So, coronavirus...

[JM2K6]

That was why i did say lesser extent. These professors and they are not alone, they may well not be the majority viewpoint but they are most certainly mainstream in their viewpoint should not be dismissed out of hand and there have been plenty of instances within history that the majority have been wrong and badly so. To think that "your side" is not being disingenuous, motivated by money or financial greed, or are overly influenced by their political leanings is naive in the extreme.

I know you are now just saying Sridhar was only the messanger but she is about the worst possible example of someone influenced by their political leanings in this sphere, I did see metnion on twitter that her german translation was poor and some of taken out of context but my German is near non-existent outside of orer a beer and saying thank you so i dont know the validity of that and she certainly never responded to the ones calling her out on it.

Google translate works really well for German. You can see for yourself what they say.

There's about 450 replies to her tweets on this article. She hasn't replied to any of them (and judging by the state of her feed, this is her default and who can blame her?). I didn't see any criticism of her translation but tbh I only looked at a few hundred then asked myself what the fuck I was doing and stopped.

On your other point, the moment the chancers come up with some peer reviewed science that backs their viewpoint, I'll start taking them seriously. Until then, all I've got to go on is incredibly dubious work and their stupid predictions that almost immediately blew up in their faces.

As good as google translate is, it won’t pick up the nuance of language which was the point that was made to Sridhar.

Hmm, I agree but if you actually bother to look at it, it's not a complicated article and there's very little scope for nuance. We're discussing the broad outline of the article.

So when the likes of Ferguson gets things wrong it’s ok, we can write that off and carry on with a failed strategy. Hey restrictions and lockdowns aren’t working, what’s the answer? More restrictions and lockdowns. Do you have even the slightest worry that this might just be mental?

What's your version of a working strategy? Execution of a strategy is our problem: the strategy of lockdown and restrictions has worked with varying success all over the world. Hell, it worked here for a bit - the problem was we fucked up both the timing and the messaging, and a hapless single-issue protest government is completely out of their depth.

[C69]

If hospitals in the SE and London were in our situation on the NW there would be a massive uproar.
It's a shitstorm on Merseyside.

[Sandstorm]

If hospitals in the SE and London were in our situation on the NW there would be a massive uproar.
It's a shitstorm on Merseyside.

Sorry mate, you lot Oop North made your own COVID bed by not socially isolating properly. Sleep in it.

[Northern Lights]

Are you seriously suggesting that the Lockdown didn't work ?????

As a long term strategy on dealing with this virus it is not remotely tenable to maintain a lockdown, if you are only judging success as getting the virus case numbers down yes of course it was a success but that should not be the only metric you are measuring success against.

The current strategy is not working, feel free to disagree.

The 'Lockdown' clearly worked in reducing the cases to a very low level. Equally clearly, lfting most of the restictions has lead to a rapid rise in cases and the current changes do not appear to have reversed the trend. But there's still quite a lot of restrictions that can be put in place between what we have now, and what we had a couple of months back. The longer it is left, the tougher the restrictions will have to be - as we found out previously - unfortunately, our Government have been slow to act - but, in their defence, there is a element of trial and error in trying to get the balance correct.

Like i said if you only judge success on covid numbers it was a success, as a strategy for living with the virus and dealing with wider issues its a bloody disaster. The missed cancer screenings, the mass unemployment, the mental health impact that is I would argue getting far worse now is at the point where the cure is far worse than the disease.

[Sandstorm]

Dunno why everyone is bitching about “missed cancer screenings”. The NHS missed cancer in thousands of patients last year too. And the year before that.....

[Bimbowomxn]

[JM2K6]

As a long term strategy on dealing with this virus it is not remotely tenable to maintain a lockdown, if you are only judging success as getting the virus case numbers down yes of course it was a success but that should not be the only metric you are measuring success against.

The current strategy is not working, feel free to disagree.

The 'Lockdown' clearly worked in reducing the cases to a very low level. Equally clearly, lfting most of the restictions has lead to a rapid rise in cases and the current changes do not appear to have reversed the trend. But there's still quite a lot of restrictions that can be put in place between what we have now, and what we had a couple of months back. The longer it is left, the tougher the restrictions will have to be - as we found out previously - unfortunately, our Government have been slow to act - but, in their defence, there is a element of trial and error in trying to get the balance correct.

