer deaths as some sort of pretext to end / reduce our measures to combat Covid-19.

[faldO]

Absolutely, as you say, it's not the Lockdown - it's Covid that's the problem.

So when Dohnut says " Clearly lockdown helps reduce Covid deaths but it also leads to the risk of deaths in other areas. Numbers for avoidable cancer deaths I’ve read range from 10,000 to 50,000 depending on the length of lockdown. " and then goes on to say "In essence, lockdown saves some but kills others" - he's quite wrong.

We can't use increased cancer deaths as some sort of pretext to end / reduce our measures to combat Covid-19.

That's true I suppose if you take what he said quite literally, whether or not he meant it that way I don't know.

But lockdown (stay at home), or shutdown (of non-covid-related hospital services, of taxis/public transport to get to hospital for cancer treatment, of GP surgeries to get referrals, kids off school preventing some hospital workers from being able to work, etc), it's all kind of bound up in the same end result.

There is a tipping point when you say the number of people dying from coronavirus doesn't justify a continued lockdown in which, for example, many 100s or 1000s of people may die from cancer and other things when they wouldn't have otherwise done so.