free lateral flow tests could end in weeks.

Warwickboro said:
It astounds me just how many people think that the complete loss of enjoyment and future life chances of young people is a price worth paying in order to stem a virus which has now vastly reduced in severity, but as previously stated, we have different opinions, I now believe the most important things on the agenda are the Impending fuel crisis, and focusing on those at school age and in their 20s.
Click to expand...
Complete loss of enjoyment and future life choices?? - Surely that's a bit of an overstatement?

Pubs, bars and restaurants have been open since last April. Loads of festivals took place over the Summer with tens of thousands of teenagers attending. Nightclubs, albeit later on, opened up too.

Education has certainly been affected, but all the teenagers I know have still been doing (or getting) GCSEs and A levels, and have been going off to universities and colleges - so not massively impacting future life choices either.

Edit: I do accept that some of the younger kids might struggle more to catch up. Hopefully measures can be introduced that help to address this.
 
Warwickboro said:
It astounds me just how many people think that the complete loss of enjoyment and future life chances of young people is a price worth paying in order to stem a virus which has now vastly reduced in severity, but as previously stated, we have different opinions, I now believe the most important things on the agenda are the Impending fuel crisis, and focusing on those at school age and in their 20s.
Click to expand...
This is great that you want to prioritise those things. I think they are very important. But why not focus on the current pandemic that we are still very much in the thick of AND those things? To disregard what is currently happening is madness.

The local hospital to me has 6 wards isolated due to covid- it's not like it has gone away yet. Of those people how many will go on to suffer life long symptoms- not all, granted but certainly some. Lateral flows cost pennies, and even millions of them wont dent the national debt- stopping testing and pretending it is not there is not feasible at this current time.

What loss of enjoyment are you noticing? 6 weeks ago we had next to no restrictions. Now we have to wear masks in shops and events.
 
Cuthbert said:
Complete loss of enjoyment and future life choices?? - I think you're over stating it hugely.

Pubs, bars and restaurants have been open since last April. Loads of festivals took place over the Summer with tens of thousands of teenagers attending. Nightclubs, albeit later on, opened up too.

Education has certainly been affected, but all the teenagers I know have still been doing (or getting) GCSEs and A levels, and have been going off to universities and colleges - so not massively impacting future life choices either
Click to expand...

Cambsred said:
This is great that you want to prioritise those things. I think they are very important. But why not focus on the current pandemic that we are still very much in the thick of AND those things? To disregard what is currently happening is madness.

The local hospital to me has 6 wards isolated due to covid- it's not like it has gone away yet. Of those people how many will go on to suffer life long symptoms- not all, granted but certainly some. Lateral flows cost pennies, and even millions of them wont dent the national debt- stopping testing and pretending it is not there is not feasible at this current time.

What loss of enjoyment are you noticing? 6 weeks ago we had next to no restrictions. Now we have to wear masks in shops and events.
Click to expand...
Because we don't have any money left, test and trace costs billions to run, and we have a seriously reduce risk after 140 million jabs and a weaker varient
 
Cambsred said:
This is great that you want to prioritise those things. I think they are very important. But why not focus on the current pandemic that we are still very much in the thick of AND those things? To disregard what is currently happening is madness.

The local hospital to me has 6 wards isolated due to covid- it's not like it has gone away yet. Of those people how many will go on to suffer life long symptoms- not all, granted but certainly some. Lateral flows cost pennies, and even millions of them wont dent the national debt- stopping testing and pretending it is not there is not feasible at this current time.

What loss of enjoyment are you noticing? 6 weeks ago we had next to no restrictions. Now we have to wear masks in shops and events.
Click to expand...
We shut down social activity for months, we put fences around uni campuses with security to keep them in, we arrested and fined people for having garden parties for kids birthdays while the tories had several of their own. We made uni students do their degrees on line. We shut schools, and then we spent a fortune on tests leaving nothing for future investment. Time to think of the younger generation.
 
Warwickboro said:
Because we don't have any money left, test and trace costs billions to run, and we have a seriously reduce risk after 140 million jabs and a weaker varient
Click to expand...

The risk is reduced, but not stemmed. Track and trace was a massive white elephant. It has been a mess, and the lateral flows and testing capacity have been a small win, although in reality over the last 2 years the mess of test and trace has led to very few people using the app, few people reporting tests and general confusion around when to and not to test.

Irrespective, we are heading into the peak of the omicron wave- with some reassuring signs that most cases dont lead to hospitalisations. Now is not the time to scrap testing, now is the time to monitor and hold tight and see what happens.

Would be good to know what the people think is an acceptable number to die before we do just disregard it happening, being mindful that those most at risk are often still shielding away from any form of normal life, much more so than the rest of us. When can they come out?
 
Warwickboro said:
We shut down social activity for months, we put fences around uni campuses with security to keep them in, we arrested and fined people for having garden parties for kids birthdays while the tories had several of their own. We made uni students do their degrees on line. We shut schools, and then we spent a fortune on tests leaving nothing for future investment. Time to think of the younger generation.
Click to expand...

We did, and that was because 1000 people were dying a day. And if we didnt it would have been much higher. Now 250-300 people are dying a day and we aren't doing any of those things. What number would you bring these measures back in? What is an acceptable number?
 
Warwickboro said:
We shut down social activity for months, we put fences around uni campuses with security to keep them in, we arrested and fined people for having garden parties for kids birthdays while the tories had several of their own. We made uni students do their degrees on line. We shut schools, and then we spent a fortune on tests leaving nothing for future investment. Time to think of the younger generation.
Click to expand...
All of those things did happen, but things have been open for months and months now? - You're sounding like we're still in lockdown, but haven't been since April last year?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting going back to any of those things, but we don't have them now.
 
