The latest figures show that a mere 3,500 died with CV during the last week.
Dreadful? YES for those 3500 and their families.
But really, 10,000 a week die in England & Wales in a normal, average week at this time of year.
As a percentage of our population this is a tiny increase.
A trivial virus, far less lethal than a bad flu season.
And looking back two or three weeks it was far fewer than the average week of flu deaths.
NEXT: there is no general testing.
No way of finding whether MILLIONS have had CV and recovered (like, I suspect, me - and including Boris, Prince Charles & others).
If everyone was tested, the percentage of deaths would plummet.
For most, this is a trivial virus, far less lethal than flu; or than measles etc.
And FAR less lethal than smoking.
Did it really need the world shutting down to beat it?
Did it really need LOCKDOWN to dim it?
Why don't Media tell us this?
Because "the plague" is a better story (with lots of opportunity to fill pages and hours with sobbing relatives, rudely & insensitively implying that a CV death is FAR more upsetting and worthy of media coverage than cancer, heart attacks etc).

It is only a pretend lockdown anyway. Because so many people cant get supermarket deliveries (or can afford them) they have no choice but to go into jam packed shops with no effort being made inside to keep people apart, except for the pretendy queue outside,which seems to be just for show.

I cant leave the house without wallies on bicycles two by two whizzing past an inch away from me.
I avoided being near people very successfully before I was "required" to.

Agreed JK most of the time of the CV virus the questions were not asked and anwsered. But I must say yesterday I saw more than one good interview looking at the whole picture (Picture re CV virus not the cost of shutting down vs not shutting down senario). Unfortunately I watched the TV because it was on but still do not remember if it was ITV or BBC. I prefer the TV off but I do not always have a choice.

There is no doubt that the virus is highly contagious and can be lethal even to some healthy if it gets hold. Maybe if someone healthy get a good dose of the infection at the time as opposed to a smaller dose so to speak.

But definitely as in most things in life the the picture was not examined when considering the lockdown. And now it is the popularity thing when more countries re open others will follow just as happened with the shut down - a case of who wants to be different.

I did find a tabe with the 50,000 flu vaccine failure year. The graph goes up and down each year called something like "unexpected deaths" something like that. It seems to range somewhere between 25,000 to over the 50,000 and does not actually indicate 50,000 was the actual number attributed to the vacine failure as opposed to higher than expected number (much higher that is) for the vaccine failere.

I am not prepared to say who is right or wrong. But it is clear and regrettably normal practice to have a narrow view when considering choices. There is definitely a case for allowing the virus to take it's course (Say trying to protect the most vulnerable) allowing economies to flourish and people still have income. Secondly allow for natural immune system to clear the contagious status of the virus.

Hopefully many positive lessons will be learnt and enacted upon will be a good thing. One has gotta hope that is.

I certainly will be one happy chappy when lockdown is lifted! I have a person to see!!!

Yes average death rate at this time of year = 10,000 per week. For week end 3rd April this year the number of deaths = 16,000

This is several weeks after lockdown so the number of deaths would have been much higher without the measures that have been taken.

This is not a trivial virus. If you want to be treated as an adult then act as one.

FYI JK I think your message must be getting through to the BBC just listening and they are touching on all areas. Now saying 6000 deaths above expected for this time period and something like this in numbers back in 2005. Some expert considering a 35% drop in the ecomony because of the shutdown.

Reporting is getting more rounded and more informative.

I'm sorry but how do you know the deaths would have been higher if measures had been taken to focus far more on the vulnerable and not on the entire population? I may be wrong but if you have access to proof of this and it's not just juvenile superficial thinking without any adult assessment, let us see it.

Just look at Scandinavia - tiny amounts of deaths. talkingpointsmemo.com/news/sweden-coronavirus-death-toll-1000

JK2006 wrote:
I'm sorry but how do you know the deaths would have been higher if measures had been taken to focus far more on the vulnerable and not on the entire population? I may be wrong but if you have access to proof of this and it's not just juvenile superficial thinking without any adult assessment, let us see it.

I agree that if there had been a way of taking measures that focused far more on the vulnerable and not on the entire population then that would have been a better strategy

Unfortunately the only way of doing more than the 12 week isolation that was implemented in February would have been by putting in very complicated procedures that could differentiate between different groups. Unfortunately in the time between identifying the more vulnerable and taking the selective messures the virus would have already taken hold. It's easy being a Monday morning quaterback but not so easy making a play under pressure.

There may be faults with the UK approach to the outbreak but once a decision has been taken it is best to follow the isolation procedures and Stay Home, Protect the NHS, and save lives. To do anything else would require juvenile superficial thinking without any adult assessment.

I agree about self isolation but call it Common Sense (something you seem to know little about). I self isolated from early March as I thought I had a bad cold or flu and didn't want to give it to anyone else. There was quite enough information available from Wuhan showing this is only lethal to a vulnerable section (elderly & unhealthy). Personally, using Common Sense, I also think smokers and past smokers could be vulnerable (I believe smoking opens a window from weakened lungs).

