To worry the impact of our lockdown will be worse long term than if we’d just lockdowned the vulnerable

[abreviation]

I think the proverbial is just about to hit the fan regarding redundancies. We have just started to receive hundreds of cvs from people who have lost their job.
It’s common knowledge how cancers are going undiagnosed and treatments delayed. God knows how many will die now needlessly.
Most other medical appointments cancelled or delayed. How many years will it take to catch up? Brain tumours missed, lazy eyes, hip displacements etc etc undiagnosed.
Education broken for loads of dc. How may dc just hanging on in there will be lost to education now. This will impact thousands of dc long term.
Struggling today with the way CV has been prioritised with no thought to anything else and the long term consequences of this.

NowImLivinInExeter

I think you're very like Boris, actually. Right down to playing the buffoon with fake statistics and disingenuous arguments.

We're seeing a gradual return to some semblance of normality where I am (south-east). NHS consultations are either going ahead over the phone or in person under strict conditions. A friend was referred by her GP to oncology and was scanned and seen within a fortnight. I'm encouraging my young adult DC to get on with their lives whilst DH and I WFH, have as much delivered to the house as possible, socially distance etc. We need the under 40s to get on with their lives. Those of us over 40 (who have had our education and who are - in many cases - less financially vulnerable, etc) need to take precautions to keep ourselves safe and let the younger generation get society up and running again.

@0v9c99f9g9d939d9f9g9h8h

Sweden haven't said they made a mistake, in that they are still happy with their basic approach.

That's rubbish.

Evidence?

‘I think the 2 and a half million or so shielding should have locked down‘

We are and we still are

We are however not a synonym for the vulnerable - the over 70s, BAME, pregnant, overweight, diabetic, asthmatic - millions and millions of people

I don’t think society would function with all of them locked down by definition. Because key workers just don’t fall tidily outside that group.

The economic fallout would be so much worse if lockdown had been in that basis. As would the stresses on NHS and care sectors

‘A friend was referred by her GP to oncology and was scanned and seen within a fortnight’

2 week rule referrals have been running as normal throughout. People just haven’t been going to the GP and getting referred. Urgent cancer treatments, and low risk cancer treatments have been going ahead. Those where infection risk is excessive have been paused or modified

Screening backlog is however a whole different story

nohard No I'm not going to provide evidence against a fabrication. I have better things to do. You're talking rubbishn and I expect you know that if you saw the papers on Friday.

That's a literal quote from the guardian article I presume you are talking about btw

But maybe you'd like today's version to be more up to date. Same guy. Correcting the crappy headlines that ran alongside his interview.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/06/sometimes-feel-like-punchbag-architect-swedens-virus-model-another/

The title is 'I haven't changed my mind'

Hth xx

Nope, that was all in your head. Happy gas lighting. You're not a particularly hard sell.

@0v9c99f9g9d939d9f9g9h8h

Sweden haven't said they made a mistake, in that they are still happy with their basic approach.

That's rubbish.

Perhaps you meant 'i think it is rubbish that they think that?'

Because otherwise, it's a bit hard to fathom why you think it isn't true, what with you not offering any evidence to the contrary

Don't worry, I can quote from the article last week again. It might have been hard to read a whole article of several paragraphs rather than just a headline

(Guardian, www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/architect-of-sweden-coronavirus-strategy-admits-too-many-died-anders-tegnell )

In an interview with the Dagens Nyheter daily, Tegnell subsequently said he still believed “the basic strategy has worked well. I do not see what we would have done completely differently … Based on the knowledge we had then, we feel we made the appropriate decisions.”

I do not see what we would have done completely differently … Based on the knowledge we had then, we feel we made the appropriate decisions.”

Yep.

Yes, unlike us, they hold their hands up to mistakes. Like us, their mistakes are around carehomes (50% of our deaths are estimated to be from carehomes). But as we said, they feel their basic approach was right ie no lockdown just social distancing. Learn to live with it. Good for them. You can't compare death rates and say our pathetic lockdown produced much different results to their non lockdown

Anyway, glad you agree

Research by Imperial College Lonxon published today found that
Lockdowns had a dramatic impact on the spread of coronavirus in Europe with strict controls on people’s movements preventing an estimated 3.1m deaths by the beginning of May, with 470,000 deaths averted in the UK alone
I think this is pretty clear evidence to show that lockdown was necesarry

nohard

I think you've confused yourself there. First they didn't make any, now they're cool for admitting it. You are actually Boris, aren't you.

The idea of lockdown was simply to lower the overall cases so the NHS didn’t suffocate. The ‘vulnerable’ you speak of (imagining you mean the elderly and those with underlying conditions) were not the only ones affected or even killed/made seriously ill by covid. Many were hospitalised or even died despite being fairly young and fit.

The NHS didn’t have many ventilators so they simply wouldn’t have coped if we’d all just carried on like normal. You only have to witness Brazil and parts of the USA to understand why lockdown is effective.

I don't think you are unreasonable. There will be redundancies and firms that have gone bust - however we've had all that before and recovered.

What you say about sick people is extremely apt: I heard the day before yesterday about a woman in her forties who died suddenly. In April she had some severe head pain and other symptom and went to A&E where she had a scan - was told there had been a' brain bleed' - then discharged home with pain killers. In 'normal' times she would have been kept in, carefully monitored and treated. It's scandalous! Now she is dead. Of course the post mortem results are not yet available but it sounds as though she had a burst aneuysm or stroke. Something which could have been avoided.

For most people I think things will be OK, we'll gradually get back to normal or some 'normality'.

It's amazing really, we have been 'locked down' (& not that tightly in the UK), for less than three months and things are already going to pot.

@0v9c99f9g9d939d9f9g9h8h

nohard

I think you've confused yourself there. First they didn't make any, now they're cool for admitting it. You are actually Boris, aren't you.

Ok we will have to agree to disagree as you seem to lack basic reading comprehension skills

Whoever the other poster was, said 'Sweden haven't said they made a mistake, in that they are still happy with their basic approach' which you appeared to think was rubbish. That's what was said, paraphrased in the first article, and repeated in the second. What that means is that they were happy with their overall strategy (=their basic approach) although they felt there were aspects they could have improved on (that refers mostly to carehomes)

Now I understand the issue is literacy, I'll just leave it there.