Like i said if you only judge success on covid numbers it was a success, as a strategy for living with the virus and dealing with wider issues its a bloody disaster. The missed cancer screenings, the mass unemployment, the mental health impact that is I would argue getting far worse now is at the point where the cure is far worse than the disease.

This is definitely an argument worth hearing. It just needs quantifying, right? There's no perfect solution; we need to judge this with some actual data.

[Northern Lights]

Google translate works really well for German. You can see for yourself what they say.

There's about 450 replies to her tweets on this article. She hasn't replied to any of them (and judging by the state of her feed, this is her default and who can blame her?). I didn't see any criticism of her translation but tbh I only looked at a few hundred then asked myself what the fuck I was doing and stopped.

On your other point, the moment the chancers come up with some peer reviewed science that backs their viewpoint, I'll start taking them seriously. Until then, all I've got to go on is incredibly dubious work and their stupid predictions that almost immediately blew up in their faces.

As good as google translate is, it won’t pick up the nuance of language which was the point that was made to Sridhar.

Hmm, I agree but if you actually bother to look at it, it's not a complicated article and there's very little scope for nuance. We're discussing the broad outline of the article.

So when the likes of Ferguson gets things wrong it’s ok, we can write that off and carry on with a failed strategy. Hey restrictions and lockdowns aren’t working, what’s the answer? More restrictions and lockdowns. Do you have even the slightest worry that this might just be mental?

What's your version of a working strategy? Execution of a strategy is our problem: the strategy of lockdown and restrictions has worked with varying success all over the world. Hell, it worked here for a bit - the problem was we fucked up both the timing and the messaging, and a hapless single-issue protest government is completely out of their depth.

It might not be a complicated article but i will reiterate again that the point made to Sridhar was she didnt pick up the nuance of what was being said by the Germans, we can keep going in circles on this but i dont think that it is particularily productive on either of us.

On your second point, we have a devolved administration in Scotland, oh hang on was it them you were talking about...

[JM2K6]

"Didn't pick up on the nuance" is a cop out I'm afraid. It's a simple article.

What's the missing nuance?

[Bimbowomxn]

Much of the NW has been under much tighter lockdowns than rest of the country for weeks if not months.


Do lockdowns automatically work?

[Northern Lights]

The 'Lockdown' clearly worked in reducing the cases to a very low level. Equally clearly, lfting most of the restictions has lead to a rapid rise in cases and the current changes do not appear to have reversed the trend. But there's still quite a lot of restrictions that can be put in place between what we have now, and what we had a couple of months back. The longer it is left, the tougher the restrictions will have to be - as we found out previously - unfortunately, our Government have been slow to act - but, in their defence, there is a element of trial and error in trying to get the balance correct.

Like i said if you only judge success on covid numbers it was a success, as a strategy for living with the virus and dealing with wider issues its a bloody disaster. The missed cancer screenings, the mass unemployment, the mental health impact that is I would argue getting far worse now is at the point where the cure is far worse than the disease.

This is definitely an argument worth hearing. It just needs quantifying, right? There's no perfect solution; we need to judge this with some actual data.

Yes provided there is good data and secondly some of the stuff will have a degree of subjectivity that is not so easily quantifiable

[JM2K6]

Like i said if you only judge success on covid numbers it was a success, as a strategy for living with the virus and dealing with wider issues its a bloody disaster. The missed cancer screenings, the mass unemployment, the mental health impact that is I would argue getting far worse now is at the point where the cure is far worse than the disease.

This is definitely an argument worth hearing. It just needs quantifying, right? There's no perfect solution; we need to judge this with some actual data.

Yes provided there is good data and secondly some of the stuff will have a degree of subjectivity that is not so easily quantifiable

Sure. And in some cases it's not going to be an either / or; we can make some guesses at the financial impact of not locking down wrt the social and health effects of covid, or the mental health impact of a increased death toll, etc. But I kinda figured you were already working off some numbers.

[Bimbowomxn]

The conversation about another way is kind of valuable, except for what we know about sunk cost fallacy.....


There’s no way they can let go of lockdowns now having had one for some long. They know the media will kill them for every death.

[Enzedder]

Dunno why everyone is bitching about “missed cancer screenings”. The NHS missed cancer in thousands of patients last year too. And the year before that.....

