Coronavirus

[Dave_Mole]

Mike you seem to be portraying people as helpless souls who can't think for themselves

I always like to see people thinking for themselves:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-53176717

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-53804526

https://www.middevonadvertiser.co.uk...earchyear=2020

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/w...virus-18855988

https://metro.co.uk/2020/08/15/anti-...week-13133397/

[Witton Park]

https://uk.gofundme.com/f/carol039s-story

Or perhaps sad stories like Carol's who is trying to raise £160k to save her life after her cancer trial treatment was suspended as a consequence of tthe virus.

[Mike T]

With apologies to Dr Mike 2 - not me - on twitter:

People have had their lives disrupted to varying degrees for 6 months. There has been no visible gain from this, because we have no way of knowing which of us would be sick or dead if the disruption had not taken place. Most people have only seen the downsides, and suffered harm which may or may not have been worse than the alternative. The Government's actions have been erratic, poorly explained, and widely contested, undermining what little trust people had in them to make the right calls to begin with. Even those who are anxious /scared and are willing to do all they can are confused by conflicting advice. Misinformation is rife. People are arguing about things they know little about, and sometimes about things nobody knows the answers to. The risk of indirect harm from Covid restrictions is real. Is it better or worse than Covid harm? - only time will tell.

[Dave_Mole]

A really good piece about Michael Rosen here

[Mike T]

A really good piece about Michael Rosen here

He so nearly died. NHS 111 advised he stay at home; his wife was unhappy with this and asked a doctor friend to have a look at him - his oxygen saturation was 58% - this level of hypoxia is usually fatal if not rapidly corrected, and often fatal even if rapidly corrected. Normal is 98% or above. A very interesting read.

[Mike T]

An interesting article:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...ndemic/616548/

[Flem]

An interesting article:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...ndemic/616548/

Thanks for that link. Very interesting indeed. (More so than anything on Radio 4 even!). And, it seems to me, cause for some optimisim.

Could we get back to a much more normal life by focusing on limiting the conditions for super-spreading events, aggressively engaging in cluster-busting, and deploying cheap, rapid mass tests — that is, once we get our case numbers down to low enough numbers to carry out such a strategy? (Many places with low community transmission could start immediately.) Once we look for and see the forest, it becomes easier to find our way out.

“[...] Countries that have ignored super-spreading have risked getting the worst of both worlds: burdensome restrictions that fail to achieve substantial mitigation. The U.K.’s recent decision to limit outdoor gatherings to six people while allowing pubs and bars to remain open is just one of many such examples.”

I particularly liked her analogy:

This will come as no surprise to anyone who has worked in the service sector, for example, where a small group of problem customers can create almost all the extra work.

[MattPo]

So Trunp and his wife have Covid!
There may be a God?

[Graham Breeze]

So Trunp and his wife have Covid!
There may be a God?

Fake news surely?

[Llani Boy]

So Trunp and his wife have Covid!
There may be a God?

I don't think even our friend Stagger would have made such a nasty and insensitive comment.

Moderation?

Probably not, but yet another example of one rule for one......