Coronavirus - Part Two.

[Longcol 604]

18 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

The problems I'm highlighting are- "the mortality consequences of thousands of failed small businesses, mass unemployment, destruction of entire industries, the mental health consequences of tens of thousands being forced onto an inept and cruel benefits system, people dying from cancer because they could not access diagnosis or treatment."

 

Clearly, every single one of them will be a direct consequence of the lockdown measures and nothing else- the 'expert guidance' was the source of the lockdown. People need to question 'expert guidance' that leads to such consequences.

 

 

So what do you imagine might have happened if there hadn't  been a lockdown? 

 

Could life have carried on as normal?

Edited September 19, 2020 by Longcol

[Pettytom 1]

17 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

The problems I'm highlighting are- "the mortality consequences of thousands of failed small businesses, mass unemployment, destruction of entire industries, the mental health consequences of tens of thousands being forced onto an inept and cruel benefits system, people dying from cancer because they could not access diagnosis or treatment."

 

Clearly, every single one of them will be a direct consequence of the lockdown measures and nothing else- the 'expert guidance' was the source of the lockdown. People need to question 'expert guidance' that leads to such consequences.

 

 

I read your list of problems the first time you wrote them down.

 

The way to avoid lockdown is for us all to work together to fight the virus. That involves everybody following the expert guidance

[onewheeldave 22]

1 minute ago, Pettytom said:

I read your list of problems the first time you wrote them down.

 

The way to avoid lockdown is for us all to work together to fight the virus. That involves everybody following the expert guidance

Another way to avoid lockdown is to simply not have another lockdown- acknowledge that the mortality consequences of economic destruction combined with the fact that less than 28 people a day are dying from coronavirus contraindicates another lockdown.

6 minutes ago, Longcol said:

So what do you imagine might have happened if there hadn't  been a lockdown? 

 

Could life have carried on as normal?

With the benefit of hindsight I'd say it would have made more sense for the vulnerable to quarantine, while everyone else gets on with things, thus avoiding the economic devastation that is to come.

[Longcol 604]

2 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

Another way to avoid lockdown is to simply not have another lockdown- acknowledge that the mortality consequences of economic destruction combined with the fact that less than 28 people a day are dying from coronavirus contraindicates another lockdown.

The reduction In death rates is a direct consequence of reduction in transmission of the virus due to the lockdown. 

[Becky B 31]

1 hour ago, onewheeldave said:

No. They are filters, a consequence of evolution, finely tuned to a balance between filtering out potentially harmful substances, without going so far that it affects the organisms health adversely.

 

Crucially, they are very different from sheets of fabric- if sheets of fabric were optimal, then we would have evolved to have something similar to sheets of fabric covering our mouths and noses- we don't, hence, they aren't [optimal].

 

 

Though very few are being killed by it [less than 28 a day in the UK] so more people having it isn't leading to more deaths. Of course, the virus only ceases to be a problem if we don't have herd immunity, acheivable by either a vaccine or just most of the population having had the virus.

 

More people having the virus, along with very few deaths, seems to be progress towards that.

Death isn't the only negative outcome of this virus.  Resources from other services are being diverted to rehabilitate people suffering from the effects of this virus (which will then impact on the original users of the service).

Certain services that may be useful in the treatment of people who are experiencing the long term negative effects aren't equipped to cope with the potential increase in patients who may benefit from their specialist input, so other services are having to learn specialist skills ad hoc to try an cover (something of a case of "see one, do one, teach one" if you want a simplified soundbite).

 

There absolutely are negative effects on health and wellbeing from lockdown restrictions (leaving aside the economy for the moment), but just looking at deaths caused by this virus is also over simplistic.

[Litotes 63]

1 hour ago, onewheeldave said:

Talk to the government experts who put exemptions for disabled people in place for full details- they clearly believe that masks are harmful to some. Obviously anyone with breathing issues would likely be harmed by being forced to wear a mask; many autistic people find them highly distressing.

No - facts please not hearsay.

 

Belief denies proof -  Hitchhikers 101!

 

The government put these exemptions in place through fear - not through facts. And that is the problem - we have peddlers of fear who are actually harming the rest of the population.

There are masks that people with breathing difficulties can wear aren't there? These are worn every day in hospitals... So why can't they wear them now?

 

Many autistic people find death distressing - have the options been explained to them...??? wear a mask and get sweaty, or don't wear a mask and perhaps die...

 

You make it a black and white decision - it isn't - it is about finding a compromise and what not wearing a mask does, is it doesn't compromise - it is a selfish decision that could kill people who have no choice in that decision.

2 minutes ago, Longcol said:

The reduction In death rates is a direct consequence of reduction in transmission of the virus due to the lockdown. 

And due to the hygiene protocols adopted through lockdown which are now getting ignored.

2m distancing, wear a mask, and cleanliness.... Out the window with the weatherspoon's generation!

1 hour ago, onewheeldave said:

True or false is irrelevant to the point I was making- that many people are against the covid hysteria, but keep quiet due to fear of losing their jobs, in this case, nurses and NHS workers who know the measures are excessive and harmful, but can't express their views.

Excessive in what way - can you be too hygienic?

Really, like can you be too healthy???

 

No, but the other way hurts - you can be too dismissive of hygiene rules or of precautions for spreading a virus that could kill you...

[onewheeldave 22]

5 minutes ago, Litotes said:

 

 

The government put these exemptions in place through fear - not through facts.

Fear of what?

[Pettytom 1]

It is breathtaking arrogance to assume that you know more than the finest scientific minds about this. All the anti-maskers, all the anti-lockdowners really are ridiculous.

 

Sadly, it’s the rest of us that suffer. People who won’t wear a mask only endanger others, not themselves. Those who are cavalier about social distancing are far more likely to catch the virus and transmit it.

 

Its time for more rigid enforcement of these rules. It seems that a stubborn minority of  the UK population can’t act sensibly, so it is time to make them do so

[Longcol 604]

16 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

 

With the benefit of hindsight I'd say it would have made more sense for the vulnerable to quarantine, while everyone else gets on with things, thus avoiding the economic devastation that is to come.

Who are "the vulnerable"?

[onewheeldave 22]

2 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

It is breathtaking arrogance to assume that you know more than the finest scientific minds about this. All the anti-maskers, all the anti-lockdowners really are ridiculous.

 

 

There are plenty of fine scientific minds who disagree with aspects of the lockdown measures.

But yes, I'm happy to think for myself and I do frequently disagree with 'experts'.

[Longcol 604]

Just now, onewheeldave said:

There are plenty of fine scientific minds who disagree with aspects of the lockdown measures.

But yes, I'm happy to think for myself and I do frequently disagree with 'experts'.

Examples?

[onewheeldave 22]

4 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

 

 

Its time for more rigid enforcement of these rules. It seems that a stubborn minority of  the UK population can’t act sensibly, so it is time to make them do so

In addition to the recently mentioned highly negative consequences of lockdown [especially a new lockdown now that deaths are so very, very low] there is also the issue of selling our civil liberties down the river- do you want the kind of regime that China has to become the global norm?