All the different remedies seem to achieve a similar result which, I suspect, would be similar to a bad flu season. Unless you fall for the Media Hype (as you obviously have done BB) in which case the Biblical Plague ought to demand the destruction of global economy and far worse repercussions than the trivial virus.

Adult thinking.

www.spiked-online.com/podcast-episode/we...a-of-global-madness/

Here is an interesting view from Heather Macdonald which is line with JK's views. An interesting point that we could cut road deaths almost completely by forcing people to drive below 25mph at all times, but we make the cost/benefit analysis that it is not worth it. We don't seem to be making that analysis with the Conronavirus.

JK2006 wrote:
............. Unless you fall for the Media Hype (as you obviously have done BB) in which case the Biblical Plague ought to demand the destruction of global economy and far worse repercussions than the trivial virus.

Unless you work in a medical facility and are doing original research you like me will be using various media outlets for the information on which your conclusions are based. I look at the worldwide response to this virus and in the absence of a medical qualification believe the approach being advocated by the vast number of experts. Of course there are always conspiracy theorists and others who will believe in the extreme minority views but I’m happy following the independent medical experts. If I hear those experts on Radio Four or some other media outlet it is the view of the expert I’m listening to not the editorial view of the distribution channel.

I can’t predict who will ultimately be proven right in this situation but given the choice I will support the majority view of the experts. Let’s make it simple (and topical) for you. If you were on Who wants to be a millionaire and didn’t know the answer to a question and choose to “ask the audience”. If one of the choices came back with a 85% rating and other 15% was spread among the other options which answer would you pick? At the minute the vast majority of experts are recommending mass isolation and that therefore is my final answer.

You've got me wrong BB. I think mass isolation at the moment is absolutely correct, given the circumstances we are in. But I also feel this whole fiasco has been a media hype; that it could and should have been dealt with in a far less extreme way.

Some of us are questioning the necessity of the lockdown,yet are rigidly sticking to the rules.

Others are clapping wildly in the streets and putting up rainbow posters in their windows saying "Stay home-stay safe", but are having dozens of people round for barbecues.

JK2006 wrote:
You've got me wrong BB. I think mass isolation at the moment is absolutely correct, given the circumstances we are in

At the minute I've no idea what you think other than you want to blame "the media"

No I don't WANT to blame the media; I DO blame the media; for inflating a trivial (for 95%) virus into a PanicDemic simply because it's a better story, and Governments for falling for the hype and over reacting.

Yes lockdowns can restrict the spread (so would killing everyone). So let's continue until we're on top of it.
But I suspect, after life returns to "normal", people may start to see just how ridiculous the majority have been, believing the Emperor had New Clothes.

they'll start backpedaling any day now.

Print sales have plummeted..online booming but..no-where near the same advertising revenue.

once people get used to online they won't go back to print.

In Australia Murdoch has shut down 60 local newspapers..none will return.

Another publisher..40 newspapers

now 3 small printers have gone bust.

It caught them on the hop..media REALLY MISJUDGED IT.

Western media’s love of exaggeration stands out clearly when comparing the coronavirus stories to a few found on Middle Eastern and African media sites. Not only do the latter show recovery figures but there’s also a noticeable absence of headlines screaming out “It’s going to get worse…” and “Don’t you DARE ask when the lock-down will end!…” etc.

iranian.com/2020/04/15/iran-reports-less...day-50000-recoveries

www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/us-coronavirus...pass-50-000-/1806238

www.newtimes.co.rw/news/covid-19-rwanda-...veries-two-new-cases

Why would the media hype up something that later leads to a global lockdown, plummeting circulation and less sales and advertising revenue for themselves? Could it be that the media hype you talk about so much didn’t pre-empt and influence the lockdowns, but that the lockdowns gave the media a sudden excuse to go into hype mode when reporting on the virus?

You say in your post that you now agree that we should continue with the lockdown in one breath, and then contradict yourself in the next paragraph by saying the lockdown should have been limited to the most vulnerable. So please tell us what’s stopping the powers that be from loosening the current lockdown to that level? If it’s the lack of testing resources available now, then there would have been a lack of testing resources back at the start of the pandemic, and therefore it would have been unwise not to go for a complete lockdown back then.

The problem with this forum at the moment is that the moderator talks out of his bum too much, and then forgets he has done so. You can’t have it both ways Mr King!

Now we're on the lockdown yes, we should keep doing it until the virus is temporarily paused; yes we should start normal life as soon as possible; yes it was the wrong road but we're on it.
Yes the media cannot help itself; it only has one goal; a good story.
That applies to all media.
Take your silly insults elsewhere Havana. Others will be easier to fool.

When the other guy in the baseball hat talks like that, people say he is 'walking back' from what he said before; that's exactly what it is. In truth, he doesn't really know how the hell this pandemic is going to pan out, but he's desperate to get the US economy fired up again somehow. He also doesn't refer to it as being trivial either.

He always steers his press briefings towards the issue of opening up; the latest news is that there are going to be four staggered stages of easing up. This will enable the state governors at their discretion to ease or tighten the lockdown measures in response to the numbers of new COVID-19 infections being reported; I hope it works. It's going to be a case of watch this space ...