Quantcast
  • We invite you to join UKWorkshop.
    Members can turn off viewing Ads!

How would you rate the UK's handling of this pandemic?

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

Status
Not open for further replies.

RobinBHM

Established Member
Joined
17 Sep 2011
Messages
4,655
Reaction score
419
Location
Wst Sussex
You should amend that to "after they test positive on a pcr test". Moving to a world where people who are not unwell are somehow "infected" has tied this country up in knots
Perhaps you aren't understanding the lifecycle of Covid.

Do you realise the reason Covid has become a global pandemic is because infectious people can be asymptomatic.

Conversely the Mers virus did not become infectious until symptoms started.
The difference is because MERS virus sits further down in the respiratory system.
 

RobinBHM

Established Member
Joined
17 Sep 2011
Messages
4,655
Reaction score
419
Location
Wst Sussex
. Relax restrictions - the young are bearing most of the load so a few oldies close to death can live. Lock everything down - preserve all life at any cost, punish those who don't comply
I am sorry, that is over simplified and untrue.

And heres a current example why: some hospitals are now overwhelmed by Covid patients.....that has meant ICU units in a hospital have requisitioned other wards, like children, acute wards, operating theatres etc.

If we use your option of allowing the virus to rage, hospitals would be even more overwhelmed and would impact on non Covid patients even more.


I would also recommend you think carefully about those people that Covid affects....it's not just old people, it's vulnerable people too: people with chronic health conditions, like high blood pressure, diabetes, transplant patients, immune compromised diseases etc etc etc. That adds up to a huge cohort of millions of people.
 

RobinBHM

Established Member
Joined
17 Sep 2011
Messages
4,655
Reaction score
419
Location
Wst Sussex
I want the vulnerable to protect themselves (voluntarily with support) and the less vulnerable to carry on with minimal restrictions in order to reach a state of natural immunity
Nice, oversimplified idea......lovely as a discussion in a pub. Sadly it doesn't bear any scrutiny.

Let's see you provide more detail on it.


GBD has been discredited ages ago
 

Terry - Somerset

Established Member
Joined
22 Dec 2012
Messages
687
Reaction score
201
Location
Taunton
I am sorry, that is over simplified and untrue.
It is a deliberate over-simplification of extreme views.

I would subscribe to neither. Seeking to avoid overwhelming the NHS is the approach I support (and it is just about working)

There is a trade off between jobs, economy, etc and saving lives. Both are thoroughly unpleasant consequences of covid. You are at liberty to subscribe to which ever end of the spectrum you want - IMHO the response needs to be balanced.
 

rafezetter

Troll Hunter
Joined
11 Jun 2013
Messages
2,819
Reaction score
106
Location
Bristol
Yeah that's ok, no-one can ever suggest a path is wrong because we didn't know where the other path would lead, that's a sensible argument for government. What you have just said is "what we have done must be the best option because we didn't try anything else"

You are almost as entertaining as rafezetter sometimes ;)
I don't know why anyone else bothers to debate with rorschack, it's obvious he's like water, as soon as you nail him down on what he said is wrong, he moves his position as though he never said the previous one - the Donald Trump of this forum and just as abhorrent.

My aim wasn't to prove him wrong, merely to expose to everyone else just how fickle and hypocritical he is, in the hope people just stop engaging with him and he moves on out of boredom.

After him openly saying he'll happily let old people die to save the rest, previously early last year and again after I exposed it again in a recent post for those that missed it the first time around. I'm amazed our overlords even allow him to stay on the forum, he's a self confessed troll (or agitator) as he calls it - maybe they agree with his viewpoint? Or maybe it's just because it's me and Noel is enjoying the show.

I would have thought advocating mass genocide was a no, no, but hey not my train set, doesn't look good for the overlords though if I'm completely honest.
 
