Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, dilligaf said:

I am not going to relate this to any family member, but i think I once told Wooley about our mothers time in a care home.

I worked for and looked after an elderly lady for a few years  ( along with some paid for carers )and she ended up in a lovely care home  Elder Grange for two years before her death.

  I thought that a lady of her standing and background would suffer in a home, as she was very well off and had lived a rather privileged life. She had dementia and  Parkinsons so was not always aware of her surroundings etc. Some days she hardly recognised me until we chatted, then sometimes she got confused about our relationship.

The poor soul was bed bound for two whole years, but in her mind had turned the clock back about 45 years and related stories to me about what was happening in her life and the places she had been the day before and how her husband had been a bit naughty etc.

I often thought and said that that was no life, yet in her mind she was reliving her past and was very happy in that world. You, me or anyone else can have no idea of just how much pleasure she got from her "fantasy" life. She was happy with her lot. She had fantastic care from all the staff there and was, up until her passing happy with her lot.

How can anyone say that she should have been put down, or that her contracting a fatal virus was just life and no big deal. She was a real person with a real life.

Compare that to the hundreds of thieves, thugs, rapists, murderers, drug dealers and perverts, who are allowed to live their lives, after little punishment.

Who do you think should be put down now ?

I don't think anyone would be wanting to "put down" anyone that was clearly happy with their lot. But I do believe that there are limits as to how far the rest of society should be expected to trash the prime of their own lives. And you have to acknowledge that there are many people in the statistics that are way beyond the condition of the lady of whom you speak. Do the best we can to isolate care homes, by all means, but not shut down the world. I'm with you on the murderers, rapists and general bad bastards, of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 16.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

OK. For what it's worth I'm going to try and explain why genomics is important in a ssRNA virus epidemic. No doubt it will end up being recited badly at a briefing, but, well, whatever. You read it he

Rachel has tried every which way to re-offer her services. This last tweet wasn't the first time she's reached out. Government has made it very clear they do not want her to be involved. I want h

I think you'll find most so called anti-government rhetoric is focused on government-stupidity and government-selfishness. In recent times - under Brown, Bell and now Quayle - all too many govern

Posted Images

1 minute ago, woolley said:

I don't think anyone would be wanting to "put down" anyone that was clearly happy with their lot. But I do believe that there are limits as to how far the rest of society should be expected to trash the prime of their own lives. And you have to acknowledge that there are many people in the statistics that are way beyond the condition of the lady of whom you speak. Do the best we can to isolate care homes, by all means, but not shut down the world. I'm with you on the murderers, rapists and general bad bastards, of course.

Thanks Wooley , i think we sing from the same hymn sheet.

For a long time in her care, she had to listen to the pitiful screams of another resident who was waiting to go into a dementia unit. that was totally unfair. The person screaming was in a pitiful state and he was the type of person who had no life and was just being kept alive for reasons i dont understand. How is it acceptable to live a life on a bed 24/7 screaming in such a way. THAT is not a life. He could not communicate in any shape or form, just moan and scream . Even as an adult, who had seen and heard most things in life, that scream was upsetting

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

What's the age cut off there then? 60 and you're locked up? Mental. I had you down as more intelligent than this. Why have the cases of the virus exploded in the southern US? Is it probably mostly because of exactly the attitude 'it only kills the old so we can just do what we want'? Oh, yes, yes it is. 

This is the problem. People start getting emotional about it. I will try to answer you rationally. There isn't a cut off age, and nobody is locked up. You are an adult. You use your own judgment according to your age and state of health. If you are retired and you are on a pension, or have savings, then you might want to curtail your interactions with society as much as possible for the duration. If you feel robust despite your great age and the warnings, then crack on. You know the risks. Those in care homes should, as I said, be segregated as far as possible. Mental? No. Much more rational than what is actually happening. Why have cases exploded in the US? Probably because they haven't yet got to grips with track and trace and local restrictions. They will have to do so. As for it only killing the old, well with the frail and old either isolating or in care homes, as outlined above, they should be much better protected than hitherto and the toll be much lower.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dilligaf said:

Thanks Wooley , i think we sing from the same hymn sheet.

For a long time in her care, she had to listen to the pitiful screams of another resident who was waiting to go into a dementia unit. that was totally unfair. The person screaming was in a pitiful state and he was the type of person who had no life and was just being kept alive for reasons i dont understand. How is it acceptable to live a life on a bed 24/7 screaming in such a way. THAT is not a life. He could not communicate in any shape or form, just moan and scream . Even as an adult, who had seen and heard most things in life, that scream was upsetting

Yes, absolutely true, dilli. It is heartrending. I've seen a lot of it. Never forget that many of those fatality numbers on the excellent graphic posted on the previous page are people in just the predicament you describe.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This ground has been gone over a number of times. I do not see how it is in anyway possible to 'protect' the vulnerable if you have just allowed the virus to run though everyone else. It just isnt. It would eventually get into care homes, and we all know what happens. If you let it go then the duration will be very very long indeed. Our strategy here of a short(ish - it did drag) strict lockdown was entirely the right thing to do. Watch it take off again elsewhere.

Edited by TheTeapot
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

This ground has been gone over a number of times. I do not see how it is in anyway possible to 'protect' the vulnerable if you have just allowed the virus to run though everyone else. It just isnt. It would eventually get into care homes, and we all know what happens. Our strategy here of a short(ish - it did drag) strict lockdown was entirely the right thing to do. Watch it take off again elsewhere.

We're watching it happen now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well quite. Virtually the entire continent of The Americas is riddled with it, no one knows quite how nuts it is in India, and all over Europe there are little flashpoints. I was kind of hoping that the principal effect of the first lockdown would have been to make people a little more cautious, a bit more understanding, and to have some consideration for the future, but it appears I was wrong. I might watch an old Adam Curtis documentary like The Power of Nightmares now to remind myself that humans are utterly selfish assholes and that looking forward everything is completely bleak.

We are so so lucky to be living here right now, it can't be long before some twats spoil it cos they fancied a couple of weeks away.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Well quite. Virtually the entire continent of The Americas is riddled with it, no one knows quite how nuts it is in India, and all over Europe there are little flashpoints. I was kind of hoping that the principal effect of the first lockdown would have been to make people a little more cautious, a bit more understanding, and to have some consideration for the future, but it appears I was wrong. I might watch an old Adam Curtis documentary like The Power of Nightmares now to remind myself that humans are utterly selfish assholes and that looking forward everything is completely bleak.

We are so so lucky to be living here right now, it can't be long before some twats spoil it cos they fancied a couple of weeks away.

Yes, we are lucky to be living here, but let's not get carried away about everything being completely bleak elsewhere. The world population is about 8 billion. 0.2% of the population have been confirmed as having the virus. There will be many more that have been asymptomatic. There have been 646,000 deaths. There will be miscounting, over and under, but 646,000 deaths out of an 8 billion population is nothing like the end of the world. We are getting a greater understanding of the virus. Getting better at isolation and local lockdown as time goes by. A striking feature of the graphic posted a little way back is that less than 1% of deaths are of people with no underlying health problems. We know that there are outliers. We know that there are some relatively young people who can have life changing consequences from contracting Covid. But the ramifications of stopping the world and trying to get off are infinitely worse. We need to keep a sense of proportion.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What a facile argument.

Who cares about the end of the world?

We all care about those close to us.

I've lost a dear friend to the virus aged 59. They could and should have had many more happy years ahead of them. I blame Bozo and his useless government for their untimely demise. Behind every statistic is a life lost with a horrible and in many cases unnecessary death and leaving those who loved them bereft and bereaved.

That is entirely different from those who, in appearance at least, have a still functioning body minus a cognative mind. At least we think they've lost perception, memory, reasoning etc but unfortunately we can't be sure that is the case....

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2020 at 5:11 PM, Mr Newbie said:

Interesting to note that virtually all those deaths are in the semi retired or retired age groups. And yet we’ve put millions of people who were never ever going to die of anything out of work (some permanently I’m sure) to protect a load of people who could have just stayed at home for a few months and used their pensions to shop for food online. 

You don’t have to convince me. As concerns the specific case of the IOM, my understanding is that only 6 people of the 24 who died, died in a hospital. It means that the other 18 were too frail to make it to the hospital. If coronavirus had not killed them, they would have died soon of some other ailment; or simply of old age. Said that, I am no supporter of the bit callous argument that because they were so old and frail their lives matters less. If I were to be hospitalised, I would not want my life to be prioritised only on the ground of age and would have no hesitation with signing a form to that regard. I went through some recent postings to this thread: some of you appear to criticise the lockdown with some rather cynical arguments regarding the elderly, frankly. I am no supporter of euthanasia either.

