UK Covid death toll

[The liquidator]

How do you know for a fact they would have used the local track and trace? It's all bluster the bottom line nobody knows but it is easy to point fingers with no comebacks.

[baggy1]

You think that a Labour government would have outsourced to the private sector. That’s laughable.

[foreveralbion]

cant see how anyone can say that mates of the tories have not benefited from this period.

hopefully a full enquiry one day will shed some light on the appalling use of public funds.

i would not have much faith in labour handling it much better though.

we should be in a much better place now to be opening things up rather than shutting stuff down.

nightingales are built and treatment is much better.

like a lot of folk ive got people at both ends.

two sets of elderly parents and four late teen kids.

weve been sensible with the grandparents but really feel for my kids. 

keep locking down with no sight of a vaccine cant surely be the way to go?

[The liquidator]

Off here funnily enough I'm a upbeat person and nothing really fazes me but this constant news on the virus is really getting me down and more importantly the wife. I think I'm going to make a decision not to watch the news for a week.

[baggy1]

We are in a better place hopefully. It does appear that they are locking down at the point they should have done last time, my gut feeling is that if they had done it right the 1st time there wouldn't be such a need for this lockdown. The nightingales are available if they have the staff to run them and we as a nation are much more aware of what is needed now.

The problem that i can see now is the blanket approach to everything in one area - I went to a nice pub last night, the staff did everything well and masks were required when not sitting down and the service was great on both food and drink. We checked in and had reserved seats - those same staff will be penalised if there is a harder lockdown when they have done, and are doing, everything right. Penalise those that need it, not those that are abiding by the rules.

[Tom Joad]

We are in a better place hopefully. It does appear that they are locking down at the point they should have done last time, my gut feeling is that if they had done it right the 1st time there wouldn't be such a need for this lockdown. The nightingales are available if they have the staff to run them and we as a nation are much more aware of what is needed now.

The problem that i can see now is the blanket approach to everything in one area - I went to a nice pub last night, the staff did everything well and masks were required when not sitting down and the service was great on both food and drink. We checked in and had reserved seats - those same staff will be penalised if there is a harder lockdown when they have done, and are doing, everything right. Penalise those that need it, not those that are abiding by the rules.

So true. Too many are lumping pubs into a general heap of things that can be dismissed as antisocial. My experience is completely the opposite and I'm finding the ones I use to be very organised. All the more so in this difficult situation where numbers are restricted and profits either reduced or non existent. I am desperately hoping that an evening pint after a days' work or a nice meal in a pub isn't added to the forbidden list along with visits to kids, grandkids, friends, cricket and The Hawthorns. I'm miserable enough as it is!

[billybassett]

Still no answer. Didn't think so. How very conservative and Cummings of you. Avoid the future cost at your own present gain. You need to take a hard look in the mirror.

I've never said it's not more deadly, it is. Can't possibly say whether it's 1.5, 2 or 3 until it's passed that's purely scaremongering. The point you so clearly want to avoid is the answer to my question.

Is 50000 , 100000 or more excess deaths over the next 10 years a price worth paying to save those now?

Those numbers are quotes from the ONS. You can say at this point that the virus is killing three times as many people as flu and pneumonia. Why do you persist with the idea that I’m exaggerating or facilitating the sensationalisation of the threat? The only numbers I’ve used are from the ONS or local Public Health teams who are not the Press or in need of grabbing headlines. 

With regards to your question it’s not very clear what you’re asking or where and what will cause these excess deaths. If it is through a lack of Cancer diagnosis etc then I will answer the question. 

Let’s think about this logically if those patients who aren’t or can’t seek help do get the medical help...

That will place them in the same vulnerable bracket as those currently or recently more accurately placed on the shielding list. That means that allowing ‘everything to go back to normal’ will place those people you wish to be looked after more at risk or locked within their own homes until they recover or sadly pass away from the underlying illness. 

