Ace2007 wrote: » If people weren't losing their lives, like if the only cost was economic i would be all up for following your advice and others, but the problem is if your wrong, and we have a huge spike in numbers - hundreds if not thousands of innocent people will die - FACT we see it all over Europe. Or do you not see what is happening in Italy and Spain and the UK and the US? If your right - then why are innocent people dying in those countries i listed above? If a relative of yours died from the virus through no fault of their own, would you be like, well they were old, well this or that, no - you would probably look to blame someone, and yourself and "Lord quack" would be the first to blame the government and the HSE.
OMFG.
I was getting engry at your posts until I read this line. At least I can just stop reading now.
lainey_d_123 wrote: » Typical comment from you, illustrating what you're like as a person, for those who don't already know. It's actually extremely accurate. The guidance over here is absolutely woeful and the 'experts' contradict themselves constantly. There's nothing 'cynical' about that post. One minute we're told not to leave the house unless it's absolutely essential, the next we're told to get outside for some fresh air. One minute we're told it's fine to sit down on a park bench if you're disabled or need a rest, the next all the park benches are taped up so they can't be used. We're encouraged to support local businesses, especially takeaways, then told that the virus can be transmitted through ordering food. We shouldn't go to the doctor unless we're at death's door, but make sure you don't put off going to the doctor if you think something might be wrong. The advice here is absolutely all over the place.
growleaves wrote: » I'm aware of that thank you. I would love to know what reputable modeller/medical researcher would take the deadliest second wave of a pandemic in human history as normative. Or assume it has any particular relevance to a different epidemic one hundred years later.
growleaves wrote: » The true scientific detachment I've come to expect from boards posters.
JP100 wrote: » I think they has been a softtening in that position. As a parent it's very challenging having children home all of the time but I think it would be madness letting kids back before September. To send them back when we are getting close to the summer holidays in any case is really high risk. Think when the school's do go back, people will become lax again in their attitudes to this virus, so rushing the return of schools is very high risk.
Ace2007 wrote: » Also you give off the impression that you don't care if healthcare workers get reinfected or if they die, as long as you get out to play..
growleaves wrote: » I've posted on the megathread and all over this forum stating what I think. I don't believe the lockdown has any particular efficacy (there's no proof), and that it can or will prevent 10,000 deaths or 25,000 deaths.You don't seem to realise that the people who made these predictions have already quietly revised them downwards by many multiples. What will happen is that the lockdown won't be lifted, a huge amount of people won't die and the lockdown will be lauded as the reason they didn't thus establishing it as a political precedent (which it certainly wasn't before now). Every country that didn't lock down was supposed to Lombardy on steroids. Now that we see that e.g. Sweden isn't that bad, there are all kinds of excuses and conditions such as that it should only be compared to other Nordic countries (why?) yet it is in the European average. This and other excuses will accepted by people such as yourself who have an emotional investment in the lockdown.
lastusername wrote: » There are a few things in there that nobody has actually said! The guidance is really clear - you are allowed to go out for brief exercise once you stay within 2km, you SHOULD go to the doctor or hospital if you feel unwell or feel you need to investigate something...and nobody has said the virus can be transmitted through ordering food Not unless you're not washing your hands and giving the delivery man a big hug at the door
Cork Boy 53 wrote: » And no doubt would be one of the first to complain if he/she were to fall seriously ill and didn`t get proper medical treatment due to the health services being overwhelmed.
polesheep wrote: » You're some tool. You know full well from my posts that my wife is a nurse and still you post nonsense like this. As I said, we'll let you know when it's safe to come out from under the stairs.
lainey_d_123 wrote: » No, it isn't in the UK! My local council can't even get their own advice consistent! They announced that people who need a rest can sit on benches in the park without fear of being moved on or questioned, then the very next day they taped up all the benches. The government's official line is that you should go to the doctor if you feel you need to, but my local surgery won't accept anything that isn't 'urgent'. You should keep 2 metres away from people at all times, but if you live in a busy urban area which makes that impossible, you're not allowed to drive outside the city to go for a walk in the countryside. All over the place, as I said.
