SIGN UP

Protests Against Covid Restrictions In Spain And Italy

Avatar Image
naomi24 | 08:19 Wed 28th Oct 2020 | News
73 Answers
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/27/global-coronavirus-report-italian-police-use-tear-gas-to-disperse-anti-lockdown-rally

Not a pretty sight but is it any surprise that people are becoming thoroughly fed up with it all?

Answers

41 to 60 of 73rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//Do you think the virus is going to be beaten soon?
Do you think more people should lose their jobs?
Do you think the majority of people should carry on like this indefinitely?//
Not sure why its relavant to the treatment of cancer patients but
1) NO. Not in next 6 months at least
2) Hopefully not but maybe necessery
3) No, an Exit plan is needed but maybe not for a few months yet until we see how this winter pans out. If lockdowns are still around next summer we need either a vaxine or accept we have to live with alot more deaths particularley us oldies and the allready ill (heart, dementia, obesity). That would need a crossparty agreement as no goverment would want to say yes we want to let lot's more die

But a still dont see how moving away from lockdowns without a vaccinne, just more corona beds in hospitals will help more get treated for cancer ect
Thank you for your reply.
As I keep saying (and I won’t say again, because it’s too much like hard work) The lockdown meant cancelled appointments. It appeared to be a knee jerk/not too well thought out reaction. Cancelled appointments meant no treatment/diagnosis.
Stopping lockdowns should open up hospitals properly again. I assume hospitals have dedicated Corona wards, and haven’t turfed out other patients from other wards, or used someone else’ out patients appointment on a Corona patient.
Corona became the *only* medical condition to the detriment of all others.
I ahve seen it all now, you are willing to sacrifice jobs to 'save' people. Do you understand what widespread job losses will mean, do you understand that poverty (real poverty) kills, plus less in work less tax so less finding available for the NHS.

I am guessing, by the amount of time you spend on here, you dont work or are self employed so what you are advocating means no sacrifice for you. Am I correct?
// and I define that as "Herd Immunity".....which I define as to sacrifice the weak and vulnerable for the preservation of the young and fit.//
weak in this sense has an a in it for chrissakes. in practice you didnt sign yor patients off for a weak did you?

and I am afraid that the sqad definition ( it means what I want it to mean) of Herd Immunity is held by no one else

Herd immunity is that so many people have had it that Ro goes below one became they have run out of people to infect

I comment:
Sir Bernard Spilsbury moght spit his cigar out at hearing that in a path viva. Sir Almroth Wright ( institute of serology ) cruelly nicknamed Sir Almost Right may well have been driven to exclaim " "Not even nearly right!" if he had heard that in a viva

Let us call a thing a thing and not another thing ( Bishop Butler) again
Thank you PP, that was very helpful.
I am here to serve the Great and good like you sir !
//…that she ended up paying £20,000 to have the operation done privately//

Then she’s very fortunate. Many private hospitals (including one or two I know of in my area) have been commandeered by the government (only to remain largely unsused). I have a friend who was awaiting a hip replacement on the NHS. He too is in considerable difficulty because of it. He was willing to shell out when he heard his NHS procedure had been postponed indefinitely but could not find a private hospital to treat him.

//Having many dead, and many more with serious health conditions, is a bad outcome and one that should be avoided if at all possible.//

No. It is an outcome that should be avoided if it is reasonably practical to do so. Destroying the economy and jeopardising the health and wellbeing of the overwhelming majority of the population who will not be seriously affected by the disease is not reasonably practical.

//but its taking the others with them - people like well me - wivvart my consent like//

Then stay indoors, Peter. You won’t be taken by it then (so we’re told).

//Yes other hospital treatments are being postponed due to Corona- but a never understand why the judge and others (not here) use that as an arguement against lockdowns. //

It’s really quite simple, bob. It’s because eventually (and some evidence suggests that point has already been reached) the damage caused by failing to treat other conditions will exceed the damage done by Covid. Far more people suffer from other conditions that are likely to kill them than the number that are likely to be taken by Covid.

