Are you worried yet.

[CatmanV2]

Prior to the tier system being announced a couple of weeks ago the local authority in Manchester was predicting a budget shortfall of £65m, now their after £75m from central government. Probably just coincidental

I was actually quite impressed by Burnham, but he finally seems to have made it about money, whereas he seemed, previously, to be making it about sense. Could just be the media

C

 

[D Walker]

Prior to the tier system being announced a couple of weeks ago the local authority in Manchester was predicting a budget shortfall of £65m, now their after £75m from central government. Probably just coincidental

I’m confused.. Budget shortfall and money to support low wage/ furloughed staff is different is it not.

 

[Oneball]

I’m confused.. Budget shortfall and money to support low wage/ furloughed staff is different is it not.

I was being somewhat facetious but nonetheless it strikes me as party politics, if it was a Labour government Andy Burnham wouldn’t have said a word.

Lancashire is properly in the poop. We’ve got offices up the length of England and there’s 4 times as many cases of Covid in our offices there compared with anywhere else.

 

[Wack61]

This is what I need explaining , people are being put into poverty , expected to live on 2/3 of minimum wage , hospitals aren't diagnosing or treating life threatening illnesses in the young, businesses closing down on a daily basis ,many never to reopen, the government is handing out £billions to be paid back by our children possibly grandchildren because 128 people under 68 with underlying health conditions and 6 between 68-100 tested positive and died over 6 days

Is that it.

 

[Oneball]

This is what I need explaining , people are being put into poverty , expected to live on 2/3 of minimum wage , hospitals aren't diagnosing or treating life threatening illnesses in the young, businesses closing down on a daily basis ,many never to reopen, the government is handing out £billions to be paid back by our children possibly grandchildren because 128 people under 68 with underlying health conditions and 6 between 68-100 tested positive and died over 6 days

Is that it.View attachment 76429

That’s like arguing that the money spent on condoms is a waste as no one got pregnant or saying you shouldn’t wear a life vest as people don’t drown wearing them.

 

[CatmanV2]

That’s like arguing that the money spent on condoms is a waste as no one got pregnant or saying you shouldn’t wear a life vest as people don’t drown wearing them.

But the opposite of that is that people would get pregnant without condoms and it's not exactly clear that more people will die without lockdown. Can't really run a control experiment.

It also seems to be coming increasingly clear that people are dying because of lockdown. It appears, for example, there have been more deaths in private homes only from heart / circulation issues alone than have died sub age 65 without underlying health conditions.

C

 

[Wack61]

explain it to me then , it’s worth bankrupting the country and killing the young because

A it just is
B old people are in charge
C see B

you can’t abolish death , cases are up and deaths down because young people are catching it and surviving , if you’re retired and worried isolate, don’t go out , that must be what’s happening or the deaths would be much higher than 134 in a week

 

[zagatoes30]

So whilst various parts of the UK are arguing about money and who is should make the decisions the virus is quietly doing what a virus does and infects those who come into contact with it. Over here we have had a clear 5 tier plan for sometime and despite trying to move various parts of the country in and out if those tiers infections continue to rise so on Monday the decision was made to move to L5 for the whole country from midnight today. That shuts most retail and hospitality apart from those deemed essential and takeaways, construction and most manufacturing will continue with current social distancing rules in place, other than essential travel (food, medicine, critical care etc) 5km limit on all movements. This will be in place for a minimum of 4 weeks where it will be reviewed but we have all been told to plan for 6 weeks.

Whether it is the right move or not we will see but it is a clear consistent rule to the whole country and most people seem to agree it is the best way to go. If small country like Ireland can such decisions quickly why can't others.

 

[CatmanV2]

Well in the interest of accuracy, that 134 was in a day, not a week (pretty sure given it was >240 yesterda). It does now appear that it's spreading into older people.

What doesn't appear to be reported much is that something like 25% of people testing positive in hospital caught it in hospital.

C

 

[Oneball]

But the opposite of that is that people would get pregnant without condoms and it's not exactly clear that more people will die without lockdown. Can't really run a control experiment.

It also seems to be coming increasingly clear that people are dying because of lockdown. It appears, for example, there have been more deaths in private homes only from heart / circulation issues alone than have died sub age 65 without underlying health conditions.

C

More people would die if the current measures weren’t in place, hoe many more is the unknown. But you can’t argue that spending billions is a waste as only 128 people died this week.

The predictions are that an extra 120,000 people who wouldn’t have died otherwise will die between now and June. So the question is whether preventing that is worth billions.

There is no answer in my mind. Both outcomes aren’t acceptable, so what’s the third option?

 

[CatmanV2]

The predictions are that an extra 120,000 people who wouldn’t have died otherwise will die between now and June.

Actually, the question is 'is that accurate'

It's hardly an un-contested, or testable figure. Nor, when counting deaths within 28 days of a positive COVID test is there any account (apparently) being made of other excess deaths.

And therein lies the rub: Spend the billions and people don't die: Yay! The measures worked.
Don't spend the billions and people die: You should have spent the billions.

There's no way of testing which is correct. Or specifically what balance should be adopted.

Still glad I'm not in charge.

