FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > The Case for Why Lockdown was the Wrong Decision
The Case for Why Lockdown was the Wrong Decision
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
So, the forums are awash with people giving reasons why Lockdown was crazy, how it’s killed more people than covid etc etc...
Here’s your chance, explain the alternative route and how that would have worked as most a rising infection rate, a worldwide economic crisis and a health service without the capacity to meet care needs? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's very simple. We have a fairly normal new pathogen, and whilst it's quite infectious it has an Infection Mortality Rate similar to severe flu.
It is most serious in the older age groups of those with co morbidities.
All that was necessary was to protect those who were most vulnerable as much as possible and carry on as normal otherwise.
Now the lockdown, actions taken (including stopping routine NHS work) and future economic collapse will kill thousands more than the virus ever did. But no one seems to be paying the slightest attention to this; these deaths don't matter it seems. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"It's very simple. We have a fairly normal new pathogen, and whilst it's quite infectious it has an Infection Mortality Rate similar to severe flu.
It is most serious in the older age groups of those with co morbidities.
All that was necessary was to protect those who were most vulnerable as much as possible and carry on as normal otherwise.
Now the lockdown, actions taken (including stopping routine NHS work) and future economic collapse will kill thousands more than the virus ever did. But no one seems to be paying the slightest attention to this; these deaths don't matter it seems."
I wounder why so many governments in europe chose to lockdown ? Maybe they should have talked to you 1st with your "very simple" solution.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's very simple. We have a fairly normal new pathogen, and whilst it's quite infectious it has an Infection Mortality Rate similar to severe flu.
It is most serious in the older age groups of those with co morbidities.
All that was necessary was to protect those who were most vulnerable as much as possible and carry on as normal otherwise.
Now the lockdown, actions taken (including stopping routine NHS work) and future economic collapse will kill thousands more than the virus ever did. But no one seems to be paying the slightest attention to this; these deaths don't matter it seems.I wounder why so many governments in europe chose to lockdown ? Maybe they should have talked to you 1st with your "very simple" solution. "
Because they were all led by the predicted deaths giving by the modelling groups. A bit of research and its clear modelling does not have the best track record on accuracy... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"It's very simple. We have a fairly normal new pathogen, and whilst it's quite infectious it has an Infection Mortality Rate similar to severe flu.
It is most serious in the older age groups of those with co morbidities.
All that was necessary was to protect those who were most vulnerable as much as possible and carry on as normal otherwise.
Now the lockdown, actions taken (including stopping routine NHS work) and future economic collapse will kill thousands more than the virus ever did. But no one seems to be paying the slightest attention to this; these deaths don't matter it seems.I wounder why so many governments in europe chose to lockdown ? Maybe they should have talked to you 1st with your "very simple" solution.
Because they were all led by the predicted deaths giving by the modelling groups. A bit of research and its clear modelling does not have the best track record on accuracy... "
So you are saying all these governments got it wrong then? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's very simple. We have a fairly normal new pathogen, and whilst it's quite infectious it has an Infection Mortality Rate similar to severe flu.
It is most serious in the older age groups of those with co morbidities.
All that was necessary was to protect those who were most vulnerable as much as possible and carry on as normal otherwise.
Now the lockdown, actions taken (including stopping routine NHS work) and future economic collapse will kill thousands more than the virus ever did. But no one seems to be paying the slightest attention to this; these deaths don't matter it seems.I wounder why so many governments in europe chose to lockdown ? Maybe they should have talked to you 1st with your "very simple" solution.
Because they were all led by the predicted deaths giving by the modelling groups. A bit of research and its clear modelling does not have the best track record on accuracy... So you are saying all these governments got it wrong then?"
Absolutely, cos they should have used hindsight   |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's very simple. We have a fairly normal new pathogen, and whilst it's quite infectious it has an Infection Mortality Rate similar to severe flu.
It is most serious in the older age groups of those with co morbidities.
All that was necessary was to protect those who were most vulnerable as much as possible and carry on as normal otherwise.
Now the lockdown, actions taken (including stopping routine NHS work) and future economic collapse will kill thousands more than the virus ever did. But no one seems to be paying the slightest attention to this; these deaths don't matter it seems.I wounder why so many governments in europe chose to lockdown ? Maybe they should have talked to you 1st with your "very simple" solution.
Because they were all led by the predicted deaths giving by the modelling groups. A bit of research and its clear modelling does not have the best track record on accuracy... "
. Actually if you look at total numbers believed to have had the virus and the number of deaths the modelling forecasts where on track, pre lockdown number of cases doubled ever 4 days, nothing short of lockdown was going to slow that! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's very simple. We have a fairly normal new pathogen, and whilst it's quite infectious it has an Infection Mortality Rate similar to severe flu.
It is most serious in the older age groups of those with co morbidities.
All that was necessary was to protect those who were most vulnerable as much as possible and carry on as normal otherwise.
Now the lockdown, actions taken (including stopping routine NHS work) and future economic collapse will kill thousands more than the virus ever did. But no one seems to be paying the slightest attention to this; these deaths don't matter it seems.I wounder why so many governments in europe chose to lockdown ? Maybe they should have talked to you 1st with your "very simple" solution.
Because they were all led by the predicted deaths giving by the modelling groups. A bit of research and its clear modelling does not have the best track record on accuracy... So you are saying all these governments got it wrong then?"
Only time will tell but we must always question and challenge our elected masters. Just to accept blindly can't be right. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's very simple. We have a fairly normal new pathogen, and whilst it's quite infectious it has an Infection Mortality Rate similar to severe flu.
It is most serious in the older age groups of those with co morbidities.
All that was necessary was to protect those who were most vulnerable as much as possible and carry on as normal otherwise.
Now the lockdown, actions taken (including stopping routine NHS work) and future economic collapse will kill thousands more than the virus ever did. But no one seems to be paying the slightest attention to this; these deaths don't matter it seems.I wounder why so many governments in europe chose to lockdown ? Maybe they should have talked to you 1st with your "very simple" solution.
Because they were all led by the predicted deaths giving by the modelling groups. A bit of research and its clear modelling does not have the best track record on accuracy... So you are saying all these governments got it wrong then?
Absolutely, cos they should have used hindsight "
In early march present sight would have done it... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"It's very simple. We have a fairly normal new pathogen, and whilst it's quite infectious it has an Infection Mortality Rate similar to severe flu.
"
thats where i stopped listening... because the facts do not show that and people peddling that are being at best nieve and at worst genuinely disengenious to try and make it fit a narrative....
The mortality rate for Covid is 10 times that of the flu.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"It's very simple. We have a fairly normal new pathogen, and whilst it's quite infectious it has an Infection Mortality Rate similar to severe flu.
thats where i stopped listening... because the facts do not show that and people peddling that are being at best nieve and at worst genuinely disengenious to try and make it fit a narrative....
The mortality rate for Covid is 10 times that of the flu...."
Not often you and me are on the same page.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's very simple. We have a fairly normal new pathogen, and whilst it's quite infectious it has an Infection Mortality Rate similar to severe flu.
thats where i stopped listening... because the facts do not show that and people peddling that are being at best nieve and at worst genuinely disengenious to try and make it fit a narrative....
The mortality rate for Covid is 10 times that of the flu...."
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eeleyWoman
over a year ago
Dudley |
"It's very simple. We have a fairly normal new pathogen, and whilst it's quite infectious it has an Infection Mortality Rate similar to severe flu.
It is most serious in the older age groups of those with co morbidities.
All that was necessary was to protect those who were most vulnerable as much as possible and carry on as normal otherwise.
Now the lockdown, actions taken (including stopping routine NHS work) and future economic collapse will kill thousands more than the virus ever did. But no one seems to be paying the slightest attention to this; these deaths don't matter it seems.I wounder why so many governments in europe chose to lockdown ? Maybe they should have talked to you 1st with your "very simple" solution.
Because they were all led by the predicted deaths giving by the modelling groups. A bit of research and its clear modelling does not have the best track record on accuracy... So you are saying all these governments got it wrong then?
Only time will tell but we must always question and challenge our elected masters. Just to accept blindly can't be right. "
Neither can fighting everything tooth and nail just to try and prove a point. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"It's very simple. We have a fairly normal new pathogen, and whilst it's quite infectious it has an Infection Mortality Rate similar to severe flu.
