NPR

Tichtheid wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:24 am It wasn’t only the number of patients being hospitalised that threatened to overwhelm the NHS, staff were catching the virus and others who were working elsewhere in the NHS were called to the wards if they had nursing or medical qualifications as cover. Many of those called in caught the virus themselves.

I don’t know the extent to which this made other services unavailable, but it did have an impact.

It would be interesting to know how widespread immunity is among NHS staff now. It's one thing that will make the second wave easier to deal with than the first, if there isn't the same impact on staff availability.

Northern Lights wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:19 am

salanya wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 8:54 am So we shouldn't be having considerable restrictions/lockdowns because more people die from cancer than covid?

Let's remind ourselves that 50k people have died in the UK in 7 months, of which 2-3 months were spent in lockdown - if there had been few restrictions the covid deaths figures would have been exponentially worse.

And guess which people are most likely to be severely impacted by Covid? Older people with compromised imune systems, like a large amount of cancer sufferers. So to provide safe treatment for cancer (and most other illnesses) you have to take Covid19 serious.

A right balance of restrictions, and how they are communicated and supported, should definitely be discussed. But to rubbish forms of lockdown because more people die from cancer every year is a short-sighted and polarising argument.

So again we get presented with more bullshit narrative that we arent to take Covd seriously if we propose a different course of action as this one isnt working, round and round we go with more wilfull misrepresentation.

I expect it would be easier if you provided clarity on which different course of action it is that you propose that still takes the threat of COVID seriously.

I also think that:

1) Talking about the risks to people who might normally be diagnosed with a serious illness but are unable / feel unable to seek help because of COVID & lockdown is a legitimate line of discussion
2) Talking about the number of people who die from cancer - cancer that is often incurable - as a comparison to a contagious disease is unhelpful and also at odds with the "well they were likely to die soon anyway" angle you've taken wrt old people and COVID
3) Salanya is of course correct that these things intersect and influence each other; under a "shield the vulnerable only" course of action, it's difficult to see how people who are being diagnosed with cancer (and therefore are also at greater risk from dying from COVID) aren't more likely to get COVID (they only know they're vulnerable and to be shielded after the diagnosis), or how a course of action for *just* the vulnerable is going to work as good as or better than one that attempts to stop COVID spreading through genpop.

I don't know of a plan of action that's going to make things better for people who need diagnosis or treatment for cancer in a COVID world than what we already have. I would like to know what it might be. At the moment there are essentially two plans under discussion: general lockdowns, and "shield the vulnerable only". Are there more? What's a viable alternative? Genuine question.

Hong Kong wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:31 am the UK government had a strategy???

Wash your hands. And it's working in the South where people are capable of doing it. Merseyside.....

Hong Kong wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:31 am the UK government had a strategy???

I think you'll find they had several strategies in quick succession.

robmatic wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:33 am

Tichtheid wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:24 am It wasn’t only the number of patients being hospitalised that threatened to overwhelm the NHS, staff were catching the virus and others who were working elsewhere in the NHS were called to the wards if they had nursing or medical qualifications as cover. Many of those called in caught the virus themselves.

I don’t know the extent to which this made other services unavailable, but it did have an impact.

It would be interesting to know how widespread immunity is among NHS staff now. It's one thing that will make the second wave easier to deal with than the first, if there isn't the same impact on staff availability.

No-one knows. Come back in 5 years and we'll try to get you the data.

Bimbowomxn wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:24 am

Sandstorm wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 8:41 am My Dad has Stage 3 cancer in South Africa. He's missed half his appointments with his oncologist in the last 6 months BY CHOICE because he's shit-scared he'll get Covid19 in the hospital. I suspect it's exactly the same in the UK.

But let's blame the national Covid strategy for that!

The UK governments strategy was to deliberate scare people. So yes let’s blame them for that.

Should Sandstorm's dad not be scared of catching COVID? He sounds like he's in a very high risk group.

Not sure where I stand on next steps beyond it being easy to criticise both action and inaction.
What does strike me is that the War comparison at the start was inaccurate, this strikes me more as a Vietnam style mire. How do we ever get out of this? A vaccine maybe could work but not any time soon, even if it is rushed through trials not enough people will take it up to gain herd immunity. In the meantime do we simply go from eased measures to more severe every few months until there are no businesses left? Or do we get on with it and overwhelm the NHS and kill lots of people?

