Main Coronavirus / Covid-19 Discussion Thread

[Bozza]

So your Dad, at what could be considered a reasonable age is prepared to “take his chances”.

My Dad has recently celebrated his 90th birthday and has the same mind set - maybe it’s an age thing, the fact they have done a lot of living or in my Dads case, recently lost his wife of over 65 years, so feels a bit lost anyway.

However, my wife is 59 and due to Non Hodgkin Lymphoma is extremely vulnerable, she has got through 6 months of chemotherapy and has another 2 years of follow up chemo to give her a better long term prognosis. She gets so angry when she sees people moaning about having a bit of Liberty taken away for short periods, or people who won’t wear masks as it infringes their human right. “What about my human rights” she says...

She shakes her head in disbelief, when she sees people crammed into irresponsible pubs and street venues, in clear contravention of social distancing guidelines. She was incredulous that people had the gall to moan when they had to cut short their foreign holidays and fly home to beat the quarantine / self isolation rules. “What idiot would fly away, to sit on a beach, in the middle of a pandemic”, she asked me. She was then even more angry when she learnt that less than 20% of people were willing and able follow the self isolation rules.

I know the response from you, Wizard and others has been “protect the vulnerable” - but how? How do you protect vulnerable households, as it’s not just the vulnerable person themselves that would need help, but all that live in the home with the vulnerable...

In my case we have managed to defer our little one starting school by a year as we didn’t think it safe for him to start at his Special Needs School, in the middle of a pandemic. The Local Authority have been very understanding, let’s see what their stance is next September, if things haven’t changed.

My grand daughter, who lives with us has recently turned 18, and should be going out to look for work, unfortunately she has learning difficulties and ADD, she has no clue of social distancing and poor personal hygiene, on the couple of occasions we have been to our GP she has had to be reminded to sanitise her hands, as it’s just not on her radar. Fortunately, other those necessary outings she is happy to stay indoors with Nanny and Granddad, playing games!

Clearly she is vulnerable, to herself and even more so to those she may come into contact with... who will protect her?

Protect the vulnerable is such a glib, trite phrase, with little or no meaning, used by the very politicians you so clearly despise - so I would be very interested in your version of it, and how YOU would protect the vulnerable.

He won't be able to give you an answer - you know and I know it. It all gets a bit complicated if "protect the vulnerable" means anything other than old people living either by themselves or with their equally old spouse. That bit is easy: "Stay at home grandpa - we'll pop your food round on your doorstep once a week - we'll let you know when you can come out again."

As you've highlighted, it ignores the fact that millions of vulnerable (ie considerably more than "the very few vulnerable") have day-to-day contact, by necessity, with many of those who had a lucky spin on the Covid-19 roulette wheel and would have a very good chance of limited impact should they get infected.

I'd like to know where our "Lock up the vulnerable so I can get on with my life" crew draw the line on those who are vulnerable and those who are not. Age is the easiest one of course - pick a number - 65, 70, whatever. But what about pre-exisitng conditions - where's that list of who makes the cut and are allowed to live and those who are locked away? What about weight - fatties don't seem to do too well with this - will all those with a BMI above, say, 30, be required to stay at home watching Netflix until this all blows over? Ethnicity seems to be a factor in determining vulnerability - how do we choose which ones get to go to the pub, and those who have booze dropped off on their doorstep once a week?

It also ignores the fact that although the "fit and healthy" largely do OK with Covid-19, a few don't, and when you multiply that up across an entire population, there will be a lot of people taken before their time.

And finally it ignores the long-term effects of being infected - "long Covid" which seems to be a very real thing for very many people who, previously, were as fit as a fiddle. Are the "I want to go on holiday" merchants happy to subject potentially millions of people to debilitating potentially long-term health problems? Seems so.

 

[Albion Dan]

I appreciate your kind words regards our situation, but have to take you to task on your "very few vulnerable" comment.

Over 2 million people were deemed to be very vulnerable and were asked to shield. Those people and their vulnerabilities haven't gone away (actually some have, as they have died). By a quick guesstimation I make that around 3% of the UK population that you are dismissing as a "few"...

Also, despite my polite request you have once again failed to explain "protect the vulnerable". If you don't know the answer or how to do it, stop using the phrase.