Add to them the increase in those who will need medical support due to the medium and long term effects of the virus. They are already planning Long Covid clinics. 

Those same people will find themselves suffering from metal health problems including depression, getting themselves into debt, families breaking up, exhaustion. All the things you’re say you’re concerned with will happen at the expense of the freedoms of the fittest. 

This should not be a choice between protecting one group of people over another. We are all connected in one way or another and the mark of a decent society is to try and support each other and compromise our own wishes for the good of others. We must find a middle way of managing the risk that does not mean leaving thousands of people under house arrest. At one point smoking was seen as a good idea in public places, restaurants and pubs etc it’s no longer socially acceptable. 

Normal is not static it changes and adapts to the circumstances that we find ourselves in. 

If you want to vent your frustrations at the situation fine but aim it towards the party that has been in power for over a decade overseeing an NHS that was pitifully under prepared for the pandemic, a Track and Trace system that is world beating in so much as it’s world beatingly poor, confusing messages etc and the behaviour of those who have done wtf they like during the whole pandemic.

Literally don't know where to start with this more holes than a collander and still never answers the question I asked. Just deflected again.

If you can't see what 7 months of lockdown and local lockdowns hasn't done but still want the same for the next 7 you're past helping.

[Brentbaggie]

Still no answer. Didn't think so. How very conservative and Cummings of you. Avoid the future cost at your own present gain. You need to take a hard look in the mirror.

I've never said it's not more deadly, it is. Can't possibly say whether it's 1.5, 2 or 3 until it's passed that's purely scaremongering. The point you so clearly want to avoid is the answer to my question.

Is 50000 , 100000 or more excess deaths over the next 10 years a price worth paying to save those now?

Those numbers are quotes from the ONS. You can say at this point that the virus is killing three times as many people as flu and pneumonia. Why do you persist with the idea that I’m exaggerating or facilitating the sensationalisation of the threat? The only numbers I’ve used are from the ONS or local Public Health teams who are not the Press or in need of grabbing headlines. 

With regards to your question it’s not very clear what you’re asking or where and what will cause these excess deaths. If it is through a lack of Cancer diagnosis etc then I will answer the question. 

Let’s think about this logically if those patients who aren’t or can’t seek help do get the medical help...

That will place them in the same vulnerable bracket as those currently or recently more accurately placed on the shielding list. That means that allowing ‘everything to go back to normal’ will place those people you wish to be looked after more at risk or locked within their own homes until they recover or sadly pass away from the underlying illness. 

Add to them the increase in those who will need medical support due to the medium and long term effects of the virus. They are already planning Long Covid clinics. 

Those same people will find themselves suffering from metal health problems including depression, getting themselves into debt, families breaking up, exhaustion. All the things you’re say you’re concerned with will happen at the expense of the freedoms of the fittest. 

This should not be a choice between protecting one group of people over another. We are all connected in one way or another and the mark of a decent society is to try and support each other and compromise our own wishes for the good of others. We must find a middle way of managing the risk that does not mean leaving thousands of people under house arrest. At one point smoking was seen as a good idea in public places, restaurants and pubs etc it’s no longer socially acceptable. 

Normal is not static it changes and adapts to the circumstances that we find ourselves in. 

If you want to vent your frustrations at the situation fine but aim it towards the party that has been in power for over a decade overseeing an NHS that was pitifully under prepared for the pandemic, a Track and Trace system that is world beating in so much as it’s world beatingly poor, confusing messages etc and the behaviour of those who have done wtf they like during the whole pandemic.

Literally don't know where to start with this more holes than a collander and still never answers the question I asked. Just deflected again.

If you can't see what 7 months of lockdown and local lockdowns hasn't done but still want the same for the next 7 you're past helping.

