We may have peaked according to this

You're not giving me any figures though?

I'm making a reasonable estimation based on figures elsewhere that many more people than 27,000 (which is likely too low) would have died had we taken Sweden's route of leaving places open. I don't think that's unreasonable, indeed it's statistically certain.

Their neighbours both show considerably less dead as a result and they will be able to deal with opening up better than Sweden. Throw in that the UK has a considerably higher population density than many countries and that number is higher still.

I'm not denying there aren't serious problems from having a lockdown by choice in terms of mental health, but at least there's some ability to deal with that, unfortunately you can't bring tens of thousands more back from the dead.

If you've figures or data to suggest otherwise then I'm happy reconsider.

 

How can I give you figures from the future. You're not making any reasonable estimations mate, I'm sorry but you're not. Covid-19 isn't going away and you're drawing conclusions from the first few seconds of it and it's utterly pointless. It's with us forever. Like I've said twice now, give me the same figures next year.

 

Well you're the one telling me I'm wrong. On what basis are you making that statement then? A peer reviewed study? A well researched article? Anything.

I don't understand why you're saying it's unreasonable to assume a more laissez faire attitude to the lockdown wouldn't have killed more people? And in my view it's the lesser of two poor choices when compared to the mental health consequences. Surely you're not suggesting we should just allow those with mental illness to risk getting Covid?
What about those recovering from it having PTSD?

What do you want me to compare my figures against, and what alterative approach do you suggest?

 

Why are you going on about suicides and mental health? People are going to continue to die of Covid-19. The countries you have mention haven't stopped the virus, they've paused it. Almost everyone in those countries is still susceptible to the virus and it's coming back, because if they want to eat then they will have to trade and if they do that then Covid-19 is coming back in. And the same death rates will, eventually, apply to all countries. Places like Sweden, however, will have continued to treat people with other diseases like cancer, where as we've stopped. As I keep saying, give me the figures you have quoted in another year. Our lives aren't 2 months in 2020, they keep going, and so does this virus.

 

To be frank, I'm not sure what your point is then, other than "it's going to continue". Well yes, clearly it will do until a cure or vaccination is found. And we've not stopped treating all people with cancer or other illnesses (my mum has received a referral just today) and following my conversation at work today certainly in Leeds they have more staff then required to deal with Covid and do not require additional help until possibly the next wave in the autumn. Besides which Sweden has a superior health service than ours, which unfortunately has been decimated by underfunding. It has far less population density. Like I said, apply that here and we'd be ******.

I don't like what's happening, I just can't see a better alternative.

 

The point is, you don't judge what has happened after 2 months, you judge what has happened after 2 years at the very least. To judge after 2 months is entirely without merit.

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11525439/interactive-uk-coronavirus-map-deaths-by-postcode/

For the first time you can enter your postcode and see how many Covid deaths have been recorded in your surrounding area.

 

PS Please stop being so myopic and judging the situation on one family member or such a brief period of time, particularly as you're trying to discredit those who are not doing so. I realise you won't like that, but it absolutely needs saying.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52382303

 

You can judge the effect now, of not taking immediate action several weeks ago to save the most lives. We know that had we not done so there would be tens of thousands more dead people. Its churlish to say otherwise.

Again, im not sure what a better alternative was.

 

You said,

We haven't stopped, the article doesn't say that either. Again, there's no easy solution here, there's just bad and worse ways to deal with this.

I'm open to alternatives but I've not seen any apart from rewinding time and being more prepared like South Korea.

 

We all know the lockdown can't go on forever. That's obvious. At the present moment though it has stopped the NHS being swamped and saved lives.
I think THAT needs saying!

 

I have 3 family members who have all had treatment cancelled.

 

They're such shits! (I know we already know that). 'DEATH MAP' ffs.

 

My mother-in-law had her cancer op cancelled. They've sent her some tablets instead.

 

I don't doubt it.

 

Is that really much worse than the BBC having a 'see deaths in your area' facility? Or even really the constant national broadcast and demand to know how many have died each day?

 

It’s all very macabre, the Sun’s seems almost gleeful though.

 

They have poor journalists and poor editors so they can't rely on well written investigative journalism to get the readers in. Instead they have to use eye catching headlines and shock tactics.