It's not up to me to decide what protecting the vulnerable should look like and frankly that should be the job of the government, but six thousand scientists and doctors agree that removing lockdown would be a better strategy. I know people hate Sweden being used as an example but they are clearly now doing a very good job of protecting those that need it most looking at their figures. These aren't just a few crank conspiricists but an army of educated and informed experts.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-herd-immunity-reaches-30-000-signatures.html

 

[The Wizard]

And people seem to ignore all the thousands more people that are going to be taken before their time because of other issues caused by restrictions, I’m sick of debating with people who have COVID tunnel vision it’s absurd. Why don’t people think of the families currently suffering with loved ones dying of treatable cancers or other diseases? The thousands who have lost livelihoods? Mental health? Economic depression? It seems like Matt Hancock has brainwashed people into simply looking at only COVID deaths.

Fact is, before long, we all know the clowns are going to put us in another lockdown, which means EVERYONE why not just lockdown those with certain health conditions/over a certain age, the point about ring fencing the elderly or vulnerable is that if we are going to be in a national lockdown (probably disguised as local lockdowns) then why not explore different options? Locking everyone up together with blanket restrictions, when under 40’s have near zero fatality rate is pure stupidity,

 

[darkwolf666]

And people seem to ignore all the thousands more people that are going to be taken before their time because of other issues caused by restrictions, I’m sick of debating with people who have COVID tunnel vision it’s absurd. Why don’t people think of the families currently suffering with loved ones dying of treatable cancers or other diseases? The thousands who have lost livelihoods? Mental health? Economic depression? It seems like Matt Hancock has brainwashed people into simply looking at only COVID deaths.

Fact is, before long, we all know the clowns are going to put us in another lockdown, which means EVERYONE why not just lockdown those with certain health conditions/over a certain age, the point about ring fencing the elderly or vulnerable is that if we are going to be in a national lockdown (probably disguised as local lockdowns) then why not explore different options? Locking everyone up together with blanket restrictions, when under 40’s have near zero fatality rate is pure stupidity,

You're not debating with anybody, you are telling them if they don't agree with your point of view they have tunnel vision and effectively are wrong!

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

What sort of world and future do you want your children to grow up in?

One that protects the vulnerable? It’s often said protection of the vulnerable is a way to judge a decent society.

 

[Bozza]

And people seem to ignore all the thousands more people that are going to be taken before their time because of other issues caused by restrictions, I’m sick of debating with people who have COVID tunnel vision it’s absurd. Why don’t people think of the families currently suffering with loved ones dying of treatable cancers or other diseases? The thousands who have lost livelihoods? Mental health? Economic depression? It seems like Matt Hancock has brainwashed people into simply looking at only COVID deaths.

Fact is, before long, we all know the clowns are going to put us in another lockdown, which means EVERYONE why not just lockdown those with certain health conditions/over a certain age, the point about ring fencing the elderly or vulnerable is that if we are going to be in a national lockdown (probably disguised as local lockdowns) then why not explore different options? Locking everyone up together with blanket restrictions, when under 40’s have near zero fatality rate is pure stupidity,

I certainly don't have "Covid tunnel vision" and I'm well aware of all the issues you mention.

The unfortunate truth is there is not a path out of where we are, where there are no losers. It is not possible to save every life now or later. It's not possible to rescue every business. It's not possible to save every job.

Chris Witty, one of the government's most senior and, presumably, most-trusted advisors has spoken repeatedly about these other factors. It should be abundantly clear to everyone that trying to balance health now, health later and economic activity is really, really bloody difficult and, again, there is not a route that doesn't involve pain somewhere.

And the very best chance of the NHS operating BAU - treating those with cancer and all other ailments that require care - is to keep Covid-19 infection rates low, to keep Covid-19 hospitalisations low, to allow hospitals to operate all of their other services alongside a manageable stream of Covid-19 care.

If Covid-19 hospitalisations spiral out of control, hospitals have a very stark choice to make...

- Start refusing Covid-19 patients, many of whom would survive with medical assistance, who will have to return home, with some dying.
- Repurpose resources for other health concerns, such as cancer treatments, to allow the influx of Covid-19 patients to be attended to.

It's exactly what has been happening in Israel, and the second option above has been taken, as no hospital wants to refuse admission to someone who needs help if a bed can be found.

 

[Poojah]

From where I'm sitting, the last eight months or so have been grim, the first three months of them in particular. Watching the death toll rise day after day after day, watching businesses and industries fold, watching already seriously ill people have their treatment interrupted, having our basic civil liberties taken away. Knowing that when this is all over it won't really be all over and there will be financial ramifications to bear for years if not decades. What's to like about that? Not a great deal.