No easy answers and this strikes me as being a 5 year slog.

The UK sage meetings clearly state using the media and their own messaging to scare compliance into the population.

JM2K6 wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:35 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:24 am

Sandstorm wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 8:41 am My Dad has Stage 3 cancer in South Africa. He's missed half his appointments with his oncologist in the last 6 months BY CHOICE because he's shit-scared he'll get Covid19 in the hospital. I suspect it's exactly the same in the UK.

But let's blame the national Covid strategy for that!

The UK governments strategy was to deliberate scare people. So yes let’s blame them for that.

Should Sandstorm's dad not be scared of catching COVID? He sounds like he's in a very high risk group.

Bimboh is referring to an early Sage meeting back in March where someone said: "Scare them into compliance"

He'll keep bringing it up.

I'm fairly sure that's not a gotcha. It's a scary disease. People need to take it seriously, which does mean being afraid of what it can do to you and people around you.

JM2K6 wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:35 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:24 am

Sandstorm wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 8:41 am My Dad has Stage 3 cancer in South Africa. He's missed half his appointments with his oncologist in the last 6 months BY CHOICE because he's shit-scared he'll get Covid19 in the hospital. I suspect it's exactly the same in the UK.

But let's blame the national Covid strategy for that!

The UK governments strategy was to deliberate scare people. So yes let’s blame them for that.

Should Sandstorm's dad not be scared of catching COVID? He sounds like he's in a very high risk group.

Yeah maybe and he needs to balance that risk. In the UK though we now know a lot of people died from Heart and strokes unnecessarily because of fear. That cannot be right.

Sandstorm wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:43 am

JM2K6 wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:35 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:24 am



The UK governments strategy was to deliberate scare people. So yes let’s blame them for that.

Should Sandstorm's dad not be scared of catching COVID? He sounds like he's in a very high risk group.

Bimboh is referring to an early Sage meeting back in March where someone said: "Scare them into compliance"

He'll keep bringing it up.

Because it’s very relevant....... and no not just “someone said” it was a policy adoption which they carried out.

JM2K6 wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:44 am I'm fairly sure that's not a gotcha. It's a scary disease. People need to take it seriously, which does mean being afraid of what it can do to you and people around you.

We now know it’s scarier for some more than others. We should appreciate and use that information.

I'd say the Government was successful in ensuring that a majority of people in this country took this virus seriously, particularly at the start. Compliance with the lockdown was staggeringly high.

Of course with time people have lost interest, particularly in groups who are at a personal low level of risk.

JM2K6 wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:44 am I'm fairly sure that's not a gotcha. It's a scary disease. People need to take it seriously, which does mean being afraid of what it can do to you and people around you.

It's also nonsense. Because Boris did the opposite of that Sage comment and came out all public-school chum instead: "We're all in this together; wash your hands, don't wash your hands, I trust you, wash your cars, protect the NHS. Crumpet."

Hardly scare tactics by any measure.

Bimbowomxn wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:46 am

JM2K6 wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:44 am I'm fairly sure that's not a gotcha. It's a scary disease. People need to take it seriously, which does mean being afraid of what it can do to you and people around you.

We now know it’s scarier for some more than others. We should appreciate and use that information.

It's a very contagious disease which makes that equation a lot less simple than you make out.

People at risk of heart attacks and strokes are largely also the group that should be scared of the consequences of getting COVID.

JM2K6 wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:48 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:46 am

JM2K6 wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:44 am I'm fairly sure that's not a gotcha. It's a scary disease. People need to take it seriously, which does mean being afraid of what it can do to you and people around you.

We now know it’s scarier for some more than others. We should appreciate and use that information.

It's a very contagious disease which makes that equation a lot less simple than you make out.

People at risk of heart attacks and strokes are largely also the group that should be scared of the consequences of getting COVID.

Sorry, it’s clearly not “very” contagious. I’m talking about people who had heart attacks and strokes and stayed and died at home, the risk of covid is negligible compared to that.

Bimbowomxn wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:46 am

JM2K6 wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:44 am I'm fairly sure that's not a gotcha. It's a scary disease. People need to take it seriously, which does mean being afraid of what it can do to you and people around you.

We now know it’s scarier for some more than others. We should appreciate and use that information.

What's your plan?

