Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Lock up the pensioners. Lock them up! Lock them up!

Another ageist remark from PW. Lock him up!

Dohnut wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:01 am The science is not exact, scientific opinion is divided.

I might as well argue with a tomato, but go on, give me an example of where scientific opinion is genuinely divided.

They disagree on benefits of lockdowns

The effects of lockdown are pretty well known actually. There will always be uncertainty in the modelling, but that is not the same as a lack of consensus. The problem is there then needs to be tricky decisions on how to balance the effects that can be predicted. Unfortunately for us most of that is probably done by Dominic Cummings.

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 3:53 pm Lock up the pensioners. Lock them up! Lock them up!

I know this is just a WUM on your part, but for those who genuinely believe this is all you need to do to "get back to normal", you'd have to lock up everyone who is at high risk (clinically extremely vulnerable):

• have had an organ transplant
• are having chemotherapy or antibody treatment for cancer, including immunotherapy
• are having an intense course of radiotherapy (radical radiotherapy) for lung cancer
• are having targeted cancer treatments that can affect the immune system (such as protein kinase inhibitors or PARP inhibitors)
• have blood or bone marrow cancer (such as leukaemia, lymphoma or myeloma)
• have had a bone marrow or stem cell transplant in the past 6 months, or are still taking immunosuppressant medicine
• have been told by a doctor they have a severe lung condition (such as cystic fibrosis, severe asthma or severe COPD)
• have a condition that means they have a very high risk of getting infections (such as SCID or sickle cell)
• are taking medicine that makes them much more likely to get infections (such as high doses of steroids or immunosuppressant medicine)
• have a serious heart condition and are pregnant

But you can't stop there either, because then you've got those are at moderate risk (clinically vulnerable):

• are 70 or older
• have a lung condition that's not severe (such as asthma, COPD, emphysema or bronchitis)
• have heart disease (such as heart failure)
• have diabetes
• have chronic kidney disease
• have liver disease (such as hepatitis)
• have a condition affecting the brain or nerves (such as Parkinson's disease, motor neurone disease, multiple sclerosis or cerebral palsy)
• have a condition that means they have a high risk of getting infections
• are taking medicine that can affect the immune system (such as low doses of steroids)
• are very obese (a BMI of 40 or above)
• are pregnant

(source)

And then what do you do about those who are more likely to get seriously ill from coronavirus? As well as age, the risk of dying among those diagnosed with COVID-19 is also higher in males than females, higher in those living in more deprived areas than those living in the least deprived, and higher in those in Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic groups than in White ethnic groups. Also there's a particularly high increase in deaths among those born outside the UK and Ireland, those in a range of caring occupations including social care and nursing auxiliaries and assistants, those who drive passengers in road vehicles for a living including taxi and minicab drivers and chauffeurs, those working as security guards and related occupations, and those in care homes. (source)

Fine, but wouldn't bother with the last paragraph of people.

Mick McQuaid wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 5:07 pm

Dohnut wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:01 am The science is not exact, scientific opinion is divided.

I might as well argue with a tomato, but go on, give me an example of where scientific opinion is genuinely divided.

The Great Barrington letter shows support for herd immunity from loads of medical professionals and scientists.

It’s not as clear cut as you’re making out. There’s always two sides to any story. You need to keep an open mind.

Oh.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... anas-covid

Hijacked. It was signed by 4000 not long ago.

Ronnie Hotdogs wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 9:19 am Oh.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... anas-covid

Well spotted Ronnie, though I think you're a bit late with it as it was reported on here yesterday.

I read the Guardian are going after one of the 3 original signatories of the letter (Kulldorff) on the basis of him appearing on an internet radio programme they don't like. Let's hope he gets well and truly cancelled.

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 8:44 am Fine, but wouldn't bother with the last paragraph of people.

So to be clear then, this idea is what the chief executive of NHS England called "age-based apartheid", with added medical-based apartheid on top of that, but not bothered about how many care workers die (and bus drivers, those in more deprived areas, and non-whites generally).

