Crosswords0 min ago
No Link. Just An Observation.
Considering that most TV journalists have spent the last few months asking ministers (stupid) questions designed to score points, why does nobody challenge them on things such as more people appear to be dying from flu than Corona, so why have we never taken such drastic measures for flu?
Or how many people will die/have their lives irrevocably damaged because of not being treated for existing or screened for new medical conditions?
And aside from all the people who have lost/will lose their jobs, which is terrible in itself, these people may now be entitled to Council Tax benefits, meaning a lot less revenue for local councils, and free prescriptions which presumably means less for the NHS?
Or that the reason for more cases being diagnosed, could be because of more tests being done, and does this necessarily mean that more people are contracting Corona?
Or how can masks be effective when so many people poke, prod and fiddle with theirs, and stuff it in a bag or pocket to be used again later.
It would make a pleasant change if someone asked a pertinent question
Or how many people will die/have their lives irrevocably damaged because of not being treated for existing or screened for new medical conditions?
And aside from all the people who have lost/will lose their jobs, which is terrible in itself, these people may now be entitled to Council Tax benefits, meaning a lot less revenue for local councils, and free prescriptions which presumably means less for the NHS?
Or that the reason for more cases being diagnosed, could be because of more tests being done, and does this necessarily mean that more people are contracting Corona?
Or how can masks be effective when so many people poke, prod and fiddle with theirs, and stuff it in a bag or pocket to be used again later.
It would make a pleasant change if someone asked a pertinent question
Answers
Nailed it there 10C I suspect Journalists are not asking the questions many wnat answered is because it doesn't fit the narrative. Many 'journalisti
09:47 Sun 20th Sep 2020
I’m not comparing it with flu as such. Just trying to understand why relevant questions don’t seem to be getting asked.
Why is stopping people from getting Covid, the majority of whom probably won’t even feel ill, more important than treating people with conditions that most likely will kill them if left undiagnosed or untreated.
Anyone that thinks a few days of feeling a bit crap is more important than preventing a slow horrible death, has their head in the sand.
Why is stopping people from getting Covid, the majority of whom probably won’t even feel ill, more important than treating people with conditions that most likely will kill them if left undiagnosed or untreated.
Anyone that thinks a few days of feeling a bit crap is more important than preventing a slow horrible death, has their head in the sand.
More testing will detect more cases - that stands to reason - but the knock on effects of this aren’t, in my opinion, being taken seriously enough by those whose incomes and livelihoods are secure. It seems very much a case of ‘Pull up the ladder, Jack! I’m alright!’ Furthermore, I find it extremely concerning that because this has taken precedence over everything else for so long, a very high death rate from undiagnosed or neglected conditions is predicted. I strongly suspect that for many the cure will prove far more devastating than the disease.
I’ve just seen a report on Sky news that said there are more cases in London, than the areas that have recently had further restrictions imposed.
It was suggested that to impose further restrictions on London would be too damaging to the economy.
So are people more important in the NE and the economy more important in London?
Not exactly a consistent policy, is it?
It was suggested that to impose further restrictions on London would be too damaging to the economy.
So are people more important in the NE and the economy more important in London?
Not exactly a consistent policy, is it?
>I’ve just seen a report on Sky news that said there are more cases in London, than the areas that have recently had further restrictions imposed.
London's a huge place- population almost 9 million. In absolute terms I'd expect their figures to be higher than say Preston Or Newcastle, but did the report show the figures per 100,000 which is the measure normally used?
London's a huge place- population almost 9 million. In absolute terms I'd expect their figures to be higher than say Preston Or Newcastle, but did the report show the figures per 100,000 which is the measure normally used?
// Why is stopping people from getting Covid, the majority of whom probably won’t even feel ill, more important than treating people with conditions that most likely will kill them if left undiagnosed or untreated. //
When Covid-19 flared up in April, the speed at which is was killing people was so great that it briefly outstripped all other causes of death combined. It's not unreasonable to fear something similar happening again, and, if so, people and the Government can be forgiven for focusing on the immediate threat and cost.
That said, it's a reasonable question, and it's possible that there's a long-term price to be paid in blood for the speed reaction. But, when you are faced with a choice between avoiding thousands of deaths *now* and *quickly* and allowing them to happen in the hope that fewer people will die later... it's a horrible choice to have to make.
