Jump to content

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

They're third years

They shouldn't be having the time of their lives, as they put it, they should be ****ing stressed and focusing on word count limits and the like.

Or shutting themselves in their room, only venturing out to buy the latest Britpop hits on CD like I did

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

They're third years

They shouldn't be having the time of their lives, as they put it, they should be ****ing stressed and focusing on word count limits and the like.

Agreed. Uni was a fun experience but the third year should be tough! Putting together your dissertation and preparing for possibly the last set of exams you’ll take in your life before you head out into the big wide world. If first years had done that it would still be moronic but would be more understandable. These idiots deserve their fines and if they were expelled from their University could have no complaints given they literally lied to the Police and got caught. Best way to learn the all important life lesson of “consequences.”

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

the yanks recordeed their highest daily death toll since aug 25th and daily cases over 70 k ...... this wave has been coming although it could be more of a geographical blip rather than a national wave ......

 

The US one I'd kind of like a single wave going across different states really though.

 

The concerning thing is that the cases on New Jersey and New York are going up again. Given they have the highest deaths per person in the world (nearly 3x ours fir example), you'd have thought they'd have reached herd immunity as everyone would have been infected by now. Hopefully cases don't last for long and it's just a few lingering cases.

 

New Jersey has already had 0.1843% of its population die, if that starts going up again it could be approaching the full case fatality rate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, fox_favourite said:

Mainly, yes. But anyone can be effected. People can be effected at any age and the effects can cause "long COVID" in people who are generally healthy. "people suffering the most are the elderly". What are you classing as elderly? 60, 70, 80? Also an elderly person might be your mum, dad, sister, brother, uncle, gran etc...it's about protecting everyone as no matter of who you are you have the right to live. 

Sure but the younger you are the less likely you are to suffer, quite marginally as well.

 

Why dont we stack the odds in our favour rather than having these catch all rules, doesn't make sense to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, filbertway said:

Can anyone convince me why age related restrictions would be no good?

 

It's a shame people that are of a certain age arent taking the steps to protect themselves or getting the support.

 

I dont see why the world has to stop and peoples lives be significantly impacted when we know that the main group of people suffering most are the elderly.

 

In effect, this has already been attempted - and it has failed.

 

In the summer, everything was opened up. Young people and those with no vulnerability resumed normal life, but most of the elderly and those with a vulnerability continued to act cautiously.

In the short-term, this led to increased levels of infection among the less vulnerable young, but not among the elderly/vulnerable - meaning low levels of hospitalisation and death......so far, so good, by your theory.

 

But that didn't last, did it? Hospitals and morgues are filling up - mainly with the elderly/vulnerable, but also with a few unlucky young/"invulnerable" people.

 

Do you believe that is because lots of elderly/vulnerable people who were "taking steps to protect themselves" in the summer suddenly stopped doing so?

I doubt it. I reckon that it's because this virus is highly contagious - and because a lot of people find it hard or impossible to avoid contact with younger generations.

 

Examples:

- Lots of uni students or workers in their 20s live with parents in their 50s/60s

- Lots of schoolkids have parents in their 50s or with vulnerabilities (I'm 58, have a vulnerability & live with my 16-year-old daughter who goes to college.....which of us should move out and where to?)

- Many elderly people live with middle-aged children with families, so people in their household go out to work or school or shopping/socialising

- A lot of elderly/vulnerable people who live alone would struggle to cope physically or mentally without visits from younger people, sometimes relations/friends, sometimes paid carers

- Some people who work and pay mortgages/rent have vulnerabilities (e.g. my 30-year-old nephew has twice had pneumonia; my fit 50-year-old mate, a teaching assistant, has diabetes)

 

You also do not say how long such isolation of older/vulnerable people would last. Most assessments reckon that still only a small proportion of the population has had Covid.....so such isolation could potentially last years.

Can you imagine isolating yourself and putting your life on hold for years? It would be intolerable, wouldn't it? Well, guess what.....it would be intolerable for older people, too. Most could tolerate it short-term with support, but not long-term.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, filbertway said:

Can anyone convince me why age related restrictions would be no good?

 

It's a shame people that are of a certain age arent taking the steps to protect themselves or getting the support.

 

I dont see why the world has to stop and peoples lives be significantly impacted when we know that the main group of people suffering most are the elderly.

I hate to answer a question with a question, but I think the problems here are easier to see when you flip question and look at it practically. Age/health related restrictions might be a brilliant idea in theory, but is there a set of rules that would allow some spread of the virus through one group in society, whilst keeping it away from another group in society - bearing in mind just how transmissible this thing is? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Markyblue

Infections in the 5 worse hit student cities have halved in a fortnight maybe a bit more common sense has prevailed, not easy to sacrifice your pleasures for someone else but necessary for the greater good. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

In effect, this has already been attempted - and it has failed.