It is most serious in the older age groups of those with co morbidities.
All that was necessary was to protect those who were most vulnerable as much as possible and carry on as normal otherwise.
Now the lockdown, actions taken (including stopping routine NHS work) and future economic collapse will kill thousands more than the virus ever did. But no one seems to be paying the slightest attention to this; these deaths don't matter it seems."
That’s a fabulous intro to your answer, it’s a point I’ve seen posted in many ways in the forums (usually lacking your eloquence I have to say).
What nobody does is explain the alternative route and how that would work though. How would the NHS have coped with higher infection rates? A lot of the services closing down where as much to do with risk as well as capacity and staff shortages so how would they have faired within the system. We would have had covid patients recovering alongside those fresh out of open heart surgery etc.
Sweden is the non lockdown example, their mortality rate is horrific as is their economy, what would make the UK different in this model?
How would the alternative have worked and provided a better outcome? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The big problem is, as we are now seeing, that lockdowns do not solve the problem unless taken to the extreme and followed up with equally extreme national isolation measures to keep the disease out.
Lockdown will suppress the virus - FOR THE DURATION OF LOCKDOWN - but as soon as you lift the lockdown measures the virus returns. So, to all the supporters of lockdown I ask you - do you want to live under lockdown for the rest of the year, perhaps next year too and possibly indefinately - remember we have successfully found vaccines or treatments for NO coronaviruses so far...
No parties for Christmas or New Year, no wedding receptions, wakes or christenings. No fans in stadiums, no nightclubs, no theatres, no concerts, no festivals.
That's the reality of using lockdown to control covid... is it a reality we want? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's very simple. We have a fairly normal new pathogen, and whilst it's quite infectious it has an Infection Mortality Rate similar to severe flu.
thats where i stopped listening... because the facts do not show that and people peddling that are being at best nieve and at worst genuinely disengenious to try and make it fit a narrative....
The mortality rate for Covid is 10 times that of the flu...."
We cannot assert the true mortality rate because we don't know number of infected and recovered. I'm sure there are stats somewhere to compare to the flu and it maybe a worthwhile comparison once we have a year's stats of hospital admissions and deaths from Covid 19 vs a previous year's stats of flu related admissions and deaths.
I think perhaps people are just comparing numbers of deaths at present.
I do think the rise in numbers in the forum who are slamming lockdown as we discover the infection doesn't appear to be as perilous as feared is rather nonsensical though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
What a lot of people seem to miss is the additional purpose of lockdown... Slowing the rate of infections so intensive care and high dependency units do not get overwhelmed.
By locking down... Even if poorly the numbers hitting the hospital in a specific period are slowed and services are able to manage and support those who are truly unwell and give them a chance rather than having run out of itu beds and having to simply palliate.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's very simple. We have a fairly normal new pathogen, and whilst it's quite infectious it has an Infection Mortality Rate similar to severe flu.
It is most serious in the older age groups of those with co morbidities.
All that was necessary was to protect those who were most vulnerable as much as possible and carry on as normal otherwise.
Now the lockdown, actions taken (including stopping routine NHS work) and future economic collapse will kill thousands more than the virus ever did. But no one seems to be paying the slightest attention to this; these deaths don't matter it seems.I wounder why so many governments in europe chose to lockdown ? Maybe they should have talked to you 1st with your "very simple" solution.
Because they were all led by the predicted deaths giving by the modelling groups. A bit of research and its clear modelling does not have the best track record on accuracy... So you are saying all these governments got it wrong then?
Only time will tell but we must always question and challenge our elected masters. Just to accept blindly can't be right.
Neither can fighting everything tooth and nail just to try and prove a point. "
Agreed and I'm have no point to prove but I will question what I'm told especially on something that is impacting us all in such a profound way. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
As a long term strategy I have always criticised lockdown. As a very short term emergency measure to handle a crisis it may have a place, but only if paired with a proper exit plan.
Say what you like about Sen but their health service has not collapsed, their economy has stayed operational and they haven't piled up a government debt mountain large enough to have paid for a war.
Their strategy can be sustained long term, ours can't. That's the real difference.
And as for deaths, the number of deaths from covid prevented by lockdown is likely to be very small - lockdown spreads them out hut it doesn't stop people dying. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The big problem is, as we are now seeing, that lockdowns do not solve the problem unless taken to the extreme and followed up with equally extreme national isolation measures to keep the disease out.
Lockdown will suppress the virus - FOR THE DURATION OF LOCKDOWN - but as soon as you lift the lockdown measures the virus returns. So, to all the supporters of lockdown I ask you - do you want to live under lockdown for the rest of the year, perhaps next year too and possibly indefinately - remember we have successfully found vaccines or treatments for NO coronaviruses so far...
No parties for Christmas or New Year, no wedding receptions, wakes or christenings. No fans in stadiums, no nightclubs, no theatres, no concerts, no festivals.
That's the reality of using lockdown to control covid... is it a reality we want?"
Lockdown solved the potential NHS crisis and was necessary. A repeat national lockdown is an unlikely repeat strategy if spikes are controlled locally. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eeleyWoman
over a year ago
Dudley |
"It's very simple. We have a fairly normal new pathogen, and whilst it's quite infectious it has an Infection Mortality Rate similar to severe flu.
It is most serious in the older age groups of those with co morbidities.
All that was necessary was to protect those who were most vulnerable as much as possible and carry on as normal otherwise.
Now the lockdown, actions taken (including stopping routine NHS work) and future economic collapse will kill thousands more than the virus ever did. But no one seems to be paying the slightest attention to this; these deaths don't matter it seems.I wounder why so many governments in europe chose to lockdown ? Maybe they should have talked to you 1st with your "very simple" solution.
Because they were all led by the predicted deaths giving by the modelling groups. A bit of research and its clear modelling does not have the best track record on accuracy... So you are saying all these governments got it wrong then?
Only time will tell but we must always question and challenge our elected masters. Just to accept blindly can't be right.
Neither can fighting everything tooth and nail just to try and prove a point.
Agreed and I'm have no point to prove but I will question what I'm told especially on something that is impacting us all in such a profound way. "
How do you think covid would have affected us if the government had followed the fab forums advice? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What a lot of people seem to miss is the additional purpose of lockdown... Slowing the rate of infections so intensive care and high dependency units do not get overwhelmed.
By locking down... Even if poorly the numbers hitting the hospital in a specific period are slowed and services are able to manage and support those who are truly unwell and give them a chance rather than having run out of itu beds and having to simply palliate.
"
Being pedantic, the lockdown's primary purpose was to "save the NHS" etc. No? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The big problem is, as we are now seeing, that lockdowns do not solve the problem unless taken to the extreme and followed up with equally extreme national isolation measures to keep the disease out.
Lockdown will suppress the virus - FOR THE DURATION OF LOCKDOWN - but as soon as you lift the lockdown measures the virus returns. So, to all the supporters of lockdown I ask you - do you want to live under lockdown for the rest of the year, perhaps next year too and possibly indefinately - remember we have successfully found vaccines or treatments for NO coronaviruses so far...
No parties for Christmas or New Year, no wedding receptions, wakes or christenings. No fans in stadiums, no nightclubs, no theatres, no concerts, no festivals.
That's the reality of using lockdown to control covid... is it a reality we want?
Lockdown solved the potential NHS crisis and was necessary. A repeat national lockdown is an unlikely repeat strategy if spikes are controlled locally. "
Maybe I'll remind you on that national lockdown come the winter months...when you are saying hindsight |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As a long term strategy I have always criticised lockdown. As a very short term emergency measure to handle a crisis it may have a place, but only if paired with a proper exit plan.
Say what you like about Sen but their health service has not collapsed, their economy has stayed operational and they haven't piled up a government debt mountain large enough to have paid for a war.
Their strategy can be sustained long term, ours can't. That's the real difference.
And as for deaths, the number of deaths from covid prevented by lockdown is likely to be very small - lockdown spreads them out hut it doesn't stop people dying."
Sen?
Oh that's hilarious, as I replied I saw that you had typed Sweden wrong and that the site's software removed "w e e d" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Lockdown solved the potential NHS crisis and was necessary. A repeat national lockdown is an unlikely repeat strategy if spikes are controlled locally. "
And how do you do that... by a cycle of shutting people in their houses, closing businesses and disrupting society.... only for the virus to come back again as soon as you ease up?
