Covid and Risk

[buttons]

- Go into a shop without a mask? No. Wearing a mask is a minor inconvenience at best.
- Go to a crowded pub or bar? No
- Go to a crowded club? No.
- Shake hands with a stranger? No
- Go to a concert? No
- Get on a plane and go abroad No


Like Tom, this ain't about me. I'm not worried about getting COVID or paranoid about it. I can live without going to a pub and going on holiday but I couldn't live knowing myself or my family members passed COVID to my disabled brother who would be at high risk. He does self isolate already but that's not really the point, he has children that go to school, a partner that goes to the shop, we're relying on everyone else to do the right thing and stay safe so they don't pass it on to him! Even if you're in your 90's you still have that duty to care for the youth, no?

[jamiexo]

I completely agree with those saying that we don't do these things for ourselves. I wear a mask all day at work which is 8 hours, and I do not mind it one bit. I have already gotten COVID, even though I was super careful, and I gave it to my parents since I live with them. Seeing what they went through those two weeks when they were having terrible symptoms made me feel so guilty. I felt crappy as well, but it wasn't as bad as what my dad and mom went through (especially since my dad is high risk). It's the decent thing to do. By people not doing the little things (like wearing a mask in public), it's causing this problem to only escalate and not get any better. We'll be stuck with all of these executive orders longer if we don't do our part and try to make a difference. It's the little things we do that can make a big difference. But then again, you can't FORCE anyone to do something they don't want to, but it will make a difference in the long run.

The whole issue of why we are in this situation in the first place is because everyone is being reactive rather than proactive. Everyone starts to wear masks when it's illegal not to, and when cases are spiked, but we need to do these things BEFORE things get worse.

So, to sum up my answer: No, I would not do any of the things listed above. Rant over LOOL.

[-:Undertaker:-]

1) That's not how viruses work
2) That's insanely selfish of you

No, what is selfish is locking up the population and losing millions of people their jobs and homes for a virus that kills 0.3% of (very old + sick) people.

Depriving very old and sick people at the natural end of their lives, often with advanced dementia in care homes, from family and friends is selfish.

that's a great option for people who can afford to do that, but that's not the case for most people..
My grandma is 72 and still working, she's not working because it's fun or out of boredom, but because she can't live off of the state pension, she's been shielding as much as she can but ultimately she can't afford to.

The same will apply for many vulnerable people, you're basically saying if you're vulnerable and don't have enough money in the bank to take a 12-18 month vacation, then you should be a lost cause because you're taking away my ability to go to the pub with my friends..

I don't quite understand the point. While your Grandmother may not be in a great position, how that does then lead you to the conclusion that because she is in a difficult position, that millions of other - and much more healthy people - should then lose their jobs and homes for no reason?

If you argued for more support for people who want to shield and who are more at risk, fine. But suspending the lives of everyone? Madness.

Please don't take offence to this, it's just my opinion, you have yours and I have mine...
I kind of think your grandparents are selfish, healthy people have put their lives on hold to protect the vulnerable. You then get the vulnerable taking risks whilst healthy people are sticking to the rules. Absolute madness if you ask me.

Can you tell me what you think the outcome of a 85 year old sitting inside for months with no social interaction/exercise would be?

Do you think their chances of reaching 90 would be significantly increased or decreased?

For most people covid will just be similar to a cold or mild flu, however for some people it is a death sentence. I don't want to be accountable for indirectly killing someone. It's almost genocide to let the virus rip through a country.

Tens of thousands of very elderly and sick people near the end of their lives die every year from flu. That's not genocide, but the natural conclusion to ones life.

The average age of the *very few* people who have died from Covid is 82.5, most of whom had existing co-morbidities. Aka they were at the end of their lives.

[FlyingJesus]

You're literally saying it's ok to kill off a few people if you want to go outside. If you don't understand virology that's fine, but don't pretend that you do, especially when you even manage to get mixed up between 3% and 0.3% when you mention the death rate

[Triz]

I don't quite understand the point. While your Grandmother may not be in a great position, how that does then lead you to the conclusion that because she is in a difficult position, that millions of other - and much more healthy people - should then lose their jobs and homes for no reason?

If you argued for more support for people who want to shield and who are more at risk, fine. But suspending the lives of everyone? Madness.

I was referring to what you said earlier with my reply

Those at risk/who feel at risk are free to shield themselves.

It's just not right to say to everyone to go about their day like nothing is wrong and let it be survival of the fittest. We as people have a moral obligation to protect as many lives as possible, and simply writing off the weak and vulnerable anytime a new disease rolls around is not the way to go. It's inhumane and unspeakable...