On a few occasions throughout this period I've had to have a word with myself for thinking "this isn't fair". The reality is Covid-19 is neither fair nor unfair - there is no sentient will behind what's going on, it's just nature being nature. Sometimes it works for us, the fact that we exist at this point as a species is a profound testament to that, and sometimes it works against. It is what it is, and what it is a thoroughly unpleasant experience for pretty much the entire planet.

I absolutely hear and understand the voices of discontent that want to throw caution to the wind, abandon lockdown protocols and return to something as close to 'normal' as possible whilst doing what we can protect the 'vulnerable'. I do however see some fundamental issues with such an approach.

First and foremost, the vulnerable in this case is a much broader spectrum of society than people seem to recognise. Around 15% are over the age of 65. 30% are obese to some degree. About 12% have asthma. 6% have diabetes. Now, I accept that you can't simply add those figures together because there will be a degree of overlap, but nevertheless there are more people at a heightened risk of becoming seriously ill than is immediately apparent.

Not withstanding the challenges surrounding forcing a 30 year old bloke to stay at home because he has a BMI of 45, wrapping a protective bubble around those deemed to be vulnerable is also incredibly difficult. The most vulnerable require care - short of having a live-in carer who is also able to isolate, keeping the virus away from those individuals becomes increasingly futile the more prevalent it is within our society.

Then there's the misnomer of death rates. It's hard to find a definitive source as to what the mortality rate of Covid-19 actually is, however it is not a binary illness; live or die. There's a whole grey area. If we 'let this thing rip', as I think Boris put it back in Feb, there will still be a great number of young, formerly healthy people who do not die but wind up intubated, ventilated and facing serious long-term health consequences. Would those advocating the removal of lockdown measures volunteer to be hooked up to a ventilator for a few weeks for the greater good of their society? Of course, that's a hypothetical question as it is much more of a lottery than that, but again the more prevalent the virus becomes the more of us (and I put myself in the young-ish, healthy bracket) will meet that particular, grim fate.

This situation has been, and continues to be shít, absolutely shít. I want my life back, and I want it now. But I've learned though in my 35 years on this earth that you can't always have what you want. There is no perfect answer - no matter what we do some people will die, others will be gravely ill, businesses will fail and jobs will be lost. We have to try and get the balancing act right. Do I think the government are getting that right in this moment? No. Do I think a 'protect the weak' and let the rest of us crack on approach will work, either? Sadly, no I don't.

This is, I admit, a 'treading water' approach that we are following right now rather than an exit strategy. So what if a viable vaccine never arrives? What if it does arrive but lacks efficacy? Fair questions, but as of this moment my stance is that we have to trust in science and the law of probability - it seems more likely than not that we will have a vaccine of sorts within the next 3 - 6 months.

Putting that to one side, we have a long, cold winter ahead and we are starting from a position of mis-control. I don't believe now is the appropriate time to be gambling on a herd immunity approach. Let's see where we are come Easter. Fingers crossed, we have an effective vaccine. If not, perhaps we have something semi-effective which will at least offer some protection and slow the spread amongst the weak and vulnerable. And if we're still coming up completely short, at least we should have a moderately raised level of immunity amongst the young and months of warm weather and outdoor space to try something different. It does make sense to come up with a 'plan b', 100%, but now is not the time to deploy it.

Hold tight, grit your teeth and look forward to when the good times can return without sacrificing the health and lives of the people in our society that are dear to so many. We're over the half way line in my opinion - this pestilence will pass.

 

[The Wizard]

I certainly don't have "Covid tunnel vision" and I'm well aware of all the issues you mention.

The unfortunate truth is there is not a path out of where we are, where there are no losers. It is not possible to save every life now or later. It's not possible to save every business. It's not possible to save every job.

Chris Witty, one of the government's most senior and, presumably, most-trusted advisors has spoken repeatedly about these other factors. It should be abundantly clear to everyone that trying to balance health now, health later and economic activity is really, really bloody difficult and, again, there is not a route that doesn't involve pain somewhere.

And the very best chance of the NHS operating BAU - treating those with cancer and all other ailments that require care - is to keep Covid-19 infection rates low, to keep Covid-19 hospitalisations low, to allow hospitals to operate all of their other services alongside a manageable stream of Covid-19 care.

If Covid-19 hospitalisations spiral out of control, hospitals have a very stark choice to make...

