China Coronavirus

[Angelo]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-54612567

The flu yer man said.

Yes the flu.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/flu-and-bed-shortage-responsible-for-record-trolley-numbers-says-taoiseach-1.4131634

I must have missed the masks and hand sanitiser in the shops last January. 

I must have missed the lockdowns and restrictive measures in January when the season flu was overwhelming the health service. Just as long as its not Covid doing it, right?

Not for the first time you completely fail to understand.

There's a stereotype of the big aul thick Tyrone man that loves Celtic, the Ra and a good fight, but has his brains in his arse.

Always thought it was unfair.

I see it now.

Not for the first time when the debate requires a bit of substance you resort to banal snide insults.

You just lack any conviction in yourself.

[Seaney]

The danger of not having lockdowns is that the NHS becomes overwhelmed meaning that sick people (with all illnesses, not just covid) can't be treated. That will inevitably happen if the virus is allowed to spread unchecked. The aim of the lockdowns and other measures is mainly to ensure the hospitals don't have the situations we saw in March in Spain and Italy where patients were lying on hospital floors because all beds were taken.

They aren't been treated now!

[Seaney]

No one knows the long term effects of covid, even those who think they've got over it quickly may have problems waiting for them down the line.

The mood music around a vaccine is very good,  it's quite likely we'll have one for February/March of 2021. Short lockdowns are a necessary evil until then to ensure our NHS can cope.

You would be happy to line up for this in March, a year after they started looking - by the way it won't happen.

[armaghniac]

No one knows the long term effects of covid, even those who think they've got over it quickly may have problems waiting for them down the line.

The mood music around a vaccine is very good,  it's quite likely we'll have one for February/March of 2021. Short lockdowns are a necessary evil until then to ensure our NHS can cope.

You would be happy to line up for this in March, a year after they started looking - by the way it won't happen.

What is your PhD in?

[JoG2]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-54612567

The flu yer man said.

The 55 covid patients is now 72 and ICU currently has its highest number since the pandemic started.

[Angelo]

what happens when the numbers increase to a level that the health system cannot handle? we have seen this in other countries. what happens to other health services as the number increase? what happens the mental health of those who lose loved ones or worst are responsible for giving covid to a loved one who dies.. 

no one on here has denied there are negative aspect of lockdown. No one thinks it a great solution but better than the alterntive taking everything into consideration. i doubt anyone is happy about it but this seems beyond your understanding its easier to start name calling...

I don't know.

It's all speculation, I don't see lockdown being a better alternative to living with the virus and that's from the data we are getting at present.

It's all ifs, buts and maybes but there are a certain cohort of posters on here who know as little as the next man who are displaying bizarre levels of arrogance with absolutely no knowledge on anything and they refuse to even look at the big picture and huge consequences lockdowns and excessive restrictions have on society.

I'd be very interested to see how Slovakia do with their mass testing, it's the most progressive approach I have seen any European country take yet.

you seem very happy to speculate on the outcomes of lockdown?  why is it so hard to speculate on your approach!! which also has a certain level of restrictions.. the arrogence seems to come from you not others.

the data shows increaing numbers of cases... surely you must consider the outcome of that to use your own words people "refuse to even look at the big picture and huge consequences"

Very happy to speculate?

Well done on the most ironic comment on the thread. We are all speculating, all of us, by contending anything I say, you are by your very nature speculating. Saying domestic violence incidents rise and mental health issues are compounded by lockdowns is not speculation though, there is data there to back that assertion up, we will only know to what level in time. It is my view that the consequences of lockdowns and excessive restrictions do more harm than good, it is my view that we are getting too consumed by Covid that we cannot see the consequences of the measure we are taking to combat Covid. And all of us, across all sides are speculating.

Look at all the expert modellers predicting millions of deaths in the UK by x amount of time, how wrong have some of these projections been? And what did those experts do? They speculated, none of us have a golden ball that will tell us what happens so it's an absolute ridiculous contention to make.

