Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
filbertway

Coronavirus Thread

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

I think the main risk is that it basically ends up giving you the full virus because they didnt weaken it properly?  So on that basis I would consider it safer than getting the virus, but of course you can avoid getting it entirely by sheltering yourself.

 

Interestingly I am noticing across the internet, the same people that thought Leicester residents should stop moaning and suck up the restrictions are now moaning because those restrictions may apply to them, the good old "im alright jack" kicking in.

Not all the vaccines contain the actual virus. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chrysalis said:

do you honestly think this is just down to people not following guidelines? We had people not following guidelines during the period the numbers were dropping, the changes in the numbers can be seen very close to policy changes from government.

 

I think its because things were opened up too quickly, schools and hospitality the two big ones.

schools only opened last week in the vast majority of the country. the increase in cases has nothing to do with schools - yet

 

 

47 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

To avoid the medical services being overwhelmed - always the real goal here and often missed. 

the captain hindsights out en masse

 

 

20 minutes ago, twoleftfeet said:

Not all the vaccines contain the actual virus. 

surely none of them do ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many vaccines woark by giving the recipient a VERY small dose of the virus. Being so weak, the body can easily fight it and produce antibodies, but not strong enough to produce harm.  That is why people sometimes feel a little ill following a vaccination, as there body is fighting the very mild infection.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Ah apologies I was reading it as shutting everything down again.

 

Like you say its good that they weren't used, don't know why they've apparently been dismantled though, surely we should have started training staff months ago, as it looks like this virus will still be around next year.

The problem is it takes around 4 years to train a qualified intensive care nurse, maybe be longer if you add in ward experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, reynard said:

I wonder if you would be saying the same if the average age of death was 25.

That’s irrelevant as if the virus was killing healthy 25year olds it would be a totally different game.  It’s killing the weak. So the weak can hide and the strong can continue to work which then financially allows the weak to hide.  Stopping the strong earning merely endangers more people going forward as the economy can not be over risked.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MonmoreStef said:

Back in April I was in favour of what was happening. I’m talking about now where we all know a lot more about this virus. A short lockdown initially to get prepared was important.  Killing business now is wrong. Telling year 11 kids to self isolate for 14 days because of a case in a school is wrong, which has happened in Groby, is threatening to ruin children’s exam chances.  

I don't disagree with that. There has to be a better way of managing outbreaks if occurring at a school or in an office. 

 

You'd expect schools to zone buildings. Organise classes so they are constantly with the same peers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, reynard said:

I wonder if you would be saying the same if the average age of death was 25.

The dreadful "algebra of necessity" is so much more difficult to apply when it might be oneself being included in the equation. I just wish more people were prepared to admit such self-interest rather than hide behind paperthin justifications.

 

The above is probably the reason there's been not even close to necessary action to address climate change among other natural threats, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MonmoreStef said:

That’s irrelevant as if the virus was killing healthy 25year olds it would be a totally different game.  It’s killing the weak. So the weak can hide and the strong can continue to work which then financially allows the weak to hide.  Stopping the strong earning merely endangers more people going forward as the economy can not be over risked.

Why would it be a totally different game? people are people irrespective of age or condition. The 1918 flu pandemic struck down healthy young people who had not built up immunity to previous flu types. There were attempts to protect people then was that wrong or are young people just worth saving and older people are not?

It also isn't just about covid direct deaths there are the millions who are suffering due to the health service  being basically closed down for three months plus the untold number of deaths that are and will occur because of delayed treatment to cancer/heart and other conditions, some of them young and strong people.

 

Maybe I'm reading you wrong and if so then sorry but you seem to be suggesting that some people are merely expendable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, reynard said:

I wonder if you would be saying the same if the average age of death was 25.

Which is exactly what lockdown is doing. Killing our younger population, which are actually required to finance our aging population.

 

From what I can gather, the majority of the older generation would rather die in freedom than behind closed doors.

Edited by simFox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, reynard said:

Why would it be a totally different game? people are people irrespective of age or condition. The 1918 flu pandemic struck down healthy young people who had not built up immunity to previous flu types. There were attempts to protect people then was that wrong or are young people just worth saving and older people are not?

It also isn't just about covid direct deaths there are the millions who are suffering due to the health service  being basically closed down for three months plus the untold number of deaths that are and will occur because of delayed treatment to cancer/heart and other conditions, some of them young and strong people.

 

Maybe I'm reading you wrong and if so then sorry but you seem to be suggesting that some people are merely expendable.

