Club Statement: Coronavirus

[blulouie]

Been saying for awhile that my own personal view is the reaction to coronavirus has been way over the top.

Quote.....
30 thousand families not even allowed to see their dying loved ones makes your post totally vile.


If not for this 7 week lockdown the deaths could have been hundreds of thousands.

Seriously think you havent a clue about the enormity of the horrible disease.

 

[DOMNOLAN]

In Italy (this was a couple of weeks ago) it was 95%+ had at least one other comorbidity. It was 60%+ that had 3 other comorbidities. (For the relevant conversations above)

 

[Jacko93]

Don't I? The reason was to prevent the transmission of the virus and prevent the NHS being swamped. Most of the 30000 who hav died so far have been over 70 with 2 or 3 underlying conditions. Many in care have died with covid not of covid so may have died anyway. The next group 49-70 have been mostly with underlying conditions like obese. Between 20-49 a couple of hundred deaths and under 20 maybe about 15 deaths. So is it far to keep people with no underlying conditions under 70 under lockdown. For me no for you possibly yes. Let's crash the economy. As th BBC article says would it not be better to keep the vulnerable- estimated letters sent out about 1.5 millions which includes 2 of my immediate family under lockdown till a vaccine becomes available while younger people get on with their lives. For me As I said personally yes. Professor Ferguson who has just resigned from sage after meeting his married lover,. Did the modelling of 250000 deaths if lockdown didn't take place. This panicked the government into lockdown. Thus is the same guy who said 250000 deaths if no lockdown cos of foot and mouth. No lockdown and 4 deaths. Also said similar about SARS which resulted in very little deaths in the UK. But if you can explain it better ok

We're all gonna die, so sack it all off. If a person was going to live for another 6 months, but Covid lead to their death, is that alright? Should we strike that off the recorded deaths? or is 6 months of life too long to consider? Maybe if there were gonna be dead in 3 months... is that better? Is that more morally acceptable?

People I know who work on the NHS front line in A&E and on dedicated COVID wards are saying that now that things have started to slow down,most of their time is being spent ensuring that we don't have a collapse from the inevitable 2nd wave. They need as long as possible to get everything in order, there is genuine worry that the 2nd wave might be several magnitudes higher than this due to people having an air of invinciblility about them when we still don't know enough about it.

For instance, the papers today, and many media outlets have been reporting that Monday will lead to an end of 'lockdown' and an easing on regulations, the roads have been noticeably busier today than at any other point of this whole thing, I mean, what difference will 3 days make anyway?

 

[firefighterblue]

No, the stats show the age of the people that have died not whether they fall into the vulnerable category - not all over 70's are vulnerable and I know some people under 70 that got a letter regarding their vulnerability.

I'm not saying any more on the matter as I have no idea who you are but you're going down as GOT's Buffoon of the Week.

That's fine. Over 95% of the people died with underlying conditions. And the stats are there. Don't know what yr reading. I'm saying people over 70 with no underlying conditions should be allowed out???? Anyone whether over 70 or under who is vulnerable got a letter

 

[DOMNOLAN]

We're all gonna die, so sack it all off. If a person was going to live for another 6 months, but Covid lead to their death, is that alright? Should we strike that off the recorded deaths? or is 6 months of life too long to consider? Maybe if there were gonna be dead in 3 months... is that better? Is that more morally acceptable?

People I know who work on the NHS front line in A&E and on dedicated COVID wards are saying that now that things have started to slow down,most of their time is being spent ensuring that we don't have a collapse from the inevitable 2nd wave. They need as long as possible to get everything in order, there is genuine worry that the 2nd wave might be several magnitudes higher than this due to people having an air of invinciblility about them when we still don't know enough about it.

For instance, the papers today, and many media outlets have been reporting that Monday will lead to an end of 'lockdown' and an easing on regulations, the roads have been noticeably busier today than at any other point of this whole thing, I mean, what difference will 3 days make anyway?

I know it’s not great to bring in personal things, but in the last few days of my dads life he got a UTI. Now, his 10 year battle of with cancer with chemotherapy meant that he was on deaths door, so anything would have pushed him over the edge. His death should not be attributed to a UTI and it wasn’t; he died of cancer. If that UTI had been replaced with covid19, it shouldn’t change.

 

[DOMNOLAN]

I know it’s not great to bring in personal things, but in the last few days of my dads life he got a UTI. Now, his 10 year battle of with cancer with chemotherapy meant that he was on deaths door, so anything would have pushed him over the edge. His death should not be attributed to a UTI and it wasn’t; he died of cancer. If that UTI had been replaced with covid19, it shouldn’t change.

We're all gonna die, so sack it all off. If a person was going to live for another 6 months, but Covid lead to their death, is that alright? Should we strike that off the recorded deaths? or is 6 months of life too long to consider? Maybe if there were gonna be dead in 3 months... is that better? Is that more morally acceptable?

To add to this: if you’d gone and told him he wasn’t allowed any cancer treatment due to all this... well... if you’ve said at the start of those 10 years that he couldn’t be treated for maybe a year (with what people are suggesting on here), he wouldn’t have got anywhere near those 10 years. Many people in with similar illnesses will also be facing that same reality. So it’s not as clear cut as you’re suggesting.