The data shows increasing number of cases AND decreasing numbers of fatalties relative to those cases, dropping by double digit multiples all across Europe at present when we contrast with the first wave - that is what the CURRENT data is telling us. I'm looking at the big picture and that's why I'm leaning towards lockdowns and excessive restrictions causing a lot more harm than good. You seem to be solely focusing on Covid.

You've never addressed this question yet. At which point does Covid become an acceptable risk? We have acceptable risk with flu, every year we deem an acceptable level of death, healthcare consumption, health impacts with it and we live with it. At what level do we have to get with Covid before it becomes acceptable? Can you please answer this question? I've done you the courtesy of answering the same question you've posed to me on about 6 different occasions, can you now do me the same?

It's quite likely that the expert modellers would've been right but for lockdown measures, combined with masks and social distancing. The fatality rate falling can easily be explained by the fact that it's mainly younger people who are getting infected now and their immune system is better able to fight off the virus. At the start a good number of older people were exposed to the virus and a large number sadly died.

The danger of not having lockdowns is that the NHS becomes overwhelmed meaning that sick people (with all illnesses, not just covid) can't be treated. That will inevitably happen if the virus is allowed to spread unchecked. The aim of the lockdowns and other measures is mainly to ensure the hospitals don't have the situations we saw in March in Spain and Italy where patients were lying on hospital floors because all beds were taken.

Another important point about the virus is that it's really not like the flu. A lot of people are trying to minimise the risk by saying it's just a mild flu. There are hundreds of thousands of people around the world suffering from "long covid". I know of 3 people who have terrible symptoms 6 months after they contracted the virus with no signs of these symptoms easing. None of the 3 had a particularly bad dose initially and weren't in hospital. I also know a cardiologist who works in the RVH and ha says there are quite a number of people coming into hospital with severe heart problems 4 or 5 months after getting covid. These were people who had mild symptoms or were asymptomatic. These aren't just anecdotes, I've also seen lots of reports of these issues in the papers. No one knows the long term effects of covid, even those who think they've got over it quickly may have problems waiting for them down the line.

The mood music around a vaccine is very good,  it's quite likely we'll have one for February/March of 2021. Short lockdowns are a necessary evil until then to ensure our NHS can cope.

On what basis is it quite likely right?

The thing about March and April is an outlier an anomaly. Spain have had nearly 3 times the no of positive cases in the past 2 months than they had back in March and April and the fatality rate per cases has fallen in double digit multiples - why is that? Surely that deserves to be highlighted and examined and the current data should be the one guiding our decisions rather than anomalies 6/7 months ago.

The mood around the vaccine. That's a mood - nothing is concrete but I'll put it to you this way. A vaccine comes out next year - I have two options:

a) Take a vaccine rushed through production stage, with very limited test results and no basis of potential side effects
b) Take my chances with a virus that probably presents nothing more that mild symptoms for 99.5% of my demograph

[Angelo]

No one knows the long term effects of covid, even those who think they've got over it quickly may have problems waiting for them down the line.

The mood music around a vaccine is very good,  it's quite likely we'll have one for February/March of 2021. Short lockdowns are a necessary evil until then to ensure our NHS can cope.

You would be happy to line up for this in March, a year after they started looking - by the way it won't happen.

What is your PhD in?

What's yours in?

[Itchy]

what happens when the numbers increase to a level that the health system cannot handle? we have seen this in other countries. what happens to other health services as the number increase? what happens the mental health of those who lose loved ones or worst are responsible for giving covid to a loved one who dies.. 

no one on here has denied there are negative aspect of lockdown. No one thinks it a great solution but better than the alterntive taking everything into consideration. i doubt anyone is happy about it but this seems beyond your understanding its easier to start name calling...

I don't know.

It's all speculation, I don't see lockdown being a better alternative to living with the virus and that's from the data we are getting at present.

It's all ifs, buts and maybes but there are a certain cohort of posters on here who know as little as the next man who are displaying bizarre levels of arrogance with absolutely no knowledge on anything and they refuse to even look at the big picture and huge consequences lockdowns and excessive restrictions have on society.

