Generic Virus Thread

[snowychap]

24 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I don’t know why an adult conversation can’t take place on this

As far as I can see very few people, if any, have attempted to have an 'adult conversation on this'.

There is a difference between could have died anyway and would have died anyway.

It has been an angle from the very beginning to write off people dying from coronavirus as largely those who would have died anyway/those whom the 'flu failed to kill.

 

[Stevo985]

1 minute ago, sidcow said:

And the constant reporting of PPE shortages when we are competing in a global market where demand is massively outstripping supply and producers simply can't keep up.

Yes they could have moved faster but with the quantities you hear they need I don't think they would have been able to get more than a couple of days ahead of where we are now. 

I await the barrage of criticism. 

Well you’ve said it yourself. They could have moved faster. That’s all anyone is saying. 
 

Oh and for them to be honest about it. Stop saying we have enough and wanking each other off about how well they’ve done when there’s clearly shortages

[bannedfromHandV]

2 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

Weren’t you an early adopter of the old and infirm being nothing more than collateral damage. The arguments then are the same now. 

I think being ‘nothing more than collateral damage’ is taking it a little too far but did I accept that old and vulnerable people were going to die in droves, yes, because that seemed inevitable whatever we did in terms of restrictions, and has since come to pass.

People die, especially old and sick people unfortunately and a lot of the info seems to dictate that a fair number (if not a large number) of those that have perished will have done so anyway in the near future - does that mean we shouldn’t care? No, and I’m not suggesting that but it is possible to look at this logically and in the wider scheme.

But people don’t like this because at some point someone totally devalues the conversation by saying ‘yeah but what if it’s my terminally ill grandparent, I want that extra 3 months of seeing them suffer in and out of hospital.

[Seat68]

Just now, bannedfromHandV said:

I think being ‘nothing more than collateral damage’ is taking it a little too far but did I accept that old and vulnerable people were going to die in droves, yes, because that seemed inevitable whatever we did in terms of restrictions, and has since come to pass.

People die, especially old and sick people unfortunately and a lot of the info seems to dictate that a fair number (if not a large number) of those that have perished will have done so anyway in the near future - does that mean we shouldn’t care? No, and I’m not suggesting that but it is possible to look at this logically and in the wider scheme.

But people don’t like this because at some point someone totally devalues the conversation by saying ‘yeah but what if it’s my terminally ill grandparent, I want that extra 3 months of seeing them suffer in and out of hospital.

We don't choose though do we. We cant say well take the ones that have 3 months left. It takes asthma sufferers who are 30 but might live till they are 90. It takes someone who had cancer but is now in remission. It takes fit and healthy 70 year olds. 

[sidcow]

1 minute ago, Stevo985 said:

Well you’ve said it yourself. They could have moved faster. That’s all anyone is saying. 
 

Oh and for them to be honest about it. Stop saying we have enough and wanking each other off about how well they’ve done when there’s clearly shortages

I agree but for reasons I cannot fathom politicians (from all sides) refuse to ever own up to mistakes.

The number of times I've seen politicians wriggling under question and I've thought "just admit it and tell the truth, people will respect you more" but it just doesn't seem to be in the DNA of any politician to do that.  So the story tends to rumble on and get bigger, and the story then tends to become more about the fact they are denying it than what the story was in the first place.  

It really amazes me.  Is offering an apology for something really political suicide or do they just think that? 

[Stevo985]

3 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I think being ‘nothing more than collateral damage’ is taking it a little too far but did I accept that old and vulnerable people were going to die in droves, yes, because that seemed inevitable whatever we did in terms of restrictions, and has since come to pass.

People die, especially old and sick people unfortunately and a lot of the info seems to dictate that a fair number (if not a large number) of those that have perished will have done so anyway in the near future - does that mean we shouldn’t care? No, and I’m not suggesting that but it is possible to look at this logically and in the wider scheme.

But people don’t like this because at some point someone totally devalues the conversation by saying ‘yeah but what if it’s my terminally ill grandparent, I want that extra 3 months of seeing them suffer in and out of hospital.

So what?

Yes it’s killed A lot people who might have died anyway. It’s killed a lot of people who wouldn’t have died anyway. 
 

What’s your point?