 

[firefighterblue]

I said before it is a horrible disease and any death is horrible. I'm just putting foreward my own personal view which other people in the country have as well. Most 95% people who have died have had underlying conditions with the vast majority over 70. The vast majority of people under 49 will have mild symptoms. For me yr view of hundreds of thousands of deaths is wrong. But I'm not calling anyone who disagrees with me vile or stupid. They have a different viewpoint from me. We could have shielded the most vulnerable those with underlying conditions and the vast majority carried in with their lives. That's my viewpoint. You have yours

 

[firefighterblue]

To add to this: if you’d gone and told him he wasn’t allowed any cancer treatment due to all this... well... if you’ve said at the start of those 10 years that he couldn’t be treated for maybe a year (with what people are suggesting on here), he wouldn’t have got anywhere near those 10 years. Many people in with similar illnesses will also be facing that same reality. So it’s not as clear cut as you’re suggesting.

This all day long. I myself am waiting on a cancer result but they cancelled my appointment in March. Ring the hospital and all they say is coronavirus

 

[DOMNOLAN]

This all day long. I myself am waiting on a cancer result but they cancelled my appointment in March. Ring the hospital and all they say is coronavirus

Sorry to hear that mate, it’s a rough ride. Keep strong x

 

[Jacko93]

I know it’s not great to bring in personal things, but in the last few days of my dads life he got a UTI. Now, his 10 year battle of with cancer with chemotherapy meant that he was on deaths door, so anything would have pushed him over the edge. His death should not be attributed to a UTI and it wasn’t; he died of cancer. If that UTI had been replaced with covid19, it shouldn’t change.

Individual cases are very difficult to quantify and I'm very sorry to hear of your fathers passing, I hope he was comfortable.

The registered cause of death isn't the issue for me. We have an opportunity to where possible reduce the risk of CV19 being the thing that pushed anybodies father "over the edge", and I think that we should do all we can within our power to do that. If somebody said that by staying in for 2/3 months, we could dramatically reduce the global cases of any mass death event/illness, would it be the same reaction as we are seeing by many now?

I think that there are some that still see this pandemic as a bad flu, and a bit of a fuss. Others see it as a nuisance for their own reasons. Some see it as a frightening and very real risk to life. I don't know the answer, but it doesn't seem right that it's "they were gonna die anyway".

 

[firefighterblue]

Sorry to hear that mate, it’s a rough ride. Keep strong x

Cheers but I'm only very early days. OP loads have had their cancer treatment stopped so their conditions will get worse. I understood that coronavirus could swamp the nhs but they should carried on with some of the cancer treatments. The college of surgeons say the toll could be higher for cancer patients, stroke etc and mental illness is a major worry in the lockdown. Coronavirus is a terrible illness for those people affected but for me we shouldn't have gone into lockdown just protected the vulnerable. But I'm boring myself over this now so will end there. Cmon you blues!

 

[Jeff Jones]

We're given figures daily about the new number of infections, but they are the number of those tested. How many people who haven't been tested would
test positive? I don't have the figures but I think the number tested here in Australia would be well under a million. What about the other 25 million?

We're starting to ease back on the lockdown here and there will be a big announcement tomorrow of a major easing. The last thing left in place will
be social distancing, I suspect, but I'm 74 and I don't fancy being out and about in crowds again. I go out now for about an hour twice a week and it's not that
easy keeping over a metre apart now and most people are staying in.

 

[DOMNOLAN]

We're given figures daily about the new number of infections, but they are the number of those tested. How many people who haven't been tested would
test positive? I don't have the figures but I think the number tested here in Australia would be well under a million. What about the other 25 million?

We're starting to ease back on the lockdown here and there will be a big announcement tomorrow of a major easing. The last thing left in place will
be social distancing, I suspect, but I'm 74 and I don't fancy being out and about in crowds again. I go out now for about an hour twice a week and it's not that
easy keeping over a metre apart now and most people are staying in.

Preliminary efforts to try and gauge this globally have got estimates of over 100x more people have had the disease than the current estimates. In New York they’re getting results of up to 20% of people have had it.

 

[Jeff Jones]

Preliminary efforts to try and gauge this globally have got estimates of over 100x more people have had the disease than the current estimates. In New York they’re getting results of up to 20% of people have had it.

That's why I'm worried for myself and my wife when the isolation ends. It won't be anyone's fault, but our separation from people will go on until we
have a vaccine.

 

[blulouie]

I said before it is a horrible disease and any death is horrible. I'm just putting foreward my own personal view which other people in the country have as well. Most 95% people who have died have had underlying conditions with the vast majority over 70. The vast majority of people under 49 will have mild symptoms. For me yr view of hundreds of thousands of deaths is wrong. But I'm not calling anyone who disagrees with me vile or stupid. They have a different viewpoint from me. We could have shielded the most vulnerable those with underlying conditions and the vast majority carried in with their lives. That's my viewpoint. You have yours

Ok that sounds like a plan , let the vast majority carry on with their lives eh.

Lets have Racing back on ,yanno like Cheltenham or maybe even Footie back on , yanno like The Ath Madrid game or even lets have a marathon in this very city.
Lets not worry if the NHS gets totally overun.

Yeah as long as we keep the vulnerable indoors it'll be just fine....yanno the vast majority carrying on with their lives.