Coronavirus Thread

[Nalis]

14 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

looks like hospitality is closing soon, the leak (before the action) has happened.

If thats true then its an absolutely pointless act while schools are open.

 

For what its worth, I think schools should remain open as closing them would widen the gap between working and middle class kids.

[Chrysalis]

3 hours ago, RowlattsFox said:

Worth remembering that not too long ago nearly 1000 people per day were dying. Whilst the new cases are worth keeping an eye on, the panic is over the top and not helping. Everyone is worried about their future as it is and constant mentions of local or lockdown measures are not going to help people's mental health..  Imagine how many cases there must've been when the daily deaths were as high as they were. 

 

Need to stop using the word "lockdown" too, because they're not. Restrictions at best. Looks like Lancashire is following the North East into more detailed restrictions, apart from the area around the illuminations supposedly  

I think its worth pointing out, there is a difference to people dieing because for whatever reason they couldnt be treated or treatments not working, vs letting people die, because young and healthy people dont want to be inconvenienced.

 

I wont lie, these posts about "its only the elderly" "its only those with underlying conditions" I find shameful.

[Chrysalis]

2 minutes ago, Nalis said:

If thats true then its an absolutely pointless act while schools are open.

 

For what its worth, I think schools should remain open as closing them would widen the gap between working and middle class kids.

They will close schools as an absolute last, they are determined to keep them open.

 

Whilst I recognise you cannot keep kids at home for eternity, there needs to be a compromise here, you cannot just send them all back at once, it wont work, a combination of part time face to face and home schooling is needed.

[Finnaldo]

Honestly, I’m not sure another national lockdown would do much for two weeks, and it’s just giving the economy another kicking. Especially when you’re allowing schools & workplaces to remain open, 

[MonmoreStef]

11 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

Honestly, I’m not sure another national lockdown would do much for two weeks, and it’s just giving the economy another kicking. Especially when you’re allowing schools & workplaces to remain open, 

I agree but you know how they do things. Will be another two weeks and then another review two weeks after that so and so on. 

[Nuneatonfox in Manchester]

21 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

I think its worth pointing out, there is a difference to people dieing because for whatever reason they couldnt be treated or treatments not working, vs letting people die, because young and healthy people dont want to be inconvenienced.

 

I wont lie, these posts about "its only the elderly" "its only those with underlying conditions" I find shameful.

It’s not about being inconvenienced though, it’s about people losing their livelihoods. Do you have any idea of the scale of the damage to the hospitality/ events and music industries? It’s redundancy’s galore.

 
People have free will to isolate and shield if they are vulnerable. Nobody is forcing pensioners out into mosh pits.

My business is just about managing and I will continue to work and also socialise within the guidelines. I will also respect social distancing with people I don’t know who could be vulnerable, and continue to FaceTime my elderly relatives rather than put them at risk.

I will not however stay indoors in my flat for another 3 months without being able to earn money and see my friends.

[Col city fan]

17 minutes ago, Nuneatonfox in Manchester said:

It’s not about being inconvenienced though, it’s about people losing their livelihoods. Do you have any idea of the scale of the damage to the hospitality/ events and music industries? It’s redundancy’s galore.

 
People have free will to isolate and shield if they are vulnerable. Nobody is forcing pensioners out into mosh pits.

My business is just about managing and I will continue to work and also socialise within the guidelines. I will also respect social distancing with people I don’t know who could be vulnerable, and continue to FaceTime my elderly relatives rather than put them at risk.

I will not however stay indoors in my flat for another 3 months without being able to earn money and see my friends.

This is true

To call this an ‘inconvenience’ for the masses is basically plain rude. 
A lot of people have lost their jobs and the financial ruin will be felt for decades to come

With that, as we know, comes more deprivation and more illness

To face a national ‘lockdown’ again, like before, would be calamitous 

[Col city fan]

56 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

I think its worth pointing out, there is a difference to people dieing because for whatever reason they couldnt be treated or treatments not working, vs letting people die, because young and healthy people dont want to be inconvenienced.