That's not a plan, that's a slow motion disaster.
We need to accept the presence of the virus, stop obsessing over it and get back to living. Protect the vulnerable, let the rest of us get on with it.
What other choice is there really? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The big problem is, as we are now seeing, that lockdowns do not solve the problem unless taken to the extreme and followed up with equally extreme national isolation measures to keep the disease out.
Lockdown will suppress the virus - FOR THE DURATION OF LOCKDOWN - but as soon as you lift the lockdown measures the virus returns. So, to all the supporters of lockdown I ask you - do you want to live under lockdown for the rest of the year, perhaps next year too and possibly indefinately - remember we have successfully found vaccines or treatments for NO coronaviruses so far...
No parties for Christmas or New Year, no wedding receptions, wakes or christenings. No fans in stadiums, no nightclubs, no theatres, no concerts, no festivals.
That's the reality of using lockdown to control covid... is it a reality we want?
Lockdown solved the potential NHS crisis and was necessary. A repeat national lockdown is an unlikely repeat strategy if spikes are controlled locally.
Maybe I'll remind you on that national lockdown come the winter months...when you are saying hindsight "
In my defence I stated unlikely. Of course we cannot yet know of a national winter wave  - let's hope not. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eeleyWoman
over a year ago
Dudley |
"
Lockdown solved the potential NHS crisis and was necessary. A repeat national lockdown is an unlikely repeat strategy if spikes are controlled locally.
And how do you do that... by a cycle of shutting people in their houses, closing businesses and disrupting society.... only for the virus to come back again as soon as you ease up?
That's not a plan, that's a slow motion disaster.
We need to accept the presence of the virus, stop obsessing over it and get back to living. Protect the vulnerable, let the rest of us get on with it.
What other choice is there really?"
For people to stop being dickheads and take some responsibility. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *08428Man
over a year ago
Shaftesbury |
I'm assuming that people who comment against lock down are the same idiots that mingle freely on the beech, and at bbqs at friends houses, how many of these idiots have suffered loss from covid? How many have had it unknowingly and passed it to someone who has not paid the ultimate price for another person's ignorance. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The big problem is, as we are now seeing, that lockdowns do not solve the problem unless taken to the extreme and followed up with equally extreme national isolation measures to keep the disease out.
Lockdown will suppress the virus - FOR THE DURATION OF LOCKDOWN - but as soon as you lift the lockdown measures the virus returns. So, to all the supporters of lockdown I ask you - do you want to live under lockdown for the rest of the year, perhaps next year too and possibly indefinately - remember we have successfully found vaccines or treatments for NO coronaviruses so far...
No parties for Christmas or New Year, no wedding receptions, wakes or christenings. No fans in stadiums, no nightclubs, no theatres, no concerts, no festivals.
That's the reality of using lockdown to control covid... is it a reality we want?
Lockdown solved the potential NHS crisis and was necessary. A repeat national lockdown is an unlikely repeat strategy if spikes are controlled locally.
Maybe I'll remind you on that national lockdown come the winter months...when you are saying hindsight
In my defence I stated unlikely. Of course we cannot yet know of a national winter wave - let's hope not."
I hope I dont have to say it....but I think over the next month or so we will know if it's off the table |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's very simple. We have a fairly normal new pathogen, and whilst it's quite infectious it has an Infection Mortality Rate similar to severe flu.
It is most serious in the older age groups of those with co morbidities.
All that was necessary was to protect those who were most vulnerable as much as possible and carry on as normal otherwise.
Now the lockdown, actions taken (including stopping routine NHS work) and future economic collapse will kill thousands more than the virus ever did. But no one seems to be paying the slightest attention to this; these deaths don't matter it seems.I wounder why so many governments in europe chose to lockdown ? Maybe they should have talked to you 1st with your "very simple" solution.
Because they were all led by the predicted deaths giving by the modelling groups. A bit of research and its clear modelling does not have the best track record on accuracy... So you are saying all these governments got it wrong then?
Only time will tell but we must always question and challenge our elected masters. Just to accept blindly can't be right.
Neither can fighting everything tooth and nail just to try and prove a point.
Agreed and I'm have no point to prove but I will question what I'm told especially on something that is impacting us all in such a profound way.
How do you think covid would have affected us if the government had followed the fab forums advice?"
We'd all have been fucked.. Sorry couldn't resist that one |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
This will be like Twitter / giving machine guns to monkeys. Nobody here knows better - it’s all opinion and misuse of stats. Nobody knows better than the advice we are given. Period. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What a lot of people seem to miss is the additional purpose of lockdown... Slowing the rate of infections so intensive care and high dependency units do not get overwhelmed.
By locking down... Even if poorly the numbers hitting the hospital in a specific period are slowed and services are able to manage and support those who are truly unwell and give them a chance rather than having run out of itu beds and having to simply palliate.
Being pedantic, the lockdown's primary purpose was to "save the NHS" etc. No? "
No... To save the lives of as many a possible who contracted it by ensuring we had the resources to treat those who needed treatment |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Just as a point, a lot of people pro or against are using the term:
Solved the NHS Crisis, Saved the NHS etc
It didn’t. It managed it, nothing more. We are heading towards flu season where our capacities will be up in the high 80%’s as standard. The NHS which to be frank is absolutely exhausted is still staring at the same problem that we did in March and that is we may be facing a surge in numbers which we simply don’t have the numbers and space to deal with this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Lockdown solved the potential NHS crisis and was necessary. A repeat national lockdown is an unlikely repeat strategy if spikes are controlled locally.
And how do you do that... by a cycle of shutting people in their houses, closing businesses and disrupting society.... only for the virus to come back again as soon as you ease up?
That's not a plan, that's a slow motion disaster.
We need to accept the presence of the virus, stop obsessing over it and get back to living. Protect the vulnerable, let the rest of us get on with it.
What other choice is there really?"
That's simply your opinion. I infer from what your saying is we should allow the spikes to continue. There's a high chance of a wave if not and we'll end up as before needing to save the NHS.
At least with local strategies it buys us time time to find more and more effective treatments, to find vaccines, for the virus to be exposed to the nation at a controlled rate and have herd immunity, for the virus to continue mutating hopefully to a less aggressive disease. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The big problem is, as we are now seeing, that lockdowns do not solve the problem unless taken to the extreme and followed up with equally extreme national isolation measures to keep the disease out.
Lockdown will suppress the virus - FOR THE DURATION OF LOCKDOWN - but as soon as you lift the lockdown measures the virus returns. So, to all the supporters of lockdown I ask you - do you want to live under lockdown for the rest of the year, perhaps next year too and possibly indefinately - remember we have successfully found vaccines or treatments for NO coronaviruses so far...
No parties for Christmas or New Year, no wedding receptions, wakes or christenings. No fans in stadiums, no nightclubs, no theatres, no concerts, no festivals.
That's the reality of using lockdown to control covid... is it a reality we want?
Lockdown solved the potential NHS crisis and was necessary. A repeat national lockdown is an unlikely repeat strategy if spikes are controlled locally.
Maybe I'll remind you on that national lockdown come the winter months...when you are saying hindsight
In my defence I stated unlikely. Of course we cannot yet know of a national winter wave - let's hope not.
I hope I dont have to say it....but I think over the next month or so we will know if it's off the table "
You never know but continuing strategies may have a positive effect on reducing winter flu , or simply suppressing it which isn't a bad thing re hospital beds |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm assuming that people who comment against lock down are the same idiots that mingle freely on the beech, and at bbqs at friends houses, how many of these idiots have suffered loss from covid? How many have had it unknowingly and passed it to someone who has not paid the ultimate price for another person's ignorance. "
If you're referring to me then you are utterly wrong. I have always observed social distance, proper hand hygine and taken sensible infection control measures (like wearing a mask) when appropriate.
Kindly don't confuse those who don't agree with those who don't care. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This will be like Twitter / giving machine guns to monkeys. Nobody here knows better - it’s all opinion and misuse of stats. Nobody knows better than the advice we are given. Period. "
Actually...
Seriously though, I'm sure we're all aware that the govt hasn't always taken Sage's advice. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What a lot of people seem to miss is the additional purpose of lockdown... Slowing the rate of infections so intensive care and high dependency units do not get overwhelmed.
