(10-13-2020, 12:34 PM)Protheroe Wrote: I listened to Charles Walker on Radio 4 yesterday and he pretty much sums up where I'm at (and where I've been since March)

"We just can’t save every life, because the cost to the living is too high.”

“The pandemic is not rampant, this is an illness that very sadly really afflicts the elderly and those with underlying health conditions."

“Our focus should be on protecting them, not limiting the life chances of young people and people of middle age who are responsible for running and owning businesses.”

“First world public services do require a first world economy"

“It does seem the government, for the best of reasons, but mistaken reasons, is trying to abolish death. You can’t abolish death. The fact is people in their 80s and 90s die.”

"The only guarantee anyone has when they're born is that at some stage in your 80s or 90s you are going to die”.

“My real concern is these decisions are mostly being made by the middle aged and well-heeled, paid out of the public purse, so they’re not really going to bear the consequences off these decisions.”

Many of you know I lost both my parents to late diagnosed cancer. Cancer Research today spells out that 3 million people have missed out on cancer screening tests since March due to our preoccuptaions with Covid. It makes me want to scream

(10-13-2020, 03:33 PM)Brentbaggie Wrote:

(10-13-2020, 12:34 PM)Protheroe Wrote: I listened to Charles Walker on Radio 4 yesterday and he pretty much sums up where I'm at (and where I've been since March)

"We just can’t save every life, because the cost to the living is too high.”

“The pandemic is not rampant, this is an illness that very sadly really afflicts the elderly and those with underlying health conditions."

“Our focus should be on protecting them, not limiting the life chances of young people and people of middle age who are responsible for running and owning businesses.”

“First world public services do require a first world economy"

“It does seem the government, for the best of reasons, but mistaken reasons, is trying to abolish death. You can’t abolish death. The fact is people in their 80s and 90s die.”

"The only guarantee anyone has when they're born is that at some stage in your 80s or 90s you are going to die”.

“My real concern is these decisions are mostly being made by the middle aged and well-heeled, paid out of the public purse, so they’re not really going to bear the consequences off these decisions.”

Many of you know I lost both my parents to late diagnosed cancer. Cancer Research today spells out that 3 million people have missed out on cancer screening tests since March due to our preoccuptaions with Covid. It makes me want to scream

Proth, I sympathise with you and quite understand your anger. I've got a 12 month post cancer op scan tomorrow that I should have had 7 weeks ago - and I think I'm very fortunate, at least I hope I will be. Losing both parents in the way you did is terrible and difficult to bear.  

My only question is how do politicians square the circle of allowing older and "unlucky" victims succumbing to Covid deaths, while at the same time ensuring that hospitals do not have to admit rising numbers with Covid who will need intensive care? I get that you think the numbers are misleading - and perhaps they are - but numbers on ventilators are going up. Do you think this will cease or do you think that without some kind of regulation these numbers will eventually decrease? What system of dealing with flare-ups would you instigate, if any?  

I think, and this seems to be the concern of politicians and SAGE, that they are trying to minimise deaths - they are inevitable - but in the short term, in the hope that while alternative long-term damage will undoubtedly result, this will be mitigated by the arrival of vaccine at some point within the next 6-9 months.  If it doesn't they will have gambled and lost.  If it does, and is safe, then it seems to me that the terrible shock of what would be 18 months of this nightmare/big damage to the economy/longer-term health issues, is a lesser evil than the alternative, a large number of deaths in the here and now, allied to long-term Covid illnesses in a fair number of other people.

What do you think?

(10-13-2020, 11:57 AM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:

(10-13-2020, 09:41 AM)billybassett Wrote:

(10-13-2020, 07:50 AM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: I’ve tried logic and joined up thinking it doesn’t work. 

I think some have this idea we have thousands of NHS staff who can be called upon to deal with an influx of Covid patients (a logical conclusion of to going back to normal) and at the same time treat Cancer and other serious illnesses. Presumably once the cancer and other seriously ill patients are out of hospital recovering or undertaking a course of treatment they are are just told to shield at home for a few months perhaps years because they’ve then become as inconvenient to everyone else’s freedoms as the old, already vulnerable and disabled. 

As you said we to try and suppress the spread of the virus because to not do so means you damage the economy and the health of the country. It should not be a a choice between treating non Covid patients and Covid patients. The problem is incompetence in implementation by the government and people ignoring the rules. That won’t be solved by everyone back to normal because it won’t be ahem normal!

This is the issue. Living with respiratory viruses is the normal. Covid is a non-lethal respiratory virus (more lethal than circulating influenza covid strains mind). You're getting confused with what's normal and not because that's what the govt want.

The PCR test is absolutely flawed, if you need evidence I can provide, thus mass testing only exacerbates the govts requirement to push the "casedemic" and thus negatively affect the general health of the majority of the population. This is also part of the reason the test and trace is flawed and not working because mass testing under the PCR test is flawed.

3.5k people in hospital, circa 24% of those are nosocomial Covid as they are tested for Covid when they enter add that to the PCR false positives plus the asymptomatics are lumped in.

Your unrelenting need to keep coming back to that I'm suggesting it should be "a choice between treating non Covid patients and Covid patients" is completely non-sensical. It shouldn't be a choice as everyone should still be being seen. The fact is the choice you are advocating is not seeing anyone and keeping us locked down.  Median age at covid19 death is 83y, 1y older than non-Covid19 deaths. Are you abolishing death now?