 

I wont lie, these posts about "its only the elderly" "its only those with underlying conditions" I find shameful.

Is anyone saying ‘only the elderly’ or ‘only those with underlying conditions’?

Anyone can contract covid

The point is, it will generally kill more of those pre-defined groups due to the body’s inability to fight back. Look at the stats. They are clear on this matter

[Izzy]

52 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

They will close schools as an absolute last, they are determined to keep them open.

 

Whilst I recognise you cannot keep kids at home for eternity, there needs to be a compromise here, you cannot just send them all back at once, it wont work, a combination of part time face to face and home schooling is needed.

Who's going to do the home schooling? Me and many other parents failed miserably first time round and kids learned fvck all.

 

Setting them up to 'remote' learn sounds easy but not all schools/teachers can teach via Zoom lessons and not all households have the bandwidth/devices/space to manage if there's more than 2 kids for example. 

 

The schools are doing their best with smaller groups, staggered breaks/lunches and enforcing social distancing where they can.

 

All kids have to be back at school full time for their own sanity and their parents sanity I say.

[SpacedX]

25 minutes ago, Nuneatonfox in Manchester said:

It’s not about being inconvenienced though, it’s about people losing their livelihoods. Do you have any idea of the scale of the damage to the hospitality/ events and music industries? It’s redundancy’s galore.

 
People have free will to isolate and shield if they are vulnerable. Nobody is forcing pensioners out into mosh pits.

My business is just about managing and I will continue to work and also socialise within the guidelines. I will also respect social distancing with people I don’t know who could be vulnerable, and continue to FaceTime my elderly relatives rather than put them at risk.

I will not however stay indoors in my flat for another 3 months without being able to earn money and see my friends.

I absolutely appreciate this, but if we are careering back towards enforced lockdown, the irresponsibility of large proportions of the British public is partially to blame. 

[simFox]

59 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

I think its worth pointing out, there is a difference to people dieing because for whatever reason they couldnt be treated or treatments not working, vs letting people die, because young and healthy people dont want to be inconvenienced.

 

I wont lie, these posts about "its only the elderly" "its only those with underlying conditions" I find shameful.

It's shameful how anyone could think that punishing everyone to save a few would be an acceptable solution.

 

We could pour untold resources and efforts into protecting the vulnerable instead of making everyone suffer. Your comments completely miss the point at usual.

[Innovindil]

7 minutes ago, simFox said:

It's shameful how anyone could think that punishing everyone to save a few would be an acceptable solution.

 

We could pour untold resources and efforts into protecting the vulnerable instead of making everyone suffer. Your comments completely miss the point at usual.

This is the crux of the matter imo. Considering the collossal resources we've had to use to prop a majority of people up during all this crap, it's surely more cost effective to protect the vulnerable, both with cash and services than to try and lock everyone down. You don't even have to force it, we all know we're not a police state and don't have the resources to enforce all these rules to begin with, so let it be optional, that way even the people who just think they are vulnerable will have the option of it. And make it known to everyone else if you feel comfortable just going about your business you take responsibility for the concequences, as should always be the case.

[Chrysalis]

20 minutes ago, simFox said:

It's shameful how anyone could think that punishing everyone to save a few would be an acceptable solution.

 

We could pour untold resources and efforts into protecting the vulnerable instead of making everyone suffer. Your comments completely miss the point at usual.

I never said anything about actions, but just about words.

 

Saying those types of comments is just disrespectful.

 

I didnt say I agree with lockdown measures either, if you read my posts you would know that so I wonder where the "as usual" comes from.

 

Yes someone may have an underlying condition, they may be 70 years old, it doesnt mean though that they would have died soon, many people with underlying conditions live with them for decades.  So yes it is very selfish to just say "oh its only the elderly and infirm".

 

You are welcome to tell me what "the point" is.

Edited 18 September 2020 by Chrysalis

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

Have I missed something regarding another lockdown? I thought it was dismissed yesterday as just another media lie....

