How would you rate the UK's handling of this pandemic?

[Spectric]

Not like communism, that was not temporary. This inconveniences the few to save the masses and had we closed the doors sooner then we may have avoided the full impact of this virus.

 

[Misterdog]

Not like communism, that was not temporary

Though it was for the good of the many and not just the few. At least that is how it was sold.
The reality was very different of course.

 

[Billy_wizz]

There are 2 I would put forward and neither will be popular. MT and TB both had the strength of will to ensure that what needed to be done would have

You have no idea how much I don't like admitting that

Tony yes but no but I'll answer a completely different question to the one you asked?

 

[ivan]

Quite a few countries in the Asian area have managed to keep deaths below (some well below) 1000, per 50 million of population. In the UK 85,000 dead is roughly equivalent to 65,000 dead per 50 million. Hardly a success story. My neighbour, a retired GP, pointed out that Jeremy Ladygarden, when the main health man, decided we did not need to stockpile PPE, as it could be bought when needed....in a pandeminc??? The UK has been long term unprepared.

 

[Droogs]

@Billy_wizz
sorry you've lost me with your reply. could you expand a bit?

 

[Selwyn]

It's easy to diss track n trace, but it's important to remember that everything they do is after someone has managed to get themselves infected...

You should amend that to "after they test positive on a pcr test". Moving to a world where people who are not unwell are somehow "infected" has tied this country up in knots

 

[Selwyn]

OK, my point above still was the claim that nobody will be able to quantify the impact on lack of non-covid care. If it results in deaths, they will show up and can be counted (as in quantified).

Not much necessary care has been avoided here, but this is the land of elective medical work (if you need orthopedic surgery here, you'll get it right away - there's no management of utilization like there is in nationalized systems, but that kind of stuff had been cut back originally).

Not sure about the death totals, etc, but if there's a big excess of deaths (by that, I don't mean every death from neglect to complete medical treatment - there is some of that all the time - but the amount above and beyond normal), it'll be easy to find right away after the main causes are weeded out. CDC records death by cause here in the states, so the cohort of unknown cases is pretty small. If it stays small, and the other death rates (heart disease, cancer, etc) don't change much, then it's more perceived consequences than actual.

They will show up to a degree. The fly in the ointment is when a 96 year old dementia patient dies with covid it somehow skews the covid figures. And when you are testing people daily in a hospital I think its astonishing people would come back as being negative to be honest.

The excess deaths in April were big. The excess deaths now are not outside the envelope of a nasty flu year. It is nasty disease for some of course. But then again lots of things are nasty for an 86 year old in a warm care home.

 

[Selwyn]

That is the problem, all the leaders have to work within the constraints of the system but maybe Blair would have made the hard decisions and also people now believe they have total freedom to do as they please whenever they want to, but far to many are incapable of actually comprehending a situation, understanding the facts and responding in the right way. On day 1 the government should have used the military to enforce the lockdown, anyone not following the rules should have just been locked up until the pandemic is over.

That's ridiculous. Especially as there is no clear evidence that lockdowns have much effect. They did this is Peru and Spain/ France and the boat is still the same

 

[doctor Bob]

Quite a few countries in the Asian area have managed to keep deaths below (some well below) 1000, per 50 million of population. In the UK 85,000 dead is roughly equivalent to 65,000 dead per 50 million. Hardly a success story. My neighbour, a retired GP, pointed out that Jeremy Ladygarden, when the main health man, decided we did not need to stockpile PPE, as it could be bought when needed....in a pandeminc??? The UK has been long term unprepared.

Possibly due to very few obese people, people with high risk illnesses tend to die from them rather than living to a ripe old age, frail old people tend to die in under developed countries. Therefore the density of people in the bracket of extreme high risk is much lower. IMO

 

[RobinBHM]

Arrh the old "I'm considerably better than thou arguement".

Yes indeed, that is Rorschach's argument, well done for spotting it.

In Rorschach keeps stating that no lockdown is better than lockdown....but when pushed for evidence, he admits there is none, but it's a hunch.

In Rorschach's opinion he is right because his hunch is better.

 

[Billy_wizz]

@Billy_wizz
sorry you've lost me with your reply. could you expand a bit?

I watched the man spend his entire political career not answering a single question that deviated from the narrative he wanted to spin while promising everything to everyone that strikes me as a man who's only mental will is to tell the story how he thinks it should sound regardless of what's actually happening!