That's the political argument the world over.

[Clogs]

Hunger could kill millions more than Covid-19, warns Oxfam

Starvation looms from Afghanistan to Haiti as coronavirus restrictions wipe out incomes and cut food supplies


Kaamil Ahmed

Thu 9 Jul 2020 19.43 AEST


Millions of people are being pushed towards hunger by the coronavirus pandemic, which could end up killing more people through lack of food than from the illness itself, Oxfam has warned.

Closed borders, curfews and travel restrictions have disrupted food supplies and incomes in already fragile countries, forcing an extra million people closer to famine in Afghanistan and heightening the humanitarian disaster in Yemen, where two-thirds already live in hunger.

One million more people are facing famine in Afghanistan as a result of coronavirus, according to a report from the charity. The number of people on the brink of famine in the country rose sharply from 2.5 million last September to 3.5 million in May, the result of border closures and the economic downturn in neighbouring Iran that caused a drop in home remittances by overseas workers.


Coronavirus could turn back the clock 30 years on global poverty

Oxfam said that up to 12,000 people could die from hunger every day globally – 2,000 more than died from Covid-19 each day in April.

Along with Afghanistan, the charity identified Yemen, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Venezuela, the west African Sahel, Ethiopia, Sudan, South Sudan, Syria, and Haiti as extreme hunger hotspots.

“The knock-on impacts of Covid-19 are far more widespread than the virus itself, pushing millions of the world’s poorest people deeper into hunger and poverty. It is vital governments contain the spread of this deadly disease, but they must also prevent it killing as many – if not more – people from hunger,” said the chief executive of Oxfam GB, Danny Sriskandarajah.

“For many people, Covid-19 comes as a crisis on top of a crisis. To break the cycle of hunger, governments must build fairer and more sustainable food systems that ensure small-scale producers and workers earn a living wage.”

Oxfam said countries with existing problems, such as South Sudan and Syria, were already seeing hunger worsen but there was also concern for middle-income countries such as India and Brazil.

Mass unemployment was affecting all countries, but informal labourers were suffering the most, often unable to travel to work.

Travel restrictions were also hitting food supplies by preventing farmers from hiring workers and small-scale producers from accessing their own fields.

The report said the virus was heightening the humanitarian disaster in Yemen, where two-thirds of people already have inadequate food.

Remittances from Yemeni workers abroad had dropped by 80% – $253m (£200m) – in the first four months of 2020 as a result of job losses across the Gulf region. The closure of supply routes has led to food shortages and food price hikes in the country, which imports 90% of its food.

Salem Jaffer Baobaid, Yemeni spokesman for Islamic Relief, said the war in Yemen had destroyed the country’s economy, forcing many into day labour rather than secure jobs.

“This pandemic has obliged people to stay at home. This has made life very difficult for people who are meeting their needs on a daily basis,” he said. “The pandemic has affected even the basic life cycle and the suffering of the people has increased.”

Islamic Relief warned that even though food and fuel prices had spiked in recent weeks, the international community had failed to meet funding goals for Yemen. Baobaid said the result was more families having to beg on the streets.

“The global humanitarian community need to pay attention to the situation in Yemen. It’s not long before we can slide into a catastrophic humanitarian situation,” he said.

The UN World Food Programme, which estimates that the number of people facing severe hunger will increase by about 122 million this year as a result of the pandemic, cut food deliveries by almost half in northern Yemen. Oxfam said humanitarian assistance around the world had been curtailed by restrictions on movement and other precautions to prevent the virus spreading.

The Oxfam report said only 9% of funding for tackling food security had been met under then UN’s global fund against Covid-19.


Oxfam has called for more money to fight hunger caused by the pandemic, and pushed for the cancellation of debt owed by poor countries when G20 finance ministers meet next week.

Oxfam also highlighted a crisis in Africa’s Sahel region, where at least 4 million people have been displaced by extreme climate conditions that were damaging crops, causing greater tension between communities sharing resources.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-deve ... arns-oxfam

[Clogs]

COVID-19 to Add as Many as 150 Million Extreme Poor by 2021
Eight out of 10 ‘new poor’ will be in middle-income countries

WASHINGTON, Oct. 7, 2020 — Global extreme poverty is expected to rise in 2020 for the first time in over 20 years as the disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic compounds the forces of conflict and climate change, which were already slowing poverty reduction progress, the World Bank said today.

