Yellow Fever 3,769 Posted September 19, 2020 49 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said: They'll be enough 'local' lockdowns for most of the country to be in lockdown. Exactly ALS - A few weeks ago it's exactly what I feared / thought - with limited 'national' action all the local lockdowns will grow and merge together and we will be defcato in a national one. They are talking about London now! Might as well hit the so called circuit breaker next week. At least Johnson can then seen to be leading not lagging the ground reality. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aggy 754 Posted September 19, 2020 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said: Exactly ALS - A few weeks ago it's exactly what I feared / thought - with limited 'national' action all the local lockdowns will grow and merge together and we will be defcato in a national one. They are talking about London now! Might as well hit the so called circuit breaker next week. At least Johnson can then seen to be leading not lagging the ground reality. The local “lockdowns” involve pubs closing between 10pm and 5am and..well, that’s about it. You can’t meet up with people outside of your ‘bubble’ but you can still go to restaurants, pubs, shops, work, cafes, parks etc. Nothing like the lockdown of a few months ago where it was literally illegal to leave your own home other than to go food shopping. I’d call them restrictions rather than a “lockdown”. Worth also mentioning once more that in a “normal” flu season from October to March we have anywhere from 14,000 to 20,000 deaths on a fairly regular basis. (And in the lifetime of posters on here there have been 80,000 deaths on average in every annual flu season across a whole decade!) 14,000 deaths across six months is 80 deaths a day, every day for six months. 20,000 deaths across six months is 110 deaths a day, every day for six months. (80,000 is 440 deaths a day, every day for six months.). And that’s with a flu jab. Yet no restrictions at all. Ricardo has deaths at 27 yesterday. Edited September 19, 2020 by Aggy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yellow Fever 3,769 Posted September 19, 2020 41 minutes ago, Aggy said: The local “lockdowns” involve pubs closing between 10pm and 5am and..well, that’s about it. You can’t meet up with people outside of your ‘bubble’ but you can still go to restaurants, pubs, shops, work, cafes, parks etc. Nothing like the lockdown of a few months ago where it was literally illegal to leave your own home other than to go food shopping. I’d call them restrictions rather than a “lockdown”. Worth also mentioning once more that in a “normal” flu season from October to March we have anywhere from 14,000 to 20,000 deaths on a fairly regular basis. (And in the lifetime of posters on here there have been 80,000 deaths on average in every annual flu season across a whole decade!) 14,000 deaths across six months is 80 deaths a day, every day for six months. 20,000 deaths across six months is 110 deaths a day, every day for six months. (80,000 is 440 deaths a day, every day for six months.). And that’s with a flu jab. Yet no restrictions at all. Ricardo has deaths at 27 yesterday. I think the 'circuit breaker' being discussed is indeed the closure of pubs and restaurants and other limitations for 2 or 3 weeks. What's with all this comparing to flu? We can still have a flu out-break, indeed we are quite likely to on top of Covid. Although flu kills (how is cross immunity, herd immunity for that?) Covid is a much more serious disease with long term consequences too even for those that recover. Ask Johnson. The so called 'sticky blood' may cause all sorts of issues - small strokes, long term damage to other organs and issues we are only now starting to see. We know about flu, how to treat it and generally what it does. Covid ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sonyc 5,511 Posted September 19, 2020 16 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said: I think the 'circuit breaker' being discussed is indeed the closure of pubs and restaurants and other limitations for 2 or 3 weeks. What's with all this comparing to flu? We can still have a flu out-break, indeed we are quite likely to on top of Covid. Although flu kills (how is cross immunity, herd immunity for that?) Covid is a much more serious disease with long term consequences too even for those that recover. Ask Johnson. The so called 'sticky blood' may cause all sorts of issues - small strokes, long term damage to other organs and issues we are only now starting to see. We know about flu, how to treat it and generally what it does. Covid ? I've read also that for 85% of folk who have been hospitalised with Covid and recovered still have all kinds of longer term health conditions. That is a high percentage. You go into hospital and have a successful treatment for Covid but there's a high chance it marks you. I understand the flu comparison in terms of deaths and it's a valid one to make in terms of the possibility for over-reacting and ungrounded worry... but ....there are other outcomes than death! Not fatal ones but certainly health problems, some very unpleasant, hanging over you. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aggy 754 Posted September 19, 2020 (edited) 53 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said: I think the 'circuit breaker' being discussed is indeed the closure of pubs and restaurants and other limitations for 2 or 3 weeks. What's with all this comparing to flu? We can still have a flu out-break, indeed we are quite likely to on top of Covid. Although flu kills (how is cross immunity, herd immunity for that?) Covid is a much more serious disease with long term consequences too even for those that recover. Ask Johnson. The so called 'sticky blood' may cause all sorts of issues - small strokes, long term damage to other organs and issues we are only now starting to see. We know about flu, how to treat it and generally what it does. Covid ? We know how to treat flu? See, this is the sort of thing that irritates me a bit. Are you saying the 20,000 people who die from flu every single year don’t matter then? You don’t care about them? Your social life is more important than 20,000 people dying from something which would be far less deadly if people were banned from leaving their homes and spreading it? Plenty of people who get flu have long term issues. If you’re elderly, or having cancer treatment for instance, and you “survive” “normal” flu it can still have long-standing effects on you (especially if it gets to pneumonia stage where you’re hospitalised). Equally, the large large majority of people who have covid will have literally no long-standing effects whatsoever (and many won’t have any symptoms whatsoever at any point). I think you missed the point of the post. I wasn’t comparing the two. I was making the point that 20,000 die from flu in lots of years. We don’t ban people from leaving their homes. When the current group of “50-70s” were in their twenties, 60,000 or 80,000 people were dying every single year from flu. They still went about their daily lives - did the 80,000 dying every year from “normal” flu then not matter because it wasn’t covid? As for whether we can still have a flu outbreak, yes of course we can. but who dies from flu and who dies from covid? You can’t die twice. As much as some people like to deny it’s the case, covid almost exclusively kills elderly and/or unwell people. After the “first wave”, we saw deaths below the five yearly average - in large part because many who “would” have died in June, July, August had already died from covid in March and April. The ONS statistics compared “flu and pneumonia 2019” with “flu, pneumonia and covid 2020” for the same reason - you can’t just look at covid in isolation. Point being we need to get back to looking at excess deaths - there is always an increase in pneumonia and flu related deaths in elderly and unwell people as we get into September. That covid deaths are rising now is no more of an issue than flu deaths rising every September and winter. If, however, excess deaths are so much higher than the norm that hospitals will start to become swamped, then it is an issue. Edited September 19, 2020 by Aggy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sonyc 5,511 Posted September 19, 2020 This feels like a very important article hence sharing (and completely underlines the importance of wearing masks). It also confirms my growing conviction that viral load is arguably the biggest factor with this virus (maybe it's really obvious but with more and more reading around the complexity of this infection you start to become a little more educated). https://elemental.medium.com/amp/p/30430384e5a5?__twitter_impression=true Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aggy 754 Posted September 19, 2020 24 minutes ago, sonyc said: I've read also that for 85% of folk who have been hospitalised with Covid and recovered still have all kinds of longer term health conditions. That is a high percentage. You go into hospital and have a successful treatment for Covid but there's a high chance it marks you. I understand the flu comparison in terms of deaths and it's a valid one to make in terms of the possibility for over-reacting and ungrounded worry... but ....there are other outcomes than death! Not fatal ones but certainly health problems, some very unpleasant, hanging over you. In the context of what measures need to be taken, im afraid you can’t enforce legislation banning people from leaving their homes on the basis some people might (or might not) have health issues in the future. People dying in the here and now, fair enough if it’s at a bad enough level. People having an illness and having effects from it years later is just life. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sonyc 5,511 Posted September 19, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Aggy said: In the context of what measures need to be taken, im afraid you can’t enforce legislation banning people from leaving their homes on the basis some people might (or might not) have health issues in the future. People dying in the here and now, fair enough if it’s at a bad enough level. People having an illness and having effects from it years later is just life. Well I wasn't saying that nor intimating that Aggy. I was in fact acknowledging your very point (I agree with you!) but also recognising Yellow Fever's point (also valid). Posters can say different things and have a degree of validity. The point I made was that you can look at flu and covid in terms of morbidity but their after effects are quite different (it appears, as we learn more). Therefore, in such a pandemic and advice from the WHO then perhaps Covid deserves a special focus. Flu hasn't overwhelmed the NHS in the same way has it as in April? I do agree about age related issues and the fact that both flu and C19 have affected older and more vulnerable populations. Edited September 19, 2020 by sonyc Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aggy 754 Posted September 19, 2020 Just now, sonyc said: Well I wasn't saying that nor intimating that Aggy. I was in fact acknowledging your very point (I agree with you!) but also recognising Yellow Fever's point (also valid). Posters can say different things and have a degree of validity. The point I made was that you can look at flue and covid in terms of morbidity but their after effects are quite different (it appears, as we learn more). Therefore, in such a pandemic and advice from the WHO then perhaps Covid deserves a special focus. Flu hasn't overwhelmed the NHS in the same way has it as in April? I do agree about age related issues and the fact that both flu and C19 have affected older and more vulnerable populations. https://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/news/20171203/flu-can-have-dangerous-domino-effect-on-seniors I think people underestimate “normal” flu sometimes. Im not belittling covid and it does have nasty after effects. I’d argue an increased risk of stroke, heart attack and general reduction in quality of life for elderly people from “normal” flu is not ideal either. Flu hasn’t overwhelmed the NHS to the extent covid did earlier in the year, but it’s not that uncommon at all to hear that the NhS is bursting at the seams because they, for instance, got the wrong strand of flu in the flu jab. Like I said above, the issue is ensuring the NHS doesn’t become so overwhelmed it can’t give people a fighting chance. As I mentioned a few days ago, the nightingale hospitals are still (mostly) sitting there, completely empty, ready for use if needed... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Angry 1,554 Posted September 19, 2020 Over 100 per 100,000 in Liverpool, and just under 100 where I am on The Wirral. So why are the restrictions here not coming into force until Tuesday? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Real Buh 3,432 Posted September 19, 2020 16 minutes ago, Mr Angry said: Over 100 per 100,000 in Liverpool, and just under 100 where I am on The Wirral. So why are the restrictions here not coming into force until Tuesday? I agree. Liverpool should be locked down immediately. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Van wink 2,994 Posted September 19, 2020 2 hours ago, Aggy said: Equally, the large large majority of people who have covid will have literally no long-standing effects whatsoever How do you know. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Van wink 2,994 Posted September 19, 2020 (edited) 52 minutes ago, Mr Angry said: Over 100 per 100,000 in Liverpool, and just under 100 where I am on The Wirral. So why are the restrictions here not coming into force until Tuesday? Madness, I can understand delay when regulations have to be drafted etc but surely these are standard now and can be implemented immediately. This delay in implementation is what we did the first time round, Poor decision making. Edited September 19, 2020 by Van wink Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yellow Fever 3,769 Posted September 19, 2020 3 hours ago, Aggy said: In the context of what measures need to be taken, im afraid you can’t enforce legislation banning people from leaving their homes on the basis some people might (or might not) have health issues in the future. People dying in the here and now, fair enough if it’s at a bad enough level. People having an illness and having effects from it years later is just life. 2 hours ago, sonyc said: Well I wasn't saying that nor intimating that Aggy. I was in fact acknowledging your very point (I agree with you!) but also recognising Yellow Fever's point (also valid). Posters can say different things and have a degree of validity. The point I made was that you can look at flu and covid in terms of morbidity but their after effects are quite different (it appears, as we learn more). Therefore, in such a pandemic and advice from the WHO then perhaps Covid deserves a special focus. Flu hasn't overwhelmed the NHS in the same way has it as in April? I do agree about age related issues and the fact that both flu and C19 have affected older and more vulnerable populations. More to the point we have seasonal vaccines for flu so we already do our best to shield / protect the over 60s' (or is it 55'these days). The point is most flu is a known risk we can mitigate and live with. The jury is still out Covid. What is sure is that something will kill you eventually - but that's no reason to roll the dice early! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aggy 754 Posted September 19, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Van wink said: How do you know. How do you know they will? And if people with mild covid where you don’t show symptoms or only show mild symptoms (which is what the majority of people who have covid have) are going to develop horrible issues in the long term then we may as well just get on with it. Or do you suggest every time a new strand of any infectious illness comes along we perpetually lockdown in full for twenty years until we can ascertain the long term affects? Edited September 19, 2020 by Aggy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aggy 754 Posted September 19, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Yellow Fever said: More to the point we have seasonal vaccines for flu so we already do our best to shield / protect the over 60s' (or is it 55'these days). The point is most flu is a known risk we can mitigate and live with. The jury is still out Covid. What is sure is that something will kill you eventually - but that's no reason to roll the dice early! Yet people still die with seasonal flu vaccines. So, I repeat, is it okay that 20,000 die every year from an illness which could be avoided if you didn’t go outside? As you say, something will kill you eventually. The “goal” with covid has got to be to keep hospitalisations manageable. Talk of the side affects is interesting, but in terms of lockdown and restrictions, it has to be about managing hospital numbers. Otherwise the ethical questions become very problematic - why lockdown for covid but not flu? Why “sacrifice” 20k people a year dying of avoidable flu deaths if we are willing to lock down now? Etc etc. “Doing our best” to shield people isn’t a good enough reason to go as extreme as lockdown, because there is then a very grey area and all sorts of ethical arguments about what “our best” is and where we draw the line. But if hospitals can’t cope, then everyone potentially suffers because even those without covid can’t get treatment when they need it because hospitals are overwhelmed. Edited September 19, 2020 by Aggy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aggy 754 Posted September 19, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, Mr Angry said: Over 100 per 100,000 in Liverpool, and just under 100 where I am on The Wirral. So why are the restrictions here not coming into force until Tuesday? 3 hours ago, Van wink said: Madness, I can understand delay when regulations have to be drafted etc but surely these are standard now and can be implemented immediately. This delay in implementation is what we did the first time round, Poor decision making. Shouldn’t take as long as it has been doing to implement “emergency” legislation which they can largely rehash. I also don’t really understand why they say “from Tuesday”. When they announced it in the north west/Yorkshire a month or so ago, they said “from midnight tonight”, then it took about six days for the legislation to come in. Saying “from next Tuesday” to me almost seems like a plea for people to go out and spend their money on local businesses this weekend. Why not just stay quiet on the specific date, or say from today (with legislation coming ASAP after) and then most people would follow it immediately anyway, even if the actual legislation doesn’t come in for four days. Edited September 19, 2020 by Aggy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
keelansgrandad 6,679 Posted September 19, 2020 If you want to be cold hearted then it is OK that a lot of people die every year whether it is from an illness or accident. There are too many people alive and living longer. Three score and ten is no longer applicable. It is important that the services do not get overwhelmed. I have just walked the dog and seen the carer going in to a neighbour to put them to bed. At 5.30pm! There are not enough services around to look after those who would have been dead already 25 years ago. A major portion of the deaths occurred in Care Homes, a place where old people are sent for someone to lookafter. Personally, I don't have an answer. One solution is for families to be responsible for and look after elderly parents. But that will never happen. So I will have the flu jab later this month and be grateful for it. And no doubt a vaccine will come along in the next twelve months and keep us free from Covid. But it won't solve the problem of the system being overwhelmed each time. If we really believe in the NHS then back it to the hilt. Otherwise these type of crises will keep repeating. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Van wink 2,994 Posted September 19, 2020 56 minutes ago, Aggy said: How do you know they will? And if people with mild covid where you don’t show symptoms or only show mild symptoms (which is what the majority of people who have covid have) are going to develop horrible issues in the long term then we may as well just get on with it. Or do you suggest every time a new strand of any infectious illness comes along we perpetually lockdown in full for twenty years until we can ascertain the long term affects? https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30701-5/fulltext I don’t know, and that’s the whole point. There is so much we have yet to learn about this virus, evidence is certainly emerging around long term health implications and we need to know a lot more before making a broad assumption about the absence of long term effects, we have to act with caution. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Van wink 2,994 Posted September 19, 2020 33 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said: If you want to be cold hearted then it is OK that a lot of people die every year whether it is from an illness or accident. There are too many people alive and living longer. Three score and ten is no longer applicable. It is important that the services do not get overwhelmed. I have just walked the dog and seen the carer going in to a neighbour to put them to bed. At 5.30pm! There are not enough services around to look after those who would have been dead already 25 years ago. A major portion of the deaths occurred in Care Homes, a place where old people are sent for someone to lookafter. Personally, I don't have an answer. One solution is for families to be responsible for and look after elderly parents. But that will never happen. So I will have the flu jab later this month and be grateful for it. And no doubt a vaccine will come along in the next twelve months and keep us free from Covid. But it won't solve the problem of the system being overwhelmed each time. If we really believe in the NHS then back it to the hilt. Otherwise these type of crises will keep repeating. Maybe you are making an argument for euthanasia Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