When Covid-19 flared up in April, the speed at which is was killing people was so great that it briefly outstripped all other causes of death combined. It's not unreasonable to fear something similar happening again, and, if so, people and the Government can be forgiven for focusing on the immediate threat and cost.
That said, it's a reasonable question, and it's possible that there's a long-term price to be paid in blood for the speed reaction. But, when you are faced with a choice between avoiding thousands of deaths *now* and *quickly* and allowing them to happen in the hope that fewer people will die later... it's a horrible choice to have to make.
Last answer to fiction-factory at 18.45
I know forty-odd thousand people in the UK have died, but at the risk of sounding callous, it’s still a very small percentage of the population, especially as it’s said that 1 in 3 people will probably be affected by cancer at some point in their life.
The flu (was it Hong Kong?) that killed about fifty thousand in the late sixties, was more or less ignored. We had a much smaller population then, too.
Although I think most households had a telly by then, there would only have been a couple of news bulletins a day, and no social media for people to get their knickers in a knot en masse.
I’m wondering if 24 hour news coverage and the ability to post a photo of your dinner and say “LOL” hasn’t helped the current situation.
I know forty-odd thousand people in the UK have died, but at the risk of sounding callous, it’s still a very small percentage of the population, especially as it’s said that 1 in 3 people will probably be affected by cancer at some point in their life.
The flu (was it Hong Kong?) that killed about fifty thousand in the late sixties, was more or less ignored. We had a much smaller population then, too.
Although I think most households had a telly by then, there would only have been a couple of news bulletins a day, and no social media for people to get their knickers in a knot en masse.
I’m wondering if 24 hour news coverage and the ability to post a photo of your dinner and say “LOL” hasn’t helped the current situation.
// The flu (was it Hong Kong?) that killed about fifty thousand in the late sixties, was more or less ignored. //
Every time this gets discussed the death toll in 1968-69 gets inflated. To be clear: it was at most not much more than 30,000, and that total was spread over around 18 months. Covid-19 dwarfs this in speed, and could yet dwarf it in scale if the "Second Wave" that Johnson has warned about materialises.
Every time this gets discussed the death toll in 1968-69 gets inflated. To be clear: it was at most not much more than 30,000, and that total was spread over around 18 months. Covid-19 dwarfs this in speed, and could yet dwarf it in scale if the "Second Wave" that Johnson has warned about materialises.
Also, in order to go back to a pandemic that *was* comparable to Covid-19 in scale *and* speed, you have to choose 1918. For some reason, though, this isn't cited so often in this type of argument as is 1968, perhaps because what's notable about the 1918 flu is that countries *did* react, both by implementing social distancing and quarantine measures, encouraging use of masks, closing down businesses, etc; perhaps, also, because when protests about those *did* come, and as a result people backed away, the effect was to allow a second wave to spread that was more deadly than the first.
get your facts right. In the UK Hong Kong flu killed approximately 30,000 during the whole of its course. Covid has already outstripped that and it ain't over yet. https:/
Well now, Wolfgang.
I would apologise for getting the figures wrong if it wasn’t for your “get your facts right” comment.
“You’re wrong Bigbad, it was less than that” would have been more pleasant.
How many will die from other conditions?
How many will never recover financially, and end up in poverty, and misery with no funds in the public purse to help them out?
I would apologise for getting the figures wrong if it wasn’t for your “get your facts right” comment.
“You’re wrong Bigbad, it was less than that” would have been more pleasant.
How many will die from other conditions?
How many will never recover financially, and end up in poverty, and misery with no funds in the public purse to help them out?
It has wandered a bit, fiction-factory.
Originally I just wanted to know why certain questions weren’t being asked of the ministers and experts.
No, of course I don’t think Covid suffers should be either prioritised nor sent to the back of the queue.
However, most COVID patients don’t need treating, but just about all cancer patients do.
Originally I just wanted to know why certain questions weren’t being asked of the ministers and experts.
No, of course I don’t think Covid suffers should be either prioritised nor sent to the back of the queue.
However, most COVID patients don’t need treating, but just about all cancer patients do.
Latest Posts
Crosswords2 mins ago
Brexit Hit To Uk Trade Less Than...
News3 mins ago
Shopping & Style9 mins ago
