O/T Prince Charles Tests Positive

[MadAmster]

The question rA asked (which I would have asked, had he not already done so) was..... How’s he ‘assuming that everyone who gets the virus is going to need a ventilator’?

May we have an answer please?

[Trickytreesreds]

May we have an answer please?

Maddy, I meant to put MOP's post on there, but somehow, it didn't quote. So sorry if you think I meant you. Yours was there to carry on the post.

Here's something in line with what I was getting at.
If all these famous folk and celebs are getting this, then the infection is much much greater than believed. If this is true- https://www.ft.com/content/5ff6469a-...tdEHBi5fYwmZkI

Then it it hardly surprising that even folks that live in luxury have it.
My point is, to most folks it is no more than a runny nose and the threat comes to old and sick that ordinary flu would have the same effect on.
This is new and virulent. That is the only difference that I can see.

[ramAnag]

no I.m not being a drama queen.
1. I never live broadcast, nor did I give a daily bulletin of my woes.
2. There were a lot of people in that intensive care at the same time, worse than I was. Some didn't come out. Neither they, nor their families felt the need to give a live feed of their woes either.
3. I'll say again. Show me anything that kills even a small amount larger than this, that has had such a reaction of the world scene.

Lung cancer kills far more. They could make tobacco illegal. But for obvious reasons won't.

Malaria kills far more, but where is the hysteria here either?

So I'll say again, why now?
What makes this crisis a world threat more than any other and causes "celebrities " to tell the world their troubles?

I think drama queens does cover it.
Tell you what, I'll change my stance, the first time one of these drama queens snuffs it. ( provided they didn't have lung issues from 50 fags a day either)

Okay...have it your way...to most people the difference is that you can’t catch lung cancer or heart disease from other people.

FACTS are that 20,000 people have died directly from this pandemic in the last four months and another 28 in our tiny little island nation just today.

There have now been more deaths in nearby Spain than have been declared in China and the situation in New York is pretty damned desperate but never mind...in your pseudo macho world it’s nowt but a ‘sniffle’.

Wake up Tricky...the majority may get a mild illness but for many others...and the global economy this IS the biggest crisis of all our lifetimes.

[swaledale]

Okay...have it your way...to most people the difference is that you can’t catch lung cancer or heart disease from other people.

FACTS are that 20,000 people have died directly from this pandemic in the last four months and another 28 in our tiny little island nation just today.

There have now been more deaths in nearby Spain than have been declared in China and the situation in New York is pretty damned desperate but never mind...in your pseudo macho world it’s nowt but a ‘sniffle’.

Wake up Tricky...the majority may get a mild illness but for many others...and the global economy this IS the biggest crisis of all our lifetimes.

Much as I hate to say it, Tricky does have a point and its one I've made and was finally addressed by the BBC, the fact is coronavirus is not going to kill many more people than would have died anyway from a respiratory disease.

That figure is roughly 56,000 in the Uk alone each year, due to smoking, poor lifestyle, poverty, flu, pneumonia etc. A lot of these deaths could be averted if, people didn't smoke, air pollution was addressed and poverty was addressed so that people did not live in poor housing and have poor diets.

The issue with coronavirus is not the numbers, its been admitted by the experts that it probably won't result in many more deaths than usual, the issue is that the sheer number of cases could overwhelm the NHS or other countries health service, meaning that other people would die because the health service wont be able to treat them.

Which to be fair to the government has been explained, we are not going to stop it, just slow down the rate of transmission.

[ramAnag]

Much as I hate to say it, Tricky does have a point and its one I've made and was finally addressed by the BBC, the fact is coronavirus is not going to kill many more people than would have died anyway from a respiratory disease.

That figure is roughly 56,000 in the Uk alone each year, due to smoking, poor lifestyle, poverty, flu, pneumonia etc. A lot of these deaths could be averted if, people didn't smoke, air pollution was addressed and poverty was addressed so that people did not live in poor housing and have poor diets.

The issue with coronavirus is not the numbers, its been admitted by the experts that it probably won't result in many more deaths than usual, the issue is that the sheer number of cases could overwhelm the NHS or other countries health service, meaning that other people would die because the health service wont be able to treat them.

Which to be fair to the government has been explained, we are not going to stop it, just slow down the rate of transmission.

Well there’s an unholy alliance if ever there was one. Good though that people of such different persuasions can set aside such differences to occasionally agree.

I completely agree with your second paragraph but beyond that I’m puzzled.

Clearly you make a fair point about the impact on the NHS, but to suggest that ‘it probably won’t result in many more deaths than usual’ makes no sense at all to me, as the figures and scenes that have emerged from both Italy and Spain over just the last month or so would suggest.

You do actually ‘stop it’ by slowing down the ‘rate of transmission’ allowing time for a vaccine to be discovered and developed. The trick then is to make such a vaccine universally available rather than just another means to make a vast profit.

That last sentence may be naively idealistic on my part, but then I speak as one who believes that it shouldn’t take a crisis to bring about free on site parking for NHS workers, and is still coming to terms with the most right wing PM since Thatcher apparently embracing a philosophy more akin to Communism.

[MadAmster]

Maddy, I meant to put MOP's post on there, but somehow, it didn't quote. So sorry if you think I meant you. Yours was there to carry on the post.

As it was my post you quoted, what other than it meaning me could I have understood

[Trickytreesreds]

Well there’s an unholy alliance if ever there was one. Good though that people of such different persuasions can set aside such differences to occasionally agree.

I completely agree with your second paragraph but beyond that I’m puzzled.

Clearly you make a fair point about the impact on the NHS, but to suggest that ‘it probably won’t result in many more deaths than usual’ makes no sense at all to me, as the figures and scenes that have emerged from both Italy and Spain over just the last month or so would suggest.