- Start refusing Covid-19 patients, many of whom would survive with medical assistance, who will have to return home, with some dying.
- Repurpose resources for other health concerns, such as cancer treatments, to allow the influx of Covid-19 patients to be attended to.

It's exactly what has been happening in Israel, and the second option above has been taken, as no hospital wants to refuse admission to someone who needs help if a bed can be found.

And what’s the end game, Boz? The point I’ve been making all along, a vaccine, a mystical vaccine that as of yet doesn’t exist and even senior scientists say could well never happen, it’s our ONLY get out of jail card, there are no other options for the U.K. If by Spring, there is no vaccine and we’ve had a winter of lockdown it won’t even be worth getting back to ‘normality’ because there won’t be any normality left.

You're not debating with anybody, you are telling them if they don't agree with your point of view they have tunnel vision and effectively are wrong!

What am I stating that is an opinion?

Economic depression is a proven killer
200k less referrals & Up to 20000 people with undiagnosed cancers = proven killer
3 months worth of reduced NHS services = proven killer
Mental health = proven killer
800-1000 more people dying a week than normal at home, coincidentally since lockdown.


All these things^ will kill 10 times more people under the age of 50 than COVID. And IF there is a COVID vaccine or it magically disappears in the next 6 months, the ramifications from all these things won’t go away, the long term effects from the damage already done will be felt for many many years. I’d be willing to place a large wager that in 2 years time when we look back at this crisis, that the number of deaths caused indirectly by COVID will exceed the number actually directly related to having the virus.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Every over 65, or obese, with diabetes or respiratory ailments to self isolate for as long as it takes, unable to see relatives except at a distance.

Everyone else can booze, socialise, go to packed stadia, gigs, club, visit the cinema or travel wherever they want to in the world. Most importantly, masks are deemed a complete waste of space.

The economy will boom, recently formed NHS queues will disappear, mental health issues will become what they were, Gatwick and Heathrow will thrive, the sky will be full of vapour trails once more.

The dividend .... CV19 sceptics guarantee that covid cases, hospitalisations and deaths will fall.

Is the right answer.

 

[darkwolf666]

And what’s the end game, Boz? The point I’ve been making all along, a vaccine, a mystical vaccine that as of yet doesn’t exist and even senior scientists say could well never happen, it’s our ONLY get out of jail card, there are no other options for the U.K. If by Spring, there is no vaccine and we’ve had a winter of lockdown it won’t even be worth getting back to ‘normality’ because there won’t be any normality left.



What am I stating that is an opinion?

Economic depression is a proven killer
200k less referrals & Up to 20000 people with undiagnosed cancers = proven killer
3 months worth of reduced NHS services = proven killer
Mental health = proven killer
800-1000 more people dying a week than normal at home, coincidentally since lockdown.


All these things^ will kill 10 times more people under the age of 50 than COVID. And IF there is a COVID vaccine or it magically disappears in the next 6 months, the ramifications from all these things won’t go away, the long term effects from the damage already done will be felt for many many years. I’d be willing to place a large wager that in 2 years time when we look back at this crisis, that the number of deaths caused indirectly by COVID will exceed the number actually directly related to having the virus.

There are a lot of facts there that have no actual substance. You, and no-one else for that matter knows how many non Covid deaths there will be in the future. It seems you have now reversed the "getting run over by a bus" analogy, to something to that might happen in the future, that nobody knows... The unknown unknowns!

The simple truth is we can't control the future, granted we can plan to make it easier, but is that fair at the health and death of those living NOW!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Here is an Editorial recently published in the New England Journal of medicine. Some of the text is pasted below. It is entitled 'Dying in a leadership vacuum'

Covid-19 has created a crisis throughout the
world. This crisis has produced a test of leadership.
With no good options to combat a novel
pathogen, countries were forced to make hard
choices about how to respond. Here in the
United States, our leaders have failed that test.
They have taken a crisis and turned it into a
tragedy.
The magnitude of this failure is astonishing.
According to the Johns Hopkins Center for Systems
Science and Engineering,1 the United States
leads the world in Covid-19 cases and in deaths
due to the disease, far exceeding the numbers in
much larger countries, such as China. The death
rate in this country is more than double that of
Canada, exceeds that of Japan, a country with a
vulnerable and elderly population, by a factor of
almost 50, and even dwarfs the rates in lowermiddle-
income countries, such as Vietnam, by a
factor of almost 2000. Covid-19 is an overwhelming
challenge, and many factors contribute to its
severity. But the one we can control is how we
behave. And in the United States we have consistently
behaved poorly.
We know that we could have done better.
China, faced with the first outbreak, chose strict
quarantine and isolation after an initial delay.
These measures were severe but effective, essentially
eliminating transmission at the point where
the outbreak began and reducing the death rate
to a reported 3 per million, as compared with
more than 500 per million in the United States.

