Why isn’t there more deaths atm?

[Mummypig2020]

Just that really. Obviously cases are going up and have been for a few weeks. Surely there would be at least an increase of people in hospitals by now at least? Or in a week or so are we going to suddenly have hundreds of deaths again?

@chickenyhead Croydon has a population of 376,00 so I wouldn't be overly worried about 1,900 coronavirus cases. And even if your kids get it they will almost certainly suffer none or only mild symptoms.

[quote RaspberryRuff]@PhilCornwall1 and maybe if Boris hadn’t been such an arse at the start we might not have. With around 100k cases a day and cases doubling every few days it would have ended up a right mess very quickly x[/quote]
The country is in an even bigger mess now and it's getting worse by the week.

@alecTrevelyan006

Thank you doctor Alec, I will let my consultant paediatrician know that he is wrong because you said so.

How is la la land?

I know @PhilCornwall1. I lost my own job and my husband works in hospitality so fuck knows what happens there. The government really couldn’t have made a bigger arse of this if they tried. They had to scare people to get them to comply with lockdown and even though that was only supposed to be to “flatten the curve” it seems to somehow have been translated into people thinking no one should ever get it.

[quote chickenyhead]@alecTrevelyan006

Thank you doctor Alec, I will let my consultant paediatrician know that he is wrong because you said so.

How is la la land?[/quote]
feel free to point me to the evidence where loads of kids are suffering and dying because of coronavirus

in the meantime another person I know has lost their job today, but hey ho, let's just carry on trashing the economy for not good reason...

@AlecTrevelyan006

I will rely on the medical professionals thanks.

Vulnerable children are not responsible for the job losses. Look elsewhere

in the meantime another person I know has lost their job today, but hey ho, let's just carry on trashing the economy for not good reason...

Completely agree with you.

There's actually lots of evidence coming through about Vitamin D an Covid 19 eg www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/ibvn76/vitamin_d_supplementation_in_covid19_patients_a/?sort=old

[quote chickenyhead]@AlecTrevelyan006

I will rely on the medical professionals thanks.

Vulnerable children are not responsible for the job losses. Look elsewhere[/quote]
Problem with medical professionals is that too many of them have no idea where the money comes from that enables them to be professionals.

Besides which all of the available strongly supports the view that children do not suffer seriously if they catch coronavirus.

Around 20% of all Covid related deaths are among the over 90s, who make up just 0.5% of the population. And yet even among that age group, if you catch coronavirus you are more likely to survive than die.

Problem with medical professionals is that too many of them have no idea where the money comes from that enables them to be professionals.

Yup.

And not a problem restricted to medical professionals either.

@AlecTrevelyan006

Your peer reviewed evidence that my immunocompromised children are not at risk will be gratefully received. Thank you.

You know, the government did not necessarily need to lockdown, but it should have shielded vulnerable groups from a lot earlier. It could have tested a lot earlier. It could have insisted on masks in enclosed shared spaces.

It didn't.

It still isn't.

There have been huge numbers of excess deaths because they failed to protect the vulnerable.

There has been huge damage to the economy due to their knee jerk reaction to world criticism.

If one person in charge had put appropriate measures in place, the huge loss of vulnerable lives would have been prevented. But still now, they expect vulnerable children to go out in school settings and catch it.

And you feel like a big man criticising the concerned mother of vulnerable kids and denying the deaths and risk. Instead of looking at the decisions made by the government.

I'm sorry but that means that I do not value your opinion. On anything.

There have been huge numbers of excess deaths because they failed to protect the vulnerable.

None of what the government did/is doing is to protect the vulnerable. I'm amazed people still think this. It was to stop a fucked up NHS imploding.

"They" never have and never will care if anyone dies, extremely clinically vulnerable or not. That's why I ignored the bloody shielding letter and the endless text messages. I made my own decisions, not the decisions of a bunch of incompetent idiots, because let's face it, they've proved and continue to prove they are that.

@PhilCornwall1

They don't. Try reading what I actually wrote.

