50 deaths in Barnsley from CO-19

Every death is sad and most agree with another three weeks until the end of May. However is Boris doesn't dramatically change his timid outlook from the start of June and start trusting adults by treating them like adults, I believe we will start being like France in having a lot more disorder on the streets.

 

I think you’ve finally properly lost it.

 

The point he is making is that there is an element of playing Russian roulette with peoples lives if Barnsley hadn't locked down with the rest of the country.

 

The government were right to lock down and they did it far too late. People are generally OK with three more weeks. But if Boris doesn't relax more from the start of June expect to see civil unrest start to show more. At that point that's two and a half months on house arrest.

 

I think that I'm fed up of people writing off people's LIVES as though it's of no consequence.
People like you.

 

I know what you're getting at but isn't that actually the opposite?
These possibly 100 people haven't died in order to stop covid-19 so isn't your analogy actually more suited to the opposite argument?

We know these restrictions have l, do and will result in deaths due to suicide and other health reasons associated with the restrictions. Now I fully understand why people are happy to say they will accept those deaths to save hopefully many more. Whether I agree with it or not I do understand the logic and theory.

But your analogy is more suited to would YOU put a bullet to the head of 100 random people (which is what the lockdown does) in order to magically stop covid-19 (which is what we hope to do)?

Covid-19 if nature took its course would kill people. Would you randomly shoot 100 people dead to stop it?

 

No. I'd do what has been belatedly done and lockdown until the point where the NHS can cope.
That's the sensible solution for the greater good and what virtually every country in the world has done. You keep saying people will commit suicide because of lockdown. I'm sure some have/will. Never in a million years will i believe that figure comes remotely near the number who would have died if we'd done nothing.

 

The graph continues to go in the right direction. In another three weeks it will look even better. By June the tourism trade with rules in place should be allowed to open. As should places with outdoors like a cafe. You should be allowed to visit loved ones too as long as you social distancing still like sit in the garden in the sunshine.

 

Normally the staffing levels are poor. There have been times when we have been left with 1 member of staff on a ward (which should never ever happen) because we have to leave to attend a crisis elsewhere in the hospital. There is a failure to staff appropriately for need generally.
We have also over the last few years had our chief exec praise management numerous times (in his weekly email) for saving money by cutting down on bank and agency staff. This means we were understaffed and shafted. It has been made very difficult for ward staff to request appropriate staffing.
This is what we will return to after the crisis.

 

But even if it doesn't come anywhere near the question still stands. It's far more an accurate analogy than what you were asking so it's only fair to ask you the same.

I'm sure we both agree that country wide 100 people minimum will have committed suicide because of the lockdown.
Would you put a bullet to 100 strangers heads to slow the spread of covid-19?

 

I would be prepared to accept the deaths of 100 to save 10,000.
Would you be prepared to sacrifice 10,000 to save 100?
And don't try and turn that around ST because to suggest more would die of suicide than unchecked covid is, frankly, beyond ridiculous.

 

I understand that, I've always thought that there was a shortage. On two memorable occurrences where I had to use Barnsley hospital (a and e) it was so chronically understaffed that they completely forgot I was in a cubicle as they were rushed off their feet one time and the other the nurses were doing a great job but there wasn't a single doctor in a&e as one had been called into surgery and the had been called to an emergency elsewhere in the hospital.

 

I haven't tried to say that in this thread. You specifically asked if HE would shoot those 100 people but you won't answer the same question asked to you. You can't ask him the question but refuse to ask the identical question reversed.

Would I be prepared to sacrifice them? No. I have repeatedly suggested stronger isolation, protection and support for the vulnerable. That isn't sacrificing them

 

Have many services been **** down or not? We've had appointments for both kids cancelled at Sheffield Childrens. Finally managed to get a phone appointment for one of them next week after his beginning of April appointment was cancelled. He's really been suffering too.
Just curious if things are opening back up and it's just a back log or if services are still not happening?

 

I haven't answered because I'm not the one who is advocating a reckless disregard of life like the op. But if you insist then yes, i'll go out and shoot 100 and you or wilko can go and shoot 10,000.
The issue is about saving life. The attitude of some makes me absolutely sick.

 

In general hospitals I believe all but essential out-patient appointments are being kept. This is because staff have been commandeered to work the covid wards and to lessen the risk and spread of infection.

 

The issue is about the number of lives, if it were just about saving lives we would lockdown every flu season. We don't because the number of deaths is deemed manageable. They still die, families still lose loved ones.
The articles @Plankton Pete posted was excellent and explaining that the lockdown is basically a reset. So the issue is how we move forward.
I fear that if we try and get the most vulnerable to "shield"and ease restrictions for the rest (still with social distancing), that those vulnerable people will just continue to go out and about too.

 

Seriously mate, I know people are stressed and really struggling to deal with the situation but no one is suggesting that. People are just posing questions and trying to have rational debate.

 

You appear to be completely disregarding what people actually say in favour of what you want then to be saying. I haven't advocated killing 10,000 people. I dont know why you refuse to even acknowledge where I say I would focus efforts on protection for the vulnerable. That is me saying I would try to reduce the covid-19 deaths not increase them.
For example had I been Boris I would have sent the army in to EVERY nursing home I the UK to provide a round the clock presence who can isolate with the vulnerable. How many lives would that have saved?
I'm not sure why you keep telling me I want to kill 10,000 people when it's not what I've said.

What I have said in this thread is abundantly clear but I'll spell it out again.

If we had taken no action action at all many people would die from covid-19.
The NATURAL result would be no lockdown suicides but many many covid-19 deaths.
By intervening via lockdown the UNNATURAL result is significantly fewer covid-19 deaths but a number of suicide deaths.

In this thread I'm not arguing in favour or against taking action. All I did was point out that your question of 'would you shoot 100 people' was the wrong way round. Shooting 100 people is taking intervening action therefore your question was more accurately aligned to being asked of someone who supports the lockdown (you) rather than someone who doesn't (SM).
Thats the only point I was making, that your analogy was the wrong way round. I wasn't arguing in favour or against at all.

 

Correct. The issue is about saving lives. Some people don't seem that arsed about wanting to do it.