4 ms·

> Do you realise that in two successive comments, you have literally just claimed that hospitals are not really filling up, then claimed that reports from front

> Do you realise that in two successive comments, you have literally just claimed that hospitals are not really filling up, then claimed that reports from front-line staff working in those hospitals don't prove anything? Um, what? That's exactly right. Hospitals are not filling up. The NHS own data shows this. The fact that doctors think the hospitals are filling up is irrelevant. People's estimates of things are notoriously incorrect, especially when they are under pressure. I'm not sure what you've taken issue with. Are you disputing the NHS data that hospitals are not filling up? > There is a reason for the saying that an army is run by its sergeants. All the plans made by generals aren't worth squat if you don't have boots on the ground who know what they're doing to implement those plans. Right, Sergents run the implementation, not the planning. What we are talking about is the planning. But the bigger issue with this logic is that this isn't a medical plan. It's a social one. The people who should develop a strategy around a global pandemic are not the same people who intubate the casualties of said pandemic. It's like asking a car mechanic how we should build safer roads...they're just not the same thing.

Silhouette 6y ago
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-55430397 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-55430397 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-ambulance-queue-hospital-patients-lockdown-b1780250.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-... Etc.
- matz1 6y ago
  Same story happen in 2016,2017,2018,2019. This just show that the system need to be better managed, not lockdown. Lockdown is just cop out and not only it doesn't help it creates tons of additional problem.
  - Silhouette 6y ago
    It's easy to say something is bad. It's more difficult to say what, specifically, would be better. What exactly would "better managed" look like, in your opinion, and what evidence do you have that your version of events would result in better outcomes than the lockdown measures that have been used?
    - matz1 6y ago
      You posted link about ambulance delays. This is issue is not caused by covid, because it happened as well in the past where there was not covid. By implementing lockdown, now you have 2 issue : Ambulance delay and the damage from lockdown.
      - Silhouette 6y ago
        I'm not sure your conclusion logically follows from the evidence, but even if it did, you still haven't answered the big questions your position raises. If you think what they're doing at the moment is wrong, what specifically do you think they should be doing instead and why do you think your alternative strategy would have better outcomes?
        matz1 6y ago
        Specifically: no lockdown. Why it has better outcome? From the data we know that for vast majority of people who get infected it will be either asymptomatic or only have mild symptoms and the serious case/death is skewed towards the elderly. Lockdown cause harm. The virus cause harm. More people suffer from lockdown than the virus. At the minimum doing nothing different than the government already done in the past would lead better outcome than what we currently have. If you want to do something, then there are many ways that are not lockdown, that can be done such as: - increasing healthcare capacity/funding when needed - accelerate development of better treatment - accelerate vaccine development - do not test everyone, so much wasted resource spent on this. - media campaign to educate people about the actual risk of covid - increase campaign on exercise, healthy diet, outdoor activities. That's pretty much what I would do if I'm in power.
        Silhouette 6y ago
        So you're proposing a natural selection strategy that would, on the evidence so far, probably kill around 1 million people in this country alone and possibly cause long-term health consequences that we don't fully understand yet for millions more who get the virus but don't die of it? And that's still making the implicit assumption that the greater number of people getting the virus and therefore greater number of opportunities for new mutations to develop don't make things any worse, for example by evolving a mutation that severely affects other demographics in the same way that the current known variations of the virus affect elderly or otherwise vulnerable groups and/or that can withstand the treatments and vaccines we have available so far. And it's also making the obviously false assumption that the NHS has the resources to offer the best possible care to everyone who does get the virus in your scenario, and that care for others with serious conditions is not compromised causing further suffering and loss of life. I don't think most people would agree that such a strategy is either ethical or likely to be more effective at controlling the virus than the lockdown measures, under the present circumstances.

Silhouette 6y ago

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-55430397 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-55430397 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-ambulance-queue-hospital-patients-lockdown-b1780250.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-... Etc.

matz1 6y ago
Same story happen in 2016,2017,2018,2019. This just show that the system need to be better managed, not lockdown. Lockdown is just cop out and not only it doesn't help it creates tons of additional problem.
- Silhouette 6y ago
  It's easy to say something is bad. It's more difficult to say what, specifically, would be better. What exactly would "better managed" look like, in your opinion, and what evidence do you have that your version of events would result in better outcomes than the lockdown measures that have been used?
  - matz1 6y ago
    You posted link about ambulance delays. This is issue is not caused by covid, because it happened as well in the past where there was not covid. By implementing lockdown, now you have 2 issue : Ambulance delay and the damage from lockdown.
    - Silhouette 6y ago
      I'm not sure your conclusion logically follows from the evidence, but even if it did, you still haven't answered the big questions your position raises. If you think what they're doing at the moment is wrong, what specifically do you think they should be doing instead and why do you think your alternative strategy would have better outcomes?
      - matz1 6y ago
        Specifically: no lockdown. Why it has better outcome? From the data we know that for vast majority of people who get infected it will be either asymptomatic or only have mild symptoms and the serious case/death is skewed towards the elderly. Lockdown cause harm. The virus cause harm. More people suffer from lockdown than the virus. At the minimum doing nothing different than the government already done in the past would lead better outcome than what we currently have. If you want to do something, then there are many ways that are not lockdown, that can be done such as: - increasing healthcare capacity/funding when needed - accelerate development of better treatment - accelerate vaccine development - do not test everyone, so much wasted resource spent on this. - media campaign to educate people about the actual risk of covid - increase campaign on exercise, healthy diet, outdoor activities. That's pretty much what I would do if I'm in power.
        Silhouette 6y ago
        So you're proposing a natural selection strategy that would, on the evidence so far, probably kill around 1 million people in this country alone and possibly cause long-term health consequences that we don't fully understand yet for millions more who get the virus but don't die of it? And that's still making the implicit assumption that the greater number of people getting the virus and therefore greater number of opportunities for new mutations to develop don't make things any worse, for example by evolving a mutation that severely affects other demographics in the same way that the current known variations of the virus affect elderly or otherwise vulnerable groups and/or that can withstand the treatments and vaccines we have available so far. And it's also making the obviously false assumption that the NHS has the resources to offer the best possible care to everyone who does get the virus in your scenario, and that care for others with serious conditions is not compromised causing further suffering and loss of life. I don't think most people would agree that such a strategy is either ethical or likely to be more effective at controlling the virus than the lockdown measures, under the present circumstances.