[yorkie1999]

1 hour ago, Chrysalis said:

I think its worth pointing out, there is a difference to people dieing because for whatever reason they couldnt be treated or treatments not working, vs letting people die, because young and healthy people dont want to be inconvenienced.

 

I wont lie, these posts about "its only the elderly" "its only those with underlying conditions" I find shameful.

I'd find it shameful as well , but there's a big difference when you stick the "it's" on the front of that sort of statement when you read it on an internet forum.

[SpacedX]

9 minutes ago, Mark 'expert' Lawrenson said:

Have I missed something regarding another lockdown? I thought it was dismissed yesterday as just another media lie....

Well infections in Europe have now exceeded the March peak, so you tell me. The government appears to be committed to biting the bullet and resisting lockdown through the inevitable prospect of a second wave albeit with strict guidelines in place and the continual 'whack a mole' strategy of provincial lockdown. Given the fact that large sections the ****wit British public are either unable to comprehend these guidelines/regulations or flagrantly flout them, another national lockdown may be unavoidable. 

[simFox]

15 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Well infections in Europe have now exceeded the March peak, so you tell me. The government appears to be committed to biting the bullet and resisting lockdown through the inevitable prospect of a second wave albeit with strict guidelines in place and the continual 'whack a mole' strategy of provincial lockdown. Given the fact that large sections the ****wit British public are either unable to comprehend these guidelines/regulations or flagrantly flout them, another national lockdown may be unavoidable. 

Let's be a bit more precise. The intensively measured infections today have surpassed the poorly measured infections from March.

 

I'm no rocket surgeon, but this is not something I'm finding to be unusual.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Nuneatonfox in Manchester said:

It’s not about being inconvenienced though, it’s about people losing their livelihoods. Do you have any idea of the scale of the damage to the hospitality/ events and music industries? It’s redundancy’s galore.

 
People have free will to isolate and shield if they are vulnerable. Nobody is forcing pensioners out into mosh pits.

My business is just about managing and I will continue to work and also socialise within the guidelines. I will also respect social distancing with people I don’t know who could be vulnerable, and continue to FaceTime my elderly relatives rather than put them at risk.

I will not however stay indoors in my flat for another 3 months without being able to earn money and see my friends.

 

Whatever you think of our govt (I'm not a fan), the current measures - local/regional restrictions & curfews - are designed to avoid any need for a full national lockdown, which would be disastrous.

Covid hospitalisations are now rising significantly again, so it is no longer just a case of young, healthy people getting infected with no problems. The risk of deaths & long-Covid problems mushrooming, necessitating stricter action is clear.

 

Your first comment is a good point - and a good argument for targeted govt support for the hospitality, event and music industries, not for people to pretend that Covid risk doesn't exist.

Otherwise, if Covid infections, hospitalisations (& inevitably deaths) continue to increase, many such businesses will become non-viable, anyway. Many of their customers are middle-aged/old or have vulnerabilities - or are young and won't want to take the risk if Covid is running rampant again.

 

I find your second comment offensive. As a bloke in his 50s with a teenager & a health vulnerability, how long should I exercise the "free will to isolate and shield"? My impression is that you'd be happy for me to stay under house arrest indefinitely, so long as you were able to get out of your flat, earn money and see your friends. Try reversing the situation. Try imagining that this virus affected young people disproportionately (as was the case with Spanish Flu). Then imagine that old gits like me told you that you had the free will to isolate and shield (for however long it takes, by implication) while I got on with earning money and seeing my friends....after all nobody would be forcing you out into a mosh pit & we could FaceTime you to cheer you up!

 

Young people may go out more than the middle-aged or elderly, but a lot in their 50s & 60s still work and people of all ages want to avoid social isolation.....which becomes a nightmare if you're forced to exercise your "free will" to isolate because others have allowed Covid to run rampant, putting your life at risk. I'm fortunate in that I work from home anyway, but was still starting to crack up after 5 months without seeing friends or getting out to social/cultural/sports events. People don't cease to have human needs because they're no longer young. Even very elderly people in care homes have suffered psychologically & health-wise, or even died, due to having to isolate during the first wave.

