Durham

[WWHO]

So you've made bullshit up have you without any names .

Your piers Morgan I claim my five false pictures of iraq soldiers.

What? Please point to any of my posts that concentrate on infection. You still don’t understand the argument do you? He was part of the team that came up with the lockdown rules and messages that if he didn’t break he certainly didn’t stick to the spirit of. Therefore he has weakened the message, created distrust in the government and potentially the safety of others as a consequence. I’m trying to be polite Liq but ffs stop making yourself look daft.

I really don't know why you bother Dekka.  He's essentially been trolling you for months ...

[Ossian]

Come on derek let's get the names up who he infected you love facts so let's get your up on DC  going to Durham....no spin names please .

He (Derek) can't, nobody can; which is precisely why Cummings shouldn't have done what he did.

But please, by all means, take this off on another tangent and ask me a completely unrelated hypothetical question.

[Solihull Throstle]

If ever the term "bread and viruses" was apt its surely this week.

This mob of self-serving sociopaths never cease to amaze me.

A second wave appears more acceptable than having the low-life in the headlines.

[Protheroe]

And a particularly odd stance from someone who is so frequently exercised about accountability in public office.

I think the government (and Cummings) should be held accountable for the untold damage it's done to the economy and the life chances of the most deprived communities in Britain over the last 12 weeks.

For a virus that appears limited to the hospital and care sector, and dangerous to a miniscule proportion of the population I'm rather more exorcised that we're still in any form of lockdown.

[billybassett]

And a particularly odd stance from someone who is so frequently exercised about accountability in public office.

I think the government (and Cummings) should be held accountable for the untold damage it's done to the economy and the life chances of the most deprived communities in Britain over the last 12 weeks.

For a virus that appears limited to the hospital and care sector, and dangerous to a miniscule proportion of the population I'm rather more exorcised that we're still in any form of lockdown.

I'm on this side of the coin and have been for many weeks. It's been quite obvious from the beginning - and from the data in Feb from China - that it was the elderly and those with underlying health conditions that were most at risk - and those who were both basically had to be locked away carefully. Whilst there have been a small number of deaths to those under 45 the majority of those have been because of underlying conditions - and to be honest those who have died who didn't show any underlying health issues most probably did have.

And this is why the govt have screwed up royally: those old and ill people should have been locked away and dealt with and when they were ill they should have been segregated and not sent back to care homes.

As for the under 45s they should have been allowed to go forth into the world and stay away from their old relatives. A bit like as an island locking the fking borders... it's not rocket science. As it is we have the worst of both worlds - lots of old and vulnerable people dead and an economy that is absolutely screwed for a decade.

[baggy1]

You're making a major mistake with that assumption BB - you are confusing deaths with contraction which is a very dangerous misinterpretation. Forget about Proths "limited to the hospital and care sector comment", that is plain stupid as people contract it prior to going into hospital.

Whilst it is true the deaths figure is weighted very heavily against the over 65s (at least 55k of the 65k excess deaths so far this year) it doesn't mean that those under 65 are immune to the virus and we need much further evidence of longer term damage caused by this before we say that any group of people don't need to worry about it.

If you can back up the U45s can do what they want with any data on infection rates and recovery that would help me understand it better as I haven't seen any

[Protheroe]

Forget about Proths "limited to the hospital and care sector comment", that is plain stupid as people contract it prior to going into hospital.

PHE suggests at least 20% of those who've had Covid 19 contracted it in hospital and, of course 90% of health workers who've had it have contracted it in hospital.

The death rate for social care workers from Covid 19 is double that of the general working age population. The numbers of deaths in care homes are awful and are recorded by the CQC / ONS.

I don't make this stuff up you know.

If you have a problem in specific sectors, you target those specific sectors. You don't blanket lockdown everyone.

[billybassett]

You're making a major mistake with that assumption BB - you are confusing deaths with contraction which is a very dangerous misinterpretation. Forget about Proths "limited to the hospital and care sector comment", that is plain stupid as people contract it prior to going into hospital.

Whilst it is true the deaths figure is weighted very heavily against the over 65s (at least 55k of the 65k excess deaths so far this year) it doesn't mean that those under 65 are immune to the virus and we need much further evidence of longer term damage caused by this before we say that any group of people don't need to worry about it.

If you can back up the U45s can do what they want with any data on infection rates and recovery that would help me understand it better as I haven't seen any

Yes valid points.

There are no contraction rates because there's hardly any testing.

But clearly it's a fair assumption to say that millions have been infected and millions have recovered with no treatment. We can deduce that because to get to an R number where we had the spike we did then many many people must have been passing it on to many others - the silent infectors. There have been 278k lab confirmed cases. With a population of 68m so only 4 in every 1000 people and of those 4, 0.5% of those have tragically died. I say again clearly the contraction rates have been in the millions.

As for under 50s data - from what i can see that ranges from 0% to 0.4% based on some countries (a few countries and some of the most infected: https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid). In the under 50s a few hundred people have unfortunately died. Take into context that last year there were 7000 under 50s deaths from accidental poisoning and suicide and injury/poisoning of undetermined intent.

I think the question now is what is actually the greatest risk to the health and well being of our society. Is it the dreaded second wave (never happened with SARS but did twice with Spanish Flu)? or is it the destruction of our economy, jobs, livelihoods, other health conditions not treated.

Also look at the stats by Region. London with a population of 9m has had only 27k cases and they were bowling about on the tube until early March.

The stats are clear for me. If you're old or vulnerable or both stay at home and shield well until you've been tested or vaccinated. If you're under 45/50 lets get out there immediately and try to rebuild this mess.

[Protheroe]

The stats are clear for me. If you're old or vulnerable or both stay at home and shield well until you've been tested or vaccinated. If you're under 45/50 lets get out there immediately and try to rebuild this mess.

Amen to that.

[baggy1]

Forget about Proths "limited to the hospital and care sector comment", that is plain stupid as people contract it prior to going into hospital.

PHE suggests at least 20% of those who've had Covid 19 contracted it in hospital and, of course 90% of health workers who've had it have contracted it in hospital.

The death rate for social care workers from Covid 19 is double that of the general working age population. The numbers of deaths in care homes are awful and are recorded by the CQC / ONS.

I don't make this stuff up you know.

If you have a problem in specific sectors, you target those specific sectors. You don't blanket lockdown everyone.

But you do manipulate figures to inflate them - 20% of those who've had it will include the 90% figure which is unnecessary but as it's a big number it sounds impressive. What are the actual numbers of cases, not % that you are talking about. 

And no doubt that care workers are in the firing line here, I'm very much of the belief that the 'loading' element of this virus is very important in understanding how to deal with it and that is especially in the case of putting people in a crowded room together as we would normally do.

And again you talk of people who have had it when that data is simply not available, it might be being estimated but we simply don't know because we haven't tested. 

You might not make this stuff up, but you do a very good impression of someone who is ignoring obvious figures like 65,000 excess deaths with a lockdown - you've ignored this question a few times so it would be nice to get an answer. Do you think that figure would have been better or worse without a lockdown?