Is Coronavirus as serious as they say?

Quite a scathing wee article - the lockdown sceptics have been relying on two experts who have been proved wrong & don't appear to understand the arguments they've been making.


This is pretty shameful of them:

But there are consequences. On the day I heard from Young, I also got an email from a hospital doctor: “Not just me but every doctor I work with in acute care has treated people sick or even dying with Covid-19 who point-blank refused to believe it was real or that they had it, because of what they read or heard on social media or from certain commentators.” And there are no jokes to be made about that.
 
Quite a scathing wee article - the lockdown sceptics have been relying on two experts who have been proved wrong & don't appear to understand the arguments they've been making.


This is pretty shameful of them:

But there are consequences. On the day I heard from Young, I also got an email from a hospital doctor: “Not just me but every doctor I work with in acute care has treated people sick or even dying with Covid-19 who point-blank refused to believe it was real or that they had it, because of what they read or heard on social media or from certain commentators.” And there are no jokes to be made about that.

a quarter of patients being hospitalised with Covid-19 are under 55, NHS England chief Simon Stevens tells
@AndrewMarr9
 
I would think that would be discriminatory and could be fought in court? Asking because I don’t know. I mean if it was mandatory by the government that would be one thing, but for a business to not hire you or not give you work doesn’t seem legal.

Anyway, or more importantly it doesn’t make sense why people care if others don’t want to be vaccinated. If they choose to be vaccinated then why would they need to fear those don’t choose to?
Yes, it could be fought in court I guess. But only after the event of a sacking. That itself presents problems (which employers know): the plaintiff would have to pay thousands and thousands whilst probably being without employment. And even if they won the case, they wouldn’t necessarily be awarded costs.

Even if you’re sure you’re in the right, civil court cases are risky projects. Realistically, it requires class action.
 
It's more of a blood disease than a respiratory one. The details are gruesome.


20210119_023858.jpg
 
It's more of a blood disease than a respiratory one. The details are gruesome.


View attachment 67673
So then they should just fast. Fasting thins the blood (you should see my bruises when I fast, also my menstrual cycle is thinner than water (although that's not technically blood I guess)). Problem solved.
 

Almost a third of recovered Covid patients return to hospital in five months and one in eight die​

 

UK records 1,610 further Covid deaths - new daily high​

"The UK has recorded 1,610 further coronavirus deaths. This is the largest daily figure for Covid deaths (defined as deaths within 28 days of testing positive) recorded so far on a single day."

Phew, I'm so glad that there wasn't a second wave of this pandemic which is, according to some on here, basically a cold and to which we all have herd immunity anyway.
 
Give it two years, and the wave of abject poverty that will be consuming the UK will make today’s problematic times seem like halcyon days—if you happen to care about such things as poverty (the bourgeoisie tend not to).

We are about to experience the worst depression for 300 years. There are worse things than dying as people will find out again. And most ailments are worse than Covid for most people.

The response to the pandemic is what’s being questioned, and endless updates of the death toll don’t illuminate the big picture.

NHS briefings to doctors, last March, suggested the total number of deaths without the lockdown would be 200-250,000. My guess is that by the time this is declared over, about 200,000 deaths will be associated with the virus in the UK. But social equality (of the meaningful kind) will have been put back decades.

Ahead lies years of malnourishment, slum housing, mental illness, declining wages, state-led thought oppression, and health care decline. Plus the risk of war(s) which goes hand in hand with all economic declines.

Even before the pandemic, UK life expectancy for the poorest was falling: a post-war first. I don’t remember the media giving a toss about those premature deaths.

In a few years, the real disease might then be recognised to be an unduly terrified population’s complicity with a government whose leader had conceded his adoration for Thatcher—including her description of an empowered working class people as ‘the enemy within’.

I will return to Ian Brown’s point: if the state cared so much about old people then why have so many been turned away from the NHS they’d helped create, in their moment of greatest need? That’s occurred variously because doctors said ‘patients’ had Covid, also as they’ve said they haven’t.

It’s a joke. The best so far.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Give it two years, and the wave of abject poverty that will be consuming the UK will make today’s problematic times seem like halcyon days—if you happen to care about such things as poverty (the bourgeoisie tend not to).

We are about to experience the worst depression for 300 years. There are worse things than dying as people will find out again. And most ailments are worse than Covid for most people.

The response to the pandemic is what’s being questioned, and endless updates of the death toll don’t illuminate the big picture.

NHS briefings to doctors, last March, suggested the total number of deaths without the lockdown would be 200-250,000. My guess is that by the time this is declared over, about 200,000 deaths will be associated with the virus in the UK. But social equality (of the meaningful kind) will have been put back decades.

