35,000 excess cancer deaths

the_smog_chorus

Active member
1602587229334.png
and that's just cancer deaths, chuck in excess deaths due to suicides, heart attacks etc. all for a respiratory disease that attacks the old and the vulnerable and kills .05% of those infected with an average age of 80+
A covid death is not more important than any other death and therefore the measures are disproportionate, protect the old and vulnerable and the rest of us need to get on with our lives or we are screwed.
 
As a person who has lost 2 family members to coronavirus I'm still in complete agreement with you. My aunt and a close friend have had delayed cancer diagnosis and I work in a frontline mental health sevice where we are picking up the slack from people being unable to see/speak to GP's .

In terms of coronavirus we must identify who the vulnerable are as best we can, and protect them with all we have, but limit the impact of coronavirus measures on other people's vulnerabilities.
 

JM14

Well-known member
View attachment 7471
and that's just cancer deaths, chuck in excess deaths due to suicides, heart attacks etc. all for a respiratory disease that attacks the old and the vulnerable and kills .05% of those infected with an average age of 80+
A covid death is not more important than any other death and therefore the measures are disproportionate, protect the old and vulnerable and the rest of us need to get on with our lives or we are screwed.

Lockdown isnt the reason cancer treatments have to be stopped, once covid is widespread and hospitalisations are up significantly, the extra ICU staff will have to come from other wards/hospitals to cover this. Basically if Covid cases are high which will result in higher levels of ICU beds etc being used, other treatments just wont be carried out because they dont have the capacity.

Also it is literally impossible to protect the old/vulnerable from covid whilst letting the rest of us carry on as normal.
 

Randy

Well-known member
Lockdown isnt the reason cancer treatments have to be stopped, once covid is widespread and hospitalisations are up significantly, the extra ICU staff will have to come from other wards/hospitals to cover this. Basically if Covid cases are high which will result in higher levels of ICU beds etc being used, other treatments just wont be carried out because they dont have the capacity.

Also it is literally impossible to protect the old/vulnerable from covid whilst letting the rest of us carry on as normal.
Impossible?

No it isn't. Instead of spunking billions on dodgy PPE providers, tests that aren't reliable, furlough payments etc dedicate that money to the vunerable you have to shield, care homes and staff to man the nightingale hospitals which should be covid-19 cases only.
 

the_smog_chorus

Active member
Lockdown isnt the reason cancer treatments have to be stopped, once covid is widespread and hospitalisations are up significantly, the extra ICU staff will have to come from other wards/hospitals to cover this. Basically if Covid cases are high which will result in higher levels of ICU beds etc being used, other treatments just wont be carried out because they dont have the capacity.

Also it is literally impossible to protect the old/vulnerable from covid whilst letting the rest of us carry on as normal.
The above statistics have happened / are happening, you're talking about what may happen. This graph below shows the absolute change in Hospital Admissions more or less up to date. Next to nothing for months.
By the way the cases are up because more testing is being done - a test which is dubious to say the very least, as demonstrated again in the graph.
1602590273646.png

At the beginning of this year it would have been said that it would be literally impossible for full lockdown so I don't accept we can't protect the vulnerable at all.
 

JM14

Well-known member
Impossible?

No it isn't. Instead of spunking billions on dodgy PPE providers, tests that aren't reliable, furlough payments etc dedicate that money to the vunerable you have to shield, care homes and staff to man the nightingale hospitals which should be covid-19 cases only.

If covid is widespread in the community how do we protect the vulnerable and old? How do they shop, attend medical/dental appointments, have carers in their home/tradespeople in their home. What if they go into hospital and all of the people they will then be in contact with?
Also what about those who are vulnerable that have partners/children going out to work/school and mixing with other people? Older people who still have their children living with them, how do we shield them?

There is literally no way to just shield the vulnerable from all of this and let the rest of us carry on. Too many opportunities when they need to come into contact with other people who haven't been shielding. And if the virus is widespread they will inevitably catch it.

Also it takes years and years to train ICU staff, which isnt much good when we need these staff now for the covid hospitals. These staff members will have to come from other hospitals which then means non covid related treatments etc just wont get done.
 

bear66

Well-known member
A friend's mother in law is in a local Teesside care home that had no cases in the first stage of this epidemic. They stopped all visiting at the start of September and arranged live-in carers. They had their first case two weeks ago. They have no idea how it got in.
 