You do actually ‘stop it’ by slowing down the ‘rate of transmission’ allowing time for a vaccine to be discovered and developed. The trick then is to make such a vaccine universally available rather than just another means to make a vast profit.

That last sentence may be naively idealistic on my part, but then I speak as one who believes that it shouldn’t take a crisis to bring about free on site parking for NHS workers, and is still coming to terms with the most right wing PM since Thatcher apparently embracing a philosophy more akin to Communism.

Welcome to the alliance. Your points here have agreement as well.

1. They could be avoided. Our point though is more about that there is no such fuss, when deaths on this scale have and are occurring every year. The people dying in the main, would probably die from other things around, including normal flu.
2. As the link I left earlier said. Half the population could already have the virus, but you are not seeing half the population being really ill, never mind dying. It will sort itself out over time and a flu type vaccine. Keep calm and carry on.
3. I'd go even further than your statement. Why just NHS workers? Anyone going to a hospital isn't doing it for fun? I still get jibes(yes I'm on about me) from friends telling me, I cost them £20 a time whilst they were sat around my bed. The real sting is the exhorbant rates they charge as well.


Any way, here's a statement for the laugh.


Charles has self isolated at Balmoral with COVID - 19

Andrew has self isolated at Sandringham with JENNIFER- 15

(ducking for cover)

[swaledale]

Welcome to the alliance. Your points here have agreement as well.

1. They could be avoided. Our point though is more about that there is no such fuss, when deaths on this scale have and are occurring every year. The people dying in the main, would probably die from other things around, including normal flu.
2. As the link I left earlier said. Half the population could already have the virus, but you are not seeing half the population being really ill, never mind dying. It will sort itself out over time and a flu type vaccine. Keep calm and carry on.
3. I'd go even further than your statement. Why just NHS workers? Anyone going to a hospital isn't doing it for fun? I still get jibes(yes I'm on about me) from friends telling me, I cost them £20 a time whilst they were sat around my bed. The real sting is the exhorbant rates they charge as well.


Any way, here's a statement for the laugh.


Charles has self isolated at Balmoral with COVID - 19

Andrew has self isolated at Sandringham with JENNIFER- 15

(ducking for cover)

Thats actually quite funny, but I think you will find he was at the Woking Pizza express although its closed!

[swaledale]

Well there’s an unholy alliance if ever there was one. Good though that people of such different persuasions can set aside such differences to occasionally agree.

I completely agree with your second paragraph but beyond that I’m puzzled.

Clearly you make a fair point about the impact on the NHS, but to suggest that ‘it probably won’t result in many more deaths than usual’ makes no sense at all to me, as the figures and scenes that have emerged from both Italy and Spain over just the last month or so would suggest.

You do actually ‘stop it’ by slowing down the ‘rate of transmission’ allowing time for a vaccine to be discovered and developed. The trick then is to make such a vaccine universally available rather than just another means to make a vast profit.

That last sentence may be naively idealistic on my part, but then I speak as one who believes that it shouldn’t take a crisis to bring about free on site parking for NHS workers, and is still coming to terms with the most right wing PM since Thatcher apparently embracing a philosophy more akin to Communism.

RA the one question you need to ask is what is Italy's (and other countries) death rate from coronavirus as compared to the normal death rate?

Because without that information you have no context other than the number of cases is very high.

So in the Uk in average year there are 56,000 "excess winter deaths" most of which are from respiratory diseases.

If this year that rises to say 76,000, then we will know that coronavirus killed an additional 20,000. BUT that isn't likely and the government experts have admitted there will be considerable overlap between those killed by Corvid - 19 and some other disease. In fact they haven't taken into account in their modelling of these other deaths! I would put a substantial amount of money on there being minimal additional deaths due to Corvid-19, most would have died anyway.

We don't even know the mortality rate, because thousands of people will have been infected but not tested it could be very low indeed.

Yes the 7,000 or so deaths in Italy (90% over 70's) sounds bad, but if 6,500 would have died anyway this year then its a different picture.

There wont be a vaccine for 18 months and therefore we will return to something like normal once we can test for infection and immunity. The collapse of the world economy will likely kill more people than Corvid-19.

[ramAnag]

Welcome to the alliance. Your points here have agreement as well.

1. They could be avoided. Our point though is more about that there is no such fuss, when deaths on this scale have and are occurring every year. The people dying in the main, would probably die from other things around, including normal flu.
2. As the link I left earlier said. Half the population could already have the virus, but you are not seeing half the population being really ill, never mind dying. It will sort itself out over time and a flu type vaccine. Keep calm and carry on.
3. I'd go even further than your statement. Why just NHS workers? Anyone going to a hospital isn't doing it for fun? I still get jibes(yes I'm on about me) from friends telling me, I cost them £20 a time whilst they were sat around my bed. The real sting is the exhorbant rates they charge as well.


Any way, here's a statement for the laugh.


Charles has self isolated at Balmoral with COVID - 19

Andrew has self isolated at Sandringham with JENNIFER- 15

(ducking for cover)

Lol...love it...best joke of the winter.

Why just NHS workers? Because it’s much easier to ‘police’ than all visitors, because nurses and other staff shouldn’t have an unpleasant and uncomfortable journey back to their means of transport after a hard and often very emotional day looking after people’s well being, and because of the lowest common denominators again...those who use hospital car parks to then go and do other things.

No idea about Nottingham but this was a very real problem in Derby when the old DRI was adjacent to the Eagle Centre and even though the Royal Derby is now situated in Mickleover there are still some parasites to whom the ‘park and ride’ facility would be attractive.

Just out of genuine interest - not point scoring - how would you/Swale suggest we should react to the pandemic given that you both seem to be implying that the current global reaction is somewhat hysterical?