 

We need to fight this thing together (including support for those in sectors particularly impacted) so as to achieve the best outcomes for all, not end up with different generations looking out for their own interests.

In saying that, I'm well aware that other policies - of a Govt I've never voted for - have favoured wealthy older generations (e.g. lack of affordable housing & insecure employment v. good pensions for the elderly). It needs to work both ways as there's enough strife without different generations ending up fighting one another for their rival self-interests.

 

Postscript: What a twat Johnson is, encouraging people to go back to the workplace if possible! He should be doing the opposite - encouraging people to work from home, if possible, to help minimise the spread of Covid, while providing support or helping generate new employment opportunities for those working in sectors adversely affected by that (like hospitality & transport).

[dsr-burnley]

34 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Whatever you think of our govt (I'm not a fan), the current measures - local/regional restrictions & curfews - are designed to avoid any need for a full national lockdown, which would be disastrous.

Covid hospitalisations are now rising significantly again, so it is no longer just a case of young, healthy people getting infected with no problems. The risk of deaths & long-Covid problems mushrooming, necessitating stricter action is clear.

 

Your first comment is a good point - and a good argument for targeted govt support for the hospitality, event and music industries, not for people to pretend that Covid risk doesn't exist.

Otherwise, if Covid infections, hospitalisations (& inevitably deaths) continue to increase, many such businesses will become non-viable, anyway. Many of their customers are middle-aged/old or have vulnerabilities - or are young and won't want to take the risk if Covid is running rampant again.

 

I find your second comment offensive. As a bloke in his 50s with a teenager & a health vulnerability, how long should I exercise the "free will to isolate and shield"? My impression is that you'd be happy for me to stay under house arrest indefinitely, so long as you were able to get out of your flat, earn money and see your friends. Try reversing the situation. Try imagining that this virus affected young people disproportionately (as was the case with Spanish Flu). Then imagine that old gits like me told you that you had the free will to isolate and shield (for however long it takes, by implication) while I got on with earning money and seeing my friends....after all nobody would be forcing you out into a mosh pit & we could FaceTime you to cheer you up!

 

Young people may go out more than the middle-aged or elderly, but a lot in their 50s & 60s still work and people of all ages want to avoid social isolation.....which becomes a nightmare if you're forced to exercise your "free will" to isolate because others have allowed Covid to run rampant, putting your life at risk. I'm fortunate in that I work from home anyway, but was still starting to crack up after 5 months without seeing friends or getting out to social/cultural/sports events. People don't cease to have human needs because they're no longer young. Even very elderly people in care homes have suffered psychologically & health-wise, or even died, due to having to isolate during the first wave.

 

We need to fight this thing together (including support for those in sectors particularly impacted) so as to achieve the best outcomes for all, not end up with different generations looking out for their own interests.

In saying that, I'm well aware that other policies - of a Govt I've never voted for - have favoured wealthy older generations (e.g. lack of affordable housing & insecure employment v. good pensions for the elderly). It needs to work both ways as there's enough strife without different generations ending up fighting one another for their rival self-interests.

 

Postscript: What a [deleted] Johnson is, encouraging people to go back to the workplace if possible! He should be doing the opposite - encouraging people to work from home, if possible, to help minimise the spread of Covid, while providing support or helping generate new employment opportunities for those working in sectors adversely affected by that (like hospitality & transport).

I can see the reasons behind what you say, but I think you're drawing the wrong conclusions.  As you say, you've been locked down for months.  And as is now apparent, it has done little good and you could remain locked down for years yet.  There is no point, from your point of view, in trying to keep things as they are now.  The current approach is to enforce lockdown until a vaccinie is ready, which may be several years off if ever.  We need to do something different.

 

Sweden are apparently doing very well, presumably because they didn't do lockdown, they didn't close the pubs and schools, and probably because the young and fit got the virus and - whisper it - may have achieved herd immunity.  Perhaps it's time to try that.

