darkwolf666
Well-known member
I wonder what my wife being seen as collateral damage will do to my mental health...
Aye..but then there are people dying now because of mental health issues
It's not, though. The week of the study, they were saying new incidents in ENGLAND were 96,000 per day. (Kings/Zoe 43,000 for the UK). ONS data was 52,000 for the UK.
Yes, Kings/Zoe is based on people reporting symptoms so add on 20%, but that is still closer than Sage/ReACT.
That is both selfish and unethical.
Surely the real collateral damage are those who lose their lives as a result of Covid related restrictions.
It’s an impossible position....
If we don’t lockdown, case numbers (and ultimately deaths) will continue to explode upwards
We can’t simply shield the vulnerable and let the rest get back to normal. For a start, 26% of men and 29% of women in the UK are classified as obese (with 60%+ being overweight) so immediately more than a quarter of adults evidently need to shield.....add to that other medical conditions etc and the number required to shield is huge to allow ‘the rest of us’ to crack on.
Apart from her getting Covid, that is an amazing good story to hear on here, both that she has seen the lumps disappear and that she was treated at the Royal Marden for Covid making the use of the steroids to be known as a way of helping the very sick fight it.
I would say I wouldn't be so sure the nerve damage is a cause of the long Covid though. My mother has pain and numbness in her feet due to cancer treatment, a possible side effect of a type of steroid and chemo.
In hospitals it is not uncommon to have to choose to save one life, and as a result allow another to die. For example if they only have the resources to save one, they would have to make that terrible decision. The well established ethics based on both compassion and common sense, is to prioritise a young and healthy person before an old or seriously ill one.
A friend of mine (early 30's) had his chemotherapy postponed in March until a couple of weeks from now. If it gets delayed again, I would seriously question the ethics of these restrictions.
be serious, dont say its not accurate then throw a random "add on 20%" to the Zoe data. the "Re" in ReACT is for real-time, even if the study isn't reported daily, its fieldwork with actual tests, not people reporting they have a cough.
Where's your evidence that 'it's not uncommon' for life or death decisions to be made due to lack of resources?
In hospitals it is not uncommon to have to choose to save one life, and as a result allow another to die. For example if they only have the resources to save one, they would have to make that terrible decision. The well established ethics based on both compassion and common sense, is to prioritise a young and healthy person before an old or seriously ill one.
A friend of mine (early 30's) had his chemotherapy postponed in March until a couple of weeks from now. If it gets delayed again, I would seriously question the ethics of these restrictions.
Fair point but it would be good that the government reviewed that and other options and were clearer on why they are choosing the path they are. There are other options than the Hokey Cokey, e.g. the New Zealand that means ****ing getting on it, full lockdown long enough to kills it, managing your borders with the army in charge, etc. Another is segmenting the problem.
Without transparency people will challenge. I don’t buy the there are too many people argument from what I’ve seen to date, although I fully accept the case may exist. But without the government’s transparency....There are 2.2m are on the clinically extremely vulnerable list getting further guidance from the government. The average number of people per household is 2.4, so without better data that’s just over 5m people. To those who are obese or overweight there is a recommendation from the NHS that we all know , lose weight, eat less calories, exercise more etc. For the vast majority it’s a choice they are in those categories, for those that have medical issues add them to the clinically extremely vulnerable list via the GP. Oh, and only 58% of those in the clinically extremely vulnerable category are bothering to comply with all of the additional guidelines.
Not to your specific Q, but the allocation of scarce resource to our health service Vs other activity is by itself a life and death decision which the government make on our behalf
It’s not about how anyone ‘chose’ to be obese, or whether they can go on a diet though - it’s more that without shielding (in the vast numbers necessary given the incidence of obesity) they’ll be far more likely to get very ill, and the NHS won’t be able to cope.
average age of death is 81.
"far more likely to get ill"
sensationalism , for the majority there is barely any chance of complications and if you are obese or vulnerable then there is still a very low chance of getting complications.
The way you spin it is pure bbc
Do you actually believe this or are you just saying things to wind people up.
You're either a piss-taker, stupid or just an insensitive jerk... I can't make up my mind which!
What went wrong? The Czech Republic was exemplary in the spring, but now high per capita CV19 deaths.
Is it possible that some luck came into it originally, in that:
1. You were bordered by countries that had CV19 largely under control?
2. Czechs weren't big overseas travellers last winter? Whereas I know for example that Brits, the Dutch, Swedes and Belgians carried on with their holidays e.g. winter sports.
Thanks, saved me posting the same.Do you actually believe this or are you just saying things to wind people up.
You're either a piss-taker, stupid or just an insensitive jerk... I can't make up my mind which!
While I understand the potential for future mental health issues, my immediate concern, and call me selfish, is for those who are going to die NOW, not in some possible maybe distant future. These people shouldn't just be written off as some charmer has said, "as collateral damage"...