I was talking at work regarding that WM, how many deaths from other illnesses have occurred during the same amount of time year in year out, I know it’s one too many, but my suspicions about this Covid and other past viruses will continue to haunt me.

Well as far as i'm aware, the percentage of deaths with this is higher than 'normal' flu, but my main question is, how preventable was this from the start back in Wuhan? I've read a lot recently, a lot of articles in so called 'quality' newspapers, and it seems that certain people in China back in Nov/Dec were basically saying, if we don't act now, we could have a serious worldwide problem on our hands in a few months, and the Chinese govt. gagged them. Was this just inevitable or could it have been stopped at source if they had acted quickly and basically stopped it before it became widespread, or like I've said, was it all inevitable anyway?! I don't envy any politician trying to deal with this, at all, but I think now they have backed themselves into a corner. They have to start communicating better with us all, and now give us some kind of plan in the coming weeks, to restore some hope and faith in them, that what they have asked us to do has actually helped and saved lives, given like I've said it could take bloody years for the country to recover.

On average there are around 1600 deaths per day in the UK allowing for seasonal differences. I am sure many deaths attributed to Corona virus would have resulted in a death anyway just not so quickly. If anyone is in any doubt about the impact this virus is having on the Health Service a consultant was interviewed from a hospital that normally has an ICU of 2 it's now up to 40 with most people being in there 40s and 50s in the majority

80% of the population would be expected to catch it of which 80% suffer mild symptoms the other 20% moderate to severe of which around half require some form of ventilation of those at the moment 50% are surviving leaving a a death rate overall of 5%. Analysis states it should be about .5% however without mass testing it's difficult to establish this. In addition the calculation of deaths probably differs in different countries. Here in the UK if a person tests positive but dies then it's recorders as a Corona death even though it may not have been the actual cause of death.

Just to put this calculation locally Wakefield has roughly a populous of 340,000 scientifically speaking 274000 would be expected to catch it approx 220000 would suffer mild symptoms leaving 54000 with more serious symptoms based on current figures 27000 would require ventilation of which up to 50% would not make it that's around 13500 that's about 3% of the local population .5% would be about 2200. Obviously I have rounded figures down slightly but you get the idea.

Who are these big wigs you cynically talk about?

I take it from reading your post especially your last sentence about previous diseases your unsure whether the lockdown was required,
I watched the other day the program horizon all about the start of the virus and how it has accelerated far greater than sars, mers, aids and common flu and also has a slower detection so if you've not seen I'd suggest you watch, we could of isolated it at China, saying that it would probably of found it way out somehow but isolation has slowed the rate down, they are now looking at statistics which is a guide to how and when we can get to normal,
I very much doubt it will go away until we find a vaccine and then we might have a fighting chance with herd immunity.
There was also watched a program about the Spanish flu in 1918 I few weeks back where estimated 50 million plus died which showed how isolation then was none existing.

Isolation is only slowing the rate of infection at the moment but it has worked at a cost to everyone, my youngest sons friend has lost his mother who had health issues and she was in her mid 40s and lived in wrenthorpe

This virus is like dodging invisible bullets

Just like to add when I use to go in to food factories you had to train up on the health and safety and hygiene was the main subject, even the they constantly asked you to wash your hands but something which they also expressed was to dry then too as wet hands accelerate bacteria, why this is not mentioned I don't know.

Keep safe all

I could see Magic working really well as a relaunch of the season, subject to it being medically wise, sometime in July. The problem may be that we'll have a lot of fixtures to squeeze in, and it is an extra one we don't need.

I've always thought the Challenge Cup could be reinvigorated with a magic fixture for maybe the last 16 teams. 4 games on Saturday, and 4 games on Sunday. It's a neutral venue for all teams, and would probably include some Championship teams. It might just be the concept to get more people interested in the cup.