keelansgrandad 6,679 Posted September 19, 2020 29 minutes ago, Van wink said: Maybe you are making an argument for euthanasia I wasn't really trying to make any particular argument VW because I don't think there is a solution. However, I have always been in favour of Euthanasia. It would be a good time right now to revive the question. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Van wink 2,994 Posted September 19, 2020 1 minute ago, keelansgrandad said: I wasn't really trying to make any particular argument VW because I don't think there is a solution. However, I have always been in favour of Euthanasia. It would be a good time right now to revive the question. One of those topics that I could be persuaded either way KG, can see both sides of the argument and give them similar weight. I think when all this is over could be an opportunity to reopen the debate, but having said that when this is all over it may not be an issue! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ricardo 7,384 Posted September 19, 2020 positives up slightly on yesterday but still below 2% of tests Latest UK Numbers 4422 - 27 Inpatients 1081 up by 61 https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ Yesterdays European. Italy 1906 - 10 France 13215 - 153 Spain 4697 - 90 Germany 2202 - 9 Highest so far for France. Others in much the same ballpark as previous. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
keelansgrandad 6,679 Posted September 19, 2020 11 cases at a bacon producing company in Redruth. Working next to each other on a conveyor belt. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yellow Fever 3,769 Posted September 19, 2020 8 hours ago, Aggy said: We know how to treat flu? See, this is the sort of thing that irritates me a bit. Are you saying the 20,000 people who die from flu every single year don’t matter then? You don’t care about them? Your social life is more important than 20,000 people dying from something which would be far less deadly if people were banned from leaving their homes and spreading it? Plenty of people who get flu have long term issues. If you’re elderly, or having cancer treatment for instance, and you “survive” “normal” flu it can still have long-standing effects on you (especially if it gets to pneumonia stage where you’re hospitalised). Equally, the large large majority of people who have covid will have literally no long-standing effects whatsoever (and many won’t have any symptoms whatsoever at any point). I think you missed the point of the post. I wasn’t comparing the two. I was making the point that 20,000 die from flu in lots of years. We don’t ban people from leaving their homes. When the current group of “50-70s” were in their twenties, 60,000 or 80,000 people were dying every single year from flu. They still went about their daily lives - did the 80,000 dying every year from “normal” flu then not matter because it wasn’t covid? As for whether we can still have a flu outbreak, yes of course we can. but who dies from flu and who dies from covid? You can’t die twice. As much as some people like to deny it’s the case, covid almost exclusively kills elderly and/or unwell people. After the “first wave”, we saw deaths below the five yearly average - in large part because many who “would” have died in June, July, August had already died from covid in March and April. The ONS statistics compared “flu and pneumonia 2019” with “flu, pneumonia and covid 2020” for the same reason - you can’t just look at covid in isolation. Point being we need to get back to looking at excess deaths - there is always an increase in pneumonia and flu related deaths in elderly and unwell people as we get into September. That covid deaths are rising now is no more of an issue than flu deaths rising every September and winter. If, however, excess deaths are so much higher than the norm that hospitals will start to become swamped, then it is an issue. Aggy - The issue irrespective of unknown side effects surely is that Covid threatens still to have 100s of thousands of deaths (we are at 45 to 60K despite lockdowns now, however how you want to measure it) let alone completely swamping the hospitals. If we hadn't of locked down when we did would it now stand at 100K , 200K , 500K? The normal seasonal flu does not do this even if we do indeed have 20,000 flu related deaths on average annually and I believe is also more easily contained. If a particularly nasty version of the seasonal flu hit without an effective vaccine (bird flu, swine flu) I suspect we would be in exactly the same lock-down boat. It is after all what the original 'pandemic' planning was based upon but Covid was quicker and escaped / beat the 'pandemic flu' restraints. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Van wink 2,994 Posted September 19, 2020 (edited) Legal duty to self isolate coming in later this month, should have been law all the while but a move in the right direction, albeit far too late Edited September 19, 2020 by Van wink Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aggy 754 Posted September 19, 2020 36 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said: Aggy - The issue irrespective of unknown side effects surely is that Covid threatens still to have 100s of thousands of deaths (we are at 45 to 60K despite lockdowns now, however how you want to measure it) let alone completely swamping the hospitals. If we hadn't of locked down when we did would it now stand at 100K , 200K , 500K? The normal seasonal flu does not do this even if we do indeed have 20,000 flu related deaths on average annually and I believe is also more easily contained. If a particularly nasty version of the seasonal flu hit without an effective vaccine (bird flu, swine flu) I suspect we would be in exactly the same lock-down boat. It is after all what the original 'pandemic' planning was based upon but Covid was quicker and escaped / beat the 'pandemic flu' restraints. What at the moment suggests there is going to be 100, 200 or 500 k deaths between now and March/April say (a normal flu season generally October to April)? 27 deaths yesterday? Or the increased number of infections (which is now almost as high as it has ever been without anything like the corresponding number of deaths or hospital admissions)? I don’t disagree that if there are going to be 500,000 deaths from covid in the next six months, strong action and restrictions/lockdowns are required. But calls now for strict lockdowns and two week “circuit breaks” to start next week are ridiculous and that’s the point I’ve been making all day. The healthcare system is geared up to deal with 20k plus flu deaths and associated hospitalisations/side affects - that’s we deal with every year. We have got the nightingale hospitals sitting empty ready to help with capacity (a couple have been repurposed as they were literally never used by anyone but could easily be re-repurposed). We’ve got social distancing measures to a far greater extent than at the start of March. We’ve got hand sanitizers on every corner and in multiple places around every public place. We’ve got limits on how many people can meet up. We have to wear masks in public places. We haven’t got large public gatherings. We’ve got 27 deaths a day currently. Even when we had c.1500 deaths a day, only two of the seven nightingale hospitals had been used at all by anyone - 154 patients ever used them, despite capacity for 12,000 at any one time. So what suggests the healthcare system is about to be overwhelmed? As I said before, the focus needs to (as it was originally) get back to avoiding so many excess deaths that hospitals get swamped and away from this idea that nobody should ever die from covid and that a small increase in covid deaths is a sign of guaranteed impending disaster. 2 hours ago, Van wink said: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30701-5/fulltext I don’t know, and that’s the whole point. There is so much we have yet to learn about this virus, evidence is certainly emerging around long term health implications and we need to know a lot more before making a broad assumption about the absence of long term effects, we have to act with caution. I’m really not sure what point you’re trying to make. Are you genuinely saying you think we should restrict people’s lives, ban them from seeing their families, from going to work, restrict their ability to see their mates, because there might (or might not) be long term affects from one specific virus at some point in the future? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Van wink 2,994 Posted September 19, 2020 You made a very dismissive remark earlier about long term health effects, I am pointing out that your view should be treated with a high degree of caution. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aggy 754 Posted September 19, 2020 (edited) 53 minutes ago, Van wink said: You made a very dismissive remark earlier about long term health effects, I am pointing out that your view should be treated with a high degree of caution. What was the very dismissive remark? And i still don’t understand your point. What caution do you suggest? That we all lock ourselves away because there might (or might not) be some possible side affects that we can’t do anything about anyway? Edit: you may also perhaps like to warn everyone that views posted by others on here that we know how to treat flu and disregarding the fairly significant after affects it has on a lot of people ought also to be treated with caution. I personally though wouldn’t suggest we lock down permanently because of the increased risk of heart attack and stroke (amongst other things which can lead to poorer functions and lower quality of life) that “normal” flu causes in people either. Edited September 19, 2020 by Aggy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Van wink 2,994 Posted September 20, 2020 8 hours ago, Aggy said: What was the very dismissive remark? That one- ‘Equally, the large large majority of people who have covid will have literally no long-standing effects whatsoever ‘ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites