Coronavirus

[Lovejoy]

UK coronavirus death toll increases by 36 in one of lowest rises during lockdown.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/u ... -ntp-feeds

[Dohnut]

My comment that lockdown decreases Covid deaths but increases Cancer deaths is because of the reasons given by Faldo. Apologies for my poor explanation.

Various models, OK we know it is best guess, the last one by a Welsh professor of oncology calculates that, for the reasons stated, up to 50,000 people may die unnecessarily early as a bye-product of the pandemic due to the disruption in treatment and people not seeking medical help in the early stages when something can be done.

FOGO. Fear of going out, is very real, still, and reductions in GP visits is staggering.

Add to physical issues, the mental health issues that are being highlighted, including in Reception year and year one children according to some experts and it becomes clear that whilst lockdown was absolutely necessary it’s vital we get back to the new normal as soon as possible in my opinion.

Ignoring the financial situation, people in general and the NHS in particular will be picking up the pieces for some time to come. Lockdown was necessary but the residual damage will be with us for years.

[tuffers#1]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-l ... e-53217095

Leicester lockdown: Restrictions could be extended for two weeks

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

the mental health issues that are being highlighted, including in Reception year and year one children according to some experts

Can you please expand on this or provide links to these experts comments? Cheers.

[Dohnut]

the mental health issues that are being highlighted, including in Reception year and year one children according to some experts

Can you please expand on this or provide links to these experts comments? Cheers.

Few about, one I recall recently was the University of Oxford. Ox.ac.uk. This focuses on the issues in the 4-10 age group which they reported suffered from an increase in mental health issues after one month of lockdown. However those of an older age did not show Issues to quite the same extent.

There have been more reports by others on TV, can’t remember the details, but the gist being that reception and year 1 kids were most affected and would benefit from a return to school. I wonder if this research is by they were first amongst kids going back.

Which is sort of supported by the Oxford University research.

Why? If my grandson is typical, he can maintain a good social life with friends via his xbox and mobile phone. Plus Netflix and Prime. Only disrupted by online schooling every day. Reception and year 1 kids maybe have not quite got that advantage.

[Lovejoy]

WHO director: Pandemic is 'speeding up'.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/other/ ... -ntp-feeds

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

the mental health issues that are being highlighted, including in Reception year and year one children according to some experts

Can you please expand on this or provide links to these experts comments? Cheers.

Few about, one I recall recently was the University of Oxford. Ox.ac.uk. This focuses on the issues in the 4-10 age group which they reported suffered from an increase in mental health issues after one month of lockdown. However those of an older age did not show Issues to quite the same extent.

There have been more reports by others on TV, can’t remember the details, but the gist being that reception and year 1 kids were most affected and would benefit from a return to school. I wonder if this research is by they were first amongst kids going back.

Which is sort of supported by the Oxford University research.

Why? If my grandson is typical, he can maintain a good social life with friends via his xbox and mobile phone. Plus Netflix and Prime. Only disrupted by online schooling every day. Reception and year 1 kids maybe have not quite got that advantage.

I have googled for oxford.ac.uk and found that one. It mentions the age group 4-10 as struggling but doesn’t go into specific details on 4-6 year olds.

Could you please provide a link to something that supports that?

[NuneatonO's]

Keir Starmer accuses government of being 'asleep at the wheel' over reopening of schools in England

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 90811.html

What Starmer QC says here is just so simply 'stating the bleedin obvious', it truly beggars belief.

I wonder what Johnson, Williamson and the rest of the Tory have got to say about their blatant disregard for adopting such common sense? Indeed, what exactly have they been doing to actively progress this issue; apart from sitting with their thumbs up their arses for weeks?

Yet at least one Tory sycophant on here will no doubt still 'blame it on the unions'.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

Great stuff from Sirkier, really holding the government to account.

[Dohnut]

Can you please expand on this or provide links to these experts comments? Cheers.

Few about, one I recall recently was the University of Oxford. Ox.ac.uk. This focuses on the issues in the 4-10 age group which they reported suffered from an increase in mental health issues after one month of lockdown. However those of an older age did not show Issues to quite the same extent.

There have been more reports by others on TV, can’t remember the details, but the gist being that reception and year 1 kids were most affected and would benefit from a return to school. I wonder if this research is by they were first amongst kids going back.

Which is sort of supported by the Oxford University research.