Billy, I've tried to stay out of this debate because I think the situation is very complex and I'm no expert. I also understand the basis for both sides of the argument but I would return to what I said much earlier, which is that statistical data analysis is a somewhat inexact science. You seem to criticise Derek for not being able to supply an answer to your question of whether saving a certain number of lives in the here and now is worth the risk of "50-100,000 lives" further down the line. How do you arrive at your figure?  There is no certainty that such a number of lives will be lost - not least if a vaccine turns up within the next 6 or even 12 months.

The one real concern that you seem not to want to take onboard is what might happen if the virus is to be treated as a lesser evil and allowed a certain amount of give. I think it's clear that the greatest immediate concern is what happens inside hospitals if Covid patients with severe life-threatening symptoms are admitted as a result of a rising infection rate. Some argue that the NHS can cope, I've seen it stated that things were not as bad as they were painted earlier this year - but I am sure that whatever rationale is being used for the present actions (or inaction) at its heart is the desire to ensure that hospitals and NHS workers are not overwhelmed.

Maybe they wouldn't be, but the rate at which infections and hospital admissions are going, leads me to think it's not a risk worth taking because while, as Maynard Keynes said, "In the long run we're all dead", I'd rather have the chance of a long run rather than a short one. I think the idea is to keep deaths as low as possible and hope that the vaccine trials mean the long-term damage remains a lesser evil.

[Derek Hardballs]

Still no answer. Didn't think so. How very conservative and Cummings of you. Avoid the future cost at your own present gain. You need to take a hard look in the mirror.

I've never said it's not more deadly, it is. Can't possibly say whether it's 1.5, 2 or 3 until it's passed that's purely scaremongering. The point you so clearly want to avoid is the answer to my question.

Is 50000 , 100000 or more excess deaths over the next 10 years a price worth paying to save those now?

Those numbers are quotes from the ONS. You can say at this point that the virus is killing three times as many people as flu and pneumonia. Why do you persist with the idea that I’m exaggerating or facilitating the sensationalisation of the threat? The only numbers I’ve used are from the ONS or local Public Health teams who are not the Press or in need of grabbing headlines. 

With regards to your question it’s not very clear what you’re asking or where and what will cause these excess deaths. If it is through a lack of Cancer diagnosis etc then I will answer the question. 

Let’s think about this logically if those patients who aren’t or can’t seek help do get the medical help...

That will place them in the same vulnerable bracket as those currently or recently more accurately placed on the shielding list. That means that allowing ‘everything to go back to normal’ will place those people you wish to be looked after more at risk or locked within their own homes until they recover or sadly pass away from the underlying illness. 

Add to them the increase in those who will need medical support due to the medium and long term effects of the virus. They are already planning Long Covid clinics. 

Those same people will find themselves suffering from metal health problems including depression, getting themselves into debt, families breaking up, exhaustion. All the things you’re say you’re concerned with will happen at the expense of the freedoms of the fittest. 

This should not be a choice between protecting one group of people over another. We are all connected in one way or another and the mark of a decent society is to try and support each other and compromise our own wishes for the good of others. We must find a middle way of managing the risk that does not mean leaving thousands of people under house arrest. At one point smoking was seen as a good idea in public places, restaurants and pubs etc it’s no longer socially acceptable. 

Normal is not static it changes and adapts to the circumstances that we find ourselves in. 

If you want to vent your frustrations at the situation fine but aim it towards the party that has been in power for over a decade overseeing an NHS that was pitifully under prepared for the pandemic, a Track and Trace system that is world beating in so much as it’s world beatingly poor, confusing messages etc and the behaviour of those who have done wtf they like during the whole pandemic.

Literally don't know where to start with this more holes than a collander and still never answers the question I asked. Just deflected again.

If you can't see what 7 months of lockdown and local lockdowns hasn't done but still want the same for the next 7 you're past helping.

What holes? Please elaborate. 
Back up your stats mine are as accurate as you’re going to get.
Define lockdown? You can go to school, college, uni, gyms, play sport, go to work, go to the shops, go on holiday here and abroad, go to the pub, go to a restaurant, go to a gallery, go to the cinema, go to some theatre’s, go to the pub! Since those things have been allowed the infection rate has logically gone up. 

