Coronavirus Thread

[Sampson 3,112]

27 minutes ago, FrankieADZ said:

thats all well and good then having a 2 week national lockdown, but doesnt that just delay the problem to further down the line

as stated by number of people in the medical fields

Yeah. I've been for most of the measures so far, but I'm a bit confused about this circuit breaker and what it is designed to achieve. Maybe I've not heard the background and rationale behind it. But doesn't it just kick the can down the road for a month or so? 

 

I read flu season tends to peak in late January/early February, so that we be the time we're most likely to breach NHS capacity and doesn't this just kick the can nearer to then?

 

More than happy for someone to explain the logic behind it to me as I may have missed something. But I don't understand doing a circuit breaker lockdown now from what I've heard. Surely it's better to save the lockdown for December, January, February time if NHS capacity is approaching capacity and just do local lockdowns until then?

Edited 19 October 2020 by Sampson

[StriderHiryu 17,572]

3 minutes ago, Sampson said:

 

More than happy for someone to explain the logic behind it to me as I may have missed something. But I don't understand doing a circuit breaker lockdown now from what I've heard. Surely it's better to save the lockdown for December, January, February time if NHS capacity is approaching capacity and just do local lockdowns until then?

One month ago Sage advised a national lockdown when cases were at 5K a day. Right now they are at 20K a day, a four-fold increase. If we don't get on top of the problem quickly, those 20K cases will be 40K cases a month from now, then 80K, etc. We might have hospital bed capacity now, but at this rate we will be at maximum capacity in no time at all. So whilst it might be that it won't be until December that we are at breaking point, if we wait that long then it's already too late, and we will be in the position Italy found themselves in when Doctors and Nurses had to choose who lived and died because not everyone could be treated at once.

 

The problem is it probably already is too late... 

 

 

[foxile5 2,580]

27 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

To be fair to the guy, there are certain situations (climate change being one of note) where consistently having to point out where people are ignoring scientific fact for the sake of their own self interest *is* a bit exhausting. And also such viewpoints aren't exactly harmless when the people that hold them can vote and therefore indirectly craft policy based on those viewpoints.

In this respect he feels, and probably with some reason, that he shouldn't have to shield and specifically complains about having to think of others. 

 

I think that people on this board with vulnerable spouses and family members might well have an equally justifiable position that opposes his. 

 

You do have a point about climate change but this is a situation where there are multiple conflicts of interest. 

[Sampson 3,112]

8 minutes ago, StriderHiryu said:

One month ago Sage advised a national lockdown when cases were at 5K a day. Right now they are at 20K a day, a four-fold increase. If we don't get on top of the problem quickly, those 20K cases will be 40K cases a month from now, then 80K, etc. We might have hospital bed capacity now, but at this rate we will be at maximum capacity in no time at all. So whilst it might be that it won't be until December that we are at breaking point, if we wait that long then it's already too late, and we will be in the position Italy found themselves in when Doctors and Nurses had to choose who lived and died because not everyone could be treated at once.

 

The problem is it probably already is too late... 

 

 

I get that, but don't you need a lengthy sustained lockdown for 3 months or so as it was back in the spring to get numbers that low again? The numbers seem to decline much slower than they increase.

 

Surely 2 or 3 weeks is not long enough and cases will still be at a level where they just shoot up to the same level a month later and then we're facing this same problem in December when we're approaching peak flu season and people have lockdown fatigue and are less likely to comply over Christmas. In which case we've just kicked the can further down the road from autumn to winter where it could be more devastating.

 

I'm not against the lockdown, I'm just not sure how a 2 or 3 week lockdown solves much. Surely it makes more sense to do a longer one over the winter if and when it's needed more?

Edited 19 October 2020 by Sampson

[Cardiff_Fox 6,339]

Getting frustrating now, on for 50 hours post test with no result. 
 