I'd be very interested to see how Slovakia do with their mass testing, it's the most progressive approach I have seen any European country take yet.

you seem very happy to speculate on the outcomes of lockdown?  why is it so hard to speculate on your approach!! which also has a certain level of restrictions.. the arrogence seems to come from you not others.

the data shows increaing numbers of cases... surely you must consider the outcome of that to use your own words people "refuse to even look at the big picture and huge consequences"

Very happy to speculate?

Well done on the most ironic comment on the thread. We are all speculating, all of us, by contending anything I say, you are by your very nature speculating. Saying domestic violence incidents rise and mental health issues are compounded by lockdowns is not speculation though, there is data there to back that assertion up, we will only know to what level in time. It is my view that the consequences of lockdowns and excessive restrictions do more harm than good, it is my view that we are getting too consumed by Covid that we cannot see the consequences of the measure we are taking to combat Covid. And all of us, across all sides are speculating.

Look at all the expert modellers predicting millions of deaths in the UK by x amount of time, how wrong have some of these projections been? And what did those experts do? They speculated, none of us have a golden ball that will tell us what happens so it's an absolute ridiculous contention to make.

The data shows increasing number of cases AND decreasing numbers of fatalties relative to those cases, dropping by double digit multiples all across Europe at present when we contrast with the first wave - that is what the CURRENT data is telling us. I'm looking at the big picture and that's why I'm leaning towards lockdowns and excessive restrictions causing a lot more harm than good. You seem to be solely focusing on Covid.

You've never addressed this question yet. At which point does Covid become an acceptable risk? We have acceptable risk with flu, every year we deem an acceptable level of death, healthcare consumption, health impacts with it and we live with it. At what level do we have to get with Covid before it becomes acceptable? Can you please answer this question? I've done you the courtesy of answering the same question you've posed to me on about 6 different occasions, can you now do me the same?

It's quite likely that the expert modellers would've been right but for lockdown measures, combined with masks and social distancing. The fatality rate falling can easily be explained by the fact that it's mainly younger people who are getting infected now and their immune system is better able to fight off the virus. At the start a good number of older people were exposed to the virus and a large number sadly died.

The danger of not having lockdowns is that the NHS becomes overwhelmed meaning that sick people (with all illnesses, not just covid) can't be treated. That will inevitably happen if the virus is allowed to spread unchecked. The aim of the lockdowns and other measures is mainly to ensure the hospitals don't have the situations we saw in March in Spain and Italy where patients were lying on hospital floors because all beds were taken.

Another important point about the virus is that it's really not like the flu. A lot of people are trying to minimise the risk by saying it's just a mild flu. There are hundreds of thousands of people around the world suffering from "long covid". I know of 3 people who have terrible symptoms 6 months after they contracted the virus with no signs of these symptoms easing. None of the 3 had a particularly bad dose initially and weren't in hospital. I also know a cardiologist who works in the RVH and ha says there are quite a number of people coming into hospital with severe heart problems 4 or 5 months after getting covid. These were people who had mild symptoms or were asymptomatic. These aren't just anecdotes, I've also seen lots of reports of these issues in the papers. No one knows the long term effects of covid, even those who think they've got over it quickly may have problems waiting for them down the line.

The mood music around a vaccine is very good,  it's quite likely we'll have one for February/March of 2021. Short lockdowns are a necessary evil until then to ensure our NHS can cope.

Sid, that (in bold) is one of the possibilities I mentioned. Where is the data though to support your assertion that it is easily explained. If Tony Holohan or someone else published such data it would certainly help me, and I am sure others, to accept what they are saying. But right now that's just a theory what you wrote, not a fact. The reason I don't neccessarily believe Tony Holohan just because he is an expert and on TV each night is due to his actions in the Smear Test Scandal. I don't find him a trustworthy person as default.