Ahead lies years of malnourishment, slum housing, mental illness, declining wages, state-led thought oppression, and health care decline. Plus the risk of war(s) which goes hand in hand with all economic declines.

Even before the pandemic, UK life expectancy for the poorest was falling: a post-war first. I don’t remember the media giving a toss about those premature deaths.

In a few years, the real disease might then be recognised to be an unduly terrified population’s complicity with a government whose leader had conceded his adoration for Thatcher—including her description of an empowered working class people as ‘the enemy within’.

I will return to Ian Brown’s point: if the state cared so much about old people then why have so many been turned away from the NHS they’d helped create, in their moment of greatest need? That’s occurred variously because doctors said ‘patients’ had Covid, also as they’ve said they haven’t.

It’s a joke. The best so far.

We wouldn't have had a lockdown if business leaders thought the impact from the pandemic would be less than the impact of lockdown.

The worst thing for business is unpredictably.

Covid ripping through the population, changing their habits, putting pressure on resources, would be extremely unpredictable.

More people would have died & the economic impact would have been worse.

It looks as if the best strategy would have been locking down completely. Something the UK's laissez faire attitude doesn't take to easily so they fudged it.
 
I would think that would be discriminatory and could be fought in court? Asking because I don’t know. I mean if it was mandatory by the government that would be one thing, but for a business to not hire you or not give you work doesn’t seem legal.

Anyway, or more importantly it doesn’t make sense why people care if others don’t want to be vaccinated. If they choose to be vaccinated then why would they need to fear those don’t choose to?
There are categories where refusing to hire someone for certain reasons would be discrimination but those have to be established by law. Refusing to take a vaccine would not make you a member of a protected category although there are religious reasons to refuse vaccines and religion is a protected category, so it's probably something that will wind up in court.

The reason that choosing not to be vaccinated can affect others is because there are some people who can't be vaccinated because they are too young or too old. If everyone could choose to be vaccinated or not and those who chose not to would also agree that they are ineligible for medical care if they contract a disease that could be prevented, then a personal choice wouldn't affect anyone else.
If enough people choose not to be vaccinated then it practically guarantees that some of them will contract the virus and spread it, and some of them will come into contact with those who are vulnerable and can't receive the vaccination.
 
COVID-19 expected to leave 150 million more people in extreme poverty worldwide (yahoo.com)

it's not covid that's going to cause this extreme poverty though, is it? oh that scary covid, not only does it kill people but it causes great poverty! no!!! it's NOT covid, it's the measures we've been forced to take due to covid, forced to take not BY covid but by people in positions that allow them to remain ignorant and unconcerned about people like these 150 million people in the article, who've decided FOR the world where we need to be focussing our attention, and meanwhile these 150 million didnt even get a say in the matter.
 
Let's say the virus is as deadly as the deadliest estimates and that a complete lockdown and vaccination of all those eligible to be vaccinated were completed within one year. Let's ignore the economic repercussions and the other effects this would have on mental health and quality of life.
This is what we're being asked to do.
At first I agreed with this but now, having seen the numbers of cases and the numbers of deaths rising even during quarantines, I have changed my mind. I don't think anyone thought it was going to last over a year with no end in sight. And I think that the real practical issue that everyone has to consider is that you can't get true compliance on this. Lots of us have limited interactions with other people, stayed home, ordered food deliveries, shopped online, worn masks, and all the other things we're supposed to do but not enough have.
I think we have to stop arguing about it from a moral standpoint or even really worrying about hypothetical situations at all. Unfortunately it's been politicized and become the subject of conspiracy theories. Along with that we've heard too much of "those people were going to die anyway," and similar.
But really we have to put all that aside and just look at the facts. The quarantine plan requires compliance to work and for many reasons, good and bad, that compliance is not happening. So it gets to the point that maybe the best practical answer is not the most ideal. I think the best practical answer is becoming one where people who want the vaccine have it made available to them, where those in the highest risk categories are isolated, and where most of the rest of us begin going back to normal before more damage is done.
I think it's time to put a time limit on it. I'm still willing to listen to other viewpoints and I haven't switched sides but I just don't think quarantine works.
 

Memes are not accurate sources of information.



Any economy that relies on consumer spending isn't going to prosper if people are dying from an infectious disease.

And production can't prosper if workers are off sick.
 
anybody who thinks this isnt real needs their head examined.spend a day in a hospital or do a 12 hour nurses shift on a covid ward,i was a sceptic at the start but its just going on too long.
 
Back
Top Bottom