Dafuq happened here then? This thread’s a train wreck :5:

[Mitz]

To play devils advocate here.

we know that at least 95% of the ones who have died had serious health issues. Who would have medication to prevent them dying in the first place and ANY new virus would be deadly to them, much like even the flu would without a vaccine.

For the most part covid isnt some deadly pandemic as it is presented for the 99%, it is just deadly to those susepctible to any foreign virus entering the body.

The reality is, once we vaccinate the vunerable, suddenly covid isn't a dangerous anymore. In fact vaccinating 70 and over will see death numbers SIGNIFICANTLY drop to the point that it will be overshadowed by many other regular causes of death conveniently forgotton these last 9 months.

What you posted has nothing to do with something being lethal or as I specifically said in my earlier post, "less lethal". If something kills 10 people out of every billion it is lethal to those 10 people. If it changes and in the future and only kills one in a billion it is clearly less lethal than before.

You are clearly exaggerating the health conditions of many of the dead. People with diabetes and those who are obese, survivors of cancer or those with the myriad other survivable and treatable conditions, not to mention the simply old, are not at deaths door and many of the dead would've lived many, many more years if not for coronavirus. And many more with relatively minor conditions would be dead if not for shielding and the other interventions.

 

[Enoch]

What you posted has nothing to do with something being lethal or as I specifically said in my earlier post, "less lethal". If something kills 10 people out of every billion it is lethal to those 10 people. If it changes and in the future and only kills one in a billion it is clearly less lethal than before.

You are clearly exaggerating the health conditions of many of the dead. People with diabetes and those who are obese, survivors of cancer or those with the myriad other survivable and treatable conditions, not to mention the simply old, are not at deaths door and many of the dead would've lived many, many more years if not for coronavirus. And many more with relatively minor conditions would be dead if not for shielding and the other interventions.

If you actually look up the data on the last 9 months, the average age of death is 82, 95% of people are over 60 and the underlying health issues are reported to be SERIOUS versions of what would be routine for others younger. 25% of the the total are dementia alone, again a fact, or it was in august. Out of whatever the total is now, anyone under 60 without health issues has been around 300 in 9 months, that is 300 healthy people who have died. As sad as it is tho those 300, that is practically nothing during a pandemic, far more healthy people die through suicide during the last 9 months for one example alone.

If you want to judge the lethality of anything then everything is lethal and therefore everything is dangerous. The fact in the data is that the virus is lethal to the very sick and elderly, much like everything is we encounter illness/virus wise.

But the fact is i am not exaggerating any of these symptoms, this was all published and its right there in the data, the word Serious was used ahead of that 95%, not mild.

The problem is not the data and the facts but how its presented which then invokes this false pretence that everyone can die from covid or that healthy people are affected at any age which simply isn't true. One day in the future you will see this all to be as i say, only the very sick and elderly were affected, even if the decisions and actions we have had to take is perfectly justified to look after them.

You apply morality to a great extent, i apply the data and the reality to it. Two different persepectives that cant find a middle ground.

 

["Misfit"]

Taking credit for finding it, not creating it. Because we're world leading at genome sequencing and unlike most other countries we do it as a matter of routine.

Maybe good at finding it
but shit at controlling it.

 

[Mitz]

If you actually look up the data on the last 9 months, the average age of death is 82, 95% of people are over 60 and the underlying health issues are reported to be SERIOUS versions of what would be routine for others younger. 25% of the the total are dementia alone, again a fact, or it was in august. Out of whatever the total is now, anyone under 60 without health issues has been around 300 in 9 months, that is 300 healthy people who have died. As sad as it is tho those 300, that is practically nothing during a pandemic, far more healthy people die through suicide during the last 9 months for one example alone.

If you want to judge the lethality of anything then everything is lethal and therefore everything is dangerous. The fact in the data is that the virus is lethal to the very sick and elderly, much like everything is we encounter illness/virus wise.

But the fact is i am not exaggerating any of these symptoms, this was all published and its right there in the data, the word Serious was used ahead of that 95%, not mild.

The problem is not the data and the facts but how its presented which then invokes this false pretence that everyone can die from covid or that healthy people are affected at any age which simply isn't true. One day in the future you will see this all to be as i say, only the very sick and elderly were affected, even if the decisions and actions we have had to take is perfectly justified to look after them.

You apply morality to a great extent, i apply the data and the reality to it. Two different persepectives that cant find a middle ground.

There's nearly 16 million people over 60. Age has been determined as the largest factor and why over 80s are being vaccinated first. So, so what if 95% of fatalities are in the 60+? That's virtually every grandparent and a hell of a lot of parents. We can argue about what constitutes "serious" conditions and the relevance but your clear implication is that a "serious" condition means deaths door and virtually dead if not for the drugs keeping them alive (your words paraphrased) as if having underlying health conditions somehow reduces their importance and value. Sorry, but that's insane to me. It's 2020 not 1820. People live long, happy lives with all kinds of conditions including what you would call serious. Take HIV and AIDS. It was a death sentence but now people with HIV and AIDS live long, happy and very treatable lives. By your logic they're on deaths door and being kept alive by meds. Would their deaths be any less significant? Even some of the most "Serious" conditions are perfectly manageable and the fact remains - remove coronavirus and most of those people who have died would still be alive - . It doesn't matter if other viruses like flu can kill them too. That's why we have flu vaccines and we do everything we can to try and reduce flu infections and flu deaths. Again, we have very different perspectives on what constitutes "very sick". Your "very sick" live many very long and very happy years. That many with dementia died isn't exactly a surprise with care homes being hit hard. The lockdowns combined with shielding has protected a vast number of people with underlying conditions from contracting coronavirus and you have no idea what the numbers would look like had those people been exposed to the virus. The fact that many with underlying conditions have been protected and shielded from catching the virus means any statistics are going to be skewed.

I apply morality a lot? Maybe that's because we have a moral obligation to protect those who need protecting. Even the old and even those with health conditions. And, YES, even the "really sick" . These are people not numbers. The numbers are what they are. You apply them to YOUR reality. Which seems to be (happy to be corrected here) where the old and those with health conditions don't mean as much as the young and healthy.

Tbh mate, I don't even know what the point is here. What are we arguing over? The degree of lethality of covid19?

 

[Enoch]

There's nearly 16 million people over 60. Age has been determined as the largest factor and why over 80s are being vaccinated first. So, so what if 95% of fatalities are in the 60+? That's virtually every grandparent and a hell of a lot of parents. We can argue about what constitutes "serious" conditions and the relevance but your clear implication is that a "serious" condition means deaths door and virtually dead if not for the drugs keeping them alive (your words paraphrased) as if having underlying health conditions somehow reduces their importance and value. Sorry, but that's insane to me. It's 2020 not 1820. People live long, happy lives with all kinds of conditions including what you would call serious. Take HIV and AIDS. It was a death sentence but now people with HIV and AIDS live long, happy and very treatable lives. By your logic they're on deaths door and being kept alive by meds. Would their deaths be any less significant? Even some of the most "Serious" conditions are perfectly manageable and the fact remains - remove coronavirus and most of those people who have died would still be alive. It doesn't matter if other viruses like flu can kill them too. That's why we have flu vaccines and we do everything we can to try and reduce flu infections and flu deaths. Again, we have very different perspectives on what constitutes "very sick". Your "very sick" live many very long and very happy years. That many with dementia died isn't exactly a surprise with care homes being hit hard. The lockdowns combined with shielding has protected a vast number of people with underlying conditions from contracting coronavirus and you have no idea what the numbers would look like had those people been exposed to the virus. The fact that many with underlying conditions have been protected and shielded from catching the virus means any statistics are going to be skewed.

I apply morality a lot? Maybe that's because we have a moral obligation to protect those who need protecting. Even the old and even those with health conditions. And, YES, even the "really sick" . These are people not numbers.

Exactly, applying morality.

So the hundreds of businesses that go under who are owned by people younger than 80, is that just a fair trade? People who have been evicted because 80% doesn't pay the rent? All the people in the heightened suicide lists, the older generations as well who are left isolated this year and having nowhere to turn, is that a fair trade?

The point is, if you focus on simply the deaths from covid you ignore about 90% of the effects of covid and many of those on the receiving end of such effects could have ramifications for years which is out of their control.

You focus on the very specific thing and you ignore the reality instead. Many people have been abandoned these past 9 months and have lost so much. The sheer amount of people who haven't got access to healthcare as a result of lockdowns, and wont do for months yet. These are ignored because 'we must protect the elderly'. Yes we should protect the elderly and the vunerable and we are now vaccinating those people are priority. Doesn't change the fact that the effects of covid are much more wide spread and are often ignore dwith viewpoints such as yours.

This isn't importance and value on life, that is you applying morality. It is taking the data and building a realistic picture, which given the vast amount of effects from covid is just dismissed as not so important. No-one is advocating their life meaning less, hence the priority on vaccinating them first. It hasn't changed the lockdowns and tier systems and masks and all the rest of it. Not sure where you get the 0-100 mph straight to value on life. What i say is the truth, it is in the data of the pandemic, not the tabloid spun fear aspect.