[LondonLax]

12 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Why? It's completely inevitable that some people would have died this year anyway.  It's not a weird crackpot theory, it's an absolute fact.  The already weak are massively at risk from this virus. 

The question is how many, I was just trying to understand the 10,000 extra deaths than normal with the 20,000 known deaths + unknown community death's. 

And as I said I thought the stats might be unreliable, I've tried to find the story again. 

I found this article interesting regarding a jump in numbers of young people suddenly having strokes and it ties in with something I read about ambulance medics in the U.K. finding a lot more people having heart attacks then they are used to seeing:

Quote

Thomas Oxley wasn’t even on call the day he received the page to come to Mount Sinai Beth Israel Hospital in Manhattan. There weren’t enough doctors to treat all the emergency stroke patients, and he was needed in the operating room.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/24/strokes-coronavirus-young-patients/%3foutputType=amp

There are a lot of compelling information out there about how most people had ‘comorbids’ meaning they may have died of an underlying health condition and died ‘with’ the virus rather than ‘from’ the virus.

This website is an interesting read from that point of view, presenting a lot of sourced data which makes the virus sound more benign than the news reports would have you believe https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/

However it looks like it is possible that the virus itself could cause a range of comorbids in a patient and a person dying of a stroke for example may otherwise never gone on to have a stoke in their life had they not got the virus.  

We’re still learning about it and things that were thought to be facts a week ago turn out to be incorrect a week later. 

[bannedfromHandV]

Just now, Seat68 said:

We don't choose though do we. We cant say well take the ones that have 3 months left. It takes asthma sufferers who are 30 but might live till they are 90. It takes someone who had cancer but is now in remission. It takes fit and healthy 70 year olds. 

Mate, I know this, it’s claimed lives across all age ranges and health conditions but it’s focused primarily on a certain age range and, apparently (as you can only go off what we’re being told) those with health issues.

Now again, agreed, those health issues will range from as you say, something totally manageable and non-intrusive as Asthma but also through to those with terminal cancer and/or some other life limiting disease.

None of this is me saying ah feck it, they’re old and ill anyway so who gives a shit, just toss them in that giant mass grave we’ve just dug, but there is room for discussion on this without it being shut down as callous and mean spirited.

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

1 minute ago, sidcow said:

"just admit it and tell the truth, people will respect you more"

They can't & won't.  If they admit any failings then down the line,  Eg PPE cost us 1,000 lives and you said you made a mistake with that last year so you partially killed a 1,000 people or your decision you made did.  

So, they need to be sly. 

[bannedfromHandV]

3 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

So what?

Yes it’s killed A lot people who might have died anyway. It’s killed a lot of people who wouldn’t have died anyway. 
 

What’s your point?

That it’s possible to have a conversation about it without someone having an emotional meltdown?

[snowychap]

3 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

That it’s possible to have a conversation about it without someone having an emotional meltdown?

What 'conversation' do you want to have?

What point do you want to be discussed?

It seems that people want to 'say something', throw a bit of a grenade in to the thread, claim that they're not actually saying what they are saying and then hide behind this 'it should be possible to have a conversation' bollocks.

 

Edited April 26, 2020 by snowychap

[Stevo985]

Just now, bannedfromHandV said:

That it’s possible to have a conversation about it without someone having an emotional meltdown?

But what’s the point of the conversation?

Im seeing people like you and Lakota saying these things. It’s killed people who would have died anyway. 
 

So what? Are you saying we shouldn’t have locked down? Are you saying people are overreacting about the death toll? Are you saying this isn’t really as bad as people are saying?
 

What’s the point being made?

I’m not being facetious. I said the same thing to Lakota last night. I don’t understand the point to posts like this. If it’s just to point out that some people who MIGHT have died anyway have now died of Corona, then everyone knows that. Nobody is unaware of that fact. I don’t know what the point of pointing that out is. 

[bannedfromHandV]

18 minutes ago, snowychap said:

What 'conversation' do you want to have?

What point do you want to be discussed.

It seems that people want to 'say something', throw a bit of a grenade in to the thread, claim that they're not actually saying what they are saying and then hide behind this 'it should be possible to have a conversation' bollocks.

 

I simply responded to Terrytini saying something along the lines of ‘I can’t believe we’re still talking about this’ as though it’s been either dispelled as being true and/or made taboo.

