Coronavirus Thread

[Izzy]

10 minutes ago, MonmoreStef said:

Whatever age I think there’s going to be thousands of good for their age fit people who’d rather chance it and live a live their normal life rather than locking themselves away indefinitely.  

Fella on the wireless earlier talking about this lockdown in Liverpool and gyms having to close. Saying there's loads of fit people over 60 who rely on their local gym for classes, fitness and social interaction who will now suffer.

 

This was the chap:

 

https://www.leisureopportunities.co.uk/news/COVID-19-England-ukactive-fitness-reopening/346284

 

Gyms in the UK are continuing to successfully control COVID-19 transmisssion, according to the latest figures released by industry body, ukactive.

 

There were 22 million visits to fitness facilities during the two months following reopening, with the number of COVID-19 cases per 100,000 visits logged as 0.34, with no community transmission occurring.

 

Huw Edwards, CEO of ukactive, says the data shows that protocols for monitoring and reporting in the sector are helping to control the virus and ensure the safety of members.

 

 

Edited 13 October 2020 by Izzy

[MonmoreStef]

5 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

This would be OK if the 'chance' they were taking was purely for their own lives, but unfortunately it just doesn't work like that. There are millions of vulnerable people in the UK who are reliant on everyone taking responsibility for the reduction in risk, and this doesn't happen by people deciding to 'chance it'.

Going to reach the stage I’m afraid where this becomes everyone for themselves. Unless a vaccine appears people are not going to spend the rest of their lives worrying about everybody bar themselves. Yes some will be happy to change, but the majority will want to get on with their lives.   The vulnerable can’t bring the country down with them.  We can try for a while for them but eventually life will have to go on. 

[dsr-burnley]

26 minutes ago, MonmoreStef said:

Such a system would be harsh in the extreme on fit 60 year olds who like to live a life. Imagine the mental torture on an active mid 60s person telling them they can’t do the things they used to do. 

It's harsh on 87 year olds who aren't as fit as they used to be.  Imagine what it's like if your pre-corona activities have all been banned and you are told to sit at home and watch telly for a year.  It's not as if they have so many years left, so giving up one year in the hope of adding to the rest is a bit of a mixed blessing.

[filbertway]

17 minutes ago, Heathrow fox said:

Any such system would have to take anyone considered high risk regardless of age surely?

It seems to me that the main risk factor is age with obesity seemingly second.

 

Personally feel we should be looking into the data we have and working out how we can use it to our advantage. I'd hope stuff like this is at least being considered, modelled and studied.

[MonmoreStef]

2 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

It's harsh on 87 year olds who aren't as fit as they used to be.  Imagine what it's like if your pre-corona activities have all been banned and you are told to sit at home and watch telly for a year.  It's not as if they have so many years left, so giving up one year in the hope of adding to the rest is a bit of a mixed blessing.

My old man likes to go races two or three times a week since he’s retired. Obviously hasn’t been since March and it’s driving him mad. Basically was his life for the past few years going all around the Northern Courses. Will be many thousands of people his age who must sorely miss doing what they love. 

[dsr-burnley]

5 minutes ago, MonmoreStef said:

Going to reach the stage I’m afraid where this becomes everyone for themselves. Unless a vaccine appears people are not going to spend the rest of their lives worrying about everybody bar themselves. Yes some will be happy to change, but the majority will want to get on with their lives.   The vulnerable can’t bring the country down with them.  We can try for a while for them but eventually life will have to go on. 

If it was up to me, I would remove all restrictions except for 2m social distancing reduced to 1m if both are wearing masks, with compulsory masks in shops.  Then let people make their own minds up.  If two old dears whose entire social life consists popping round to each others' houses for the afternoon, let them do it.  If half a dopzen old acquaintances have a coffee morning every Saturday, let them continue - sit further apart perhaps, but if they want to take the risk, let them.  

 

I think sometimes the powers that be don't realise the difference between scrapping the social life of someone who goes to work and sees people regularly, and scrapping the social life of people who never see anyone except socially.  If you tell the very old that if they sit at home and never see anyone they might live longer, their very valid question might be "why would I want to live longer".

[dsr-burnley]

1 minute ago, MonmoreStef said:

My old man likes to go races two or three times a week since he’s retired. Obviously hasn’t been since March and it’s driving him mad. Basically was his life for the past few years going all around the Northern Courses. Will be many thousands of people his age who must sorely miss doing what they love. 

EXACTLY.  Best wishes to your father.  (I must have seen him at Ripon sometime.)

