Emergency legislation - information and commentary

[Elysium]

The central point is that the number of deaths year on year in this country is surprisingly steady and predictable.

During the first wave we saw considerable increases in deaths. The people dying of this virus were definitely additional to those we might ordinarily expect to die of other causes. That continued in the second wave, but with some overlap between COVID and expected all-cause death.

As of the end of February deaths dropped back to normal levels. They have continue to fall and are now at a 10 year minimum.

That is a very significant development. Considerably less people are dying than normal and we are no longer seeing any additional mortality from COVID.

[anonymous-user]

There's no doubt Covid accelerates death amongst certain cohorts and that in turn puts pressure on the health service as it all lands at once. On that basis it's common sense to restrict us temporarily to protect the NHS so it can continue to function.

Other than that, I think it's all nonsense. The virus isn't scary. The NHS have had plenty of time to mitigate but haven't done so (empty and disbanded nightingales, for example). We have to accept death and most of those who have died had serious illnesses that were likely to kill them soon anyway. You can attack me for sounding heartless all you want, I see little moral virtue in prolonging the life of terminally ill elderly people waiting to die in posh prisons. People get far too precious about life at all costs before thinking about the why of it.

My primary aged kids have had a year ruined to protect a tiny minority of susceptible people. Some evil people now suggest those same children should take experimental immunotherapy drugs to protect other people from them. Get a fking grip, people.

[NGee]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

We have to accept death and most of those who have died had serious illnesses that were likely to kill them soon anyway. You can attack me for sounding heartless all you want, I see little moral virtue in prolonging the life of terminally ill elderly people waiting to die in posh prisons. People get far too precious about life at all costs before thinking about the why of it.

How very, very, true. If ever I have the misfortune to find myself in a posh, expensive prison I would WANT to catch covid (or any other fatal illness) to avoid becoming a dribbling wreck in the corner whilst watching all my family's inheritance being wasted away.

It should be about quality of life, not quantity of life. (of course, some people can manage both, and that's great).

[NickCQ]

Elysium said:

If the number of people dying is lower than normal then they are not additional deaths

I think we still disagree on this and I'm not sure whether it's a matter of terminology or a substantive difference of opinion. My position is that average mortality trends pre-COVID are not a hugely relevant comparator for 2021-22 given the significant accelerated mortality we saw in 2020. My reading of the SAGE estimate is that unlocking would lead to 18k deaths that wouldn't happen if there was no unlocking. Whether that's above or below the average from 2009-2019 is, in my view, irrelevant.

If you look at additional deaths versus "normal" you could get to the odd situation where a large terrorist event in 2021 doesn't actually kill anyone because deaths are still below trend.

[RSTurboPaul]

NickCQ said:

Elysium said:

If the number of people dying is lower than normal then they are not additional deaths

I think we still disagree on this and I'm not sure whether it's a matter of terminology or a substantive difference of opinion. My position is that average mortality trends pre-COVID are not a hugely relevant comparator for 2021-22 given the significant accelerated mortality we saw in 2020. My reading of the SAGE estimate is that unlocking would lead to 18k deaths from/with covid that wouldn't happen if there was no unlocking. Whether that's above or below the average from 2009-2019 is, in my view, irrelevant.

If you look at additional deaths versus "normal" you could get to the odd situation where a large terrorist event in 2021 doesn't actually kill anyone because deaths are still below trend.

Are the added words in bold extra clarification of your position?

I believe Elysium's position is that yes, there may be more deaths from Covid (and there will be, whether we like it or not, because hashtagZeroCovid is a fantasy) but if the number of new Cancer deaths is higher than the new Covid deaths, prioritising Covid over all other things is obviously damaging and not the correct choice of action.

Given Covid's average age of death is higher than the average age of death from all causes, arguably it is less of a threat than Cancer and other diseases, that take more people far earlier.

It is the prioritisation of Covid over all other ills that is the key point of contention, and as (apparently) there has been no analysis done at Govt level to understand if 'the cure is worse than the disease' (in terms of increases in other deaths while attempting to decrease Covid deaths) no-one can say for certain what the correct route forward should be.

