Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2020 8:00:33 GMT
Yes it would have been so much better with uncle Jerry, Dianne Abbott, Emily thornberry and the rest of the red brigade . On the plus side if Corbyn had made his brother sports minister we would still be sat in full stadiums because Covid is just a conspiracy and it’s against our human rights to be protected from viruses if we don’t want to !!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2020 8:02:11 GMT
COVID is now part of our lives and is not going away anytime soon. Even with the vaccine, I assume it'll just be like the flu where people will still get it. But at some point life has to return to normal. As for football, whilst I don't think there's any risk of the season not being completed again, I can easily see the whole season going by with no fans allowed to attend. Will be an even longer wait until anyone is allowed to do away trips. The season probably would still get completed but with empty stadiums how many teams will still be in existence come May 2021?
|
|
|
Post by chewbacca on Sept 10, 2020 8:03:00 GMT
Yes it would have been so much better with uncle Jerry, Dianne Abbott, Emily thornberry and the rest of the red brigade .
|
|
Marshy
Proper Gas
Posts: 14,138
|
Post by Marshy on Sept 10, 2020 8:06:38 GMT
COVID is now part of our lives and is not going away anytime soon. Even with the vaccine, I assume it'll just be like the flu where people will still get it. But at some point life has to return to normal. As for football, whilst I don't think there's any risk of the season not being completed again, I can easily see the whole season going by with no fans allowed to attend. Will be an even longer wait until anyone is allowed to do away trips. The season probably would still get completed but with empty stadiums how many teams will still be in existence come May 2021? If we survive we could be in premier league.
|
|
|
Post by RD on Sept 10, 2020 8:07:42 GMT
We had to hit pause whilst we learnt about this new, deadly virus - that was absolutely the correct thing to do. All the while gathering the data to better understand who is at risk and what - if any - medication exists that can help treat people.
In that regard it's been a good exercise as we've learnt some basic steroids can help those worse affected (in some cases) and - crucially - we've also learnt that those over the age of 65/70, and those with serious underlying health conditions, are seriously at risk. That doesn't mean somebody younger than 65 with no underlying health condition cannot succumb to this disease, but the odds are very, very low and the risk of getting cancer and dying (for example) is significantly higher. In fact, getting hit by a bus is probably more likely.
The point therefore, is that risks are all around us. We all need to be sensible - social distance, wash hands, wear a mask - but other than that, life needs to return to normal for those deemed low risk.
If you are of an older age (and less likely to be working), the suggestion would be to stay at home where it is safe to do so until a vaccine is hopefully found. Of course, should you wish to go out, that is your choice and a risk you are welcome to take.
For those under the age of 65 with serious health conditions (a much smaller proportion of the British public than "everyone") a financial aid scheme could be put in place for another 6 months perhaps to help ensure that there is no need to leave the house (e.g. similar to Furlough and food deliveries etc.). Yes it will cost, but it will be a lot less than Furloughing the majority of the UK, as we have been doing for the past 6 months - so it can be done - and we're talking a much smaller cross-section of people here.
The point being that, although it would cost to do that, there is no reason whatsoever that "healthy" people under the age of 65 cannot continue pretty much as usual (albeit with needing to regularly wash hands and social distance etc.). That will ensure that the economy can now open back up in full, and save future generations from the complete ruin that will ensue if we continue with this lock-down nonsense moving forward.