C

 

[Wack61]

I

Well in the interest of accuracy, that 134 was in a day, not in a week

C

I've read a week being reported in more than one place , none young healthy people , have you seen 134 in a day being reported

 

[allandwf]

Too much information to allow people to manipulate, to work out etc. to justify whatever their beliefs. It's irrelevant, people should do as asked question it maybe, but at the end of they day agree or not, they are not in charge.

 

[CatmanV2]

I


I've read a week being reported in more than one place , none young healthy people , have you seen 134 in a day being reported
View attachment 76443

Yeah, I don't actually understand these numbers but 134 sub 65 with no health conditions actually sounds far too high. Last I heard the total number was something like 400 sub 65 with no underlying conditions. Not that we shouldn't care about protecting those with underlying conditions.

C

 

[CatmanV2]

Too much information to allow people to manipulate, to work out etc. to justify whatever their beliefs. It's irrelevant, people should do as asked question it maybe, but at the end of they day agree or not, they are not in charge.

Never too much info, but often taken without nuance and context. Number of deaths is one example. Number of hospital admissions is another.

C

 

[Oneball]

Yeah, I don't actually understand these numbers but 134 sub 65 with no health conditions actually sounds far too high. Last I heard the total number was something like 400 sub 65 with no underlying conditions. Not that we shouldn't care about protecting those with underlying conditions.

C

I read it as 134 died, they were aged 36 to 100.

Of those 134 all but 6 had underlying health conditions.

The 6 who died that had no underlying health conditions were aged 68 to 91

 

[safrane]

As we will all die, why spend anything on health?... just leave to corpse to rot in the gutter and the rules of only the strong will survive will end the pandemic and lots of other things rather sharpish.

Maybe we could embed a special crystal into the palms of our hands that changes colour when we become 'old' and of no use to the young society some desire... ohhh... thats the Jenny thread.

I will go back now to caring for those some think are expendable now thank you.

 

[GeoffCapes]

The predictions are that an extra 120,000 people who wouldn’t have died otherwise will die between now and June.

I believe that was from the same bloke (or team) that estimated that 40,000 would die by the end of summer.

A pretty decent prediction by all accounts.

The thing that I still can't get my head around is the fact that so many are spinning this into a political issue.

Look at the countries who have done little or nothing. Their Covid numbers are off the chart in comparison to the UK.
Yes people will die from other issues because of lockdowns. But what's the alternative?

As for the statements that 'most people who have died have underlying health conditions' well, don't nearly all of us have underlying health conditions?
I have asthma? But am otherwise in half decent shape. Asthma would be classed as an underlying health condition.

A friend of a friend died after catching Covid. He ran the last 5 or so London marathons, did triathlons regularly and didn't have an ounce of fat on him. He was 56 (I think). And had asthma. He falls into the category of 'underlying health condition'.

If you had a heart bypass ten years ago you have an underlying health condition. When we people stop saying 'it's just those who are sick anyway who are dying' it's not.

 

[Wattie]

I believe that was from the same bloke (or team) that estimated that 40,000 would die by the end of summer.

A pretty decent prediction by all accounts.

The thing that I still can't get my head around is the fact that so many are spinning this into a political issue.

Look at the countries who have done little or nothing. Their Covid numbers are off the chart in comparison to the UK.
Yes people will die from other issues because of lockdowns. But what's the alternative?

As for the statements that 'most people who have died have underlying health conditions' well, don't nearly all of us have underlying health conditions?
I have asthma? But am otherwise in half decent shape. Asthma would be classed as an underlying health condition.

A friend of a friend died after catching Covid. He ran the last 5 or so London marathons, did triathlons regularly and didn't have an ounce of fat on him. He was 56 (I think). And had asthma. He falls into the category of 'underlying health condition'.

If you had a heart bypass ten years ago you have an underlying health condition. When we people stop saying 'it's just those who are sick anyway who are dying' it's not.

Your post underlies the futility.
You can’t stop people dying from anything- and certainly not this.
Therefore, it’s time to crack on....the alternative ( unless a cure is found for the multiple strains of covid that exist) is feckin misery, poverty and ruin for all those involved.
Life’s a game of chance, always has been.

 

[CatmanV2]

I believe that was from the same bloke (or team) that estimated that 40,000 would die by the end of summer.

That's not a number I recall from anyone, in truth. Not disagreeing, just simply cannot recall it.

Look at the countries who have done little or nothing. Their Covid numbers are off the chart in comparison to the UK.
Yes people will die from other issues because of lockdowns. But what's the alternative?

The question is not 'what's the alternative' It's not an either or / binary exclusive. It's 'what's the best balance'. Everyone has a different view on that which is why people keep...

spinning this into a political issue.

Asthma is indeed a co-morbity.
As is the heart disease that would necessitate a bypass.
Obesity is also a co-morbidity

'it's just those who are sick anyway who are dying' it's not.

Pretty sure no one has said that. Certainly I have not. You may think that's what meant when pointing out some of the nuances in the numbers, but that's not the same thing.

So flip the question around as you (appear) to be more at risk than I am (AFAIK I have no underlying health issues apart from drinking too much) What do you think is the correct way to reduce overall excess deaths?

As I've said before, I'm glad I'm not in charge, but I'm also curious.

C