It’s not a case of people being expendable.  This virus doesn’t have much impact on the general workforce. Yes there will be the odd exemption just like with the flu. However,  It has a big impact on both the elderly and already ill people.  Restricting people from working and getting on with life in general isn’t the answer. Those that are vulnerable can still be protected without Governments both implementing draconian measures and still threatening even more stricter measures if the magic R rate doesn’t drop. This virus will run its cause.  Not killing the economy should at this stage be the primary concern with measures available to help protect the most vulnerable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, reynard said:

Why would it be a totally different game? people are people irrespective of age or condition. The 1918 flu pandemic struck down healthy young people who had not built up immunity to previous flu types. There were attempts to protect people then was that wrong or are young people just worth saving and older people are not?

It also isn't just about covid direct deaths there are the millions who are suffering due to the health service  being basically closed down for three months plus the untold number of deaths that are and will occur because of delayed treatment to cancer/heart and other conditions, some of them young and strong people.

 

Maybe I'm reading you wrong and if so then sorry but you seem to be suggesting that some people are merely expendable.

What he's suggesting is the old and at risk can hide indoors like they should be doing and everyone else can get back out and earn a living. 

 

Nothing to do with who's expendable, it's to do with essentially punishing everyone when only a percentage are at risk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My grandparents put themselves into isolation in Feb because they know they susceptible to viruses that affect the lungs. It was common sense then and it's still common sense now. If there is a virus that can kill you or make you severely ill then shield yourself from it.

 

If I knew my life depended on it I wouldn't be seeing mates and going to pubs. I also won't go and see grand parents in their houses. Obviously if you live with an elderly relative, you will take precautions as well.

 

If this was affecting everybody the way it affects the very old and vulnerable then we'd still be in lockdown and the only option would be to totally suppress the virus. Army on the streets delivering rations and what not.

 

As it is, that's not the case and I think by using a one size fits all approach we're hampering ourselves. Obviously the government have proven many times that they struggle to even all agree on, never mind implement, anything that's remotely challenging.

 

I'd love to see them make some more fluid decisions. Like when uni's re-open. Allow night clubs to re open and only have students be allowed to go in for a week and see how it goes. They're going to be mixing with people their own age and will be living away from home so will be in their own bubbles anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MonmoreStef said:

If this is true, I’m not doubting it, it shows how much the leaders have lost the plot.  Let’s ruin our children’s education and our economy for what? 

a cracking hindsight reply, i wonder if you were 1 of those slating the gov for not shutting down early enough

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

a cracking hindsight reply, i wonder if you were 1 of those slating the gov for not shutting down early enough

Nobody knew back in March how to play this.  They are still making massive knee jerk bad decisions though 5/6 month later when the stats are there to be seen. They’ve moved the goal posts during this time and have totally lost the plot with their plans. Unfortunately the man running the show is merely a male Dianne Abbott. 

Edited by MonmoreStef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

What he's suggesting is the old and at risk can hide indoors like they should be doing and everyone else can get back out and earn a living. 

 

Nothing to do with who's expendable, it's to do with essentially punishing everyone when only a percentage are at risk. 

Not only that, they can hide indoors if they WANT to. I think you will find, many of them would prefer to die in freedom, than behind a locked door.

 

I would be fine with some special dispensations like supermarkets opening 10-12 for the over 60's, or special assistance. The rest of us can get back to work and do our duty by paying for it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, MonmoreStef said:

Nobody knew back in March how to play this.  They are still making massive knee jerk bad decisions though 5/6 month later when the stats are there to be seen. They’ve moved the goal posts during this time and have totally lost the plot with their plans. Unfortunately the man running the show is merely a male Dianne Abbott. 

Whats the massive knee jerk reactions they are making now, economy is back up & running, there are a few exceptions granted, & the kids are back in school, far as i can see they are only asking i don't roam the streets with the rest of the T-Birds & Pink Ladies.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

Whats the massive knee jerk reactions they are making now, economy is back up & running, there are a few exceptions granted, & the kids are back in school, far as i can see they are only asking i don't roam the streets with the rest of the T-Birds & Pink Ladies.

 

Stef getting at how schools close at the moment pretty much instantly upon a positive test 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, filbertway said:

I'd love to see them make some more fluid decisions. Like when uni's re-open. Allow night clubs to re open and only have students be allowed to go in for a week and see how it goes. They're going to be mixing with people their own age and will be living away from home so will be in their own bubbles anyway.

Did occur to me the other day - when you've 'mixed', it should be mandated that you 'detox' for five days. Ie. working from home. 

 

I don't know the full details how it would work. I made a conscious effort after a weekend trip away to reduce who I met in person for a good week after. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...