Unfortunately, whilst people may not want to consider this, it’s very possible to look at how much time and resource will have been freed up within the healthcare sector over the coming 18 months or more now that a large number of people who would have likely taken up a lot of that time and resource (in relative terms) are no longer with us.

But these kind of conversations can’t take place because the ‘think of the children’ brigade make sure you’re reminded that you’re supposed to mourn these deaths and anything beyond that is anti-human.

Edited April 26, 2020 by bannedfromHandV

[blandy]

2 hours ago, Awol said:

What relevance does him being a Brexiteer have?

You implied (I felt) that Cummins Brexit connections made him a pantomime villain, triggering lefties who would therefore criticise him as a result. So when criticism comes from Brexity tories, perhaps there's more to it than that. For another thing, it's the Gov't that put him in those meetings, not he himself.

Quote

Cummings is a pantomime villain...the whining about his Brexit connections.

 

[snowychap]

2 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I simply responded to Terrytini saying something along the lines of ‘I can’t believe we’re still talking about this’ as though it’s been either dispelled as being true and/or made taboo.

It's quite easy to look back at what @terrytini actually said, his post and your reply to it was only on the previous page and, as it was just under an hour ago and is part of the 'conversation' you apparently want to have, it shouldn't be beyond you to accurate recall what he said but, in case it is, here is his post:

10 hours ago, terrytini said:

Can’t believe we are still hearing the “ would’ve died anyway” ideas

 

[bannedfromHandV]

19 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

But what’s the point of the conversation?

Im seeing people like you and Lakota saying these things. It’s killed people who would have died anyway. 
 

So what? Are you saying we shouldn’t have locked down? Are you saying people are overreacting about the death toll? Are you saying this isn’t really as bad as people are saying?
 

What’s the point being made?

I’m not being facetious. I said the same thing to Lakota last night. I don’t understand the point to posts like this. If it’s just to point out that some people who MIGHT have died anyway have now died of Corona, then everyone knows that. Nobody is unaware of that fact. I don’t know what the point of pointing that out is. 

See my response to Snowy.

Look, I didn’t kick this off and I’m kinda wishing I hadn’t bothered at all again now but all I actually did was respond to Terrytini saying he can’t believe we’re still talking about it, I’m simply asking why can’t we talk about it? 
 

All deaths are not the same in terms of tragedy, I’m sorry if that offends anyone but they’re not.

 

If you have a large bomb heading to the ground and you can’t stop it from hitting the ground but you have two options, you can either divert it into a school packed with hundreds of children or a retirement home full of old and in some cases, unwell people, what are you going to do? 
 

Now I’m not saying that’s an analogy of what’s actually happened but I’ll wager that pretty much everyone would send that bomb into the retirement home so we are able to prioritise life when we have to.

 

 

edit - I’ll add that maybe I’m just talking total shit, I don’t know, have woken up in a funny mood today.

Edited April 26, 2020 by bannedfromHandV

[chrisp65]

30 minutes ago, sidcow said:

And the constant reporting of PPE shortages when we are competing in a global market where demand is massively outstripping supply and producers simply can't keep up.

Yes they could have moved faster but with the quantities you hear they need I don't think they would have been able to get more than a couple of days ahead of where we are now. 

I await the barrage of criticism. 

 you nearly got me there!

For a second I thought you genuinely hadn’t understood a single thing for the last 2 months.

Well played.

[bannedfromHandV]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

It's quite easy to look back at what @terrytini actually said, his post and your reply to it was only on the previous page and, as it was just under an hour ago and is part of the 'conversation' you apparently want to have, it shouldn't be beyond you to accurate recall what he said but, in case it is, here is his post:

 

Okay, how is that any different? 

[sidcow]

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

 you nearly got me there!

For a second I thought you genuinely hadn’t understood a single thing for the last 2 months.

Well played.

I understand well enough thanks. 

[blandy]

2 hours ago, mjmooney said:

This, [The difference between 'all deaths normally' and 'all deaths this year' ] for me, is the simplest way of getting an idea of what's going on - probably the only statistic that means a damn. 

The most important stat for me, at this time, is "how many people are catching it each day" over time.

At the moment, now testing is being increased that stat is going to climb, but it's the one which indicates/will indicate progress in eliminating it. All the other stats flow from "how many people catch it".