Independent Leyton Orient Forum

faldO wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 12:26 pm

Disoriented wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 12:10 pm

slacker wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 11:48 am 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".

BoniO wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 4:19 pm

faldO wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 12:26 pm

Disoriented wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 12:10 pm

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.

Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 4:46 pm

BoniO wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 4:19 pm

faldO wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 12:26 pm

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 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 6:06 pm

Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 4:46 pm

BoniO wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 4:19 pm

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.

faldO wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 7:24 pm 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.

faldO wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 7:24 pm 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.

slacker wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 10:11 am 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.

slacker wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 10:11 am 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.

slacker wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 10:11 am 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.

NuneatonO's wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 5:06 pm 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!

slacker wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 10:11 am 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.

Dohnut wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:13 am

slacker wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 10:11 am 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 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 12:43 pm Hate the use of spike as a perjortive.

Dohnut wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:13 am

slacker wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 10:11 am 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.

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 2:04 pm People just too scared to go out and seek help, appointments cancelled etc I think.

StillSpike wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 3:46 pm

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 2:04 pm 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 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 4:18 pm

StillSpike wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 3:46 pm

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 2:04 pm 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 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 4:37 pm
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.