 

In the summer, everything was opened up. Young people and those with no vulnerability resumed normal life, but most of the elderly and those with a vulnerability continued to act cautiously.

In the short-term, this led to increased levels of infection among the less vulnerable young, but not among the elderly/vulnerable - meaning low levels of hospitalisation and death......so far, so good, by your theory.

 

But that didn't last, did it? Hospitals and morgues are filling up - mainly with the elderly/vulnerable, but also with a few unlucky young/"invulnerable" people.

 

Do you believe that is because lots of elderly/vulnerable people who were "taking steps to protect themselves" in the summer suddenly stopped doing so?

I doubt it. I reckon that it's because this virus is highly contagious - and because a lot of people find it hard or impossible to avoid contact with younger generations.

 

Examples:

- Lots of uni students or workers in their 20s live with parents in their 50s/60s

- Lots of schoolkids have parents in their 50s or with vulnerabilities (I'm 58, have a vulnerability & live with my 16-year-old daughter who goes to college.....which of us should move out and where to?)

- Many elderly people live with middle-aged children with families, so people in their household go out to work or school or shopping/socialising

- A lot of elderly/vulnerable people who live alone would struggle to cope physically or mentally without visits from younger people, sometimes relations/friends, sometimes paid carers

- Some people who work and pay mortgages/rent have vulnerabilities (e.g. my 30-year-old nephew has twice had pneumonia; my fit 50-year-old mate, a teaching assistant, has diabetes)

 

You also do not say how long such isolation of older/vulnerable people would last. Most assessments reckon that still only a small proportion of the population has had Covid.....so such isolation could potentially last years.

Can you imagine isolating yourself and putting your life on hold for years? It would be intolerable, wouldn't it? Well, guess what.....it would be intolerable for older people, too. Most could tolerate it short-term with support, but not long-term.

Appreciate the thought out response, I'll come back to it at some point, just in the process of moving house. I think i'd prefer to discuss Covid then lug stuff from one building to another mind :D

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

In effect, this has already been attempted - and it has failed.

 

In the summer, everything was opened up. Young people and those with no vulnerability resumed normal life, but most of the elderly and those with a vulnerability continued to act cautiously.

In the short-term, this led to increased levels of infection among the less vulnerable young, but not among the elderly/vulnerable - meaning low levels of hospitalisation and death......so far, so good, by your theory.

 

But that didn't last, did it? Hospitals and morgues are filling up - mainly with the elderly/vulnerable, but also with a few unlucky young/"invulnerable" people.

 

Do you believe that is because lots of elderly/vulnerable people who were "taking steps to protect themselves" in the summer suddenly stopped doing so?

I doubt it. I reckon that it's because this virus is highly contagious - and because a lot of people find it hard or impossible to avoid contact with younger generations.

 

Examples:

- Lots of uni students or workers in their 20s live with parents in their 50s/60s

- Lots of schoolkids have parents in their 50s or with vulnerabilities (I'm 58, have a vulnerability & live with my 16-year-old daughter who goes to college.....which of us should move out and where to?)

- Many elderly people live with middle-aged children with families, so people in their household go out to work or school or shopping/socialising

- A lot of elderly/vulnerable people who live alone would struggle to cope physically or mentally without visits from younger people, sometimes relations/friends, sometimes paid carers

- Some people who work and pay mortgages/rent have vulnerabilities (e.g. my 30-year-old nephew has twice had pneumonia; my fit 50-year-old mate, a teaching assistant, has diabetes)

 

You also do not say how long such isolation of older/vulnerable people would last. Most assessments reckon that still only a small proportion of the population has had Covid.....so such isolation could potentially last years.

Can you imagine isolating yourself and putting your life on hold for years? It would be intolerable, wouldn't it? Well, guess what.....it would be intolerable for older people, too. Most could tolerate it short-term with support, but not long-term.

I agree with most of what you say but I disagree with your comment about young people living a normal life over the summer. I'd probably fall into young category and this summer I havent:

 

- Been on a foreign holiday

- Gone to the office

- Gone to a museum 

- Hugged anyone apart from my wife

- Been back to my home country

- Seen my parents

- Seen my sister, my nieces or nephew

- Seen my core group of mates 

- Been on a flight

- Been to a nightclub (I dont care but living for clubs is a thing for a lot of 20 somethings, I know it was for me)

 

Understand the above isnt essential to live of course and part of the restrictions we have to adhere to which is what it was but its not what I'd define as 'normal'.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Nalis said:

I agree with most of what you say but I disagree with your comment about young people living a normal life over the summer. I'd probably fall into young category and this summer I havent:

 

- Been on a foreign holiday

- Gone to the office

- Gone to a museum 

- Hugged anyone apart from my wife

- Been back to my home country

- Seen my parents

- Seen my sister, my nieces or nephew

- Seen my core group of mates 

- Been on a flight

- Been to a nightclub (I dont care but living for clubs is a thing for a lot of 20 somethings, I know it was for me)

 

Understand the above isnt essential to live of course and part of the restrictions we have to adhere to which is what it was but its not what I'd define as 'normal'.

