Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 87 comments are related to the topic:
No Scientific Evidence for 2m Distancing
No Scientific Evidence for 2m Distancing
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 87
|
By:
kids not that bothered about seeing their grandparents on the whole unless they're getting something lol ...that's a one way love i'm afraid , a bit like supporting a football team ...but nice for the grandparents if they get that special feeling of course
not nice being contained either although i have seen a few oldies out today ... |
|
By:
have a day off coachbuster
 |
|
By:
Believe nothing from the media . They knew about Saville and other paedos for well over 40 years .
They print what they want you to hear . Those numbers they give out every day are about as believable as the moon landings . Next episode ; well done public you done brilliant on lockdown . We are easing now . There has been no lockdown - people have been out and about for weeks , partys , work , visiting , drinking etcetc . POPPYCOCK . |
|
By:
Darren why are you going on about the consequences of a lockdown, some of which aren't the consqequence of a lockdown, on a thread about physical distancing?
People are not avoiding treatment because they are locked down. They are avoiding hospitals because there's an epidemic and an infectious disease out there. A lockdown reduces spread, reduces their chances of getting it and they still aren't going for treatment. It would only be worse if we weren't locked down and they weren't turning up either before lockdown. The head of the NHS has encouraged referals and for them to seek treatment. Stop blaming this on lockdown, it is a consqeuence of the epidemic, not the lockdown. Domestic abuse will rise, yes, but it's hard to police and not really a priority in normal times, certainly doesn't take precedence over the general public's health or reducing the spread of an epidemic. People drinking more is their own choice. It's pretty important to be healthy, keep exercise levels and immune system up. And you are talking a matter of a few months. You make it sound like it will never change. |
|
By:
The UK has three cancer screening programmes for breast, bowel and cervical cancer. Because of COVID-19, invitations and follow-up appointments for all these programmes are being delayed.
The NHS has had to make difficult decisions. Delaying screening invitations and follow-up appointments mean the NHS staff who run screening programmes can be there to support critical services needed at this time. It’s also to protect you from unnecessary risk. |
|
By:
Cancer screening doesn't actually save any lives. In the case of some cancers, fewer people die of the particular cancer being screened for. But there is no difference whatsoever in overall mortality rates.
People either die of something else or die because of unnecessary treatment. A systematic review of meta-analyses of cancer screening trials found that three of 10 (33%) showed reductions in disease specific mortality and that none showed reductions in overall mortality. https://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.h6080.full This panel looked at four different screening schedules: annual and biennial faecal immunochemistry testing (FIT), single sigmoidoscopy, and single colonoscopy, each compared with no screening. ... They find that screening does not reduce all cause mortality whichever test is used, but it does reduce cancer specific mortality. https://www.bmj.com/content/367/bmj.l5931 |
|
By:
My weekend walks spoilt by paranoid fellow ramblers moving yards out of my way. Some stop completely letting us through a wide path.
It’s collective neuroticism. A fear based paranoia. A paralysis of sensible reasoning. For many 2m has become 5 or 6 such is there fear of the air around them. If 2m was ‘conjured out of nowhere’ what is happening to the public?? |
|
By:
^^
I love those people...I like my space when I'm walking to the shops. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
what about gun crime, knife crime, car accidents, drug abuse & dealing, all non-domestic violence generally, A&Es are empty etc etc. Just ignore all those and cherry pick the relatively few things that have gone up.
|
|
By:
"Unemployment and reduced public-sector health spending following the 2008 global economic crisis were associated with increased cancer mortality, according to a new study published in The Lancet. The study estimates that the recent economic crisis was associated with over 260000 additional cancer deaths in countries within the Organisation for Economic Development (OECD) by 2010, of which 160000 were in the European Union."
However accurate that study was in the leading medical journal, 2020 will almost certainly have much bigger ramifications, and that study purely refers to cancer deaths. |
|
By:
The point I'm making is that many people will die from other things as a result of concentrating on the virus alone, many more people than usual will now die from cancer now as screenings have been delayed or symptoms ignored as they don't want to bother doctors or cant get appointments, knife crime amounts to about 200 deaths per year, gun crime deaths in Britain is extremely low anyway, what about people's mental health issues, exasperated by the lockdown, or people with never before issues.
|
|
By:
The studay into the effects on cancer was purely from the economic effects. The general consensus this is that those effects this time round could be considerably worse. That "many more people than usual will now die from cancer now as screenings have been delayed or symptoms ignored as they don't want to bother doctors or cant get appointments" is only going to ramp up cancer deaths even further.
|
|
By:
The point you are making is that the lockdown is the reason more people will die from cancer etc when it isn't. The virus is the reason. The lockdown has had negligible effect on it compared to the virus itself.
