Genuine question for those that we’re against initial lockdown

I was against it in the form it was implemented, and continue to be. I’m broadly aligned with SuperTyke in what I would have liked to have seen and what I would do next.

 

Ok thanks for that.
In other words the 8k is a complete guess.

 

My biggest issue is how countrywide arbitrarily its been enforced when London and in particular the train and tube travel was the incubation but that's testament to us being run London centric. Save our NHS worked then didn't get used and in the background the NHS was knowingly sending infected patients into the care home environment to die and spread throughout. And Ive a massive problem with the furlough for all scheme which has been openly abused and will put us into recession and add 2 million plus to the unemployment figures.

Other than that, alls good fam.

 

Not a guess as such I think it's more that they suspect X amount of people are asymptomatic and X amount are untested and therefore they do a bit of maths and come up with a figure.

The frustrating part is that they don't seem to then use the same formula for the death rate. And that th wild guesses they took at a death rate early on don't match up anywhere near to the figures they are now saying

 

The government should take heed of the saying, 'If you give people an inch, they'll take a mile' and pitch their relaxations accordingly. Change less than intended, knowing the public will always do more. In reality they are doing the opposite, relaxing too many things in one go. So much for baby steps.

 

So in your opinion who are the vulnerable you speak of? Genuine question by the way.

 

The ones identified by the government as being vulnerable. Certain pre-existing conditions and over a certain age group. Or to put it another way the ones who were politely asked to isolate in !arch before they collectively stuck two fingers up and everyone had an enforced lockdown instead.

 

The media hype surrounding this whole thing is disgusting. The ramping up of fear constantly.

There is a picture doing the rounds on social media stating that Barnsley is the covid capital of Great Britain with 49 confirmed cases between the 9th and 23rd of May, and people ar quoting this as though its the apocalypse

Just quickly, Barnsley has a population of just over 245,000 people, take the 49 cases in two weeks and that works out at 0.02% of Barnsley's populace, and we are the highest in the country?! At these rates, it would take us just over 9.5 YEARS to get to 5% having the virus in Barnsley alone.

Do I think there is a virus - yes.
Do I think people are dying - yes
Do I think lies have been told ob death certificates to inflate death figures - yes.

There is a deeper agenda at play here in my opinion. Why on earth would the government basically condone the destruction of our own economy when they have the figures to hand?

In my opinion we are seeing the introduction of the full blown survaillance state which has been drip fed into society since probably 9/11 with the patriot act in the US then the war on terror, cameras everywhere, now this.

As an aside, why are we treating Covid-19 as we are when none of Koch's postulates have been met? Koch's postulates being the benchmark tests that have been with us since the late 1800's to prove the existence of a pathogen.

A lot of questions to answer.

 

I find this extremely interesting from itv news

Dave Buttle from South Emsall lost his father Len last month.
Like many retired miners, Len's lungs were damaged by years of breathing in coal dust underground. He had pneumoconiosis.
Dave says his father tested negative for coronavirus before he died in hospital last month.
However, on his death certificate, doctors listed one "probable" cause of death was Covid-19.
Dave disputed this but was told this is the case for everyone who dies while in hospital.

 

Am I one then at 73 yrs old cos I thought the vulnerable ones were to get a letter from their doctor. I have had no such letter. I have only left my house for shopping (once per week) and 3 x 7 mile walks at pace per week for fitness. For me it appears that if you are not in a vulnerable group it seems clear cut what the rule is , but not so if you are maybe borderline.

 

Yes I'd say you are. You are in the age group who was specifically 'advised' to self isolate to protect yourselves back in march. The problem was, and I will never understand why this was the case, the most vulnerable people were only advised to stay at home. No orders were given. The next step was to order EVERYONE to stay at home. It's clear to me that there was a logical step between the two things but it wasnt even discussed.

And I agree with you. It seems barmy that if you are not vulnerable then the rules are absolutely clear but if you are vulnerable anything else is only advice or guidance or a tip or suggestion. It's the reason so many vulnerable people are dying because as seemingly uncaring as this is the bare faced fact is that any elderly or vulnerable person who has died in the last few weeks has done so because they (or in the case of care homes, those who are responsible for their safety) have failed to properly isolate. In some cases because of their own failings, in many others because of a lack of support to do so.
Enforced more restrictive isolation for the vulnerable, and additional support to do just that, would have saved tens of thousands of lives and that's the biggest crime of this whole thing.

 

One issue that I find annoying about all this fits in with the Cummings fiasco. My lad lives at home with me and my wife and he has his kids at weekends which is allowed under the restrictions. Grand-daughter arrives coughing like a train (she is asthmatic) so I being "vulnerable" isolated at my caravan on the east coast only to be kicked off following a government ruling and I had to return home to a possible hazardous situation. On the one hand I am "advised" to isolate and then "ordered" to act differently. Like I said previously, when you are NOT in a vulnerable group the rules are clear but not so if you are not. Hopefully I shall live through this.

 

I'll never get my head round that. People should have been told to isolate wherever they felt safest and most comfortable, it doest matter if that's their first home, their second home or a caravan. Provided that people were isolating it doesn't matter one bit what address they do it. If anything it would have reduced people's stress levels and resulted in better general health physically and mentally.

And on a related Dominic Cummings point. The instruction has always been work from home where you can, only go to work where it's absolutely impossible to work from home. And yet he had to drive 260 miles back from Durham to attend work. Why? Why could he not work from 'home' in Durham once he'd gone up there?

It's all ********.

By the way I'm sure you'll be fine, you've already said you're being careful and are aware of the risks, I personally think that will see you through this unharmed

 

Ignoring the socio-economic replies already in this thread having a lockdown has now set a dangerous precedent.

When flu season comes round and Aunt Maureen and Uncle Toms care homes are getting ravaged and the mortality rates spiking the press will be crying lockdown....