All of those things were done in the name of protecting pensioners.
All of those things were done in the name of protecting pensioners, the infirm, the obese, the asthmatic, those with weak breathing systems, those with weak immune systems, those who are just a bit unlucky and might have pegged it despite being in good health, those in poorly paid jobs but in close contact with others, those working in the Nhs ftfy
have you looked at the economic impact on Sweden?
Swedish economy is in very good shape actually.
(Just saying, if we want to be evidence-based.)
All of those things were done in the name of protecting pensioners.
A significant majority of clinically extremely vulnerable people are aged under 70.
With Sweden, a fairer comparison would be with similar Nordic countries. Sweden currently has 1,321 deaths per million population. Denmark has 418. Norway has 128. Finland has 156.
And, as has been pointed out, that is with some fairly hefty restrictions of their own.
The reasons why Sweden is doing (slightly) better than us are complex, but I suspect are due in part to their demographics, the underlying health of the population etc. I suspect they have done some things better than us, but they are not in a rosy position.
How many more deaths? And have you looked at the economic impact on Sweden?
I'd personally accept a lot more but it's always guess work on what may have happened. Another 100k to avoid restrictions entirely would seem a very good trade off, 500k less so and 1M+ would be unacceptable. Just to be clear these are deaths on top of the usual 600K per year.
Sweden appear to done much better than us and the rest of Europe economically, but have still suffered.
I've been fortunate not to have suffered financially and am able to work from home effectively. However one year to the week since I caught COVID I still have fatigue, anosmia, muscle pain in both legs, chest pain in the lungs (on the wane now, possibly due to low-dose inhaled steroids). All the same places I suffered a year ago, not post-viral fatigue per se, aching pains in tissues that I could tell were damaged (lungs and legs most notably).
Exercise is getting better, but that is basically Zone 1 walking for up to three hours. Compare that to a 12-hour, Zone 3, 281 mile time trial in 2018 and 231 miles on a tricycle in 2019 (with little training).
Coronoaviruses can lead to systemic disease, and this one looks worse than the other endemic ones, but nothing like as severe as SARS-CoV1 or (shudder) MERS. Most people will nor suffer, but a small fraction of a LARGE (well 100%) susceptible population has the potential to be a large number of people who need treatment. Deaths make headlines, but it is morbidity that fills hospitals. Middle-aged (and younger) people with no underlying conditions who can't breath. They don't die, but they need treatment.
To an extent, I agree that appealing to sensible behaviours is a good idea to control spread of contagion. In fact when you do, it is the YOUNG, not the old, that tend to be most compliant and well-behaved. The young still have ideals 😉
Another 100k to avoid restrictions entirely would seem a very good trade off
That wasn’t an option though, was it. Maybe with fewer restrictions, it might have been. But avoiding restrictions entirely would have resulted in peaks that the hospitals could not manage, and even those that could have been saved through intervention and care being left to die at home. We’d be looking at far more than an extra 100k deaths. All when a vaccinated population was only months away. Why choose that option?
When it comes down to it, the measure of a civilised society is the value it places on a life, even some old person we've never met. Yes, there are instances when our government makes an economic judgement about saving a life - for example when approving expensive treatments for life threatening illnesses, but on the whole, writing off hundreds of thousands of people, many of them in middle age or even younger, to prevent economic damage, seems to me a line you don't just wander over casually.
I’d hope the same wouldn’t have happened in the UK as we have universal healthcare and a basic welfare state.
Er Gribs where have you been for the last year? The NHS was almost on its knees with lockdown. What do you think would have happened with no lockdown and relying on the 15 million over 60s (including the economically active like me) to isolate themselves and the rest of the population to act sensibly?
Another 100k to avoid restrictions entirely would seem a very good trade off, 500k less so and 1M+ would be unacceptable. Just to be clear these are deaths on top of the usual 600K per year.
Well fair play to you you've come up with a number of "acceptable" deaths and to your credit its less than the 750,000 that would have been acceptable to curlywhirly. Problem with your hypothesis is that the economies in the countries that have essentially eliminated COVID are doing better than those that haven't.
Re my comment about empathy. Individuals who can stomach another 100k dead so they can live a more normal life are abhorrent.
Swedish economy is in very good shape actually.
Compared to its neighbours?
Good shape compared to us, for sure.
There’s lots of good stuff to learn from Sweden, especially as regards getting people to actually isolate when infected. They are not the poster child for “getting on with life as normal”, as that is not what has happened there… and they probably should have done more earlier last year. The approach there has been pretty close to ours this winter, after the high cost of the first wave. We can learn from them, they have learned from others.
All of those things were done in the name of protecting pensioners.
I don't believe that is correct. The primary reason was to protect the NHS from being over run by the clinically vulnerable, which as others have said, is not restricted to pensioners.
If you can show me where "pensioners" were the stated priority, I'm happy to be corrected.
Individuals who can stomach another 100k dead so they can live a more normal life are abhorrent.
We all have different levels, at least he's been honest. Mine was about 50,000 deaths in total. By that point we knew enough to have prevented a lot of what came after.
We could have prevented up to half the deaths… the ones that occurred because we tried to have a “normal” end to last year, ignoring the advice that we should act to prevent a winter “wave”. With the vaccine rollout started, it saddens me to think of all those who died this year, just before, or even just as they would have received, their first dose. And, of course, deaths are just the tip of the damage done to our population in that time.
Re Sweden, a mate of mine married his Swedish partner and is now living out there. We talk regularly. His take, as someone with a UK background is that Swedes, by and large, are respectful of official advice and regulations in a way that many Brits aren't. Shop and restaurants are organised to be as covid safe as possible and people are particularly careful with older folk. So while there's no official lockdown, there is a sort of well observed halfway house. There are idiots there as everywhere, but he says it's just embedded in the Swedish psyche to follow central guidance in a way that it isn't the case here.
They do things like self isolate and because they have a proper welfare system, they're paid 80% of their normal wage to do so.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-55773591
Swedish economy is in very good shape actually.
australia announced 3% growth in GDP last quarter IIRC.
also AFAIR they recorded their last death from COVID in october.
they're a big island. closed their borders, isolated, locked down, and track and traced the hell out of it. in the meantime we held christmas and 2 weeks later watched the admissions rise followed by 3 weeks later the deaths. bravo. FFS.
people in their 20s and 30s are often still living at home with parents in 40s - 60s. i can't help but wonder how their mental health would be if they'd brought covid home and infected one or both parents, maybe grandparents too. that would be a burden to carry. maybe chatting to your mates on zoom isn't so bad compared to that.
singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/wheres-the-coronavirus-were-all-going-to-die-conspiracy-thread/page/656/#post-11761245
We all have different levels, at least he’s been honest. Mine was about 50,000 deaths in total. By that point we knew enough to have prevented a lot of what came after.
I don’t think many would have accepted literally being locked in their homes for the past 12 or so months would they? It’s very hard to put a number on acceptable losses, particularly when you’re inevitably talking about family members. For me it sure as hell isn’t another 100k.
Id have preferred lockdowns initiated sooner with lower mortality and a bolder government when it comes to support for the public e.g. just implement UBI and be done with it at least until the economic consequences are done with.
Id also have preferred less corruption and nepotism in government but hey ho.
Re my comment about empathy. Individuals who can stomach another 100k dead so they can live a more normal life are abhorrent.
But we do this already. Poverty kills 10s of thousands every year but could be hugely reduced or eliminated by higher taxes, changed spending priorities, etc. This is just more visible, and more likely to affect anyone. Whereas a group of mainly middle aged white cyclists is not your average poverty demographic.
There are no good options, only shit and even shitter ones. To have a different balance point is not abhorrent, it's a reality.
Two very different things really.
You choose to view them through the same lens
But we do this already. Poverty kills 10s of thousands every year but could be hugely reduced or eliminated by higher taxes, changed spending priorities, etc. This is just more visible, and more likely to affect anyone. Whereas a group of mainly middle aged white cyclists is not your average poverty demographic.
There are no good options, only shit and even shitter ones. To have a different balance point is not abhorrent, it’s a reality.
A fair point - at one point I hoped for a more caring and equitable society on the back of the pandemic experience, must have been a lockdown hallucination
To be fair to Gribs, that 100,000 also has to be balanced against the other harms we are incurring and the potential from those - including, for instance, the impact on education of the less clever and financially stable kids.
