Jump to content
filbertway

Coronavirus Thread

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, StanSP said:

And last year it was 'back to normal by summer'... 'Back to normal by Christmas'

 

Not allowed to comment on that though. 

Of course you can comment! (Like anyone can or should stop you)

Personally never put much stock by such statements, in my mind, they aren't for my ears. They are statements for people who need something to cling too, to provide hope I feel

(As a hopeless w@nker, its not for me)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, nnfox said:

One of the reasons that the deaths have been effecting the elderly is because younger people, in their 50s and 60s respond well to treatment.  Lots of people in their 60's get hospitalised with it.  The big fear is that if the NHS does fall over under the strain, then the age of those dying will come down dramatically.

I know all of that.

 

My post was purely arguing against a point made which was comparing the devastation of WW2 with what has actually happened. What has actually happened is a lot of old people have had years taken from them. I'm not arguing that that isn't tragic, only that it's much less tragic than children, men and women of all ages dying in the war in huge numbers across the board.

 

Not what might or could have happened, what has happened. I'm all for this lockdown.

 

Having said that I do think some people would find logic in locking down for 10 years to extend the lives of old folk for 10 years. 10 years that they'd be living in lockdown. It won't come to that, but that's the mentality I'm up against here.

 

 

Edited by Nod.E
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Col city fan said:

That’s a very strange way to look at ‘life’ mate and I think I’d I asked virtually all of the fit and healthy 65 plus in our country they’d argue that they’d rather not have their lives cut short (let’s face it, in some cases by MANY years) by dying on a ventilator.

As I said, let’s see if you would feel the same when you’re 65

A life is a life imo.

Forgive me if I’m wrong but your posts almost smack, to me at least, that because some is ‘old’ and hasn’t got much time to go, it’s less of an issue.

Try saying that to my mum, who’s 75 and shielding. 

You're arguing a point I'm not even making.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

You're arguing a point I'm not even making.

I know what point you’re making and I disagree with you

You’ve said it above: ‘it’s much less tragic than people dying in the war’

Why? It’s lives lost when those lives were not at risk. Just because it’s predominantly older people, it’s still lives lost due to an unexpected virus.

You could argue completely the opposite. The lives we lost in WW2 were due to people fighting for a cause. To rid Europe of an Evil Dictator

Lives lost due to covid are for nothing. Zero cause. Just as tragic and possibly more so.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm now in the mindset of saying okay, I'm happy to have restrictions until the end of March IF that's then it. No more tiers, no more bubbles, no more anti-social distancing, no more mandatory masks and no more 24/7 news coverage of COVID. As a country we NEED the promise that things will get back to the old normal. And soon. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Col city fan said:

What and you aren’t!?

Imagine if the government had set low targets for vaccines? You and all the other negativists would have jumped on their backs about lack of ambition and care. They can’t win

👍

They were always going to set high target to reassure people. What they've done well, after initially putting lots of money into the vaccination programme, is ensure we have the ability and the space to carry it out.

 

They are winning so far in the vaccination programme, let's hope it stays that way.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

I know what point you’re making and I disagree with you

You’ve said it above: ‘it’s much less tragic than people dying in the war’

Why? It’s lives lost when those lives were not at risk. Just because it’s predominantly older people, it’s still lives lost due to an unexpected virus.

You could argue completely the opposite. The lives we lost in WW2 were due to people fighting for a cause. To rid Europe of an Evil Dictator

Lives lost due to covid are for nothing. Zero cause. Just as tragic and possibly more so.

 

You're not reading my posts so there's no point me bothering to reply. Good day, sir.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-b6360f40-84f9-469b-b6a3-a4568e161c4f

 

"This is why scientists are pointing out that until we have enough vaccine to go beyond vaccinating at risk groups against Covid-19 and reach a large proportion of the population, we won't see an end to social distancing.

 

"If you just protect the vulnerable, you will stop deaths that are happening in the vulnerable and you will reduce the burden of hospital cases, but it won't stop transmission," says Prof Salisbury.

