Coronavirus - Part Two.

[Thirsty Relic 209]

30 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Because we don't live in a Totalitarian state - yet.

 

We are being driven closer to it though, under the guise of Covid.  Metropolitan Police sending letters to pub landlords demanding details of all customers, and suggestions in the media that Police could be given access to all Track and Trace records (we were told they wouldn't have access when it was launched).

 

The part of my comment you highlighted was born of frustration that people seem to be able to get away with wantonly ignoring the law on this (police breaking up large gatherings, but nobody being fined for example), yet the result is that Covid spreads and we are all being put under more restrictions, which clearly a minority will also ignore.

[catmiss 12]

Listened to Question Time/Any Answers today. A 78 year old man, supporting the Barrington theory, advocated a return to ‘normal’ with any resultant deaths in the ‘vulnerable group’ of over 65s being collateral damage  and  merely shaving a few months off life expectancy. The obvious flaw in this argument is the significant group of younger people who live with conditions that render them susceptible to Covid but, with ongoing treatment, live a productive life, have jobs, families,   and a future. The contributor, when questioned, stated that some lives are less worthy than others.  A very scary echo of survival of the fittest theory which seems to be gaining support 

[Longcol 597]

9 minutes ago, catmiss said:

Listened to Question Time/Any Answers today. A 78 year old man, supporting the Barrington theory, advocated a return to ‘normal’ with any resultant deaths in the ‘vulnerable group’ of over 65s being collateral damage  and  merely shaving a few months off life expectancy. The obvious flaw in this argument is the significant group of younger people who live with conditions that render them susceptible to Covid but, with ongoing treatment, live a productive life, have jobs, families,   and a future. The contributor, when questioned, stated that some lives are less worthy than others.  A very scary echo of survival of the fittest theory which seems to be gaining support 

Somewhere on the original covid thread I posted a link to a study from Scotland that suggested the average loss of live due to covid is 10 years.

 

I think the publicised stat that XX% of covid deaths had "underlying conditions" is particularly misleading - and appears to have been interpreted wrongly by some as "at deaths door".

 

A 65 year old has, on average, a life expectancy of another 15 years or so.

Edited October 24, 2020 by Longcol

[catmiss 12]

I

21 minutes ago, Longcol said:

Somewhere on the original covid thread I posted a link to a study from Scotland that suggested the average loss of live due to covid is 10 years.

 

I think the stat that XX% of covid deaths had "underlying conditions" is particularly misleading - and appears to have been interpreted wrongly by some as "at deaths door".

 

A 65 year old has, on average, a life expectancy of another 15 years or so.

I have a lung condition which renders me particularly susceptible to Covid but am 66, receive a pension and have the support to be able to self isolate. My concern is, that government local lockdown strategy fails and leads to a return to herd immunity theory ‘survival of the fittest’ 

Edited October 24, 2020 by catmiss
Typo

[Anna B 1,401]

1 hour ago, catmiss said:

I

I have a lung condition which renders me particularly susceptible to Covid but am 66, receive a pension and have the support to be able to self isolate. My concern is, that government local lockdown strategy fails and leads to a return to herd immunity theory ‘survival of the fittest’ 

I am also in the vulnerable group, and am missing treatment for other illnesses because of covid, so I am just as likely to drop off my perch because of  Lockdown disruption as I am covid, so lockdown is very much a double edged sword. But we all have to die of something sooner or later (yes, ok, I'd prefer it to be later,) but I could fall under a bus tomorrow - does that mean we should ban all busses and public transport? ( Funnily enough the chances of me falling under a bus are about the same as dying of covid.)

 

Assuming that no wonderdrug vaccination is forthcoming in the near future we could in theory be like this for years. That is not sustainable and not fair on the majority of people who have lives to lead, jobs to go to, and businesses to run. I can chose to isolate if I wish to raise my chances, but life is for living, and frankly a long, lingering old age with all its infirmities is probably not such a good deal.   

[Pettytom 1]

6 hours ago, Anna B said:

I am also in the vulnerable group, and am missing treatment for other illnesses because of covid, so I am just as likely to drop off my perch because of  Lockdown disruption as I am covid, so lockdown is very much a double edged sword. But we all have to die of something sooner or later (yes, ok, I'd prefer it to be later,) but I could fall under a bus tomorrow - does that mean we should ban all busses and public transport? ( Funnily enough the chances of me falling under a bus are about the same as dying of covid.)

 

 

Whilst I sympathise with your point of view,   and the difficulties that lockdown has caused you, your final point is miles from the truth

 

Roughly 2000 people a year die on the UK roads, not many of those are linked to buses or public transport. 
 

At a conservative estimate, 45 000 people have died of Covid in about 9 months. That makes Covid much more deadly than buses.

 

As you are in a vulnerable  group, the difference is even more stark. People often under-estimate their personal risk from diseases.

[avalunche 10]

8 hours ago, catmiss said:

I

I have a lung condition which renders me particularly susceptible to Covid but am 66, receive a pension and have the support to be able to self isolate. My concern is, that government local lockdown strategy fails and leads to a return to herd immunity theory ‘survival of the fittest’ 

Have you considered that if we continue locking down to protect people like you, it will result in massive unemployment, destroyed economy, no one paying tax to pay your comfie pension?   Its probably already too late to change course.

 

I know there is a tendency in Sheffield to think benefits and public sector wages magically appear in bank accounts, but no, someone went without part of their earnings to pay them.  The sums didn't add up pro-covid with the government having to borrow billions, and they sure dont now. 