All of those things were done in the name of protecting pensioners, the infirm, the obese, the asthmatic, those with weak breathing systems, those with weak immune systems, those who are just a bit unlucky and might have pegged it despite being in good health, those in poorly paid jobs but in close contact with others, those working in the Nhs ftfy
Yes but I guess some people would consider all those groups to be "disposable" in to avoid lockdown (which in reality compared for instance to Spain and Italy be have hardly had).
including, for instance, the impact on education of the less clever and financially stable kids
Absolutely. But without government intervention, leaving it to employers and employees to decide who can afford to not be in the workplace, or mixing with the public… with no furlough… no mandated closures… the parents of which kids would have been impacted hardest, either financially or with much greater chance of catching covid?
Two very different things really.
You choose to view them through the same lens
May be a bad choice particularly as poverty will be impacted by the effects of CV19 / lockdowns on the economy.
What I mean is that just as per the long debate on risk-benefit and the AZ vaccine / clots, everything is a cost benefit decision on what cost we will tolerate in pounds, and indeed lives. And others will find a different settling point.
Your opinion is valid, as is your distaste for others whose settling point is away from yours. It's your entitlement to feel that. I disagree, and feel we need to be less emotive not more to avoid there being another bout of piling on. YMMV.
I......feel we need to be less emotive not more to avoid there being another bout of piling on.
I think the language people have used - on what is massively emotive topic, to be fair - has not helped some of the disagreements on here
I've said before I think a fairer comparison for Sweden is Germany, especially Berlin. I'm impressed with the swedes, I thought their approach of measures as moderate as possible would result in far worse than it did.
I'm a boomer - who left school into the Winter of discontent, graduated into 3 million umemployed and after a few years of temporary underpaid contracts ****ed off to greener pastures thanks to languages.
Junior is being sensible, very, he's had no ski instructor work and only gets 289e benefits because he was in Germany for the fiscal reference year. His DJ work has gone, his studies are an on-line pain in the butt. He's taking a ski exam next week having had six days on skis. I've replaced his income euro for euro, the boomer made good use of those green pastures and can, not all parents can.
My parents have taken every opportunity to be take risks and thank **** they're vaccinated now and won't be blocking a hospital bed.
Stick around Gribs, I don't agree with all you say but this place needs a bit of balance.
You're correct, we don't have to agree. The extra 100k above is framed as those deemed too old or too sick for us to care about via a misguided view that only the young are being punished by the restrictions and a disease that mostly preys on the old. I'm not piling in, I'm calling out silly, heartless comments.
I've said this many times - we're all arguing with each other rather than being angry with the Govt. And once again it's not unexpected as 40yrs of neoliberalism has led many people to consider themselves and their liberties as much more important than the lives of others. That is an awful way to think.
i think we agree way more than we disagree. At least we can debate the bits we disagree on (and BTW I think 100K extra is too much, but I think 135K and counting is already way too much and could have been avoided too!)
@mctd - yes, I had brief hopes for that, but it's the hope that kicks you in the balls!
Re my comment about empathy. Individuals who can stomach another 100k dead so they can live a more normal life are abhorrent.
My life through lockdown has been perfectly fine. The reason I'd except another 100K+ deaths is I have empathy for those whose businesses have been destroyed, who have lost jobs, whose education has been effectively stopped, have been trapped in a home with an abuser, who are suffering from social isolation, etc. How many ruined lives are worth it to save one life?
Well fair play to you you’ve come up with a number of “acceptable” deaths and to your credit its less than the 750,000 that would have been acceptable to curlywhirly.
The 750K excess deaths was taken from a government flu pandemic plan so the level our government (or civil service) had previously considered acceptable.
The economic elements to that are temporary and there are forecast that see a pre-pandemic size the economy by 2022. It's a lot of **** to get through to get there without a doubt. And whether that forecast proces accurate is obviously in question.
I'll leave the "b" alone.
Nothing to report from the AZ jab, piemonster. I was perhaps a bit tired the day after but not much. If anything horrible happens it's usually 10-14 days after apparently. Like TiRed I'm still on the GSK bécotide inhaler after a possible/probable Covid last March (down to one puff in the morning now having been on a stronger thing up till Christmas), thing is I didn't feel the need for it this morning.