 

Transmission will continue between people who haven't been vaccinated, who can then spread it to unvaccinated vulnerable people and vulnerable people who have been vaccinated but have not made a protective immune response, he says."

 

I cannot understand this thinking. If we stop deaths in the vulnerable and we remove the burden on the NHS, then what is the problem? 

 

I really couldn't give a flying toss if it's still in transmission if people aren't dying and only small numbers need ICUs.

 

The moment it becomes just another normal level disease is the moment it should leave the headlines and life should return to normal. I won't hold my breath, we've become obsessed.

You really are something else

Another 1200 plus deaths in 24 hours 

And we’ve ‘become obsessed’

Thank God we don’t all think like you do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-b6360f40-84f9-469b-b6a3-a4568e161c4f

 

"This is why scientists are pointing out that until we have enough vaccine to go beyond vaccinating at risk groups against Covid-19 and reach a large proportion of the population, we won't see an end to social distancing.

 

"If you just protect the vulnerable, you will stop deaths that are happening in the vulnerable and you will reduce the burden of hospital cases, but it won't stop transmission," says Prof Salisbury.

 

Transmission will continue between people who haven't been vaccinated, who can then spread it to unvaccinated vulnerable people and vulnerable people who have been vaccinated but have not made a protective immune response, he says."

 

I cannot understand this thinking. If we stop deaths in the vulnerable and we remove the burden on the NHS, then what is the problem? 

 

I really couldn't give a flying toss if it's still in transmission if people aren't dying and only small numbers need ICUs.

 

The moment it becomes just another normal level disease is the moment it should leave the headlines and life should return to normal. I won't hold my breath, we've become obsessed.

This is what I fear. It was all about protecting the NHS, but if we keep measures like this in place it becomes much more than that. I bet millions of the population will still continue to social distance regardless, like you say, people are obsessed, we've completely forgotten about people dying of other causes.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

You really are something else

Another 1200 plus deaths in 24 hours 

And we’ve ‘become obsessed’

Thank God we don’t all think like you do.

Do you think we should continue to social distance forever? Even after we've all been vaccinated?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-b6360f40-84f9-469b-b6a3-a4568e161c4f

 

"This is why scientists are pointing out that until we have enough vaccine to go beyond vaccinating at risk groups against Covid-19 and reach a large proportion of the population, we won't see an end to social distancing.

 

"If you just protect the vulnerable, you will stop deaths that are happening in the vulnerable and you will reduce the burden of hospital cases, but it won't stop transmission," says Prof Salisbury.

 

Transmission will continue between people who haven't been vaccinated, who can then spread it to unvaccinated vulnerable people and vulnerable people who have been vaccinated but have not made a protective immune response, he says."

 

I cannot understand this thinking. If we stop deaths in the vulnerable and we remove the burden on the NHS, then what is the problem? 

 

I really couldn't give a flying toss if it's still in transmission if people aren't dying and only small numbers need ICUs.

 

The moment it becomes just another normal level disease is the moment it should leave the headlines and life should return to normal. I won't hold my breath, we've become obsessed.

It doesn't say "remove" the hospital burden - it says "reduce". And the burden on hospitals right now is huge.

 

I saw a statistic today that only 25% of intensive care covid cases are in the 70+ age bracket. That may suggest that we need to get a larger group vaccinated first before opening up completely (we may still be able to ease restrictions somewhat), if the primary goal is to stop hospitals getting overwhelmed. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-b6360f40-84f9-469b-b6a3-a4568e161c4f

 

"This is why scientists are pointing out that until we have enough vaccine to go beyond vaccinating at risk groups against Covid-19 and reach a large proportion of the population, we won't see an end to social distancing.

 

"If you just protect the vulnerable, you will stop deaths that are happening in the vulnerable and you will reduce the burden of hospital cases, but it won't stop transmission," says Prof Salisbury.

 

Transmission will continue between people who haven't been vaccinated, who can then spread it to unvaccinated vulnerable people and vulnerable people who have been vaccinated but have not made a protective immune response, he says."

 

I cannot understand this thinking. If we stop deaths in the vulnerable and we remove the burden on the NHS, then what is the problem? 

