- Re: yes. Archived Message
Posted by dereklane
on May 17, 2020, 8:35 am, in reply to "yes."
|
We could follow the example of many other countries and have much lower mortality. Without testing, tracing and isolation (not lockdown) government policy is still a cull. This policy will require longer lockdown. I agree with that except with policy the lockdown will be indefinite to the rules they set. Which makes it a social control measure not a way to limit spread. It's actually probably the best policy as it stands to keep the virus alive. It's got more time for mutations with a steady but not overwhelming stream of hosts. At this stage it looks like (as I keep saying) with no effective triage testing and help for the symptomatic a way to kill a bunch of vulnerable people (covid or not ) off and keep the rest in check with measures they've been hoping to implement for years and now have the appropriate excuse. When it comes to the old and the ill and in particular in care homes, if they don't get help when they need it (and apparently they are not) there's a good chance they'll die prematurely. I'd even go so far as to say that part of the lockdown plan had to ensure the nhs was broken but not destroyed;,otherwise it's harder to sell on. Thinking all this doesn't mean I don't think covid is a thing (and I feel a bit dirty for having to point that out..), but trying to make sense of the few pieces of statistical evidence in a more rigorous way tends to get you shot down. There are lots of reasons why numbers of excess death might spike and then drop after lockdown, but without getting to the bottom of things like rate of infection and mortality from that and how it compares via ratio equivalents with other killer diseases might give us a better idea for focus on excess deaths not related to covid (which might lead us to other issues). I've suggested a theory which I don't think is that contentious, but it makes me an idiot to suggest it it seems . A year ago if I'd said you can't take health care away from the most vulnerable and it would be murderous to do so, probably everyone on this board would have agreed. But that is what is happening in the guise of dealing with covid. And yes many probably are dying specifically from the virus but that doesn't negate the point. If care is available only at the end it becomes hugely likely the person will die no matter what doctors do. Back to the lockdown, the fact we can work but not see our friends is telling. My friends would say ' I'm ill', so I can't come to see you. Most people bosses would not have the same understanding. So, are we dealing with lockdown for the control of the virus or control of the people? And we can't protest the arse about face lockdown measures because we can't gather and like with the last election, folk are so polarised they'll get into an argument about things if you use the wrong adverb in a sentence . |