Wow,look at the actual numbers on worldometer at the moment ..

[Layladylay234]

Current levels of infection: 7,007,039
Number of mild infections: 6,946,649 (99%)
Number of serious/critical cases: 60,390 (1%)

Do these numbers make anyone else think,what the fuck are we doing damaging the economy,our children's future and mental health for figures like this?

How dare you put a value on someone else's life and decide, that in your opinion, it's worth less than a "healthy" person

I dare because it is the system upon which every healthcare system in the world is based - inc our national totem, the NHS

See here for further info on this point.

We cannot run a country on sentimentality and populist politics.

*So you're ignoring all the vulnerable people of younger ages with life long medical conditions then - the people who could live another 10/20/30 years, or even a normal lifetime, but have immunity issues or lung issues caused by their medical conditions? Many of these people will be living normal lives, working, caring, etc

They are a tiny minority*

No, they/we are about half they shielders - over 1 million people in the UK.

Is it really so much worse to die of Covid than anything else?

Considering the manner of dying in so many cases (I don't want to go into details) and the loneliness of it, I would say yes, at the moment it is. The infection control measures involved mean that people die alone, in a hospital, without family, and I'm not sure how much comfort a masked, robed HCW can offer.

If we could improve the conditions, then perhaps not much worse than other ways to die. Agree that we should be much better than we are about dealing with death, but can't agree that a Covid death is a good one.

In what way is society being destroyed entirely? The bubonic plague didnt finish society entirely, neither did the world wars, I doubt not being able to gather in large groups socially for a few months is going to do it.

Is it really so much worse to die of Covid than anything else?

No, but if we treat Covid as “a bit of flu” then many more will die of non-Covid causes.

The percentage of serious cases is non-reliable on that website. Many countries, and states/counties within countries do not report ICU or hospitalisation numbers.

Sure, it might bring the time of a person's death forward by a few years, but surely throwing our DC under the bus in order to buy the elderly a few more years is just a non-starter as an argument.

I find this very chilling.

So an older person who could live 10 years has to die because you don’t like it? Because of an unknown economics that would have happened anyway? Because you don’t understand the situation and don’t want to understand it fully?

My child is facing a future where climate change will have a huge impact on them - economically, health wise, everything. Covid19 is a drop in the ocean compared.

Covid19 has impacted the economy but in specific sectors - service, travel. Other sectors have improved. It is not so clear cut at all.

I say it again but in capital letters as some people aren’t getting it.

SWEDEN’S ECONOMY IS AS BADLY HIT AS IT’S NORDIC NEIGHBOURS

So Sweden ‘threw’ several thousand older people to their early deaths for nothing.

Think about that before you willing say it is OK for vulnerable people to be hospitalised from Covid this winter.

@NikeDeLaSwoosh

So you're ignoring all the vulnerable people of younger ages with life long medical conditions then - the people who could live another 10/20/30 years, or even a normal lifetime, but have immunity issues or lung issues caused by their medical conditions? Many of these people will be living normal lives, working, caring, etc

They are a tiny minority.

When it is not possible to meet the needs of all (as it seems to be the case here) then the majority should be the ones who are prioritised.

I agree its an awful situation, but what we are doing now is destroying society entirely. It can't continue.

OK, so you think a million or more is a "tiny" minority?

[quote Porcupineinwaiting]@MorrisZapp how long do you think people would flood back to the theatres for if the numbers of COVID infections rises again? Do you really think we'll be saying "Oh there's 1,000 dying a day, let's book for the panto"?[/quote]
I was explaining why social distancing effects the economy, not arguing for reopening theatres.

Let’s say we do ask the vulnerable to isolate and the rest of us crack on. What if that doesn’t work and we find ourselves losing control - how do you pull back from that?

Both sides of the argument are nothing more than hypothesis. Restrictions may fail but at least it’s a loosely managed spread currently that is being observed and interventions implemented.

If you release further than we have currently what’s the back up plan?

I’m open to changing my mind on things (at least I try to be) but currently I have seen no convincing arguments for loosening restrictions further that even come close to acknowledging that they could be wrong and what they propose could be a solution if we went ahead and that was the case.

It’s a massive gamble to take on the popularity of internet calculations.

Isn’t Sweden’s economy worse hit than Finland’s which did have an enforced lockdown?

@IceCreamSummer20

Sure, it might bring the time of a person's death forward by a few years, but surely throwing our DC under the bus in order to buy the elderly a few more years is just a non-starter as an argument.

I find this very chilling.

So an older person who could live 10 years has to die because you don’t like it? Because of an unknown economics that would have happened anyway? Because you don’t understand the situation and don’t want to understand it fully?

My child is facing a future where climate change will have a huge impact on them - economically, health wise, everything. Covid19 is a drop in the ocean compared.

Covid19 has impacted the economy but in specific sectors - service, travel. Other sectors have improved. It is not so clear cut at all.

I say it again but in capital letters as some people aren’t getting it.

SWEDEN’S ECONOMY IS AS BADLY HIT AS IT’S NORDIC NEIGHBOURS

So Sweden ‘threw’ several thousand older people to their early deaths for nothing.

Think about that before you willing say it is OK for vulnerable people to be hospitalised from Covid this winter.

