I guess that's because the deaths haven't yet happened. There is obviously a time lag between infection and death. What the impact of the greater understanding and more effective treatments will be on the number of deaths I don't think is known yet either.

What is known is the infection rate increasing and that's enough.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (16 Oct 2020 10.28pm)

That's incorrect. I label people who claim the government wants to vaccinate us to "chip us" or to "ensure conformity" as conspiracy theorists. And from there inaccuracies branch out to an overly simplified idea that (flu) vaccines are 'useless and harmful' by supplying incomplete information on the topic, and being attacked for posting a far more comprehensive and balances view. My overriding take is that people are perfectly able to have a view on government approach, without adopting an unbelievably slanted take across the board that I can only assume they feel absolves them of any responsibility or impact of their own stance.

Whatever decisions are made are going to be worse than the status quo and so there will be no there's destined to be no shortage of blame. It may well be that the eventual impact of lockdowns and measures causes more damage than harm of the virus itself and I've said absolutely nothing that criticises that take. We can of course factor in that initially we didn't know what we were dealing with, whereas now we know more and have better treatments, and so I have sympathy for the views of cities under measures now. Just as I do those concerned that the situation might get worse (though I did highlight that deaths might be less alarmist metric to get behind, rather than case count, which was likely vastly higher than it is now earlier in the year).

But regardless of what people think of the government approach, it pays to have an outlook of the virus itself, treatments and of individual takes that offer a degree of balance and takes on board information from multiple perspectives rather than adopt a skewed conclusion and spends all day hunting for information that supports it. I'm not the one on here wagging my finger at people who shield if they need to or have a degree of social life if they don't. I'm criticising those who ignore anything that is contrary to their comfort blanket. When you start getting people with X-Files like takes on vaccines, or denying numbers only in ways that's convenient to their outlook while ignoring everything else, and mocking vulnerable people holding out hope for vaccines then yes I'll speak up about those things.

Edited by BlueJay (17 Oct 2020 9.10pm)

Just a thought here, not critisism. You talk a lot about "holding out hope for vaccines". How long do you think is reasonable to wait for one that might work? And if it is available next week, do you think it is reasonable for people to refuse it as it has had no real testing? Becky brought up this subject earlier, but I'm not sure that you understand the implications of untested "miracle drugs".

Edited by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 (17 Oct 2020 9.23pm)

The death rate dropped so much over the summer that any excess would be lost in natural statistical variation and nothing of value could be learned.

Now that the infection rate is rising again so quickly such a statistic will doubtless become useful again, but it's meaningless at the moment.

What will be most valuable is to determine how effective the treatments now are and how much these modify the infection to death ratio.

If this, if that, why? The "second wave" is a mere ripple, and in areas that were affected less in the spring.

Here's an "if" for you. What if the NHS is not fit for purpose, and never has been?

And again, back off with the insults!