It's just an overreaction.

[madcow88]

Now don't get me wrong I followed the rules to the letter and still am doing as I don't want to break the law.

However I think it's all a massive overreaction and I don't want to sit by and allow my children's generation to be destroyed.

Their education is totally fucked, they will not get to have the same social experiences as we did as young people.

Why is everyone happily sitting by and allowing our government to restrict our lives over a virus that kills 0.01% of people. Whilst 1000s of people are dying every day due to the lack of treatment and social interactions.

I really just do not feel comfortable with all the laws on our freedom being changed so dramatically over a virus if truth be told is not as deadly as they would like us to be believed.

Don't get me wrong I have sympathy for those people who lost their lives and for the people who will lose their lives in the future but no more than for the people who die of flu and other viruses each year.

Oh god will somebody remove the internet from these people.Why do you think the NHS didn't become overrun? A) because there was a lockdown and loads of restrictive measures B) BecauseSweden C) Because Covid is overrated? Give you a clue. It's not C. Or B.

This, so much this!

I find it so difficult to get my head around the arguments of those who think that if we didn't have restrictions everything would somehow be fine and dandy and all would be well with the NHS and all the treatment for everything would be as normal. Then go on to cite the fact that 'the NHS was not overwhelmed' as evidence for this position. How on earth can they not see the blaring truth in front of them about why it was not overwhelmed, and what would happen if we let Covid rip through as they wish? It's baffling and it's maddening.

You know what it reminds me of? All those people who said the millennium bug was a big scaremongering fuss about nothing because it didn't happen. While completely discounting all the months and years of work in the IT industry in order to mitigate the issues and so ensure it didn't happen. It's exactly the same kind of incongruous, disconnected thinking - that we should stop restrictions because the NHS coped.

And don't get me started on the ableism and ageism because I'm just done with that as a CEV individual myself.

The basic problem is that this government is so inept and lacking in integrity and this acts as a justification (for some) for ignoring what they say.

They did make a bog-up of everything in the beginning which is why we are here now - they are continuing to make a bog-up - test and trace is a joke - who is going to get themselves tested when potentially the result might mean if they slip up at all during self-isolation they could get fined £1000+ ? Better to keep quiet in the first place - what a disaster! Just when we need everyone to come forward and be tested if they have symptoms.

They are idiots - but the science is not. We have to ignore the ineptitude of the government and do everything we can to keep everyone safe.

There is just no evidence that hospitals would have been overwhelmed without lockdown @Madhairday. If the people who are vulnerable to hospitalisation are shielded, the vast majority will not catch it.

In March we simply didn’t have the data we do now on exactly who is at risk- we now know that people without certain underlying health conditions are at virtually no risk.

These individuals need to be allowed to keep the economy going to ensure we can do tibié to fund the NHS services that the vulnerable rely on.

[quote Ecosse]@Derbygerbil

Rubbish- the 2502 figure only includes those who’ve died after a positive test (of which there were very few available back in March).

The actually figure from National Records of Scotland is 4500.[/quote]
You really seem to be picking and choosing which figures to use now. Earlier you said that figures for the UK based on deaths after a positive test were over estimated. I quote:

Even the 40,000 deaths after a positive test were not all caused by COVID- many of these deaths occurred in people over the age of 80 who would have had lots of health conditions

Yet now you are saying figures based on a deaths after a positive test are underestimated for Scotland?

(Your post of Sun 20-Sep-20 14:05:11)

I am confused.

‘There is just no evidence that hospitals would have been overwhelmed without lockdown’

Except that some of the hospitals already were overwhelmed when we did lock down, having to send people to other hospitals and converting spaces into extra wards. Our local hospital described it as ‘15 years of sick patients arriving within a fortnight.’

Also you don’t have to be someone who would need to shield to end up needing hospital treatment. The percentage of people needing hospital treatment far outweighed those who died. It’s not like hospitals were sitting empty before Covid. This time round they also have Flu on top of it to deal with.

@eufycurious

But unfortunately deaths following a positive test is the really the only way we can compare different countries (exaggerated as they are).

The previous poster was trying to argue that Sweden had a higher death rate than Scotland. The comparable figures demonstrate that that is nonsense- Sweden has a much lower death rate.

@Namenic

I can tell you that you are making assumptions. There is a lot of planning that has already been going in to preparation for a second wave .the nightingale hospitals thank goodness were not needed last time and it’s staffing that is more the issue. If you check government figures there are a lot of nhs staff off already .

If everyone has this don’t care attitude let’s hope you are not in an accident and a covid patient is taking up your nursing care.

You should speak to the people who had to cope with this last time rather than listen to the media.

I have not seen one poster come up with a workable solution.
Just getting on with it just won’t work .

It has to be a combination of science led plus economic considerations or else the nhs will have no money coming in to pay for helping any of us.

And that is a fact.

@TheSunIsStillShining

1. The OED gives, as the second sense of inoculation: ' 2. Pathology. The introduction into the body, by puncture of the skin, or through a wound, of the virus or germs of an infectious disease.

a. Originally applied, after 1700, to the intentional introduction of the virus of smallpox in order to induce a mild and local attack of the disease, and render the subject immune from future contagion; also, in 1799, to vaccine inoculation, afterwards called vaccination n.; and in 19th cent. to the similar treatment of other infectious or contagious diseases.'

So, the first meaning of the word is intentionally introducing a virus or disease to an organism. The second meaning, historically later and derived from the first, is vaccination. i.e. vaccination is one way of inducing immunity in an individual or a herd.

If you don't know what a word means, the OED can be a helpful tool!

2. There is nothing simple (other than in the sense of 'stupid') about calculating the percentage of diagnosed UK cases who died (10%) and using it as a prognostic tool. To be classified as a case at the height of the pandemic you had to be ill enough to be admitted to hospital. No asymptomatic cases were counted; nor were the vast majority of symptomatic ones. They weren't even tested. (I have had covid, confirmed by antibody test, and am not a 'case', although I was invited to donate plasma.) I should not need to explain this to you at this point.

3. As we have already said, the IFR of covid-19 is, even according to the most pessimistic interpretations of the data, far too low for 2 million UK citizens to die. Inoculating those at lowest risk would AT WORST produce deaths far lower than those we've already had. There are many reasons why it might not be accepted or even a reasonable idea, but it obviously wouldn't kill 'millions or 100s of thousands'.

4. Agreed, wars don't happen because people want to be heroes. But the rhetoric of heroism (which encourages individual self-sacrifice for the common good) plays an important role in winning them. A leader who couldn't bank on some proportion of the population to fight would be foolish to start or be enticed into war.

5. Not getting ass drunk on Thursdays is indeed, in itself, no sacrifice. But education isn't a thing that can be 'done later'. Making a group of lifelong friends at university isn't something that can be 'done later', either, if you graduate (and incur all the usual debt) without ever being able to attend or meet other students. Being diagnosed with and cured of cancer isn't something that can be delayed for a year or more. Losing a significant proportion of your future earning potential isn't trivial. There is nothing irresponsible about wanting to protect these things for young people.

6. There is no guarantee that we will have a safe, effective, universally available vaccine in 'a while'.

And, no, perhaps language isn't my best friend. I wouldn't want it to be! But, as a university professor, I do, oddly enough, find myself on nodding terms with the meanings of English words, basic reasoning, the ability to analyse data without making catastrophic errors, and, perhaps most importantly, intellectual civility.

Rational debate is fun. Try it.

Totally agree OP!

Should be up to the individual to take it upon themselves to isolate or quarantine.

We shouldn't have imposed restriction of movement. Where are our human rights?

@HarrietOh

How do you advise the NHS run as they did pre-COVID when the hospitals are over run?

But they're not, are they? The Nightinggale didn't have one person!!!

@WILTY43

Totally agree OP!

Should be up to the individual to take it upon themselves to isolate or quarantine.

We shouldn't have imposed restriction of movement. Where are our human rights?

So you think it's your decision and your human right to risk other people's lives? I expect you would also call drunk driving a human right wouldn't you.

It's a shame we have to live in the same country as people who think like that.

@HarrietOh

How do you advise the NHS run as they did pre-COVID when the hospitals are over run?

No one who wants things to just go back to normal ever seems to answer this question.

@BlueBlancmange

No one is saying everything should go back to normal- clearly measures like social distancing and masks need to remain in place. Premises like nightclubs must remain closed.

However, we cannot afford to decimate the economy and our DC’s figures today out another lockdown.

We need to focus on protecting and shielding those who are actually at risk from this virus. Their wages should be paid and food deliveries provided. That way the vast majority will avoid catching it and hospitals will not be overwhelmed.

Personally i would also put NHS staff on emergency contracts to enable them to be redeployed anywhere they are needed around the country. This would help deal with local outbreaks and prevent beds going unused for lack of staff.

It makes no sense having nurses sitting idle in Plymouth when they could be staffing a Nightingale in Birmingham.

It is alarming so many low-intellect sociopaths have been allowed to breed. One worries for the future of humanity. The essence of all these threads - aside from an odd refusal to read widely from any 'news' source other than David Icke, god bless his cotton socks - seems to spring from a very basic set of responses:

Covid-19, I don't like it.
Restrictions to my 'rights' (aka wants and whims), I don't like it.

ButSweden, I like it!
Olds dying and freeing up quality housing (that is my 'right'), I like it!

Also, suffering from an odd delusion that of all the top medical, scientific, and economic advisors and strategists in the world, they alone can see the situation for what it is! Madness. And you walk among us.

@LastTrainEast no...

I'm saying if you're at risk or vulnerable you should isolate

If not, let us crack on. I've had it, I was ill for a week but nothing serious. Lost my taste - that was the worst part!! My husband was confirmed too, he is still quite tired and not 100%. My sons had it and they had no symptoms.

I'm not saying this as someone who thinks they're immune. I just don't think we can keep locking down forever. If you're vulnerable then you should be isolating and we should create herd immunity.

@cbt944

How come the countries that have performed best in the world then have done so without a lockdown or with a very light one?

Germany, South Korea, Hong Kong etc

Oh, lockdown, I don't like it.

It robs me of my ability to learn basic facts, readily available since March on each countries' preparedness or otherwise to handle a pandemic.

@Ecosse haven’t those countries all had very good contact tracing system,SD and masks especially in Hong Kong and S Korea. People complying with the rules

If not, let us crack on. I've had it, I was ill for a week but nothing serious. Lost my taste - that was the worst part!! My husband was confirmed too, he is still quite tired and not 100%. My sons had it and they had no symptoms.

I'm glad you and your family did relatively well. But this is called 'anecdotal evidence.' It may not be everyone's experience and, therefore, you can't advise everyone to 'crack on' on that basis.

If I never hear the phrase 'crack on' again it'll be too soon!

I have an old friend who keeps saying it, she sounds so out of touch.

'I'm worried my relative who is immuno compromised could catch it'
'We just need to crack on!'

Personally i would also put NHS staff on emergency contracts to enable them to be redeployed anywhere they are needed around the country. This would help deal with local outbreaks and prevent beds going unused for lack of staff.

As I thought cloud cuckoo land. NHS trusts already deploy staff to other areas/hospitals within their trust. What you're suggesting is sending staff all over the country but these staff are human beings with families. They are not military personnel who can be called up and posted just anywhere!

@Ecosse

But unfortunately deaths following a positive test is the really the only way we can compare different countries (exaggerated as they are). The previous poster was trying to argue that Sweden had a higher death rate than Scotland. The comparable figures demonstrate that that is nonsense- Sweden has a much lower death rate.

The contradictions here are blatant... Surely you can see them.

Firstly you state that it’s difficult to compare countries and that deaths after a positive test is the only way to do it.

You then chide me for seeking to compare Scotland and Sweden on exactly that basis!

@Ecosse

The irony is, I think we can learn a lot from Sweden, but you’re “over-egging the pudding”.

How come the countries that have performed best in the world then have done so without a lockdown or with a very light one?

Germany, South Korea, Hong Kong etc

Those countries may not have had the exact same rule set as the UK but they certainly didn't carry on with business as normal.

They put restrictions in place PDQ regarding SD, masks etc and I think for example HKG shut all schools very very early on in the outbreak..oh and asineedaholidaynow said: people complied with the rules...