Edited 18 September 2020 by dsr-burnley

[Dunge]

8 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

I can see the reasons behind what you say, but I think you're drawing the wrong conclusions.  As you say, you've been locked down for months.  And as is now apparent, it has done little good and you could remain locked down for years yet.  There is no point, from your point of view, in trying to keep things as they are now.  The current approach is to enforce lockdown until a vaccinie is ready, which may be several years off if ever.  We need to do something different.

 

Sweden are apparently doing very well, presumably because they didn't do lockdown, they didn't close the pubs and schools, and probably because the young and fit got the virus and - whisper it - may have achieved herd immunity.  Perhaps it's time to try that.

A couple of thoughts about this:

 

Firstly, with regard to Sweden, my interpretation of them from what I’ve read is that the measures have been far lesser, but their non-disastrous result is more because of general compliance and personal responsibility. If Britain can follow a lead on that then we might be onto something. But that’s an If.

 

Secondly, you’re right that we don’t know if and when a vaccine will arrive, although it does look odds on to be here within a year. But herd immunity? We actually have no idea how long that would last, with or without a vaccine. It’s not yet a fair assumption to say the strongest 75% of the population get it and then the problem is fixed. We could still end up in exactly the same situation this time next year and Alf will still be stuck peering at the inside of a window.

Edited 18 September 2020 by Dunge

[dsr-burnley]

7 minutes ago, Dunge said:

A couple of thoughts about this:

 

Firstly, with regard to Sweden, my interpretation of them from what I’ve read is that the measures have been far lesser, but their non-disastrous result is more because of general compliance and personal responsibility. If Britain can follow a lead on that then we might be onto something. But that’s an If.

 

Secondly, you’re right that we don’t know if and when a vaccine will arrive, although it does look odds on to be here within a year. But herd immunity? We actually have no idea how long that would last, with or without a vaccine. It’s not yet a fair assumption to say the strongest 75% of the population get it and then the problem is fixed. We could still end up in exactly the same situation this time next year and Alf will still be stuck peering at the inside of a window.

He might at that.  But if we stay as we are and don't get a vaccine, he still will.  Herd immunity is the only way out, whether achieved by vaccine or by natural causes.

[Legend_in_blue]

1 hour ago, simFox said:

Let's be a bit more precise. The intensively measured infections today have surpassed the poorly measured infections from March.

 

I'm no rocket surgeon, but this is not something I'm finding to be unusual.

 

I'm not convinced these intensively measured tests are as accurate as we are led to believe.

 

The threshold for a positive or negative result has not been set in stone and are laboratories running to the same levels of consistency?  Particularly now they are overrun?

[RowlattsFox]

Whatever the government do they will have people shouting at them and that's what makes this whole thing so difficult. Whether it be lockdowns, restrictions, masks, opening businesses, closing business, kids at school or not, universities open or not, work from home or go into offices, vaccines yes or no. So many people have opinions or what should be done and we all generally have our own interests at heart.

 

I can live with rule of 6 throughout winter if needed but with flexibility for organised events. And maybe add mixing households if there is a huge increase in an area. I want to avoid a full lockdown. Apart from limits of international travel and occasional football match I'm pretty happy with the current restrictions in my area, I can still do most things I did before lockdown, I can still take my boy to activities for the time being, and enjoy the fact I can book everything in advance rather than the free for all of turning up on the day. 

 

Hopefully those who are vulnerable can keep themselves safe whilst cases inevitably rise with schools and universities open and that doesn't mean they have to completely lockdown. 

Edited 18 September 2020 by RowlattsFox

[SpacedX]

1 hour ago, simFox said:

Let's be a bit more precise. The intensively measured infections today have surpassed the poorly measured infections from March.

 

I'm no rocket surgeon, but this is not something I'm finding to be unusual.

What's a rocket surgeon? 

 

If anything, testing is more spurious and strained right now in the UK. Intensive measurement, means that it is of greater reliability and accuracy. 

 

What's your point and what do you prescribe over a thread on a football forum? 

[Leicester_Loyal]

https://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/1306916494773755910?s=2