Why? If my grandson is typical, he can maintain a good social life with friends via his xbox and mobile phone. Plus Netflix and Prime. Only disrupted by online schooling every day. Reception and year 1 kids maybe have not quite got that advantage.

I have googled for oxford.ac.uk and found that one. It mentions the age group 4-10 as struggling but doesn’t go into specific details on 4-6 year olds.

Could you please provide a link to something that supports that?

Like I already said. It was on a TV programme. Particularly relevant to me as my daughter teaches in reception year so I paid attention. Up to you to accept that or not. With the Oxford report, it shows Kids issues decrease with age, so it’s is reasonable to consider the reverse. Up to you.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

So no link then?

[Orient Punxx]

Leicester - hurrah some kind of decisive Government leadership at last!

[Thor]

WHO director: Pandemic is 'speeding up'.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/other/ ... -ntp-feeds

Surely WHO are now totally discredited after all the things we’ve learned about them through this pandemic? I personally don’t trust that organisation any longer.

[Disoriented]

WHO director: Pandemic is 'speeding up'.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/other/ ... -ntp-feeds

Surely WHO are now totally discredited after all the things we’ve learned about them through this pandemic? I personally don’t trust that organisation any longer.

WHY?

[Dohnut]

So no link then?

The institute for fiscal studies completed a risk of mental health survey. Available online, that in the 16-64 age group the risks increased as you get younger.

Oxford University conducted a study for those of school age and concluded the risks increased as you get Younger.

Two studies that came to the same conclusion. So it’s no Unreasonable leap into the dark to conclude those in the 5-6 Year age group carry a slightly higher risk than those aged 9-10. Not proof of course. But few things in life are that certain. But a reasonable line of thinking based on available information. It’s about gathering information and coming to a conclusion.

It was probably this type of data that was used on the TV by whoever it was felt reception and year 1 children carry a higher risk. Not an unreasonable view, but no link.

Me, I was against reception and year 1 going back. No doubt influenced by the risk to my daughter and family. Couldn’t see the point. But endless TV discussions at that time talked about these issues, which is where my opinions derive from. And why I changed my mind. Life is full of opinions. I have mine, you make up your own mind.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

So no link then?

The institute for fiscal studies completed a risk of mental health survey. Available online, that in the 16-64 age group the risks increased as you get younger.

Oxford University conducted a study for those of school age and concluded the risks increased as you get Younger.

Two studies that came to the same conclusion. So it’s no Unreasonable leap into the dark to conclude those in the 5-6 Year age group carry a slightly higher risk than those aged 9-10. Not proof of course. But few things in life are that certain. But a reasonable line of thinking based on available information. It’s about gathering information and coming to a conclusion.

It was probably this type of data that was used on the TV by whoever it was felt reception and year 1 children carry a higher risk. Not an unreasonable view, but no link.

Me, I was against reception and year 1 going back. No doubt influenced by the risk to my daughter and family. Couldn’t see the point. But endless TV discussions at that time talked about these issues, which is where my opinions derive from. And why I changed my mind. Life is full of opinions. I have mine, you make up your own mind.

I too have a vested interest in this issue, hence asking to see where the evidence was to support your assertion that 4-6 year olds were most likely to suffer.

Should have guessed you’d just made it up.

[faldO]

So no link then?

The institute for fiscal studies completed a risk of mental health survey. Available online, that in the 16-64 age group the risks increased as you get younger.

Oxford University conducted a study for those of school age and concluded the risks increased as you get Younger.

Two studies that came to the same conclusion. So it’s no Unreasonable leap into the dark to conclude those in the 5-6 Year age group carry a slightly higher risk than those aged 9-10. Not proof of course. But few things in life are that certain. But a reasonable line of thinking based on available information. It’s about gathering information and coming to a conclusion.

It was probably this type of data that was used on the TV by whoever it was felt reception and year 1 children carry a higher risk. Not an unreasonable view, but no link.

Me, I was against reception and year 1 going back. No doubt influenced by the risk to my daughter and family. Couldn’t see the point. But endless TV discussions at that time talked about these issues, which is where my opinions derive from. And why I changed my mind. Life is full of opinions. I have mine, you make up your own mind.

I too have a vested interest in this issue, hence asking to see where the evidence was to support your assertion that 4-6 year olds were most likely to suffer.

Should have guessed you’d just made it up.