Cambsred said:
The risk is reduced, but not stemmed. Track and trace was a massive white elephant. It has been a mess, and the lateral flows and testing capacity have been a small win, although in reality over the last 2 years the mess of test and trace has led to very few people using the app, few people reporting tests and general confusion around when to and not to test.

Irrespective, we are heading into the peak of the omicron wave- with some reassuring signs that most cases dont lead to hospitalisations. Now is not the time to scrap testing, now is the time to monitor and hold tight and see what happens.

Would be good to know what the people think is an acceptable number to die before we do just disregard it happening, being mindful that those most at risk are often still shielding away from any form of normal life, much more so than the rest of us. When can they come out?
Click to expand...
No-one can answer that, and you know that is the question people can always ask to keep this going, anyone who answers with any figure (even one) is sayingbits OK for someone to die. But the brutal reality is that there must be a point where we look beyond this
 
I'm well aware that the tories will not spend a dime on young people regardless of pandemic spend, but I'd like some money left for a party that will in the future, I know people are still scared, but we have to find a way of doing this without it costing us so much.
 
Warwickboro said:
No-one can answer that, and you know that is the question people can always ask to keep this going, anyone who answers with any figure (even one) is sayingbits OK for someone to die. But the brutal reality is that there must be a point where we look beyond this
Click to expand...

I agree. There is a time when we have to accept death. We do it in the NHS regularly, and there are treatments that arent provided that can prolong life due to cost- economics vs life which is often a difficult trade off.

Prior to the peak of a new wave of virus is not the time to stop funding testing and trying to control or mitigate a virus that is deadly to some.
 
Cambsred said:
I agree. There is a time when we have to accept death. We do it in the NHS regularly, and there are treatments that arent provided that can prolong life due to cost- economics vs life which is often a difficult trade off.

Prior to the peak of a new wave of virus is not the time to stop funding testing and trying to control or mitigate a virus that is deadly to some.
Click to expand...
I think this here is the most sensible argument I've heard and a very good point to be fair.
 
Warwickboro said:
No-one can answer that, and you know that is the question people can always ask to keep this going, anyone who answers with any figure (even one) is sayingbits OK for someone to die. But the brutal reality is that there must be a point where we look beyond this
Click to expand...
I think you can put a figure on it. In a bad flu season (winter months) deaths peak at 200-300 people per day [Flu Inc Pneumonia]. Previously not many people have really given that TOO much consideration. Certainly not in terms of locking things down, closing schools etc.

Covid is more serious than flu, but I'd say that as long as deaths stay at or below that sort of level, and hospitals aren't overwhelmed, then the government will be comfortable with that. If that's the case, then I think things will remain open.
 
Last edited:
Cuthbert said:
I think you can put a figure on it. In a bad flu season 200-300 people die from flu. Previously not many people have really given that TOO much consideration. Certainly not in terms of locking things down, closing schools etc.

Covid is more serious than flu, but I'd say that as long as deaths stay at or below that sort of level, and hospitals aren't overwhelmed, then the government will be comfortable with that. If that's the case, then I think things will remain open.
Click to expand...
In an average year 25,000 people die from flu every year, not sure where 200-300 figure for a bad year comes from.

The Spanish flu was a pandemic lasting from early 1918 through to the middle of 1920 so approximately 30 months and we're approaching that time line now which, God willing, will see a decline in the epidemic. Covid will soon be re-assigned as an endemic event, just like flu which does the rounds every year.

Nadhim Zahawi said on the BBC this morning that free LFT kits will not be withdrawn from the public.

#UTB
 
Alan_Breck said:
In an average year 25,000 people die from flu every year, not sure where 200-300 figure for a bad year comes from.
Click to expand...
Apologies for confusion. Sausage fingers, I missed out some pretty key words! (Have edited original post).

I think 25,000 deaths is a bad flu year, not average isn't it?. I think average is closer to 17,000. Either way, I was talking season (winter months) not annually - which is where the figure of 200-300 deaths a day comes from [peaking at that level I suppose]. The point is that this level of mortality has been accepted by 'the powers that be', and I expect something similar will be applied to Covid.
 
Last edited:
Look at that table again, deaths averaging 200 to 300 per week, not annually.

Country20182019
Total mortality29,51626,398
England27,14224,400
Wales2,3091,942
England and Wales29,45126,342
Resident outside England and Wales6556

#UTB
 
Alan_Breck said:
Look at that table again, deaths averaging 200 to 300 per week, not annually.

Country20182019
Total mortality29,51626,398
England27,14224,400
Wales2,3091,942
England and Wales29,45126,342
Resident outside England and Wales6556

#UTB
Click to expand...

The data splits pneumonia and flu. Flu is far smaller numbers I think. Closer to 2000 a year it suggests.
 
Cambsred said:
The data splits pneumonia and flu. Flu is far smaller numbers I think. Closer to 2000 a year it suggests.
Click to expand...
Yes, absolutely true. Are they linked because flu so often leads to pneumonia?
I was looking at an ONS table on this, where they combined flu and pneumonia. What was interesting was they also had a column with figures for 'Deaths Involving Influenza and Pneumonia', as well as 'Deaths Due to Influenza and Pneumonia'. Not surprisingly the 'involving' column was very much higher.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top