What else do you think you will lose, apart from your life, that might mean trying to preserve it is a greater priority?

Arriving at the precise level of those who die as a consequence of a C19 infection is a hugely complicated matter which won't be known for a long time, if ever.

It is though greater than 0.1% but probably less than 1%. We have seen 112,144 excess deaths in the 12-month period ended 12th March 2021. That of itself understates the deaths from C19 as other causes of death were reduced. There were fewer deaths from flu and road accidents, as examples, due to the lockdowns. By January this year the modelling suggested around 20% of people had caught C19. The death rate has slowed so lets stick with that figure. 112,144 deaths from 20% of the UK population of 67.61 million equates to a death rate of 0.8%

It's the impact of the lockdowns you are ignoring. Just consider what might have happened if C19 had not been restrained by lockdowns. If we had ignored it completely what % would have caught it? 50%? 75%. The number of deaths would have risen exponentially to 300,000 or 450,000. Imagine the impact on our hospitals and their staff, who struggled even at the lower numbers.

Now imagine what would have happened if we had attempted just to isolate the seemingly most vulnerable, which many have argued was a viable alternative. Those groups were still the worst affected even with the lockdowns. How much more so had the rest of society just carried on and then brought even more infections through the supposed safety nets?

The impact of that scenario cannot be quantified as it possesses too many variables, but it wouldn't have been pretty. Some argue that was a price worth paying but not too many of them were the elderly, vulnerable or either nurses or doctors.

So at the end of the day I don't any rational argument exists for us not doing what we did. A decision shared by just about every other country. Bar a few basket cases, who are now belatedly changing course.

[Link]

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

How many deaths?
Death is a potential side effect of just about any medicine.
Fortunately, it is rare.

1 in 100,000 would probably be acceptable. That would be about 700 people to protect 70 million.
It may sound harsh, but I think most people would take those odds.
Everyone considers the risks when they have a jab, but the risks are usually heavily outweighed by the benefit, especially if you are older and at genuine risk of a premature and lonely death on a ventilator at any moment.
If thousands were dropping all over the place then we would have a problem, but I suspect such an outcome would have been hinted at in the trials.

From what I can see the fantasy emanates from your posts, SW19, not mine.
So, instead of your usual ten paragraph efforts, tell me one benefit, not a whole tiresome list, just your one top-of-the-list benefit one might gain from having this experimental gene therapy?

Sat still for 5 seconds for a painless injection? Not exactly Stalingrad is it?

No doubt everyone has a different story to tell during these times. Many lost loved ones either because of covid or during it (and couldn't appropriately mourn them), or had to make quarantine type sacrifices to keep others safe for a year plus. For all sorts of reasons and even regardless of peoples personal take on the approach, it's not been a barrel of fun and we are and have been in a war of sorts. Maple's line of work, OAP homes certainly resembled a war zone. It's often the 'lets pretend it isn't happening' or 'carry on as normal, they'll die soon anyway' types who laughably seem to see themselves as 'bulldog spirit' heroes of the piece, so if they can I'm happy for someone who actually behaved with duty and care to feel like they have done their bit too .

Edited by BlueJay (03 Apr 2021 12.44am)

One sentence? It’s not gene therapy, maybe start there.

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.