By locking down... Even if poorly the numbers hitting the hospital in a specific period are slowed and services are able to manage and support those who are truly unwell and give them a chance rather than having run out of itu beds and having to simply palliate.
Being pedantic, the lockdown's primary purpose was to "save the NHS" etc. No?
No... To save the lives of as many a possible who contracted it by ensuring we had the resources to treat those who needed treatment"
So I'm right. I simply quoted the govt's mantra re NHS. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eeleyWoman
over a year ago
Dudley |
"What a lot of people seem to miss is the additional purpose of lockdown... Slowing the rate of infections so intensive care and high dependency units do not get overwhelmed.
By locking down... Even if poorly the numbers hitting the hospital in a specific period are slowed and services are able to manage and support those who are truly unwell and give them a chance rather than having run out of itu beds and having to simply palliate.
Being pedantic, the lockdown's primary purpose was to "save the NHS" etc. No?
No... To save the lives of as many a possible who contracted it by ensuring we had the resources to treat those who needed treatment"
To slow the spread so that the NHS wasn't overwhelmed which is exactly what it did. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just as a point, a lot of people pro or against are using the term:
Solved the NHS Crisis, Saved the NHS etc
It didn’t. It managed it, nothing more. We are heading towards flu season where our capacities will be up in the high 80%’s as standard. The NHS which to be frank is absolutely exhausted is still staring at the same problem that we did in March and that is we may be facing a surge in numbers which we simply don’t have the numbers and space to deal with this."
With social distancing, shielding and face mask wearing it'll be interesting to see what this year's flu season will be like. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eeleyWoman
over a year ago
Dudley |
"Just as a point, a lot of people pro or against are using the term:
Solved the NHS Crisis, Saved the NHS etc
It didn’t. It managed it, nothing more. We are heading towards flu season where our capacities will be up in the high 80%’s as standard. The NHS which to be frank is absolutely exhausted is still staring at the same problem that we did in March and that is we may be facing a surge in numbers which we simply don’t have the numbers and space to deal with this.
With social distancing, shielding and face mask wearing it'll be interesting to see what this year's flu season will be like. "
Good point, we aren't heading for the crazy flu season as long as people stop being dicks. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
That's simply your opinion. I infer from what your saying is we should allow the spikes to continue. There's a high chance of a wave if not and we'll end up as before needing to save the NHS.
At least with local strategies it buys us time time to find more and more effective treatments, to find vaccines, for the virus to be exposed to the nation at a controlled rate and have herd immunity, for the virus to continue mutating hopefully to a less aggressive disease. "
Yes it's my opinion. It's not an uninformed one though. The likelyhood of an effective mass-distributed vaccine before mid 2021 is remote to say the least, and with a likely requirement for regular booster vaccinations (potentially every 3 months) to maintain protection the viability of that solution is questionable at best.
The only truly effective short term answer is regular mass testing of the entire population to identify & isolate carriers before the infection can spread. It's possible, and really not that expensive either... figures of around £1 per test have been mentioned. Ok, you won't catch every case that way but you'll catch 90% - more than enough to drive the virus out of the population in a month or two.
I'll say it again - lockdown is not a solution. Its a mitigation, and one that cannot be sustained. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm assuming that people who comment against lock down are the same idiots that mingle freely on the beech, and at bbqs at friends houses, how many of these idiots have suffered loss from covid? How many have had it unknowingly and passed it to someone who has not paid the ultimate price for another person's ignorance.
If you're referring to me then you are utterly wrong. I have always observed social distance, proper hand hygine and taken sensible infection control measures (like wearing a mask) when appropriate.
Kindly don't confuse those who don't agree with those who don't care."
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just as a point, a lot of people pro or against are using the term:
Solved the NHS Crisis, Saved the NHS etc
It didn’t. It managed it, nothing more. We are heading towards flu season where our capacities will be up in the high 80%’s as standard. The NHS which to be frank is absolutely exhausted is still staring at the same problem that we did in March and that is we may be facing a surge in numbers which we simply don’t have the numbers and space to deal with this."
Poor choice of terminology, I hold my hands up to that - and I wrongly remembered "protect the NHS, save lives". "Managed" is a more appropriate word. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andAukCouple
over a year ago
leeds |
"
No parties for Christmas or New Year, no wedding receptions, wakes or christenings. No fans in stadiums, no nightclubs, no theatres, no concerts, no festivals."
Don't see any issue in giving these a miss for a while, and can't see it having a detrimental effect on our lives.
We're usually too busy to attend the majority of these things anyway. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What a lot of people seem to miss is the additional purpose of lockdown... Slowing the rate of infections so intensive care and high dependency units do not get overwhelmed.
By locking down... Even if poorly the numbers hitting the hospital in a specific period are slowed and services are able to manage and support those who are truly unwell and give them a chance rather than having run out of itu beds and having to simply palliate.
Being pedantic, the lockdown's primary purpose was to "save the NHS" etc. No?
No... To save the lives of as many a possible who contracted it by ensuring we had the resources to treat those who needed treatment
So I'm right. I simply quoted the govt's mantra re NHS. "
And wrongly quoted it, oops. Hey I'm infallible, I'm human and have a "wobbly" brain (even more so by nightfall). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
As someone who has sadly lost a work colleague to covid
In a most horrendous manner!!!
I just wanted to say
We do need some control measures in place
At work or whilst shopping etc
And we all need to use our own common sense
You can’t tell if someone is vulnerable to covid!!!
My colleague is an example to myself and the rest of our company
Too many people in particular the younger generation seem to think they cannot catch it
Well they can
And then pass it on to others!!!
Let’s all sacrifice a few things to get through it
That foreign holiday??? is an example!
Finally rant over !!!
Thank you NHS
God bless all who are Sadly grieving
N xxxxx
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andAukCouple
over a year ago
leeds |
"As someone who has sadly lost a work colleague to covid
In a most horrendous manner!!!
I just wanted to say
We do need some control measures in place
At work or whilst shopping etc
And we all need to use our own common sense
You can’t tell if someone is vulnerable to covid!!!
My colleague is an example to myself and the rest of our company
Too many people in particular the younger generation seem to think they cannot catch it
Well they can
And then pass it on to others!!!
Let’s all sacrifice a few things to get through it
That foreign holiday??? is an example!
Finally rant over !!!
Thank you NHS
God bless all who are Sadly grieving
N xxxxx
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
That's simply your opinion. I infer from what your saying is we should allow the spikes to continue. There's a high chance of a wave if not and we'll end up as before needing to save the NHS.
At least with local strategies it buys us time time to find more and more effective treatments, to find vaccines, for the virus to be exposed to the nation at a controlled rate and have herd immunity, for the virus to continue mutating hopefully to a less aggressive disease.
Yes it's my opinion. It's not an uninformed one though. The likelyhood of an effective mass-distributed vaccine before mid 2021 is remote to say the least, and with a likely requirement for regular booster vaccinations (potentially every 3 months) to maintain protection the viability of that solution is questionable at best.
The only truly effective short term answer is regular mass testing of the entire population to identify & isolate carriers before the infection can spread. It's possible, and really not that expensive either... figures of around £1 per test have been mentioned. Ok, you won't catch every case that way but you'll catch 90% - more than enough to drive the virus out of the population in a month or two.
I'll say it again - lockdown is not a solution. Its a mitigation, and one that cannot be sustained."
OK so mass testing of let's say a nice round figure of 60 million weekly. Of course those who have already tested positive won't need another (or have antibodies). Even if there's a reduction of needing a million tests a week that's not quite a couple of months. And where do we get these millions of tests, where do we test these millions of tests?
The theory may sound good but the practicalities... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obka3Couple
over a year ago
bournemouth |
"
That's simply your opinion. I infer from what your saying is we should allow the spikes to continue. There's a high chance of a wave if not and we'll end up as before needing to save the NHS.
At least with local strategies it buys us time time to find more and more effective treatments, to find vaccines, for the virus to be exposed to the nation at a controlled rate and have herd immunity, for the virus to continue mutating hopefully to a less aggressive disease.
Yes it's my opinion. It's not an uninformed one though. The likelyhood of an effective mass-distributed vaccine before mid 2021 is remote to say the least, and with a likely requirement for regular booster vaccinations (potentially every 3 months) to maintain protection the viability of that solution is questionable at best.