The COVID-19 pandemic is estimated to push an additional 88 million to 115 million people into extreme poverty this year, with the total rising to as many as 150 million by 2021, depending on the severity of the economic contraction. Extreme poverty, defined as living on less than $1.90 a day, is likely to affect between 9.1% and 9.4% of the world’s population in 2020, according to the biennial Poverty and Shared Prosperity Report. This would represent a regression to the rate of 9.2% in 2017. Had the pandemic not convulsed the globe, the poverty rate was expected to drop to 7.9% in 2020.

“The pandemic and global recession may cause over 1.4% of the world’s population to fall into extreme poverty,” said World Bank Group President David Malpass. “In order to reverse this serious setback to development progress and poverty reduction, countries will need to prepare for a different economy post-COVID, by allowing capital, labor, skills, and innovation to move into new businesses and sectors. World Bank Group support—across IBRD, IDA, IFC and MIGA—will help developing countries resume growth and respond to the health, social, and economic impacts of COVID-19 as they work toward a sustainable and inclusive recovery.”

The report also finds that many of the new poor will be in countries that already have high poverty rates. A number of middle-income countries will see significant numbers of people slip below the extreme poverty line. About 82% of the total will be in middle-income countries, the report estimates.

The convergence of the COVID-19 pandemic with the pressures of conflict and climate change will put the goal of ending poverty by 2030 beyond reach without swift, significant and substantial policy action, the World Bank said. By 2030, the global poverty rate could be about 7%.

Increasing numbers of urban dwellers are expected to fall into extreme poverty, which has traditionally affected people in rural areas.

Progress was slowing even before the COVID-19 crisis. New global poverty data for 2017 show that 52 million people rose out of poverty between 2015 and 2017. Yet despite this progress, the rate of reduction slowed to less than half a percentage point per year between 2015 and 2017. Global poverty had dropped at the rate of around 1 percentage point per year between 1990 and 2015.

In addition to the $1.90-per-day international poverty line, the World Bank measures poverty lines of $3.20 and $5.50, reflecting national poverty lines in lower-middle-income and upper-middle-income countries. The report further measures poverty across a multidimensional spectrum that includes access to education and basic infrastructure.

While less than a tenth of the world’s population lives on less than $1.90 a day, close to a quarter of the world’s population lives below the $3.20 line and more than 40% of the world’s population – almost 3.3 billion people – live below the $5.50 line.

The COVID-19 crisis has also diminished shared prosperity – defined as the growth in the income of the poorest 40 percent of a country’s population. Average global shared prosperity is estimated to stagnate or even contract over 2019-2021 due to the reduced growth in average incomes. The deceleration in economic activity intensified by the pandemic is likely to hit the poorest people especially hard, and this could lead to even lower shared prosperity indicators in coming years.

The prospect of less inclusive growth is a clear reversal from previous trends. Shared prosperity increased in 74 of 91 economies for which data was available in the period 2012-2017, meaning that growth was inclusive and the incomes of the poorest 40 percent of the population grew. In 53 of those countries, growth benefited the poorest more than the entire population. Average global shared prosperity (growth in the incomes of the bottom 40 percent) was 2.3 percent for 2012-2017. This suggests that without policy actions, the COVID-19 crisis may trigger cycles of higher income inequality, lower social mobility among the vulnerable, and lower resilience to future shocks.

The report calls for collective action to ensure years of progress in poverty reduction are not erased, and that efforts to confront poverty caused by COVID-19 also face threats that disproportionally impact the world’s poor at the same time, particularly conflict and climate change.

The World Bank Group, one of the largest sources of funding and knowledge for developing countries, is taking broad, fast action to help developing countries strengthen their pandemic response. We are supporting public health interventions, working to ensure the flow of critical supplies and equipment, and helping the private sector continue to operate and sustain jobs. We will be deploying up to $160 billion in financial support over 15 months to help more than 100 countries protect the poor and vulnerable, support businesses, and bolster economic recovery. This includes $50 billion of new IDA resources through grants and highly concessional loans.

https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press ... or-by-2021

[Enzedder]

Confidence is a bugger when it's lost, isn't it?

[Clogs]

Confidence is a bugger when it's lost, isn't it?

