Ace2007 wrote: » Mean has never been published - so that's you just believing some random poster. Feel free to find the official source.
Idbatterim wrote: » https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8207783/150-000-Brits-die-coronavirus-pandemic-domestic-violence-suicides.html 150,000 Brits will die an 'avoidable death' during coronavirus pandemic through depression, domestic violence and suicides Fraser Nelson, editor of The Spectator, raised concerns of thousands of deaths Predictions for 'indirect' coronavirus deaths could surpass those of COVID-19 The pandemic is expected to have a knock-on effect on people's mental health Charities have recorded spikes in helplines from domestic abuse victims Pressure is mounting on the government to reveal how lockdown will be easedhttps://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/covid-19-is-likely-to-lead-to-an-increase-in-suicides/ Not surprised to see these issues not brought up by the irish politicians or media! and before you bring "the daily mail" roll eyes :rolleyes: look at the sources they use! Nearly two weeks ago on the radio, I was hearing about the domestic violence increases here and we literally had just entered this ****!
Ace2007 wrote: » Your saying it's not black and white but look at the posters who just want the economy to open etc. Yes i seen that - but as a society we need to help each other - bit it mental health , exercise and ensure people are doing ok, now more than ever people have time - pick up the phone ring your mate that you haven't seen in 3/4 weeks etc. On top of these suicides you talk about there are families out there that are anxious and scared of their lives that a loved one will die from this virus alone - because you can't even hold their hand - that's the reality of it. If your sibling/spouse/parent gets this virus tomorrow - and is in hospital - you may never see that person alive again, may never even be able to hold their hand - you won't have a funeral for them... that's reality. But sure look if we have our economy back, that's ok.....
niallo27 wrote: » Your not a glass half full person if you believe this, believe me your not.
skallywag wrote: » That is correct, it certainly hits the older a lot harder. That said, it's effect on younger people is turning out to be much more severe than originally thought. Look at Boris for example, he is 55 and was apparently very close to death by the latest reports which are coming out. Though if you consider 55 as old in the first place then I can probably pick up my hat and leave the arena :pac:
lord quackinton wrote: » So posters here will be ok with forced cocooning of those over 70 and other at risk groups until we get a vaccine Probably 2 years plus What people on here are suggesting is we become a police state Very nice
Idbatterim wrote: » The normal rule for an epidemic is that you can say it is over when you've gone two 95% confidence intervals of the incubation period without a new case. This equates to about 28 days for SARS-CoV2. Another way of looking at this is that we need to get the R0 below 1 to have fewer infections every day than the previous day. Day 0: beginning of lockdown 5000 new cases per day Infection Cycle 1: 4,000 IC 2: 3,200 IC 3: 2560 IC 4: 2048 IC 5: 1638 IC 6: 1310 IC 7: 1049 IC 14: 220 IC 21: 46 IC 28: 10 So what does the above tell us? Well, it tells us that even if do a massive lockdown obeyed by 90% of the people 90% of the time with 90% effectiveness for 28 days if we go back to "life as normal" after that we'll be right back where we starting 28 days later. So, where to from there? Well, it seems that the best way to play this would be to keep a really strict lockdown for about 28 days and then reduce it slightly, combined with advice for people to ALL wear masks when out and about, really strong, rapid testing and contact tracing. The 28 days gives the state the time to ramp up swabbing ability and test throughput ability as well as to train and man contact tracing centres and establish rapid response teams to respond once a new case is confirmed. After another 28 days go by the government could look at loosening restrictions a little more if the death rate was on the lower side.
Sweet.Science wrote: » No way he was close to death . He didnt even need a vantilator and was released from hospital 3 days after entering ICU . Which itself is nonsense . Nothing more than a PR job
niallo27 wrote: » But he is ok now, a man who looks incredibly out of shape and unhealthy and he beat it.
KiKi III wrote: » Because an ICU bed was available for him, and top notch care. That’s why we’re working so hard to ensure our ICUs don’t become overwhelmed. By his own account, he’d be dead otherwise.
Idbatterim wrote: » they talk about modelling. I would like to start seeing modelling, for indirect deaths caused from this virus. From suicides and now people with other issues not going to hospitals, out of fear, which I totally get and which has been well documented!
Jenbach110 wrote: » If we get to May 5th with similar death/hospilisation rates as we currently have will people happily take a further extension of current restrictions?
ShineOn7 wrote: » This Plus he absolutely had extra care and attention given to him. As Leo would if it happened and the Trump fella would have many, many extra staff looking over him if this happened to him Why? Well if the leader of a country dies from this that country's moral (unless he was a complete dictator) falls off a cliff. Their economy gets worse than it even is now and the whole thing just snowballs
niallo27 wrote: » We had a big drop in deaths today and we keep getting told we are 2 or 3 weeks behind Italy who looks like they had their peak 2 and a half weeks ago then can someone tell me why it would be crazy to think we are hitting our peak here too.
niallo27 wrote: » I understand the extra care but this is a new virus with no cure, what extra treatment could he get.
kingbhome wrote: » Is traveling for a cousins funeral essinital
niallo27 wrote: » He was in and out of icu very quick in fairness wasnt he. Are hospitals in England overrun, they should be by now considering the way they approached this.
road_high wrote: » Garden centres would fall under the same category. It would be more appropriate for the individuals actually working in different areas to advise than me I think.