That Govt are choosing a route that is obviously massively damaging for the younger generation and for society in general (ref: divisive advertising, manipulative SPI-B recommendation implementation, reduction in education in the group that sees zero effect from Covid, two-tier segregation/apartheid via 'vaccine passports') while seemingly not having full awareness of the likely outcomes, is what grinds a lot of people's gears.

[NickCQ]

RSTurboPaul said:

Are the added words in bold extra clarification of your position?

I think the bold muddies it rather than clarifying! I don't really care what people die of - a death is a death.
You are of course right that #zerocovid is a fantasy and that the virus will be with us for a long time, but at the same time I do believe that 18k is a big enough number to at least think about restrictions.

We have suffered years of inconvenience on airliners over far fewer deaths.

[NickCQ]

RSTurboPaul said:

apartheid via 'vaccine passports'

As an aside I really dislike the use of the word apartheid in this context. There is no similarity between the two.

[RSTurboPaul]

NickCQ said:

RSTurboPaul said:

apartheid via 'vaccine passports'

As an aside I really dislike the use of the word apartheid in this context. There is no similarity between the two.

I will admit that I am no expert in history and the South African experience.

In terms of describing a two-tier society, where one group is actively shunned and/or discriminated against, though, is it not at least close to the truth?

Or should we call it a caste system?


Coming back to the title of this thread, I find it hard to believe that the UK in the 21st century is apparently looking to introduce a way of life that was fought against at great cost in the past, and (I expect) enshrine it in (likely rushed/'executive order') legislation that will be extremely difficult to undo.

[Gman20]

NickCQ said:

I think the bold muddies it rather than clarifying! I don't really care what people die of - a death is a death.
You are of course right that #zerocovid is a fantasy and that the virus will be with us for a long time, but at the same time I do believe that 18k is a big enough number to at least think about restrictions.

We have suffered years of inconvenience on airliners over far fewer deaths.

I absolutely agree, it's not just airlines, huge restrictions on use of motor vehicles over what is these days far fewer deaths a year.
18k deaths may be quite low for the level of restrictions but it is no good trying to pull the wool over peoples eye claiming it's less because you can offset them elsewhere.
It is a bit like claiming we can do away with speed limits, driving licenses and gun licenses because we've increased cancer survivals.

[RSTurboPaul]

Gman20 said:

NickCQ said:

I think the bold muddies it rather than clarifying! I don't really care what people die of - a death is a death.
You are of course right that #zerocovid is a fantasy and that the virus will be with us for a long time, but at the same time I do believe that 18k is a big enough number to at least think about restrictions.

We have suffered years of inconvenience on airliners over far fewer deaths.

I absolutely agree, it's not just airlines, huge restrictions on use of motor vehicles over what is these days far fewer deaths a year.
18k deaths may be quite low for the level of restrictions but it is no good trying to pull the wool over peoples eye claiming it's less because you can offset them elsewhere.
It is a bit like claiming we can do away with speed limits, driving licenses and gun licenses because we've increased cancer survivals.

So, for clarity - are we saying that 100,000 people dying of cancer is acceptable to save 18,000 Covid deaths, for example?

[NickCQ]

RSTurboPaul said:

So, for clarity - are we saying that 100,000 people dying of cancer is acceptable to save 18,000 Covid deaths, for example?

I don't think so. I also don't think there is evidence to say that the side-effects of lockdown are anything like that material but happy to be proved wrong.

[Durzel]

RSTurboPaul said:

Gman20 said:

NickCQ said:

I think the bold muddies it rather than clarifying! I don't really care what people die of - a death is a death.
You are of course right that #zerocovid is a fantasy and that the virus will be with us for a long time, but at the same time I do believe that 18k is a big enough number to at least think about restrictions.

We have suffered years of inconvenience on airliners over far fewer deaths.

I absolutely agree, it's not just airlines, huge restrictions on use of motor vehicles over what is these days far fewer deaths a year.
18k deaths may be quite low for the level of restrictions but it is no good trying to pull the wool over peoples eye claiming it's less because you can offset them elsewhere.
It is a bit like claiming we can do away with speed limits, driving licenses and gun licenses because we've increased cancer survivals.