Eh? Is that one for me?

[mat the expat]

I nominate Clogs for the 5th Horsemen of the Apocalypse......

[robmatic]

Dunno why everyone is bitching about “missed cancer screenings”. The NHS missed cancer in thousands of patients last year too. And the year before that.....

These people must have a rosy view of NHS cancer treatment anyway. My Dad had stage 4 lung cancer two years ago and even in those better times they weren't exactly rushing him to scans and treatments. Don't think a few months of lockdown would have made much of a difference between the rest of the faffing around.

[MoreOrLess]

Huh? That's fake news - they don't say that at all.

If full infection doesn’t leave people protected then the vaccine will have to act unlike any other vaccine ever.

Please read this: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=30&p=30508&hilit=vaccine#p30508

Additionally, the Germans are saying people are protected when infected by the virus, but not for long enough for herd immunity to happen "naturally".

Is this the same reason that we need boosters for other vaccines? E.g. Tetanus/diphtheria/polio as an infant and again as a teen, tetanus every 10 years etc.

I always wondered if that was because the immunity ran out, the body changed to be less protected, the virus changed out something else entirely!

[Biffer]

If full infection doesn’t leave people protected then the vaccine will have to act unlike any other vaccine ever.

Please read this: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=30&p=30508&hilit=vaccine#p30508

Additionally, the Germans are saying people are protected when infected by the virus, but not for long enough for herd immunity to happen "naturally".

Is this the same reason that we need boosters for other vaccines? E.g. Tetanus/diphtheria/polio as an infant and again as a teen, tetanus every 10 years etc.

I always wondered if that was because the immunity ran out, the body changed to be less protected, the virus changed out something else entirely!

Yes.

Sometimes it the immunity running out, sometimes the virus changes.

[Northern Lights]

Dunno why everyone is bitching about “missed cancer screenings”. The NHS missed cancer in thousands of patients last year too. And the year before that.....

These people must have a rosy view of NHS cancer treatment anyway. My Dad had stage 4 lung cancer two years ago and even in those better times they weren't exactly rushing him to scans and treatments. Don't think a few months of lockdown would have made much of a difference between the rest of the faffing around.

We are properly through the looking glass now, cancer kills on average 165,000 people per annum in the UK, every year not just this one, against 42,000 Covid deaths of which the average age of death from Covid in Scotland was 79 for men and 84 for women. 1 in 2 people born after 1960 will be diagnosed with some form of cancer during their lifetime (from Cancer Research UK). So it definitely makes sense to make our shoddy treatment of those with cancer even worse to focus so heavily on Covid. Yep, perfect sense.

[Bimbowomxn]

Early screening missed means they’ll be a lot more stage 3 and 4 patients presenting. Sadly a lot more death.

[robmatic]

Dunno why everyone is bitching about “missed cancer screenings”. The NHS missed cancer in thousands of patients last year too. And the year before that.....

These people must have a rosy view of NHS cancer treatment anyway. My Dad had stage 4 lung cancer two years ago and even in those better times they weren't exactly rushing him to scans and treatments. Don't think a few months of lockdown would have made much of a difference between the rest of the faffing around.

We are properly through the looking glass now, cancer kills on average 165,000 people per annum in the UK, every year not just this one, against 42,000 Covid deaths of which the average age of death from Covid in Scotland was 79 for men and 84 for women. 1 in 2 people born after 1960 will be diagnosed with some form of cancer during their lifetime (from Cancer Research UK). So it definitely makes sense to make our shoddy treatment of those with cancer even worse to focus so heavily on Covid. Yep, perfect sense.

Do you think the NHS getting blitzed with a wave of covid patients this winter won't affect the provision of cancer treatment or something?

[Northern Lights]

These people must have a rosy view of NHS cancer treatment anyway. My Dad had stage 4 lung cancer two years ago and even in those better times they weren't exactly rushing him to scans and treatments. Don't think a few months of lockdown would have made much of a difference between the rest of the faffing around.

We are properly through the looking glass now, cancer kills on average 165,000 people per annum in the UK, every year not just this one, against 42,000 Covid deaths of which the average age of death from Covid in Scotland was 79 for men and 84 for women. 1 in 2 people born after 1960 will be diagnosed with some form of cancer during their lifetime (from Cancer Research UK). So it definitely makes sense to make our shoddy treatment of those with cancer even worse to focus so heavily on Covid. Yep, perfect sense.