There are talks about what's known as "herd immunity" which is basically the act of exactly what you're saying, whereby letting the virus roam free around the globe and eventually there will be enough immune and healthy people that the virus stops spreading, however it's been confirmed that 50% of the worlds population would need to be immune for this to have any effect, not to mention to get to that stage would cost the lives of millions of people.. The only other way to achieve this figure would be through vaccinations, which is what we're working towards... besides Sweden tried this approach and it backfired, nearly half of all Sweden's covid related deaths occurred in care homes, so shielding the vulnerable clearly doesn't work...

In the US alone around 11 million people have confirmed cases, and look at the stress and chaos that it's caused hospitals, doctors, nurses etc... which in turn effects other non-related covid treatments... Imagine if we let the virus run free and didn't have a lockdown etc.. it would cripple any country, even healthy people that got it would probably still need to temporarily visit the hospital for some kind of treatment. Not to mention it would cripple any economy due to the amount of people off work due to sickness, the idea and best way to prevent both death rates and not screw over the economy is to slow down the virus as much as possible, and in turn of doing that, to save as many lives as possible, be that young or old, healthy of vulnerable.

Isn't your same argument like saying that we should be able to choose whether we pay less/no tax, as maybe you've never used the NHS, or you don't drive therefore don't need street lighting, or road signs, or pot holes fixed etc... I think the point is that we as a country and as the human race need to do what's right, and if that means I chip in an extra few quid every week to fund things like the NHS, that I may not use, then I'll be (and am) happy to do so.. I can apply the same logic to covid.. If I need to go into lockdown to prevent the spread of the virus which will save millions of lives if we all do it, then I'm happy to do so. yes it might cripple me financially, I could go into debt, but the government is setting up schemes to try and prevent this, obviously not everyone will benefit from these schemes, but the majority will, but I'd rather struggle financially than to go about my business knowing full well I could be killing hundreds of people, along with family members and friends.

I'd be scared as shit if there was another outbreak of something in like 30 years when I'm almost 60 and accepting the fact that I'm going to die from this because the government will just ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist, thus killing anyone without the antibodies to fight it off.

[dbgtz]

the problem with your argument sectional is undertaker would agree with not paying anything to a collective pot run and would happily see things like the nhs die off, street lights turned off, roads privatised etc. and hes basically "pro life" to anything not born then he couldnt give a ****. youre arguing against someone who can't do maths, quotes incorrect figures, and basically says lies with things like "Can you tell me what you think the outcome of a 85 year old sitting inside for months with no social interaction/exercise would be?" (exercise has been encouraged since march and even in the current "lockdown" you can still see people) and "losing millions of people their jobs and homes" (mortgage holidays are still in place and people cannot be evicted as it stands, so nobody should be losing their home). he also likes to say things like "At home, only around 30% of people in Liverpool were wearing a mask in shops." and "the mask policy is waste of time" and "Masks do not stop the spread of this virus" - all baseless claims and you can guess which place had one of the highest rates

its not worth your time

[DJ-Ains.T]

Can you tell me what you think the outcome of a 85 year old sitting inside for months with no social interaction/exercise would be?

Do you think their chances of reaching 90 would be significantly increased or decreased?



Tens of thousands of very elderly and sick people near the end of their lives die every year from flu. That's not genocide, but the natural conclusion to ones life.

The average age of the *very few* people who have died from Covid is 82.5, most of whom had existing co-morbidities. Aka they were at the end of their lives.

I'd like to think that for an 85 year old person, they'd consider staying inside for what was 4 months, and then again for another 3 months until we have a vaccine. And it's not just them locked up, it's everyone else. Heck people who have been locked up will have gone out and died as well who otherwise would have been fit and healthy. You don't know what's going to happen - you could literally be struck down by a car and killed. I have elderly relatives who have all stayed indoors when asked. When the cases decreased during the summer they ventured out a little bit to restaurants but they don't go out now except for shopping and then they go at the quiet times.

Plenty of ways for an older person to keep there brain active whilst staying indoors and then they are allowed out to exercise as much as they want, so long as they do it with people they live with. It's not exactly a prison sentence.

My step father has COPD, his lungs have 30% capacity left. He is clearly at the end of his life. He isn't venturing out because he knows if he catches it he will die. He's hoping next year will be a good one... I also have an uncle who has terminal cancer. He is also staying indoors. Again, he's hoping next year will be better. The vaccine hopefully allows them to take more risks and enjoy life.

