|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Nov 29, 2020 22:42:09 GMT
I bet SAGE/Government aren't aware of this fact, or have even bothered to find out ... Been saying it all year. The way that global leaders have totally failed to target over 75s with the lockdown, sheltered them while not dropping a nuclear bomb on the rest of a perfectly healthy country, will go down as one of the biggest global scandals in history. Why did we not just shelter the vulnerable? Someone give me a remotely good reason. |
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Nov 29, 2020 22:43:23 GMT
I’m assuming that a fair proportion of that 96% have over 65s providing them childcare though? If people over 65 want to look after their grandkids, that's great, let them have the choice to do so, whilst at the same time, if other people in that age group want financial (or any other kind of) assistance to shield, then make sure it is available (it will cost a damn site less than destroying the economy and mortgaging our kids futures) but don't deny the young their rights too. The thing I don't understand with the opponents of the GBD is this strap phrase that they wheel out, "age apartheid". No one ever seems to be allowed to argue that it works both ways. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 29, 2020 22:56:48 GMT
I bet SAGE/Government aren't aware of this fact, or have even bothered to find out ... Been saying it all year. The way that global leaders have totally failed to target over 75s with the lockdown, sheltered them while not dropping a nuclear bomb on the rest of a perfectly healthy country, will go down as one of the biggest global scandals in history. Why did we not just shelter the vulnerable? Someone give me a remotely good reason. It wasn't until I read Halligan's piece (linked above) that I realised that it's actually 92% of all workers who don't live with people over the age of 65. Armed with that knowledge, it seems absolutely inconceivable that we're doing what we're doing. First time around, fine, we weren't absolutely sure what it was all about but now? |
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Nov 29, 2020 23:00:46 GMT
Been saying it all year. The way that global leaders have totally failed to target over 75s with the lockdown, sheltered them while not dropping a nuclear bomb on the rest of a perfectly healthy country, will go down as one of the biggest global scandals in history. Why did we not just shelter the vulnerable? Someone give me a remotely good reason. It wasn't until I read Halligan's piece (linked above) that I realised that it's actually 92% of all workers who don't live with people over the age of 65. Armed with that knowledge, it seems absolutely inconceivable that we're doing what we're doing. First time around, fine, we weren't absolutely sure what it was all about but now? Because if the virus runs rampant in the under 65s the nhs won’t cope is the reason |
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Nov 29, 2020 23:10:51 GMT
It wasn't until I read Halligan's piece (linked above) that I realised that it's actually 92% of all workers who don't live with people over the age of 65. Armed with that knowledge, it seems absolutely inconceivable that we're doing what we're doing. First time around, fine, we weren't absolutely sure what it was all about but now? Because if the virus runs rampant in the under 65s the nhs won’t cope is the reason How many under 65's are actually hospitalised because of Covid? |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 29, 2020 23:11:50 GMT
It wasn't until I read Halligan's piece (linked above) that I realised that it's actually 92% of all workers who don't live with people over the age of 65. Armed with that knowledge, it seems absolutely inconceivable that we're doing what we're doing. First time around, fine, we weren't absolutely sure what it was all about but now? Because if the virus runs rampant in the under 65s the nhs won’t cope is the reason Benji we're talking about keeping the people who are at risk from becoming seriously ill from the virus (the over 65's) out of the way of the virus, so they don't actually end up in hospital. We're currently preventing millions of young people from socialising and/or working who are (in the vast majority) not even at risk from getting hospitalised by the virus. Beyond that, there is a theory (with an increasing amount of evidence) that the more healthy people in the community who catch the virus, then leads to a level of community immunity, which in turns prevents the virus spreading, which then means that people who are at risk from the virus are less likely to catch the virus, so perversely, by locking the healthy people down, you are actually putting those at risk, ultimately, more at risk. |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Nov 29, 2020 23:25:12 GMT
Latest Medical News
It's possible to lose your sense of smell due to covid-19, and then when it returns have an even better one.
Question: Is it possible to take a test to see if you have had Corona way back, in february 9 months ago - or must the test be done within a couple of weeks/months after corona-like symptoms have disappeared?
|
|
|
|
Post by duckling on Nov 29, 2020 23:27:50 GMT
We can debate whether to continue lockdown as cases surge. But the real folly was not containing the virus early.
