Coronavirus

[Taf]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Plenty of people still think that the lockdown was a bad idea.

Lockdown didn't really affect those whilst working in jobs in power generation and supply, water and drainage, many heavy industries, manufacture and distribution of food and other supplies, policing, hospitals, etc.

But it did affect their social and family lives, and that's why many of them got upset.

[Carth]

In case anyone is wondering . . I'm still pretty peed off that wife & daughter are still working from home while perfectly good council offices are sitting empty.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I have neither the time nor inclination.

---------- Post added at 13:24 ---------- Previous post was at 13:21 ----------



Plenty of people still think that the lockdown was a bad idea.

Indeed, but, it may possibly have saved some of them from hospitalization or worse...

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Indeed, but, it may possibly have saved some of them from hospitalization or worse...

It's all If's, buts and maybes.

There is no way to tell how many, if any, lives were saved by locking down. Or if it would ave been better to do things differently. Because we didn't do things differently so we'll never know. Also comparing ourselves to other countries is also pointless.

The one thing that you can say did kill a lot of people was the sending of infected people back from hospitals to care homes.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Pierre

It's all If's, buts and maybes.

There is no way to tell how many, if any, lives were saved by locking down. Or if it would ave been better to do things differently. Because we didn't do things differently so we'll never know. Also comparing ourselves to other countries is also pointless.

The one thing that you can say did kill a lot of people was the sending of infected people back from hospitals to care homes.

Another thing you can say is that there would of been significantly higher deaths had lockdown not been implemented as one of if not the primary reason was to stop the NHS crashing, from being overloaded and being unable to provide care.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Another thing you can say is that there would of been significantly higher deaths had lockdown not been implemented as one of if not the primary reason was to stop the NHS crashing, from being overloaded and being unable to provide care.

Lockdown may have prevented the NHS being overwhelmed by COVID patients, but they failed to treat people with other ailments and people that should have gone to hospital or their GP didn’t.

We also spent millions on Nightingale hospitals that were not used.

The NHS was demonstrably shown to be not fit for purpose.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Lockdown may have prevented the NHS being overwhelmed by COVID patients, but they failed to treat people with other ailments and people that should have gone to hospital or their GP didn’t.

We also spent millions on Nightingale hospitals that were not used.

The NHS was demonstrably shown to be not fit for purpose.

That's right. All this "well prepared assessment" for something they knew was coming after other scares was nothing short of delusional.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Lockdown may have prevented the NHS being overwhelmed by COVID patients, but they failed to treat people with other ailments and people that should have gone to hospital or their GP didn’t.

We also spent millions on Nightingale hospitals that were not used.

The NHS was demonstrably shown to be not fit for purpose.

Your point is moot

The NHS would have treated even less had it crashed due to an unmanageable influx of patients which would have been the result of not implementing lockdowns.

What does the Nightingale hospitals have to do with it? that was a ministerial decision which NHS leaders were expected to comply with?

In addition by your logic it highlights medical services globally are unfit for purpose, as the only countries who suffered minimal disruption were those that locked down hard and fast.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Your point is moot

The NHS would have treated even less had it crashed due to an unmanageable influx of patients which would have been the result of not implementing lockdowns.

What does the Nightingale hospitals have to do with it? that was a ministerial decision which NHS leaders were expected to comply with?

In addition by your logic it highlights medical services globally are unfit for purpose, as the only countries who suffered minimal disruption were those that locked down hard and fast.

I sometimes wonder as to which planet you are from.

The NHS would have treated even less had it crashed due to an unmanageable influx of patients which would have been the result of not implementing lockdowns

The Guvmin did implement lockdown. So your point is really moot.

What does the Nightingale hospitals have to do with it? that was a ministerial decision which NHS leaders were expected to comply with?

The Nightingale hospitals, as I'm sure you know, were instigated to cover the worst case of beds/ventilator shortage in the regular hospitals. I've no firm idea who would staff the Nightingales, though; the military? The Guvmin never said.

In addition by your logic it highlights medical services globally are unfit for purpose, as the only countries who suffered minimal disruption were those that locked down hard and fast.

There is nothing in Pierre's post that embraced the global situation. What you've said is nonsense. If you are criticising the time it took for lockdown to be instituted in the UK, which is a valid criticism, then perhaps you should frame it correctly.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

This is looking promising.

https://www.statnews.com/2021/10/01/...for-treatment/

Yes interesting one this, Merck that also produced Ivermectin that was reported to alleviate COVID hospitalization and deaths but has been rubbished left right and centre and ‘no evidence’. Etc etc. Merck’s patent on Ivermectin has ran out meaning it can be produced for about £5 a dose.

But now Merck have produced a new drug “Molnupiravur” which is totally effective against COVID and nothing like Ivermectin guvenor oh no, this is the proper stuff you want.

Price for you? I can do it for £750 a dose.

Good news for all those born yesterday.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Indeed, but, it may possibly have saved some of them from hospitalization or worse...

And made them more vulnerable to flu, by the sounds of it. Lockdowns and isolation measures have weakened our immune systems, which is why scientists are concerned about a flu epidemic this winter.

---------- Post added at 17:23 ---------- Previous post was at 17:21 ----------

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Another thing you can say is that there would of been significantly higher deaths had lockdown not been implemented as one of if not the primary reason was to stop the NHS crashing, from being overloaded and being unable to provide care.

If longer lockdowns have eroded our normal state of immunity, there could well be a lot more deaths as a result of that.

---------- Post added at 17:24 ---------- Previous post was at 17:23 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Lockdown may have prevented the NHS being overwhelmed by COVID patients, but they failed to treat people with other ailments and people that should have gone to hospital or their GP didn’t.

We also spent millions on Nightingale hospitals that were not used.

The NHS was demonstrably shown to be not fit for purpose.

That, too.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Yes interesting one this, Merck that also produced Ivermectin that was reported to alleviate COVID hospitalization and deaths but has been rubbished left right and centre and ‘no evidence’. Etc etc. Merck’s patent on Ivermectin has ran out meaning it can be produced for about £5 a dose.

But now Merck have produced a new drug “Molnupiravur” which is totally effective against COVID and nothing like Ivermectin guvenor oh no, this is the proper stuff you want.

Price for you? I can do it for £750 a dose.

Good news for all those born yesterday.

How do you know they’re the same drug? Even if it is then what’s stopping the NHS using the generic version?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I have neither the time nor inclination.

Ah yes, the classic I’ll make a statement easily disproved but stand by it. You should run for a political office!

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Damien

How do you know they’re the same drug? Even if it is then what’s stopping the NHS using the generic version?

I’m not saying that, but it does seem to be convenient.

There may be very well be nothing in it, a large pharmaceutical company will have many drugs at various states of development that can be tweaked to treat different things, but the critical and cynical part of me, just finds it convenient. That’s all.

---------- Post added at 18:48 ---------- Previous post was at 18:46 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Ah yes, the classic I’ll make a statement easily disproved but stand by it. You should run for a political office!

All I said was that Andrew must have a better memory than me?

Hardly a political stance?

[Taf]

A colleague had an early morning phone call from the Care Home his mother lives in. He was told that she had "passed quietly during the night whilst recovering after a covid infection".

Minutes later, his mother phoned him to ask him to bring some items at his next visit.

Same forename, different surname.

He blew his top at the Care Home boss.