Speaking as someone with both parents in care homes, I agree with the epidemiologist who referred to this idea as "grotesque".

Very soon we will be in a complete lockdown once again, because these half cock measures are not working.
If people followed the rules, particularly on social distancing, the infection rate would go down....but in the main theyre not

The average age someone dies with Covid is 82

The average life expectancy in the UK is 81

My cousin died yesterday of Covid19. Now he was 76, but up until a month or so ago he was fit & healthy. He became quite ill with what they thought was septicemia , caused by a spider bite whilst playing golf. He deteriorated rapidly and then they thought he might have some sort of blood cancer. He was transferred to Carshalton Hospital, caught the virus and within days, he croaked. Now the virus got him ultimately, but if he had the correct diagnosis in the first place and not caught the virus, he would still be alive. One of the first things that people miss on discussions on Covid 19, is that a very high percentage of people with the virus, have no symptoms, but can pass it on. I have watched out on the media, to see how this happens, but have not seen any research on the mechanism of this transmission. You would think no coughing etc would make it hard to pass on.

Sorry for your loss, Clive. Really sad news.

A Pedant wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 10:02 am

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 8:44 am Fine, but wouldn't bother with the last paragraph of people.

So to be clear then, this idea is what the chief executive of NHS England called "age-based apartheid", with added medical-based apartheid on top of that, but not bothered about how many care workers die (and bus drivers, those in more deprived areas, and non-whites generally).

Speaking as someone with both parents in care homes, I agree with the epidemiologist who referred to this idea as "grotesque".

I think that's a bit of a silly statement from the NHS guy. How is the care home protecting your parents at the moment? Workers interacting with the vulnerable should be on a lockdown too. The vulnerable should not work.

Clive Evans wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 11:51 am My cousin died yesterday of Covid19. Now he was 76, but up until a month or so ago he was fit & healthy. He became quite ill with what they thought was septicemia , caused by a spider bite whilst playing golf. He deteriorated rapidly and then they thought he might have some sort of blood cancer. He was transferred to Carshalton Hospital, caught the virus and within days, he croaked. Now the virus got him ultimately, but if he had the correct diagnosis in the first place and not caught the virus, he would still be alive. One of the first things that people miss on discussions on Covid 19, is that a very high percentage of people with the virus, have no symptoms, but can pass it on. I have watched out on the media, to see how this happens, but have not seen any research on the mechanism of this transmission. You would think no coughing etc would make it hard to pass on.

Very sad. Best wishes to your family

Clive Evans wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 11:51 am My cousin died yesterday of Covid19. Now he was 76, but up until a month or so ago he was fit & healthy. He became quite ill with what they thought was septicemia , caused by a spider bite whilst playing golf. He deteriorated rapidly and then they thought he might have some sort of blood cancer. He was transferred to Carshalton Hospital, caught the virus and within days, he croaked. Now the virus got him ultimately, but if he had the correct diagnosis in the first place and not caught the virus, he would still be alive. One of the first things that people miss on discussions on Covid 19, is that a very high percentage of people with the virus, have no symptoms, but can pass it on. I have watched out on the media, to see how this happens, but have not seen any research on the mechanism of this transmission. You would think no coughing etc would make it hard to pass on.

Droplets mainly, through talking, sneezing, chanting and yes coughing exacerbated if inside or enclosed area

Ps Condolences

Clive Evans wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 11:51 am My cousin died yesterday of Covid19. Now he was 76, but up until a month or so ago he was fit & healthy. He became quite ill with what they thought was septicemia , caused by a spider bite whilst playing golf. He deteriorated rapidly and then they thought he might have some sort of blood cancer. He was transferred to Carshalton Hospital, caught the virus and within days, he croaked. Now the virus got him ultimately, but if he had the correct diagnosis in the first place and not caught the virus, he would still be alive. One of the first things that people miss on discussions on Covid 19, is that a very high percentage of people with the virus, have no symptoms, but can pass it on. I have watched out on the media, to see how this happens, but have not seen any research on the mechanism of this transmission. You would think no coughing etc would make it hard to pass on.