Which sectors have improved during Covid? Home deliveries are up but cannot possibly mitigate the job losses for shops and services now abandoned.

Yes, this isn't about the virus.
I can't believe how easily people conform, it's scary.

According to Radio 4’s More or Less programme Sweden’s economy has been hit to the same extent as most of the other Scandinavian nations despite not locking down.

@RafaIsTheKingOfClay

Isn’t Sweden’s economy worse hit than Finland’s which did have an enforced lockdown?

Yes - although on average all the Nordic countries have been hit economically at around the same level.

So I have no idea why posters are saying that we need to just ‘get back to normal’ to save the economy. There is no saving of the economy! Bit exasperated by the lack of knowledge people have - and are willing to use their lack of knowledge to justify older or vulnerable people’s deaths from Covid.

OK, so you think a million or more is a "tiny" minority?

It's not a million though.

2.5 million in the extremely vulnerable (shielding) group.

20 million in the vulnerable group (which included the elderly).

As always, none of the Covid minimisers will define which group they are referring to when volunteering to either sacrifice people or isolate "the vulnerable" so that they can go about normally.

@Egghead68

According to Radio 4’s More or Less programme Sweden’s economy has been hit to the same extent as most of the other Scandinavian nations despite not locking down.

Yes I’ve been banging on about this but any posters ‘against’ public health measures seems to totally ignore this.

Exasperated!

No.

This pandemic is still new. Its long-term effects on infected people are as yet unknown , but it's becoming clear that many survivors have not recovered their previous health and fitness. This is true even among the previoulsy healthy, who were not in any high-risk group, and did not go to hospital. Is this temporary, will the invalids ever get back to how they were? Only time will tell.

We also don't know if one infection provides immunity ; or if it leaves the "long term recoveree" more vulnerable to a second covid infection .

@MorrisZapp why don’t you want to address the flawed economic argument? You do know Sweden has been impacted just as badly don’t you? What point, exactly, are you trying to make?

@Egghead68

*So you're ignoring all the vulnerable people of younger ages with life long medical conditions then - the people who could live another 10/20/30 years, or even a normal lifetime, but have immunity issues or lung issues caused by their medical conditions? Many of these people will be living normal lives, working, caring, etc

They are a tiny minority*

No, they/we are about half they shielders - over 1 million people in the UK.

Perhaps frame this differently.

The people who were shielding are incredibly vulnerable - It would take very little to kill them.

Can we not look at this as these people having had the good fortune to have lived in times in which they can actually live beyond infancy?

In days gone by, they would have either died at birth, or shortly thereafter. Modern medicine has given them an incredible gift, but I think it a bit of a stretch to expect that someone so very vulnerable will live to a ripe old age.

We have become very used to living long lives, it as become the norm, and losing people too soon (especially DC) is seen as an utterly abnormal, dreadful thihng.

In reality, we only need to go back maybe 3 generations to a time when women had as many DC as they could, because they knew that not all would survive to adulthood (and hoped to survive childbirth themselves).

I think that the increased number and frequency of zoonotic leaps means that the good times might well be coming to an end. We can no longer expect vulnerable individuals to be able to 'cheat death' in the way they have been able to do.

Its sobering, but we may just need to adjust our expectations of life.

@NikeDeLaSwoosh You do know that your ‘argument’ is not based on the facts don’t you?

You do know that you have proposed that it is OK for people to die from Covid based on the flawed fact that it is balanced with a huge economic gain don’t you? You do know how worrying and chilling making such a huge mistake is for people’s lives?

Or do you not care as you do not seem to have read any posts that are reasoned and factual.

In days gone by, they would have either died at birth, or shortly thereafter. Modern medicine has given them an incredible gift, but I think it a bit of a stretch to expect that someone so very vulnerable will live to a ripe old age.

You're assuming the ECV people were born with life long conditions. That's false. Many have acquired medical conditions in later life, such as those with cancers diagnosed in middle age who would normally have a pretty good life expectancy with proper treatment etc as long as they avoid catching anything due to their impaired immunity. How about those with heart disease - most weren't born with heart problems but acquired them in their 50s.

[quote IceCreamSummer20]@NikeDeLaSwoosh You do know that your ‘argument’ is not based on the facts don’t you?

You do know that you have proposed that it is OK for people to die from Covid based on the flawed fact that it is balanced with a huge economic gain don’t you? You do know how worrying and chilling making such a huge mistake is for people’s lives?

Or do you not care as you do not seem to have read any posts that are reasoned and factual.[/quote]
The mitigation of a loss is not the same as a gain.

as long as they avoid catching anything due to their impaired immunity

This just isn't a reasonable expectation though.

Expecting the rest of the world to grind to a halt in an attempt to fulfil that unreasonable expectation is just madness

NikeDeLaSwoosh

That is disgusting.

Amongst those people would be children receiving treatment for cancer - that would be successful, would achieve a cure and they'll live normal lives. Or transplant recipients.

Amongst the vulnerable group are children with diabetes. Tell Steve Redgrave that he should think himself lucky that he survived a year or two after diagnosis. Has he lived a life of illness and disability?

Your attitude is still disgusting towards the more severely affected or disabled people. It is not for you to decide whose life has worth or who is able to be sacrificed so that some of you can go to the pub.