Jump to content
filbertway

Coronavirus Thread

Recommended Posts

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 by Sampson
Link to post
Share on other sites
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... 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Sampson
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :D

Humans are stupid. It is avoidable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by st albans fox
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Cardiff_Fox
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Nalis
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

  • Like 2
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...