Coronavirus - Part Two.

[onewheeldave 22]

5 hours ago, RiffRaff said:

Talking of which, travelling from a tier 3 area to a tier 2 area - just for a pint - shouldn't happen either.

A married Sheffield couple, both in their early 70's, took a 90+ relative to a Dronfield pub last weekend.

Understand that an contact address was left at the pub, but was it a legitimate one?

 

2 hours ago, RiffRaff said:

I'm sure you're right, but wouldn't you have thought they were "old enough to know better"?!

 

 

 

From the perspective of a lot of old people, they are actually using their rational judgement. When you are 90, you tend not to be so pre-occupied with clnging to life as the younger ones. You know your time is limited, your days generally contain a fair amount of pain, and you've likely come to see that quality of life is far more important than length of life. 

 

Having lived through the war and the consequent economic desparation, I expect, for many elderly, covid will not produce the panic that seems to have overtaken most of the rest of the public- they will want to spend their remaining time with their family, doing meaningful and enjoyable stuff.

[onewheeldave 22]

3 hours ago, El Cid said:

 

But with businesses struggling, who would turn them away, I assume you didnt.

 

2 hours ago, melthebell said:

Them no, they were already there, normally yes, we have to, like everything, get caught you get closed down

For the businesses close to failing [due to the lockdown measures] the opposing risk is, by rigidly complying to the guidelines, they risk failing due to lack of customers, so they may tally that against the probably small risk of getting closed down- especially as they will be warnings before closure.

 

Some may be inspired by the mersyside gym owner who, rather than complying with the 6 armed policepeople in his gym, fining him £1000 and assuring him that he would be fined every few hours if he remained open, created a social media campaign, gathering scientific evidence to show that closing gyms was counter-productive in terms of tackling covid, stood his ground, and forced the authorites to climb down and reverse the closure requirements for gyms.

 

https://www.healthclubmanagement.co.uk/health-club-management-news/Gyms-Liverpool-tier-3-Nick-Whitcombe-/346465

 

Great job- not only has he saved his business, but now every gym in Liverpool can continue to do the good work of facilitating health and fitness for their clients, which IMO is one of the most important preventative measures where covid is concerned- it's an absolute disgrace that the authorities tried to shut them down, and shows the quality of some of the 'science' their 'experts' are basing their policies on.

[Pettytom 1]

17 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

Which is why I was pointing out that the research you posted seems to be suggesting that being infected with covid will likely lead to at least a degree of immunity. Previously one of the doom laden bits of scaremongering was the suggestion that infection might yield no immunity due to the absence or low numbers of antibodies.

Even if it doesn’t lead to immunity, a second infection is likely to be less dangerous. One of the problems with Covid is that it is novel, so our immune systems are starting from scratch on first infection.

 

If re-infection was likely to be a real problem, I think we would know by now.

[onewheeldave 22]

2 hours ago, nightrider said:

 

I know people following the rules who say the rules are ridiculous.

Me too. I previously mentioned conversations with several taxi drivers who said that it was common when NHS workers were getting their rides, that they would be highly critical of many of the lockdown measures, in that they considered them to be doing more harm than good.

 

Yesterday I had a consultation at the Northern General and the consultant was telling me how he was painfully aware of the effects the measures were having on mental health, so I asked him what percentage of NHS staff, in his experience, felt the measures could be doing more harm than good- I was quite surprised when he said '100%'.

 

He also agreed when I spoke about how anyone in the NHS who questioned the measures, was effectively gagged- unable to speak to the press or on social media, as they would lose their job.

 

 

[El Cid 212]

25 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

Some may be inspired by the mersyside gym owner who, rather than complying with the 6 armed policepeople in his gym, fining him £1000 and assuring him that he would be fined every few hours if he remained open, created a social media campaign, gathering scientific evidence to show that closing gyms was counter-productive in terms of tackling covid, stood his ground, and forced the authorites to climb down and reverse the closure requirements for gyms.

 

I have booked for an hours training on Friday at my local sports center, I wasnt sure what would be open; I am in Leeds.

If one gym can spread COVID I am sure other will too.

[Arnold_Lane 0]

54 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

I asked him what percentage of NHS staff, in his experience, felt the measures could be doing more harm than good- I was quite surprised when he said '100%'.

