Glasgow, East Renfrewshire and West Dumbartonshire restrictions

[Ginger1982]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53989021

The governments need to accept that the virus can’t be eliminated and life needs to go on. There will be deaths as there are for other illnesses every day. There is also no way of stopping people from visiting family and friends.

They need to open up as much as possible to keep people fit and well. Leisure and NHS.

They need to stop people living in the terror they created. Yes, it’s a nasty virus, but it’s very rarely deadly. People would be happy to take the odds if diagnosed with any other disease!

It’s fine if people don’t want to go out, but the rest of society needs to function again, or we will have no healthcare, never mind theatres, music, gyms, restaurants, outdoor education: it goes on and on.

And yes, some people just want to go outdoors and enjoy that, but it’s not weird to want friends over for dinner either.

My DP has a disease which will impact his health greatly in years to come and it’s really made us see how life is for living and risks worth taking to make the most of it while you can.

I have written to plenty of MSP (and some MP).
You are lucky if you get a copy and paste press release as a reply. The standard reply being...silence.
(And note, when I do write I try to make a cogent argument, I don't just cut and paste stuff).
My SNP MSP is probably the worse. I almost enjoy spamming him now and again. You get nothing out of all of them. NOTHING!
At least in England they pretend to do something for their constituents, here... ZILCH.

My MSP is Derek Mackay 😭

You are lucky if you get a copy and paste press release as a reply. The standard reply being...silence.

Exactly.

Standard reply, no personalisation. Lots of waffle about other things entirely unrelated to Covid.

There's no point contacting a SNP MP/MSP as they are obliged to toe the party line and never contradict anything said by Sturgeon/Swinney/whoever. 9 times out of 10 you don't even get a reply from the person themselves, it comes from an aide, or a lackey in the office.

I do wonder if in a few years time we will collectively look back at this and think it was all a massive overreaction. At the time lockdown was completely justified because there seemed to be a real chance that the NHS would be overwhelmed, but looking at where we are now (empty hospitals, a death rate of around 0.1%, excess deaths above average driven by other causes, and an economy/society on its knees) I think you have to really question if the balance is right. We’ve completely lost sight of the fact that life is filled with ‘risk’ and a couple of thousand people die every day in the U.K. in normal times.

I also think it’s worth remembering that there isn’t one ‘science’, and which science you choose to believe is to some extent political. In Scotland we seem to have been following Devi Sridhar’s ‘zero COVID’ ideas which sounded great a couple of months ago, but now we’re out again (and cases are thus rising again) haven’t aged well. Unfortunately you do get the impression that we’re in just the same place with the virus as elsewhere, but with greater economic problems as we didn’t open up so quickly. Devi Sridhar always seemed in the minority (amongst experts) in her belief that elimination was even possible, and now I’m starting to see why.

I also noted the tone of yesterday’s address, with the stress on the need for balance when considering lockdowns. I think it is finally dawning on the Scottish Government that we can’t eliminate the virus, and instead need to balance its harms against those caused by restrictions to the rest of society, perhaps even accepting that there will be more COVID deaths. I also think that people have reached the limit of what they are willing to accept. This existence is not life - never interacting with anyone, always anxious about whether you’re following ‘the rules’ well enough or whether your life will be restricted again. At some point you just have to say enough is enough. COVID harm is not the only harm.

You were not flinching at the 10+K flu deaths every year (not to mention the much higher peaks) in the UK alone, were you?

Just on the flu COVID comparison thing (and arkadia, your remarks are a bit shit. You have no idea what I do or do not flinch at). Nevertheless, it reminded me of this article I read recently.

'1 Spring Of COVID-19 Took Far Higher Toll Than 5 Flu Seasons, Boston Hospital Finds'

www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2020/09/04/bidmc-flu-covid-toll-boston-hospital

"It's abundantly clear that the coronavirus is far worse than the flu in many ways, and new researchh^ from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center offers some numbers that suggest exactly how much worse.^
^
The pre-publication paper compares Beth Israel’s experience with all the flu patients the hospital admitted over five years — more than 1,000 of them — to 583 COVID-19 patients hospitalized in March and April.

“We identified 119 deaths from COVID-19 in two months, compared to 34 deaths from influenza over five seasons, or 40 months," says the paper's lead author, Dr. Michael Donnino. "The ratio of those numbers is just astonishing."