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, MonmoreStef said:

Going to reach the stage I’m afraid where this becomes everyone for themselves. Unless a vaccine appears people are not going to spend the rest of their lives worrying about everybody bar themselves. Yes some will be happy to change, but the majority will want to get on with their lives.   The vulnerable can’t bring the country down with them.  We can try for a while for them but eventually life will have to go on. 

Well, a vaccine hopefully being in the pipeline and not far away notwithstanding...

 

You might be right about your assessment here, but, believe me, it would be better to hope that you're not. Because if the reaction of humanity to a relatively mild crisis where not everyone is as vulnerable as the next person is to go "every man (or little group) for themselves" when things start getting tough, that doesn't really say much about our ability to handle the rather bigger problems that might be waiting further along.

[MonmoreStef]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Well, a vaccine hopefully being in the pipeline and not far away notwithstanding...

 

You might be right about your assessment here, but, believe me, it would be better to hope that you're not. Because if the reaction of humanity to a relatively mild crisis where not everyone is as vulnerable as the next person is to go "every man (or little group) for themselves" when things start getting tough, that doesn't really say much about our ability to handle the rather bigger problems that might be waiting further along.

I feel any lockdowns from now till March are going to be harder for the population to endure than the ones earlier this year where we had the nice weather.  At least we could have BBQs and whether legal or not at the time have a mate or two in our gardens for a drink. Come the dark nights of November it’s going to put a strain on naturally social people. 

[filbertway]

1 minute ago, MonmoreStef said:

My old man likes to go races two or three times a week since he’s retired. Obviously hasn’t been since March and it’s driving him mad. Basically was his life for the past few years going all around the Northern Courses. Will be many thousands of people his age who must sorely miss doing what they love. 

I'd argue any outdoor pursuits aren't particularly dangerous, especially if you keep a safe distance. 

 

If older people are taking up hospital beds, then it makes sense to me to stop them getting into positions where they can catch the virus. If you're 80, go on your daily walks, meet friends at the park.

 

Tbh, any sane older person is doing this anyway, it's just enforcing common sense. It'd allow stuff like gigs, nightclubs, smaller pubs and clubs to open and be running. You could even have stadium opened up. Have a smaller section for older people to go with one or two family members and keep decent spaces between them. Allows people to go to the footie with their old man.

 

Use what we know to our benefit. Tweak little things based on age. Allow older members of society to still enjoy things while keeping them as safe as possible. It just seems plainly obvious to me to base restrictions/access on age.

[Babylon]

13 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

If it was up to me, I would remove all restrictions except for 2m social distancing reduced to 1m if both are wearing masks, with compulsory masks in shops.  Then let people make their own minds up.  If two old dears whose entire social life consists popping round to each others' houses for the afternoon, let them do it.  If half a dopzen old acquaintances have a coffee morning every Saturday, let them continue - sit further apart perhaps, but if they want to take the risk, let them.  

It's not just about old people, it's about the vulnerable who need care of some sort. If you just let it run riot, it will invariably get into and be spread by care homes, hospitals, community in the care, sheltered housing, assisted living and so on. A huge proportion of doctors, nurses, carers (professional and family) are going to contract it and then going to pass it on.

 

These people have no choice, they aren't taking risks. And before someone says "of well if they are that vulnerable they'll die soon anyway". No, firstly we are meant to be a civilised society who actually cares. Secondly, many of these people whilst needed assistance can have many many years of life still to live. 

 

There has to be a measured approach, which trys to help them and also keeps in mind other people need to have a life. It's what we're trying to do. 

 

 

Edited 13 October 2020 by Babylon

[MonmoreStef]

2 minutes ago, Babylon said:

It's not just about old people, it's about the vulnerable who need care of some sort. If you just let it run riot, it will invariably get into and be spread by care homes, hospitals, community in the care, sheltered housing, assisted living and so on. A huge proportion of doctors, nurses, carers (professional and family) are going to contract it and then going to pass it on.

 

These people have no choice, they aren't taking risks. And before someone says "of well if they are that vulnerable they'll die soon anyway". No, firstly we are meant to be a civilised society who actually cares. Secondly, many of these people whilst needed assistance can have many many years of life still to live. 

 

 

That’s fine but how long do the public carry on as we are. Millions are struggling financially because of this virus and many more millions are gagging to live the social lives they had pre Covid. At some stage in the future there will be a tipping point where the majority will say sorry this can’t go on.  As I’ve said if a vaccine doesn’t materialise soon I can’t see people putting up with the present situations indefinitely.  

[Jon the Hat]

6 hours ago, Facecloth said:

I worked for a bus company for years, we had to at least prove the vehicles were on order when making the bid for the tender, and they would arrive before the contract started.