Japan has a population of 126 million. It is the oldest population in the world. It is a very densely populated country.
How many Covid deaths have there been? Around 2000.
With no lockdown.
How did they do it? As soon as the first cases hit, they required masks (already popular), mandatory testing, and strictly enforced quarantine for people who tested positive or were exposed.
Taiwan took a similar approach. 23 million people, densely populated, 7 deaths. No lockdown.
The early measures taken by Japan and Taiwan would have caused a "you're violating our freedoms!" outcry in North America and Europe.
But by giving up those minor freedoms, people in Japan and Taiwan have been enjoying all the major freedoms as the rest of the world is stuck inside debating on social media.
|
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Nov 29, 2020 23:27:50 GMT
Been saying it all year. The way that global leaders have totally failed to target over 75s with the lockdown, sheltered them while not dropping a nuclear bomb on the rest of a perfectly healthy country, will go down as one of the biggest global scandals in history. Why did we not just shelter the vulnerable? Someone give me a remotely good reason. It wasn't until I read Halligan's piece (linked above) that I realised that it's actually 92% of all workers who don't live with people over the age of 65. Armed with that knowledge, it seems absolutely inconceivable that we're doing what we're doing. First time around, fine, we weren't absolutely sure what it was all about but now? Absolutely. For me - coupled with the deepest economical crisis on record, the biggest conclusion from this thing will be the absolutely devestating reckless nature of an untargeted lockdown. Its unforgivable. As you say - I can forgive them up until about May in the first lockdown.. But surely by that point they had the data needed to see that this was an illness that affects under 65s no worse than a common flu. |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Nov 29, 2020 23:30:24 GMT
Sweden have ordered SEVEN different kind of vaccines.
The government have been accused of being late compared to other countries, regarding orders, but Lena Hallengren says Sweden are more used to vaccination programs than other countries.
Really?
|
|
|
|
Post by musik on Nov 29, 2020 23:40:47 GMT
We can debate whether to continue lockdown as cases surge. But the real folly was not containing the virus early. Japan has a population of 126 million. It is the oldest population in the world. It is a very densely populated country. How many Covid deaths have there been? Around 2000. With no lockdown. How did they do it? As soon as the first cases hit, they required masks (already popular), mandatory testing, and strictly enforced quarantine for people who tested positive or were exposed. Taiwan took a similar approach. 23 million people, densely populated, 7 deaths. No lockdown. The early measures taken by Japan and Taiwan would have caused a "you're violating our freedoms!" outcry in North America and Europe. But by giving up those minor freedoms, people in Japan and Taiwan have been enjoying all the major freedoms as the rest of the world is stuck inside debating on social media. Exactly!👍 Unfortunately, Sweden didn't apply their strategy because we've been stuck with Tegnell. His opinions about (1) testing and (2) face masks aren't worth half of my biggest farts ever. He said (1): "Other countries do a lot of testing and tracing, but what are they supposed to do with the results? I have no idea. Besides, it costs a lot." (2): "There is not one existing study showing face masks help to prevent people from getting covid-19 anywhere." My opinion: What if every inventor in the world still lived by that reasoning. No inventions would have been done ever. "Existing study ..." Bloody fool!🖕 |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Nov 29, 2020 23:45:05 GMT
It's extremely sad and heartbreaking for the families involved, but that's a pretty strange article given that the seven day average for deaths in the UHNM is just under 10 and last Thursday 16 deaths were reported. On reflection though, it's probably because the number of deaths has exceeded 600. As ever though, there's not much context to the article. The Royal Stoke is one of the largest hospitals in the country and it's been established that it's accepting patients from the south of the county as well as North Wales. And of the 215 reported deaths in England today, all but 12 were in the 60-79 and 80+ age groups, with over half in the latter group. Is the author of the article aware of the ages of the deceased at the Royal Stoke, any co morbidities they may have had or whether they have died from other causes having tested positive within 28 days? You really don't give a fuck about older people dying do you? How old do you have to be for your death to matter? |
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Nov 29, 2020 23:52:34 GMT