[lenny]

The danger of not having lockdowns is that the NHS becomes overwhelmed meaning that sick people (with all illnesses, not just covid) can't be treated. That will inevitably happen if the virus is allowed to spread unchecked. The aim of the lockdowns and other measures is mainly to ensure the hospitals don't have the situations we saw in March in Spain and Italy where patients were lying on hospital floors because all beds were taken.

They aren't been treated now!

And allowing covid to go unchecked is only going to make that way, way worse. I would definitely take the vaccine if all the safety checks have been done and they say it's effective. They're using technology for the virus which has been used before and has been shown to be extremely safe.

[thewobbler]

"Hey look kids, there's Big Ben".

[trueblue1234]

what happens when the numbers increase to a level that the health system cannot handle? we have seen this in other countries. what happens to other health services as the number increase? what happens the mental health of those who lose loved ones or worst are responsible for giving covid to a loved one who dies.. 

no one on here has denied there are negative aspect of lockdown. No one thinks it a great solution but better than the alterntive taking everything into consideration. i doubt anyone is happy about it but this seems beyond your understanding its easier to start name calling...

I don't know.

It's all speculation, I don't see lockdown being a better alternative to living with the virus and that's from the data we are getting at present.

It's all ifs, buts and maybes but there are a certain cohort of posters on here who know as little as the next man who are displaying bizarre levels of arrogance with absolutely no knowledge on anything and they refuse to even look at the big picture and huge consequences lockdowns and excessive restrictions have on society.

I'd be very interested to see how Slovakia do with their mass testing, it's the most progressive approach I have seen any European country take yet.

you seem very happy to speculate on the outcomes of lockdown?  why is it so hard to speculate on your approach!! which also has a certain level of restrictions.. the arrogence seems to come from you not others.

the data shows increaing numbers of cases... surely you must consider the outcome of that to use your own words people "refuse to even look at the big picture and huge consequences"

Very happy to speculate?

Well done on the most ironic comment on the thread. We are all speculating, all of us, by contending anything I say, you are by your very nature speculating. Saying domestic violence incidents rise and mental health issues are compounded by lockdowns is not speculation though, there is data there to back that assertion up, we will only know to what level in time. It is my view that the consequences of lockdowns and excessive restrictions do more harm than good, it is my view that we are getting too consumed by Covid that we cannot see the consequences of the measure we are taking to combat Covid. And all of us, across all sides are speculating.

Look at all the expert modellers predicting millions of deaths in the UK by x amount of time, how wrong have some of these projections been? And what did those experts do? They speculated, none of us have a golden ball that will tell us what happens so it's an absolute ridiculous contention to make.

The data shows increasing number of cases AND decreasing numbers of fatalties relative to those cases, dropping by double digit multiples all across Europe at present when we contrast with the first wave - that is what the CURRENT data is telling us. I'm looking at the big picture and that's why I'm leaning towards lockdowns and excessive restrictions causing a lot more harm than good. You seem to be solely focusing on Covid.

You've never addressed this question yet. At which point does Covid become an acceptable risk? We have acceptable risk with flu, every year we deem an acceptable level of death, healthcare consumption, health impacts with it and we live with it. At what level do we have to get with Covid before it becomes acceptable? Can you please answer this question? I've done you the courtesy of answering the same question you've posed to me on about 6 different occasions, can you now do me the same?

It's quite likely that the expert modellers would've been right but for lockdown measures, combined with masks and social distancing. The fatality rate falling can easily be explained by the fact that it's mainly younger people who are getting infected now and their immune system is better able to fight off the virus. At the start a good number of older people were exposed to the virus and a large number sadly died.

The danger of not having lockdowns is that the NHS becomes overwhelmed meaning that sick people (with all illnesses, not just covid) can't be treated. That will inevitably happen if the virus is allowed to spread unchecked. The aim of the lockdowns and other measures is mainly to ensure the hospitals don't have the situations we saw in March in Spain and Italy where patients were lying on hospital floors because all beds were taken.