I expect the Ferry companies had also lined up suppliers who could source them ferries.  I bet your bus company hadn't signed committed orders when they bid, otherwise they would have to buy the buses even if they didn't need them, which is suicidal.

[Jon the Hat]

8 minutes ago, Babylon said:

It's not just about old people, it's about the vulnerable who need care of some sort. If you just let it run riot, it will invariably get into and be spread by care homes, hospitals, community in the care, sheltered housing, assisted living and so on. A huge proportion of doctors, nurses, carers (professional and family) are going to contract it and then going to pass it on.

 

These people have no choice, they aren't taking risks. And before someone says "of well if they are that vulnerable they'll die soon anyway". No, firstly we are meant to be a civilised society who actually cares. Secondly, many of these people whilst needed assistance can have many many years of life still to live. 

 

There has to be a measured approach, which trys to help them and also keeps in mind other people need to have a life. It's what we're trying to do. 

Is anyone suggesting we let it run riot?  If you know you are vulnerable you take additional precautions, with government protection for your employment.  If you are fine and willing to take the much lower risk, then go about your life with sensible precautions.  If you want to sit with your mates and watch the game, your call.  

I will say again thousands of students have got it, and I have seen not one story about a dying student.  Anyone else seen one?

[dsr-burnley]

17 minutes ago, Babylon said:

It's not just about old people, it's about the vulnerable who need care of some sort. If you just let it run riot, it will invariably get into and be spread by care homes, hospitals, community in the care, sheltered housing, assisted living and so on. A huge proportion of doctors, nurses, carers (professional and family) are going to contract it and then going to pass it on.

 

These people have no choice, they aren't taking risks. And before someone says "of well if they are that vulnerable they'll die soon anyway". No, firstly we are meant to be a civilised society who actually cares. Secondly, many of these people whilst needed assistance can have many many years of life still to live. 

 

 

It's a beggar, isn't it?  There's no easy answers at all.

 

Look at over 80's.  They have an average of about 5 years of life left per person.  Some will live 20 years, some will die tomorrow.  As it stands, since the coronavirus started, you would have expected under normal circumstances 5% of over-80's to die; in fact 6% have died.  (Round numbers.  About 3m over-80's, one tenth die each year, 30k have died due to coronavirus.)

 

But the other 94% have had a pretty rotten time.  They have an average of 5 years left, and the last 6 months have been pretty awful and the next 6 months look set to be worse.  It's a fact of nature that in old people, all else being equal, the best year of the rest of their life is going to be the next one.  That's the year they are having to give up to marginally improve their chances of living long enough to get into a nursing home.

 

My view is to let it run riot (OK, maybe not have full houses at football if they can prove the disease transmits freely there) while doing our best (for several reasons) to protect the vulnerable.  At least it would get it over with.  The cure is causing deaths as well as saving them, remember.  This vaccine?  We were told in April that they hoped to have one in October.  Now it's October and we're told they hope to have one in April.  Doesn't sound like enough progress to me.

Edited 13 October 2020 by dsr-burnley

[Babylon]

2 minutes ago, MonmoreStef said:

That’s fine but how long do the public carry on as we are. Millions are struggling financially because of this virus and many more millions are gagging to live the social lives they had pre Covid. At some stage in the future there will be a tipping point where the majority will say sorry this can’t go on.  As I’ve said if a vaccine doesn’t materialise soon I can’t see people putting up with the present situations indefinitely.  

Well other than large scale events most of the country have been able to get on with their lives for months now if they wished to. 

 

I'm sure at some point people will give up and demand a normal life. But then, perhaps when parents and grandparents start dying they realise they've been a bit of a selfish c***.  It's been 6 months so far and people are willing to basically sentence huge numbers to death so they can go football or to a concert?

 

We need to get past the winter being sensible and see where we are in spring in terms of treatments, vaccines, understanding of the virus etc. It's still incredible early days in terms of understanding. 

[Babylon]

3 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Is anyone suggesting we let it run riot?  If you know you are vulnerable you take additional precautions, with government protection for your employment.  If you are fine and willing to take the much lower risk, then go about your life with sensible precautions.  If you want to sit with your mates and watch the game, your call.  

I will say again thousands of students have got it, and I have seen not one story about a dying student.  Anyone else seen one?

That's exactly what you are suggesting by suggesting that. I literally just spelled it all out in the post you quoted. Those people who are going football are going to take it home to the nurses, and carers and doctors etc that they live with. Or pass it on to work makes who live with those sorts of people. They then take it into places where they go to look after the vulnerable. 

[MonmoreStef]

2 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Well other than large scale events most of the country have been able to get on with their lives for months now if they wished to. 