We can debate whether to continue lockdown as cases surge. But the real folly was not containing the virus early. Japan has a population of 126 million. It is the oldest population in the world. It is a very densely populated country. How many Covid deaths have there been? Around 2000. With no lockdown. How did they do it? As soon as the first cases hit, they required masks (already popular), mandatory testing, and strictly enforced quarantine for people who tested positive or were exposed. Taiwan took a similar approach. 23 million people, densely populated, 7 deaths. No lockdown. The early measures taken by Japan and Taiwan would have caused a "you're violating our freedoms!" outcry in North America and Europe. But by giving up those minor freedoms, people in Japan and Taiwan have been enjoying all the major freedoms as the rest of the world is stuck inside debating on social media. I think you will find they all had a full working, tried and tested T&T system in place from the previous SARS outbreak. We had nothing and it still doesn't work. The freedoms are nothing to do with it, we've given up far more to very little effect. |
|
|
|
Post by duckling on Nov 29, 2020 23:58:07 GMT
We can debate whether to continue lockdown as cases surge. But the real folly was not containing the virus early. Japan has a population of 126 million. It is the oldest population in the world. It is a very densely populated country. How many Covid deaths have there been? Around 2000. With no lockdown. How did they do it? As soon as the first cases hit, they required masks (already popular), mandatory testing, and strictly enforced quarantine for people who tested positive or were exposed. Taiwan took a similar approach. 23 million people, densely populated, 7 deaths. No lockdown. The early measures taken by Japan and Taiwan would have caused a "you're violating our freedoms!" outcry in North America and Europe. But by giving up those minor freedoms, people in Japan and Taiwan have been enjoying all the major freedoms as the rest of the world is stuck inside debating on social media. I think you will find they all had a full working, tried and tested T&T system in place from the previous SARS outbreak. We had nothing and it still doesn't work. The freedoms are nothing to do with it, we've given up far more to very little effect. Yes, their governments were far more prepared and organized. But it still required people to realize that sacrificing some minor freedoms, such as the freedom to not wear a mask, preserved their major freedoms. If western countries tried to implement mandatory masks as soon as the first cases hit, there would have been a massive outcry. In North America and Europe, people have been too fixated on minor freedoms to see the big picture. |
|
|
|
Post by duckling on Nov 30, 2020 0:00:42 GMT
It's extremely sad and heartbreaking for the families involved, but that's a pretty strange article given that the seven day average for deaths in the UHNM is just under 10 and last Thursday 16 deaths were reported. On reflection though, it's probably because the number of deaths has exceeded 600. As ever though, there's not much context to the article. The Royal Stoke is one of the largest hospitals in the country and it's been established that it's accepting patients from the south of the county as well as North Wales. And of the 215 reported deaths in England today, all but 12 were in the 60-79 and 80+ age groups, with over half in the latter group. Is the author of the article aware of the ages of the deceased at the Royal Stoke, any co morbidities they may have had or whether they have died from other causes having tested positive within 28 days? You really don't give a fuck about older people dying do you? How old do you have to be for your death to matter? I also am very uncomfortable with the implication that deaths among the old and/or already sick are somehow acceptable. Old and sick people are not disposable. |
|
|
|
Post by Cast no shadow on Nov 30, 2020 0:28:54 GMT
A lot of patients at uhnm aren't local
|
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Nov 30, 2020 2:43:53 GMT
You really don't give a fuck about older people dying do you? How old do you have to be for your death to matter? I also am very uncomfortable with the implication that deaths among the old and/or already sick are somehow acceptable. Old and sick people are not disposable. 30,000 were bumped off in care homes as the result of Covid policy. You're telling me that authority gives a fuck about these people? It renders all rhetoric of 'saving granny' as using them simply as a way of maintaining a sense of threat and guilt, and funnelling folk towards the lucrative yet unnecessary vaccine programme. Those shameless Pharmma shills were at it again a few days ago. Of all the nonsensical ideas about this virus narrative, the idea that government, state, politicians, the elite, corporations, billionaires actually care is the most ludicrous of all. |
|
|
|
Post by duckling on Nov 30, 2020 3:05:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Nov 30, 2020 7:43:45 GMT