Sandstorm wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:47 am

JM2K6 wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:44 am I'm fairly sure that's not a gotcha. It's a scary disease. People need to take it seriously, which does mean being afraid of what it can do to you and people around you.

It's also nonsense. Because Boris did the opposite of that Sage comment and came out all public-school chum instead: "We're all in this together; wash your hands, don't wash your hands, I trust you, wash your cars, protect the NHS. Crumpet."

Hardly scare tactics by any measure.

It’s not nonsense your wrong.

That Boris was a week before the Sage meeting that decided on the scare tactics. It was part of the lockdown strategy.

Slick wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:00 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:46 am

JM2K6 wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:44 am I'm fairly sure that's not a gotcha. It's a scary disease. People need to take it seriously, which does mean being afraid of what it can do to you and people around you.

We now know it’s scarier for some more than others. We should appreciate and use that information.

What's your plan?

Spend vast resources protecting the vulnerable.

Bimbowomxn wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:00 am

Slick wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:00 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:46 am



We now know it’s scarier for some more than others. We should appreciate and use that information.

What's your plan?

Spend vast resources protecting the vulnerable.

Come on don't be coy. You've spent the best part of 6 months, across at least 2 forums, rubbishing everything and anything anyone has done or suggested, you must have a well thought out plan. Just a few bullet points?

Bimbowomxn wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:59 am

JM2K6 wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:48 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:46 am

We now know it’s scarier for some more than others. We should appreciate and use that information.

It's a very contagious disease which makes that equation a lot less simple than you make out.

People at risk of heart attacks and strokes are largely also the group that should be scared of the consequences of getting COVID.

Sorry, it’s clearly not “very” contagious. I’m talking about people who had heart attacks and strokes and stayed and died at home, the risk of covid is negligible compared to that.

It's not very contagious? What? Tell that to people on cruise ships. Or the NHS doctors. Or Sale Sharks.

Slick wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:05 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:00 am

Slick wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:00 am

What's your plan?

Spend vast resources protecting the vulnerable.

Come on don't be coy. You've spent the best part of 6 months, across at least 2 forums, rubbishing everything and anything anyone has done or suggested, you must have a well thought out plan. Just a few bullet points?

You think the UK government has done a good job ?

And of course your premise for conversation isn’t true either, the lockdown had to occur and I supported that. The release though has been awful, he decisions around care home dreadful. The performance of PHE as expected from the state.

I do have thoughts regarding what’s next and they revolve around protection of the vulnerable. That isn’t controversial, your personal dislike though clouds any possibility of a conversation.

JM2K6 wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:11 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:59 am

JM2K6 wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:48 am

It's a very contagious disease which makes that equation a lot less simple than you make out.

People at risk of heart attacks and strokes are largely also the group that should be scared of the consequences of getting COVID.

Sorry, it’s clearly not “very” contagious. I’m talking about people who had heart attacks and strokes and stayed and died at home, the risk of covid is negligible compared to that.

It's not very contagious? What? Tell that to people on cruise ships. Or the NHS doctors. Or Sale Sharks.

It can be avoided by staying 2 metres away.

And there’s nothing regarding NHS doctors that points to very contagious, NHS staff have not been overly infected.

JM2K6 wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:11 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:59 am

JM2K6 wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:48 am

It's a very contagious disease which makes that equation a lot less simple than you make out.

People at risk of heart attacks and strokes are largely also the group that should be scared of the consequences of getting COVID.

Sorry, it’s clearly not “very” contagious. I’m talking about people who had heart attacks and strokes and stayed and died at home, the risk of covid is negligible compared to that.

It's not very contagious? What? Tell that to people on cruise ships. Or the NHS doctors. Or Sale Sharks.

i am not sure, but a friend of mine got it and it took the cunt ages to get better..........eyethankyeeewww

Bimbowomxn wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:13 am

JM2K6 wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:11 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:59 am



Sorry, it’s clearly not “very” contagious. I’m talking about people who had heart attacks and strokes and stayed and died at home, the risk of covid is negligible compared to that.

It's not very contagious? What? Tell that to people on cruise ships. Or the NHS doctors. Or Sale Sharks.

It can be avoided by staying 2 metres away.

No, that reduces the risk, it doesn't avoid it entirely. But that's also a bizarre way to measure how contagious something is. "if you don't come near it you can't get it" - good job, you've just made the case for extreme social distancing and lockdown.

