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

2 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Never suggested for a minute that they're risk free. No parts of society are risk free are they?

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting they're seen as 'collateral'. There's mass gatherings happening all day in supermarkets, shops, workplaces, public transport etc. so why should school kids be singled out? 

 

They shouldn't be singled out. And if it starts to go south again I fully expect closed pubs, limited shopping, working from and reduced schooling. 

 

Not the 'in school regardless' you suggested. 

 

But that's just my opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been back teaching in school for the past 4 weeks now.

 

In terms of what's worked well, I think we've done a good job of keeping bubbles separate. There might be the very occasional contact between children in different bubbles (can't be helped in some areas, eg. toilets) but on the whole the bubbles have been a success. I think it's been good for the children to be back too - most of them have been glad to be back at school, and you can tell they've missed the interaction.

 

The handwashing is a bit of a faff though. It can take 15 minutes just to get the whole class to wash their hands, which when you're doing that multiple times a day, really adds up. In my opinion, it's a huge waste of time, considering the proximity of the kids to each other. Social distancing may as well not exist though. My classroom just about fits the whole class in, so we're all a bit like sardines in there, and it's not possible to keep young children away from each other. I've had various children off, as colds/sickness bugs go through the class like wildfire (and even I've had the cold at this point) - this is despite all the handwashing, and other measures. Which goes to show that without at least halving class sizes (if not more), you can't stop the spread of disease.

 

So for me, schools (at least primary) are only safe providing that the premise that young children don't really spread the disease holds true. As far as I know, the data seems to show that this is the case. However, if it turns out to be false, then we're all buggered, because schools aren't 'covid secure' locations - quite the opposite.

Edited by Charl91
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Will they? Do we know that for a fact? 

 

That's hard to predict (certainly never going to be a fact). Evidence from Scotland is that it isn't all that bad - an additional place for the virus to spread, but not causing a surge in cases.

 

But it is all relative. If you close all hospitality, then schools are likely to be one of the only places the virus can spread between households. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Stevosevic said:

The younger generation are having their future ruined in fairness. Some would say we are spoiling the lives of 90% of people for the benefit of 10%.

 

Surely there is a way of isolating and keeping the vulnerable in a lockdown that allows life to go on in relative normal for the majority.

 

I don't like the idea of more lockdown any more than you. But if local/regional restrictions plus social distancing doesn't stop the surge in infections, further action is needed. Though I agree with @Shram's comment after yours - any deeper lockdown needs to be as brief as possible and must allow maximum normality thereafter via adequate test/trace, protection for care homes & encouraging work from home where possible. If Boris can bluster about spending £100bn on his Operation Moonshine, he can spare a few quid to support vulnerable sectors like hospitality, entertainment & travel for a few weeks.

 

You say the young are having their future ruined, but how rosy will life look for them if Covid is able to run riot with just the vulnerable locked down?

Plenty of customers (and not just the elderly) will not want to be out spending under that scenario - and some younger people will not want to work, despite the lower risk for their age-group.

 

You talk about spoiling lives "for the benefit of 10%". Let's be clear what that "benefit" is......it's not profit or comfort, it's life. Are you seriously questioning the value of trying to protect the lives of 10% of the population?!

I also think you're under-estimating the risk to the young. Their risk of death is very low, but not their risk of long-Covid....chronic breathing problems, long-term heart damage, propensity to blood clots causing strokes etc.....for all ages.

 

You're also misunderstanding who "the vulnerable" are. Of course, the most vulnerable are the very elderly with multiple health issues. But a lot of middle-aged (& even young) people of working age have vulnerabilities.

 

Here are some "vulnerable" people just from my own life:

- My mate, 50, teaching assistant, physically very fit (ex-football coach, regular runner) but recently diagnosed with diabetes & with mental health vulnerability (ended up in mental health unit in last lockdown)

- Wife of another mate, 58, in remission from cancer but who knows what future holds; otherwise very fit

- Me, 58, still working & with dependent teenage daughter, generally fit but have underlying heart condition that makes Covid very dangerous

- My daughter's mother, 58, also needed by daughter, also still working, high blood pressure & prone to blood clots

- My nephew, 30, twice hospitalised with pneumonia in past (weak chest), working & studying

- My uncle, 90, getting frail but still living at home though needing support visits

 

None of us know what the future holds, but apart from my uncle, all the others named might lead fulfilling lives for several decades yet. None are people who "would have died soon anyway" (probably).