Last edited:

rafezetter

Troll Hunter
Joined
11 Jun 2013
Messages
2,819
Reaction score
106
Location
Bristol
No you have it bang on. I want the vulnerable to protect themselves (voluntarily with support) and the less vulnerable to carry on with minimal restrictions in order to reach a state of natural immunity. Of course this was my thoughts long before a vaccine was even on the horizon.
Basically I am in agreement with the Great Barrington Declaration. I am not for "let it rip" as some say. What really annoyed people though was that I stated I accepted the fact that some (elderly and sick) people would die in order for the rest of the country to survive. Instead it seems that the elderly and sick still died, but plenty of younger healthy people will now suffer long after the old we "saved" have died. That opinion was not taken well, probably because a few people on this forum would be on that list (unless they protected themselves as I suggested).

Really - and how does that fit in with your post saying "I'm happy for the old to die a bit earlier to save the rest"

See what I mean? two opposing beleif in the SAME POST.

"I want the vulnerable to protect themselves (voluntarily with support)" - rorschach

"elderly and sick still died" - So we should have let them die like I said in order for the rest of the country to survive - also rorschach

How did you think the old and vulnerable were going to protect themselves, if almost no-one else around them was? Food deliveries being delivered by people who are not taking any sanitisation steps for a start, whether by families or supermarkets - so food deliveries would be contaminated.

carers coming into the homes of multiple people, with the probability of cross contamination being almost 100%

That's just two scenarios off the top of my head and there's bound to be hundreds of others.

(in a few moments I predict he'll react with a "haha" and claim I've got it wrong somehow)
 
Last edited:

Woody2Shoes

Impressive Member
Joined
5 Jan 2015
Messages
1,789
Reaction score
216
Location
Sussex UK
You should amend that to "after they test positive on a pcr test". Moving to a world where people who are not unwell are somehow "infected" has tied this country up in knots
The trouble is, (practically) none of the people who've just done a positive PCR test can say at that time whether or not they're likely to become so ill they need hospital treatment, let alone conduct themselves in such a way as to ensure they won't pass the bug to someone else who might.
 

selly

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2007
Messages
249
Reaction score
19
I know 5 people who've had Covid, 2 had only mild symptoms and soon recovered, 3 had it very badly of whom one died. The two who recovered described the terrifying experience of fighting for every breath, convinced that the next intake of air would be their last. 9 months on they're still suffering debilitating after-effects and have been told they may have permanent lung damage. It's true there are significant bad effects from lockdown, but the alternative of letting the virus rip through the population doesn't bear thinking about.
It's "ripping" through anyway mat
That’s not what the statistics point to ...

It wasn't when it burst onto the scene and cleared out a heap of vulnerable. Now it is endemic the statistics are consistent with a bad flu season
 

selly

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2007
Messages
249
Reaction score
19
If something like the pandemic should happen again in say 20 or 30 years time I wonder if the people who have the "let the old people die" attitude will have suddenly found a convincing reason to change their minds.
Who has said that?

I suppose you are currently saying let the suicides Increase and the sod the cancer screenings now then are you?

I would do my very best to protect myself if I was old and vulnerable in 30 years time and possibly choose to keep away from people . I wouldnt expect to destroy younger peoples lives just so I can have the feeling of being in this together. Not least because it doesn't work - demonstrably so.
 

selly

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2007
Messages
249
Reaction score
19
Perhaps you aren't understanding the lifecycle of Covid.

Do you realise the reason Covid has become a global pandemic is because infectious people can be asymptomatic.

Conversely the Mers virus did not become infectious until symptoms started.
The difference is because MERS virus sits further down in the respiratory system.
I dont think you understand how a virus works.

It had become a pandemic because it is new and lack of prior immunity and therefore it is no surprise that the most vulnerable who are almost always the oldest succumb.

It is not because of asymptomatics. Pandemics have never been driven by asymptomatics (and it no longer is a pandemic in the UK now its an endemic virus). Hands, face, space is still a decent rule. Fining people for going for a walk and ruining business is not.