It's just when the experts say without the lockdown being in place, and by us not following it, according to them, there would have been many more deaths, but I haven't seen any actual evidence they have to support this? I haven't seen the programme, but I will try and watch it. I'm not in any way trying to belittle this terrible virus, or belittle what NHS workers, carers etc are doing and going through. My partner used to be a carer and has done hospital shifts, so I know what they are up against to a point. I was just trying to put some perspective on what the govt. have asked us to do, and just to understand where we are with this in comparison to the other illnesses I mentioned. Thing is, there's usually two sides to every story if you like, and you can't just blindly accept what an 'expert' says all the time, questions have to be asked by journalists to politicians and scientists to try and give a balanced view to joe public. Like I said, I don't envy the powers that be, and they were placed in a very difficult position, but by choosing this path, they will have even more difficult decisions ahead, and maybe in the coming weeks and months will have to explain why they went a certain way with this. Also, let's see what repercussions there will be for China as a result of this, whether money is the be all and end all, because they 'control' a lot of the worlds' reliance on all things technical, the percentage of mobiles, computers etc made in China and neighbouring countries is massive, and cutting them off by the UK, USA would be a massive call, but probably the right one ethically, but would be financial and economical suicide. Then we may just see the true colours of Boris, and Trump, although I think we already know where he's coming from half the time.......

A can't get me breath here, do you think the government and it's advisers have implemented all these measures for the sake of it, do you think they've brought the country to it's knees financially for a laugh, they're not experts they are trying to do an impossible job in extremely difficult circumstances, both sick and healthy people are dying, it's happening all over the world if you want evidence watch the news on AlJazeera or News France 24, 2 news programmes without a political agenda, or if you need further evidence that this is just a bad dream I'm sure with that kind of attitude towards all this you'll find it, If you have differences with Boris Johnston and his government, might I suggest a more suitable time to air your political views.

The other program was on BBC 2 called the flu that killed 50 million and you should be a how to get both on catch up and was worth watching to get an understanding of how that became such a sad time for them at the end of the war.
I still don't think they know what they are dealing with and are just running with it the best way they think it can go, politically you can't knock them as it would of been the same who ever was in power, shortages of equipment was bound to happen it's no different to the shelves of pasta being emptied.
The horizon program gives a good insight of why you need to isolate

This would be an excellent idea and could pull in some neutrals, in addition to the fans of the clubs that were involved.
It could still be taken to different venues etc,

Yes I believe they have put these measures in place for a laugh

Why say something like that?! The politicians are taking advice from the 'experts' and are putting the measures in place by what chief scientists and the medical profession are telling them. I'll repeat, when these experts continually say, without everyone doing their bit, there would have been more deaths, they haven't produced any evidence for this, it's what they think MIGHT have happened. This advice, which the politicians and the 'experts' have followed rigidly, that's why they became infected?! So is it way too simplistic to say, the advice they are giving is not foolproof, or they are being hypocritical and not practising what they are preaching?? Is it just that this is pot luck whether you get it or not, no matter what you do? Exercise is allowed in your locality, a good idea or ridiculous? Given yesterday I walked the dog around my local playing fields with 12 others and at least 16 dogs running around all over the place and people coming within 2 metres to retrieve said dogs?! Why 'close' the National parks? Lake district, Dartmoor, Highlands etc, wide open spaces where you could go for hours and not encounter another person, unlike my local playing fields.........

Because everyone goes there, and congregate on packed car parks and footpaths. People will gravitate towards beauty spots for their daily exercise, but I think the actual point is that you're supposed to exercise where you live, not drive to a beauty spot.

The point about reducing deaths is that if you can keep the infection rate to a minimal level, the NHS can cope with the influx and do their best to keep people alive. If we all get it en masse, there'll be people dying in hospital corridors due to lack of equipment and beds, etc.

Cant believe what you are saying....
The local thing should be easy to maintain.
It allows for exercise and if people cant maintain or tell each other to move out of the way and keep 6 feet/2 metres apart then there is something seriously wrong.
As for not closing the national parks etc. are you on something??
For a start its difficult for the police etc with restricted resources to keep people away from these areas if they were open.
Have you not seen the news with bell ends driving from London to Torquay to visit the seaside?
Or a family who drove from London to visit the Lake District in a camper van?
Both rightly fined.
These complete tools are wasting police resources by their incompetence and selfishness.
And you want the parks open?
Unbelievable.