So, for clarity - are we saying that 100,000 people dying of cancer is acceptable to save 18,000 Covid deaths, for example?

Would those hypothetical 100,000 people have not died of cancer, were the restrictions not in place?

I assume those 100,000 deaths are as a direct result of delayed procedures? Assuming no restrictions at all then hospitals would (and were for a time) have been swamped by COVID patients so people with not acutely terminal injuries, etc would've been triaged out anyway.

There will definitely be a long term mental health and causal effect on deaths from other causes, but this will be somewhat harder to blame directly on any given restriction or period of lockdown, I'd say. By contrast - COVID has proven to be a direct cause of acute deaths.

Could we have saved more incidental deaths from lifting restrictions earlier or not having them at all? Certainly seems possible. It is one of those things that conveniently for one side of the argument is easy to say and impossible to prove one way or the other. It's very easy in retrospect and with the comfort of not being held accountable for any decision to say things should have been done differently.

[Cold]

NickCQ said:

RSTurboPaul said:

So, for clarity - are we saying that 100,000 people dying of cancer is acceptable to save 18,000 Covid deaths, for example?

I don't think so. I also don't think there is evidence to say that the side-effects of lockdown are anything like that material but happy to be proved wrong.

Hospital waiting lists are now at a record high (although the records only go back 14 years) and especially for non-urgent surgery. 1600 waiting more than 12 months pre-pandemic, 388000 today. Non-urgent can become fatal if left untreated.
So at some point in the future the detrimental side effects of prioritising Covid treatments will begin to show.

[RSTurboPaul]

Durzel said:

RSTurboPaul said:

Gman20 said:

NickCQ said:

I think the bold muddies it rather than clarifying! I don't really care what people die of - a death is a death.
You are of course right that #zerocovid is a fantasy and that the virus will be with us for a long time, but at the same time I do believe that 18k is a big enough number to at least think about restrictions.

We have suffered years of inconvenience on airliners over far fewer deaths.

I absolutely agree, it's not just airlines, huge restrictions on use of motor vehicles over what is these days far fewer deaths a year.
18k deaths may be quite low for the level of restrictions but it is no good trying to pull the wool over peoples eye claiming it's less because you can offset them elsewhere.
It is a bit like claiming we can do away with speed limits, driving licenses and gun licenses because we've increased cancer survivals.

So, for clarity - are we saying that 100,000 people dying of cancer is acceptable to save 18,000 Covid deaths, for example?

Would those hypothetical 100,000 people have not died of cancer, were the restrictions not in place?

I assume those 100,000 deaths are as a direct result of delayed procedures? Assuming no restrictions at all then hospitals would (and were for a time) have been swamped by COVID patients so people with not acutely terminal injuries, etc would've been triaged out anyway.

There will definitely be a long term mental health and causal effect on deaths from other causes, but this will be somewhat harder to blame directly on any given restriction or period of lockdown, I'd say. By contrast - COVID has proven to be a direct cause of acute deaths.

Could we have saved more incidental deaths from lifting restrictions earlier or not having them at all? Certainly seems possible. It is one of those things that conveniently for one side of the argument is easy to say and impossible to prove one way or the other. It's very easy in retrospect and with the comfort of not being held accountable for any decision to say things should have been done differently.

I think your last paragraph sums things up nicely, lol.

As has been argued elsewhere on here - new and unknown illness with uncertain outcomes? Reducing social interaction makes sense until it is more of a known quantity, and to help manage demands on a health service with limited capacity during the peak of a wave. (Point re: annual 'NHS overwhelmed!' news stories noted.)

But abandoning tried and tested and agreed emergency pandemic protocols and replacing them with experimental population-wide 'lockdowns' of healthy people, and then extending 'emergency' legislation a year later, when deaths are virtually single digits and there are (at most) single-digit patients with Covid in each hospital, and with 55% of the population estimated as having antibodies (therefore *at least* 55% of the population is resistant to serious illness, probably more if we include those who have lost antibody resistance due to the passage of time but retain T-cell (+ B-cell?) immunity)?