According to this https://www.ft.com/content/ec9b58a5-fa69-422d-91bf-7cbc0799926d
The OBR are forecasting a further half million jobless by the end of the year before recovering.
The Office for Budget Responsibility now expects a further half a million people to fall out of work over the course of the year, with unemployment peaking at 6.5 per cent at the end of this year. This is both lower and later than the 7.5 per cent peak the fiscal watchdog had forecast in November — and well below the 8.5 per cent unemployment rate reached in 2011, in the wake of the last recession. Further out, its projections show unemployment falling to 4.4 per cent, close to its pre-pandemic low, by 2025.
The jobs might all be awful zero hour jobs, I dont know.
Re my comment about empathy. Individuals who can stomach another 100k dead so they can live a more normal life are abhorrent.
@elshalimo. Just to let you know you have at least one other person on here who agrees with you.
uponthedowns
Free Member
Re my comment about empathy. Individuals who can stomach another 100k dead so they can live a more normal life are abhorrent.@elshalimo. Just to let you know you have at least one other person on here who agrees with you.
More than one.
It's not really about the number of excess deaths. Had we seen an extra 300k deaths managed overs say 10 years, that would be some bad but not unprecedented influenza winters. The real death facts (if I am being blunt) is that the "death industry" is currently optimised to process about 1500 souls per day. It likely has capacity for about an extra 50%. Hence when we saw mortality at April 2020 levels (double) and climbing, the "industry" simply would not be able to cope. Not to mention the images on TV. It really IS someone's job in procurement to order body bags for the NHS against a "reasonable" worst case scenario. The impending tidal wave of, say 300,000 deaths over four months would not have seen the country cope. Of course if one then thinks of the numbers who would not be treated (see India today)... Forget any sense of routine healthcare.
Lockdown was a braking system to slow that rate. The fact that a vaccine has arrived (it was not a given) means that there was something worth applying the brakes for! We will see how things progress as we release them. I'm pretty optimistic, but a population of 20M+ susceptibles and an R of (say) 2, means we will see cases rise. Let's hope morbidity in the younger population is well-contained.
The impending tidal wave of, say 300,000 deaths over four months would not have seen the country cope.
JCBs and mass graves- if you could call that coping
@TiRed - what do your models predict for the coming months?
My concern is that many of those who will be enjoying the lifting of restrictions will not be vaccinated. They are on balance more likely to be transmitters of the virus too even if they only get milder symptoms or even asymptomatic. Additionally, those vaccinated may conveniently forget that they can still catch it and pass it on.
Queues and crowds of people around JD Sports and Primark across the country already. Not to sound snobby - although it does - this shows the demographic we are dealing with that’d rather risk Covid over the latest discounted trainers or some cheap clothes.
BBC news just now showing people hitting the pints and shots at just past midnight, no care in the world!
This interpretation of 'outside' is also being bent into vague versions isn't it, all round me there are tents and marquees going up. I thought the purpose of outside was that the air (and virus) can mix, dilute and disperse (safely). Who actually decides what is 'outside'?
@Kryton57 - if it was a bike shop selling cheap parts we'd be in the queue
Just to let you know you have at least one other person on here who agrees with you.
Most of us agree with the principle, but we are mindful of the language we use to express it.
This interpretation of ‘outside’ is also being bent into vague versions isn’t it, all round me there are tents and marquees going up. I thought the purpose of outside was that the air (and virus) can mix. Who actually decides what is ‘outside’?
A question that had occurred to me too - I'm assuming the industry and government have agreed a safe standard, but I nay be assuming too much. Round here the marquees and covered areas seem to be set up to be open on two sides when in use, looking at pubs FB pages
R5 reporting u50 jab booking opening tomorrow.
Did you see the “bubble dining” craze in New York? Many consider it worse than using normal indoor spaces for transmission. Not seen anything that crazy here yet, mostly just something to keep the rain off, with open sides.
Who actually decides what is ‘outside’?
There are guidelines for this. Quoting from a BBC article:
outdoor roofed structures had to have at least 50% of their walls open when in use
Just had a text through for my second AZ jab. I can only book two days in advance and am away on hols, so I hope it keeps extending...