It’s not even so much me. It’s more the effects people I met on Friday. Proves how faulted our system is though. As it stands there are five colleagues at work, who are isolating and potentially exposed their families. The longer I wait for a result, the bigger chance someone doesn’t isolate 
 

[Wymsey 4,701]

Don't know why some worry about a 'second wave' potentially occurring, especially when we're still haven't been out of the first one yet really..

Edited 19 October 2020 by Wymsey

[leicsmac 4,805]

22 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

In this respect he feels, and probably with some reason, that he shouldn't have to shield and specifically complains about having to think of others. 

 

I think that people on this board with vulnerable spouses and family members might well have an equally justifiable position that opposes his. 

 

You do have a point about climate change but this is a situation where there are multiple conflicts of interest. 

Oh yeah, I'm totally with you on this one. I was just being a pedantic bastard and highlighting that sometimes it's possible to get exhausted with human stupidity for the right reasons.

[foxile5 2,580]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Oh yeah, I'm totally with you on this one. I was just being a pedantic bastard and highlighting that sometimes it's possible to get exhausted with human stupidity for the right reasons.

Humans are stupid. It is avoidable. 

[leicsmac 4,805]

4 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

Humans are stupid. It is avoidable. 

 

[RoboFox 3,986]

The terms "circuit-breaker", and "firebreak" are quite shit and should be binned, stat. 

[Nod.E 2,334]

My Sainsbury's Local have started making people queue outside again.

 

Either masks work or they don't.

 

If they do, what's the need to make people queue as well?

 

If they don't, stop making people wear masks and just make people queue.

 

Doing both makes no sense.

[Nalis 5,379]

2 minutes ago, RoboFox said:

The terms "circuit-breaker", and "firebreak" are quite shit and should be binned, stat. 

Agreed, all knobish soundbites to make the actions should edgier.

[st albans fox 8,486]

50 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Getting frustrating now, on for 50 hours post test with no result. 
 

It’s not even so much me. It’s more the effects people I met on Friday. Proves how faulted our system is though. As it stands there are five colleagues at work, who are isolating and potentially exposed their families. The longer I wait for a result, the bigger chance someone doesn’t isolate 
 

massive problem and perhaps going to be the largest contributor to the country failing to control a second wave …..if you spend the money on building a test and trace system then what we have now is an unmitigated disaster …….. why would people stay at home for days on end losing money when there may be no need …. fwiw, 50 hours isn't too long. the system should deliver guaranteed results within 72 hours max. i think people would just about buy into that.

Edited 19 October 2020 by st albans fox

[Innovindil 2,916]

21 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

My Sainsbury's Local have started making people queue outside again.

 

Either masks work or they don't.

 

If they do, what's the need to make people queue as well?

 

If they don't, stop making people wear masks and just make people queue.

 

Doing both makes no sense.

... 

 

What do you mean by work? They aren't a miracle piece of cloth. They help, that is all. Like certain restrictions help. Just because they don't miraculously make this crap go away doesn't mean we shouldn't use them. 

[FrankieADZ 631]

2/3 week firebreak or whatever they want to call it isnt going to do much long term;

needs to be a 3/6 month national lockdown for numbers to really go down and stay down imo, plus the track and trace stuff needs to work too

i dont get why there is such the uproar about wearing masks, its not like its a massive problem in all seriousness 

 

 

 

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson 2,739]

28 minutes ago, Nalis said:

Agreed, all knobish soundbites to make the actions should edgier.

Like the Covid Marshall’s!

[Cardiff_Fox 6,339]

19 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

massive problem and perhaps going to be the largest contributor to the country failing to control a second wave …..if you spend the money on building a test and trace system then what we have now is an unmitigated disaster …….. why would people stay at home for days on end losing money when there may be no need …. fwiw, 50 hours isn't too long. the system should deliver guaranteed results within 72 hours max. i think people would just about buy into that.

Left the test centre being told 24 hours - which left disruption to a minimum. Was 48 hours when booking (could be five days). 
 

