Question for Dev etc. then, same sort of one asked of MM repeatedly because he's expressing his view. Lockdown is prioritising treatment of one illness amongst many that kill people. Why is the person with covid worth more than the cancer patient whose op is cancelled etc.?
I'm not sure I agree with your assumption. I think the evidence is Covid19 kills 1% of those it infects (with the caveat we now know better who the 1% are). Without a lockdown I think there would be up to 1% death (so that's 700k or so in the UK) and within a month or two.
The would be no case of anyone getting any treatment in that scenario as the NHS would be swamped.
Now, as no one has let C19 rip (not in a densely populated country anyway) we haven't seen the 'control' of the experiment run which has allowed people to start (as MM does ,and four) rubbishing the lockdown and what it has achieved.
There was an article the other day about implications for global TB deaths because of how far back the covid efforts have set that field back. (1.6m I think was the number the lady was estimating) Why is okay to let those people die to save someone from covid? Is it because a lot of them will be in poorer countries so that's all okay then?
Who said it was? I haven't.
The problem is that it was clear without a lock down C19 would simply let rip and rapidly - in a few months. Health care system under strain everywhere. Its not either or it is which was worse; lockdown and control or not lock down and chaos. I pick the former - most govt have too. I don't think lockdown is anything other than a bad option but not as bad as the alternative.
The linear arguments that are used on here to attack (not debate because there's precious little of that) alternative views are thoroughly depressing. Suggest the actions to contain covid are causing a lot of harm and maybe enough harm that the approach needs to be looked at again and you're callous and putting the economy before people's lives. Advocate an action that will as a consequence kill people (or allow them to die to be less emotive) and you're correct and a moral person <blink>
I simply wanted an answer to a question - so effective YOU are trying to attack me for asking it.... Once I get an answer I move on, otherwise I'm persistent - if debate isn't about asking question to get answers then what is it???. I ask the question because I too find it difficult to answer.
The answer for me is that lockdown was (is) the least bad option.
Out of curiosity in the event of a serious explosion affecting hundreds or thousands of people how do medics decide who to treat. Do they look at someone with a serious leg wound that they can definitely save the same as they do someone with multiple injuries that would take many medics to work on for a slim chance of saving them (and that they know will mean others die that they would have saved whilst working on this person) Or do they have to make a (cr*ppy) call and save the injured who would definitely survive with treatment?
Lock down prevented doctors being faced with the dilemma of which desperately sick people to nurse. Lock down has worked!
When looking at operations do they say have it because we know you'll die without it or do they take in to account the harm that having the op may cause versus the benefits? You know, kind of like the harm an unspecific society wide lockdown will cause versus the harm it saves? How do you balance the mental health issues (and deaths) isolation will cause versus more people getting out and exercising due to the lockdown. How many are doing that versus those that are just sat around doing eff all and becoming a future heart attack or cancer victim as a result? How many lives are being saved due to a reduction in pollution versus deaths caused due to fear of visiting medical establishments,or a funnelling of resources and research away from a different medical field? Any clear answers on that or just opinions?
Again, R, data from other countries and the rest pointed to C19 causing 1% death and rapidly (in a month or two) - and that with enough health care. Faced with the prospect of up to 350k people being very sick a month what other option but lockdown was there???
It's not heresy or an automatic sign of a callous, uncaring person to look at things from a different point of view. Doesn't necessarily make it right of course, any more than the opposing view does.
Same thing I've said before I know and presumably won't mean anything now either. Must be nice to have that certainty and grasp of an extremely complicated and evolving situation to know so unequivocally what the best course of action is.
Again, where is the reasoning wrong that: c19 causes (and it might change if it become more benign but we're talking back in March here) 1% death and over a few months IF left to let rip. That maths is then straightforward, and the effect on health care systems likewise.
"When it takes nearly 900,000 votes to elect one party’s MP, and just 26,000 for another, you know something is deeply wrong."
The electoral reform society, 14,12,19