China Coronavirus

[Seaney]

Just let the old die, only way out of this, as they'd have only a few months to live, according to angelo

Or just regard the plight of many vulnerable groupings, disabled people, people who live alone, people in abusive relationships, people with health conditions not associated with Covid, the education of kids, people who lose their jobs, businesses that are closed down?

Ignore those and put the full focus on Covid?

Yes, the sooner Covid is sorted the sooner these people can get back to normal service.

It's not going be sorted by repeated lockdown, those who are following the narrative genuinely have no empathy for those whom lockdown us killing, as long as you are ok eh, you should all be ashamed.

What's your plan on getting it sorted?

Above my pay grade, but its 10 months in and repeated lockdowns have failed, I can see why folk especially the younger are breaking restrictions, put yourself in their shoes as a 17 or 18 year old.

In other words you have no plan and just to complain about the plans in place.

So you must have a plan then, do you think the current rolling restrictions are working, so you think shutdown, open up, shutdown again is an effective way to control this virus.  Do you think every aspect of living in a democracy should be shelved to save an NHS which has been absolutely devastated over decades by inept government, if so what is your justification, if not what is your plan?

[johnnycool]

I am asking you for firm evidence it does. 15th December one care home staff and residents vaccinated, today 13 positive cases.

It'll take another few months before they'll know whether the vaccine is capable of preventing vaccinated people from spreading it but they're hopeful based on the small trials they've done.

The UK and South African strains may throw a spanner in the works.....

FYI, you'll be needing vaccinated every year it seems for this.

[Angelo]

If arguing against implementing a strategy that has shown to be a complete and utter failure two times previously makes you weird, then I'm weird.

[Tubberman]

If arguing against implementing a strategy that has shown to be a complete and utter failure two times previously makes you weird, then I'm weird.

Instead of telling us what you're against, tell us what your solution is.
If you don't have a solution other than carry on as normal, then the outcome is multiple times worse than what we're currently seeing.

[Angelo]

If arguing against implementing a strategy that has shown to be a complete and utter failure two times previously makes you weird, then I'm weird.

Instead of telling us what you're against, tell us what your solution is.
If you don't have a solution other than carry on as normal, then the outcome is multiple times worse than what we're currently seeing.

Look. I've answered this question about 20 times and laid what I think is the best course of action out so many times before I'm blue in the face saying it.

I'm not going to repeat myself because you are too lazy to read the responses. Maybe yourself and LCohen can go halves on this thread and read the 20 or so posts where I have had to repeat the same answer again and again for the likes of you.

It's also worth noting that the only people who it matters what they think are government leaders and time and time again, they are getting it badly wrong on Covid.

And you're here defending the indefensible. Rolling lockdowns cause more damage than good.

[Angelo]

We are not going to know the full impact of this until it's all over.

That may be a year or two down the line.

My concern focuses on whether lockdown and particularly rolling lockdowns where you are dipping in and out of (telling businesses to shut and open and shut and open are going to cause serious long term damage to the economy and employment - high unemployment has seriously negative societal and wellbeing factors).

There's a lot of people very entrenched with their head in the sand. Cases are through the roof at the minute, deaths are rising but we do know the main demograph it's impacting, we do know the median age of death is above the median life expectancy, we do know the 90%+ proportion that already have existing underlying healthcare problems, we do know that deaths due to Covid are overstated. There's no doubt on any of the previous factors, they are widely accepted by every department that handles this. So is it a case that the measures we take are to save people months of their lives - already probably crippled with underlying health issues?

And how do we then balance that out with the serious consequences of lockdown on the economy, people's employment prospects, the ability of people to provide for our families, the mental health of people, those who are vulnerable, in abusive relationships, addiction problems, people with disabilities and need constant care and support services, the education and social development of children, the impact it has on people who are alone and isolated.

I'd be extremely worried about the covid tunnel vision governments around the world are obsessed with.

We seem to have thrown all our eggs into this vaccine basket, we know nothing about it yet.

As opposed to what other basket?

Living with the virus. Reasonable restrictive measures which we had in the summer months until such time as the virus has ran its course.

What I'd like to see in the next few months is among all the panic and hysteria at present - what the excess deaths are like in comparison to a sever winter flu season that we have accepted without a bone of contention every single year.

Have we lost the run of ourselves over a 10% rise in deaths, 90% who already had serious underlying health conditions?

We have to be realistic and practical about this. There is a point when the cure causes more destruction and chaos than the problem and there's a lot of people too entrenched to even countenance this.

But anywhere, here it is, specially for a lazy sod like Tubberman who couldn't read a couple of posts above what he already posted.

And LCohen, hello LCohen, have a read of that before you bombard me with 30 questions in succession that I have already answered because you don't have the decency to answer questions posed to you in return.

[Seaney]

If arguing against implementing a strategy that has shown to be a complete and utter failure two times previously makes you weird, then I'm weird.

Instead of telling us what you're against, tell us what your solution is.
If you don't have a solution other than carry on as normal, then the outcome is multiple times worse than what we're currently seeing.

