Coronavirus - Part Two.

[Pettytom]

9 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

That's about long term conditions. People with long term conditions are not necessarily especially vulnerable to covid. Being autistic as I am,  is a life long condition- I'm not especially vulnerable to covid.

 

Obesity, diabetes, heart conditions, elderly etc- they're vulnerable.

Obviously, I'm talking about the vulnerable who do know they have an underlying condition that makes them susceptible- it makes sense for them to self isolate, rather than quaranteen everyone [thus causing economic devastation and the ensuing mortality]

There we have the problem, in a nutshell.

 

I’m not in a vulnerable group, so I’m not going to do anything about this crisis.

 

Jeez. Buy a mirror. 

[Longcol]

5 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

Do you have a link for all of the dangerous nonsense you’ve been spouting tonight?

Still waiting for a response to "fine scientific minds" who disagree with aspects of lockdown.

 

https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/topic/473199-coronavirus-part-two/page/93/?tab=comments#comment-8368027

 

[butlers]

Again not looked recently but wasn't Sweden the it EU country to try leaving economy mostly open.

 

And the upshot,  very similar economic damage as it's nordic neighbours but with 5 fold the death rate.

New Scientist ,if you want to go look

[catmiss]

11 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

That's about long term conditions. People with long term conditions are not necessarily especially vulnerable to covid. Being autistic as I am,  is a life long condition- I'm not especially vulnerable to covid.

 

Obesity, diabetes, heart conditions, elderly etc- they're vulnerable.

Obviously, I'm talking about the vulnerable who do know they have an underlying condition that makes them susceptible- it makes sense for them to self isolate, rather than quaranteen everyone [thus causing economic devastation and the ensuing mortality]

At the beginning of lockdown in March NHS sent letters to everyone who had a longstanding health condition which made them ‘extremely vulnerable’  to the virus advising them to shield and pack a suitcase in case of hospital admission. Given the rise in infection rates shouldn’t these people be supported, if they choose, to shield again?

[Longcol]

8 minutes ago, butlers said:

Again not looked recently but wasn't Sweden the it EU country to try leaving economy mostly open.

 

And the upshot,  very similar economic damage as it's nordic neighbours but with 5 fold the death rate.

New Scientist ,if you want to go look

Sweden's "success story";

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2251615-is-swedens-coronavirus-strategy-a-cautionary-tale-or-a-success-story/

[tinfoilhat]

4 hours ago, ivan edake said:

What I can't understand is the fact that the government puts all these measures in place then allows car boots to take place all over the country and also various demonstrations.Both these activities attract thousands of people who are all close together.I was also surprised that not only has Blackpool illuminations been allowed to take place they have been given a two month extension.Allowing these activities is a bad decision,small wonder youngsters organise booze ups and quite rightly think they have the right to organise a similar crowd mixing activity.

Even more oddly, Blackpool isn't doing to bad on covid numbers compared with the rest of Lancashire. 

[Longcol]

5 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

Even more oddly, Blackpool isn't doing to bad on covid numbers compared with the rest of Lancashire. 

Maybe people catch it in Blackpool but it gets recorded in their home town when it develops a week or so down the line? Seems to have happened here in France. Where we live is a very popular tourist destination but covid cases are minimal.

[onewheeldave]

1 hour ago, Longcol said:

Didn't you read the first paragraph of the link?

 

"About 15 million people in England have a long-term condition (1). Long-term conditions or chronic diseases are conditions for which there is currently no cure, and which are managed with drugs and other treatment, for example: diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, arthritis and hypertension."

Yes.

Most, if not all, conditions which leave the sufferer especially vulnerable to covid are also long term. 

The converse isn't true- many long term conditions do not mean the person is especially vulnerable to covid [eg autism]

'Vulnerable to covid' is a sub-set of 'long term conditions' and therefore smaller.

Originally, in direct response to my-

1 hour ago, onewheeldave said:

I've no problem with vulnerable people shielding [if they choose to, equally, if they choose not to, that's their decision]. It makes far more sense for the vulnerable to be in quaranteen, rather that everyone.

you said

1 hour ago, Longcol said:

That's about 25% of the population of England, Where is the infrastrucure to ensure they get food deliveries etc? Who is going to do their jobs presuming they're not retired?

i.e. that the vulnerable make up "about 25% of the population of England"

I asked for a link- you instead provided one saying that 25% of the population have long term conditions, of which the vulnerable are a smaller subset. 

If you are going to maintain that 25% of the population are vulnerable, you need to provide a link to that- do you have one?

[onewheeldave]

1 hour ago, catmiss said:

At the beginning of lockdown in March NHS sent letters to everyone who had a longstanding health condition which made them ‘extremely vulnerable’  to the virus advising them to shield and pack a suitcase in case of hospital admission. Given the rise in infection rates shouldn’t these people be supported, if they choose, to shield again?

Yes, I think that those who are especially vulnerable to covid should, if they choose to shield, be supported. And everyone who is not especially vulnerable, should get back to their working lives.

 

I think if that had been done the first time round it would have made a lot more sense, and, the cost of supporting the self isolating vulnerable would have been minor compared to the economic devastation caused by locking down everyone.

 

 

 

[Longcol]

6 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

Yes.

Most, if not all, conditions which leave the sufferer especially vulnerable to covid are also long term. 

The converse isn't true- many long term conditions do not mean the person is especially vulnerable to covid [eg autism]

'Vulnerable to covid' is a sub-set of 'long term conditions' and therefore smaller.

Originally, in direct response to my-

you said

i.e. that the vulnerable make up "about 25% of the population of England"

I asked for a link- you instead provided one saying that 25% of the population have long term conditions, of which the vulnerable are a smaller subset. 

If you are going to maintain that 25% of the population are vulnerable, you need to provide a link to that- do you have one?

https://healthpolicy-watch.news/one-in-five-people-could-be-more-vulnerable-to-severe-covid-19-because-of-underlying-conditions-but-only-4-at-high-risk-concludes-lancet-study/