The only truly effective short term answer is regular mass testing of the entire population to identify & isolate carriers before the infection can spread. It's possible, and really not that expensive either... figures of around £1 per test have been mentioned. Ok, you won't catch every case that way but you'll catch 90% - more than enough to drive the virus out of the population in a month or two.
I'll say it again - lockdown is not a solution. Its a mitigation, and one that cannot be sustained."
You will not and can drive it anywhere, look at Vietnam they haven't had a case for a fair while and yet have now 70 in a few days.slowing infection rates is and always will be the right course of action |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *D835Man
over a year ago
London |
"
Lockdown solved the potential NHS crisis and was necessary. A repeat national lockdown is an unlikely repeat strategy if spikes are controlled locally.
And how do you do that... by a cycle of shutting people in their houses, closing businesses and disrupting society.... only for the virus to come back again as soon as you ease up?
That's not a plan, that's a slow motion disaster.
We need to accept the presence of the virus, stop obsessing over it and get back to living. Protect the vulnerable, let the rest of us get on with it.
What other choice is there really?
For people to stop being dickheads and take some responsibility."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
OK so mass testing of let's say a nice round figure of 60 million weekly. Of course those who have already tested positive won't need another (or have antibodies). Even if there's a reduction of needing a million tests a week that's not quite a couple of months. And where do we get these millions of tests, where do we test these millions of tests?
The theory may sound good but the practicalities..."
Actually far more practical than you might think. The major problem is production but we have a susbtantial chemical industry in the uk and, with governmenr support, there is no reason why they could not produce sufficient regents to sustain that level of testing.
As for the actual test being conducted it'd need to be a home test and not lab based. A simple test exists, is around 90% accurate and takes under 20 minutes to produce results. The only reqirement for the test is ot be heated to 65 degrees for 20 minutes. Results are shown by colour change. I see no reason why, in a world where we can produce liferally billions of pointless gadgets every day we can't mass produce a simple heater block that plugs into phone, heats the test and sends the result to the phjne, giving you a pass/fail for the day.
The main point is that there are options other than lockdown. We cannot keep breakimg our society to contol this virus. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The virus was able to spread because of over population. It spread mostly through the most densely populated areas.
While I wouldn’t want to be the person to go down in history as being responsible for letting 40% of the population die, in the long term it would be better to let nature restore the population to natural levels.
We still have the exact same breeding ground that enabled Covid-19 to take hold. In recent years we have seen avian flue, sars and others threaten to do the same.
It’s only going to be a matter of time before nature releases a virus that eliminates 40% of the population. It’s going to happen in 10 years maximum. I suspect the long term best option would be to let nature take it’s course. The economy is certainly in no state to repeat the government response to Covid 19 again and we can rest assured there will be something even worse waiting in the wings. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The virus was able to spread because of over population. It spread mostly through the most densely populated areas.
While I wouldn’t want to be the person to go down in history as being responsible for letting 40% of the population die, in the long term it would be better to let nature restore the population to natural levels.
We still have the exact same breeding ground that enabled Covid-19 to take hold. In recent years we have seen avian flue, sars and others threaten to do the same.
It’s only going to be a matter of time before nature releases a virus that eliminates 40% of the population. It’s going to happen in 10 years maximum. I suspect the long term best option would be to let nature take it’s course. The economy is certainly in no state to repeat the government response to Covid 19 again and we can rest assured there will be something even worse waiting in the wings."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The virus was able to spread because of over population. It spread mostly through the most densely populated areas.
While I wouldn’t want to be the person to go down in history as being responsible for letting 40% of the population die, in the long term it would be better to let nature restore the population to natural levels.
We still have the exact same breeding ground that enabled Covid-19 to take hold. In recent years we have seen avian flue, sars and others threaten to do the same.
It’s only going to be a matter of time before nature releases a virus that eliminates 40% of the population. It’s going to happen in 10 years maximum. I suspect the long term best option would be to let nature take it’s course. The economy is certainly in no state to repeat the government response to Covid 19 again and we can rest assured there will be something even worse waiting in the wings."
While I fully agree that nature will find a way to reduce the numbers of this overcrowded planet.
It wont be this virus that will cause 40% deaths even if it was allowed to run wild .
Now Ebola would of been another matter all together |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's very simple. We have a fairly normal new pathogen, and whilst it's quite infectious it has an Infection Mortality Rate similar to severe flu.
It is most serious in the older age groups of those with co morbidities.
All that was necessary was to protect those who were most vulnerable as much as possible and carry on as normal otherwise.
Now the lockdown, actions taken (including stopping routine NHS work) and future economic collapse will kill thousands more than the virus ever did. But no one seems to be paying the slightest attention to this; these deaths don't matter it seems.I wounder why so many governments in europe chose to lockdown ? Maybe they should have talked to you 1st with your "very simple" solution.
Because they were all led by the predicted deaths giving by the modelling groups. A bit of research and its clear modelling does not have the best track record on accuracy... So you are saying all these governments got it wrong then?
Absolutely, cos they should have used hindsight "
Then how come other countries who had a strict lockdown are covid free, yet our system of restrictions wasn't effective? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ait88Man
over a year ago
Plymouth |
Dear Aliens,
Thank you for your attempt to exterminate the human vermin. Unfortunately, they seem to be hardier than you envisaged.
We all wish you the very best of luck with your next, and hopefully final, attempt.
Best wishes,
All of other life on Earth.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Flu death rate is under 1%
Covid 19 death rate is around 3.4%
According to scientists.
Worldometers currently has the Death Rate globally at 6%, however that has been coming down as we go further into this pandemic and will likely decrease to 5% this month. The true rate will be lower as many people who have recovered might never have been tested or could have been asymptomatic.
Yes there hasn't been a vaccine for other Coronaviruses, but there hasn't been a reason to develop one in the past. Sars was contained and eliminated.
The research so far is good from the early studies so far. It's early days, but given the urgency and sheer work going into finding a vaccine, there is a strong chance we will at least have treatments for this Virus if not a vaccine.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Pay every over 60 and highly vunerable a million quid to self isolate it would be cheeper and hope thr thing does not mutate and wipe those who dont give a fuck for the old NB of your young and lucky youl be old and i have bad news It happens in a flash |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eeleyWoman
over a year ago
Dudley |
"It's very simple. We have a fairly normal new pathogen, and whilst it's quite infectious it has an Infection Mortality Rate similar to severe flu.
It is most serious in the older age groups of those with co morbidities.
All that was necessary was to protect those who were most vulnerable as much as possible and carry on as normal otherwise.
Now the lockdown, actions taken (including stopping routine NHS work) and future economic collapse will kill thousands more than the virus ever did. But no one seems to be paying the slightest attention to this; these deaths don't matter it seems.I wounder why so many governments in europe chose to lockdown ? Maybe they should have talked to you 1st with your "very simple" solution.
Because they were all led by the predicted deaths giving by the modelling groups. A bit of research and its clear modelling does not have the best track record on accuracy... So you are saying all these governments got it wrong then?
Absolutely, cos they should have used hindsight
Then how come other countries who had a strict lockdown are covid free, yet our system of restrictions wasn't effective?"
Different demographics. Not every country is the same. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The big problem is, as we are now seeing, that lockdowns do not solve the problem unless taken to the extreme and followed up with equally extreme national isolation measures to keep the disease out.
Lockdown will suppress the virus - FOR THE DURATION OF LOCKDOWN - but as soon as you lift the lockdown measures the virus returns. So, to all the supporters of lockdown I ask you - do you want to live under lockdown for the rest of the year, perhaps next year too and possibly indefinately - remember we have successfully found vaccines or treatments for NO coronaviruses so far...
No parties for Christmas or New Year, no wedding receptions, wakes or christenings. No fans in stadiums, no nightclubs, no theatres, no concerts, no festivals.
That's the reality of using lockdown to control covid... is it a reality we want?"
Definitely don’t want that we will end up in poverty, already they are seeing half the usual cancer cases in Hospital |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So, the forums are awash with people giving reasons why Lockdown was crazy, how it’s killed more people than covid etc etc...
Here’s your chance, explain the alternative route and how that would have worked as most a rising infection rate, a worldwide economic crisis and a health service without the capacity to meet care needs?"
As one independent thinker to another here is my answer. You may not like it but here it is.