Hard evidence about the mental impact of the lockdown on young children of that age is not readily available at this point, for reasons that should be obvious if you think it through. The Oxford survey is the only one I could find.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence (radio, tv speaking to people with young children) and a general opinion that it will be an issue some time down the line, eg: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53037702 (Child psychologists highlight mental health risks of lockdown)

Why don't you just declare your vested interest, instead of being cynical. Then it can be debated and perhaps we can all learn something.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

Um, I just have.

[faldO]

Um, I just have.

Ok - you meant it literally (something personal). Fair enough.

[Dohnut]

The institute for fiscal studies completed a risk of mental health survey. Available online, that in the 16-64 age group the risks increased as you get younger.

Oxford University conducted a study for those of school age and concluded the risks increased as you get Younger.

Two studies that came to the same conclusion. So it’s no Unreasonable leap into the dark to conclude those in the 5-6 Year age group carry a slightly higher risk than those aged 9-10. Not proof of course. But few things in life are that certain. But a reasonable line of thinking based on available information. It’s about gathering information and coming to a conclusion.

It was probably this type of data that was used on the TV by whoever it was felt reception and year 1 children carry a higher risk. Not an unreasonable view, but no link.

Me, I was against reception and year 1 going back. No doubt influenced by the risk to my daughter and family. Couldn’t see the point. But endless TV discussions at that time talked about these issues, which is where my opinions derive from. And why I changed my mind. Life is full of opinions. I have mine, you make up your own mind.

I too have a vested interest in this issue, hence asking to see where the evidence was to support your assertion that 4-6 year olds were most likely to suffer.

Should have guessed you’d just made it up.

Hard evidence about the mental impact of the lockdown on young children of that age is not readily available at this point, for reasons that should be obvious if you think it through. The Oxford survey is the only one I could find.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence (radio, tv speaking to people with young children) and a general opinion that it will be an issue some time down the line, eg: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53037702 (Child psychologists highlight mental health risks of lockdown)

Why don't you just declare your vested interest, instead of being cynical. Then it can be debated and perhaps we can all learn something.

I think FaldO that RedO is on some sort of mission to have a dig at me. Which is fine. He clearly is not interested in debate despite his alledged interest.

This subject in my opinion is serious and damaging, bloody sad. And one that personally affects my family. So I have resisted getting involved, preferring to offer what information I have in a constructive way.

[Long slender neck]

Tuffers- Well can you not muddle things further please?

[tuffers#1]

If you pull up others PW
I'll willingly not muddle things further .

Maybe Admin needs to add another moderator for balance ?

[faldO]

This subject in my opinion is serious and damaging, bloody sad. And one that personally affects my family. So I have resisted getting involved, preferring to offer what information I have in a constructive way.

Agreed 100%. I have heard some heartbreaking stories (mainly phone-ins) of the affect of the lockdown on children at the younger end of the school age scale, especially not being able to see their friends. At that age, social interaction is critical to a child's development, the education side of it is almost secondary.

The impact of lockdown vs the impact of the virus itself on children that young (ie likelihood of young children becoming very ill or dying) is marked, which is why it is so frustrating that the issue of getting back to school is something the adults on all sides cannot seem to make much progress on.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

I too have a vested interest in this issue, hence asking to see where the evidence was to support your assertion that 4-6 year olds were most likely to suffer.

Should have guessed you’d just made it up.

Hard evidence about the mental impact of the lockdown on young children of that age is not readily available at this point, for reasons that should be obvious if you think it through. The Oxford survey is the only one I could find.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence (radio, tv speaking to people with young children) and a general opinion that it will be an issue some time down the line, eg: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53037702 (Child psychologists highlight mental health risks of lockdown)

Why don't you just declare your vested interest, instead of being cynical. Then it can be debated and perhaps we can all learn something.

I think FaldO that RedO is on some sort of mission to have a dig at me. Which is fine. He clearly is not interested in debate despite his alledged interest.

This subject in my opinion is serious and damaging, bloody sad. And one that personally affects my family. So I have resisted getting involved, preferring to offer what information I have in a constructive way.

I've asked you from where you have learnt that 4-6 year olds are being more greatly affected by this than any other age group. That's it. And, as per normal, you've been unable to provide any sources from which your opinions have been formed.

You shouldn't be allowed to go around spouting your bullshit on such a serious issue. It's dangerous.

[Long slender neck]

If you pull up others PW
I'll willingly not muddle things further .

Maybe Admin needs to add another moderator for balance ?

We need to add a mod who is pro imbecile?

I didn't notice the other posts because so much is about Labour on here. You didn't need to start posting about Yemen too.