Relaxation of restrictions

ITman88

Nermal wrote: »

Forcing us to stay indoors in case we catch a virus with a 0.25% chance of killing us is the stoic course of action, then?

Convince people something is dangerous enough, and they will beg for protection at all costs.

Blueshoe

Nermal wrote: »

Forcing us to stay indoors in case we catch a virus with a 0.25% chance of killing us is the stoic course of action, then?

The idea is to support our healthcare system by reducing numbers as much as possible so they don't become overwhelmed and people are given sedatives and let die because there isn't enough equipment to go around.

Basic stuff. Has been repeated since day 1

Glenomra

The Swedish approach looking more and more the correct one imo.

Plumbthedepths

Bandana boy wrote: »

Well then I think if you can not be moved by a missing 1.4M dead Chinese people to your theories then I am pretty sure their is no evidence can break through to you.

Continue on so

Mao was responsible for the death of over 20 million of his people, yet he is revered by their descendants. Again I would not be surprised at what official China is capable of. There was a cover up of this virus until a brave Chinese doctor broke the news. The Chinese were aware of the outbreak well before November last year.

Tell me how

housemouse wrote: »

Or it will prolong the crisis, since it will take longer for the virus to spread (which it will do anyway).

Social distancing means that the old and vulnerable will need to be sheltered from contact with the young and healthy for longer.

So, do you think what has happened in Italy/Spain would be good to see replicated worldwide?

Plumbthedepths

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I thought everything had to be shut down at night, the blackout etc.

They had blackout wardens but pubs etc were still open once they adhered to blackout rules. The British understood that whilst being open could cost some lives, morale of the population took precedence.

lainey_d_123

Blueshoe wrote: »

The idea is to support our healthcare system by reducing numbers as much as possible so they don't become overwhelmed and people are given sedatives and let die because there isn't enough equipment to go around.

Basic stuff. Has been repeated since day 1

Exactly. And once the peak is over and the number of cases has stabilised, ideally at a low level, the lockdown has to end.

Anyone who thinks we'll all be sitting at home until this is 'over' is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Idbatterim

Nermal wrote: »

Forcing us to stay indoors in case we catch a virus with a 0.25% chance of killing us is the stoic course of action, then?

way less than .25% chance if you are young right? assuming that is the average for entire population...

housemouse

Tell me how wrote: »

So, do you think what has happened in Italy/Spain would be good to see replicated worldwide?

This is not an argument. I can also mention countries to you: Iceland, Sweden, South Korea.

Tell me how

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

They had blackout wardens but pubs etc were still open once they adhered to blackout rules. The British understood that whilst being open could cost some lives, morale of the population took precedence.

You are not comparing like with like.

Do you think the pubs would have been open if the mode of attack was suicide bombers bringing grenades in to each pub?

niallo27

Tell me how wrote: »

So, do you think what has happened in Italy/Spain would be good to see replicated worldwide?

It shouldnt though with proper social distancing and lighter restrictions. These countries went crazy because nobody knew it even existed until it was too late. The vulnerable in these countries had no chance to isolate.

lainey_d_123

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

They had blackout wardens but pubs etc were still open once they adhered to blackout rules. The British understood that whilst being open could cost some lives, morale of the population took precedence.

This is why it's so ironic that people keep comparing it to the blitz and the war. It's the exact opposite approach of what was done then. It's obviously not the same situation given that we're dealing with a virus, but back then it was 'keep calm and carry on', not 'shut everything down'.

This particular situation has never been seen before in our lifetimes (in this country) and is uniquely challenging.

Blueshoe

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Exactly. And once the peak is over and the number of cases has stabilised, ideally at a low level, the lockdown has to end.

Anyone who thinks we'll all be sitting at home until this is 'over' is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Restrictions will have to be eased back for sure.

Tell me how

housemouse wrote: »

This is not an argument. I can also mention countries to you: Iceland, Sweden, South Korea.

Iceland/South Korea implemented intensive testing.
The UK were going to take the approach of seeking herd immunity but could not do anything like the testing done elsewhere so the made a rapid change.

So, what do you think countries who cannot do widespread testing should do?

Nermal

Idbatterim wrote: »

way less than .25% chance if you are young right? assuming that is the average for entire population...

Correct.

Nermal

Nermal wrote: »

Forcing us to stay indoors in case we catch a virus with a 0.25% chance of killing us is the stoic course of action, then?

You're not being forced to stay indoors in case you catch a virus.

Plumbthedepths

Tell me how wrote: »

You are not comparing like with like.

Do you think the pubs would have been open if the mode of attack was suicide bombers bringing grenades in to each pub?