... and the article goes on to outline other key differences between COVID and flu.

@chocciechocface,

I was not claiming there are similarities between flu and covid, only that the flu has 10+K deaths PER YEAR, and WITH a vaccine.
Yet, nobody bats an eyelid.

Flu and cold weather contributed towards 50,000 excess winter deaths last year
3 December 2018 By Beth Gault

There were over 50,000 excess winter deaths in England and Wales last winter, the highest recorded since 1975/76, according to data released by the Office of National Statistics (ONS).

The increase is thought to be a result of the prevalence of flu last year, alongside ineffectiveness of the flu vaccine and colder than usual temperatures in the 2017/18 winter period, according to the ONS.

The excess winter mortality rate, which compares the numbers of deaths between December and March to the average number of deaths across the rest of the year, continued to be the highest in females and people aged 85 and over.

I didn't know any of that until someone linked the info somewhere. Did you know? 50k excess deaths just 3 years ago? The info is widely available, yet it never really hit the media, or at least I never knew.

I've seen that info before Arkadia but you get piles of abuse if you happen to mention flu in any context in the same thread as Covid.

I didn't know any of that until someone linked the info somewhere. Did you know? 50k excess deaths just 3 years ago?

I did actually. I am conscious of flu every year because DH is vulnerable.

But this particular year was was brought to my attention again a few months ago by a statistician I follow on Twitter, who showed how people in certain conspiracy theory groups were manipulating facts by sharing graphs comparing flu cases from three years ago, to Covid cases over a couple of the early months this year.

He pointed out that they specifically chose that year, because it was a bad year for flu, to try make the case flu was as serious, if not more serious, than COVID. He noted that if they done the same with subsequent or previous years, they'd have failed in their objective. He re-did the graphs to compare a five year average of flu (which includes that year) to COVID, and COVID was way out there on the killer scale.

And it did hit the media. Don't know how you didn't notice. So, maybe I actually do care more about flu than you since it registered on my radar at the time.

@chocciechocface, I don't understand where the statistician comes in. The article I posted comes from the daily telegraph and was written well before all this hoo-ha, so no conspirators here.
My point, as it seems it is necessary to elaborate it, is that at the time as far as I can remember - but, as you know, I was paying no attention - there were no school closures, no masks, no nothing. Even the libraries were open!

I'll tell you even more, I wasn't even aware that flu killed so many people until relatively recently, in fact I could really never understand what the point of the flu vaccine was (again, I am talking about my younger and more serene days). The whole thing didn't really hit the media, and unless you were an interested party you were oblivious to it. In other words, it wasn't shoved down your throat three times a day minimum.

Why is measure in lack of deaths considered success? I had the illness 6 months ago, mild case. I’m waiting for the results of a chest X-ray to see if there is permanent damage to my lungs as I still get breathless all the time. I’m apparently a success story because I didn’t die. Yet I struggle daily with basic tasks still. I have fatigue and I struggle to breathe. I wasn’t like this before covid.

The idea no deaths is a success and 200+ ill each day is no big deal is only OK if you don’t consider how serious and long term this disease can be. The cost long term to the nhs could run into many millions as more people get the illness and are left with long term symptoms and flare ups requiring support and treatment. It’s shortsighted to not consider this as a mark of failure.

The idea we need to ignore restrictions because it’s not killing 10,000 a year denies the disease’s potential to be life altering for so many,

There were no such measures and no media hooha. Nor was there when swine flu hit, and it was dangerous for children and young people.

We also need to wait to see what excess deaths there have been as many people who died would have died this year anyway. I’m not dismissing people’s lives as worthless. It is relevant statistically though, along with the deaths that will fallen prematurely over the next couple of years from undetected cancers and so on.

It’s a balance.

@WouldBeGood

There were no such measures and no media hooha. Nor was there when swine flu hit, and it was dangerous for children and young people.

We also need to wait to see what excess deaths there have been as many people who died would have died this year anyway. I’m not dismissing people’s lives as worthless. It is relevant statistically though, along with the deaths that will fallen prematurely over the next couple of years from undetected cancers and so on.

It’s a balance.

There all sorts of claims about people who will die because of deferred treatment, mental health etc. I don't doubt there will by cases of this, I'm just not convinced of the scale.

I assume these statements are based on actual data? Who has access to this and who is doing the analysis etc that you are drawing your conclusions from? Evidence...?