The models made initially were ones without restrictions to see the likely affect of implementing no restrictions.
jibber5000 wrote: » The fallacy with that argument is that people would not die from the effects of the lockdown. If you take for example Colorectal Cancer. Approx 2,000 People are diagnosed with it every year. One of the most treatable types of cancer if caught early. Majority diagnosed through a scope, then have an elective removal by resection of part of the bowel. If no evidence of spread then they dont need chemotherapy and have a >95% 5 year surgical rate. If it's not caught early and has spread the patient will require chemo and the 5 year survival rate plumets to approx 14%. For the last 6 weeks there's been no scopes and no elective surgerys and this will probably continue for another 6 weeks. Straight off the bat that's 500 patients who either won't be diagnosed or who have a diagnosis and surgery is delayed greatly affecting theyre 5 year survival. Now that's just one disease. Spread that out to lung cancers with bronchoscopys, heart failure - echos, Ct surveillance scans, out patient clinics for any speciality all essentially gone for 2-3 months. And then you've got people who are too afraid to go to hospital because of Corona. I know ED admissions have plummeted at one hospital and anectodally have heard it's the same all over Ireland. We know from the figures that over 90% of those who have died in Ireland have 0% ten year survival rates. If you ignore that fact your whole argument is just disingenuous.
Icyseanfitz wrote: » yeah Sweden are doing great, 1,400 deaths with a population around double ours since march 12th, ffs. Our numbers arnt decreasing, if anything in the last week there has been an increase. Add that to more testing coming online hopefully and numbers will continue to go up. The fact that people think this is gone away or is only mild is infuriating. Look at italy, spain, china, uk, america on and on, ah sure to be grand, open the pubs :rolleyes:
robinph wrote: » It really isn't that tricky to understand what can and can't be done (and it's mostly actually what should and shouldn't rather than can and can't), you just need to apply a smidgen of common sense and take out the extreme paranoia. There is plenty of things that are all over the place in how things are being handled, but the advice for people to stay at home is pretty clear unless you are determined to find faults just for the sake of it.
lainey_d_123 wrote: » Funnily enough, this is the exact position I'm in. Scheduled for exploratory surgery which is now postponed indefinitely. Funny how all the people who are just SO concerned about everyone's health and using that justification to push for a months-long lockdown go very quiet when questioned regarding how many people are going to die because their 'non urgent' tests or surgery were postponed. A lot of those people are going to be considerably younger than the average covid patient, too.
lastusername wrote: » You know the reason for the increase is partly because we are testing more, and that the transmission rate is below 1 now?
WhiteMemento9 wrote: » I don't understand. If they are 'non-urgent' care, I take this to mean that no one at risk of dying is not receiving this kind of care? Hospital services I presumed where cases involve any risk to life are still being provided I thought?
CtevenSrowder wrote: » Have you any evidence of this? The models made initially were ones without restrictions to see the likely affect of implementing no restrictions. The models after that included restrictions. I'm not aware of the former models being revised down by many multiples, but I could be wrong.
WhiteMemento9 wrote: » I don't understand. If they are 'non-urgent' care, I take this to mean that no one at risk of dying? Hospital services I presumed where cases involve any risk to life are still being provided, I thought?
lastusername wrote: » If it's exploratory surgery to find out if something needs addressing, and a person doesn't get that surgery, then by the time it gets done whatever condition may be there could easily have worsened during that delay.
lainey_d_123 wrote: » That's not how it works. 'Urgent' literally means that. That if you don't get treated, you will die very soon. It doesn't cover someone who is booked in for a colonoscopy, who is probably fine, but might have colorectal cancer, or has a persistent cough which is probably related to smoking or covid-19, but might be lung cancer. There are loads of 'routine' procedures which nevertheless end in someone being diagnosed with cancer or something else which is very serious.
JoeExotic81 wrote: » I read them, didn't back up your point. It literally backed up mine. Long term issues only stem from ICU cases. "There is also evidence that if you get it and recover you can be left with long-term lung and heart damage." Now try and fit that into your nonsense hyperbolic misery. Doesn't seem so scary eh.
