96 dead today...

[Homeontherangeuk]

But Boris knows what he's doing...

PS, I also have Long Covid.

'They seem to be calling all viruses COVID 19, we will always be susceptible to viruses & hiding away won’t change that.'
My problems aren't all that exceptional tbh.
Opening everything up at a time when hospitals are becoming overloaded with a new wave is absolutely ridiculous.
They are not calling all viruses Covid 19. wherever did you get that idea?

They seem to be calling all viruses COVID 19

Are you for real? First you state that Covid can be cured and now all viruses are Covid 19!

Neither of these statements are true. I’ve seen lots about Norovirus, and children with respiratory viruses, but they aren’t called Covid 19.

Unless I’ve missed something?

@Funguy

'They seem to be calling all viruses COVID 19, we will always be susceptible to viruses & hiding away won’t change that.' My problems aren't all that exceptional tbh. Opening everything up at a time when hospitals are becoming overloaded with a new wave is absolutely ridiculous. They are not calling all viruses Covid 19. wherever did you get that idea?

Apart fromt the fact they are not overloaded.... under 5 k at the moment.... over 40k in hospital during the winter wave...

People have this habit of trying to make it seem like people are all lying on the floor in waiting rooms with covid... its just not true right now.

@wantanotherdog

MrsFin Thank you.

My pleasure
It's been quite interesting actually.

Tuba437
Becoming overloaded, I said.
I didn't actually say people were lying on the floor...you did. Not my hyperbole.

The NHS have issued warnings as the winter flu will also be placing stress on staff and system .
They predict an escalation in rates of serious infection.

.

[quote Kazzyhoward]**@MiniTheMinx* There is no such thing as an acceptable number of deaths when we can prevent those deaths.*

Yes there is. It's always got to be a balance. Every single car death is preventable if we ban cars - but we're not going to do that because of the repercussions. Every air crash is preventable if we ban air travel. Some people could be kept alive a few days/weeks longer if £x,xxx,xxx is spent on them but it's decided that a few extra days isn't worth spending huge sums of money. At governmental level, the decisions have to be made as to the balance of saving lives against the consequences, whether those consequences are cost, harm to others, harm to society, etc.[/quote]
Yes we don't ban cars, or alcohol, or smoking to ameliorate all risk. Agreed. But we do have measures to control risk. I think too that the benefits of keeping people moving, and keeping goods moving far outweigh the risks. In terms of smoking and alcohol measures are in place to reduce the risk to others.

I'm not arguing, I'm just interested to see what number of deaths are acceptable to people and how they justify this.

Also, as much as we like to think that some people are pro lockdown, risk averse, and not selfish, whilst others are pro liberty, individualist, selfish and less risk averse I don't think its that simple. Both sides are actually using utilitarian arguments about what is the greater good for the greatest number of people. One side believes we must make individual sacrifices to save the greatest number of lives, the other side arguing we must have liberty for the greater number whilst sacrificing the lives of the few. Neither position is more correct than the other.

I am not sure how many lives are disposable, or rather what level of suffering and number of deaths I find acceptable. I do though think that we can't value one life more than another, no one life is more valuable than the liberty of the many, but the many would be morally bankrupt to sacrifice that one life for its liberty. And don't even think of arguing about economics, because death and long term disability and its burden upon the economy far outweigh the short term sharp decrease in GDP.

@PickleAF

I don't understand this idea people have that Boris alone is making all of these decisions off the top of his head? he's advised by panels of scientists and advisors and the hundreds of people work on providing the data that goes into these decisions. Yes people have died with (not always of!) covid, but the last time cases were this high thousands were dying.

Perhaps if he actually followed the advice of said scientists, we'd be in a better place. At the end of the day, he's leading the country, he's making decisions, he's responsible for fk up.

It's not do much about being overloaded with covid that is the issue. It is about the backlog which can only be cleared if hospital admissions remain low.

But we do have measures to control risk.

Yes and no. We could do significantly more on most scores. In fact, we don’t do very much, if anything, that impacts on how we like to live our lives. Unless you count things like speed limits and wearing seatbelts, which have very limited impact on my quality of life, let me tell you.

I'm just interested to see what number of deaths are acceptable to people and how they justify this.

The only reason we’re making it about numbers is because covid is the disease of mass data. No other illness gets this kind of treatment. Does the average person on the street even know how many cancer deaths there are in a year?

How many cancer deaths would there have to be to merit banning all alcohol and meat, taking most vehicles off the road to curtail pollution, raising taxes to 80% so we can fund very expensive treatments?

There seems to be this view that covid deaths are somehow ‘preventable’ in a way that cancer/flu/RTAs/heart disease aren’t. That’s not the case. We could minimise deaths from all these causes if we took the extraordinary measures we’ve taken for covid. We don’t.

@aubreyii

Quite frankly I no longer give a shit if thousands die. Humanity, unfortunately, can and will make many thousands more.

Crikey who pissed on your bonfire?

Is there seriously no human you care about? what about yourself? you are unfortunately still human and obviously at this time still alive! so I guess its just as well we aren't all such misanthropes.

