Manx schools

[Lost Login]

9 minutes ago, RIchard Britten said:

That all depends on what you consider an acceptable number of people to die from this virus so that you can get a haircut?

The logical extension of your argument, if I presume your answer is nil, is that we never open the borders and continue social distancing etc indefinitely as if flu or norovirus goes around IoM community then it could result in some people dying. Same for measles for those who have not had a vaccine. People could pick up all sorts of diseases when on foreign holidays.

 We act in a manner where we state that the only acceptable number of deaths arising out of the population having x or y disease is nil, we take a considered balanced approach. Why is Covid 19 different?  

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

11 minutes ago, RIchard Britten said:

Are we talking about shark attacks or CV-19

Both.  And many other potential and real virus threats.

You seem to advocate being in permanent lockdown. 

[RIchard Britten]

Just now, Lost Login said:

The logical extension of your argument, if I presume your answer is nil...

My answer is as few as we can achieve.

1 minute ago, Lost Login said:

Why is Covid 19 different?  

Because there has not been a virus that has spread so far, so quickly and killed so many in a long time (certainly not in living memory).

[RIchard Britten]

2 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

Both.  And many other potential and real virus threats.

You seem to advocate being in permanent lockdown. 

"Permanent", no.

Extended for as long as is required, yes.

[Lost Login]

6 minutes ago, RIchard Britten said:

So I ask my original question as an answer to yours:

How many deaths are acceptable?  Because relaxing the lock down now will only lead to the lock down happening again in the near future.

I gave an answer to PK on this a long time ago. At the same time I asked him how many deaths from other causes are you prepared to  accept to prevent a single further case of Covid 19. Due to the lack of other treatments there is a knock on effect on other areas of health.

In a utopian world the answer to the question is nil as it is to your question. But we don't live in a utopian world so for every Covid 19 life saved how many missed cancer diagnosis, future deaths from cancer etc should we allow before the balance on the scales are tipped. PK refused to answer.    

 

[P.K.]

33 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

"More" people die every day.  It is life.

What about about the families of cancer sufferers who have had their treatment halted? What about the families of those who will get cancer than would have had a better survival chance with earlier detection?  What about the families of the suicides this has caused? The domestic violence recipients and their families?

What a facile argument.

We pay Healthcare Professionals to manage the situation re cancer, Social Workers re the suicide risk and a Police Force to deal with domestic violence.

When are the idiots on here going to realise that actually there is no such thing as an "acceptable" avoidable death?

Dear me....

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

Just now, P.K. said:

What a facile argument.

We pay Healthcare Professionals to manage the situation re cancer, Social Workers re the suicide risk and a Police Force to deal with domestic violence.

When are the idiots on here going to realise that actually there is no such thing as an "acceptable" avoidable death?

Dear me....

Here we go. As if one troll wasn't enough.

The vast majority of people disagree with you.

[P.K.]

1 minute ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

Here we go. As if one troll wasn't enough.

The vast majority of people disagree with you.

Name them...

[RIchard Britten]

1 minute ago, Lost Login said:

In a utopian world the answer to the question is nil as it is to your question. But we don't live in a utopian world so for every Covid 19 life saved how many missed cancer diagnosis, future deaths from cancer etc should we allow before the balance on the scales are tipped. PK refused to answer.    

Let's explore this.

Let's say they re-opened the hospitals fully again so the cancer treatments can take place, would you agree that those patients are immuno-compromised because of their cancer treatments?

Now, lets add in hundreds if not thousands of people passing through the hospital that either have or have had CV19 (knowingly or not), what do you think is going to be the end result if one of those immuno-compromised patients catchs CV-19?

[RIchard Britten]

1 minute ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

Here we go. As if one troll wasn't enough.

The vast majority of people disagree with you.

Just because you are wrong doesn't mean you are being trolled.

"The majority"?  Yeah, we all know what the majority look like.

 

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

I'm not wrong though. 

[RIchard Britten]

1 minute ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

I'm not wrong though. 

Clearly and demonstrably you are.

[Lost Login]

1 minute ago, RIchard Britten said:

My answer is as few as we can achieve.

Because there has not been a virus that has spread so far, so quickly and killed so many in a long time (certainly not in living memory).

The first sentence is a non answer. We can achieve nil but the restrictions we have to put in place to achieve that may be deemed to be excessive and result in major problems elsewhere.

I appreciate that we need to control the spread and the numbers so we can cope, but just because it spreads quickly and has a higher mortality rate than some other diseases does not in my view mean that there is a requirement that it is concentrated on the exclusion of basically everything else. I read posts and it seems that if we keep in restrictions in place until there is a cure/vaccine and do so at a level to ensure there will not be a future single death from Covid 19 there will be no affect on anything else. I may disagree with others points of view but I respect their point of view if they accept that the adverse consequence of their actions are outweighed by the benefits. It is those who don't accept that there will be adverse consequences that I struggle with.  

 

[P.K.]

1 minute ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

I'm not wrong though. 

Not always right but never wrong....

Like my ex-wife.

[P.K.]

3 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

The first sentence is a non answer. We can achieve nil but the restrictions we have to put in place to achieve that may be deemed to be excessive and result in major problems elsewhere.

I appreciate that we need to control the spread and the numbers so we can cope, but just because it spreads quickly and has a higher mortality rate than some other diseases does not in my view mean that there is a requirement that it is concentrated on the exclusion of basically everything else. I read posts and it seems that if we keep in restrictions in place until there is a cure/vaccine and do so at a level to ensure there will not be a future single death from Covid 19 there will be no affect on anything else. I may disagree with others points of view but I respect their point of view if they accept that the adverse consequence of their actions are outweighed by the benefits. It is those who don't accept that there will be adverse consequences that I struggle with.  

Of course there are adverse consequences. To assume normal rational people don't know that is pretty stupid really.