Balanced and honest c-virus debate
Discussion
amongst all the usual PH 'hate' for those panicking and those saying not to panic, here is a very interesting article from the BBC News website presenting a very balanced view of the prohibitive measures needed to control Coronavirus, v the consequences of these measures and likely fatalities of the virus: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51979654
Well done to the BBC for allowing some balanced and honest reporting in this seemingly one-sided panicked debate!
I did see one post on here somewhere from someone criticising the BBC for even publishing this article, but I suspect the longer this lock-down/reaction to the virus goes on, and the more these measures cut into people's lives and jobs, the more will start to come out that a lot of these measures were an overreaction from a cautious, scared and 'led by the nose by health & safety experts' political class. By then a lot of the damage will have been done, and the virus no-doubt will have largely vapourised.
Let's see...
Let the flaming of this post begin!!!
Well done to the BBC for allowing some balanced and honest reporting in this seemingly one-sided panicked debate!
I did see one post on here somewhere from someone criticising the BBC for even publishing this article, but I suspect the longer this lock-down/reaction to the virus goes on, and the more these measures cut into people's lives and jobs, the more will start to come out that a lot of these measures were an overreaction from a cautious, scared and 'led by the nose by health & safety experts' political class. By then a lot of the damage will have been done, and the virus no-doubt will have largely vapourised.
Let's see...
Let the flaming of this post begin!!!
It is a good article but it does not address the indirect deaths that will arise from the shut down of elective work to deal with the COVID pandemic. Those patients with a serious illness such as cancer will struggle to get seen and treated. Need an operation for your cancer? Sorry no post operative ITU beds available - it will have to wait. Difficult times ahead.
The numbers of deaths from the current strategy are lower than the estimated number of deaths caused each year by fuel poverty or air pollution. We appear as a general population to just accept those and have complained bitterly about measures introduced to try and reduce air pollution. Look at it that way the current strategy is a massive overreaction, but I can understand why some people wouldn't be happy with 500k mainly old people dying so a middle ground where the vulnerable were isolated and supported, but the rest of us were free to carry on as normal would have been preferable. I'm firmly of the belief that the economic disruption will cost more lives over the long term than 250k dead now.
Gribs said:
The numbers of deaths from the current strategy are lower than the estimated number of deaths caused each year by fuel poverty or air pollution. We appear as a general population to just accept those and have complained bitterly about measures introduced to try and reduce air pollution. Look at it that way the current strategy is a massive overreaction, but I can understand why some people wouldn't be happy with 500k mainly old people dying so a middle ground where the vulnerable were isolated and supported, but the rest of us were free to carry on as normal would have been preferable. I'm firmly of the belief that the economic disruption will cost more lives over the long term than 250k dead now.
Hit the nail on the head.....Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff