Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, String fellow said:

I'm struggling to work out what's the alternative strategy to re-imposing tighter restrictions. Do we pretend that the virus has gone away, don't give it any publicity, and let thousands more from the older generations die? I'm starting to think that some from the younger generations would be happy for that to happen. And trying to play down the statistics all the while can't hide the fact that 64,000 excess deaths have occurred in the UK since February.   

The alternative is to get on with it...a bit like how we get along with cancer. We just carry on. 

 

Allow 'at risk' groups to take indefinite sick leave. Set strategies for those who wish or need to shield. Provide guidance and advice to the rest of us.... who'll then get on doing whatever we want to do, go where we want to go and everything else.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

The alternative is to get on with it...a bit like how we get along with cancer. We just carry on. 

 

Allow 'at risk' groups to take indefinite sick leave. Set strategies for those who wish or need to shield. Provide guidance and advice to the rest of us.... who'll then get on doing whatever we want to do, go where we want to go and everything else.

Exactly. Imo its about reducing your social interaction. So I can go to work, and visit my mums house and sisters house, but if I'm at a different mates house every other night, we have problems. Follow the rules of mask wearing and hand sanitation in more public settings. 

 

I've had a 6 week gap between jobs since this started, other than that I've been in the office every week day. I live alone, so I have to go shop as nobody else is going. I've been to my mums house, been to my sisters. I've been gym when it reopened, I've been on runs with a mate couple of times a week. I've started back playing 5 aside two weeks ago since it was reopened. I've had meals out, I've been for drinks. But because I've followed the cleanliness, social distancing and mask wearing rules, despite carrying on relatively normally I haven't caught it yet as far as I know. Its just about being sensible.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, String fellow said:

I don't buy into the idea that members of the younger generation are having their futures ruined by steps to control the virus. It's the virus itself that could ruin their futures, as a result of catching it and possibly suffering long-term health damage. Furthermore, any gaps in their education can be filled in later on, especially if, like me, they learn almost everything they need to know in life during adulthood. And that's true more than ever now, thanks to the internet.

I left school so 16 and agree to a certain extent.

 

The 'filling in the gaps later on' causes a big knock on effect though. We've already seen the palaver with this years exams and any further suspension to schooling will set the kids back even further. 

 

And the internet is no substitute for classroom learning imo. Kids need social interaction during the day as they spend all evening on devices. 

 

I say we keep them all at school regardless. They've had enough turmoil this year and if they're unlucky enough to contract Covid then my understanding is the odds are they'll get over it without any long term damage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Izzy said:

I left school so 16 and agree to a certain extent.

 

The 'filling in the gaps later on' causes a big knock on effect though. We've already seen the palaver with this years exams and any further suspension to schooling will set the kids back even further. 

 

And the internet is no substitute for classroom learning imo. Kids need social interaction during the day as they spend all evening on devices. 

 

I say we keep them all at school regardless. They've had enough turmoil this year and if they're unlucky enough to contract Covid then my understanding is the odds are they'll get over it without any long term damage.

I agree to an extent but if the virus is running rampant through the population schools will be the transmission vector. 

 

They should remain open only as long as its safe to be open. Whilst the kids may get over it there are school staff and families that might not. They shouldn't be sacrificed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

I agree to an extent but if the virus is running rampant through the population schools will be the transmission vector. 

Will they? Do we know that for a fact? 

 

4 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

 

They should remain open only as long as its safe to be open. Whilst the kids may get over it there are school staff and families that might not. They shouldn't be sacrificed. 

I can only talk about my kids secondary school but their year groups are arranged in 'bubbles' and they have to wear washable masks in corridors and spaces where social distancing isn't possible as well as numerous other safe measures.

 

Annoys me a bit that kids get the 'blame' for the virus spreading when you've got thousands of pricks protesting in London and loads of adults (and workplaces) not following the rules. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Will they? Do we know that for a fact? 

That's me speculating but I believe it to be very likely the case. 

 

I've been in schools since the reopening and whilst there are bubbles and masks and so on you'd be a fool to believe them to be risk free. 

 

Huge gatherings of people in the same rooms all day and kids that are very likely to be in physical contact. 

 

And, again, families of children and school staff really shouldn't be seen as collateral. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, foxile5 said:

That's me speculating but I believe it to be very likely the case. 

 

I've been in schools since the reopening and whilst there are bubbles and masks and so on you'd be a fool to believe them to be risk free. 

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

 

1 minute ago, foxile5 said:

 

Huge gatherings of people in the same rooms all day and kids that are very likely to be in physical contact. 

 

And, again, families of children and school staff really shouldn't be seen as collateral. 

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? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Will they? Do we know that for a fact? 

 

I can only talk about my kids secondary school but their year groups are arranged in 'bubbles' and they have to wear washable masks in corridors and spaces where social distancing isn't possible as well as numerous other safe measures.

 

Annoys me a bit that kids get the 'blame' for the virus spreading when you've got thousands of pricks protesting in London and loads of adults (and workplaces) not following the rules. 

 

Tbf I don’t think it’s blame on Kids. Kids are kids. The behaviour changes required are near impossible. You just have to accept that children will pass the virus on 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
Share on other sites

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”

Link to post
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 post
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 post
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...
×
×
  • Create New...