1. The most sensible solution would have been to have a one month long total lockdown on February 22nd. No one coming into the country and only:
Health workers
Supermarkets
Sanitation workers
Allowed to carry on working.
Masks mandatory from day one (as they do no harm) and curfew after 9pm at night (with grace periods for night workers).
As we seemed hell bent on having a managed lockdown. This too could have been done much better.
2. Mandatory face masks
All gatherings over 5 people
banned. Including worthwhile
protests.
Curfews after 6pm unless work
related.
Temperature checks on the
entrance to each building.
Track and trace implemented
from the start of the virus.
No realising covid+ people back
into the care setting.
3. All over 50s to shield for
the duration of the virus.
Everybody allowed to work, but
6pm curfew with furlough for
entertainment industry.
Temp checks everywhere
Mandatory face masks
Weekend lockdown until R was
under. 5
Not perfect and not guaranteed to work, but you asked for alternatives to what we got. There is 3 for you.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rjimMan
over a year ago
nr bristol |
Just a few points.
There were no masks.
Masks don't work.
They cause hypoxia.
There was not heat checking gear.
Still not enough heat checking gear.
Imperial college and Prf. neil ferguson have always been wrong about every other infection situation.
Covid numbers are totally wrong.
Track and trace is still not working.
There will NOT be a vaccine this year.
"Imagine a virus that is so deadly you must be tested to see if you have it"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3plSbCbkSA
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just a few points.
There were no masks.
Masks don't work.
They cause hypoxia.
There was not heat checking gear.
Still not enough heat checking gear.
Imperial college and Prf. neil ferguson have always been wrong about every other infection situation.
Covid numbers are totally wrong.
Track and trace is still not working.
There will NOT be a vaccine this year.
"Imagine a virus that is so deadly you must be tested to see if you have it"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3plSbCbkSA
"
Evidence of where masks cause hypoxia please.
Track and trace is working in other parts of the world.
Again evidence about imperial colleges incompetence please.
You can make more themometers
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rjimMan
over a year ago
nr bristol |
"Just a few points.
There were no masks.
Masks don't work.
They cause hypoxia.
There was not heat checking gear.
Still not enough heat checking gear.
Imperial college and Prf. neil ferguson have always been wrong about every other infection situation.
Covid numbers are totally wrong.
Track and trace is still not working.
There will NOT be a vaccine this year.
"Imagine a virus that is so deadly you must be tested to see if you have it"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3plSbCbkSA
Evidence of where masks cause hypoxia please.
Track and trace is working in other parts of the world.
Again evidence about imperial colleges incompetence please.
You can make more themometers
"
Do you want me to come over and put the search terms into your PC for you ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just a few points.
There were no masks.
Masks don't work.
They cause hypoxia.
There was not heat checking gear.
Still not enough heat checking gear.
Imperial college and Prf. neil ferguson have always been wrong about every other infection situation.
Covid numbers are totally wrong.
Track and trace is still not working.
There will NOT be a vaccine this year.
"Imagine a virus that is so deadly you must be tested to see if you have it"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3plSbCbkSA
Evidence of where masks cause hypoxia please.
Track and trace is working in other parts of the world.
Again evidence about imperial colleges incompetence please.
You can make more themometers
Do you want me to come over and put the search terms into your PC for you ?"
I just did after coming off here. All that you've said has been debunked. N95 masks can cause hypoxia, but we don't wear N95 masks and never have.
Methinks you belive the 5G stuff too and the rubbish about Bill Gates
It's amazing how all of the tin hat wearers all believe the same thing.
Oh the mask thing originated from Nigeria BTW. You actually fell for a Nigerian Prince scam. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Because excess mortality went through the ceiling when Lockdown - just research that term if you have the time - was implemented?
"
It's interesting as to why this happened. Be fascinating to see a like for like comparison between April 5th and June 5th.
Did lockdown kill more people than it saved. Genuine question. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Because excess mortality went through the ceiling when Lockdown - just research that term if you have the time - was implemented?
"
Sometimes it isn't a cover up.
Just a monumental fuck up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
What surprises me is with so many “experts” posting stuff in forums such as this is that Covid isn’t just a memory,everybody it seems knows far better than the people who actually have all the stats and up to date info on the virus and how I t spreads and best way to contain it,there is a big difference between “beliefs” and “facts”:- most of the stuff people base their ideas on are just other people’s beliefs which,if you do care to investigate further and don’t take at face value,have no real facts or data to back them up.
I have a relative who seems to believe every lunatic conspiracy on the net and if you try and argue against them all you get is :-“that is what they want you to believe!” She won’t be being vaccinated because it is going to contain nanites to monitor and control the population |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What surprises me is with so many “experts” posting stuff in forums such as this is that Covid isn’t just a memory,everybody it seems knows far better than the people who actually have all the stats and up to date info on the virus and how I t spreads and best way to contain it,there is a big difference between “beliefs” and “facts”:- most of the stuff people base their ideas on are just other people’s beliefs which,if you do care to investigate further and don’t take at face value,have no real facts or data to back them up.
I have a relative who seems to believe every lunatic conspiracy on the net and if you try and argue against them all you get is :-“that is what they want you to believe!” She won’t be being vaccinated because it is going to contain nanites to monitor and control the population "
See my dad died from this on April 25th. I will be thinking long and hard about a vaccine as it all seems to be rushed. Not only that but I'll want to know what the long term side effects are and what effect the vaccine has on the ACE2 protien.
All the conspirators rushing away typing ACE2 protien into Google haha. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"See my dad died from this on April 25th. I will be thinking long and hard about a vaccine as it all seems to be rushed. Not only that but I'll want to know what the long term side effects are and what effect the vaccine has on the ACE2 protien.
All the conspirators rushing away typing ACE2 protien into Google haha. "
It may be rushed but that doesn’t necessarily mean not properly tested,until a “safe” vaccine is developed Covid will be a problem,especially if being infected only gives limited or short term protection,the research so far indicates the vaccines showing most promise give far longer,maybe lifetime immunity to the most common strain of Covid, what is worrying is how quickly other similar corona viruses have mutated so any vaccine may be only limited in effectiveness |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"See my dad died from this on April 25th. I will be thinking long and hard about a vaccine as it all seems to be rushed. Not only that but I'll want to know what the long term side effects are and what effect the vaccine has on the ACE2 protien.
All the conspirators rushing away typing ACE2 protien into Google haha.
It may be rushed but that doesn’t necessarily mean not properly tested,until a “safe” vaccine is developed Covid will be a problem,especially if being infected only gives limited or short term protection,the research so far indicates the vaccines showing most promise give far longer,maybe lifetime immunity to the most common strain of Covid, what is worrying is how quickly other similar corona viruses have mutated so any vaccine may be only limited in effectiveness "
Yeah that's a worry of mine too as this one alone has mutated a lot. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The lockdown has caused economic meltdown that will last a generation, the only way this will come to an end is when every person on the plannet has had it thats what brought an end to the spannish flu , there was no one left for it to infect. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *D835Man
over a year ago
London |
"Just a few points.
There were no masks.
Masks don't work.
They cause hypoxia.
There was not heat checking gear.
Still not enough heat checking gear.
Imperial college and Prf. neil ferguson have always been wrong about every other infection situation.
Covid numbers are totally wrong.
Track and trace is still not working.
There will NOT be a vaccine this year.
"Imagine a virus that is so deadly you must be tested to see if you have it"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3plSbCbkSA
"
**..."Imagine a virus that is so deadly you must be tested to see if you have it...”**
—————————————
What about the hundreds of thousands of people around the world who have been hospitalised and died from the virus. Did they have to be tested to realise that they were feeling sick ( of something) ???
Certainly not. They felt sick and /or had symptoms first, and then got tested.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *D835Man
over a year ago
London |
"Because excess mortality went through the ceiling when Lockdown - just research that term if you have the time - was implemented?
"
Because most infections happened *before* lock down, not during lock down when most people were indoors.
So, people got infected before lock down and died during and after lock down.
You get infected first, then die later, not the other way round.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The lockdown has caused economic meltdown that will last a generation, the only way this will come to an end is when every person on the plannet has had it thats what brought an end to the spannish flu , there was no one left for it to infect."
So you reckon everybody in earth had the Spanish flu and that’s what it to an end?