If it just said five days, I’d accept it and inform those affected by me self isolating about that time frame 

Edited 19 October 2020 by Cardiff_Fox

[Leicester_Loyal 5,422]

37 minutes ago, RoboFox said:

The terms "circuit-breaker", and "firebreak" are quite shit and should be binned, stat. 

Agreed. It's another lockdown, just call it what it is

[Stivo 110]

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

I get that, but don't you need a lengthy sustained lockdown for 3 months or so as it was back in the spring to get numbers that low again? The numbers seem to decline much slower than they increase.

 

Surely 2 or 3 weeks is not long enough and cases will still be at a level where they just shoot up to the same level a month later and then we're facing this same problem in December when we're approaching peak flu season and people have lockdown fatigue and are less likely to comply over Christmas. In which case we've just kicked the can further down the road from autumn to winter where it could be more devastating.

 

I'm not against the lockdown, I'm just not sure how a 2 or 3 week lockdown solves much. Surely it makes more sense to do a longer one over the winter if and when it's needed more?

2 or 3 weeks is surely sufficient within a single lockdown household for the virus to play out and expire? 
 

As I understand it back in March the virus was then still circulating within groups of essential workers and hence we had to wait until it subsided within those groups.  Those groups should hopefully retain a higher level of  immunity.

[foxile5 2,580]

2 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Agreed. It's another lockdown, just call it what it is

Because firebreak sounds purposeful and dramatic

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson 2,739]

Just now, foxile5 said:

Because firebreak sounds purposeful and dramatic

I wonder how many meetings and brain storming sessions it took to come up with “Firebreak” obviously they wanted something different to “circuit breaker” as that was from Boris and his team.

[bovril 8,232]

55 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

My Sainsbury's Local have started making people queue outside again.

 

Either masks work or they don't.

 

If they do, what's the need to make people queue as well?

 

If they don't, stop making people wear masks and just make people queue.

 

Doing both makes no sense.

I've tried to be quite civil in my debates during this pandemic, and I also appreciate the need to remain sceptical of any knee-jerk measures being brought in. But this is one of the stupidest posts I have seen about the whole situation on any social media. It's like asking why we wear a hat and scarf when it's cold? The two things work together. There's evidence that suggests social distancing and mask wearing may reduce the viral load meaning the individual catches a milder form. 

 

I mean you could question the measures if you want, but asking why people do two things in combination is genuinely baffling. 

 

[Nalis 5,379]

20 minutes ago, Mark 'expert' Lawrenson said:

I wonder how many meetings and brain storming sessions it took to come up with “Firebreak” obviously they wanted something different to “circuit breaker” as that was from Boris and his team.

'Guys should we discuss how we strategise the incredibly difficult task of balancing public health and the economy?'

 

'Stop getting distracted and focus on the task in hand - circuit breaker, firebreak or Paul's suggestion of 'The Ultimate Switch Off?''

Edited 19 October 2020 by Nalis

[Alf Bentley 10,994]

1 hour ago, Nod.E said:

My Sainsbury's Local have started making people queue outside again.

 

Either masks work or they don't.

 

If they do, what's the need to make people queue as well?

 

If they don't, stop making people wear masks and just make people queue.

 

Doing both makes no sense.

 

Experts reckon masks provide a significant degree of protection but do not offer any guarantee of safety.

 

A bit like car seat belts.

 

Just because seat belts don't offer 100% guaranteed protection in a crash, should we say: "there's no point wearing a seat belt AND driving safely, I'll just drive safely"?!

 

I presume your Sainsbury's Local has re-started queuing as a risk calculation - higher risk due to higher infection rate?

 

[Strokes 10,262]

1 hour ago, Nod.E said:

My Sainsbury's Local have started making people queue outside again.

 

Either masks work or they don't.

 

If they do, what's the need to make people queue as well?

 

If they don't, stop making people wear masks and just make people queue.

 

Doing both makes no sense.

It’s alright lads I have a better analogy that will sink in.

Same reason you have a wànk and poke your bum at the same time because it’s doubly effective.