UKLL1981

Well-known member
A friend's mother in law is in a local Teesside care home that had no cases in the first stage of this epidemic. They stopped all visiting at the start of September and arranged live-in carers. They had their first case two weeks ago. They have no idea how it got in.

A friends brothers dog walkers aunts uncle is in a care home and they haven’t had any cases. As usual I’m not hearing many solutions from you bear other than bankrupt the country and plunge more people into poverty or increase deaths from other causes. One would think you either refuse to accept their will be any consequences to lockdowns and restrictions or you actually welcome the economic meltdown that’s coming? It would be a glorious opportunity to attack the Tories with for many years to come long after Covid is gone, unemployment is sitting at 9% and cancer survival rates are going backwards.
 

FabioPorkpie

Well-known member
Impossible?

No it isn't. Instead of spunking billions on dodgy PPE providers, tests that aren't reliable, furlough payments etc dedicate that money to the vunerable you have to shield, care homes and staff to man the nightingale hospitals which should be covid-19 cases only.

And where do these staff come from?hmmm?

And who is vulnerable? Every person above 65?
Every BAME person?
Everybody overweight?
Everybody with asthma?
Everybody with autoimmune diseases?
Everybody with diabetes?
Etc etc

Ok so we keep them all at home in isolation. And their partners too. Because they would need to isolate also. So that’s two household salaries gone now. How do we pay for that? And who replaces those people in their work? What happens to the businesses that no longer have enough staff? Not because they are off sick, it because they are shielding?
And kids obviously can’t go to school either, if a parent is shielding.

So it’s millions. Many millions.
Yes, lots of people in those categories won’t be at high risk. But lots will still be at moderate risk, and if they aren’t shielded exposing millions of people at moderate risk will lead to many more hospitalisations and potentially the complete overwhelming of hospitals, even if it doesn’t necessarily translate into deaths.
Obviously overwhelming hospitals leads to far more cancelled critical operations, non-crit8cal operations, investigative surgery etc etc. And ultimately far more deaths.

It’s such a simplistic argument to say ‘shield the vulnerable’ and while that is the best people can come up, is it any wonder that lockdowns are still talked about?
Lockdowns are terrible. I don’t want one. I don’t like them. They are deeply deeply flawed but it’s easy to bang on about it from the sidelines if you don’t have a viable alternative to offer as a suggestion. And so far, nobody, not the ‘opposing view’ scientists, the good folk on here like yourself, media commentators, politicians etc have actually offered a viable alternative, in my opinion.
 
View attachment 7471
and that's just cancer deaths, chuck in excess deaths due to suicides, heart attacks etc. all for a respiratory disease that attacks the old and the vulnerable and kills .05% of those infected with an average age of 80+
A covid death is not more important than any other death and therefore the measures are disproportionate, protect the old and vulnerable and the rest of us need to get on with our lives or we are screwed.


The uk fatality rate for people that have tested positive for covid is 7.4 %. Now a lot more people have actually had covid but not tested positve but I used the lower death figure (upto 28 days) that doesn't include people that have covid on their death certificate but haven't tested positive for covid with in 28 days.
 

UKLL1981

Well-known member
Imagine a virus so deadly you need to have a test to find out if you’ve even got it or you had it already without even knowing....
 

bear66

Well-known member
A friends brothers dog walkers aunts uncle is in a care home and they haven’t had any cases. As usual I’m not hearing many solutions from you bear other than bankrupt the country and plunge more people into poverty or increase deaths from other causes. One would think you either refuse to accept their will be any consequences to lockdowns and restrictions or you actually welcome the economic meltdown that’s coming? It would be a glorious opportunity to attack the Tories with for many years to come long after Covid is gone, unemployment is sitting at 9% and cancer survival rates are going backwards.
There aren't solutions to protect the vulnerable whilst the virus is spreading through the community. South Korea, Vietnam, New Zealand, China, Germany and Taiwan have all approached this differently and far more effectively with far less impact on their economies. Test, test, test, suppress, suppress, suppress was the only way to do this from the beginning and, even now, is still the only way. If there was a vaccine guaranteed in 6 months, it would still be the only way. We're so far back and falling further back by the quarter, we have squandered every opportunity.
 

Matt

Active member
You can loan money, you can't loan doctors (at least, not at the moment, and not in the quantities that would be needed)
 
Top
X