Most estimates put figure infected,total world wide,at 500 million about 1/3 of the global population back in 1918 with approx 50 million dying,many from pneumonia which wasn’t treatable with antibiotics like nowadays(they hadn’t been discovered/invented depending on how you view what finding a fungus that could be used to kill bacteria as?) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's very simple. We have a fairly normal new pathogen, and whilst it's quite infectious it has an Infection Mortality Rate similar to severe flu.
thats where i stopped listening... because the facts do not show that and people peddling that are being at best nieve and at worst genuinely disengenious to try and make it fit a narrative....
The mortality rate for Covid is 10 times that of the flu...."
But it isn't 10 times as much
Testing is now showing that there are an estimated 5 million of who us have had Covid, the great majority of whom don't even know they have had it
Read my post in the thread Real death rate
46 000 out of 5,000,000 comes out at less that 1%
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Love how people throw the 1% figure about as justification for doing nothing. 46 thousand people have Died, from a new unknown virus. Each on of them 46k were potentially someones dad, mom, children, grandma's, grandads uncles, aunties, friends.... But its okay its less thatg 1%...
Mind blowing |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Love how people throw the 1% figure about as justification for doing nothing. 46 thousand people have Died, from a new unknown virus. Each on of them 46k were potentially someones dad, mom, children, grandma's, grandads uncles, aunties, friends.... But its okay its less thatg 1%...
Mind blowing "
Ridiculous.
If that's your answer why don't we close the economy down every year to stop people dying of flu in the winter ?
Why don't we ban all road traffic because some people die in car accidents ?
It's sad that some people die but life has to go on. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
And further that the argument of oh well people have had it and didn't even know, Millions of people live with the cancer pathogen and don't know they have it, till their diagnosed and potentially die.. So that's that out the window as well jsut face it no one on fab has a clue what was right and what was wrong, just like nko one in government have a clue what's right and what's wrong but what's clear to do Nothing is immoral and on par with mass Geniside |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eeleyWoman
over a year ago
Dudley |
"Love how people throw the 1% figure about as justification for doing nothing. 46 thousand people have Died, from a new unknown virus. Each on of them 46k were potentially someones dad, mom, children, grandma's, grandads uncles, aunties, friends.... But its okay its less thatg 1%...
Mind blowing "
Since when has nothing been done? I don't think anyone is saying that those deaths are acceptable, unfortunately, in the midst of a global pandemic, lives were going to be lost, all we can do now is try our best to keep the numbers down. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Because they have an idea on how to treat the winter flu they try and if people die then they have exhausted all medical treatment ... They don't have an idea on how to treat covid... quite simple answer really to a stupid comparison
"Love how people throw the 1% figure about as justification for doing nothing. 46 thousand people have Died, from a new unknown virus. Each on of them 46k were potentially someones dad, mom, children, grandma's, grandads uncles, aunties, friends.... But its okay its less thatg 1%...
Mind blowing
Ridiculous.
If that's your answer why don't we close the economy down every year to stop people dying of flu in the winter ?
Why don't we ban all road traffic because some people die in car accidents ?
It's sad that some people die but life has to go on."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I didn't say nothing has been done so mot sure where u got that from what I said isbpeople who tryh to justify that the mortality rate of 1% is acceptable
"Love how people throw the 1% figure about as justification for doing nothing. 46 thousand people have Died, from a new unknown virus. Each on of them 46k were potentially someones dad, mom, children, grandma's, grandads uncles, aunties, friends.... But its okay its less thatg 1%...
Mind blowing
Since when has nothing been done? I don't think anyone is saying that those deaths are acceptable, unfortunately, in the midst of a global pandemic, lives were going to be lost, all we can do now is try our best to keep the numbers down. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's very simple. We have a fairly normal new pathogen, and whilst it's quite infectious it has an Infection Mortality Rate similar to severe flu.
thats where i stopped listening... because the facts do not show that and people peddling that are being at best nieve and at worst genuinely disengenious to try and make it fit a narrative....
The mortality rate for Covid is 10 times that of the flu....
But it isn't 10 times as much
Testing is now showing that there are an estimated 5 million of who us have had Covid, the great majority of whom don't even know they have had it
Read my post in the thread Real death rate
46 000 out of 5,000,000 comes out at less that 1%
"
You can’t use estimated no infected when talking of mortality rate you have to use confirmed cases of infection which is not much more than 300,000 but the number of deaths above what would be expected for the period is over 60,000 which puts mortality rate pretty high,the real issue with this virus is its ease of transmission compared to others we may have encountered,especially from folk who are asymptomatic |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's very simple. We have a fairly normal new pathogen, and whilst it's quite infectious it has an Infection Mortality Rate similar to severe flu.
thats where i stopped listening... because the facts do not show that and people peddling that are being at best nieve and at worst genuinely disengenious to try and make it fit a narrative....
The mortality rate for Covid is 10 times that of the flu....
But it isn't 10 times as much
Testing is now showing that there are an estimated 5 million of who us have had Covid, the great majority of whom don't even know they have had it
Read my post in the thread Real death rate
46 000 out of 5,000,000 comes out at less that 1%
You can’t use estimated no infected when talking of mortality rate you have to use confirmed cases of infection which is not much more than 300,000 but the number of deaths above what would be expected for the period is over 60,000 which puts mortality rate pretty high,the real issue with this virus is its ease of transmission compared to others we may have encountered,especially from folk who are asymptomatic"
They are all confirmed cases of infection
Discovered by random texting of people who had not reported any symptoms
It's thought that for every 1 confirmed case of infection there are are another 14 or 15 whi have had it and don't know.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's very simple. We have a fairly normal new pathogen, and whilst it's quite infectious it has an Infection Mortality Rate similar to severe flu.
thats where i stopped listening... because the facts do not show that and people peddling that are being at best nieve and at worst genuinely disengenious to try and make it fit a narrative....
The mortality rate for Covid is 10 times that of the flu....
But it isn't 10 times as much
Testing is now showing that there are an estimated 5 million of who us have had Covid, the great majority of whom don't even know they have had it
Read my post in the thread Real death rate
46 000 out of 5,000,000 comes out at less that 1%
You can’t use estimated no infected when talking of mortality rate you have to use confirmed cases of infection which is not much more than 300,000 but the number of deaths above what would be expected for the period is over 60,000 which puts mortality rate pretty high,the real issue with this virus is its ease of transmission compared to others we may have encountered,especially from folk who are asymptomatic
They are all confirmed cases of infection
Discovered by random texting of people who had not reported any symptoms
It's thought that for every 1 confirmed case of infection there are are another 14 or 15 whi have had it and don't know.
"
Random texting of folk with no symptoms? So how do these random folk know/confirm they have the Covid virus??if these folk have had it and tested +ve then they would be in with the 300,000 or so confirmed unless you just ask”do you think you may have had Covid?” and take their “yes I think so” answer as proof they have:-really scientific way to get numbers that! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Covid-19 is not the first virus to bear the name Covid.
Detailed investigations found that SARS-CoV was transmitted from civet cats to humans in China in 2002 and MERS-CoV from dromedary camels to humans in Saudi Arabia in 2012. Several known coronaviruses are still circulating in animals that have not yet infected humans.
As surveillance and testing improves around the world, more coronaviruses are likely to be identified.
But, Covid-19 is the first to jump the species barrier, and it's done it in both directions where only last week a cat was tested and proven to have been infected by its owner.
Unfortunately for all the western governments there's no pre-existing health protocol to fall back on to combat this virus, so the government is reassessing the best course of action every day and making adjustments as new information comes in.
What has become obvious is that the virus is complex and has been examined by many different scientific research institutions who have been mystified as to it's genetic code.
The Russians declared some months ago that they believe it was genetically modified by the Chinese to assess its potential as a biological weapon, and their scientists were lax in not keeping it under strict conditions and zero access to all but the most senior Of scientists.
It's become increasingly clear that the only countries who have successfully managed the pandemic have been those who had enforced their decisions on their people by force if necessary.
Too many of the UK population are second guessing the government and have deliberately flouted the rules because of the lack of vigorous policing and the liberal attitude of civil disobedience and conspiracy theories that justify their actions.
As someone who knows a few trained medical professionals (My youngest brother is a virologist and microbiologist working in Manchester Medical school) I was party to information about the virus and it's possibilities in the next few years.