Ill ask you what I asked Complete Obvious

So you must have a plan then, do you think the current rolling restrictions are working, so you think shutdown, open up, shutdown again is an effective way to control this virus.  Do you think every aspect of living in a democracy should be shelved to save an NHS which has been absolutely devastated over decades by inept government, if so what is your justification, if not what is your plan?

[general_lee]

Is it not pretty simple that the NHS will be overwhelmed if you take the laissez faire approach? Yes the economy might be grand but you can't get treated for specialist surgery and then have to wait 3 years instead of 3 months in which time you'll probably be dead. It's like robbing Peter to feed Paul.

[Angelo]

If arguing against implementing a strategy that has shown to be a complete and utter failure two times previously makes you weird, then I'm weird.

Instead of telling us what you're against, tell us what your solution is.
If you don't have a solution other than carry on as normal, then the outcome is multiple times worse than what we're currently seeing.

Ill ask you what I asked Complete Obvious

So you must have a plan then, do you think the current rolling restrictions are working, so you think shutdown, open up, shutdown again is an effective way to control this virus.  Do you think every aspect of living in a democracy should be shelved to save an NHS which has been absolutely devastated over decades by inept government, if so what is your justification, if not what is your plan?

You'll find they only like to ask questions and snipe. They have a huge issue at addressing questions put to them though.

[Angelo]

Is it not pretty simple that the NHS will be overwhelmed if you take the laissez faire approach? Yes the economy might be grand but you can't get treated for specialist surgery and then have to wait 3 years instead of 3 months in which time you'll probably be dead. It's like robbing Peter to feed Paul.

What I'd like to see when we come to the end of March is how excess deaths compare with that of the 17/18 Winter flu seasons when the UK alone had 50k excess deaths.

A lot of people seem to be along the line of saying your death and plight is acceptable as long as it not directly related to contracting Covid.

[armaghniac]

A lot of people seem to be along the line of saying your death and plight is acceptable as long as it not directly related to contracting Covid.

Nobody is saying this. Who exactly has said this, give us a concrete example.

[LCohen]

We are not going to know the full impact of this until it's all over.

That may be a year or two down the line.

My concern focuses on whether lockdown and particularly rolling lockdowns where you are dipping in and out of (telling businesses to shut and open and shut and open are going to cause serious long term damage to the economy and employment - high unemployment has seriously negative societal and wellbeing factors).

There's a lot of people very entrenched with their head in the sand. Cases are through the roof at the minute, deaths are rising but we do know the main demograph it's impacting, we do know the median age of death is above the median life expectancy, we do know the 90%+ proportion that already have existing underlying healthcare problems, we do know that deaths due to Covid are overstated. There's no doubt on any of the previous factors, they are widely accepted by every department that handles this. So is it a case that the measures we take are to save people months of their lives - already probably crippled with underlying health issues?

And how do we then balance that out with the serious consequences of lockdown on the economy, people's employment prospects, the ability of people to provide for our families, the mental health of people, those who are vulnerable, in abusive relationships, addiction problems, people with disabilities and need constant care and support services, the education and social development of children, the impact it has on people who are alone and isolated.

I'd be extremely worried about the covid tunnel vision governments around the world are obsessed with.

We seem to have thrown all our eggs into this vaccine basket, we know nothing about it yet.

As opposed to what other basket?

Living with the virus. Reasonable restrictive measures which we had in the summer months until such time as the virus has ran its course.

What I'd like to see in the next few months is among all the panic and hysteria at present - what the excess deaths are like in comparison to a sever winter flu season that we have accepted without a bone of contention every single year.

Have we lost the run of ourselves over a 10% rise in deaths, 90% who already had serious underlying health conditions?

We have to be realistic and practical about this. There is a point when the cure causes more destruction and chaos than the problem and there's a lot of people too entrenched to even countenance this.

But anywhere, here it is, specially for a lazy sod like Tubberman who couldn't read a couple of posts above what he already posted.

And LCohen, hello LCohen, have a read of that before you bombard me with 30 questions in succession that I have already answered because you don't have the decency to answer questions posed to you in return.

Not sure what the red type is about or indeed the "hello" but once again I repeat my invitation for you to provide a list of questions that have been posed to me and I have failed to answer?

This has been asked if you before and you have failed to produce any of the evidence that you claim exists. All you do is repeat the claim. I suspect that behaviour would embarrass Donald Trump.

So post the evidence that supports your own claim.

[Seaney]

Is it not pretty simple that the NHS will be overwhelmed if you take the laissez faire approach? Yes the economy might be grand but you can't get treated for specialist surgery and then have to wait 3 years instead of 3 months in which time you'll probably be dead. It's like robbing Peter to feed Paul.

You must be going private to wait 3 months for anything, even prior pandemic.

[Angelo]

A lot of people seem to be along the line of saying your death and plight is acceptable as long as it not directly related to contracting Covid.

Nobody is saying this. Who exactly has said this, give us a concrete example.

They are.

Because they seem absolute zealots when it comes to Covid.

None of them seem to countenance that restrictions can have devastating blows when it comes to people's wellbeing and health. They won't even consider that.

Governments have used rolling lockdowns as mechanisms to absolve themselves of accountability for the spread of the virus.

[Angelo]

Here comes the barrage of LCohen repeat questions that have already been answered to throw the topic off track.