Another important point about the virus is that it's really not like the flu. A lot of people are trying to minimise the risk by saying it's just a mild flu. There are hundreds of thousands of people around the world suffering from "long covid". I know of 3 people who have terrible symptoms 6 months after they contracted the virus with no signs of these symptoms easing. None of the 3 had a particularly bad dose initially and weren't in hospital. I also know a cardiologist who works in the RVH and ha says there are quite a number of people coming into hospital with severe heart problems 4 or 5 months after getting covid. These were people who had mild symptoms or were asymptomatic. These aren't just anecdotes, I've also seen lots of reports of these issues in the papers. No one knows the long term effects of covid, even those who think they've got over it quickly may have problems waiting for them down the line.

The mood music around a vaccine is very good,  it's quite likely we'll have one for February/March of 2021. Short lockdowns are a necessary evil until then to ensure our NHS can cope.

On what basis is it quite likely right?

The thing about March and April is an outlier an anomaly. Spain have had nearly 3 times the no of positive cases in the past 2 months than they had back in March and April and the fatality rate per cases has fallen in double digit multiples - why is that? Surely that deserves to be highlighted and examined and the current data should be the one guiding our decisions rather than anomalies 6/7 months ago.

The mood around the vaccine. That's a mood - nothing is concrete but I'll put it to you this way. A vaccine comes out next year - I have two options:

a) Take a vaccine rushed through production stage, with very limited test results and no basis of potential side effects
b) Take my chances with a virus that probably presents nothing more that mild symptoms for 99.5% of my demograph

More testing.

[Angelo]

what happens when the numbers increase to a level that the health system cannot handle? we have seen this in other countries. what happens to other health services as the number increase? what happens the mental health of those who lose loved ones or worst are responsible for giving covid to a loved one who dies.. 

no one on here has denied there are negative aspect of lockdown. No one thinks it a great solution but better than the alterntive taking everything into consideration. i doubt anyone is happy about it but this seems beyond your understanding its easier to start name calling...

I don't know.

It's all speculation, I don't see lockdown being a better alternative to living with the virus and that's from the data we are getting at present.

It's all ifs, buts and maybes but there are a certain cohort of posters on here who know as little as the next man who are displaying bizarre levels of arrogance with absolutely no knowledge on anything and they refuse to even look at the big picture and huge consequences lockdowns and excessive restrictions have on society.

I'd be very interested to see how Slovakia do with their mass testing, it's the most progressive approach I have seen any European country take yet.

you seem very happy to speculate on the outcomes of lockdown?  why is it so hard to speculate on your approach!! which also has a certain level of restrictions.. the arrogence seems to come from you not others.

the data shows increaing numbers of cases... surely you must consider the outcome of that to use your own words people "refuse to even look at the big picture and huge consequences"

Very happy to speculate?

Well done on the most ironic comment on the thread. We are all speculating, all of us, by contending anything I say, you are by your very nature speculating. Saying domestic violence incidents rise and mental health issues are compounded by lockdowns is not speculation though, there is data there to back that assertion up, we will only know to what level in time. It is my view that the consequences of lockdowns and excessive restrictions do more harm than good, it is my view that we are getting too consumed by Covid that we cannot see the consequences of the measure we are taking to combat Covid. And all of us, across all sides are speculating.

Look at all the expert modellers predicting millions of deaths in the UK by x amount of time, how wrong have some of these projections been? And what did those experts do? They speculated, none of us have a golden ball that will tell us what happens so it's an absolute ridiculous contention to make.

The data shows increasing number of cases AND decreasing numbers of fatalties relative to those cases, dropping by double digit multiples all across Europe at present when we contrast with the first wave - that is what the CURRENT data is telling us. I'm looking at the big picture and that's why I'm leaning towards lockdowns and excessive restrictions causing a lot more harm than good. You seem to be solely focusing on Covid.

You've never addressed this question yet. At which point does Covid become an acceptable risk? We have acceptable risk with flu, every year we deem an acceptable level of death, healthcare consumption, health impacts with it and we live with it. At what level do we have to get with Covid before it becomes acceptable? Can you please answer this question? I've done you the courtesy of answering the same question you've posed to me on about 6 different occasions, can you now do me the same?