 

[doctor Bob]

Yes indeed, that is Rorschach's argument, well done for spotting it.

In Rorschach keeps stating that no lockdown is better than lockdown....but when pushed for evidence, he admits there is none, but it's a hunch.

In Rorschach's opinion he is right because his hunch is better.

Trust me, I am not on anyones side, I want the world to get better.

However, I think Rorschach's is not stating that at all, I understood that he wants the vunerable to properly lockdown and to be looked after better, and open up the rest more. I'm not convinced by that, but I really think you have missed some of his post meaning. Or maybe it's me!!!

 

[selly]

Yes indeed, that is Rorschach's argument, well done for spotting it.

In Rorschach keeps stating that no lockdown is better than lockdown....but when pushed for evidence, he admits there is none, but it's a hunch.

In Rorschach's opinion he is right because his hunch is better.

There isn't any evidence for a lockdown really being that effective, or masks. Wales had an October lockdown it was useless.

We will eventually see some evidence of the harm lockdown has done and we see some now ie 30k excess deaths in the home last year which is a big figure if you care about non covid deaths but no one seems to anymore

The pandemic was over last June. We now have an endemic virus we need to just learn to deal with. I can accept this current lock down until the most vulnerable are vaccinated albeit grudgingly but after that we need to move forward more

 

[Rorschach]

Possibly due to very few obese people, people with high risk illnesses tend to die from them rather than living to a ripe old age, frail old people tend to die in under developed countries. Therefore the density of people in the bracket of extreme high risk is much lower. IMO

Healthier lifestyle, far less obesity and (border line) diabetes. Happier to be bossed around by authority. It is also suspected that SARS1 and MERS may have given the Asian countries a good degree of natural immunity.

 

[Rorschach]

I understood that he wants the vunerable to properly lockdown and to be looked after better, and open up the rest more. I'm not convinced by that, but I really think you have missed some of his post meaning. Or maybe it's me!!!

No you have it bang on. I want the vulnerable to protect themselves (voluntarily with support) and the less vulnerable to carry on with minimal restrictions in order to reach a state of natural immunity. Of course this was my thoughts long before a vaccine was even on the horizon.
Basically I am in agreement with the Great Barrington Declaration. I am not for "let it rip" as some say. What really annoyed people though was that I stated I accepted the fact that some (elderly and sick) people would die in order for the rest of the country to survive. Instead it seems that the elderly and sick still died, but plenty of younger healthy people will now suffer long after the old we "saved" have died. That opinion was not taken well, probably because a few people on this forum would be on that list (unless they protected themselves as I suggested).

 

[Droogs]

Alister Cambell write that for you Rorschach?

 

[Rorschach]

Alister Cambell write that for you Rorschach?

That's the worst insult I have had so far!

 

[Spectric]

If the virus cannot walk, run or fly then it needs a host to carry it around, this is where people come in and become the virus's transport to pastures new. If you take away all the transport then the virus runs out of fresh meat and without new host it cannot spread, evolve or mutate so would eventually fade away. That is why it spreads better than Ebola, it allows the host to live or live longer to accomplish transmission unlike Ebola that just kills quicker and breaks its own transmission. If lockdowns are not the answer then you need total social separation and wear a bio hazzard suit in all public places.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

We are simply going over old ground with views polarised towards extremes. Relax restrictions - the young are bearing most of the load so a few oldies close to death can live. Lock everything down - preserve all life at any cost, punish those who don't comply.

Current high levels of hospital admissions and deaths means that if restrictions are relaxed, we should be very explicit about how we deal with the consequences (triage?). Not all who become ill will be treated.

Pretending there are no consequences is profoundly dishonest.

We are very fortunate that within a few weeks vaccines should provide a way out of the pandemic. As hospital admissions and deaths fall, aided by lockdown, restrictions will start to be released.

I suspect this will start to become evident during February, and by the end of March maintaining any material level of restrictions will be increasingly difficult police or get public buy in.

 

[Lons]

Trust me, I am not on anyones side, I want the world to get better.

However, I think Rorschach's is not stating that at all, I understood that he wants the vunerable to properly lockdown and to be looked after better, and open up the rest more. I'm not convinced by that, but I really think you have missed some of his post meaning. Or maybe it's me!!!

Not quite Bob if you think back he very clearly said the ones dying would have died soon anyway, he was very firmly castigated for that and wriggled like a snake trying to get out of it.