Whilst tens of thousands of people die each year from the flu, we at least have a vaccine to minimize the deaths as much as we can. We don't have that with covid. Hence why if we was to let it rip it would have disastrous consequences.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You're literally saying it's ok to kill off a few people if you want to go outside. If you don't understand virology that's fine, but don't pretend that you do, especially when you even manage to get mixed up between 3% and 0.3% when you mention the death rate

I don't think you read what I said. Have you even read the statistics? Those dying are over the life expectancy and already have existing co-morbidities such as dementia and immuno-deficiency problems... meaning they were at the end of their natural lifespan regardless of whether it was Covid-19 or the common flu that took them. Prior to the Coronavirus outbreak, did you wear a mask and hide away during the winter months to protect the very old and frail from the flu, which on average kills tens of thousands of people each year in this country? Well, did you? You did not, yet I would not accuse you of having some genocidal agenda against those who were at severe risk from the flu.

I was referring to what you said earlier with my reply

It's just not right to say to everyone to go about their day like nothing is wrong and let it be survival of the fittest. We as people have a moral obligation to protect as many lives as possible, and simply writing off the weak and vulnerable anytime a new disease rolls around is not the way to go. It's inhumane and unspeakable...

That all sounds very nice, but I am afraid shutting down society to give a 89 year old with existing co-morbidities such as dementia, cardiovascular history and a weak immune system *a few extra months at most* isn't noble, but foolish. An 89 year old with these conditions is already an impressive 9 years over the average life expectancy and in such poor health that death is highly likely in the short term. You cannot stop the inevitable.

And I use an 89 year old with these conditions as an example because that was my Grandad who passed away back in February from pnuemonia that most healthy people would've been able to fight off quite easily, especially with the anti-biotics he was pumped full of to aid his collapsing (and old) immune system. I also have a friend whose 89-year old Grandmother also had numerous ailments and was in declining health, who "died" from Covid-19 but who would have died within a short period regardless given the state of her health. Covid-19 was simply the opportunistic disease/infection that took her, which is what happens to many people at the end of their lives be it Covid, the common flu, pnuemonia, sepsis or some other opportunistic infection that attacks people with a collapsing immune system.

There are talks about what's known as "herd immunity" which is basically the act of exactly what you're saying, whereby letting the virus roam free around the globe and eventually there will be enough immune and healthy people that the virus stops spreading, however it's been confirmed that 50% of the worlds population would need to be immune for this to have any effect, not to mention to get to that stage would cost the lives of millions of people.. The only other way to achieve this figure would be through vaccinations, which is what we're working towards... besides Sweden tried this approach and it backfired, nearly half of all Sweden's covid related deaths occurred in care homes, so shielding the vulnerable clearly doesn't work...

The common flu kills an estimated 290,000 to 650,000 each year around the world.

I have to admit, initially I supported locking down care homes... but on reflection, even that is an absurd and inhumane policy. I was always told, given my Grandfather spent his last two years in a care home, that the average length of stay in a care home was around the 2 year mark as obviously a person who ends up in a care home is unable to look after themselves any longer due to physical or mental impairments (or both, as in our case).

Given most people in care homes are at the end of their lives, how can you justify preventing them from seeing their families and loved ones in their final months in the vain hope of a vaccine that may only come in a year or two, and which - given their state of health - is absolutely no use to them?

In the US alone around 11 million people have confirmed cases, and look at the stress and chaos that it's caused hospitals, doctors, nurses etc... which in turn effects other non-related covid treatments... Imagine if we let the virus run free and didn't have a lockdown etc.. it would cripple any country, even healthy people that got it would probably still need to temporarily visit the hospital for some kind of treatment. Not to mention it would cripple any economy due to the amount of people off work due to sickness, the idea and best way to prevent both death rates and not screw over the economy is to slow down the virus as much as possible, and in turn of doing that, to save as many lives as possible, be that young or old, healthy of vulnerable.

You admit here that you are only slowing the virus down by imposing lockdowns... so de facto are admitting that all of these measures actually do not prevent any deaths at all, all you are merely doing is spreading the deaths over a longer period of time. You're saving no lives at all by these measures - although you are driving up the amount of needless suicides, the increase in terminal cancers given it is now impossible to get a GP appointment, the cancellation of life-saving operations and the huge increase in poverty - and thus decline in quality of life for huge swathes of the population - that will follow when millions lose their jobs once Mr Sunak's magic money tree withers and dies.

The hospitals are empty and many staff report standing around twiddling their thumbs since March.

Isn't your same argument like saying that we should be able to choose whether we pay less/no tax, as maybe you've never used the NHS, or you don't drive therefore don't need street lighting, or road signs, or pot holes fixed etc... I think the point is that we as a country and as the human race need to do what's right, and if that means I chip in an extra few quid every week to fund things like the NHS, that I may not use, then I'll be (and am) happy to do so.. I can apply the same logic to covid.. If I need to go into lockdown to prevent the spread of the virus which will save millions of lives if we all do it, then I'm happy to do so. yes it might cripple me financially, I could go into debt, but the government is setting up schemes to try and prevent this, obviously not everyone will benefit from these schemes, but the majority will, but I'd rather struggle financially than to go about my business knowing full well I could be killing hundreds of people, along with family members and friends.

