Acceptable Covid death rates

covid is not comparable to motor vehicle deaths, or any of the other nonsensical comparisons used by the usual individuals.

with motor cars we implement all sorts of rules and regulations and all else to minimize the deaths, funnily enough the exact same thing we did with covid at it's peak.

realistically small things like mask wearing should still be in force to the same manner it originally was as in combination with a high vaccine rate it will help hugely.

this never happened.

the government are acting on the behalf of the majority based on the evidence while now trying to avoid if possible another lock down.

you had plenty of opportunity to suggest a viable alternative to restrictions and lock down and you couldn't.

ultimately the fact is you lost get over it.

if we did things your way we would be a complete s//t show of a country.

how many deaths from covid are worth saving each life from delayed treatment and the collapse of all of the country's systems due to uncontrolled covid?

that is why all sorts of trade offs were made to manage this pandemic, some in hindsight unnecessary, certainly, but at the time given what had been experienced in italy, not surprisingly made.

doesn't matter, comparison to motor vehicles, flue, whatever still remain nonsensical.

smoking isn't overlooked, there are lots of things in place to try and discourage it and incentivise people to quit.

however it is a personal choice and it doesn't put any more pressure on the health system then any other normal activity, + it covers its costs.

banning it would cost a disproportionate amount of money v simply educating people on the dangers.

covid on the other hand if not controlled can collapse a health system.

It's simply not a serious enough disease to collapse even a country of hand wringers like Ireland. Sweden, Brazil and others didn't collapse, despite the wishes of some right charlies.

But the poster is explicitly saying that reopening everything now will

Do you think more of this is likely to happen than if, say, pubs, nightclubs and music venues were shuttered for another six months?

it's quite obvious.

I know some people are up in arms about the use of the word "acceptable", but the reality is that whether we like it or not, there is always an element of "acceptable deaths" underpinning the bases of most things in society.

Functionally, it is the amount of death we are prepared to tolerate in order to maintain society and individuals within the lifestyle we wish. In effect a trade-off between the lesser evils.

Maybe the problem is the word "acceptable". Think "tolerable" instead. No deaths are "acceptable", but unfortunately we must tolerate deaths, because they cannot all be avoided.

Vehicles are about the perfect analogue here. We tolerate a certain level of deaths on the road because of the utility of vehicles in every day life. No deaths are acceptable - hence the continuous drive to improve road safety and driver behaviour. But we tolerate some deaths. If it was truly a case that no road deaths were acceptable, we would ban all vehicles and shut down all roads; the only way to eliminate road deaths.

But we don't do that, for obvious reasons. Therefore, the obvious and uncomfortable conclusion - we all tolerate/accept road deaths as the price for having vehicles.

But it's not cars. Fast food, football matches, pubs, work machinery, swimming pools, etc ad infinitum. These things all exist because we choose to accept that some people will die, but the benefits of having them outweigh the deaths.

Covid is no different. It is now endemic, it cannot be eliminated. And society cannot lurch in and out of restrictions to try and get a grip on it. We don't do it for any other endemic illness, we cannot do it for this one.

Therefore, there is an acceptable level of covid. There is an acceptable level of deaths. Just like there is for every other illness.

If someone finds that difficult, it's because they need to reset their expectations to meet the reality. Covid is not going anywhere.

nothing was stolen, since stealing is a crime and requires something to have been stolen.

everything is open.

no, they really, really aren't.

i think she would know more about the risks to her then you ever will.

not to mention you have been proven wrong on every single claim you have made in relation to covid.

i saw his post now, i had read the last page and then went back.

There are government ministers with family and friends who are immune compromised.

However, those government ministers have to look at the wider picture and not at just the immunocompromised.

People die on building sites every year, should we stop building houses and let more people die from homelessness?

If we impose a forever lockdown to protect the immunocompromised, then we would end up with greater deaths from suicide from the vulnerable. The government has had to balance all of this in unprecedented times, and largely has done a good job.

I think the OP would personally be better off the sooner the virus sweeps through the general population. Then the OP could rejoin society at a lower risk when the virus settles to endemic transmission levels. OP may have to wear mask on a permanent basis in indoor settings and should familiarise themselves on the available therapeutics - monoclonal antibodies would be one to look at.

You are confabulating a health system collapse with that of a nation state. The term exageration is vastly inadequate. As I said; hand wringers.