Yet you - and many others on this forum - seem to want to condemn us to indefinite house arrest and/or a heightened risk of death, so that life can "go on in relative normality for the majority".

No, thanks! Let's fight this together, not by different groups pursuing their self-interest.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I don't like the idea of more lockdown any more than you. But if local/regional restrictions plus social distancing doesn't stop the surge in infections, further action is needed. Though I agree with @Shram's comment after yours - any deeper lockdown needs to be as brief as possible and must allow maximum normality thereafter via adequate test/trace, protection for care homes & encouraging work from home where possible. If Boris can bluster about spending £100bn on his Operation Moonshine, he can spare a few quid to support vulnerable sectors like hospitality, entertainment & travel for a few weeks.

 

You say the young are having their future ruined, but how rosy will life look for them if Covid is able to run riot with just the vulnerable locked down?

Plenty of customers (and not just the elderly) will not want to be out spending under that scenario - and some younger people will not want to work, despite the lower risk for their age-group.

 

You talk about spoiling lives "for the benefit of 10%". Let's be clear what that "benefit" is......it's not profit or comfort, it's life. Are you seriously questioning the value of trying to protect the lives of 10% of the population?!

I also think you're under-estimating the risk to the young. Their risk of death is very low, but not their risk of long-Covid....chronic breathing problems, long-term heart damage, propensity to blood clots causing strokes etc.....for all ages.

 

You're also misunderstanding who "the vulnerable" are. Of course, the most vulnerable are the very elderly with multiple health issues. But a lot of middle-aged (& even young) people of working age have vulnerabilities.

 

Here are some "vulnerable" people just from my own life:

- My mate, 50, teaching assistant, physically very fit (ex-football coach, regular runner) but recently diagnosed with diabetes & with mental health vulnerability (ended up in mental health unit in last lockdown)

- Wife of another mate, 58, in remission from cancer but who knows what future holds; otherwise very fit

- Me, 58, still working & with dependent teenage daughter, generally fit but have underlying heart condition that makes Covid very dangerous

- My daughter's mother, 58, also needed by daughter, also still working, high blood pressure & prone to blood clots

- My nephew, 30, twice hospitalised with pneumonia in past (weak chest), working & studying

- My uncle, 90, getting frail but still living at home though needing support visits

 

None of us know what the future holds, but apart from my uncle, all the others named might lead fulfilling lives for several decades yet. None are people who "would have died soon anyway" (probably).

Yet you - and many others on this forum - seem to want to condemn us to indefinite house arrest and/or a heightened risk of death, so that life can "go on in relative normality for the majority".

No, thanks! Let's fight this together, not by different groups pursuing their self-interest.

Dont worry Alf...These young ,Dynamic Uupstarts after denying/ignoring social-distancing at Holiday/local Discos & gigs , crowded pubs,big home  parties, follow the know-all who trips, will soon be running blindly home to hotel Mama ,or A&E ,with no-entry signs for the  under age..!!

Then finally Knock  Desperately on Senior-home windows,so they can gain entry to a Covid-free zone....:jump:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/09/2020 at 08:51, Jon the Hat said:

My kids have been back at school for a week and both are off sick with colds.  Snot everywhere!  Presumably if we were all about to get Covid they would have that instead.

This level of panic is nuts it really is.  We will look back on this ****wittery with a wince at the vast economic cost, long term death rates from untreated illness including cancer, and loss of liberty.  Meanwhile Sweden is out the other side and motoring.

No doubt about it. Thought this for months now. We will look back on this and wonder what on earth we were thinking. I'm absolutely certain of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m in the high risk/vulnerable category and have had numerous texts and letters from the NHS telling me to isolate/shield. I take immuo suppressant injections so if I contract COVID who who’s...

 

But, if I had the choice of 

 

a) schools close again, my kids are back home going stir crazy and the hassle of home schooling/child care and their mental health being affected or

 

b) they stay at school and there’s the off chance they get it and bring it home and pass it on to me

 

I choose B every time.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Boris holding a meeting about a second wave at the minute apparently. Can he delay the second lockdown until after I've been out next weekend please?:nono:

It’ll be tight but Boris likes to bring restrictions in on a Monday so you might just make it! Have a fantastic COVID weekend.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Articles like this BBC one are annoying. I get that people can be misquoted but for people in it to say no one is social distancing or no kne is taking it seriously is absurd. The reality is SOME people aren't taking it seriously that the morons being interviewed are tarring everyone with the same brush.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54220065

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Chrysalis said:

It is what it is, but if it needs both parents working to pay a mortgage it shows how broken things are.


