Absolutely agree with all of that, DCS, though the pedant in me suggests that "each feels more important than the other" is somehow more descriptive. Ironically the 'longevity increase' is, in no small part, a result of ...... better health care provision! It's fundamentally a truism that the NHS is always capable of absorbing and spending as much money as it can ever be given regardless of the source and regardless of the outcome in terms of either efficiency or cost and/or clinical effectiveness. As the Moody Blues said - it's a question of balance.
I hope you didn't think I was implying that you specifically didn't think you'd be "that case", @Thripster. I was speaking about humans in general. And I'm very sorry to know that you are vulnerable because of your health history--for which I'm also sorry. I am glad that you survived the aneurysm. Much of my concern stems from my observations of the many unreasonable folks who don't avoid unnecessary risks--for anyone's sake. And I do know and agree that we have to get on living. But for now and in the foreseeable future that "getting on with living" needs to look different to mitigate risk. But many people--and especially true in the U.S.--continue to go on about their business as though that business can just be business as usual. Have you read the Goldman-Sachs analysis report yet for which I provided the link? It speaks to the concrete things we can do to also mitigate economic ruin.
I agree that it's a risky strategy @freck but, from my observations of the world around me, when I am forced to interact with humans to obtain provisions etc. it is obvious that many don't actually care about avoiding the virus and, possibly even welcome catching it in the hopes of shrugging it off and then becoming immune. When going to supermarkets etc. before the end of lockdown the people wearing masks and gloves were very much the minority and folks were not keeping the required distance apart when moving around the shops. Of course it is entirely possible that they won't become immune or immunity only lasts a short time but the alternative is to live locked down for as long as a vaccine isn't available and that could be years, if ever. I don't personally think I am 'high risk' as I am generally pretty healthy and rarely get ill apart from physical injury but I am well aware of the risks to those who are as my wife, whose carer I am, is at risk with a variety of health issues as are my mother and her husband and my father who are in their mid to late seventies and have a collection of health problems. To be honest they are more keen and eager to get back out and socialise than I am. I don't need people and could exist happily as the last man on Earth but my wife and my relatives have become seriously stir crazy. My mother and her husband are particularly conflicted as they desperately want to get out and make the most of the few years of life they believe they have left but, at the same time they both tell me (on the phone as I haven't seen them in person since before lockdown) that they get very stressed and panicky when they make forays out for supplies. I did point out that they could live over twenty more years but they seem to believe that they have one foot in the grave and the other on a banana skin and so every day of 'social distancing' is another day they won't get back.
This appears to be a well researched video on vaccines... it gets a bit deeper into your bodies immune system than most people who haven’t studied human biology and physiology would normally go. The presenter Is just that, but he manages to get the data over in a pleasant and humorous fashion.
Not much said on the BBC or in the Guardian about the fact that Iran has under reported it's deaths is there? Iran states circa 17K deaths when, on July 20th, it was in fact 42k and now reckoned to be above 51k.
I've bought an eBay triumph mask. ebay item 184385023713 yes, really. grey writing. A step too far or will i be the only one at the steps of triumph Wellingborough , asking when that fucking bluetooth module will be finally fucking available for the fucking speed rs when its fucking zombieland?????!!!!! Or (as its a bit snug) mmmmmmffffmfmfmfmmfmfmfmfmfmmmmmfffff? Who will be in the right then hey!!!!?????
I was incorrect reference the BBC then. Apologies. I guess what I mean is that the news of Iran's death rate isn't splashed over and over again on the TV news in the way they have repeatedly held up the UK's death rate as yet another reason why this government isn't competent.
You are right I was wrong, I hadn't done my homework and no excuses for that. However, they have been bleating for months about the death rate in the UK as if it shows incompetence (to fit in with their left leaning bias). If impartial (as they are by constitution supposed to be) then they should spend an equal amount of time now bleating about how, by inference, Iran's government is incompetent (and probably China, Russia and a host of other countries too) or at least admitting that comparison of one countries data to slate another country is unwarranted. Impartiality is what I am interested in, whether that be left or right - it is what I pay for when buying the licence.