I think you will find they all had a full working, tried and tested T&T system in place from the previous SARS outbreak. We had nothing and it still doesn't work. The freedoms are nothing to do with it, we've given up far more to very little effect. Yes, their governments were far more prepared and organized. But it still required people to realize that sacrificing some minor freedoms, such as the freedom to not wear a mask, preserved their major freedoms. If western countries tried to implement mandatory masks as soon as the first cases hit, there would have been a massive outcry. In North America and Europe, people have been too fixated on minor freedoms to see the big picture. I'm not sure I get what you are saying by March we had lost all freedom of movement and were essentially placed under house arrest. Simultaneously the Coronavirus Act gave the government virtually unlimited powers. I think wearing a mask by comparison was never an issue. Except you will recall our chief medical officer and PM said they actually made things worse and not to wear them. The UK population complied with everything thrown at them for months, I think your point is revisionist nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 30, 2020 7:49:01 GMT
They reckon Brexit will have a bigger long term economic impact than Corona. Are there any protests going for that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Nov 30, 2020 8:02:28 GMT
They reckon Brexit will have a bigger long term economic impact than Corona. Are there any protests going for that? Did you see the chancellor has among the economic mayhem found £29 million for a 'Festival of Brexit', we could all nip down to Kent to spend the day in a lorry park queue! |
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Nov 30, 2020 8:05:43 GMT
They reckon Brexit will have a bigger long term economic impact than Corona. Are there any protests going for that? Just four years worth 😎 |
|
|
|
Post by chad on Nov 30, 2020 8:51:22 GMT
A lot of patients at uhnm aren't local That doesn’t make them any less sick |
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Nov 30, 2020 9:04:40 GMT
You really don't give a fuck about older people dying do you? How old do you have to be for your death to matter? I also am very uncomfortable with the implication that deaths among the old and/or already sick are somehow acceptable. Old and sick people are not disposable. Oh, not that old chestnut again. For starters, it's complete bollocks. I've made plenty of posts and supplied links highlighting the awful situation the elderly find themselves in, being isolated from their families as well as the scandalous treatment many of them suffered in care homes during the spring epidemic (highlighted by Starkiller above). In California last week a 90 year old woman chose an assisted death over being forced into isolation by lockdown and being unable to spend time with her family. So she basically had the choice to die, but not to be visited by her family. Disgusting. The simple fact is though that the median age of deaths with or by Covid-19 is 82 years and four months, which is higher than the life expectancy in this country and the vast majority of people dying are in the final stages of life. 95% of people who have died in Ireland were too old or frail to even be put in ICU due to other co morbidities. The CEO of UHNM has even stated that there are patients on the Covid wards at Royal Stoke who have been admitted for other illnesses/stroke diseases but have tested positive whilst in hospital. Do we know how many of these people are/were admitted and are/were receiving end of life treatment? I recently lost an aunt to pancreatic cancer. She died in August just before the rule of six was brought in (though by the time her funeral came around it affected those arrangements). Had she survived for maybe another two or three months she may have ended up in hospital and who knows, may have contracted the virus in there. She would have been put down as a Covid death if she had passed away with 28 days of a positive test. It didn't happen to my aunt, but there are plenty of stories from families who it has happened to. The media are simply presenting numbers and as I said writing articles with no context. Nobody "accepts" death or thinks the elderly are disposal and those making that kind of accusation aren't even worth anybody's time. |
|
|
|
Post by hcstokie on Nov 30, 2020 9:09:58 GMT
I’m assuming that a fair proportion of that 96% have over 65s providing them childcare though? If people over 65 want to look after their grandkids, that's great, they have the choice to do so, however if other people in that age group want financial (or any other kind of) assistance to shield, then make sure it is available (it will cost a damn site less than destroying the economy and mortgaging our kids futures) but don't deny the young their rights too. Whilst I agree to a point the reality is that parents rely heavily on grandparents to provide childcare. I’d love to be able to send mine to nursery everyday to remove the risk from my parents and in laws. I’m fortunate enough to be able to afford it but some people won’t be able to spend about £450 a week on nursery fees. The issue that we have is that the nurseries are full. We managed to get 2 days a week, some parents I know managed to get one. If the space was there we’d use it but it simply isn’t. |