Sorry to hear that Clive. Did he catch the virus in hospital or are you saying he had the virus but it was misdiagnosed as septicemia? What do you mean 'no coughing'?

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 12:01 pm

A Pedant wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 10:02 am

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 8:44 am Fine, but wouldn't bother with the last paragraph of people.

So to be clear then, this idea is what the chief executive of NHS England called "age-based apartheid", with added medical-based apartheid on top of that, but not bothered about how many care workers die (and bus drivers, those in more deprived areas, and non-whites generally).

Speaking as someone with both parents in care homes, I agree with the epidemiologist who referred to this idea as "grotesque".

I think that's a bit of a silly statement from the NHS guy. How is the care home protecting your parents at the moment? Workers interacting with the vulnerable should be on a lockdown too. The vulnerable should not work.

Not sure I understand what you mean by "Workers interacting with the vulnerable should be on a lockdown too". Are you suggesting that the care workers should be locked down in the Care Home with the people they're looking after? If you take that to the next natural conclusion then all NHS workers would have to be on Lockdown at the hospital where they work. Somehow I can't see that working.

That is a good idea, but what I meant is that apart from work they do not go out.

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 12:36 pm That is a good idea, but what I meant is that apart from work they do not go out.

Haha - right, that'd work. Better start building those accommodation wings in the Hospitals & Homes pretty sharpish then. Not a prob as I'm sure DC has a contact or two he could give the contracts to.

In the interim, no care-workers, NHS staff who meet the public to go out eh? Of course you'd have to add in all their family members living at home to Lockdown as well because they could infect the care-workers/NHS staff too. Hmm, this is spiralling out of control a little isn't it.

BoniO wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 12:45 pm

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 12:36 pm That is a good idea, but what I meant is that apart from work they do not go out.

Haha - right, that'd work. Better start building those accommodation wings in the Hospitals & Homes pretty sharpish then. Not a prob as I'm sure DC has a contact or two he could give the contracts to.

In the interim, no care-workers, NHS staff who meet the public to go out eh? Of course you'd have to add in all their family members living at home to Lockdown as well because they could infect the care-workers/NHS staff too. Hmm, this is spiralling out of control a little isn't it.

So WTF don’t we get serious. Masks should be compulsory outdoors. The old bill should be hot on this.

Disoriented wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 12:51 pm

BoniO wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 12:45 pm

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 12:36 pm That is a good idea, but what I meant is that apart from work they do not go out.

Haha - right, that'd work. Better start building those accommodation wings in the Hospitals & Homes pretty sharpish then. Not a prob as I'm sure DC has a contact or two he could give the contracts to.

In the interim, no care-workers, NHS staff who meet the public to go out eh? Of course you'd have to add in all their family members living at home to Lockdown as well because they could infect the care-workers/NHS staff too. Hmm, this is spiralling out of control a little isn't it.

So WTF don’t we get serious. Masks should be compulsory outdoors. The old bill should be hot on this.

It's a mystery isn't it? Given the clear guidance issued over the last months by the government, and the sensible ways these unchanging rules have been enforced I'm at a loss to understand why compliance to the rules is not 100%. I mean it's not as if the rules keep changing, or that Ministers themselves are confused by the rules and/or reluctant to/incapable of enforcing them. I'm sure the government is doing it's best (to help support the over-privileged in our Society). The Police, and Lord knows they aren't perfect, (what's left of them) have even stated that some of the rules can't be enforced. Now surely that can't be correct. No sane Government would issue rules & regulations that were so unclear/ambiguous that the Police were unable to enforce them. It really is a complete mystery to me why we find ourselves up sh*t creek without a paddle!