Well yeah, but you are missing my point! Which is, by doing what they are saying, there is no scientific proof that there would be more people getting this, therefore more people dying etc. An argument to the experts could be, if between 700 and 900 are dying from this, a fair point could be, what you are suggesting simply isn't working? Their counter argument is, yes but there would be more people dying if no lockdown. So then prove this, they can't, unless i'm missing something. Trust me, there are a lot of people now questioning all this. As far as I can tell 100% foolproof protection from this would be to live in an airtight sealed box. What they have implemented is all about a percentage and the LIKELIHOOD of contracting this. Gotta go walk the dog now and hope and pray no-one comes within 2 metres of me, or does it really matter anyway???!

The countries with the strictest and earliest lockdown rules have the lowest contraction and death rates.

It's basic science. If one infectious person could infect everyone who comes within two metres of him, the fewer people who come within two metres of him, the fewer people he will infect. It's the most simple maths.

To use a rugby analogy, the player who bashes into the most opposition players gets the most injuries. Now, who has more broken noses? Prop forwards or wingers?

To refer to the death rates, if a hospital has 100 ventilators and 200 beds, if 100 people are badly affected, there is a better chance of those people surviving. If, however, we all carry on as normal and 300 people are badly affected, then that is 100 people not geting a bed and 200 people not getting a ventilator, so more people die.

It is all basic maths, science and crisis management.

Jesus it's like trying to drive a nail into a knot in a plank of wood with you, here is a clue, the politicians which is self explanatory are simply that, not scientists or medical experts or financiers or lawyers but politicians who lets face it have have little knowledge about anything other than politics, the government have these people in place to advice them on all aspects of running the country, they are the professionals, and as with most things it's common practice except in this case where it's completely new, the politicians like all the rest, the NHS staff the other essential services and the rest of the good people helping to keep the country going as best as they can are more prone to this disease than the rest of us because they're on the front line some are luckier than others but on the basis of your posts I doubt you can comprehend that.
It shows your mentality if after what you've been told you still insisted on walking your dog with a bunch of other people at the same time, perhaps you thought it was first come first served, maybe if you all took notice of what you were asked to do there wouldn't have been as many altogether, but then again it would have been one thing less for you to moan about.

Are you sure about that?! Weren't Italy one of the first to introduce lockdown? What's your opinion on Sweden and how they have handled things? Maybe I should email Chris Witty, Matt Hancock etc, the experts on how to avoid contracting this virus with their social distancing, oh no they got this didn't they?! At the end of the day mate, they, you, me have no idea how many people worldwide have had this, or, and this is the crux of everything, they have no idea that lockdown has saved lives. If there had been no lockdown, they have no figures to present to the public as re. deaths, no evidence whatsoever, just an assumption that things would have been much worse.

I wouldn't be too sure mate about politicians knowing anything about politics, but there you go......it shows my mentality on what I've been told that I insist on walking the dog with a bunch of other people at the same time?! Yeah, 'cause when one of them with a dog off the lead came right up to me, and while i'm trying to stop it killing my dog, the owner who invades my social distancing space, and I have a nice chat about when we will be out and about, so as to not let this unfortunate incident happen again.......

I don't get your no evidence point Wildmoggy.

It seems really obvious to me that if we all self isolate, the virus spreads to less people and therefore less people die..... That's just basic maths.

The lockdown/quarantine isn't designed to cure anything, it is designed to do two things

1) reduce the spread to limit the stress on NHS so they can treat current cases and
2) reduce the numbers who have it so that when a cure is found it can be beaten in quicker time rather than chasing millions of people down.

Self isolation is for those who have the virus is it not??

Not completely.
Self isolation does indeed help those that have it stop spreading to others until they don't have sumptoms any more but also for vulnerable people who need to ensure that they don't get it from people who are carrying and don't know or care whether they spread it.
Lockdown means the likelihood of someone passing it on without knowing is reduced.

And what about those that have it, but are asymptomatic, they have it can still spread it, but have no symptoms, what if the other guy with the dog was asymptomatic?

Everyone will at some point catch this disease. That’s inevitable. The point of the lockdown is to contain the spread and ease the pressure on the NHS. I don’t see why you need to actually see dead bodies to understand this.

Yep, very true, so then we get onto the thorny issue of testing then??