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Sept 10, 2020 8:12:57 GMT
Yes it would have been so much better with uncle Jerry, Dianne Abbott, Emily thornberry and the rest of the red brigade . I'm not a labour voter, nor a fan of Corbyn... However. I can't see how any labour government could have handled this worse? Most excess deaths in Europe, biggest drop in GDP in Europe. That and we had a headstart as we were 2 weeks behind Italy! If all you've got to say to stick up for Boris is that labour would have done a worse job, then you're letting them off the hook for the mistakes they've made
|
|
|
Post by seanclevedongas on Sept 10, 2020 8:29:20 GMT
We had to hit pause whilst we learnt about this new, deadly virus - that was absolutely the correct thing to do. All the while gathering the data to better understand who is at risk and what - if any - medication exists that can help treat people. In that regard it's been a good exercise as we've learnt some basic steroids can help those worse affected (in some cases) and - crucially - we've also learnt that those over the age of 65/70, and those with serious underlying health conditions, are seriously at risk. That doesn't mean somebody younger than 65 with no underlying health condition cannot succumb to this disease, but the odds are very, very low and the risk of getting cancer and dying (for example) is significantly higher. In fact, getting hit by a bus is probably more likely.The point therefore, is that risks are all around us. We all need to be sensible - social distance, wash hands, wear a mask - but other than that, life needs to return to normal for those deemed low risk. If you are of an older age (and less likely to be working), the suggestion would be to stay at home where it is safe to do so until a vaccine is hopefully found. Of course, should you wish to go out, that is your choice and a risk you are welcome to take. For those under the age of 65 with serious health conditions (a much smaller proportion of the British public than "everyone") a financial aid scheme could be put in place for another 6 months perhaps to help ensure that there is no need to leave the house (e.g. similar to Furlough and food deliveries etc.). Yes it will cost, but it will be a lot less than Furloughing the majority of the UK, as we have been doing for the past 6 months - so it can be done - and we're talking a much smaller cross-section of people here. The point being that, although it would cost to do that, there is no reason whatsoever that "healthy" people under the age of 65 cannot continue pretty much as usual (albeit with needing to regularly wash hands and social distance etc.). That will ensure that the economy can now open back up in full, and save future generations from the complete ruin that will ensue if we continue with this lock-down nonsense moving forward. Taken from the office of National Statistics (for entire 2018) Top causes of death in the UK 1.Dementia and Alzheimer’s disease: 13% of all deaths registered were due to one of the two and they are the leading cause of death for women. In total, 51,407 deaths were reported due to dementia and Alzheimer’s disease in 2018. 2.Ischaemic heart diseases: 23,662 deaths. 3.Cerebrovascular diseases: 20,523 deaths. 4.Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 18,783 deaths. 5.Influenza and pneumonia: 17,614 deaths. Considering we have had more than 41,000 deaths from Covid so far in 6 months I think you are underplaying the significance of it and extrapolated over 12 months would be the highest cause of death in the UK Have more than 41K people been hit by a bus in the last 6 months? I think we would all know about it if they had!
|
|
|
Post by RD on Sept 10, 2020 8:38:52 GMT
We had to hit pause whilst we learnt about this new, deadly virus - that was absolutely the correct thing to do. All the while gathering the data to better understand who is at risk and what - if any - medication exists that can help treat people. In that regard it's been a good exercise as we've learnt some basic steroids can help those worse affected (in some cases) and - crucially - we've also learnt that those over the age of 65/70, and those with serious underlying health conditions, are seriously at risk. That doesn't mean somebody younger than 65 with no underlying health condition cannot succumb to this disease, but the odds are very, very low and the risk of getting cancer and dying (for example) is significantly higher. In fact, getting hit by a bus is probably more likely.The point therefore, is that risks are all around us. We all need to be sensible - social distance, wash hands, wear a mask - but other than that, life needs to return to normal for those deemed low risk. If you are of an older age (and less likely to be working), the suggestion would be to stay at home where it is safe to do so until a vaccine is hopefully found. Of course, should you wish to go out, that is your choice and a risk you are welcome to take. For those under the age of 65 with serious health conditions (a much smaller proportion of the British public than "everyone") a financial aid scheme could be put in place for another 6 months perhaps to help ensure that there is no need to leave the