[quote chickenyhead]@PhilCornwall1

They don't. Try reading what I actually wrote.[/quote]
Ranted you mean.

Can't actually think of anything sensible to say.

Misogyny at its best

But still now they expect vulnerable children to out to school settings and catch it

Some children(or family members) haven't just suddenly become vulnerable and have always been susceptible to viruses that could cause greater harm than it does to others. Covid isnt the only virus that can cause problems yet no one questioned sending children to school in the numbers we are seeing now.The risk isnt new its always been there.

But it's not just about deaths. The risk is about possible permanent damage to the lungs or heart or brain.

We don't yet know enough about Long Covid. No-one can confidently state there's nothing to worry about for healthy young people. There is a risk.

We should've nipped it in the bud. Closed borders in February. Two to three months strict lockdown. Then we could've been like countries such as NZ and most of the Australian states. Living mostly normal lives. NZ has already got their latest cases under control. They tackled it fast and properly.

We can't completely lock ourselves away but we certainly should be taking precautions. It's not too much longer to wait for the vaccine and work is continuing to go well re drug treatments. It's a false economy to take the Russian roulette approach.

"They" never have and never will care if anyone dies, extremely clinically vulnerable or not. That's why I ignored the bloody shielding letter and the endless text messages. I made my own decisions, not the decisions of a bunch of incompetent idiots, because let's face it, they've proved and continue to prove they are that.

Interesting perspective ... my Government didn't send out letters to vulnerable people at all. No text messages, no checking to see if we were OK to get medications or groceries in lockdowns - nothing at all. Any checks were generally left to neighbours. That was actually a line in a government ad - "check on your neighbour". So that you are complaining about the Government at least showing some care for those who would potentially suffer more should they catch COVID says a great deal about you.

People will not lock themselves away when they see how low hospital admissions and deaths are. I don’t know anyone who has long lasting health problems from having it, that won’t work into scaring people, the track and trace is useless, the travel quarantine isn’t checked up on. People are not going to stay at home anymore, unless the government enforce it, which will cause it’s own issues.

@Alex50

People will not lock themselves away when they see how low hospital admissions and deaths are. I don’t know anyone who has long lasting health problems from having it, that won’t work into scaring people, the track and trace is useless, the travel quarantine isn’t checked up on. People are not going to stay at home anymore, unless the government enforce it, which will cause it’s own issues.

Just because you don't know anyone with long-term issues from COVID doesn't mean they don't exist. That is anecdotal evidence, ie. pointless when you are attempting to support an argument.

I’m not saying they don’t exist but what % nobody seems to know, nobody can give any clear data. Is it mainly people that have severe illness with Covid? What % of people who are asymptotic? What age is it mainly affecting? All the children I have seen who had it in March have no long lasting health issues.

But so is you argument about long term health issues when you don’t have data to pick it up. I’m not saying there isn’t long term health issues but what % is it?

No one knows what the long term effects of Covid are. It’s only been around six months.

But our society still has to function. Continuing to trash our economy, society, mental health, children’s education because of this unknown would be a ridiculously overblown reaction. We need to eat, fund public services, school our children and even, (gasp) enjoy ourselves a bit.

We’ve been very cosseted in our lifetimes really. Humans have to live alongside disease. This has always been the case.

Lots of posts saying the vulnerable are being protected, shielding was paused over 2 weeks ago in England and many many clinically extremely vulnerable people are now back in jobs and quite a few are saying they don't feel safe. Parents are being encouraged to return CEV children to schools. You either take the risk to pay the mortgage or give up your job, theres no extra support.

Shielding was not to protect us, thats a romantic notion, it was to protect the NHS. If we all got very unwell and filled the beds the NHS wouldn't have coped, reducing treatment for the entire population and impacting the economy. The fact we were at home and personally safer was a nice side effect of protecting the NHS, I'm not saying it wasn't but it is a bigger picture.

That’s what I mean, you can’t frighten people re long term health issues, you need to be specific, people won’t put their lives on hold because you may get long term health issues, especially when you see people who have had it and they are as healthy as they were before.