It goes on to eviscerate the US leadership (i.e., 'president' Trump) and ends with this:

Anyone else who recklessly squandered lives
and money in this way would be suffering legal
consequences. Our leaders have largely claimed
immunity for their actions. But this election gives
us the power to render judgment. Reasonable
people will certainly disagree about the many
political positions taken by candidates. But truth
is neither liberal nor conservative. When it comes
to the response to the largest public health crisis
of our time, our current political leaders have
demonstrated that they are dangerously incompetent.
We should not abet them and enable the
deaths of thousands more Americans by allowing
them to keep their jobs.

I have never seen such language in a mainstream science journal let alone one of the world's leading medical journals.

 

[beorhthelm]

What am I stating that is an opinion?

Economic depression is a proven killer
200k less referrals & Up to 20000 people with undiagnosed cancers = proven killer
3 months worth of reduced NHS services = proven killer
Mental health = proven killer
800-1000 more people dying a week than normal at home, coincidentally since lockdown.


All these things^ will kill 10 times more people under the age of 50 than COVID.

will they? i havent seen such well researched and evidenced proof. so the conclusion you draw is that, to save the under 50s we must accept sacrfice some of the over 50's. you might be right, i wouldn't want to be the politician trying to sell that to the public.

 

[Bozza]

And what’s the end game, Boz? The point I’ve been making all along, a vaccine, a mystical vaccine that as of yet doesn’t exist and even senior scientists say could well never happen, it’s our ONLY get out of jail card, there are no other options for the U.K. If by Spring, there is no vaccine and we’ve had a winter of lockdown it won’t even be worth getting back to ‘normality’ because there won’t be any normality left.

1. A vaccine isn't "mystical". There are a whole heap of them, right now, a fair way down the path of clinical trials. Unprecedented steps have been, and are, being taken, to ensure that if and when those trials are successful, vaccine rollout can happen at speed.

2. So, for now, kicking the can down the road is a legitimate tactic. Kicking the Covid can down the road earlier this year enabled us to...

- Learn far more about the virus
- Understand how better to treat the virus, meaning those that get sick have a chance of a better outcome
- Relieve the pressures on health services, with the intention of BAU activity operating to care for those with non-Covid health concerns
- Ramp up testing, tracing and other activities that give us a better chance of "living with the virus"
- Get us significantly closer to the holy grail of a vaccine or vaccines to end this whole bloody nightmare.

3. Yes, there is a chance that vaccination doesn't provide the ultimate exit strategy that we hope. If that comes to pass then we look at Plans B, C, D and beyond. For now, though, we go for Plan A: find a range of measures that, if applied consistently, allow as much economic, educational, health and social activity as possible to proceed whilst keeping the spread of Covid-19 to manageable levels.



Now, please be aware. I consider anti-vaxxers to be wrong and, beyond that, dangerous. Everyone has an absolute right to not believe in the simple science of vaccines, but you have absolutely no right to spout that nonsense here. There are plenty of other places you can go and engage with others of a similar disposition. Use them please.

 

[beorhthelm]

update on the vaccines that supposedly dont exist. 7 are in phase 3 clinical trials, which means they are testing the efficacy and safety in wider population (group size several thousand people), having already proven in earlier rounds there is a viable immune response. regulators have stated they'll fast track approval (getting paper work in review already), and some are already in production to distribute once approved.

 

[The Wizard]

1. A vaccine isn't "mystical". There are a whole heap of them, right now, a fair way down the path of clinical trials. Unprecedented steps have been, and are, being taken, to ensure that if and when those trials are successful, vaccine rollout can happen at speed.

2. So, for now, kicking the can down the road is a legitimate tactic. Kicking the Covid can down the road earlier this year enabled us to...

- Learn far more about the virus
- Understand how better to treat the virus, meaning those that get sick have a chance of a better outcome
- Relieve the pressures on health services, with the intention of BAU activity operating to care for those with non-Covid health concerns
- Ramp up testing, tracing and other activities that give us a better chance of "living with the virus"
- Get us significantly closer to the holy grail of a vaccine or vaccines to end this whole bloody nightmare.