I know you're wilfully contrary but surely you must understand that arguing with literally every statement is just going to go badly, right?

JM2K6 wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:15 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:13 am

JM2K6 wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:11 am

It's not very contagious? What? Tell that to people on cruise ships. Or the NHS doctors. Or Sale Sharks.

It can be avoided by staying 2 metres away.

No, that reduces the risk, it doesn't avoid it entirely. But that's also a bizarre way to measure how contagious something is. "if you don't come near it you can't get it" - good job, you've just made the case for extreme social distancing and lockdown.

I know you're wilfully contrary but surely you must understand that arguing with literally every statement is just going to go badly, right?

No, I’m not wilfully anything here , “very contagious “ is emotive and in the case of Covid clearly not true,

I realise you’re position comes from avoidance of any risk , but that’s not a way forward for society and only brings other problems.

Ffs if you want contrarian read what you posted regarding other health risks.

Welp, we're into proper bizarro world now

JM2K6 wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:26 am Welp, we're into proper bizarro world now

Yep, guess so.

Either way if this was “very” anything countries which have not had runaway infections wouldn’t exist, especially those like Japan who took less serious steps than most others wouldn’t have had such low incidents.

Again this isn’t contrarian or controversial.


It’s also not a controversial argument to say for the vast majority it isn’t that dangerous, the current crop of students are only producing about 10% with any symptoms at all.

That we should use that information for strategy going forward also isn’t controversial.

Slick wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:05 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:00 am
Spend vast resources protecting the vulnerable.

Come on don't be coy. You've spent the best part of 6 months, across at least 2 forums, rubbishing everything and anything anyone has done or suggested, you must have a well thought out plan. Just a few bullet points?

C'mon Bimboh, now's your time to shine. Give us the answers for a change.

Sandstorm wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:52 am

Slick wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:05 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:00 am
Spend vast resources protecting the vulnerable.

Come on don't be coy. You've spent the best part of 6 months, across at least 2 forums, rubbishing everything and anything anyone has done or suggested, you must have a well thought out plan. Just a few bullet points?

C'mon Bimboh, now's your time to shine. Give us the answers for a change.

I’ve clearly stated, I’d throw proper resource at protection if he vulnerable.

He won't.

He won't give us a definition of vulnerable. Or what he means by protection. He won't give any idea of how much of the population he wants protected. Or of how isolated they should be from their families, friends or wider society. Or what that protection entails for each of those.

All he'll do is turn it round to ask a question of some vaguely related action or guideline someone else gave in the past.

Because he's incapable of being honest about why he's doing this.

Bimbowomxn wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:53 am
I’ve clearly stated, I’d throw proper resource at protection of he vulnerable.

So cash? Ok, are you printing money and ignoring Economic Principles again?

Biffer wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:56 am He won't.

He won't give us a definition of vulnerable. Or what he means by protection. He won't give any idea of how much of the population he wants protected. Or of how isolated they should be from their families, friends or wider society. Or what that protection entails for each of those.

All he'll do is turn it round to ask a question of some vaguely related action or guideline someone else gave in the past.

Because he's incapable of being honest about why he's doing this.

I’m perfectly honest and engaging, once again uninvited commentary from you regarding my posts. You’ve got a bit of a problem I reckon.

Sandstorm wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:57 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:53 am
I’ve clearly stated, I’d throw proper resource at protection of he vulnerable.

So cash? Ok, are you printing money and ignoring Economic Principles again?

Depends on what you compare it with . I’m talking multiple billions of course, however we’ve spent 400 billion in the UK and not saved on deaths and are killing the economy. Do some maths regarding spending less than 400 billion per elderly Or shielding person.

Bimbowomxn wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:00 am Do some maths regarding spending less than 400 billion per elderly Or shielding person.

It's your plan! Show us your workings.

Sandstorm wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:02 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:00 am Do some maths regarding spending less than 400 billion per elderly Or shielding person.

It's your plan! Show us your workings.

So you’ve accepted the premise then that less than 400 billion could have been spent and the elderly protected ?

Bimbowomxn wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:06 am

Sandstorm wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:02 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:00 am Do some maths regarding spending less than 400 billion per elderly Or shielding person.

It's your plan! Show us your workings.

So you’ve accepted the premise then that less than 400 billion could have been spent and the elderly protected ?