Quote Originally Posted by CCFCC3PO View Post
That much is true, but I fear you are looking at it simplistically.

Firstly, you make an assumption."ut a lage proportion of those may have died anyway". What is that based on?

We still don't know, for example, if anyone has died as a direct result of a lack of ventilators.
We do know that circa 20 NHS staff members have died, including retired NHS Staff who came back to help out.
We also know of a 13 year old kid who died alone, and was laid to rest alone.
We are seeing hospitals sprouting up, staffed by airline hostesses.
We are seeing a dozen people dying in a care home.

This, clearly, is a situation that is incredibly complex.

We may never know the true impact of the virus. What we do know is the impact that the virus is having at the moment. And we do know that the lockdown is having a positive effect on the numbers of people in hospital. If hospitals become overrun, then there is every chance that people admitted for urgent, non-virus related issues (heart attack, stroke etc) will stand a lower chance of survival compared to a hospital working at or below capacity.
I thought you'd pop up. You say I am looking at things too simplistically. I'm not 'looking at' anything. i merely posted a BBC article discussing the numbers dying and why.
your comments about who is dying and where has no relevance to what I posted and is another example of you changing the subject because it doesn't suit you. As for being simplistic we all know that we are a little simple compared to your vast brain power as confimed by professors world wide! (except your own tutor apparently)
I did not make any assumption, you just made that bit up, again just to suit what you wanted to say. Pretty typical, almost like a politician, answering the a question you wish had been asked instead of the one that actually was.
You really are boring me now.