A few questions

[Pat Vegas]

Plenty of PPE available unless you’re a Labour member, apparently. In which case you suffer miraculous PPE blindness.

There are plenty of ICU beds available and A&E is empty.

The only real downside is all the cancer patients dying unnecessarily because their operations have been cancelled. But obviously it’s worth a few extra deaths so we can all have a massive panic for no good reason.

Getting bored of all this now.

I read more people died in Italy last year Jan to March than this year

[Sir C]

Getting bored of all this now.

I read more people died in Italy last year Jan to March than this year

In fairness this didn’t really get started until March, did it? I suspect when you add April numbers in it will look a bit different. Still, it’s a few thousand (tragic) extra deads. It’s not a ****in apocalypse.

[Pat Vegas]

In fairness this didn’t really get started until March, did it? I suspect when you add April numbers in it will look a bit different. Still, it’s a few thousand (tragic) extra deads. It’s not a ****in apocalypse.

Nah it also included part of April too. And it was
Still higher I need to find it.

[IUFG]

Getting bored of all this now.

I read more people died in Italy last year Jan to March than this year

https://www.euromomo.eu/

[Pokster]

Getting bored of all this now.

I read more people died in Italy last year Jan to March than this year

What we will never know is how many more people would have died if the measures that have been put in place hadn't been actioned. It almost certainly has stopped the NHS breaking. There obviously is a lack of PPE getting to the front line and mistakes have obviously been made. But as usual it is turned into a political thread.

[Burney]

Getting bored of all this now.

I read more people died in Italy last year Jan to March than this year

Right, well the ONS data for the week ending 3 April show 6,000+ deaths over the five-year average, f. What do you reckon that was about, then?

By all means argue that the lockdown may not be the best plan (God knows, I have), but let's not try and pretend that this disease isn't killing relatively large numbers of people over and above the norm.

[Pat Vegas]

Right, well the ONS data for the week ending 3 April show 6,000+ deaths over the five-year average, f. What do you reckon that was about, then?

By all means argue that the lockdown may not be the best plan (God knows, I have), but let's not try and pretend that this disease isn't killing relatively large numbers of people over and above the norm.

Absoultely it's definately killing lots of people. and it's horrendous.

But there are some strange things going on, Not to be a conspiracy nut. I just hope all deaths are being correctly recorded.

[Burney]

Absoultely it's definately killing lots of people. and it's horrendous.

But there are some strange things going on, Not to be a conspiracy nut. I just hope all deaths are being correctly recorded.

Of course they're not. It's virtually impossible to record all the deaths accurately at the moment. Not least because you have the question of 'dying with' and 'dying of', which are being far too easily confused at the moment. And different countries are recording slightly differently (or in some cases just flat-out lying). Equally, countries with low population densities are being compared on infection rates with ones with high population density. It's impossible to get an accurate picture as things stand.

The brutal truth is this, though: this thing is going to go through the global population. We have no choice about that. All that can be controlled is the rate of spread and thus the rate of deaths. Whether we like it or not, we're either going to get herd immunity through contracting it or (much less likely in the short term) by a vaccine. That means that mortality rates for those who contract it when this is all over are likely to be similar everywhere - just over different periods and mitigated only by factors of better and more available treatment.

[Sir C]

Of course they're not. It's virtually impossible to record all the deaths accurately at the moment. Not least because you have the question of 'dying with' and 'dying of', which are being far too easily confused at the moment. And different countries are recording slightly differently (or in some cases just flat-out lying). Equally, countries with low population densities are being compared on infection rates with ones with high population density. It's impossible to get an accurate picture as things stand.

The brutal truth is this, though: this thing is going to go through the global population. We have no choice about that. All that can be controlled is the rate of spread and thus the rate of deaths. Whether we like it or not, we're either going to get herd immunity through contracting it or (much less likely in the short term) by a vaccine. That means that mortality rates for those who contract it when this is all over are likely to be similar everywhere - just over different periods and mitigated only by factors of better and more available treatment.

It’s not necessarily a bad thing, mind. We’ve got far too many people and too many of them are old. Something that thins out the alter kackers might be helpful in the long run.

Granted, this theory may not be so appealing to those egotists who fear the blessed release of death.

[Burney]

It’s not necessarily a bad thing, mind. We’ve got far too many people and too many of them are old. Something that thins out the alter kackers might be helpful in the long run.

Granted, this theory may not be so appealing to those egotists who fear the blessed release of death.

It could mean the housing market temporarily becomes flooded as old'uns drop off the perch in large numbers. However, that will simply mean a drop in prices (good news for buying) that could mean inheriting families decide instead to rent rather than sell at the bottom of the market.