So you’re suggesting that one of either myself or my wife just give up on our careers then? Just walk away and become a stay at home parent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

I can see it coming on Monday.

”all those born in the first half of month, stay at home”

”all those born in the second half of the month, go to work, unless you can work from home, then stay at home unless you can’t work from home, go to work”

Ooookaayy 😆 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Stevosevic said:

The younger generation are having their future ruined in fairness. Some would say we are spoiling the lives of 90% of people for the benefit of 10%.

It's been six months, six. If people can recover from a world war lasting 6 years, I'm fairly sure a young generation can recover from being asked to stay in and play on their playstation for 3 months. 

 

11 hours ago, Stevosevic said:

Surely there is a way of isolating and keeping the vulnerable in a lockdown that allows life to go on in relative normal for the majority.

Those treating and looking after them are going to pass it on, it's nigh on inevitable. They will have families and children at home they mix with and then bring it into work unknown. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, joachim1965 said:

we are not going to beat this virus, no matter how many times or how hard we lock down it is not going away, it will be waiting for us when we start coming out again. Unfortunately, the only way we get back to normal is to allow this thing to run its course.

It's not even known if it does "run its course", immunity might not even last. 

 

Let's say it does last and herd immunity is going to work, you can't just throw the shackles off. It will devastate a percentage of the population and health services. What you suggest is exactly what we're doing with an attempt to keep control. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Babylon said:

It's not even known if it does "run its course", immunity might not even last. 

 

Let's say it does last and herd immunity is going to work, you can't just throw the shackles off. It will devastate a percentage of the population and health services. What you suggest is exactly what we're doing with an attempt to keep control. 

Babylon for PM!

(Prime Minister not personal message)

👍

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sky news today:
 

UK at a 'tipping point' where 'more measures' could follow

Health Secretary Matt Hancock is next on the show, and says the UK is at a "tipping point" where people face a choice - either everyone follows the coronavirus restrictions or there will be "more measures".

Would you report on someone for breaching isolation, he's asked?

"Yes - and everybody should... Everybody has got a part to play in this."

Sophy Ridge asks what the data shows about how much people are following the rules?

People have got more relaxed over the summer and I understand that because we're all human but now is the moment for everyone to snap back to firmly following the rules, Mr Hancock says, admitting he's "worried" people aren't anymore.

If you've been asked to self-isolate you either have COVID-19 or it's "highly likely" you do, he adds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole point of the original lockdown was to buy us some time for the nhs to cope with a possible second wave latter in the year, I.e. now, and give some support so our frailing economy stood a chance of recovering. we built  the nightingale hospitals around the country, bought all those ventilators and trained all those staff , the army included, as well as stocked up on medical supplies. That to me seemed a very good idea but did I dream all that, did it really happen, because now we are approaching that second wave, allegedly, we’re talking about another lockdown and fining people 10 grand if they don’t obey the wishes of Karen ringing you up to say a pupil in little Johnny’s class has been tested positive and because you visited the same McDonald’s as his little sister, you have to sit at home in your Jim jams , eat hob nobs all day and worry about going back to a workplace that won’t be there because everyone else has been contacted by Karen and they should also stay at home. Who thought that Fvckin plan up?? 
But the most annoying thing is, we have to sit there watching piers Morgan and Gary Fvckin lineker in a studio full of people telling us that we’re all clowns for disobeying the rules, whilst on 1.25 million quid that we have to stump up.

Edited by yorkie1999
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

Sky news today:
 

UK at a 'tipping point' where 'more measures' could follow

Health Secretary Matt Hancock is next on the show, and says the UK is at a "tipping point" where people face a choice - either everyone follows the coronavirus restrictions or there will be "more measures".

Would you report on someone for breaching isolation, he's asked?

"Yes - and everybody should... Everybody has got a part to play in this."

 

Do you reckon Hancock would report a fellow MP for breaching measures?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

I also think you're under-estimating the risk to the young. Their risk of death is very low, but not their risk of long-Covid....chronic breathing problems, long-term heart damage, propensity to blood clots causing strokes etc.....for all ages.

 

That's something I have only heard anecdotal evidence about.  Have you got figures for the risk of long-term covid effects?  Where did you see that their risk is not low?

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...