It's quite likely that the expert modellers would've been right but for lockdown measures, combined with masks and social distancing. The fatality rate falling can easily be explained by the fact that it's mainly younger people who are getting infected now and their immune system is better able to fight off the virus. At the start a good number of older people were exposed to the virus and a large number sadly died.

The danger of not having lockdowns is that the NHS becomes overwhelmed meaning that sick people (with all illnesses, not just covid) can't be treated. That will inevitably happen if the virus is allowed to spread unchecked. The aim of the lockdowns and other measures is mainly to ensure the hospitals don't have the situations we saw in March in Spain and Italy where patients were lying on hospital floors because all beds were taken.

Another important point about the virus is that it's really not like the flu. A lot of people are trying to minimise the risk by saying it's just a mild flu. There are hundreds of thousands of people around the world suffering from "long covid". I know of 3 people who have terrible symptoms 6 months after they contracted the virus with no signs of these symptoms easing. None of the 3 had a particularly bad dose initially and weren't in hospital. I also know a cardiologist who works in the RVH and ha says there are quite a number of people coming into hospital with severe heart problems 4 or 5 months after getting covid. These were people who had mild symptoms or were asymptomatic. These aren't just anecdotes, I've also seen lots of reports of these issues in the papers. No one knows the long term effects of covid, even those who think they've got over it quickly may have problems waiting for them down the line.

The mood music around a vaccine is very good,  it's quite likely we'll have one for February/March of 2021. Short lockdowns are a necessary evil until then to ensure our NHS can cope.

On what basis is it quite likely right?

The thing about March and April is an outlier an anomaly. Spain have had nearly 3 times the no of positive cases in the past 2 months than they had back in March and April and the fatality rate per cases has fallen in double digit multiples - why is that? Surely that deserves to be highlighted and examined and the current data should be the one guiding our decisions rather than anomalies 6/7 months ago.

The mood around the vaccine. That's a mood - nothing is concrete but I'll put it to you this way. A vaccine comes out next year - I have two options:

a) Take a vaccine rushed through production stage, with very limited test results and no basis of potential side effects
b) Take my chances with a virus that probably presents nothing more that mild symptoms for 99.5% of my demograph

More testing.

Not up north. We are only doing 4-5k tests a day and returning circa 20% positive rates.

If you were to convert the fatality rates as accurate now and consider them consistent with the no of cases in the first wave it would mean that rather than 6,229 positive cases by the end of July we would actually would have had 150k people infected.

That's close to 10% of the population.

[GetOverTheBar]

Jeez Angelo you must be one of the stupidest people ever on this board, and that is saying something.

Jesus lads, this is definitely the most anger filled thread in here in some time.

Angelo has some points like everyone else, some of the stuff he says is probably going to turn out true over the course of time. Some of the stuff, will be wrong.

Everyone is guessing at this stage still really, scarily.

Why are you quoting me when you said anger filled thread?

Apologies, not in any way directed at you. This thread has taken a bit of personal inter twisting match between various ones back and forth with various insults. Amusing reading at times but not really of any use to the overall subject matter.

It's only a small sample of course but between here and twitter, these are my only real social media uses - here is a fairly, pro lockdown forum with fair enough reasoning. Twitter is the complete opposite, there seems to be a sea change of people (actual real, not hiding behind eggs) calling for the whole thing to go back to normal, some business owners stating they will not be closing and basically every comment was for them. It appears the general opinion on this board, seems to be the minority.

[PadraicHenryPearse]

The "let it rip" merchants seem to have forgotten the awful scenes from Italy last spring, a Country which has a very good health service which was totally overcome as Covud was ripping.
They also overlook the fact that the restrictions lowered the rate of infection.
"Health Officials on a power trip".
Such a ludicrous comment straight from the Gemma school of right wing nut job fuckwittery.
The less people getting Covid translates into more beds for people with other illnesses and more ICU beds for people who need major operations etc.

But sod them just "let it rip" and sure all will be fine.

