News0 min ago
Was Sweden Right After All?
No compulsory lockdown there. Roundly criticised by its neighbours.
However the countries which protected its citizens from the virus previously are now seeing growing numbers of cases while Sweden’s is now by comparison very low.
https:/
However the countries which protected its citizens from the virus previously are now seeing growing numbers of cases while Sweden’s is now by comparison very low.
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ichkeria. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Restrictions are based on number of infections is a ridiculous measure to use. One can't spend forever trying to turn back the tide, one needs to have measures to protect the most vulnerable, then let other humans catch the virus and get their immune system to learn to cope with it. Preventing that is a delaying step at best. But the inevitable end result, by definition, remains the same.
danny, //I think the restrictions are based on number of infections not on deaths. //
Well, they shouldn't be because the vast majority recover - and we know that. The latest figure for infections according to the BBC is 3991 - and that in itself, from a population of almost 70 million, is miniscule. This is crazy.
Well, they shouldn't be because the vast majority recover - and we know that. The latest figure for infections according to the BBC is 3991 - and that in itself, from a population of almost 70 million, is miniscule. This is crazy.
Some people who succumb and recover still end up suffering, it seems, from long-term impacts. At the moment this is partly anecdotal, because, obviously, the long-term effects can't be fully understood. But focusing only on those who die seems too narrow.
All that said, I am a little surprised that the Government appears to be reacting primarily to a rise in infections, rather than a rise in other figures. The strategy they'd announced around June seemed to be based on the idea that they wouldn't allow "a second wave that would overwhelm the NHS" (emphasis added), rather than a second wave of any kind.
All that said, I am a little surprised that the Government appears to be reacting primarily to a rise in infections, rather than a rise in other figures. The strategy they'd announced around June seemed to be based on the idea that they wouldn't allow "a second wave that would overwhelm the NHS" (emphasis added), rather than a second wave of any kind.
//How is the number of deaths from suicide, or any other cause, relevant to deaths from Covid?//
Because, danny, they put the point that you raised (20 deaths in a day) into perspective. If you’d like perhaps a more appropriate comparison, since the middle of June more people have been dying of ‘flu than Covid-19. In the last week of July for the previous five years (2015-19) around 1,400 people (200 a day) on average have died of ‘flu and pneumonia. (That's the combination of the diseases, not one or the other. They get 'flu and develop pneumonia which finishes them off). That figure has fallen this year to around 1,050, almost certainly as a result of lockdowns, social distancing etc. and 'flu is transmitted in much the same way as Covid. But Covid deaths have declined from a high of almost a thousand a day in April to around ten a day now. So if social distancing etc. reduced Covid deaths by about 99%, why did it only reduce ‘flu deaths by 50%? So the next question is, why are we still placing serious restrictions on the economy and on personal freedoms when Covid deaths are so much lower than deaths from the ordinary flu?
The problem is hysteria. People are fed daily death figures which seem alarming (well danny seems alarmed anyway) but they don’t seem capable of putting those figures into context. Yes, twenty people died yesterday from Covid, but almost certainly around 150 died from ‘flu/pneumonia. A more realistic way to prevent such alarm (which I believe the government is deliberately continuing to foment) is to publish the Covid death figures alongside the figures for deaths from other common causes.
// I think the restrictions are based on number of infections not on deaths.//
Why? Why should the economy and the country’s general wellbeing be so seriously jeopardised in an attempt to suppress a disease which claims so relatively few victims? People die of nasty illnesses every day. We don’t imperil the country's economy, heath and social wellbeing in an effort to prevent such deaths.
//Some people who succumb and recover still end up suffering//
They certainly do, Jim. But again the numbers are miniscule and the same question prevails – just how much do you jeopardise the wellbeing of the entire country in an effort to suppress a disease from which the vast, vast majority of sufferers will fully recover?
Because, danny, they put the point that you raised (20 deaths in a day) into perspective. If you’d like perhaps a more appropriate comparison, since the middle of June more people have been dying of ‘flu than Covid-19. In the last week of July for the previous five years (2015-19) around 1,400 people (200 a day) on average have died of ‘flu and pneumonia. (That's the combination of the diseases, not one or the other. They get 'flu and develop pneumonia which finishes them off). That figure has fallen this year to around 1,050, almost certainly as a result of lockdowns, social distancing etc. and 'flu is transmitted in much the same way as Covid. But Covid deaths have declined from a high of almost a thousand a day in April to around ten a day now. So if social distancing etc. reduced Covid deaths by about 99%, why did it only reduce ‘flu deaths by 50%? So the next question is, why are we still placing serious restrictions on the economy and on personal freedoms when Covid deaths are so much lower than deaths from the ordinary flu?
The problem is hysteria. People are fed daily death figures which seem alarming (well danny seems alarmed anyway) but they don’t seem capable of putting those figures into context. Yes, twenty people died yesterday from Covid, but almost certainly around 150 died from ‘flu/pneumonia. A more realistic way to prevent such alarm (which I believe the government is deliberately continuing to foment) is to publish the Covid death figures alongside the figures for deaths from other common causes.
// I think the restrictions are based on number of infections not on deaths.//
Why? Why should the economy and the country’s general wellbeing be so seriously jeopardised in an attempt to suppress a disease which claims so relatively few victims? People die of nasty illnesses every day. We don’t imperil the country's economy, heath and social wellbeing in an effort to prevent such deaths.
//Some people who succumb and recover still end up suffering//
They certainly do, Jim. But again the numbers are miniscule and the same question prevails – just how much do you jeopardise the wellbeing of the entire country in an effort to suppress a disease from which the vast, vast majority of sufferers will fully recover?
Well ,after all the threads ,the ponticating,quite eloquently of NJ and all the stastical analysis of our contributors,the situation is quite simple :
The government has failed miserably and tardily of many aspects but particularly on testing and tracing,
The people have not taken seriously the advice of the government concerning,quarantine and social distancing.
A second wave ,pinnacle, spike whatever you want to call it is inevitable.
That is it folks in a nutshell
The government has failed miserably and tardily of many aspects but particularly on testing and tracing,
The people have not taken seriously the advice of the government concerning,quarantine and social distancing.
A second wave ,pinnacle, spike whatever you want to call it is inevitable.
That is it folks in a nutshell
Dannyk13 at 1.41pm - "I agree regarding vulnerable people, but I don't think we should allow everyone else to be at risk."
How do you propose that we shouldn't allow everyone else to be at risk?
I'm part of the "everyone else" and I don't feel even slightly at risk because, no matter how the spin gets spun, the risk is tiny. It just is.
How do you propose that we shouldn't allow everyone else to be at risk?
I'm part of the "everyone else" and I don't feel even slightly at risk because, no matter how the spin gets spun, the risk is tiny. It just is.
Latest Posts
Food & Drink3 mins ago
Travel7 mins ago
News8 mins ago
News9 mins ago
ChatterBank10 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.