COVID - 19

[Dot]

My strong opinion is that no children have died directly from it with no underlying health conditions. (or maybe a handful worldwide} No children so far that has been proved have passed it on.

Very few under 30 years old with again no underlying health conditions have died.( when you compare the numbers)

Infact very few under 40 again with no underlying health conditions have died. ( when you compare the numbers)

The economy could of rocked on to some degree not to shut up shop which imo was just plain ridiculous.

we have knows for a long time the large percentage of people who were/are dying are old and frail.

more could have been done to direct better attention to those people whilst the economy in some part continued.


I dont know what planet your living on but lockdown hasn't been observed in any shape or form in Essex and I guess everywhere else.


Sick of seeing umpteen special advisors coming out daily saying this saying that,don't do this don't do that. This is best this is not.

Basically to be safe be a slim 10 year old, who doesn't smoke, drink, shag, has no friends ,never want to go to school or have a job and never take a holiday again. Never embrace an adult again, parents and grandparents especially. Wash you hands, don't touch animals' Never let anyone touch your phone, empty you piggybank into the bin as ur savings will be contaminated. Remain a virgin all your life/ never go to a funeral, wedding, concert, sporting event as crowds are not allowed

where does it eff end.

Oh and hate Domini Cummings as its all his fault he's a bustard he is right little shit.

Get a grip Boris ffs

[bluenosey]

To be fair, Maverick, Dot has a point about untold damage to the economy. We're gonna be left carrying a heavy financial burden for years and the younger ones are going to suffer the most. It's trying to strike a balance between lockdown and the old normality so we're left with fewest deaths but a functioning economy.

As for companies, yes, the strongest will survive. Those with healthy balance sheets and who have built up sufficient reserves will survive. Sadly some businesses will go the wall. The longer the lockdown persists, the worse things will become. More unemployed, more desperate people, crime increases and so do all sorts of mental health issues. Therefore there are strong arguments to getting the economy back functioning again.

[RomynPG]

I was trying to get to the heart of what matters to you ultimately...

[RomynPG]

I would take all this "think of the children" nonsense more seriously if those that spouted it showed the same enthusiasm for tackling Climate Change - or is that "so called" Climate Change.

[Tall Paul]

It's worth screwing over the economy to stop a few immigrants coming in, but not to save tens of thousands of lives.

And presumably Dominic Cummings is an acceptable unelected bureaucrat, not like those nasty European ones.

[Dot]

I know you're furious dot, that much is obvious.

Look, your post above (without irony that I can see) has asked me where I say you push a Darwinian agenda two paragraphs above a sentence (that you have often repeated) that implies that the lives of the elderly or those with pre existing conditions don't count.

I've defended your right to an opinion, but to me the rather callous way you put and often repeat this assertion is quite offensive.

My challenge to you was simply why, logically, in your value system, would frail companies be allowed to linger on if frail people can't? Why is a frail company important to preserve when a younger, stronger, dynamic and efficient company could rise in its place?

It's not something I expect an answer to really, it's more a rhetorical question where I was trying to get to the heart of what matters to you ultimately. Is it a long term, strong free market? Is it lefty rhetoric that you rail against? Is it vested interests in existing companies not failing? Do you believe less people will die overall if the economy is restarted fully and quickly?

I'd guess I'd like to understand what it is that really reinforces the strong opinion you hold, because that might help me see your point of view.

Lastly to add Maverick on a personal level does the economy shutting down affect me?

Yes but only on a selfish basis.

I like my daily visit to the pub

I like my regular trips up to London

I like my weekends away

I like my holidays

I like watching the football

I miss the nags

i like to see my children doing well.

fortunately I retired early nearly 6 years ago sp the recession is not going to affect me like millions of other poor souls.

Nor should it affect my son and his family as he can work from home in a secure job

My daughters business as a photographer with her own studio has taken a drop kick especially having around a dozen weddings cancelled so far, half of them abroad but she will get through it.

so im not talking up my annoyance from a selfish point of view i'm thinking of the millions less fortunate than me that are going to be on queer street anytime soon.

The price was too high and its not fair to all of those.