Most of my objection to the lockdown policies rests on two arguments mainly: (i) freedom; individual choice and responsibility are so paramount important and the  historical record of governments that sought to suppress them for some purportedly common good is absolutely atrocious; and (ii) according to my understanding of the profile of this pandemic, countries that attempted a complete suppression of the virus caused huge damage to their economies and people livelihoods for very little gain as concerns Covid-19’s mortality, in the end, when a more definitive balance sheet is drawn up. That is what I am convinced is going to happen. Right now, many "lockdown countries" already have higher death rates than Sweden. These are only the first few months of Covid-19; and the damn virus is going to be with us for ever!

During the past few days I have been reflecting that the IOM is among the best places in Europe for me to sit out this stupid pandemic, despite our pathetic government (I have homes elsewhere and the option to live elsewhere if I wanted). In most countries now masks have become mandatory on public transport and shops. My anger level would have shot up every time I had to wear one. It could have led me to having a criminal record at last (for the time being, got to middle age without one).

The evidence that masks have any purpose apart from the politics behind it is bullocks; actually there is plenty of evidence that, unless they are specialised masks worn within the context of hospitals and the medical profession, they are not a good idea:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.20047217v2

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/5/4/e006577.full.pdf

Edited by Black Mirror
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Black Mirror said:

You don’t have to convince me. As concerns the specific case of the IOM, my understanding is that only 6 people of the 24 who died, died in a hospital. It means that the other 18 were too frail to make it to the hospital. If coronavirus had not killed them, they would have died soon of some other ailment; or simply of old age. Said that, I am no supporter of the bit callous argument that because they were so old and frail their lives matters less. If I were to be hospitalised, I would not want my life to be prioritised only on the ground of age and would have no hesitation with signing a form to that regard. I went through some recent postings to this thread: some of you appear to criticise the lockdown with some rather cynical arguments regarding the elderly, frankly. I am no supporter of euthanasia either.

I don't support euthanasia in its purist form. It's far more nuanced than that though. Do you advocate the opposite position of preserving life at all costs in any condition? That, to me, is equally abhorrent. It's cruel what we ask our medics to do in the name of humanity. I've witnessed it play out too many times in profound horror. It is an issue that society needs to face in any case, quite aside from the current emergency.

Your post seems to be facing both ways. You acknowledge that in the vast majority of cases, the patients who died were in such a bad way that they would have succumbed to their underlying conditions very soon in any case. You then say that to recognise this truth about them being old and frail is callous. This is not the case. It is not that their lives matter less. It is that, de facto, they have lived long lives, they are at the end of their lives and we cannot work miracles. The young must have their chance too. Their chances of being seriously troubled by the infection are vanishingly small. I don't say this as a selfish youngster. I say it as one who is quite long in the tooth myself. I had my prime and I want our young to have theirs without being impoverished or made to feel guilty.

Edited by woolley
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Black Mirror said:

The evidence that masks have any purpose apart from the politics behind it is bullocks; actually there is plenty of evidence that, unless they are specialised masks worn within the context of hospitals and the medical profession, they are not a good idea:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.20047217v2

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/5/4/e006577.full.pdf

Did you actually even look at what either of those papers said or did you you just copy the links off something else believing they said what you hope they said?   Because they don't.

The first is a review article (ie not original research, but summarising what other papers have been published on a particular topic).  It points out there hasn't been a awful lot published on the subject[1].  It concludes "Based on observational evidence from the previous SARS epidemic included in the previous version of our Cochrane review we recommend the use of masks combined with other measures".

The second is a specific study done in Vietnam in 2011 and tests whether cloth masks are as effective as medical masks in high-risk clinical situations.  Unsurprisingly they weren't.  That doesn't prove that cloth masks aren't more effective than nothing or that they are useless in other situations than the very particular one looked at or that any masks are ineffective outside a clinical setting (in fact it suggests the opposite).  What is more the study looked at whether such masks are protective for the wearer (as would be required in the test situations), while those recommending cloth masks are doing so because it stops the wearer spreading infections to others.

