Technology1 min ago
Easing Of Lockdown.
114 Answers
Ahead of the govt announcemnet today, I give you this quote from The Sunday Times of Feb 14th:
"The deaths from Covid have been, across the year, not much more than double the number of excess winter deaths in a bad flu year. We impose no restrictions on the population for seasonal flu, but close society down entirely for Covid. That makes little logical sense. Still less when you add in the 225,000 operations cancelled as a consequence of lockdown.
By the end of this month, the NHS will be under scarcely any greater pressure than it is normally at the beginning of March, given the decrease in infections. The elderly will have been vaccinated.
So who, exactly, is it that we're protecting? Is the plan to create a country in which people die happily of many things, as they always have, but never, mercifully, of Covid"
No mention either of the billions paid out in fraudulent business claims during lockdown. Money that should have gone to the NHS in the first place.
The figures are as high as they are BECAUSE of the govt and "the science", not IN SPITE of them.
But if everyone is happy to continue in lockdown, then stay in lockdown. If everyone believes all the publicity and propaganda from the govt, then stay with it. You think you know it makes sense. Don't you? Apart from that, everything's fine thanks. :o)
"The deaths from Covid have been, across the year, not much more than double the number of excess winter deaths in a bad flu year. We impose no restrictions on the population for seasonal flu, but close society down entirely for Covid. That makes little logical sense. Still less when you add in the 225,000 operations cancelled as a consequence of lockdown.
By the end of this month, the NHS will be under scarcely any greater pressure than it is normally at the beginning of March, given the decrease in infections. The elderly will have been vaccinated.
So who, exactly, is it that we're protecting? Is the plan to create a country in which people die happily of many things, as they always have, but never, mercifully, of Covid"
No mention either of the billions paid out in fraudulent business claims during lockdown. Money that should have gone to the NHS in the first place.
The figures are as high as they are BECAUSE of the govt and "the science", not IN SPITE of them.
But if everyone is happy to continue in lockdown, then stay in lockdown. If everyone believes all the publicity and propaganda from the govt, then stay with it. You think you know it makes sense. Don't you? Apart from that, everything's fine thanks. :o)
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 10ClarionSt. 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.
//The deaths from Covid have been, across the year, not much more than double //
Its still 120000 dead bodies, enough to fill Old Trafford and the Etihad- plus loads of hospital cases and many thousand who've got to live with long covid.
But apart from that....
And of course it would HAVE been much more without lockdown.
You really ought to think things through
Its still 120000 dead bodies, enough to fill Old Trafford and the Etihad- plus loads of hospital cases and many thousand who've got to live with long covid.
But apart from that....
And of course it would HAVE been much more without lockdown.
You really ought to think things through
Sunk at 10.52 - "Covid has killed 120,000+ in less than a year."
Will we ever know of the actual amounts of death 'of' Covid?
Take Bel Mooney's father...
https:/
Will we ever know of the actual amounts of death 'of' Covid?
Take Bel Mooney's father...
https:/
//Once again, it is fine to die of anything as long as it isn't Covid.//
It seems very much like it. There's plenty of sources to support this but here's a report on the matter. which you may find reliable. It's from "The Lancet":
https:/
It's quite detailed but here's its "interpretation":
"Substantial increases in the number of avoidable cancer deaths in England are to be expected as a result of diagnostic delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Urgent policy interventions are necessary, particularly the need to manage the backlog within routine diagnostic services to mitigate the expected impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with cancer."
It seems very much like it. There's plenty of sources to support this but here's a report on the matter. which you may find reliable. It's from "The Lancet":
https:/
It's quite detailed but here's its "interpretation":
"Substantial increases in the number of avoidable cancer deaths in England are to be expected as a result of diagnostic delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Urgent policy interventions are necessary, particularly the need to manage the backlog within routine diagnostic services to mitigate the expected impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with cancer."
NJ......a long winded dissertation by 5 contributors of which only one has a medical degree
It is a "forecast" based on " expectations " which maybe correct or hopelessly out of kilter on 4 types of cancer all of which have poor prognosis in normal times.
They may be correct in their expectations or completely wrong.
Interesting study in which would support the enthusiasts who take one particular line of Government policy.
One thing is certain is that in 10 years time, a study of survival rates of those 4 malignancies will give us an answer which will support your instincts or blow them out 9fthe water.
Common sense would support you NJ and I will not be around to bow down to you accurate prognosticans, BUT it will not surprise me to see that the 5 year survival rates for those four malignant tumours have not altered one iota.
It is a "forecast" based on " expectations " which maybe correct or hopelessly out of kilter on 4 types of cancer all of which have poor prognosis in normal times.
They may be correct in their expectations or completely wrong.
Interesting study in which would support the enthusiasts who take one particular line of Government policy.
One thing is certain is that in 10 years time, a study of survival rates of those 4 malignancies will give us an answer which will support your instincts or blow them out 9fthe water.
Common sense would support you NJ and I will not be around to bow down to you accurate prognosticans, BUT it will not surprise me to see that the 5 year survival rates for those four malignant tumours have not altered one iota.
TTT - Yet again you have your unpleasant attacks on Sqad, despite having done the subject of his domicile arrangements to death on previous threads.
First of all, I recall Sqad advising you that his return to live in this country was not based on his access to the NHS.
You have presistently argued that with him, and he has replied each time with a good deal more grace and humour than your hectoring demands justify.
Just to be clear then - as I have no axe to grind in Sqad's defence, he has advised you several times that his return to the UK was not based on access to the NHS.
Even if it were, he is entitled as a UK tax payer to avail himself of the NHS, as are other UK tax payers.
And finally, Sqad is not on trial here, he is not obliged to give you chapter and verse about where in the world he chooses to live, and frankly your constant hectoring opinions and demands for infomration to which you are not in the least entitled, is becomeing tedious in the extreme, so can you drop it now please.
Thank you.
First of all, I recall Sqad advising you that his return to live in this country was not based on his access to the NHS.
You have presistently argued that with him, and he has replied each time with a good deal more grace and humour than your hectoring demands justify.
Just to be clear then - as I have no axe to grind in Sqad's defence, he has advised you several times that his return to the UK was not based on access to the NHS.
Even if it were, he is entitled as a UK tax payer to avail himself of the NHS, as are other UK tax payers.
And finally, Sqad is not on trial here, he is not obliged to give you chapter and verse about where in the world he chooses to live, and frankly your constant hectoring opinions and demands for infomration to which you are not in the least entitled, is becomeing tedious in the extreme, so can you drop it now please.
Thank you.
TTT.......My NHS and MY country also.
Born and bred in England, trained in England worked for 40 years in the NHS
Support England at cricket, both codes of rugby, been to all Test Match grounds support Peterborough Utd.
What more do I have to do?
My only black mark is that I retired to Spain for the sun.
I always hoped, rather than believed that my criticisms of anything were constructive, but clearly I was wrong.
I will say again,use of the NHS was nothing todo with my return
I will try to curb criticisms in future but should be allowed to voice an informed opinion.
Let's bury the hatchet eh!
Born and bred in England, trained in England worked for 40 years in the NHS
Support England at cricket, both codes of rugby, been to all Test Match grounds support Peterborough Utd.
What more do I have to do?
My only black mark is that I retired to Spain for the sun.
I always hoped, rather than believed that my criticisms of anything were constructive, but clearly I was wrong.
I will say again,use of the NHS was nothing todo with my return
I will try to curb criticisms in future but should be allowed to voice an informed opinion.
Let's bury the hatchet eh!
