We've saved a lot of lives

[Nellodee]

I don't really know how to write this, I don't want it to come across as patronising. I was just struck by how hard this has been for everyone and how many changes we have made, for such a long time. How many sacrifices, how many decisions that were not for our benefit, but for the benefit of our society. It's been a massive concerted effort. We've all gone through a lot of hardships, for people we don't even know. We've saved a lot of lives.

It does sound patronising, I didn't mean it to, but it felt like something I hadn't really thought of in that way, how ... I can't find the right word... virtuous? good? kind? ... we've all been. I know we've all bickered about statistics, and politics, but we've all done it, changed our lives to protect the old and vulnerable. Whether or not you think we did the right thing, we all did it for the right reasons.

At what cost though? We have personally experienced delays in a tumour diagnosis that may cost DP his life. Why is his life less worthy that corona virus?

At what cost though? We have personally experienced delays in a tumour diagnosis that may cost DP his life. Why is his life less worthy that corona virus?

I’m very sorry for your loss. Your DP’s life is worth as much as anyone who died from Covid, but had we not responded to Covid, non-Covid treatments would, in all likelihood, have been even more patchy as the NHS had become more overwhelmed.

The problem is with the slowness and clumsiness of our reaction as a country, and the fact we didn’t have a very resilient NHS to start with.

I think it's important to take into account excess deaths instead of deaths directly attributed to Covid. The Economist has published an extensive report about this, by city and by country. Covid has caused many more deaths than just those dying with the disease.

And although I do agree that our collective efforts have had a huge impact on transmission, and on deaths, when you take all the excess deaths into account it's very bad indeed. 63,500 for the UK.

@QueenBlueberries

I think it's important to take into account excess deaths instead of deaths directly attributed to Covid. The Economist has published an extensive report about this, by city and by country. Covid has caused many more deaths than just those dying with the disease.

And although I do agree that our collective efforts have had a huge impact on transmission, and on deaths, when you take all the excess deaths into account it's very bad indeed. 63,500 for the UK.

Is it not the case that the majority of those excess deaths are likely to be covid deaths that were undiagnosed? That's my understanding.

We can never know. People have certainly died because we locked down (eg their cancer treatment was delayed, heart surgery postponed and they died, people have committed suicide due to business collapses and mental illness not treated due to covid).

The question for society is whether the many should have their lives put on hold to postpone the relatively imminent deaths of people over 80 (vast majority of those who died)? I don't have the answer but the whole lock down to save lives isn't a clear cut decision it has major repercussions

Mrshoho, they do include people who have not been diagnosed but also any other deaths. Some will be caused by, for example, someone whose heart surgery was cancelled and died of a heart attack, someone whose cancer treatment was cancelled, someone run over by a bus.

They basically calculate the average deaths per day for the last 5 years, do an average per day, and count how many more deaths have been counted since the start of the pandemic.

💞 To all who have suffered and are currently suffering for whatever the reason during this awful time.

@onedayinthefuture

In my opinion, had the elderly in care homes and hospitals been given the right protection, we would have saved many more lives and we could have followed the Swedish approach. The NHS cancelled pretty much everything else due to Covid and staff were redeployed left right and centre, yet there was nothing for many of them to do and I have this on good authority. Calls to GP surgeries and visits to A&E dropped dramatically, no one wanted to go anywhere near a hospital. People were already working from home and not really going anywhere, the media and government did a good job in scaring everyone, the official lockdown was not needed. The fallout from this will be far worse.

This

The NHS that we are so proud of became the NCS.

By the end of next year there will be more excess deaths due to the lockdown than the lives saved.

And so many young people in particular will never recover and be what they would have been.

We are now over £2 trillion in debt, this is just the start, things are going to get much worse. I wouldn’t be congratulating yourselves yet.

I wish I could do a 'Pollyanna' and view this nightmare like you do. I'd be feeling less angry about all this immense cost for a bloody phoney war.

This is the most we’ve ever been in debt, we borrowed £150 billion since April, more than any war.

The debt scares me a lot and the effect it will have on the poorest.

www.theguardian.com/business/2020/aug/21/covid-19-drives-uk-national-debt-to-2tn-for-first-time

The debt is such a burden on our young workers who will never see anything like the affluence and security of the generation or two that came before them

It confirms we can’t do furlough again, how are people supposed to self isolate if they don’t get paid?

@southeastdweller

I wish I could do a 'Pollyanna' and view this nightmare like you do. I'd be feeling less angry about all this immense cost for a bloody phoney war.

Thousands about to be made homeless as evictions can start from Sunday, but hey let’s congratulate ourselves on how many lives we’ve saved.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53851945

I think people are confusing the effects of lockdown, and the effects of coronavirus.

Lockdown didn't cause some hospitals to be full of seriously ill patients, to the point where they had to repurpose other wards in the hospital to critical care - that was coronavirus. The only alternative to that was to leave people to die in their homes.

The crisis in the NHS was significant, and will have ongoing and in some cases tragic consequences for years to come. But that is down to coronavirus, and taking no action to stop the spread would only have made things worse.

@CaptainMerica

I think people are confusing the effects of lockdown, and the effects of coronavirus.

Lockdown didn't cause some hospitals to be full of seriously ill patients, to the point where they had to repurpose other wards in the hospital to critical care - that was coronavirus. The only alternative to that was to leave people to die in their homes.

The crisis in the NHS was significant, and will have ongoing and in some cases tragic consequences for years to come. But that is down to coronavirus, and taking no action to stop the spread would only have made things worse.

I don't agree with that. Some hospitals had icu capacity stretched at the peak. Medical wards were half empty at the peak though. Nightingale hospitals weren't needed at all

Hospitals paused treatment so infection rates didn’t increase. It was to protect people.

In my opinion, had the elderly in care homes and hospitals been given the right protection, we would have saved many more lives and we could have followed the Swedish approach.

?? Sweden had an appalling death toll in its Care homes!

Also, how could we have given the right care without PPE in places and numbers of cases skyrocketing? If we wanted the elderly in hospital and care homes to have fared better, we needed to have acted sooner, not in a more relaxed way.

If the situation had been dealt with better in care homes many of these poor souls would not have died. It’s so sad. The places that should have been safest were definitely not :(

I don't agree with that. Some hospitals had icu capacity stretched at the peak. Medical wards were half empty at the peak though. Nightingale hospitals weren't needed at all

The NHS prepared for an even bigger surge than there was, which led to medical staff being transferred to support Covid response. In hindsight the NHS did more than the cases required, but it was impossible to predict beforehand. It was Covid that led to the NHS’s response, which was put/being put in place before lockdown.... If people are complaining that the capacity wasn’t needed, well, that was lockdown’s “fault”.

If the situation had been dealt with better in care homes many of these poor souls would not have died. It’s so sad. The places that should have been safest were definitely not

If we’d locked down sooner, the NHS would have been less likely to have panicked and discharged elderly patients to deal with a Covid surge (which did materialise in most places), and there would have been less Covid in hospitals in the first place.

If we’d locked down later or not at all, it would have been impossible to have kept Covid out of care homes irrespective of hospital discharge policy, as care workers would have inevitably have brought it in as Covid spread even more widely amongst the population. It’s hard to see how the disaster wouldn’t have been worse.

Thousands about to be made homeless as evictions can start from Sunday, but hey let’s congratulate ourselves on how many lives we’ve saved.

Obviously evictions are a tragedy but firstly, that’s less bad than thousands more dead, and had we simply acted as though it was the flu (even though it’s clearly not), it’s fanciful to think the economy wouldn’t have taken a hit that would have led to evictions.