It doesn't stack up.

I don't have time now but there is info elsewhere on here showing the missed cancer diagnoses and treatments, the massive increase in waiting times, the missed appointments (4m, IIRC), the increase in anti-depressant use (6m+ people now), the anecdotal increases in suicide (to be confirmed in the coming months/years by the coroners) including in children, the millions of hours of education lost, the total collapse of the leisure/retail sector employment, the increases in abuse of a variety of forms, the damage to children's development through lack of interaction and reduction in facial expression learning and manipulation by the media to make them think they are granny killers...

And for what? If we can't empirically prove that it made a difference, it is hard/impossible to prove it was the right thing to do and should therefore never be repeated. And yet we already have Hancock et al. openly talking about 'lockdown next winter'.

Saving lives now at the cost of more lives later is a political choice. Arguably they have made the 'easy' choice by choosing the former over the latter, because the latter can be hidden/swept under the carpet/forgotten about by the unthinking general public, whereas choosing the latter would mean they actually had to have a backbone and stand up to a media and facebook morons going 'you're kiLLinG gRanNy!!!'.

[Gman20]

RSTurboPaul said:

So, for clarity - are we saying that 100,000 people dying of cancer is acceptable to save 18,000 Covid deaths, for example?

No the exact opposite.
What I am saying is less people dying from other causes is no a reason to take a different view on the potential of 18k covid deaths.

If the situation was more people dying from other causes, and the restrictions were a factor in that increasing then that would be a reason take a different view, but that is not what is being discussed.

[RSTurboPaul]

Gman20 said:

RSTurboPaul said:

So, for clarity - are we saying that 100,000 people dying of cancer is acceptable to save 18,000 Covid deaths, for example?

No the exact opposite.
What I am saying is less people dying from other causes is no a reason to take a different view on the potential of 18k covid deaths.

If the situation was more people dying from other causes, and the restrictions were a factor in that increasing then that would be a reason take a different view, but that is not what is being discussed.

Er.... what?

I appear to have grasped the wrong end of the pointy brown thing. I did not get that from your post at all.


The restrictions *are* arguably increasing deaths from other causes - whether they have happened yet or not. It's therefore moot to discuss if they are reducing them.

[NickCQ]

Cold said:

Hospital waiting lists are now at a record high (although the records only go back 14 years) and especially for non-urgent surgery. 1600 waiting more than 12 months pre-pandemic, 388000 today. Non-urgent can become fatal if left untreated.
So at some point in the future the detrimental side effects of prioritising Covid treatments will begin to show.

Indeed - I think that was an error of the first lockdown (when no-one knew what the hell was going on). That said I don't think it is a necessary feature of future ones so it is a bit of a straw man argument.

[RSTurboPaul]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

It\s even easier when one can decree it by Executive Order under an 'emergency' with 'no time to debate it' until days/weeks after it's been put in place following the stroke of Hancock's / Patel's pen.

See also: tabling/implementing Lockdown legislation the day after Parliament broke up for Christmas.

[Jasandjules]

Just to check, what is the emergency?

[deebs]

Elysium said:

unident said:

Elysium said:

How would you define a ‘premature’ death?

Can any death from natural causes ever be premature and who on earth would be qualified to decide?

Average life expectancy. Anyone dying before then could be considered a premature death. Simplistically speaking you’d argue that half of deaths are therefore premature. So let’s be a bit more scientific. Anyone dying before a specific age, let’s pick 40 who hasn’t got a genetic disease that’s likely to kill them early.

My point this that even if a healthy 25 year old dies in a car crash then that rubbishes your claim that it’s “difficult to argue that anyone is dying prematurely” it’s not, it’s quite clear in that example that someone has died prematurely.

OK. Well done.

That’s not what we were talking about though.

I quite like a wee debate on morality. The average life expectancy of a man in Glasgow is lower than the average age of death from/with covid. What do you propose is done about this, using the moral argument that we must prevent premature death?

Or, the biggest single killer of men in the UK aged 45 and under is suicide. What should society be doing about these premature deaths?