Watching from afar. Can't believe how high the numbers in the UK (I'm in Canada; population is about half the size but new cases per day are in the 200s. Hospital admissions look relatively low at least, so maybe that's a big thumbs up for the vaccines?

No, hospitals aren’t getting overloaded. Where do you get your information from, sounds like scaremongering yet again.

@TheKeatingFive

But we do have measures to control risk.

Yes and no. We could do significantly more on most scores. In fact, we don’t do very much, if anything, that impacts on how we like to live our lives. Unless you count things like speed limits and wearing seatbelts, which have very limited impact on my quality of life, let me tell you.

I'm just interested to see what number of deaths are acceptable to people and how they justify this.

The only reason we’re making it about numbers is because covid is the disease of mass data. No other illness gets this kind of treatment. Does the average person on the street even know how many cancer deaths there are in a year?

How many cancer deaths would there have to be to merit banning all alcohol and meat, taking most vehicles off the road to curtail pollution, raising taxes to 80% so we can fund very expensive treatments?

There seems to be this view that covid deaths are somehow ‘preventable’ in a way that cancer/flu/RTAs/heart disease aren’t. That’s not the case. We could minimise deaths from all these causes if we took the extraordinary measures we’ve taken for covid. We don’t.

Covid, the disease of mass data. Yes I agree. Mass data, reporting, and fear inducing propaganda.

My best guess is that keeping cars on the road, keeping transport moving, labour mobile, fosil fuels burning, and expensive treatment over life saving treatment the choice of big pharma is that all these activities create 'value' its beneficial to the economy. Mass deaths and rising levels of disability are not.

Lockdowns and mass restrictions don’t bring value to the economy, I think you’ll find.

Deaths reported are a positive COVID case within 28 days prior to dying NOT necessarily the cause of death. People with weak immune systems, end of life care more likely to be in hospital/hospice and more likely to catch COVID cos we all know how clean and bug free hospitals are The figures given show what happens when men are in charge IMO - completely contradictory, poorly organized and confusing! I gave up believing ‘the figures’ a long time ago!! My next door neighbor had brain tumor diagnosed 6 months before COVID ‘arrived’ she was told it was inoperable and she chose home hospice care, her children came home from UNI to be with her in final days and gave her COVID… cause of death = COVID. Her husband had to fight to have the death certificate altered - it seems this type of erroneous recording has not changed

@TheKeatingFive

93% of brits have CV antibodies, via vaxx and natural, yet infection rates super hi.

I’m taking about actual reinfections after having Covid, not vaccine immunity.

Go google it. It happens, but thus far seems rare.

So you are saying natural immunity trumps Vaxx?

So if i had Alpha, i m far less likely to get Delta?

I don't thik there is any evidence for that at all.

I don't thik there is any evidence for that at all.

Gosh, just google it. It isn’t difficult. Reinfection happens, but is pretty rare, regardless of variant.

@TheKeatingFive

Lockdowns and mass restrictions don’t bring value to the economy, I think you’ll find.

Oh, well it hasn't enriched us for sure!

But the rich are getting richer

www-nbcnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1255506?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#aoh=16269032749399&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fnews%2Fworld%2Fworld-s-richest-become-wealthier-during-covid-pandemic-inequality-grows-n1255506

But the rich are getting richer

They tend to, regardless.

It isn’t the rich that concerns me however.

[quote Blessex]@jasjas1973 but you keep talking about infection levels and cases being the criteria for restrictions. They aren’t. It is hospitalisations and death.[/quote]
Not at all, but mild covers everything from a sniffle to 5 days in bed and 4 weeks off work - which is what i had, even went a shade of blue but not a hospital case, far from it.

We simply don't have the capacity to sustain huge numbers people off work and with huge numbers of infections comes more in hospital, less capacity to do other treatments or catch up on a predicted 13m backlog.

I appreciate where you are coming from and i also think we aren't miles apart, i just want a little more caution and more science, less dates, more data.

@Ratalie

Watching from afar. Can't believe how high the numbers in the UK (I'm in Canada; population is about half the size but new cases per day are in the 200s. Hospital admissions look relatively low at least, so maybe that's a big thumbs up for the vaccines?

@Ratalie Canada has half the population of the U.K. and is 41 times bigger. We have lots of people crammed into a tiny area that’s why it spreads so easily. If you add in the fact that we have an elderly, unfit and obese population it’s no wonder our numbers are high.

@TheKeatingFive

I don't thik there is any evidence for that at all.

Gosh, just google it. It isn’t difficult. Reinfection happens, but is pretty rare, regardless of variant.

So, vaxx antibodies are different from natural immunity acquired ones? Gosh!

So, vaxx antibodies are different from natural immunity acquired ones?

Why would that be surprising?

@TheKeatingFive

But the rich are getting richer

They tend to, regardless.

It isn’t the rich that concerns me however.

It should do as we need more tax take to pay for CV measures and more healthcare. the way i see it is, if these people can become even richer in a pandemic there is something very wrong with our tax system - worldwide, not just UK.