OFCOM has prevented main media from reporting other than the Govt line on covid19 since lockdown day 1. Check out their Coronavirus Broadcasting Regulations. Thus we are all being duped (well not me and maybe a couple more on here) in true 1984 style the Ministry of Cummings Propaganda and van Tam's advice to keep us all from acquiring immunity so he can sell his vaccine that he's associated to.

Wake up and smell the coffee my ponners

So why are they doing it? Why are they making themselves look more and more incompetent or in some cases downright dodgy? Why are Hobbling the economy on the eve of another shit show called Brexit? You seem to be heading down the conspiracy theory route BB and I’m not trying to be rude it just reads that way. If you have a theory then explain it as it might help understand your position more.

(10-13-2020, 03:33 PM)Brentbaggie Wrote:

(10-13-2020, 12:34 PM)Protheroe Wrote: I listened to Charles Walker on Radio 4 yesterday and he pretty much sums up where I'm at (and where I've been since March)

"We just can’t save every life, because the cost to the living is too high.”

“The pandemic is not rampant, this is an illness that very sadly really afflicts the elderly and those with underlying health conditions."

“Our focus should be on protecting them, not limiting the life chances of young people and people of middle age who are responsible for running and owning businesses.”

“First world public services do require a first world economy"

“It does seem the government, for the best of reasons, but mistaken reasons, is trying to abolish death. You can’t abolish death. The fact is people in their 80s and 90s die.”

"The only guarantee anyone has when they're born is that at some stage in your 80s or 90s you are going to die”.

“My real concern is these decisions are mostly being made by the middle aged and well-heeled, paid out of the public purse, so they’re not really going to bear the consequences off these decisions.”

Many of you know I lost both my parents to late diagnosed cancer. Cancer Research today spells out that 3 million people have missed out on cancer screening tests since March due to our preoccuptaions with Covid. It makes me want to scream

Proth, I sympathise with you and quite understand your anger. I've got a 12 month post cancer op scan tomorrow that I should have had 7 weeks ago - and I think I'm very fortunate, at least I hope I will be. Losing both parents in the way you did is terrible and difficult to bear.  

My only question is how do politicians square the circle of allowing older and "unlucky" victims succumbing to Covid deaths, while at the same time ensuring that hospitals do not have to admit rising numbers with Covid who will need intensive care? I get that you think the numbers are misleading - and perhaps they are - but numbers on ventilators are going up. Do you think this will cease or do you think that without some kind of regulation these numbers will eventually decrease? What system of dealing with flare-ups would you instigate, if any?  

I think, and this seems to be the concern of politicians and SAGE, that they are trying to minimise deaths - they are inevitable - but in the short term, in the hope that while alternative long-term damage will undoubtedly result, this will be mitigated by the arrival of vaccine at some point within the next 6-9 months.  If it doesn't they will have gambled and lost.  If it does, and is safe, then it seems to me that the terrible shock of what would be 18 months of this nightmare/big damage to the economy/longer-term health issues, is a lesser evil than the alternative, a large number of deaths in the here and now, allied to long-term Covid illnesses in a fair number of other people.

What do you think?

(10-13-2020, 03:55 PM)Ted Maul Wrote: 143 deaths in the last 24 hours, quite the jump from the end of last week.

(10-13-2020, 03:33 PM)Brentbaggie Wrote:

(10-13-2020, 12:34 PM)Protheroe Wrote: I listened to Charles Walker on Radio 4 yesterday and he pretty much sums up where I'm at (and where I've been since March)

"We just can’t save every life, because the cost to the living is too high.”

“The pandemic is not rampant, this is an illness that very sadly really afflicts the elderly and those with underlying health conditions."

“Our focus should be on protecting them, not limiting the life chances of young people and people of middle age who are responsible for running and owning businesses.”

“First world public services do require a first world economy"

“It does seem the government, for the best of reasons, but mistaken reasons, is trying to abolish death. You can’t abolish death. The fact is people in their 80s and 90s die.”

"The only guarantee anyone has when they're born is that at some stage in your 80s or 90s you are going to die”.

“My real concern is these decisions are mostly being made by the middle aged and well-heeled, paid out of the public purse, so they’re not really going to bear the consequences off these decisions.”

Many of you know I lost both my parents to late diagnosed cancer. Cancer Research today spells out that 3 million people have missed out on cancer screening tests since March due to our preoccuptaions with Covid. It makes me want to scream

Proth, I sympathise with you and quite understand your anger. I've got a 12 month post cancer op scan tomorrow that I should have had 7 weeks ago - and I think I'm very fortunate, at least I hope I will be. Losing both parents in the way you did is terrible and difficult to bear.  

My only question is how do politicians square the circle of allowing older and "unlucky" victims succumbing to Covid deaths, while at the same time ensuring that hospitals do not have to admit rising numbers with Covid who will need intensive care? I get that you think the numbers are misleading - and perhaps they are - but numbers on ventilators are going up. Do you think this will cease or do you think that without some kind of regulation these numbers will eventually decrease? What system of dealing with flare-ups would you instigate, if any?  

I think, and this seems to be the concern of politicians and SAGE, that they are trying to minimise deaths - they are inevitable - but in the short term, in the hope that while alternative long-term damage will undoubtedly result, this will be mitigated by the arrival of vaccine at some point within the next 6-9 months.  If it doesn't they will have gambled and lost.  If it does, and is safe, then it seems to me that the terrible shock of what would be 18 months of this nightmare/big damage to the economy/longer-term health issues, is a lesser evil than the alternative, a large number of deaths in the here and now, allied to long-term Covid illnesses in a fair number of other people.

What do you think?