//Hospitals are open not locked down unless your saying doctors and nurses a sitting with nothing to do just incase some corona patients come in.//

I don’t know what they’re doing. But I do know that 75% of the beds in my local hospital are unoccupied. The day surgery centre is closed and has been for more than seven months. If you can get an appointment to attend A&E (!) you’re in and out in 30 minutes instead of the usual four to five hours. Whatever they’re doing they are not treating many patients in my hospital.

//Lock them all up, ban them from shopping, curfews for over 80s.//

No, you don’t do any of those things. You don’t lock anybody up or ban them from doing anything. You give them advice on the risks they face for their particular circumstances and let them decide whether they want to take those risks or not. It’s what people do when faced with problems.

In short, the so-called cure is now fast becoming worse than the disease and a change of tack is needed urgently.
If you allow a disease to spread through everybody in the population, and it kills around 1 in 250 on top of who dies normally, and has the potential to make as many as 10% of the survivors suffer from permanent health problems, it is madness to suggest that the economy will somehow be protected by allowing this to happen.

This is the huge flaw in all arguments that lockdown measures etc should be eased: the economy will be equally ruined, albeit in a different way, if this disease is allowed to run rampant.
If those figures are so then we're all doomed anyway. Best stop cowering and get on with life.
That assumes it will run rampant Jim.
i have stopped watching the news, can't bear it any longer.
Jim: you sound positively paranoiac, are you hiding under the stairs ?
:o)
//If you allow a disease to spread through everybody in the population, and it kills around 1 in 250 on top of who dies normally,...//

But it won't be on top of those who die normally. The vast majority of deaths are among people who are approaching, or have exceeded the average life expectancy. 75% of deaths are among those aged 75 and over and many of those have underlying health problems and the age group with the largest increase in Covid deaths at present is 90+. Those people will die of something at some time (probably sooner rather than later). All that's happening is that they are dying from Covid rather than something else in much the same way as they die from 'flu/pneumonia (which currently claims more victims than Covid) rather than something else (and no, before anyone suggests it, that doesn't mean I think Covid is just like 'flu). Since the end of May "excess deaths" have not been significant and in fact fewer deaths than expected occurred during much of the summer. The period early on was in a large part attributable to the almost criminal practice of chucking infected patients out of hospital and into care homes.

I conclude all my posts on Covid with a similar sentiment - a completely different approach is needed because the strategy pursued at the moment is not only failing to achieve the desired outcome (if anybody knows what that is) but is completely unsustainable. Not only that, as can be seen from the Continent, the natives are getting restless and it won't be long before those here wanting to see an end to this madness (who are plentiful in number despite what is published on Facebook and Twitter) will soon become restless too.
We are going around in circles. Everyone has an opinion on what’s best. They conflict, they disagree, they quote statistics at each other. Too many voices, too many choices. I sit and watch this madness revolve and evolve.
How will it end? With a bang or a whimper? It’s your fault we did/didn’t do and so on. Divided we fall.
// But it won't be on top of those who die normally. The vast majority of deaths are among people who are approaching, or have exceeded the average life expectancy. 75% of deaths are among those aged 75 and over and many of those have underlying health problems and the age group with the largest increase in Covid deaths at present is 90+. Those people will die of something at some time (probably sooner rather than later).//

That's a fairly specious argument: the death rate among humanity is 100% in the long run. I don't see what's so special about Covid sufferers that requires their life expectancy to be written off so readily. I shouldn't have to point out, either, that Covid-19 demonstrably has led to huge spikes in mortality around the world.

// in fact fewer deaths than expected occurred during much of the summer. //

I've been tracking this closely, in fact (at least for England and Wales), so I can say with some confidence that this is wrong (or at least highly misleading). The death rate did return to more or less normal over Summer, but only dipped below the 10-year weekly average three times over Summer -- and then only by an amount that is well within natural variation. For the last six weeks, deaths have been in excess of one standard deviation above the ten-year average, and are also increasing in line with the fact that Covid kills a lot of people very quickly who would not be expected to have died this year. There *was* a sustained period, over Summer, when excess deaths were effectively zero, but sadly that is now in the process of ending, and the next few weeks are likely to see a significant spike in deaths.