3. Yes, there is a chance that vaccination doesn't provide the ultimate exit strategy that we hope. If that comes to pass then we look at Plans B, C, D and beyond. For now, though, we go for Plan A: find a range of measures that, if applied consistently, allow as much economic, educational, health and social activity as possible to proceed whilst keeping the spread of Covid-19 to manageable levels.



Now, please be aware. I consider anti-vaxxers to be wrong and, beyond that, dangerous. Everyone has an absolute right to not believe in the simple science of vaccines, but you have absolutely no right to spout that nonsense here. There are plenty of other places you can go and engage with others of a similar disposition. Use them please.

Where exactly have I said I’m an anti-vaxxer? I think once on this thread I’ve said I would opt against having a COVID vaccine in the first 6 months of development, perhaps down the line I would have it, but a rushed vaccine is not something I personally would choose to have as a very healthy person in my 20’s, besides, from the murmurings if there is a vaccine it will only be given to a certain % of the population anyway. Bit of a strange thing to add on the end of your post given I’ve never said anything about being an anti vaxxer.

At this present time, the vaccine doesn’t exist and even top senior scientists say that its effectiveness is still unknown and until later phase large scale trials are complete and results correlated, pinning hopes on it being our saviour with no back up plans or other ways out is not a route I agree with Time will tell which one of us on here is correct, but my hunch is, if there is a vaccine it won’t be until at least mid 2021, by which point this country will be the bare bones of the old normal.

Kicking COVID down the road as you put it, is not only kicking COVID down the road, it’s kicking all the other problems down the road that I listed earlier. We will see once all is said and done, the true cost of this ‘way out’ the government have chosen.

 

[A1X]

At this present time, the vaccine doesn’t exist

Yes. It. Does.

You can't get it if you walk into Boots and demand it, but that's not the same thing. You can't walk into a brothel and demand to get jiggy with Scarlett Johansson, but that's not because she's a fictional entity.

 

[sydney]

burning down the barn to kill a rat.

 

[pb21]

For a virus that has a 0.12% death rate, estimated by WHO today.

Have you got a source for this, can't seem to find anything.

Bearing in mind you incorrectly accused me of misinforming people I would be interested to see this.

 

[Rugrat]

Every over 65, or obese, with diabetes or respiratory ailments to self isolate for as long as it takes, unable to see relatives except at a distance.

Everyone else can booze, socialise, go to packed stadia, gigs, club, visit the cinema or travel wherever they want to in the world. Most importantly, masks are deemed a complete waste of space.

The economy will boom, recently formed NHS queues will disappear, mental health issues will become what they were, Gatwick and Heathrow will thrive, the sky will be full of vapour trails once more.

The dividend .... CV19 sceptics guarantee that covid cases, hospitalisations and deaths will fall.

Can you add me please? Fit and healthy, run walk and cycle more than the average and not overweight. But I do have an immune system issue that seemingly puts me into the vulnerable group. Oddly I wouldn't have even known had it not been for Covid .... so I guess add all those others with other unknown conditions too

 

[sydney]

And people seem to ignore all the thousands more people that are going to be taken before their time because of other issues caused by restrictions, I’m sick of debating with people who have COVID tunnel vision it’s absurd. Why don’t people think of the families currently suffering with loved ones dying of treatable cancers or other diseases? The thousands who have lost livelihoods? Mental health? Economic depression? It seems like Matt Hancock has brainwashed people into simply looking at only COVID deaths.

Fact is, before long, we all know the clowns are going to put us in another lockdown, which means EVERYONE why not just lockdown those with certain health conditions/over a certain age, the point about ring fencing the elderly or vulnerable is that if we are going to be in a national lockdown (probably disguised as local lockdowns) then why not explore different options? Locking everyone up together with blanket restrictions, when under 40’s have near zero fatality rate is pure stupidity,

You're not debating with anybody, you are telling them if they don't agree with your point of view they have tunnel vision and effectively are wrong!

i think you are both right in your own way .....is it really correct in any way to lock down the entire community..in order to protect 5% of the population for the sake of argument ?? the measures that the govt is coming up with now would have been unfathomable a year ago but because there is a particularly nasty flu bug around
they are grinding the country to a halt and depriving people of their liberty .....this can not end well , whichever way it goes.