Even if lockdowns cause deaths ? We seem be doing the same things over and over though. That’s not looking at alternatives, it’s sticking with what you originally thought and refusing to change.
Lockdowns save far more lives than are lost as a result. If you know better, with supporting info from an accredited source I'd genuinely like to see it? I don't think the development of new ways to save millions of people lives is in anyway something you can simply dismiss because its not 100% perfect right away. This, like most major difficulties is not a simple black and white choice or issue. I don't think that the scientists are "not looking at alternatives" and if you do, I don't think you really have fully thought this through or maybe you've a wry sense of humour?
Your original post suggested lockdowns were acceptable to save a life. I doubt it would be easy or even possible to find a credible source stating lockdowns have caused deaths, but for a start have you tried getting a doctors appointment. Hmm, the advise seems to be coming from a certain set of scientists that have their ideas, any scientific evidence that, for instance, masks aren’t effective is dismissed.
GP's appointments seem to vary dramatically around the country. I have not found the situation unworkable given that we have been in a worldwide pandemic. If you have no credible information source saying that lockdowns are causing the loss of life, despite the fact that there are many who would love to print this story, and no lack of available scientists/ researchers - why do you think its true? You've mentioned the usage of masks a few times. The wearing of masks is not to stop the wearer getting CV19, but to reduce the spread by limiting the droplets entering the air. Most countries accept this as fact. Again what is your reason for disparaging the effects of masks?
I think it would be very difficult to prove that anyone has died due to lockdown etc. I’m not disparaging the use of masks as such, I’m saying they are perhaps more effective at stopping or limiting the spread of the flu and colds.
Well a few months back several people claimed that the suicide rates were up dramatically and that was down to Lockdown & its effect on mental health. Now whether it might have been down to losing your social life, or job -perhaps business or home- maybe as a result of losing your partner, was never made clear. The inference was lockdown equals suicide thus negating the benefits of saving people from CV19. It transpired that the suicide rates were not increased at all, but in fact had reduced. So that was what the kind of ideas I was wondering about. With your above post I took it that you considered masks weren't effective. They are in my opinion, though not a cure-all. So I admit to being one who dismisses that idea that masks aren't effective.
I am told to walk every day (and not to keep falling over) and I walk past here often and I am off to do it now.
obviously I don't know the effects of lockdown longer term, unemployment, job losses, businesses folding etc etc and then the impact that has. I wonder how many people have given up trying to get a doctor's appointment, I know I have on a couple of occasions, luckily for me nothing major, but again who knows. my point really is, if cases start to rise again over the next few months what then - more of the same, or do we start to question if those measures are working ?
Unquestionably the measures are working. We went from over 1800 people dead in day in January to almost none after a strict lockdown. How can anyone argue against that?
I hope all responses are always questioned and ideally improved. Look at how the treatment in hospital for the poor buggers who get this severely has improved. Some people think that because the deaths are reduced it indicates that the disease doesn't really kill many people. The opposite is true but the medicine to reduce the internal inflammation is now available, different treatments for assisting breathing are reducing the numbers intubated, so the lower fatalities are really an indication of our successes. These massive strides plus the vaccines -all in just one year- is truly amazing and shows a constant push and revision of everything.
What I’m getting at is if, on lifting the restrictions, cases rise (again), should we lockdown again, or should an alternative be considered.
If you are asking me whether I would want to save lives as opposed to opening the pubs and hairdressers - I'm 100% certain you already know the answer. If there is another alternative that saves the lives but doesn't require social distancing I'd naturally prefer it. But saving lives comes first in my book, as it always will.
in theory, with enough people vaccinated restrictions shouldn’t be required again. Have to see what happens there, MSM already raising ‘concerns’ about a new variant. An alternative, could be a variation of what we have been doing, masks / social distancing, but not forcing businesses to close.
Yes, I agree to a point. I don’t see why businesses shouldn’t continue to operate with suitable measures taken.
Nor me, once its shown that the reasonable measures actually work, are put place by owners, and it doesn't mean the lives of others will be lost.
Like the half hearted lockdown we had in November, rule of six, eat a substantial meal etc. That worked well. I fail to see the alternative to a working vaccine or stay the deck away from each other. Unless you suggest we do a Brazil and let nature take its course. I personally rather save as many people as possible but that's just me.
Hopefully. A third round of shots in September is a given I think, and if people don't want a lockdown they should consider getting a shot themselves to prevent the spread of contagion. Much will depend on whether the virus mutates significantly, whether there is a new vaxx to combat it and whether younger people have the vaxx.
