channelking
Member
Do wonder what infection rate will be with this 1 meter rule.
Can't see it decreasing but increasing.
Can't see it decreasing but increasing.
Covid-19 the second wave
- Thread starter cactikid
- Start date
Coronavirus prompts NHS cancer test backlog as soaring number wait six weeks
The third wave of coronavirus related deaths will be of those who unavoidably had tests, treatment etc put on hold while the virus was tackled.
The third wave of coronavirus related deaths will be of those who unavoidably had tests, treatment etc put on hold while the virus was tackled.
pabloescaban
VIP Member
Excess deaths = 65,000
Covid deaths = 45,000
So the lockdown killed at least 20,000
Coupled with christ only knows how many from the 460,000 waiting for cancer treatment and testing.
I called this two months ago and your response was "the lockdown is in place to save lives"
It's already killed half as many as covid and probably many times more by the time the true picture is known
Covid deaths = 45,000
So the lockdown killed at least 20,000
Coupled with christ only knows how many from the 460,000 waiting for cancer treatment and testing.
I called this two months ago and your response was "the lockdown is in place to save lives"
It's already killed half as many as covid and probably many times more by the time the true picture is known
If they hadn't locked down then an estimated 500,000 lives would have been lost to Covid-19 AND the NHS would have been completely overwhelmed - the waiting list for tests and treatment would now be far greater than if the country hadn't introduced restrictions.
I know you've mentioned it on a couple of occasions but you've never really explained what your solution/alternative would have been... are you suggesting it was a better idea to pretend coronavirus didn't exist and just carry as normal???
pabloescaban
VIP Member
Sweden had less deaths per million than us with no lockdown.
Social distancing yes and other precautions but the lockdown will (in time) be shown to have killed more than it saved.
The virus was already widespread before lockdown so it was a pointless exercise.
They should have shielded the most vulnerable and let everyone else do what Sweden did.
Yeah I agree... like people undergoing cancer treatment, they were better off staying at home weren't they?
channelking
Member
Guessing those scientists, experts who advocated for lockdown to take place had no clue.
Seems some every day people are more of an experts than the professionals.
Seems some every day people are more of an experts than the professionals.
No lockdown doesn't mean the hospitals would have turned away Covid-19 sufferers - they wouldn't have been sent home to die quietly because the NHS were busy treating cancer sufferers you know?
The waiting list for testing and treatment of cancer and other illnesses and diseases would now be longer without lockdown.
pabloescaban
VIP Member
Lockdown killed one person for every two covid deaths.
Read the figures.
This is without the tens of thousands of cancer and other disease patients yet to die due to lockdown.
I don't expect either of you to understand, you didn't two months ago and you won't now, even though pupuqiop has just posted about the massive backlog of cancer patients he seems to want to deny the data
pabloescaban
VIP Member
At one point we had 3 or 4 Nightingale hospitals setup that never got used.
These could have been used SOLELY for covid and freed up hospitals for everyone else
You seem to want to deny that without lockdown many more people would have died of Covid-19 than your beloved Boris' proud running total so far?
I never denied there'd be an impact, you didn't "call it," everyone knew it would be a consequence of Covid-19 (not of lockdown though, of the woefully underfunded nhs and the government's crazy response to Covid-19)
Contingency.
My local football stadium was to be a makeshift morgue if "worst case scenario" happened. By your logic they should have carried on playing football there.
pabloescaban
VIP Member
Politics don't enter into it.
Labour and Liberals would have done same thing.
It's a plan, they all have to follow it.
You seem hell bent on trying to prove some loony left point so I'll just leave it here.
BTW labour haven't had a PM since Jim Callaghan.
41 years
Can't count Blair and Brown as they were both avid Thatcherites
I wouldn't hold your breath judging by last election results, probably another 41 years
Labour and Liberals would have done same thing.
It's a plan, they all have to follow it.
You seem hell bent on trying to prove some loony left point so I'll just leave it here.
BTW labour haven't had a PM since Jim Callaghan.
41 years
Can't count Blair and Brown as they were both avid Thatcherites
I wouldn't hold your breath judging by last election results, probably another 41 years
channelking
Member
Bringing politics into it.
Whats new there
Junior Trump over here only cares about the money coming back rolling into the country. Forget deaths.
Whats new there
Junior Trump over here only cares about the money coming back rolling into the country. Forget deaths.
pabloescaban
VIP Member
There has to be money coming in, what do you think pays all the council tax benefits, free rent and 500 other claims people make week after week often for decades at a time, it has to come from somewhere.
Perhaps when we get another labour government 100% of us will be able to sit at home year after year while the debts pile up.
Trump will lend money but the thing with that is he wants it back, with interest
Perhaps when we get another labour government 100% of us will be able to sit at home year after year while the debts pile up.
Trump will lend money but the thing with that is he wants it back, with interest
teddybloat
TK Veteran
A lot of hand wringing from people regarding the pubs opening with a 1 metre rule.
Here's the deal : as of two weeks ago the level of infection in the population was less than 6 in 10k. That include hotbeds like care homes where most of the cases are.
The chance of you letting someone with covid in a pub is tiny . If you meet them odds of catching covid is small. And if you do meet them and catch covid, the mortality rate for someone under 50 with no underlying conditions is under 0.5%.
Most places are going to have under 70 people. The number of covid affected people in a pub with 70 people is 0.04.
If you are 20-40 years old and healthy and are worried about your saftey in a pub because of covid you aren't assessing risk properly.
You're more in danger from being around people drinking alcohol. Your walk home after 5 pints is more dangerous. Your attempt at cooking chips when you get home is more dangerous.
Yet you happily take on those risks everytime you go drinking.
We can do a back of the envelope calc on the risk of covid death
1 in 1700 have covid
Let's say you are really unlucky and 1 person in the 50 people in your pub have covid.
The chance of you getting closer than 1 meter is 10%
The subsequent chance of then catching covid is tiny, but let's say it's 10%
The chance of you dying from covid as a healthy say 40 year old we will fox at the upper bound of 0.5%
You have around 1 in a million chance of dying with these inflated numbers
Other things with around a one in a million chance
Chance of death driving 100 miles in your car
One of the next 10 babies born will die from being hit by a falling part from a plane
Things that are much more likely than 1 in a million
The next baby born will win a gold medal in the Olympic
Shuffle a deck of cards and deal a royal flush
Things that are 5 times more likely to happen to you
Dying from being struck by lightning
Dying from being bitten by a dog
And that 1 in a million is a hugely inflated figure. By a large factor using utter worst case outlandish ends of the estimates.
Frankie says relax...
Here's the deal : as of two weeks ago the level of infection in the population was less than 6 in 10k. That include hotbeds like care homes where most of the cases are.
The chance of you letting someone with covid in a pub is tiny . If you meet them odds of catching covid is small. And if you do meet them and catch covid, the mortality rate for someone under 50 with no underlying conditions is under 0.5%.
Most places are going to have under 70 people. The number of covid affected people in a pub with 70 people is 0.04.
If you are 20-40 years old and healthy and are worried about your saftey in a pub because of covid you aren't assessing risk properly.
You're more in danger from being around people drinking alcohol. Your walk home after 5 pints is more dangerous. Your attempt at cooking chips when you get home is more dangerous.
Yet you happily take on those risks everytime you go drinking.
We can do a back of the envelope calc on the risk of covid death
1 in 1700 have covid
Let's say you are really unlucky and 1 person in the 50 people in your pub have covid.
The chance of you getting closer than 1 meter is 10%
The subsequent chance of then catching covid is tiny, but let's say it's 10%
The chance of you dying from covid as a healthy say 40 year old we will fox at the upper bound of 0.5%
You have around 1 in a million chance of dying with these inflated numbers
Other things with around a one in a million chance
Chance of death driving 100 miles in your car
One of the next 10 babies born will die from being hit by a falling part from a plane
Things that are much more likely than 1 in a million
The next baby born will win a gold medal in the Olympic
Shuffle a deck of cards and deal a royal flush
Things that are 5 times more likely to happen to you
Dying from being struck by lightning
Dying from being bitten by a dog
And that 1 in a million is a hugely inflated figure. By a large factor using utter worst case outlandish ends of the estimates.
Frankie says relax...
I haven't spoken to, or heard of, a single person complaining that the pubs are reopening. I know lots of people who've decided they don't want to go to pubs just yet due to Covid-19 which is every bit as much their right as those who don't go to pubs for any of the many other reasons.
You say 100% like it's an outlandish, exaggerated figure. This Government put an estimated third (33%) of the workforce on furlough - add to that those who they decreed were worthy of a business grant without any form of means testing, and some who the government told Councils that they would just have to accept they might have to be paid for not working during the pandemic. This Government has been throwing money around like it's going out of fashion, they alone are responsible for crippling the economy.
teddybloat
TK Veteran
Largely my experience too.
People saying that going the pub is too risky, when being around drunk people is inherently risky.
The odds of encountering , catching and dying from covid is vanishingly small at the moment.
Driving from Manchester to Birmingham is more dangerous than going out for a drink in terms of risk from covid
Yeah but those people aren't hiding behind the couch with a tin foil hat on, dousing themselves in disinfectant whilst chanting spells to ward off the disease. They've just decided they don't want to be in close quarters with strangers just yet, so they're not. This is actually in the interests of those who do want to start visiting pubs, as it'll make it easier for the businesses to work within the restrictions the Conservative party have imposed upon all licensed premises.
Similar threads
