Alvez_48
Well-known member
No maybe about it, therefore not anecdotal.
You need to look up what anecdotal means good sir.
No maybe about it, therefore not anecdotal.
These are the deaths that will happen due to covid beng prioritised over cancer.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(20)30388-0/fulltext
Why are covid deaths more important than cancer patients. And please don't try the "well you can't catch cancer from someone" You are right but you can die from cancer because you are not being seen due to covid restrictions. Covid is at about 41k deaths (if you believe the stats, remember that is a death within 28 days after a positive test, wonder how many car accidents are in that total) but it will cause many many more than that due to the NHS becoming the Covid Health Servce.
Death is a part of life. No time in the history of mankind have we ever done this over a virus.
Between 2014 and 2015 we had 44000 excess Influenza deaths. Bet no one batted an eye at that. But these 40000 deaths you think we are being killed by the back death. Honestly some of the comments on here and social media you would think that catchng it is an instant death sentence. less than 400 under 65 have died. 4 under 20 but they get the most restrictions.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...rofexcesswinterdeathssince19992000/2015-11-25
We will have unemployment like never seen which will cause untold problems and deaths that will dwarf covid. But thats ok as its only money, health is more important as people keep saying. Unfortuantey the stark truth is without money you wouldn't have much health.
All these restrictions will take a generation of debt to pay off. My daughter will pay this from exams she may not sit due to them being cancelled next year (possibly) and an apprenticeship she wont be able to get on due to restrictions being placed that will massively impact her future.
I also have to ask if the goverment said you didn't need to wear a mask tomorrow would you still wear one? This is aimed at the people who scream when they see someone without one. Why didn't you wear one in 2014/2015 you could have saved so many lives.
Now the vaccine. There are currently 4 coronaviruses in circulation and not 1 of them has a working vaccine that stops you getting it so why do you think we will get one now. It will take averagely 10 years to vaccinate the world, are you happy to be in perpetual lockdown for 10 years. We will be a third world country long before then. There will be nothing to live for.
You are clearly a clever guy Alvez
Thanks Fabio you're a gent.
I don't disagree with you, I've got things wrong on this subject but I've also been right far more than the people who spread the worst of the fear.
I'm just trying to help, maybe Zorro for instance is scared and worried well I'm here to try to help him to overcome those fears and regain his ability to think critically.
I agree with you re the whole media approach, peoples lives, livelihoods, mental health etc. are being pulled apart.That’s admirable, but I think the tools to help people understand it and beat their fear of it are wide and varied. I like to read about the medical developments, for example, and am quite excited and confident about the prospects of the monoclonal antibody treatments, such as the regeneron one used by Trump.
I follow quite a few mathematician/science types who look more closely at the numbers and distribution behind the daily figures, and I get some degree of perspective from that.
The media sensationalism has been pretty appalling throughout, but I do believe it was a narrative that was encouraged by government in order to raise the compliance levels initially.
Problem I have is that some of the key players in the media who seem to get disproportionate exposure for talking the pandemic/virus down are often controversial and divisive and I’m not sure their motivation lies entirely with trying to ease people’s fears.
It’s like divide and conquer politics - the Great Barrington trio seem to be trying to paint it as though all scientists are either on one side of the lockdown debate or the other, when it’s most definitely not that black and white. Why are they trying, and succeeding (in the media at least) to paint that picture?
I agree with you re the whole media approach, peoples lives, livelihoods, mental health etc. are being pulled apart.
If you like statistics / detail etc. you may find this interesting - http://inproportion2.talkigy.com/
What does the data show?
reopening dates, mobility changes and other empirically measured behaviors do not lead to higher infections in any statistically consistent way
To deal with the threat of COVID-19 the UK Government has ordered unprecedented shut-downs and quarantines, and many support this in the spirit of "better safe than sorry". However, this overlooks the fact that shutdowns and quarantines also kill. The economic, social and health costs will almost certainly include:
- Earlier deaths for cancer sufferers due to diagnosis and treatment delays
- Business failures leading to more business failures
- Job losses leading to poor health, social problems and suicides
- Fewer taxpayers available to fund an increasing need for social benefits
- Reduced funding for the NHS and the rest of the public sector
- Lost educational opportunities and disruption to exams and graduations
- Inflation as Government "prints" and "borrows" more, while tax revenues fall
- Pension values reduced by stock-market crashes
- Reduced life expectancy for people moving deeper into poverty
Give it a rest mate. People have died, people die, it's a fact of life. The way some go on on here it's you catch covid and die in 2 weeks or live with life limiting symptoms for the rest of your days.