 

Serious and unexpected change is coming, do not rely on things to continue as they always have done.

 

I bet some will think that by increasing taxes on far fewer people working, we can somehow continue,  no chance of that at all.   Magic money tree?   Well in that case, pensions will stay the same but a loaf of bread will end up a tenner.  

[andyofborg 11]

11 minutes ago, avalunche said:

Have you considered that if we continue locking down to protect people like you, it will result in massive unemployment, destroyed economy, no one paying tax to pay your comfie pension?   Its probably already too late to change course.

 

I know there is a tendency in Sheffield to think benefits and public sector wages magically appear in bank accounts, but no, someone went without part of their earnings to pay them.  The sums didn't add up pro-covid with the government having to borrow billions, and they sure dont now. 

 

Serious and unexpected change is coming, do not rely on things to continue as they always have done.

 

I bet some will think that by increasing taxes on far fewer people working, we can somehow continue,  no chance of that at all.   Magic money tree?   Well in that case, pensions will stay the same but a loaf of bread will end up a tenner.  

why should it be a change for the worse?

 

if this proves to be a long lasting situation then people will find a way to live with it, manage risks and make money from it. 

 

it may be some industries will fail, that's unfortunate but has been the way for ever. some things will be done differently but they will still be done. there will be opportunities to do new things and achieve the same result  in new ways. 

 

we managed the de-industrialisation of the 80s badly, we were doing a slightly better job managing the transition from high street to internet based retail. hopefully, we can do a better job managing this too.

 

over the last 20 years or so, there have been several waves of various diseases work their way round the world or large chunks of it. this is the first of them which has really affected the uk. there will be others.... 

 

quite rightly, everyone is focussed on managing the current pandemic, but at some point there needs to be some thought to managing the risks and finding mitigations for the future ones, this can only mean that some things will have to change and probably change dramatically and permanently. 

 

what was normal is history, a new future beckons, it can be a good one it can be a bad one - we should embrace the opportunities and make sure it's a good one. 

 

 

[onewheeldave 22]

10 hours ago, catmiss said:

Listened to Question Time/Any Answers today. A 78 year old man, supporting the Barrington theory, advocated a return to ‘normal’ with any resultant deaths in the ‘vulnerable group’ of over 65s being collateral damage  and  merely shaving a few months off life expectancy. The obvious flaw in this argument is the significant group of younger people who live with conditions that render them susceptible to Covid but, with ongoing treatment, live a productive life, have jobs, families,   and a future. The contributor, when questioned, stated that some lives are less worthy than others.  A very scary echo of survival of the fittest theory which seems to be gaining support 

And yet the lockdown itself has caused deaths through lack of access to medical treatment and the rise in mental illness/suicidality, and, will cause many more due to the upcoming effects on the economy and rising unemployment- is it OK to judge those lives to be less worthy than the ones saved by the lockdown?

18 minutes ago, andyofborg said:

 

 

what was normal is history, a new future beckons, it can be a good one it can be a bad one - we should embrace the opportunities and make sure it's a good one. 

 

 

While you are correct that feared change can sometimes result in progress, historically, any changes involving reduction in  civil liberties, have rarely, if ever, ended up being positive.

[petemcewan 27]

Anna B,

I hear what you are saying..

I'm a 71 yrs old and have asthma. I've got life by the scruff of the neck and I'm firmly holding on. This is my second Pandemic. The first being the HIV/AIDs. Sadly four of my very close friends died nasty and slow deaths. We formed a group and nursed the ones who were dying. This of course was before the discovery of the HIV virus and antiretrovirals.

 

What made life bearable was an optimistic view that science and medicine would find the cause and come up with a treatment.

 

To let go of that optimistic outlook back then, would have been to let go of life itself. We found strength from becoming experts in our own treatment protocols and antiretroviral drugs.We lobbed for new drugs and Protese  Inhibitors came along, and a corner was turned and the future beckoned  again.

 

 

Now in my 70s -in the 21st century-I'm in a Pandemic again.

So I'm drawing on the experiences from the "plague" days and the faith I have in science and medicine-  to come up with a vaccine and treatment for Cov-19- to see me through these troubling times.

 

So just bear with me while I mess up the words of M. Keynes, "We all die in the long run. But it's what we do with the the long run that matters".

 

So Anna B  hang on to the "long run" . 

The Pandemic will pass as the vaccines and treatments are rolled out. And the sky will not fall in.And what few civil liberties are temporarily suspended will be restored.

 

 

Edited October 25, 2020 by petemcewan

[Anna B 1,401]

Thanks for that Pete, very uplifting.

🙂 Love the quote, I'll remember that.

[andyofborg 11]

1 hour ago, onewheeldave said:

And yet the lockdown itself has caused deaths through lack of access to medical treatment and the rise in mental illness/suicidality, and, will cause many more due to the upcoming effects on the economy and rising unemployment- is it OK to judge those lives to be less worthy than the ones saved by the lockdown?

is it ok for those who lockdown is protecting are less worthy? you seem to be saying they are... 

 

the problem for health providers is that every bed occupied by someone with covid 19 is a bed that can't be occupied by someone with another condition. 

 

at present, the only recourse is to try and limit the number catching covid-19 and the only way we have to do that is limiting contact.  

 

1 hour ago, onewheeldave said:

While you are correct that feared change can sometimes result in progress, historically, any changes involving reduction in  civil liberties, have rarely, if ever, ended up being positive.

what liberties have been reduced?  for the vast majority of the population masks is not even an inconvenience. I appreciate that there are those who find it difficult but there are exemptions.