Bbc : Biased Broadcasting Corporation

[Litotes 63]

On 20/04/2022 at 20:43, Chekhov said:

I did read the article as my post makes clear. If someone has an article saying 7 reasons why X has happened, it is reasonable to assume they think those 7 reasons are the most significant. Or it is in a rational world anyway.

No. We don't live in a rationale world.

We live in a click bait world where people want a response based on knee-jerk reactions, not reasoned responses.

[Chekhov 488]

19 hours ago, El Cid said:

Have you understood the reason for the lockdown?

If 100% of the intensive care beds were occupied tomorrow, emergency measures would need to be taken. The death rate would be irrelevant.

Access to an intensive care bed, certainly during the early stages of the pandemic, did not actually make that much difference to ones chances of survival. I cannot remember the exact figures, and it did make some difference, but it was not massive. It was not a case of you get into ICU and you'll probably live and if you don't you'll almost certainly die.

In addition you are forgetting something else, the great majority of those dying were in their 80s and/or in very poor health, and if you are that old and in poor health they would not usually put you in an ICU anyway because it is very invasive .

 

18 hours ago, Litotes said:

No. We don't live in a rational world.

We live in a click bait world where people want a response based on knee-jerk reactions, not reasoned responses.

I can absolutely agree with that 100% (or 110% were I a Premier League footballer).

Edited April 22, 2022 by Chekhov

[RJRB 688]

4 hours ago, Chekhov said:

Access to an intensive care bed, certainly during the early stages of the pandemic, did not actually make that much difference to ones chances of survival. I cannot remember the exact figures, and it did make some difference, but it was not massive. It was not a case of you get into ICU and you'll probably live and if you don't you'll almost certainly die.

In addition you are forgetting something else, the great majority of those dying were in their 80s and/or in very poor health, and if you are that old and in poor health they would not usually put you in an ICU anyway because it is very invasive .

 

 

I may be wrong but I understood ElCid was referring to the overall effect on the NHS hospitalised patients for all complaints ,not just Covid.

As for your reference to it affecting those in their 80s and in ill health,it also affected those in 60s,70s,80s and 90s who were still enjoying a quality of life.

You appear to be very dismissive of such people and their relatives.

[Chekhov 488]

1 hour ago, RJRB said:

I may be wrong but I understood ElCid was referring to the overall effect on the NHS hospitalised patients for all complaints ,not just Covid.

As for your reference to it affecting those in their 80s and in ill health,it also affected those in 60s,70s,80s and 90s who were still enjoying a quality of life.

Covid has always been far from indiscriminate, it overwhelmingly affected people over 70, and esp, over 80 :

 

 

[Chekhov 488]

18 hours ago, RJRB said:

You appear to be very dismissive of such people and their relatives.

I am not "dismissive" of older people dying earlier than they otherwise would, but I am very much of the opinion that someone in their late 80s dying is not "tragic", it is natural.

On the other hand I would say the death of someone in their 40s, only half way through there life, is  very sad, and the death of a child really is tragic. But relatively few people in their 40s died of Covid (it is possible they were actually at more risk of death in a car accident) and, thankfully, hardly any kids died at all, even those with serious existing conditions.

Edited April 23, 2022 by Chekhov

[El Cid 221]

1 hour ago, RJRB said:

I may be wrong but I understood ElCid was referring to the overall effect on the NHS hospitalised patients for all complaints ,not just Covid.

That is correct. Checkhov has quoted your comment, but not replied to that point.

We did manage ok in hindsight, but without a lockdown the NHS could have been overwhelmed.

 

[Chekhov 488]

16 hours ago, El Cid said:

That is correct. Checkhov has quoted your comment, but not replied to that point.

We did manage ok in hindsight, but without a lockdown the NHS could have been overwhelmed.

That is highly speculative. There is some evidence indicating the infection rate was dropping before the lockdown(s) even started :

 

 

And when the lockdown was unwound the infection rate did not go up, which, if it was the lockdown which was keeping infections down) one would expect it to. It oly went up when winter came along ("Flu season") and the more infectious variant(s).

Note that in the graph below this is reported cases, which appeared to go up more than they actually did because we started testing more :

 

 

Flu season :

 

 

Edited April 23, 2022 by Chekhov

[El Cid 221]

8 hours ago, Chekhov said:

That is highly speculative. There is some evidence indicating the infection rate was dropping before the lockdown(s) even started.

It appears that countries such as China have been more successful with lockdowns, we didn't know how effective a lockdown would be, before we brought it in, as we have never done one before.

It is possible that some aspects of the lockdown was not successful, partly because lockdown was poorly administered and poorly enforced.

[hackey lad 3,985]

Is this the Covid thread ?

[El Cid 221]

1 minute ago, hackey lad said:

Is this the Covid thread ?

Without COVID, everything would have been caused by Brexit, now we have the Russian/Ukraine war, that is the cause of everything.

How will the BBC/media cope with that?

[Zinger549 233]

2 hours ago, hackey lad said:

Is this the Covid thread ?

Everything is about Covid with Chekov

[melthebell 864]

9 hours ago, Zinger549 said:

Everything is about Covid with Chekov

He's an extremist with an obsession