Nearly everything is affected when there's an epidemic. Some positive effects some negative. You are ignoring the positives and cherry picking the negatives. Swings and roundabouts. Do you think an increase in domestic violence is worse than the decrease in non-domestic violence? No, of course it isn't. You are in a lockdown because the govt allowed the spread to get out of hand. Releasing it at this level will only make it worse and require another lockdown in the short-term and make it worse overall. When you let it spread and are on course for a big spike in numbers, it takes a long time to flatten that curve. You are suggesting releasing lockdown at peak, precisely the worst time to release it and it will take even longer to flatten overall if you do that. Be angry at the mugs who let this happen at the start. What you are seeing today is the consequence of incompetent inaction months ago, not the measures introduced to remedy it. |
|
By:
"The point you are making is that the lockdown is the reason more people will die from cancer etc when it isn't."
Not sure if that relates to me but that wasn't my intention. Left unchecked the virus would kill 250k to 500k in the UK imo. I'm not cherry picking either. I'm using cancer, and nowt else, as there was a Lancet study on it. My view has always been the number of deaths indirectly will vastly outweigh the number of deaths directly from the virus, but that doesn't mean I don't agree with the lockdown. I do, and I made the point, at the time Rory Stewart did, that we should be locking down then. |
|
By:
And whilst I think the government and it's advisers made big mistakes, I personally think the 2008 recession, the February floods and BREXIT preparations, all played a large part in the UK not being prepared.
And if we are going to play politics, the only politician to put his head above the parapet and forcibly call for lockdown earlier was Rory Stewart. My personal angst at the time, was not so much with the government, but rather the scientific model that ICL were working on, and the advice for herd immunity from the scientific advisers. Even then I recognise that the scientific advisers were acting in good faith. Having said that, I wish the government had the competence and fortitude to realise the model was flawed, and followed the scientific advice given to most of the rest of Europe. |
|
By:
Quarantine is normally only used for sick people. Putting most of the world under house arrest may have short term benefits. Long term it could be catastrophic for many.
|
|
By:
When talking about the affects of the lockdown I was mostly talking about the long term effects of alcohol uptake/cirrhosis of the liver, emotional/mental affects of domestic/child abuse increases etc
yes with the lack of cancer referrals it's because of the virus, but that's the thing, 1.5 million people in high risk groups were told to isolate for 12 weeks, majority of people who have died from the virus were elder people with health issues, a lockdown for this long seems too long for vast majority of people in normal health to the point where the number of people who will die from lack of cancer screening/early diagnoses during this period will be substantially higher that usual, where do you draw the line, May 7th could be extended as well. Because those in high risk groups were told to self isolate for 3 month I don't think 250k people would have died if there was no lockdown. |
|
By:
People are pushing for the lockdown to end now. I'm not concerned here whether they're right or wrong. The fact is that they are - you can read them on this thread.
So how stupid and disastrous would it have been to have started the lockdown even earlier? The government explained again and again that they wanted to leave it as late as possible, because they knew there was a limit to how long the public would stand for it. Turns out that Boris and the government got the timing exactly right. Absolutely spot on. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Clydebank, I was discussing with Darren, wasn't directed at you.
I don't think they got the timing exactly right or right at all. I think they had herd immunity in mind and let it spread, meaning a higher peak than if they hadn't let it spread and that higher peak means it takes longer to flatten, thus a longer lockdown than if they hadn't encouraged the spread and a longer lockdown than if they'd put restrictions in place earlier and a much longer lockdown than if they hadn't encouraged the spread AND had put restrictions in place earlier. They let the cat out of the bag by coming out with the herd immunity policy. Saying they waited before locking down is nonsense. They waited because they wanted more people infected than other countries were willing to let happen and the spread got more out of control than in those countries. Their lockdown is longer than it needed to be because of that alone. And if by a stroke of luck Arteta hadn't got infected when he did they'd have had another weekend of football all over the country and it would have been even worse again. |
|
By:
Good points.
|
|
By:
The government's goal was to prevent the healthcare system from being overrun. It hasn't been. Conventional healthcare systems have been used to capacity, and the overflow systems (the Nightingale facilities) haven't been required. Spot-on planning.
Locking down earlier would have led to the public simply refusing to comply after a couple of weeks. Why should they? The hospitals would have been virtually empty. The result right now would have been thousands of trolleys queuing up outside the Excel centre, and the Remainers on this thread demanding that Bozo should have listened to the experts, listened to the scientists, who told him not to lock down when he did. |
|
By:
'The result right now would have been thousands of trolleys queuing up outside the Excel centre' - no it wouldn't. They'd have locked down earlier and/or not encouraged the spread if they were on the ball and had realised at that stage that that was a bad idea. They didn't then but they do now.