 

He also agreed when I spoke about how anyone in the NHS who questioned the measures, was effectively gagged- unable to speak to the press or on social media, as they would lose their job.

 

 

I'd ask for another consultant if I were you.

[ormester 11]

The problem is all. This is scaremongering  more people will die from. Cancers not been picked  up

Surgery cancelled. Not saying its a awful. Desease it is I had mild symptoms in March but it is terrible but  we have to work out what's best another lockdown who pays the govermrnt  won't so bills won't get paid  etc its a vicious circle 

[onewheeldave 22]

7 hours ago, Arnold_Lane said:

I'd ask for another consultant if I were you.

He is a very good consultant, he knows what he is talking about

6 hours ago, ormester said:

The problem is all. This is scaremongering  more people will die from. Cancers not been picked  up

 

Here is a lancet article on a study to establish the effects of the lockdown on cancer deaths-

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(20)30388-0/fulltext

 

"We estimated that across the four major tumour types, breast, colorectal, lung, and oesophageal, 3291 to 3621 avoidable deaths and an additional 59 204 to 63 229 YLLs will be attributable to delays in cancer diagnosis alone as a result of the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK. "

[at 5 years from diagnosis]

 

YLL stands for total years of life lost.

 

That's just for a subset of cancers, the numbers will be bigger if you add in the deaths from heart attacks and other conditions, caused by lockdown. Then there's the deaths from unemployment, mental illness etc, etc. 

[Pettytom 1]

8 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

He is a very good consultant, he knows what he is talking about

Here is a lancet article on a study to establish the effects of the lockdown on cancer deaths-

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(20)30388-0/fulltext

 

"We estimated that across the four major tumour types, breast, colorectal, lung, and oesophageal, 3291 to 3621 avoidable deaths and an additional 59 204 to 63 229 YLLs will be attributable to delays in cancer diagnosis alone as a result of the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK. "

[at 5 years from diagnosis]

 

YLL stands for total years of life lost.

 

That's just for a subset of cancers, the numbers will be bigger if you add in the deaths from heart attacks and other conditions, caused by lockdown. Then there's the deaths from unemployment, mental illness etc, etc. 

So, that’s 4000 avoidable deaths. Which is very sad.

 

Don’t forget that we are losing 300 people per day to Covid. I’ll leave you to do the rest of the maths.

 

There’s no easy answer to any of this

[onewheeldave 22]

4 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

So, that’s 4000 avoidable deaths. Which is very sad.

 

Don’t forget that we are losing 300 people per day to Covid. I’ll leave you to do the rest of the maths.

 

There’s no easy answer to any of this

It's 3291 to 3621 deaths just from that subset of cancers, the numbers will be [considerably] bigger if you add in the deaths from heart attacks and other conditions, caused by lockdown. Then there's the deaths from unemployment, mental illness etc, etc. 

 

The fact that there is no easy answer just not justify the current huge bias towards putting way more value on the lives of the covid vulnerable than on the lives being taken by the lockdown.

 

[Longcol 596]

1 minute ago, onewheeldave said:

It's 3291 to 3621 deaths just from that subset of cancers, the numbers will be [considerably] bigger if you add in the deaths from heart attacks and other conditions, caused by lockdown. Then there's the deaths from unemployment, mental illness etc, etc. 

 

The fact that there is no easy answer just not justify the current huge bias towards putting way more value on the lives of the covid vulnerable than on the lives being taken by the lockdown.

 

Is this being evidenced currently in the excess deaths being recorded by ONS or is this speculation? (Scaremongering if it had been about covid related deaths).

[Pettytom 1]

18 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

It's 3291 to 3621 deaths just from that subset of cancers, the numbers will be [considerably] bigger if you add in the deaths from heart attacks and other conditions, caused by lockdown. Then there's the deaths from unemployment, mental illness etc, etc. 

 

The fact that there is no easy answer just not justify the current huge bias towards putting way more value on the lives of the covid vulnerable than on the lives being taken by the lockdown.

 

It does. The Covid deaths are largely preventable. Proper distancing/ mask wearing/ local lockdowns are saving lives. If everyone joined in, more would be saved. Organising the health service effectively should mean that cancers etc are treated too.

 

You do lots of moaning, Dave. What is your vision? What are we doing wrong? What should we do instead?