It is a headline one would expect to see in the Sun, disproportionate and made with the only rational to get a reaction, it is quite pathetic that folk go down this route - there is no end game here - no vaccine will come to our aid, we have to learn to live with it, but you conclude that that means let it rip!

we tried living with it... numbers increased again after lockdown 1 so living with it is effectively lerting it rip or herd immunity approach..

if there is a successful way to live with it i am sure we wpuld all love to hear it and so would the governments of the world.

We tried living with it?

Cases increased.

0.11 are in ICU.

Sweden are living with it at present. Their 14 day incidence rate is currently much lower than the rest of Europe.

What happens next time we come out of lockdown? Numbers surge back up again and we lock back down again, how on earth is this a viable short term solution. Crossing our fingers and hoping a vaccine comes is not a viable solution, it's absolutely insane.

bery selective quoting.. you can speculate to back you your viewpoint but suddenly its all guesswork when i ask you to example your living wiyh covid approach... also you stidys and experts are trustworthy but any that disagree with your opinion is guesswork!!!

, i am glad  that in the above post you finally acknowledge that if we come out of lockdown cases will surge back up again, when we go back to living with covid.. i.e your approach...

so your apprich will continue  the surge and our health is not capable of dealing with. as for you social distanicng washing hands etc.. we are doing that now it hasnt worked as people dont adhere for a variety of reasons..

finally, there are things we can do to support people with dperession, suffers of addiction or  domestic violance etc. we did it before and it still presists and we can do more if there is a will either during or after lockdown.

[Angelo]

The "let it rip" merchants seem to have forgotten the awful scenes from Italy last spring, a Country which has a very good health service which was totally overcome as Covud was ripping.
They also overlook the fact that the restrictions lowered the rate of infection.
"Health Officials on a power trip".
Such a ludicrous comment straight from the Gemma school of right wing nut job fuckwittery.
The less people getting Covid translates into more beds for people with other illnesses and more ICU beds for people who need major operations etc.

But sod them just "let it rip" and sure all will be fine.

It is a headline one would expect to see in the Sun, disproportionate and made with the only rational to get a reaction, it is quite pathetic that folk go down this route - there is no end game here - no vaccine will come to our aid, we have to learn to live with it, but you conclude that that means let it rip!

we tried living with it... numbers increased again after lockdown 1 so living with it is effectively lerting it rip or herd immunity approach..

if there is a successful way to live with it i am sure we wpuld all love to hear it and so would the governments of the world.

We tried living with it?

Cases increased.

0.11 are in ICU.

Sweden are living with it at present. Their 14 day incidence rate is currently much lower than the rest of Europe.

What happens next time we come out of lockdown? Numbers surge back up again and we lock back down again, how on earth is this a viable short term solution. Crossing our fingers and hoping a vaccine comes is not a viable solution, it's absolutely insane.

bery selective quoting.. you can speculate to back you your viewpoint but suddenly its all guesswork when i ask you to example your living wiyh covid approach... also you stidys and experts are trustworthy but any that disagree with your opinion is guesswork!!!

, i am glad  that in the above post you finally acknowledge that if we come out of lockdown cases will surge back up again, when we go back to living with covid.. i.e your approach...

so your apprich will continue  the surge and our health is not capable of dealing with. as for you social distanicng washing hands etc.. we are doing that now it hasnt worked as people dont adhere for a variety of reasons..

finally, there are things we can do to support people with dperession, suffers of addiction or  domestic violance etc. we did it before and it still presists and we can do more if there is a will either during or after lockdown.

Selective.

You keeping pointing out to speculation but all you have offered to counter that is your speculation. I find it staggering you cannot see the irony there.

What also can't be sustained is coming in and out of lockdowns, lockdowns haven't worked - we went into one, came out of it and are now going back into one. So please God tell me, how the last lockdown actually managed to work?

There aren't things we can do to support them, domestic violence cases will inevitably rise with lockdowns and there's not a whole pile you can do?

So what's your strategy - remain in lockdown until there's a vaccine - how is that any sort of progressive long term solution?