Do you think the NHS getting blitzed with a wave of covid patients this winter won't affect the provision of cancer treatment or something?

I dont think the current strategy is preventing the NHS getting blitzed, maybe you do and are happy with the current trajectory.

[Bimbowomxn]

[robmatic]

We are properly through the looking glass now, cancer kills on average 165,000 people per annum in the UK, every year not just this one, against 42,000 Covid deaths of which the average age of death from Covid in Scotland was 79 for men and 84 for women. 1 in 2 people born after 1960 will be diagnosed with some form of cancer during their lifetime (from Cancer Research UK). So it definitely makes sense to make our shoddy treatment of those with cancer even worse to focus so heavily on Covid. Yep, perfect sense.

Do you think the NHS getting blitzed with a wave of covid patients this winter won't affect the provision of cancer treatment or something?

I dont think the current strategy is preventing the NHS getting blitzed, maybe you do and are happy with the current trajectory.

Well, I certainly prefer it to what happened in Lombardy.

[I like neeps]

Problem with the first paragraph:

"People who lose their jobs or businesses are more prone to fatal drug overdoses and suicide,"

This is true because of the stress that causes because you don't know where the money is coming from and people feel helpless.

That's not inevitable: as a society we could invest in mental health treatments, retraining programs, helpful loan schemes etc. It's a political choice we all make rather than an absolute fact.

Not that we should lockdown more as they don't work unless people are compensated so being at home is as valuable to them as being off work for two weeks. No surprise the virus is out of control in low income areas where houses are cramped together and people are less likely to work from home and in some cases probably desperately need the work.

[Sandstorm]

My Dad has Stage 3 cancer in South Africa. He's missed half his appointments with his oncologist in the last 6 months BY CHOICE because he's shit-scared he'll get Covid19 in the hospital. I suspect it's exactly the same in the UK.

But let's blame the national Covid strategy for that!

[salanya]

So we shouldn't be having considerable restrictions/lockdowns because more people die from cancer than covid?

Let's remind ourselves that 50k people have died in the UK in 7 months, of which 2-3 months were spent in lockdown - if there had been few restrictions the covid deaths figures would have been exponentially worse.

And guess which people are most likely to be severely impacted by Covid? Older people with compromised imune systems, like a large amount of cancer sufferers. So to provide safe treatment for cancer (and most other illnesses) you have to take Covid19 serious.

A right balance of restrictions, and how they are communicated and supported, should definitely be discussed. But to rubbish forms of lockdown because more people die from cancer every year is a short-sighted and polarising argument.

[Rinkals]

Dunno why everyone is bitching about “missed cancer screenings”. The NHS missed cancer in thousands of patients last year too. And the year before that.....

These people must have a rosy view of NHS cancer treatment anyway. My Dad had stage 4 lung cancer two years ago and even in those better times they weren't exactly rushing him to scans and treatments. Don't think a few months of lockdown would have made much of a difference between the rest of the faffing around.

We are properly through the looking glass now, cancer kills on average 165,000 people per annum in the UK, every year not just this one, against 42,000 Covid deaths of which the average age of death from Covid in Scotland was 79 for men and 84 for women. 1 in 2 people born after 1960 will be diagnosed with some form of cancer during their lifetime (from Cancer Research UK). So it definitely makes sense to make our shoddy treatment of those with cancer even worse to focus so heavily on Covid. Yep, perfect sense.

Cancer is contagious?

I didn't know that.

[Northern Lights]

So we shouldn't be having considerable restrictions/lockdowns because more people die from cancer than covid?

Let's remind ourselves that 50k people have died in the UK in 7 months, of which 2-3 months were spent in lockdown - if there had been few restrictions the covid deaths figures would have been exponentially worse.

And guess which people are most likely to be severely impacted by Covid? Older people with compromised imune systems, like a large amount of cancer sufferers. So to provide safe treatment for cancer (and most other illnesses) you have to take Covid19 serious.

A right balance of restrictions, and how they are communicated and supported, should definitely be discussed. But to rubbish forms of lockdown because more people die from cancer every year is a short-sighted and polarising argument.