I've never said I am against taxation, just that money should be spent sensibly.

I do have a question though, when the economy is "crippled financially" where do you think the money for the NHS is going to come from?

I'd be scared as shit if there was another outbreak of something in like 30 years when I'm almost 60 and accepting the fact that I'm going to die from this because the government will just ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist, thus killing anyone without the antibodies to fight it off.

I really do think you need a sense of proportion with this.

The government's own statistics claim that the risk of dying of Covid-19 between the ages of 65-69 are 108.8/100,000 which equates to a 0.1088% mortality rate. Even this figure must be taken with a pinch of salt given the number of deaths that have been put down to Covid-19 but were actually due to other morbidities such as heart disease, dementia, vascular illnesses, cancers and so on meaning the figure is likely inflated.

For comparison, the chance of you being in a car crash over your lifetime in Britain is at 1/240 meaning a risk of 0.416%.

the problem with your argument sectional is undertaker would agree with not paying anything to a collective pot run and would happily see things like the nhs die off, street lights turned off, roads privatised etc. and hes basically "pro life" to anything not born then he couldnt give a ****. youre arguing against someone who can't do maths, quotes incorrect figures, and basically says lies with things like "Can you tell me what you think the outcome of a 85 year old sitting inside for months with no social interaction/exercise would be?" (exercise has been encouraged since march and even in the current "lockdown" you can still see people) and "losing millions of people their jobs and homes" (mortgage holidays are still in place and people cannot be evicted as it stands, so nobody should be losing their home). he also likes to say things like "At home, only around 30% of people in Liverpool were wearing a mask in shops." and "the mask policy is waste of time" and "Masks do not stop the spread of this virus" - all baseless claims and you can guess which place had one of the highest rates

its not worth your time

It's a relief for people who've lost their businesses and jobs with mortgages to know that they'll lose their house a at a later date than now.

I'd like to think that for an 85 year old person, they'd consider staying inside for what was 4 months, and then again for another 3 months until we have a vaccine. And it's not just them locked up, it's everyone else. Heck people who have been locked up will have gone out and died as well who otherwise would have been fit and healthy. You don't know what's going to happen - you could literally be struck down by a car and killed. I have elderly relatives who have all stayed indoors when asked. When the cases decreased during the summer they ventured out a little bit to restaurants but they don't go out now except for shopping and then they go at the quiet times.

If you are 85 and stand a reasonable chance of reaching 89, then each year of your life is 25% of your life.

If I asked you to stay indoors for 25% of your probable remaining lifespan to shelter from a virus most do not even know they have, would you?

Plenty of ways for an older person to keep there brain active whilst staying indoors and then they are allowed out to exercise as much as they want, so long as they do it with people they live with. It's not exactly a prison sentence.

It really isn't. The reality is that once deprived of routine, a lot of older people will sit in front of the television.

The mental effect of being deprived of contact itself makes exercise unlikely. I know this to be the case myself and I am 28.

My step father has COPD, his lungs have 30% capacity left. He is clearly at the end of his life. He isn't venturing out because he knows if he catches it he will die. He's hoping next year will be a good one... I also have an uncle who has terminal cancer. He is also staying indoors. Again, he's hoping next year will be better. The vaccine hopefully allows them to take more risks and enjoy life.

Then that is entirely and rightly their decision to make. My grandparents have made a different decision based on their priorities and health status, and one that is not without risk. However, as Lord Sumption has said, a life without risk is not a life worth living for many people. We must all make decisions for our own circumstances and health in a free country, and not Kim Jong Hancock.

Whilst tens of thousands of people die each year from the flu, we at least have a vaccine to minimize the deaths as much as we can. We don't have that with covid. Hence why if we was to let it rip it would have disastrous consequences.

Indeed, but we do not lock down society to prevent tens of thousands of flu deaths. Why?

[-:Undertaker:-]

especially when you even manage to get mixed up between 3% and 0.3% when you mention the death rate

Where have you come up with this? Even going by the government's own questionable statistics brings an even lower level than 0.3%.

1,339,000 confirmed cases in Britain with 52,000 deaths mean a mortality rate of 0.003%. Which in reality is even less given there's loads of cases out there which are asymtomatic and they're slapping "Covid-19" on death certificates of people who haven't even died from the virus.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Scratch that last, got my figures wrong on Google.

Either way it is clear that actual spread is much more endemic which is why the widely touted 3% is obviously wrong.