The overwhelming majority believe that this population has to take a stand against the virus, follow the rules and stop thinking about themselves and consider the greater good. it has to be stopped and soom, before it mutates again, because it's only going to get more not less lethal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Name comes from kind of virus and year identified,the Russians also claimed for ages no cases in their country so putting any belief in anything they say claim about Covid is stretching things somewhat,up there with believing Trump |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *D835Man
over a year ago
London |
"It's very simple. We have a fairly normal new pathogen, and whilst it's quite infectious it has an Infection Mortality Rate similar to severe flu.
thats where i stopped listening... because the facts do not show that and people peddling that are being at best nieve and at worst genuinely disengenious to try and make it fit a narrative....
The mortality rate for Covid is 10 times that of the flu....
But it isn't 10 times as much
Testing is now showing that there are an estimated 5 million of who us have had Covid, the great majority of whom don't even know they have had it
Read my post in the thread Real death rate
46 000 out of 5,000,000 comes out at less that 1%
You can’t use estimated no infected when talking of mortality rate you have to use confirmed cases of infection which is not much more than 300,000 but the number of deaths above what would be expected for the period is over 60,000 which puts mortality rate pretty high,the real issue with this virus is its ease of transmission compared to others we may have encountered,especially from folk who are asymptomatic
They are all confirmed cases of infection
Discovered by random texting of people who had not reported any symptoms
It's thought that for every 1 confirmed case of infection there are are another 14 or 15 whi have had it and don't know.
"
All what you say is just second guessing.
If you want to talk about mortality rate, then use the number of confirmed infections v number of deaths.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Random texting of folk with no symptoms? So how do these random folk know/confirm they have the Covid virus??if these folk have had it and tested +ve then they would be in with the 300,000 or so confirmed unless you just ask”do you think you may have had Covid?” and take their “yes I think so” answer as proof they have:-really scientific way to get numbers that!"
Yes
That's what random testing means
You text people RANDOMLY
Not those who know they have it just completely random !
They have tested a RANDOM selection of people from the Biobank (look it up) and found that 7% of them have had the virus.
Total numbers tested RANDOMLY from Biobank volunteers in various parts of England (not Scotland) are around 25000 now
A small sample but if it's random it can be representative of the population as a whole |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eeleyWoman
over a year ago
Dudley |
"It's very simple. We have a fairly normal new pathogen, and whilst it's quite infectious it has an Infection Mortality Rate similar to severe flu.
thats where i stopped listening... because the facts do not show that and people peddling that are being at best nieve and at worst genuinely disengenious to try and make it fit a narrative....
The mortality rate for Covid is 10 times that of the flu....
But it isn't 10 times as much
Testing is now showing that there are an estimated 5 million of who us have had Covid, the great majority of whom don't even know they have had it
Read my post in the thread Real death rate
46 000 out of 5,000,000 comes out at less that 1%
You can’t use estimated no infected when talking of mortality rate you have to use confirmed cases of infection which is not much more than 300,000 but the number of deaths above what would be expected for the period is over 60,000 which puts mortality rate pretty high,the real issue with this virus is its ease of transmission compared to others we may have encountered,especially from folk who are asymptomatic
They are all confirmed cases of infection
Discovered by random texting of people who had not reported any symptoms
It's thought that for every 1 confirmed case of infection there are are another 14 or 15 whi have had it and don't know.
All what you say is just second guessing.
If you want to talk about mortality rate, then use the number of confirmed infections v number of deaths.
"
That's also second guessing because we don't know the true number of infected so using those figures would give us a highly inflated death rate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The true number of infected seems to be coming out at 7% of the population on average.
That's 5,000,000 of us.
Higher percentage in London - 10%
Lower in country areas. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
All what you say is just second guessing.
If you want to talk about mortality rate, then use the number of confirmed infections v number of deaths.
"
It's the unknown ones that are the problem - the silent spreaders - not the confirmed cases
And the figures seem to be saying that 7% of the populations have had (by possessing antibodies) it and may have spread it around unknowingly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The true number of infected seems to be coming out at 7% of the population on average.
That's 5,000,000 of us.
Higher percentage in London - 10%
Lower in country areas."
Where are these true numbers coming from,unless you are using concrete data it is guesswork,what %age of test results come back +ve?,but that %age will be higher than the overall because the folk getting tested up to now have to be exhibiting symptoms or be in one of the newer local areas where extra measures have been implemented where a high no of +ve results/100000 have returned but in most of those areas the result is lower than 7%,so not sure where you’re extrapolating your figures from |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If you had read two messages back you would have found the link
https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/2020/07/uk-biobank-covid-19-antibody-study-latest-updates/"
I prefer to use this
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/31july2020#number-of-people-in-england-who-had-covid-19 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If you had read two messages back you would have found the link
https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/2020/07/uk-biobank-covid-19-antibody-study-latest-updates/
I prefer to use this
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/31july2020#number-of-people-in-england-who-had-covid-19"
That's government propaganda to keep the frighteners on. It's not random.
They are only testing those who present with symptoms.
If you have no symptoms the NHS will not test you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And further that the argument of oh well people have had it and didn't even know, Millions of people live with the cancer pathogen and don't know they have it, till their diagnosed and potentially die.. So that's that out the window as well jsut face it no one on fab has a clue what was right and what was wrong, just like nko one in government have a clue what's right and what's wrong but what's clear to do Nothing is immoral and on par with mass Geniside "
Do you mean cancer gene or cancer diagnosis? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Covid-19 is not the first virus to bear the name Covid.
Detailed investigations found that SARS-CoV was transmitted from civet cats to humans in China in 2002 and MERS-CoV from dromedary camels to humans in Saudi Arabia in 2012. Several known coronaviruses are still circulating in animals that have not yet infected humans.
As surveillance and testing improves around the world, more coronaviruses are likely to be identified.
But, Covid-19 is the first to jump the species barrier, and it's done it in both directions where only last week a cat was tested and proven to have been infected by its owner.
Unfortunately for all the western governments there's no pre-existing health protocol to fall back on to combat this virus, so the government is reassessing the best course of action every day and making adjustments as new information comes in.
What has become obvious is that the virus is complex and has been examined by many different scientific research institutions who have been mystified as to it's genetic code.
The Russians declared some months ago that they believe it was genetically modified by the Chinese to assess its potential as a biological weapon, and their scientists were lax in not keeping it under strict conditions and zero access to all but the most senior Of scientists.
It's become increasingly clear that the only countries who have successfully managed the pandemic have been those who had enforced their decisions on their people by force if necessary.
Too many of the UK population are second guessing the government and have deliberately flouted the rules because of the lack of vigorous policing and the liberal attitude of civil disobedience and conspiracy theories that justify their actions.
As someone who knows a few trained medical professionals (My youngest brother is a virologist and microbiologist working in Manchester Medical school) I was party to information about the virus and it's possibilities in the next few years.
The overwhelming majority believe that this population has to take a stand against the virus, follow the rules and stop thinking about themselves and consider the greater good. it has to be stopped and soom, before it mutates again, because it's only going to get more not less lethal"
Lots of misinformation here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *iliciousCouple
over a year ago
South East |
"It's very simple. We have a fairly normal new pathogen, and whilst it's quite infectious..... "
-----------------
If it wasn't so serious you'd really have to laugh at this complete lunacy.
"Fairly normal". "Quite infectious". Have you not actually heard any news for the last six months?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Do you really think 'routine' nhs work would have continued if we didn't lockdown? "
I love this.
You’re completely right, every chicken nugget who types their “lockdown was lunacy” post applies the presumption that our economy and health service would therefore avoid any impact. The reality is of course completely the reverse.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"The biggest case for me is the absolute avalanche of jobs being slashed on an almost daily basis."
Which would have happened anyway... how where our Airlines doing prior to lockdown as nation after nation closed air travel. How would it of affected the car industry who’s global need has slashed manufacture. How would our tourist trade be? The list goes on... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So, the forums are awash with people giving reasons why Lockdown was crazy, how it’s killed more people than covid etc etc...
"
Elementary dear Watson
The lockdown has led to a new breed of crazy monster people |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"So there was absolutely no alternative to the lockdown?"
There where numerous, the question is what level of negative impact they would have had themselves. Personally I feel the alternatives would have had a larger negative impact on the UK |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