So again we get presented with more bullshit narrative that we arent to take Covd seriously if we propose a different course of action as this one isnt working, round and round we go with more wilfull misrepresentation.

[Northern Lights]

These people must have a rosy view of NHS cancer treatment anyway. My Dad had stage 4 lung cancer two years ago and even in those better times they weren't exactly rushing him to scans and treatments. Don't think a few months of lockdown would have made much of a difference between the rest of the faffing around.

We are properly through the looking glass now, cancer kills on average 165,000 people per annum in the UK, every year not just this one, against 42,000 Covid deaths of which the average age of death from Covid in Scotland was 79 for men and 84 for women. 1 in 2 people born after 1960 will be diagnosed with some form of cancer during their lifetime (from Cancer Research UK). So it definitely makes sense to make our shoddy treatment of those with cancer even worse to focus so heavily on Covid. Yep, perfect sense.

Cancer is contagious?

I didn't know that.

Give yourself a slap.

[Tichtheid]

It wasn’t only the number of patients being hospitalised that threatened to overwhelm the NHS, staff were catching the virus and others who were working elsewhere in the NHS were called to the wards if they had nursing or medical qualifications as cover. Many of those called in caught the virus themselves.

I don’t know the extent to which this made other services unavailable, but it did have an impact.

[Bimbowomxn]

My Dad has Stage 3 cancer in South Africa. He's missed half his appointments with his oncologist in the last 6 months BY CHOICE because he's shit-scared he'll get Covid19 in the hospital. I suspect it's exactly the same in the UK.

But let's blame the national Covid strategy for that!

The UK governments strategy was to deliberate scare people. So yes let’s blame them for that.

[Hong Kong]

the UK government had a strategy???

[robmatic]

It wasn’t only the number of patients being hospitalised that threatened to overwhelm the NHS, staff were catching the virus and others who were working elsewhere in the NHS were called to the wards if they had nursing or medical qualifications as cover. Many of those called in caught the virus themselves.

I don’t know the extent to which this made other services unavailable, but it did have an impact.

It would be interesting to know how widespread immunity is among NHS staff now. It's one thing that will make the second wave easier to deal with than the first, if there isn't the same impact on staff availability.

[JM2K6]

So we shouldn't be having considerable restrictions/lockdowns because more people die from cancer than covid?

Let's remind ourselves that 50k people have died in the UK in 7 months, of which 2-3 months were spent in lockdown - if there had been few restrictions the covid deaths figures would have been exponentially worse.

And guess which people are most likely to be severely impacted by Covid? Older people with compromised imune systems, like a large amount of cancer sufferers. So to provide safe treatment for cancer (and most other illnesses) you have to take Covid19 serious.

A right balance of restrictions, and how they are communicated and supported, should definitely be discussed. But to rubbish forms of lockdown because more people die from cancer every year is a short-sighted and polarising argument.

So again we get presented with more bullshit narrative that we arent to take Covd seriously if we propose a different course of action as this one isnt working, round and round we go with more wilfull misrepresentation.

I expect it would be easier if you provided clarity on which different course of action it is that you propose that still takes the threat of COVID seriously.

I also think that:

1) Talking about the risks to people who might normally be diagnosed with a serious illness but are unable / feel unable to seek help because of COVID & lockdown is a legitimate line of discussion
2) Talking about the number of people who die from cancer - cancer that is often incurable - as a comparison to a contagious disease is unhelpful and also at odds with the "well they were likely to die soon anyway" angle you've taken wrt old people and COVID
3) Salanya is of course correct that these things intersect and influence each other; under a "shield the vulnerable only" course of action, it's difficult to see how people who are being diagnosed with cancer (and therefore are also at greater risk from dying from COVID) aren't more likely to get COVID (they only know they're vulnerable and to be shielded after the diagnosis), or how a course of action for *just* the vulnerable is going to work as good as or better than one that attempts to stop COVID spreading through genpop.

I don't know of a plan of action that's going to make things better for people who need diagnosis or treatment for cancer in a COVID world than what we already have. I would like to know what it might be. At the moment there are essentially two plans under discussion: general lockdowns, and "shield the vulnerable only". Are there more? What's a viable alternative? Genuine question.

[Sandstorm]

the UK government had a strategy???

Wash your hands. And it's working in the South where people are capable of doing it. Merseyside.....