We see this all the time from what you might call the more Trumpian end of public discourse.  People put down links claiming they prove something when even the slightest examination of them will show that they don't.  I don't know whether this is because such people are so gullible that because someone else has given the links to them and they are supposed to support their existing prejudices, then they accept them.  Or if they are so arrogant that they think everyone will take what they say on trust and think they are very clever referencing scientific papers.  Either way it's not a good look - but they don't seem to mind.

 

[1]  The review dates from April and only looked at publication up to the start of the month so there may well have been more studies that have come out since on such a 'hot' topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Black Mirror said:

You don’t have to convince me. As concerns the specific case of the IOM, my understanding is that only 6 people of the 24 who died, died in a hospital. It means that the other 18 were too frail to make it to the hospital. If coronavirus had not killed them, they would have died soon of some other ailment; or simply of old age. Said that, I am no supporter of the bit callous argument that because they were so old and frail their lives matters less. If I were to be hospitalised, I would not want my life to be prioritised only on the ground of age and would have no hesitation with signing a form to that regard. I went through some recent postings to this thread: some of you appear to criticise the lockdown with some rather cynical arguments regarding the elderly, frankly. I am no supporter of euthanasia either.

It’s depressing to see this all rolling out to be honest and it does validate a lot of the IOM approach to border control but by the third and fourth quarter of 2020 it’s going to be very clear how many fit healthy people have been thrown under a bus by all of this and it’s going to cause a huge political backlash at some stage as so many will have to adapt to widespread unemployment and loss of income and property. At the moment the anger of those people is being tempered as they are being bought off by furlough schemes and other state support buying them false hope that it’s not going to be so bad. But at some stage millions of people in the UK are going to work out that they’ve been fucked, and that they have been pretty much fucked right from the start of this, and they aren’t going to be too happy about it. It would have made much more sense to force the vulnerable groups to shield rather than to shut down everything to protect an underinvested NHS which it’s clear hasn’t struggled anyway.

The US is the template for what will probably happen in Europe towards the end of the year. They had no furlough schemes, no compensation, no state support of any kind, not even any mortgage relief schemes, so it all kicked off immediately as millions of people were turfed out with bugger all to live on. Whereas in the UK they’ve tried to buy 9 months of time to stave off the inevitable backlash from people with no jobs, no hope, and no ability to provide for their families. Then you’ll get a whole pile of riots and crazy stuff happening as people will believe at that stage that they have nothing to lose as their government has crapped on them by taking their job off them when it could have been done differently. It’s only just starting. Furlough payments now being cut back but a big % of those people will find their job is not there to return to and that no other jobs exist either. Then it’s going to kick off.

The IOM could benefit considerably from all of this too if we tried. 

Edited by Mr Newbie
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Mr Newbie said:

It’s depressing to see this all rolling out to be honest and it does validate a lot of the IOM approach to border control but by the third and fourth quarter of 2020 it’s going to be very clear how many fit healthy people have been thrown under a bus by all of this and it’s going to cause a huge political backlash at some stage as so many will have to adapt to widespread unemployment and loss of income and property. At the moment the anger of those people is being tempered as they are being bought off by furlough schemes and other state support buying them false hope that it’s not going to be so bad. But at some stage millions of people in the UK are going to work out that they’ve been fucked, and that they have been pretty much fucked right from the start of this, and they aren’t going to be too happy about it. It would have made much more sense to force the vulnerable groups to shield rather than to shut down everything to protect an underinvested NHS which it’s clear hasn’t struggled anyway.

The US is the template for what will probably happen in Europe towards the end of the year. They had no furlough schemes, no compensation, no state support of any kind, not even any mortgage relief schemes, so it all kicked off immediately as millions of people were turfed out with bugger all to live on. Whereas in the UK they’ve tried to buy 9 months of time to stave off the inevitable backlash from people with no jobs, no hope, and no ability to provide for their families. Then you’ll get a whole pile of riots and crazy stuff happening as people will believe at that stage that they have nothing to lose as their government has crapped on them by taking their job off them when it could have been done differently. It’s only just starting. Furlough payments now being cut back but a big % of those people will find their job is not there to return to and that no other jobs exist either. Then it’s going to kick off.

The IOM could benefit considerably from all of this too if we tried. 

I have noticed a few restaurants opening up lots of people out in restaurants and pubs so hopefully the island might not be hit to hard. Maybe I'm being optimistic. but the rest of your post I think you're probably right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...