house (e.g. similar to Furlough and food deliveries etc.). Yes it will cost, but it will be a lot less than Furloughing the majority of the UK, as we have been doing for the past 6 months - so it can be done - and we're talking a much smaller cross-section of people here. The point being that, although it would cost to do that, there is no reason whatsoever that "healthy" people under the age of 65 cannot continue pretty much as usual (albeit with needing to regularly wash hands and social distance etc.). That will ensure that the economy can now open back up in full, and save future generations from the complete ruin that will ensue if we continue with this lock-down nonsense moving forward. Taken from the office of National Statistics (for entire 2018) Top causes of death in the UK 1.Dementia and Alzheimer’s disease: 13% of all deaths registered were due to one of the two and they are the leading cause of death for women. In total, 51,407 deaths were reported due to dementia and Alzheimer’s disease in 2018. 2.Ischaemic heart diseases: 23,662 deaths. 3.Cerebrovascular diseases: 20,523 deaths. 4.Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 18,783 deaths. 5.Influenza and pneumonia: 17,614 deaths. Considering we have had more than 41,000 deaths from Covid so far in 6 months I think you are underplaying the significance of it and extrapolated over 12 months would be the highest cause of death in the UK Have more than 41K people been hit by a bus in the last 6 months? I think we would all know about it if they had! No, you've completely missed the point of the post unfortunately. Of the 41k deaths, circa 97%+ of them have been either people with serious underlying medical conditions or over the age of 65/70. Hence the requirement to keep those people safe (as per my post). For the majority of "healthy" people, the mortality rate is exceptionally low. Hence you are more likely to die by being hit by a car (approximately 20,000/1), than you are of Covid-19.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Sept 10, 2020 8:43:24 GMT
Taken from the office of National Statistics (for entire 2018) Top causes of death in the UK 1.Dementia and Alzheimer’s disease: 13% of all deaths registered were due to one of the two and they are the leading cause of death for women. In total, 51,407 deaths were reported due to dementia and Alzheimer’s disease in 2018. 2.Ischaemic heart diseases: 23,662 deaths. 3.Cerebrovascular diseases: 20,523 deaths. 4.Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 18,783 deaths. 5.Influenza and pneumonia: 17,614 deaths. Considering we have had more than 41,000 deaths from Covid so far in 6 months I think you are underplaying the significance of it and extrapolated over 12 months would be the highest cause of death in the UK Have more than 41K people been hit by a bus in the last 6 months? I think we would all know about it if they had! No, you've completely missed the point of the post unfortunately. Of the 41k deaths, circa 97%+ of them have been either people with serious underlying medical conditions or over the age of 65/70. Hence the requirement to keep those people safe (as per my post). For the majority of "healthy" people, the mortality rate is exceptionally low. Hence you are more likely to die by being hit by a car (approximately 20,000/1), than you are of Covid-19. It's not just whether someone as a healthy person gets it, it's also that they act as an incubator and pass it around. The fewer people who carry it, the slimmer the chance of passing it onto someone who is vulnerable.
|
|
|
Post by seanclevedongas on Sept 10, 2020 8:46:16 GMT
The COVID-19 pandemic has a fatality rate of around 15.25% in the UK and 3.94% globally. This is over 150 times higher than the death rate for the seasonal flu, which has a fatality rate of 0.1% on average. The fatality rate for COVID-19 goes up to as much as 15% for people over the age of 80 and those with pre-existing health risks, such as high blood pressure or respiratory issues.
Coronavirus fatality rate by age 0-9 0.00% 10-19 0.20% 20-29 0.20% 30-39 0.20% 40-49 0.40% 50-59 1.30% 60-69 3.60% 70-79 8.00% 80+ 14.80%
|
|
|
Post by RD on Sept 10, 2020 8:49:05 GMT
No, you've completely missed the point of the post unfortunately. Of the 41k deaths, circa 97%+ of them have been either people with serious underlying medical conditions or over the age of 65/70. Hence the requirement to keep those people safe (as per my post). For the majority of "healthy" people, the mortality rate is exceptionally low. Hence you are more likely to die by being hit by a car (approximately 20,000/1), than you are of Covid-19. It's not just whether someone as a healthy person gets it, it's also that they act as an incubator and pass it around. The fewer people who carry it, the slimmer the chance of passing it onto someone who is vulnerable. Again - see my post. If those that are vulnerable stay home/protected, the risk of transmission to them is reduced. If anything, it's makes more sense for those at low risk to pass it round to eachother - it would generate herd immunity which will be required if a working vaccine cannot be found. Protect those at risk (a minority), let those who aren't re-stimulate the economy now IMO.
|
|
|
Post by RD on Sept 10, 2020 8:51:37 GMT
The COVID-19 pandemic has a fatality rate of around 15.25% in the UK and 3.94% globally. This is over 150 times higher than the death rate for the seasonal flu, which has a fatality rate of 0.1% on average. The fatality rate for COVID-19 goes up to as much as 15% for people over the age of 80 and those with pre-existing health risks, such as high blood pressure or respiratory issues. Coronavirus fatality rate by age 0-9 0.00% 10-19 0.20% 20-29 0.20% 30-39 0.20% 40-49 0.40% 50-59 1.30% 60-69 3.60% 70-79 8.00% 80+ 14.80% Again, you're missing the point here. As per your own stats - if we're basing it on my post - we're talking less than 3% mortality for those under the age of 60. I'm actually going a step further and talking about then protecting those with underlying health conditions (which the deaths linked to 3% will be made almost entirely of). So the 15.25% is completely irrelevant. That only becomes relevant if we're talking about letting EVERYONE out and protecting no-one - which isn't remotely what I've said. I'm not even sure you've read my post to be honest?
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Sept 10, 2020 8:53:25 GMT
It's not just whether someone as a healthy person gets it, it's also that they act as an incubator and pass it around. The fewer people who carry it, the slimmer the chance of passing it onto someone who is vulnerable. Again - see my post. If those that are vulnerable stay home/protected, the risk of transmission to them is reduced. If anything, it's makes more sense for those at low risk to pass it round to eachother - it would generate herd immunity which will be required if a working vaccine cannot be found. Protect those at risk (a minority), let those who aren't re-stimulate the economy now IMO. There are signs that people can be reinfected and even healthy people may have long term issues afterwards (as per a doctor being interviewed yesterday). There are no easy answers.
|
|
|
Post by seanclevedongas on Sept 10, 2020 8:56:55 GMT
The COVID-19 pandemic has a fatality rate of around 15.25% in the UK and 3.94% globally. This is over 150 times higher than the death rate for the seasonal flu, which has a fatality rate of 0.1% on average. The fatality rate for COVID-19 goes up to as much as 15% for people over the age of 80 and those with pre-existing health risks, such as high blood pressure or respiratory issues. Coronavirus fatality rate by age 0-9 0.00% 10-19 0.20% 20-29 0.20% 30-39 0.20% 40-49 0.40% 50-59 1.30% 60-69 3.60% 70-79 8.00% 80+ 14.80% Again, you're missing the point here. As per your own stats - if we're basing it on my post - we're talking less than 3% mortality for those under the age of 60. I'm actually going a step further and talking about then protecting those with underlying health conditions (which the deaths linked to 3% will be made almost entirely of). So the 15.25% is completely irrelevant. That only becomes relevant if we're talking about letting EVERYONE out and protecting no-one - which isn't remotely what I've said. I'm not even sure you've read my post to be honest? Yes sorry I got distracted there was a commotion outside, it was another person hit by a bus - the third this week! The post you have quoted here was just to show the facts (again taken from ONS) and not a response to your reply. I do get the point you are making
|
|
|
Post by RD on Sept 10, 2020 8:58:54 GMT
Again - see my post. If those that are vulnerable stay home/protected, the risk of transmission to them is reduced. If anything, it's makes more sense for those at low risk to pass it round to eachother - it would generate herd immunity which will be required if a working vaccine cannot be found. Protect those at risk (a minority), let those who aren't re-stimulate the economy now IMO. There are signs that people can be reinfected and even healthy people may have long term issues afterwards (as per a doctor being interviewed yesterday). There are no easy answers. As far as I'm aware (and I stand to be corrected), that is completely untrue in regards to "there are signs people can be re-infected again". As far as I'm aware, the only known instances where they feared that was the case were later shown to not be the case. That said, it is likely immunity will not last forever (as with a flu jab) so I wouldn't be surprised. Correct regarding long-term issues in some (a small number to be fair) of cases. The fact is, that we cannot go on like this forever. The damage to the economy is already catastrophic - much more and there will be no way back for generation after generation. That seems a bizarre decision given we know (for a fact) that 95%+ of healthy people under the age of 65 will likely recover. We don't sit at home because we might get hit by a car, or an asteroid or stabbed or shot. We have to live our lives. What happens if we don't get a working vaccine? Protect those at risk, let others lead their lives. If those deemed healthy choose not to then that's up to them. But - provided the at risk groups are protected sufficiently - I think we are doing far greater damage to future generations by continuing to lockdown and destory the economy frankly.