This is one (although not the one I was thinking of)
www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-is-behind-the-increase-of-non-covid-related-deaths-

From cancer specialists who are publicly concerned.

That’s in addition to my other point about the inability to assess excess deaths yet.

I personally wouldn't share the Spectator link as 'evidence'. It's really just a journo commenting on research. If you look at other stuff he has written, I would say he has a particular angle, and it's not necessarily objective.

This is a better link:

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/907616/s0650-direct-indirect-impacts-covid-19-excess-deaths-morbidity-sage-48.pdf

I haven't read it in full. Children are home and too much noise. But it's not necessarily cut and dried. There's this response to the research:

Dr Jason Oke, Senior Statistician at the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, said:

“It is likely that reduced emergency care in hospitals and the postponement or cancellation of elective operations by the NHS in preparation for COVID-19 led directly to a substantial number of non COVID-19 deaths, and many years of life lost during the height of the pandemic. It is less clear however whether not taking these actions would have resulted in a better outcome. It is possible that if services were run as normal we might have seen fewer non-COVID-19 deaths but a higher number of COVID-19 deaths through people becoming infected whilst being in hospital. There is also a question of whether some reduced capacity was inevitable with many NHS staff absent from work through sickness or self-isolation during the pandemic.”

The bold bit is where I'm unresolved. I don't know. And I'm not sure we will know until we're out the other side. But I don't think claiming doing nothing would have given a better outcome, as a bald statement of fact, is necessarily true. It seems more nuanced than that to me.

I don't think many have advocated for not doing anything in terms of an initial lockdown. The issue really is are we still doing too much? Is what we are doing efffective or required?

My BiL is now terminally ill with cancer, we don't know if earlier identification and treatment may have helped. Chemo nearly killed him so that's now out. Just a waiting game it might been the same regardless of Covid but we don't really know. I suspect there will be a lot of cases where it's not cut and dried.

But don't worry - the fans can go to the football www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54061580

I don't think many have advocated for not doing anything in terms of an initial lockdown.

Actually, I think a lot of people have objected to it. A minority, I'm sure (I hope). But they're out there. A friend of mine certainly has, and she's on a forum where there were loads of people objecting to lockdown. Their view, as I read it, is we should trust our immune systems and let herd immunity take place. That the government should have put all its energy into public information on diet exercise etc.

I'm really sorry your BIL is having a hellish time.

[quote readsalotgirl63]But don't worry - the fans can go to the football www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54061580[/quote]

Oh FFS. 🤦‍♀️

Well, I would be satisfied with getting my teeth sorted...
I agree that the spectator is hardly a scientific journal (but it isn't the daily mail either). Anyway, he seems to have got his info from here
www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/analysisofdeathregistrationsnotinvolvingcoronaviruscovid19englandandwales28december2019to1may2020/28december2019to10july2020
as I recognise the vocabulary. In any case, a very interesting read.
In particular (selective quote):

In our previous analysis, between 7 March and 1 May 2020, non-COVID-19 deaths were 15.3% above five-year average levels for that period; from then up until 10 July, non-COVID-19 deaths have been 6.0% below the average.

Weekly non-COVID-19 deaths now look comparable with early 2020, before deaths involving COVID-19 were registered.

Deaths in private homes (a personal residence) are still occurring above five-year average levels; since week ending 26 July, there have been more excess (above average) non-COVID-19 deaths in private homes than COVID-19 deaths in all settings (hospitals, care homes, private homes and others combined) each week.

I believe the initial BJ approach would have been the best one, after all this is what they are advocating now (plus masks).
Shame that he then got led astray, but with hindsight it is easy.
Then we got lumbered with lively Devi... disaster for Scotland.

Well, I would be satisfied with getting my teeth sorted...

I hope this is an area we'll start seeing changes. Dentistry, opticians, etc. With a better idea of how the virus is transmitted, better PPE, better testing (🙄) maybe people will be able to work out safe ways to treat patients. But again, I do think it takes time to get to grips with it all. I personally wouldn't want to be leaning into people's faces with spray flying everywhere. Not without testing safety first.

@Arkadia

I believe the initial BJ approach would have been the best one, after all this is what they are advocating now (plus masks). Shame that he then got led astray, but with hindsight it is easy. Then we got lumbered with lively Devi... disaster for Scotland.

Which approach was that?