[Dot]

I would take all this "think of the children" nonsense more seriously if those that spouted it showed the same enthusiasm for tackling Climate Change - or is that "so called" Climate Change.

Are you morphing into Greta now Anna?

[bluenosey]

I would take all this "think of the children" nonsense more seriously if those that spouted it showed the same enthusiasm for tackling Climate Change - or is that "so called" Climate Change.

Well, I don't know if that was aimed at me but the younger generation are going to suffer. If the economy tanks, less jobs for school leavers, those that do get employment will be on lower salaries and paying more tax and nic. How that will affect their mental well-being is anyone's guess.

And yes, I've believed in climate change since the 80s. Caused by over population.

[RomynPG]

I would take all this "think of the children" nonsense more seriously if those that spouted it showed the same enthusiasm for tackling Climate Change - or is that "so called" Climate Change.

Are you morphing into Greta now Anna?

Pathetic - I rest my case.

[Mav3rick]

To be fair, Maverick, Dot has a point about untold damage to the economy. We're gonna be left carrying a heavy financial burden for years and the younger ones are going to suffer the most. It's trying to strike a balance between lockdown and the old normality so we're left with fewest deaths but a functioning economy.

I absolutely agree with this, balance is important. As I noted a few posts back I'm a realist and I know that ultimately you can put a price on a human life.

The economy is important, I have pensions and investments that are down too, I worry about my job and that of my friends & family, I worry about house prices and the knock on effect of mass unemployment.

For perspective I live next door to Gatwick airport and our area is being hit hard by travel industry job cuts. My town was the subject of an article a month ago suggesting we could be the hardest hit local economy in the country (due to such dependence on the functioning of the airport and all its support services) and our MP is trying to push for cross party support of the airlines. It's not an exaggeration to say that me and the people I care about most are potentially more economically affected by covid than anyone else posting in this thread.

And yet, despite my genuine economic worries, when I read though this thread it's the rather uncomfortable (to my mind) attitude of "people under 40 don't die so why are we concerned at all" that I find, well, awful really.

I don't know if it's properly thought out or just a reactive quote, but I can't understand where that sort of opinion can spring from, even in my potentially gloomy economic future I can't get anywhere near that line of thinking.

[bluenosey]

See i think you can't put a price on a life.

But the world doesn't stop because of cancer. Or Parkinsons. Or Leaukemia. Or car crashes. Or heart attacks. We have to move on, be educated and take a calculated risk. If I cross a busy road each day, am i more likely to get run over or contract Covid ?

People under 40 do die but not as much as those over 70, although you could be the unlucky one.

Don't get me wrong, there's a lot we still don't understand about the virus but we do have to get on with our lives at some point.

[murf]

Romyn, how is anyone saying its tough sh*t on the elderly and people with underlying conditions?

Can i ask you a question please, how low does the death rate because of/with covid have to go before you would want to get everything going again?

Covid could very well be with us for many years now, are you saying everyone waits it out until its eradicated? or are you saying there is a number of deaths from it that you are willing to consider is "ok" for things to get going again ? - i'd love to know that number because whatever number it is, you'll be saying tough sh*t to them!

the sad fact is there is no easy out from this, people die every day from preventable illnesses, I'm sure i've read somewhere before that on average 100,000 ish deaths a year are considered preventable deaths for a variety of reasons, sh*t happens unfortunately

I don't know - I'd leave that to the experts - but what is going on now just stinks. It's nearly June and we still don't have any comprehensive testing in place and the tracing is only just being introduced - and I'd be surprised if that isn't shown to be a joke in pretty short order.

Our Govt has failed, and is still failing, in virtually every aspect of this - and we're breaking records but unfortunately not the right ones.

I want us to be more like South Korea than the US (which is just going to be catastrophic)

Anyone with symptoms (or who plays for a Premier League team) can get a test. Bit OTT to test the 99% who don't belong to those groups (with exception of some health workers etc)

[murf]

Romyn, how is anyone saying its tough sh*t on the elderly and people with underlying conditions?

Can i ask you a question please, how low does the death rate because of/with covid have to go before you would want to get everything going again?

Covid could very well be with us for many years now, are you saying everyone waits it out until its eradicated? or are you saying there is a number of deaths from it that you are willing to consider is "ok" for things to get going again ? - i'd love to know that number because whatever number it is, you'll be saying tough sh*t to them!

the sad fact is there is no easy out from this, people die every day from preventable illnesses, I'm sure i've read somewhere before that on average 100,000 ish deaths a year are considered preventable deaths for a variety of reasons, sh*t happens unfortunately

I don't know - I'd leave that to the experts - but what is going on now just stinks. It's nearly June and we still don't have any comprehensive testing in place and the tracing is only just being introduced - and I'd be surprised if that isn't shown to be a joke in pretty short order.

Our Govt has failed, and is still failing, in virtually every aspect of this - and we're breaking records but unfortunately not the right ones.

I want us to be more like South Korea than the US (which is just going to be catastrophic)

Anyone with symptoms (or who plays for a Premier League team) can get a test. Bit OTT to test the 99% who don't belong to those groups (with exception of some health workers etc). So what more 'comprehensive ' testing system do you want?

[Dot]

that's a good question

[Tom_Nook]

I’d say this helps answer it.

We should be testing as many people as physically possible. The fact that the Government has stopped reporting how many we are testing is a concern.


https://www.healthline.com/health-news/ ... have-virus

[ffstuff]

"We should be testing as many people as physically possible"

is that it?

I get your point, more testing the better, but we can't and shouldn't test everyone to the detriment of everything else

as for the article, seems more like click bait, headline says upto 80 percent, first bullet point says 25-80 percent then it just lists a load of random studies. not cohesive at all

[murf]

60 million people. Every day? Yep, that would be comprehensive.

Glad the economy is in such great nick at the moment so we can afford this resource.

[Tom_Nook]

Why make things up that I haven't said?

It demeans you not me.

[ffstuff]

the master editor at work again, no doubt found some stats to disprove your testing comments

[murf]

Why make things up that I haven't said?

It demeans you not me.

You said 'as many as physically possible'.

It is theoretically physically possible to test us each at least once a day, every day (may need to outsource abroad but theoretically possible).

If not that then what is a suitable, sensible, cost effective compromise regime?

[Tom_Nook]

You're a smart arse. Well done

Obviously, your pedantry wouldn't, in any way, be trying to detract from your original post being nonsense.

[bspittles]

Maybe the figures are all lower for certain groups because the world has been in lockdown.

[murf]

You're a smart arse. Well done

Obviously, your pedantry wouldn't, in any way, be trying to detract from your original post being nonsense.

...and your retort wouldn't, in any way, be trying to detract from your avoiding the question?

I repeat, what do you think would be a reasonable testing regime?

[Tom_Nook]

100k people (not tests) per day (as I believe the initial promise stated) would be a starting point but at the moment, letting us know how many they're actually testing would be great.

It's now been 6 consecutive days thay they have not disclosed this information. Doesn't that concern you?

[ffstuff]

It doesn't concern me

[Dot]

Nor me. In fact unless mandatory, I wont be having a vaccine, test and certainly not downloading any poxy app.

Maybe i'm just a one off.

Maybe we should do a poll.

[murf]

Nor me. In fact unless mandatory, I wont be having a vaccine, test and certainly not downloading any poxy app.

Maybe i'm just a one off.

Maybe we should do a poll.

Not keen on the app from what I have read. Seems to be of limited use (to me) and is a security risk (for one I never walk round with bluetooth on).

Will read more when it is being pushed fully and reconsider.

Maybe to the vaccine if it happens.

What I would like is an antibody test to see where I stand.

[ffstuff]

Regarding the anti body test, that's one stat I am interested in seeing - how many people have had it - particularly without any symptoms

[Dot]

UNLUCKY STRIKE Kids are more likely to die by LIGHTNING strike than Covid caught at school, says expert!

29 May 2020, 10:33Updated: 29 May 2020, 10:48

Don't tell the unions for gawds sake.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11735602/ ... id-school/


so just the 1 in every 5.5 million. kinell

[Mav3rick]

I don't know why youre posting numbers like that dot. Has anyone actually claimed that kids are dying of covid by the thousands?

It's a straw man argument.