Did you know we had 30k excess deaths in the home last year? People who could have been saved if they could have seen a doctor. Do they count to you or is it only covid?
 

Rorschach

Living on borrowed time
Joined
6 Jan 2016
Messages
4,828
Reaction score
539
Location
Devon
The reason for my Spanish Flu comment was last year was the highest excess deaths since 1940. Despite all that.
That BBC article was cleverly worded, it's not the highest excess deaths since WW2 it's the highest increase % since WW2 that doesn't take into account population change. Dr Liam Fox even called out the BBC for that article in Parliament and put it into perspective.
 

RobinBHM

Established Member
Joined
17 Sep 2011
Messages
4,655
Reaction score
419
Location
Wst Sussex
It is not because of asymptomatics. Pandemics have never been driven by asymptomatics
Strawman....I never said they were.
Please try to avoid logical fallacies, they weaken your argument.

I was talking specifically about Covid and mypost was in response to your apparent claim that it's pointless testing or isolating asymptomatic people.

Asymptomatic people are a key vector for Covid.

BMJ concurs:

"The absence of strong evidence that asymptomatic people are a driver of transmission is another good reason for pausing the roll out of mass testing in schools, universities, and communities."
 

Blackswanwood

Still Learning
Joined
17 Nov 2018
Messages
852
Reaction score
386
Location
North Yorkshire
It wasn't when it burst onto the scene and cleared out a heap of vulnerable. Now it is endemic the statistics are consistent with a bad flu season
You must have access to some statistical data or insight that the medical and scientific advisers to the vast majority of governments around the world don’t if you believe that.

Good luck - I hope you and everyone else avoids catching it.
 

RobinBHM

Established Member
Joined
17 Sep 2011
Messages
4,655
Reaction score
419
Location
Wst Sussex
It had become a pandemic because it is new and lack of prior immunity and therefore it is no surprise that the most vulnerable who are almost always the oldest succumb.
You are conflating......whilst it is the elderly and weakest who succumb, they are not primary vectors for community infection spread.

Asymptomatic people are major vectors.....because they are the ones in social contact with others.

Generally people in bed ill are not
 

RobinBHM

Established Member
Joined
17 Sep 2011
Messages
4,655
Reaction score
419
Location
Wst Sussex
You haven't been following the news, they are already dead!
The people that have died, have done so despite considerable non pharmaceutical interventions to reduce spread.

There are millions of people in this country that would quite possibly die if they caught Covid.

Those people would have a far far higher chance of being infected if the government followed your policy of no lockdown.


I am sorry you can't see the importance of minimising the infection rate in the community.

It is important because the higher the level of infection, the higher numbers of vulnerable people are exposed to the virus.

Please can you explain why you don't understand that?
 

selly

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2007
Messages
249
Reaction score
19
Strawman....I never said they were.
Please try to avoid logical fallacies, they weaken your argument.

I was talking specifically about Covid and mypost was in response to your apparent claim that it's pointless testing or isolating asymptomatic people.

Asymptomatic people are a key vector for Covid.

BMJ concurs:

"The absence of strong evidence that asymptomatic people are a driver of transmission is another good reason for pausing the roll out of mass testing in schools, universities, and communities."
The constant testing of asymptomatics or even those who don't have it using a super sensitive pcr is total skewing the whole thing. We will never escape from this if we keep pcr testing like this
 

RobinBHM

Established Member
Joined
17 Sep 2011
Messages
4,655
Reaction score
419
Location
Wst Sussex
There is a trade off between jobs, economy, etc and saving lives
It's an often repeated statement that needs to be qualified.

If the economy was fully open and Covid was allowed to spread through the community unhindered, hospitals would be overwhelmed, essentials workers would become sick.....and at some point the govt would have to impose much much harder restrictions.


In fact if governments impose far harder and tougher restrictions very very early, then community infection rate is lower and economies recover faster.
And that contradicts your argument....because it means far tougher restrictions can have less damage on the economy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top