So how lethal covid is? Not very lethal specifically, in fact no more lethal than other existing viruses. This is again fact based on the data of it, no morality, simple facts from the data.

But here is a morality of this to pose to you, is a business shutting down a worthy price to pay when many of the age groups who we are protecting are not staying in and shielding? Who are going the pub and to other houses? We aren't protecting old people, so not 16 million as you say. We are protecting a very specific group of people and within the next month or so, they will all be vaccinated for the virus. The risk of covid will significantly drop and we will then be locking down for absolutely nothing.

 

[mick brown]

The figures are 2000 and something persons have died because they caught covid and had no other underlying health conditions, some of those with underlying health conditions, might have died anyway, but the vast majority of them would be alive now, if they hadn't caught covid. Then there is long covid, how long does long mean, 6 months, the rest of your life?

Plenty of front line NHS staff have died, just doing their job, even bus and taxi drivers. Sounds rather lethal to me. Smoking doesn't kill everyone who smokes, however, one could call smoking a lethal thing to do. I would describe covid (and smoking) as potentially lethal, as are many other things, like snorting coke, or swimming with sharks. We chose/ choose to do those things, at least initially. People could have walked away from their jobs, but they didn't and for some, by doing their jobs, it (covid) has killed them.

Lethal is the wrong word to use.
Being shot in the head is lethal, being shot in the foot isn't (usually).

As I said, very dangerous but not lethal. Lethal in my mind denotes everyone who caught it would die and they don't.

 

[HAZZA1962]

Lethal is the wrong word to use.
Being shot in the head is lethal, being shot in the foot isn't (usually).

As I said, very dangerous but not lethal. Lethal in my mind denotes everyone who caught it would die and they don't.

And I thought I was the only one !!!

 

[Mitz]

Exactly, applying morality.

So the hundreds of businesses that go under who are owned by people younger than 80, is that just a fair trade? People who have been evicted because 80% doesn't pay the rent? All the people in the heightened suicide lists, the older generations as well who are left isolated this year and having nowhere to turn, is that a fair trade?

The point is, if you focus on simply the deaths from covid you ignore about 90% of the effects of covid and many of those on the receiving end of such effects could have ramifications for years which is out of their control.

You focus on the very specific thing and you ignore the reality instead. Many people have been abandoned these past 9 months and have lost so much. The sheer amount of people who haven't got access to healthcare as a result of lockdowns, and wont do for months yet. These are ignored because 'we must protect the elderly'. Yes we should protect the elderly and the vunerable and we are now vaccinating those people are priority. Doesn't change the fact that the effects of covid are much more wide spread and are often ignore dwith viewpoints such as yours.

This isn't importance and value on life, that is you applying morality. It is taking the data and building a realistic picture, which given the vast amount of effects from covid is just dismissed as not so important. No-one is advocating their life meaning less, hence the priority on vaccinating them first. It hasn't changed the lockdowns and tier systems and masks and all the rest of it. Not sure where you get the 0-100 mph straight to value on life. What i say is the truth, it is in the data of the pandemic, not the tabloid spun fear aspect.

So how lethal covid is? Not very lethal specifically, in fact no more lethal than other existing viruses. This is again fact based on the data of it, no morality, simple facts from the data.

But here is a morality of this to pose to you, is a business shutting down a worthy price to pay when many of the age groups who we are protecting are not staying in and shielding? Who are going the pub and to other houses? We aren't protecting old people, so not 16 million as you say. We are protecting a very specific group of people and within the next month or so, they will all be vaccinated for the virus. The risk of covid will significantlyicantly drop and we will then be locking down for absolutely nothing.

Ignore reality? Again, YOUR reality. Nobody is ignoring the 90% that's just utter rubbish. And virtually every country other than Sweden has been in lockdown with Europe as a whole in repeat lockdowns so it would seem it's a view shared globally by almost every country.

You're arguing that lockdowns will be unnecessary after people are vaccinated. Well they're not vaccinated yet so what's your point? Who's arguing for lockdown post vaccination? You're very good at strawman arguments.

Governments have spent vast sums trying to mitigate against the effects of the lockdown. Nothing is being ignored. And nobody if focusing only on the deaths. Your view seems to be the dead and at risk don't matter because they're old and sick. If that's how you feel - have at it.

 

[SirLugg]

And I thought I was the only one !!!

Who’s been shot in the head and survived? You are.

Not entirely without side effects though mate. Soz. [emoji56]

 

[mick brown]

And I thought I was the only one !!!

Lethal = sufficient to cause death.
Covid-19 can cause death but not in the majority of cases so IMO it can't be classed as lethal.
Thanks for agreeing with me [emoji3]