 

I really couldn't give a flying toss if it's still in transmission if people aren't dying and only small numbers need ICUs.

 

The moment it becomes just another normal level disease is the moment it should leave the headlines and life should return to normal. I won't hold my breath, we've become obsessed.

Absolutely. No excuse to not let us live normally once the elderly and vulnerable are vaccinated. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, martyn said:

It doesn't say "remove" the hospital burden - it says "reduce". And the burden on hospitals right now is huge.

 

I saw a statistic today that only 25% of intensive care covid cases are in the 70+ age bracket. That may suggest that we need to get a larger group vaccinated first before opening up completely (we may still be able to ease restrictions somewhat), if the primary goal is to stop hospitals getting overwhelmed. 

 

 

I posted the stats a while back but I've lost them now, from what I remember it was 85% of intensive care patients over the age of 60 or 65. Once we've vaccinated everyone who's over the age of 60 we should be absolutely fine.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Harrydc said:

I'm now in the mindset of saying okay, I'm happy to have restrictions until the end of March IF that's then it. No more tiers, no more bubbles, no more anti-social distancing, no more mandatory masks and no more 24/7 news coverage of COVID. As a country we NEED the promise that things will get back to the old normal. And soon. 

Plenty of people under 50 going down with it. It'll be Autumn at the earliest imo before we're even getting close to 'normal'. 

So what will you do if it isn't all sorted by end of March? Refuse to wear a mask?

You could just not watch the news.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-b6360f40-84f9-469b-b6a3-a4568e161c4f

 

"This is why scientists are pointing out that until we have enough vaccine to go beyond vaccinating at risk groups against Covid-19 and reach a large proportion of the population, we won't see an end to social distancing.

 

"If you just protect the vulnerable, you will stop deaths that are happening in the vulnerable and you will reduce the burden of hospital cases, but it won't stop transmission," says Prof Salisbury.

 

Transmission will continue between people who haven't been vaccinated, who can then spread it to unvaccinated vulnerable people and vulnerable people who have been vaccinated but have not made a protective immune response, he says."

 

I cannot understand this thinking. If we stop deaths in the vulnerable and we remove the burden on the NHS, then what is the problem? 

 

I really couldn't give a flying toss if it's still in transmission if people aren't dying and only small numbers need ICUs.

 

The moment it becomes just another normal level disease is the moment it should leave the headlines and life should return to normal. I won't hold my breath, we've become obsessed.

We're going to get a lot more from the scientists, it's the final push for the 15 minutes of fame before they all have to retreat into the dark corridors of obscurity. (until the next big problem comes and out from the woodwork they'll all appear, i'm guessing rising sea waters and the only solution will be for us all to dig a giant hole off skeggy so the water will drain away)

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Harrydc said:

Absolutely. No excuse to not let us live normally once the elderly and vulnerable are vaccinated. 

Hypothetical, but what would you say if opening up completely once all elderly and vulnerable are vaccinated resulted in a huge surge in cases, which overwhelmed hospitals, because as it turned out, a large enough percentage of non vulnerable and non elderly people needed hospital treatment?

 

If it transpired that the data indicated that vaccinating everyone over the age of 40 would completely nullify that risk, and we'd need a extra month of restrictions to facilitate that, what would you say?

 

Point is - throwaway comments like the above mean absolutely nothing, unless backed by data. There are plenty of excuses to keep restrictions in place, depending on what data tells us. 

Edited by martyn
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, hackneyfox said:

Plenty of people under 50 going down with it. It'll be Autumn at the earliest imo before we're even getting close to 'normal'. 

So what will you do if it isn't all sorted by end of March? Refuse to wear a mask?

You could just not watch the news.

There had been 825 Coronavirus deaths for people aged 44 years and under up until 1st January 2021.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

You really are something else

Another 1200 plus deaths in 24 hours 

And we’ve ‘become obsessed’

Thank God we don’t all think like you do.

Case in point, you're trying to find outrage in my comments.

 

I'm not talking about now, am I? I'm looking to the future. It was all over the news in summer when we had single figure deaths.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...