Back your claims up as as far as I can see your argument isn’t so much full of holes as a ginormous logic free chasm.

[billybassett]

Still no answer. Didn't think so. How very conservative and Cummings of you. Avoid the future cost at your own present gain. You need to take a hard look in the mirror.

I've never said it's not more deadly, it is. Can't possibly say whether it's 1.5, 2 or 3 until it's passed that's purely scaremongering. The point you so clearly want to avoid is the answer to my question.

Is 50000 , 100000 or more excess deaths over the next 10 years a price worth paying to save those now?

Those numbers are quotes from the ONS. You can say at this point that the virus is killing three times as many people as flu and pneumonia. Why do you persist with the idea that I’m exaggerating or facilitating the sensationalisation of the threat? The only numbers I’ve used are from the ONS or local Public Health teams who are not the Press or in need of grabbing headlines. 

With regards to your question it’s not very clear what you’re asking or where and what will cause these excess deaths. If it is through a lack of Cancer diagnosis etc then I will answer the question. 

Let’s think about this logically if those patients who aren’t or can’t seek help do get the medical help...

That will place them in the same vulnerable bracket as those currently or recently more accurately placed on the shielding list. That means that allowing ‘everything to go back to normal’ will place those people you wish to be looked after more at risk or locked within their own homes until they recover or sadly pass away from the underlying illness. 

Add to them the increase in those who will need medical support due to the medium and long term effects of the virus. They are already planning Long Covid clinics. 

Those same people will find themselves suffering from metal health problems including depression, getting themselves into debt, families breaking up, exhaustion. All the things you’re say you’re concerned with will happen at the expense of the freedoms of the fittest. 

This should not be a choice between protecting one group of people over another. We are all connected in one way or another and the mark of a decent society is to try and support each other and compromise our own wishes for the good of others. We must find a middle way of managing the risk that does not mean leaving thousands of people under house arrest. At one point smoking was seen as a good idea in public places, restaurants and pubs etc it’s no longer socially acceptable. 

Normal is not static it changes and adapts to the circumstances that we find ourselves in. 

If you want to vent your frustrations at the situation fine but aim it towards the party that has been in power for over a decade overseeing an NHS that was pitifully under prepared for the pandemic, a Track and Trace system that is world beating in so much as it’s world beatingly poor, confusing messages etc and the behaviour of those who have done wtf they like during the whole pandemic.

Literally don't know where to start with this more holes than a collander and still never answers the question I asked. Just deflected again.

If you can't see what 7 months of lockdown and local lockdowns hasn't done but still want the same for the next 7 you're past helping.

What holes? Please elaborate. 
Back up your stats mine are as accurate as you’re going to get.
Define lockdown? You can go to school, college, uni, gyms, play sport, go to work, go to the shops, go on holiday here and abroad, go to the pub, go to a restaurant, go to a gallery, go to the cinema, go to some theatre’s, go to the pub! Since those things have been allowed the infection rate has logically gone up. 

Back your claims up as as far as I can see your argument isn’t so much full of holes as a ginormous logic free chasm.

You posted an article from the independent and some ons data. Hardly claims. You have then drawn some spurious claims from them and called them truth. You haven't a clue. I'm lucky enough to be married to someone who works in a global pharmaceutical company with plenty of eminent scientists.

As far as I can see on this politics bored you are a labour man and a consistent conservative critic. Yet your own views on what has happened over the last 7 months and how to manage it is so clearly aligned to the Tory view that it's must be a bit humiliating for you to actually agree.

You're a sheep in this matter. You've had the wool pulled over your eyes. You've yet to have the adult brains or gumption to ask why are they really doing this and understand more widely the actual science. Unfortunately you're only capable of expressing critically rather than critical thinking. But that's ok because there's plenty out there who can do the thinking for you and lobby the right people with the right facts to make sure we don't go down the pan alongside you.