 

I'm sure at some point people will give up and demand a normal life. But then, perhaps when parents and grandparents start dying they realise they've been a bit of a selfish c***.  It's been 6 months so far and people are willing to basically sentence huge numbers to death so they can go football or to a concert?

 

We need to get past the winter being sensible and see where we are in spring in terms of treatments, vaccines, understanding of the virus etc. It's still incredible early days in terms of understanding. 

It’s been 6 months so far yes but I’m talking further along the line. When that 6 becomes say 12 and so on. Who knows where the breaking point is in terms of months following the present approach. 

[Babylon]

4 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

It's a beggar, isn't it?  There's no easy answers at all.

 

Look at over 80's.  They have an average of about 5 years of life left per person.  Some will live 20 years, some will die tomorrow.  As it stands, since the coronavirus started, you would have expected under normal circumstances 5% of over-80's to die; in fact 6% have died.  (Round numbers.  About 3m over-80's, one tenth die each year, 30k have died due to coronavirus.)

 

But the other 94% have had a pretty rotten time.  They have an average of 5 years left, and the last 6 months have been pretty awful and the next 6 months look set to be worse.  It's a fact of nature that in old people, all else being equal, the best year of the rest of their life is going to be the next one.  That's the year they are having to give up to marginally improve their chances of living long enough to get into a nursing home.

 

My view is to let it run riot while doing our best (for several reasons) to protect the vulnerable.  At least it would get it over with.  The cure is causing deaths as well as saving them, remember.  This vaccine?  We were told in April that they hoped to have one in October.  Now it's October and we're told they hope to have one in April.  Doesn't sound like enough progress to me.

As the government said today, that neither "gets it over with" and it's not possible to protect the vulnerable. 

[FoxesDeb]

8 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Is anyone suggesting we let it run riot?  If you know you are vulnerable you take additional precautions, with government protection for your employment.  If you are fine and willing to take the much lower risk, then go about your life with sensible precautions.  If you want to sit with your mates and watch the game, your call.  

I will say again thousands of students have got it, and I have seen not one story about a dying student.  Anyone else seen one?

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/30/us/app-state-student-covid-19-death-trnd/index.html

[filbertway]

5 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/30/us/app-state-student-covid-19-death-trnd/index.html

I realise he asked for a story . The fact it is a news story is a testament in itself to how rare the occurance is

Edited 13 October 2020 by filbertway

[dsr-burnley]

 

8 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Well other than large scale events most of the country have been able to get on with their lives for months now if they wished to. 

 

I'm sure at some point people will give up and demand a normal life. But then, perhaps when parents and grandparents start dying they realise they've been a bit of a selfish c***.  It's been 6 months so far and people are willing to basically sentence huge numbers to death so they can go football or to a concert?

 

We need to get past the winter being sensible and see where we are in spring in terms of treatments, vaccines, understanding of the virus etc. It's still incredible early days in terms of understanding. 

Please don't use the "My opinion is right so I am a good person; your opinion is wrong so you are a bad person" approach.  It's not helpful.

 

Like I said, there are no easy answers.  If someone who would have spent a last happy 6 months with family and friends before dying of coronavirus, instead spends a last miserable 12 months staring at the wall before dying of something else, that is not a success for the anti-coronavirus policy.  There is more to life and death than coronavirus.

[FoxesDeb]

12 minutes ago, filbertway said:

I realise he asked for a story . The fact it is a news story is a testament in itself to how rare the occurance is

Haha I couldn't resist, he did ask if there was one, it seems there literally is

 

 

[FoxesDeb]

The problem with all these people who want to 'take their own risk' is that it isn't just theirs to take. Presumably these people shop in the same places as everyone else, go to the same doctors, many will have work colleagues or children they can pass it on to, and then in turn it gets passed on to the vulnerable, many of whom also go to work, have school age children, and go shopping.

[Babylon]

 

13 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

 

Please don't use the "My opinion is right so I am a good person; your opinion is wrong so you are a bad person" approach.  It's not helpful.

 

Like I said, there are no easy answers.  If someone who would have spent a last happy 6 months with family and friends before dying of coronavirus, instead spends a last miserable 12 months staring at the wall before dying of something else, that is not a success for the anti-coronavirus policy.  There is more to life and death than coronavirus.

No, but then there are huge numbers that aren't 12 months from deaths door. That's likely to be a fairly small number in fact. "Vulnerable" does not mean necessarily mean 12 months from croaking it.  

 

There is no easy answer I totally agree. I just don't see everyone just getting on with is particularly feasible at this moment in time. It's going to take time and understanding to find the balance between living a life and saving lives. Without a vaccine that's the only real answer for a while.