No doubt there were huge mistakes in March/April, including the Care Home fiasco, but that alone can't explain the spike observed then or the spike we are beginning to see now.
Youngmafdog- yes again a dont know why am being asked to explain myself but yes am working and yes am at risk due to my age and close contact contact with customers including some selfish ones who barge past peopel, ignore sign's and give abuse about masks. So if your thinking Bobb is some fat cat in the council or a rich pensioner or someone rolling in money on benifits enjoying these lockdowns your way off. Its clear that corona is causing problems in hospitals here and its growing fast so we either let it rip and let peopel die or we do what sqad says. Lets hope the fire brake does the trick here.
A see judge is still saying it. The deaths due to corona arent really a problem as most would of been dead in the next few years anyway. Might aswell put down all the over 75s, they'd be dead soon anyway and dont contribute anything , just a burden really.
On the bright side - no-one has died of old age, it appears, since March. :)

I am on the 'trust us to look after ourselves' side of the argument and just give the older, vulnerable ones (I'm one of them) a bit of space. I'm just getting over 2 weeks of a nasty asthma spell, but I am far more concerned that, having had all appts. cancelled since Feb., I appealed for one and it was discovered that I have lost sight in one of the lower quadrants of my left eye (glaucoma which they were hovering over diagnosing and treating). If my appts. had taken place, this could have been caught before any sight loss. I also have a cataract desperately needing removal and am willing to sacrifice my savings - but all private sources are unavailable as far as I can discover.
The problems cause by the actions taken by the Govt. and NHS are already worse than those caused by the disease and goodness only knows that the finally tally of death and disability and misery will be, if anyone ever gets to calculate it -- by which time it will be an academic exercise and Covid deaths will get the note in the History books.

Would it not be sensible to use the 'Nightingale Hospitals' for Covid cases and put the rest of the NHS back to work as usual a.s.a.p.? Just asking.
You'd have to find the staff from somewhere, though, so either you drag a bunch of former nurses etc out of retirement, or you just change the way the NHS is overstretched.

Just for the record, I have plenty of sympathy with the idea that the current approach is wrong, overly fatalistic, pointless anyway, etc etc. What I don't have sympathy with is the flawed, misleading or just plain wrong statistics being thrown about to justify this argument. It is clear, or it should be clear, to everybody, that relaxing restrictions and "letting the virus run its course" is a euphemism for allowing a significant number of people to die sooner than they would have wished, and an even greater number of people to suffer from potentially severe long-term effects (lung damage, brain damage, other organ damage, etc). By suggesting that the death rate is "minimal", or that these aren't actually meaningful excess deaths (eg because Covid victims would probably have died within the next, say, two years anyway), people are being dishonest about what they are calling for, and that shouldn't be tolerated.

Perhaps, in the end, we will have no choice but to let that happen, because we've completely exhausted our patience, our other resources, etc etc. But I don't see that we are at the point of giving up yet. If some judge differently, then, fair enough, it's a judgement call, one I am glad to not have to make myself. But those who should have to be honest about the consequences of that decision.
//A see judge is still saying it.//

No, the judge is not still saying it. And in fact the judge never has.

The average age of people dying from Covid is 84. The average life expectancy in the UK is 82. So you could argue (speciously, but you could) that you might expect to live longer if you caught Covid.

As Jim points out, everybody will die of something sometime. Covid victims are not being "sacrificed". If anything, people liable to be seriously affected by the disease are being favourably cosseted. The entire population is being forced to endure severe restrictions on their lives in an effort to prevent, particularly, those who are vulnerable from contracting it. Potential sufferers from no other disease that I know of are afforded such protection by the rest of the population (albeit under threat of criminal sanctions).

Meanwhile the sufferers of other far more trivial conditions such as heart problems, cancer, other pulmonary ailments as well as those in severe pain or discomfort or who are in danger of going blind are all neglected whilst hospital beds lie empty. They are fast overtaking Covid victims and they are the ones who are having their life expectancy written off so readily. Meanwhile the Welsh First Minister prevents people buying socks and books (but they can buy "Private Eye" and "Railway Magazine") as they head around Tesco's for their beer, wine, doughnuts and icing sugar - all deemed far more essential than socks). That's the way to deal with it.

41 to 60 of 73rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Protests Against Covid Restrictions In Spain And Italy

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.