UK Covid death toll

[Brentbaggie]

Still no answer. Didn't think so. How very conservative and Cummings of you. Avoid the future cost at your own present gain. You need to take a hard look in the mirror.

I've never said it's not more deadly, it is. Can't possibly say whether it's 1.5, 2 or 3 until it's passed that's purely scaremongering. The point you so clearly want to avoid is the answer to my question.

Is 50000 , 100000 or more excess deaths over the next 10 years a price worth paying to save those now?

Those numbers are quotes from the ONS. You can say at this point that the virus is killing three times as many people as flu and pneumonia. Why do you persist with the idea that I’m exaggerating or facilitating the sensationalisation of the threat? The only numbers I’ve used are from the ONS or local Public Health teams who are not the Press or in need of grabbing headlines. 

With regards to your question it’s not very clear what you’re asking or where and what will cause these excess deaths. If it is through a lack of Cancer diagnosis etc then I will answer the question. 

Let’s think about this logically if those patients who aren’t or can’t seek help do get the medical help...

That will place them in the same vulnerable bracket as those currently or recently more accurately placed on the shielding list. That means that allowing ‘everything to go back to normal’ will place those people you wish to be looked after more at risk or locked within their own homes until they recover or sadly pass away from the underlying illness. 

Add to them the increase in those who will need medical support due to the medium and long term effects of the virus. They are already planning Long Covid clinics. 

Those same people will find themselves suffering from metal health problems including depression, getting themselves into debt, families breaking up, exhaustion. All the things you’re say you’re concerned with will happen at the expense of the freedoms of the fittest. 

This should not be a choice between protecting one group of people over another. We are all connected in one way or another and the mark of a decent society is to try and support each other and compromise our own wishes for the good of others. We must find a middle way of managing the risk that does not mean leaving thousands of people under house arrest. At one point smoking was seen as a good idea in public places, restaurants and pubs etc it’s no longer socially acceptable. 

Normal is not static it changes and adapts to the circumstances that we find ourselves in. 

If you want to vent your frustrations at the situation fine but aim it towards the party that has been in power for over a decade overseeing an NHS that was pitifully under prepared for the pandemic, a Track and Trace system that is world beating in so much as it’s world beatingly poor, confusing messages etc and the behaviour of those who have done wtf they like during the whole pandemic.

Literally don't know where to start with this more holes than a collander and still never answers the question I asked. Just deflected again.

If you can't see what 7 months of lockdown and local lockdowns hasn't done but still want the same for the next 7 you're past helping.

Billy, I've tried to stay out of this debate because I think the situation is very complex and I'm no expert. I also understand the basis for both sides of the argument but I would return to what I said much earlier, which is that statistical data analysis is a somewhat inexact science. You seem to criticise Derek for not being able to supply an answer to your question of whether saving a certain number of lives in the here and now is worth the risk of "50-100,000 lives" further down the line. How do you arrive at your figure?  There is no certainty that such a number of lives will be lost - not least if a vaccine turns up within the next 6 or even 12 months.

The one real concern that you seem not to want to take onboard is what might happen if the virus is to be treated as a lesser evil and allowed a certain amount of give. I think it's clear that the greatest immediate concern is what happens inside hospitals if Covid patients with severe life-threatening symptoms are admitted as a result of a rising infection rate. Some argue that the NHS can cope, I've seen it stated that things were not as bad as they were painted earlier this year - but I am sure that whatever rationale is being used for the present actions (or inaction) at its heart is the desire to ensure that hospitals and NHS workers are not overwhelmed.

Maybe they wouldn't be, but the rate at which infections and hospital admissions are going, leads me to think it's not a risk worth taking because while, as Maynard Keynes said, "In the long run we're all dead", I'd rather have the chance of a long run rather than a short one. I think the idea is to keep deaths as low as possible and hope that the vaccine trials mean the long-term damage remains a lesser evil.