It is not proposed to let it spread unrestricted or to encourage it to spread again once they release the current lockdown. They realise now that that would be, and was at the time, a bad idea. They would only have locked down earlier and/or not encouraged the spread if they had realised this at the time. It will be released gradually and they will closely monitor the spread, aggressively track and trace, quarantine contacts etc. They are not going to make the same mistake again. |
|
By:
Locking down earlier would have led to the public simply refusing to comply after a couple of weeks. Why should they? The hospitals would have been virtually empty. The result right now would have been thousands of trolleys queuing up outside the Excel centre
It's not a matter of what you think would be best, or how you think the public should behave. This thread is a testament to how a huge portion of the public actually are thinking and do behave. They are demanding an end to the lockdown despite hundreds of ongoing daily deaths. How do you think they would have been reacting with an earlier lockdown and a dozen daily deaths? And how would you have been reacting to the press conference, if Boris had indeed announced an earlier lockdown, when there were hardly any cases? Kuenssberg: Does the Chief Medical Officer support a lockdown at this stage? Boris: No. He doesn't. But I'm doing it anyway. Peston: Has your Chief Scientific Adviser told you to lock down now, despite the apparent lack of serious cases? Boris: No. He hasn't. But I'm doing it anyway. Lurka and politicspunter: Hurrah for Bojo! Yeah. Right. |
|
By:
We havn't had a proper lockdown,that's why there's 45,000+ deaths,still waiting on a proper one.
|
|
By:
whichever way the government went the anti tory & anti Boris brigade wouldn't of been happy
|
|
By:
proper lockdown wouldve been the way italy have done it
|
|
By:
15000 people a day were flying into the UK and there was no testing for them, Hancock said they'd have little impact on the spread (amazing), no quarantining and doesn't sound like aggressive track and trace or close monitoring is on the cards either.
|
|
By:
A dozen daily deaths? You had a lot more than that when you locked down and when you lock down deaths rise dramatically, not because of the lockdown but because nothing can be done at that stage to prevent those deaths, they are already going to happen because of the spread you have already let happen and encouraged.
What do you mean by hurrah for Bojo? That mug said he was shaking hands with people in hospitals, didn't pracice solcial distancing at press conferences and then caught the virus. Do you think he's worthy of praise? The media seem to be treating him like a hero for surviving the virus. He waited a week until after Ferguson had revised his 250k figure to 500k before locking down. Whitty doesn't support a release of lockdown now. |
|
By:
Boris locked down when Whitty told him to.
You reckon he should have locked down BEFORE Whitty told him to. You reckon he should have ignored Whitty. So, if he had, and had locked down earlier, that means you would have been praising Boris Johnson and cheering him on for ignoring his Chief Medical Officer. Yeah. Right. |
|
By:
Kuenssberg: Does the Chief Medical Officer support a lockdown at this stage?
Boris: No. He doesn't. But I'm doing it anyway. Whitty is the CMO. You said above that he locked down when Whitty told him to. So which is it? |
|
By:
That's the interview that would have taken place if Johnson HAD ignored Whitty.
If Johnson had ignored Whitty, and had locked down earlier as you believe he should have, then he would have been torn to shreds for ignoring the scientists. And I find it impossible to believe that you wouldn't have been among those joining in the shredding. |
|
By:
And to clarify, I wouldn't be praising a guy who shook hands with people in hospital, didn't physically distance at press conferences while telling the public to physically distance at the same press conferences, for anything.
I am not singling out BoJo. If you read my posts above, I repeatedly said 'they'. Collectively 'they' have got it wrong is my point and you are saying they got it exactly right. So, you're making up quotes as well that didn't happen? FFS |
|
By:
And how would you have been reacting to the press conference, if Boris had indeed announced an earlier lockdown, when there were hardly any cases?
Conditional tense. How would you have reacted to the press conference that would have ensued if the government had done what you are now demanding? Christ. It's like explaining perspective to Father Dougal. |
|
By:
Nearly forgot.
FFS. |
|
By:
Yes I understand plain English and and understood you question, which I've answered above. No need to make up quotes that didn't happen though.
|
|
By:
Time to, er, shake hands and move on. Because Frankie Boyle has the answe
@frankieboyle Surely the best way for Britain to decide whether to come out of lockdown is through some kind of referendum |
|
By:
|
|
By:
 |