And people wonder why people's mental health is ****ed.
Not necessarily (see my earlier link)The argument that lockdown = covid health service only is clearly wrong. In fact I would argue that lockdown decreases the need for critical health care for covid patients, potentially freeing up resources for other conditions and procedures.
Yes I understand that locking down brings a host of other issues with it.
The truth is, there isn't a good decision to be made right now, we missed that boat when we "stayed open for business, internationally". What we have now is just the least worse decisions available. What strategy creates the least suffering. I really don't know the answer to this as there are quite a few variables and they are projected variables at that.
My reading on the subject suggest that lockdowns probably save more lives than they cost. The comparison that is used is 40,000 deaths versus how many people died needlessly of other causes. The problem with that equation is it isn't the equation that you need to work out. You need to work out how many covid deaths we would now have with no lock down in late march, versus the number of deaths by other causes that came about due to lock down.
I.E. How many lives did lock down save versus how many lives lock down caused. If you cannot see that, and some people are directly comparing covid deaths, with a lockdown, 40,000, with the number of lock down related deaths, so clearly don't see this, then you should be no where near this debate, your understanding is deeply flawed.
The key to your comment and the article you linked is "In any statistical consistent way". What that actually means is there is no linear, or indeed, non-linear equation that tracks infection rates that we can determine. That doesn't mean that lock down did not bring infection rates down, and so deaths. It means the system of infection is so complex we cannot model it very well.Not necessarily (see my earlier link)
What does the data show?
"reopening dates, mobility changes and other empirically measured behaviors do not lead to higher infections in any statistically consistent way"
In other words, there is no evidence in the copious amounts of data now available that there is any connection between the lockdown and the progress of the virus.
I don't think you've really looked through this link - http://inproportion2.talkigy.com/ - all the data is there (lots of it), maybe in support of what you're saying you could support that with something.The key to your comment and the article you linked is "In any statistical consistent way". What that actually means is there is no linear, or indeed, non-linear equation that tracks infection rates that we can determine. That doesn't mean that lock down did not bring infection rates down, and so deaths. It means the system of infection is so complex we cannot model it very well.
To combat the argument you seem to be making, and I think that argument is lock down did not effect infection rates, would be, look at any graph of hospitalizations, or ventilations or deaths and they will track lock down measures very closely. The alternative argument would be, we locked down just as we were about to peak anyway and lock down was not the reason for infection rates dropping off. You would have to apply that logic to every country that used lock down to control the virus infection rates.
It also makes a mockery of everything we know about communicable disease.
So to recap, I don't agree.
You need to look up what anecdotal means good sir.
Not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.
There you go. If you were to rely upon my assertion then you would be basing your reliance on anecdotal evidence. My evidence is primary, based upon fact, 100% true and entirely reliable ergo not anecdotal.
In Teesside vernacular, jog on son.
Maybe you do, anecdotal.
Alvez, I've no axe to grind mate. I'm 36, ex professional footballer and have always had a good level of fitness.
Had Covid in March (and was confident that I had it). but didn't get confirmed until June when I got a private antibodies test.
In the meantime I've felt OK generally and am putting down my fatigue to working from home 4/5 days a week.
In the past three weeks though, the breathlessness has been overwhelming, my blood oxygen saturation levels are lower too. Got a doctors appointment next week to follow up and see what we can find out.
Has been scary as my kids are only 5 and 2.
I'm not for a second calling for any lock downs or to put the economy at risk. I happen to agree that we need to find a way to live with things but please don't be dismissive of the impacts this may have on others