I suggest you read my response to the poster who made the reference to draconian measures during the Blitz I already stated conflating the the present and the Blitz was a poor analogy.
The rest of your comment is what if nonsense.
The analogy you gave is the equivalent of using a wrecking ball to hammer a tack.
Suicide bombers are a finite resource as are grenades. Would you use these valuable resources to blow up a rural pub with 2 patrons or an urban pub with 100 patrons.

lainey_d_123

Tell me how wrote: »

You are not comparing like with like.

Do you think the pubs would have been open if the mode of attack was suicide bombers bringing grenades in to each pub?

There have been some terrible terror attacks in London, including fairly recently, and things opened back up and kept going. You don't hear anyone saying they're afraid to go to Borough Market because they might get murdered. There were loads of attacks on pubs in the North during and even after the Troubles, and they didn't all get shut down.

Tell me how

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

There have been some terrible terror attacks in London, including fairly recently, and things opened back up and kept going. You don't hear anyone saying they're afraid to go to Borough Market because they might get murdered. There were loads of attacks on pubs in the North during and even after the Troubles, and they didn't all get shut down.

SMH.

The likelihood of occurrence of such attacks versus the contagion spread of this virus should not need to be pointed out, but apparently it does.

Speakerboxx

Blueshoe wrote: »

Unlikely. People are complaining about restrictions , people want life to return to normal. Few months after this passes society will be the same as always. The rat race will return!

We will see about that.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Tell me how wrote: »

So, do you think what has happened in Italy/Spain would be good to see replicated worldwide?

What happened in Italy and Spain? And what has how they have done effected their statistics?

Nermal

Blueshoe wrote: »

The idea is to support our healthcare system by reducing numbers as much as possible so they don't become overwhelmed and people are given sedatives and let die because there isn't enough equipment to go around.

Basic stuff. Has been repeated since day 1

Basic? In that case:

Show me how many QALYS we have saved doing this.

Show me how much we spent on them.

Tell me how

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I suggest you read my response to the poster who made the reference to draconian measures during the Blitz I already stated conflating the the present and the Blitz was a poor analogy.
The rest of your comment is what if nonsense.
The analogy you gave is the equivalent of using a wrecking ball to hammer a tack.
Suicide bombers are a finite resource as are grenades. Would you use these valuable resources to blow up a rural pub with 2 patrons or an urban pub with 100 patrons.

If you thought it was what if nonsense, you'd have been better off not editing your post to try to counter the point. And failing to do so.

Blueshoe

Nermal wrote: »

Basic? In that case:

Show me how many QALYS we have saved doing this.

Show me how much we spent on them.

What is Qalys?

Plumbthedepths

Tell me how wrote: »

If you thought it was what if nonsense, you'd have been better off not editing your post to try to counter the point. And failing to do so.

I did think it was nonsense but I also thought it was important to demonstrate why it was nonsense.
My edit was for some poor spelling and needing to be concise. I would not wish to give pedantic behaviour an outlet.
You do understand people are entitled to edit what they wrote. You almost behave as if it's dishonest. A ninja edit would be dishonest.

Nermal

Blueshoe wrote: »

What is Qalys?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year

terrydel

housemouse wrote: »

You've already been told to stop squabbling with someone else. Your posts add no value and you fully deserve to be threadbanned.

So you are a fascist now? You dont make the rules around here, but given your supreme arrogance and ignorance I'm not the least suprised that you think you do.
Keep counting your likes.

housemouse

Nermal wrote: »

Basic? In that case:

Show me how many QALYS we have saved doing this.

Show me how much we spent on them.

Perfect response. That is the missing data.

All the signs point to a horrific cost, a waste of resources that could easily exceed the cost of the bank bailouts.

Lockdown defenders are standing on a mountain of burning money, having been fully convinced by the media that there was no alternative.

terrydel

brutes1 wrote: »

936 deaths. Only 46 of those without other health conditions .
The numbers quoted hide the true picture. How many actually die because of Covid? Or how many die with it but as a result of their underlying condition. ?The vast majority I suspect

Media and propaganda works. Question more.

from BBC
Britain's deadliest day since the Covid-19 outbreak began saw 936 more people die after testing positive.

The Department for Health confirmed the UK-wide total of 7,172 included 828 deaths in England.

Patients were aged between 22 and 103, including 46 people who had no known underlying conditions.

Anything that causes over 50% more daily deaths than is typical on any given day is surely worthy of concern no?

Tell me how

housemouse wrote: »

Perfect response. That is the missing data.

All the signs point to a horrific cost, a waste of resources that could easily exceed the cost of the bank bailouts.

Lockdown defenders are standing on a mountain of burning money, having been fully convinced by the media that there was no alternative.

Why do you think we would not have experienced comparable death rates with Italy/Spain if we had not had a lockdown?

Why do you think the UK changed their approach from that which you are suggesting we should be doing to that which we have been doing?