Meanwhile in Sweden ... https://mobile.twitter.com/Celestite66/status/1291985869155586049 The ICL model, that has historically always been very wrong, but which the Government swallowed appears to have been totally discredited, imagine my shock. Perhaps we should listen to the Oxford people after all?
Conveniently ignoring the fact that Sweden has one of the highest death rates relative to population size in Europe...
Yes but no but. The virus will eventually rip through the whole population whether you shield by lock down or not. Those that are vulnerable will suffer/perish. The purpose of lock down is only to let the medical facilities cope. Now that the virus has ripped through Sweden, what exactly is the death rate, expressed as a percentage of the population? Something like 5763/10.23 million x 100 = 0.056%. In the UK 0.071% (when last looked at). In the US 0.046%.
Try thinking it through a bit more on the lockdown thing. Corona virus is a relatively new unknown virus. The longer deaths are delayed the more chance of finding something to either cure or at least ameliorate the effects as well as giving the health service more time to work out how best to look after patients to give them the best chance. We have seen this in the UK (despite the govt. blunders), look at the drug they found that cuts covid deaths of patients on oxygen or ventilators by a significant amount. So sacrificing people early on to make your life easier now is a bad idea really..... Sweden has admitted it f@cked up and, unfortunately is now suffering the consequences, with the highest rate of deaths and things like other countries not allowing travel to Sweden etc.
Can I ask that you read all my posts in this thread. You will see that I have mentioned all the reasons that you have for the lock down (and more). No one is suggesting (to quote your words) 'So sacrificing people early on to make your life easier now is a bad idea really.....' If you have read all the posts then you have still missed the point so I will repeat those here. Unless or until this virus mutates to become much more deadly the death rate (in the UK is about 0.071%). Those that have been severely ill and recovered may suffer long term effects. All of which is terrible for all those concerned including patients, relatives and hospital staff. But the reality is these numbers are TINY. To repeat, the Black Death in England wiped out 40-60% of the population. 'Spanish' Flu 50 million or thereabouts (worldwide). There are not corpses laying in the streets unburied, there are no food or water shortages, your house hasn't been bombed, you haven't been evacuated to live with strangers and there is hope. Let's be thankful for that. So, keep your distance, wear a mask, wash your hands and stop listening to the 24 hour hype in the media.
Should this be in "This made me laugh"? Daniel Emmet gives a new meaning to the expression "oneman band"!
Not really, I can’t remember when flu last shut down the nhs and filled the intensive care/high dependency/acute medical wards and theatres with critically ill, required Drs and nurses to change roles and become respiratory specialists whilst the intensivists tried to cope with an increase in multi organ failure patients... I feel that however “true” the statement, the one thing it lacks is perspective. edit - I know when flu has such an impact, but I don’t remember it
Good point DCS222 - and not intended to denigrate the effort that all NHS staff have made to beat this thing and how brave the staff have been to work under enormous pressure and in dangerous circumstances. However, isn't that because this is a new virus and it has taken a while to understand how best to treat it? In terms of pure numbers, the numbers shown do help to keep this virus in perspective.
The impact of this virus “apparently”- I’m not up on the latest research thinking- was that it being a new virus, not a rehash of a virus commonly seen globally... so the impact was a massive ramping up of critically ill people to the relative number of beds available... for which drastic measures were necessary to “flatten the curve” so we could cope. Over time, things will settle down... maybe get a few spikes etc, but I doubt the challenge to the health service will be quite as significant again because there is a better understanding of coping strategies. I know your not knocking the efforts of the healthcare staff... apart from the obvious discharge to care homes fiasco... using the benefit of hindsight, how would you have done things different? (Personally, I thinks Germanys track and trace system looked effective)