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Nov 30, 2020 9:10:34 GMT
Judging by the the way anyone who has dared to contract asthma, high blood pressure or pre-diabetes or outstayed their welcome by limping past the age of 65 is summarily dismissed as expendable makes you think the ghost of Harold Shipman himself is somewhere out there!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Nov 30, 2020 10:03:50 GMT
Judging by the the way anyone who has dared to contract asthma, high blood pressure or pre-diabetes or outstayed their welcome by limping past the age of 65 is summarily dismissed as expendable makes you think the ghost of Harold Shipman himself is somewhere out there!! And the award for most ridiculous post of the thread goes to Gods. |
|
|
|
Post by MilanStokie on Nov 30, 2020 10:07:07 GMT
I bet SAGE/Government aren't aware of this fact, or have even bothered to find out ... Been saying it all year. The way that global leaders have totally failed to target over 75s with the lockdown, sheltered them while not dropping a nuclear bomb on the rest of a perfectly healthy country, will go down as one of the biggest global scandals in history. Why did we not just shelter the vulnerable? Someone give me a remotely good reason. Yes. Those listed as "vulnerable" in the UK amounts to over 20% of the population. By shielding, I presume you mean lock them all up? Yeah, good luck completely shielding 15 million people in the UK and not having the additional health problems and suicides that people are currently pointing out for the non-vulnerable. As has been written here, although many don't live with an over 65, we don't have a figure for how many vulnerable people we live with. So, what do we do? Anyone that DOES live with a vulnerable person, the whole family "shields" or do we get the vulnerable kicked out of their homes? How can those who rely on a vulnerable person for child care, continue to work? If you could guarantee this all and keep the virus at bay and keep everyone safe and happy then its a fantastic idea, but its all a bit 'pie in the sky' I mean really, it all sounds like you want a national leper colony so you can carry on with your life. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 30, 2020 10:16:59 GMT
If people over 65 want to look after their grandkids, that's great, they have the choice to do so, however if other people in that age group want financial (or any other kind of) assistance to shield, then make sure it is available (it will cost a damn site less than destroying the economy and mortgaging our kids futures) but don't deny the young their rights too. Whilst I agree to a point the reality is that parents rely heavily on grandparents to provide childcare. I’d love to be able to send mine to nursery everyday to remove the risk from my parents and in laws. I’m fortunate enough to be able to afford it but some people won’t be able to spend about £450 a week on nursery fees. The issue that we have is that the nurseries are full. We managed to get 2 days a week, some parents I know managed to get one. If the space was there we’d use it but it simply isn’t. What part of my 'reality' are you disagreeing with, I said that the over 65's should have the right to look after their grandkids if they want to (and they currently have)? |
|
|
|
Post by hcstokie on Nov 30, 2020 10:28:43 GMT
Whilst I agree to a point the reality is that parents rely heavily on grandparents to provide childcare. I’d love to be able to send mine to nursery everyday to remove the risk from my parents and in laws. I’m fortunate enough to be able to afford it but some people won’t be able to spend about £450 a week on nursery fees. The issue that we have is that the nurseries are full. We managed to get 2 days a week, some parents I know managed to get one. If the space was there we’d use it but it simply isn’t. What part of my 'reality' are you disagreeing with, I said that the over 65's should have the right to look after their grandkids if they want to? I think the difficulty is that even if we wanted to shield all over 65s it’s very difficult because there isn’t the amount of childcare available to do it. In that scenario you have parents being unable to work as they have to be at home looking after their kids. This would affect the economy too (I don’t know to what degree this would compare to current restrictions), plus you may have higher case numbers and hospital admissions due to increased contact in social settings if these reopened. I don’t know what is more desirable. In an ideal world we would shield the elderly, have adequate childcare and keep the economy running. The original tweet is looking at household makeup through a single lens and quoting a statistic to back up letting under 40s get on with it. In practice we know they will have contact with over 65s regardless of whether they live with them or not. |
|