|
|
|
Post by RD on Sept 10, 2020 9:04:12 GMT
Again, you're missing the point here. As per your own stats - if we're basing it on my post - we're talking less than 3% mortality for those under the age of 60. I'm actually going a step further and talking about then protecting those with underlying health conditions (which the deaths linked to 3% will be made almost entirely of). So the 15.25% is completely irrelevant. That only becomes relevant if we're talking about letting EVERYONE out and protecting no-one - which isn't remotely what I've said. I'm not even sure you've read my post to be honest? Yes sorry I got distracted there was a commotion outside, it was another person hit by a bus - the third this week! The post you have quoted here was just to show the facts (again taken from ONS) and not a response to your reply. I do get the point you are making On average in the UK, 2 people die a week due to being hit by a bus. So, given it's Thursday, the third person this week wouldn't be an enormous surprise
|
|
|
Post by RD on Sept 10, 2020 9:25:48 GMT
All I will add is I do see both sides to the coin. And appreciate many will not agree with what I'm saying.
I also want to stress than until about 4 weeks ago, I was completely on board with everything - and have certainly adhered to all guidance and rules perfectly.
I just think personally that we now know enough about the disease to:
1) Protect those most at risk 2) Understand that those below 65 who don't have underlying health conditions are likely to be fine 3) That the people falling under that bracket would be enough to fully restart the economy and undo the damage that has (had) to be done to this point
Appreciate everyone won't agree - it's not an easy one
|
|
|
Post by Dirt Dogg on Sept 10, 2020 10:02:50 GMT
Yes it would have been so much better with uncle Jerry, Dianne Abbott, Emily thornberry and the rest of the red brigade . What does Boris’s boot taste like?
|
|
|
Post by meader on Sept 10, 2020 11:33:01 GMT
Have read quite a lot of the treads on this current subject and we are in a bit of a pickle. What is the solution? Is there one? We have lockdowns, local lockdowns, registers and other stuff. While we try to do what Boris tells us, they have taken a different attitude in Sweden. There is at present no lockdown, people are mixing, face masks are optional. Their death rate is low and infection seems low.. So, maybe the answer if fight this disease is let in and see what happens. You might think I’m mad suggesting this. But surely someone should be looking at the swedes and asking then why their government is taking a different step then ours!
|
|
|
Post by chewbacca on Sept 10, 2020 11:35:23 GMT
Have read quite a lot of the treads on this current subject and we are in a bit of a pickle. What is the solution? Is there one? We have lockdowns, local lockdowns, registers and other stuff. While we try to do what Boris tells us, they have taken a different attitude in Sweden. There is at present no lockdown, people are mixing, face masks are optional. Their death rate is low and infection seems low.. So, maybe the answer if fight this disease is let in and see what happens. You might think I’m mad suggesting this. But surely someone should be looking at the swedes and asking then why their government is taking a different step then ours! The UK is ten times more densely populated than Sweden.
|
|