I'd argue it is one of the most essential things. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Nalis said:

I agree with most of what you say but I disagree with your comment about young people living a normal life over the summer. I'd probably fall into young category and this summer I havent:

 

- Been on a foreign holiday

- Gone to the office

- Gone to a museum 

- Hugged anyone apart from my wife

- Been back to my home country

- Seen my parents

- Seen my sister, my nieces or nephew

- Seen my core group of mates 

- Been on a flight

- Been to a nightclub (I dont care but living for clubs is a thing for a lot of 20 somethings, I know it was for me)

 

Understand the above isnt essential to live of course and part of the restrictions we have to adhere to which is what it was but its not what I'd define as 'normal'.

Not going to live sports also sorely missed and belongs on the list.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Nalis said:

I agree with most of what you say but I disagree with your comment about young people living a normal life over the summer. I'd probably fall into young category and this summer I havent:

 

- Been on a foreign holiday

- Gone to the office

- Gone to a museum 

- Hugged anyone apart from my wife

- Been back to my home country

- Seen my parents

- Seen my sister, my nieces or nephew

- Seen my core group of mates 

- Been on a flight

- Been to a nightclub (I dont care but living for clubs is a thing for a lot of 20 somethings, I know it was for me)

 

Understand the above isnt essential to live of course and part of the restrictions we have to adhere to which is what it was but its not what I'd define as 'normal'.

 

Fair point.

 

My comment about the summer was intended as a generalisation. I appreciate that some younger people will have shown great caution and some older people will have partied incautiously.

 

In general, though, I think more of the young and invulnerable resumed a relatively normal life (socialising with mates, not socially distancing, holidaying etc.).

That impression is based partly on what I saw with my own eyes and via the media - and partly on summer Covid infection data, which showed higher infection rates among the young, but few hospitalisations due to lower vulnerability.

 

I don't mean that as a moral judgment, either. With the virus still out there but at lower levels, it was natural that the different age groups (as a generalisation) would make a different risk assessment.

We were also encouraged to return to work and to eat out to help out.

 

I wasn't seeking to criticise anyone, merely to highlight how impossible it is to limit the risk of Covid infection to the young. As some politician said, the young and old don't live in separate bubbles.

A few young people might never come into contact with older/vulnerable people (if they live independently and hate their parents or parents are dead). But many will be unable to avoid such contact, even those taking great care.

 

Yes, my list would be similar to yours. That's maybe slightly less of a strain in your 50s than in your 20s, but it's still not "normal" and still tough to handle at any age. I was going bonkers by late July, when I got away for 10 days & met an old mate.

Even if different age groups did live entirely in different bubbles, that's the other thing that gets me about this "let the old isolate" argument.

It involves people who understandably find it tough being restricted for a few months expecting others to isolate potentially for much, much longer.

 

Looks like we're in for another tough period now, but here's hoping we can all find ways of staying sane & getting a bit of fun during that period - and then get back to at least semi-normality before too many months have passed....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of a normal Christmas is a "fiction" and Scots should prepare for digital celebrations, national clinical director Jason Leitch has said.

 

Hopefully our bunch don't go copying Scotlands's homework over this. 

 

I've followed pretty much every rule and been a boring muppet all year. Absolutely no chance that I don't spent christmas with the family. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

The idea of a normal Christmas is a "fiction" and Scots should prepare for digital celebrations, national clinical director Jason Leitch has said.

 

Hopefully our bunch don't go copying Scotlands's homework over this. 

 

I've followed pretty much every rule and been a boring muppet all year. Absolutely no chance that I don't spent christmas with the family. 

 

Can’t wait to digitally call me gran a twat over a game of monopoly.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, The People's Hero said:

That is absolutely damning. Quite frankly his promises are worth absolutely zero and I have no idea why anyone takes any notice anymore.

 

 

Being a politician is about promising the earth to get there and once you're there, spending the rest of your career working out how to avoid those promises. God only knows why we vote for them as all it does is give confidence to a lier so they can tell a bigger lie. 

Edited by yorkie1999
Link to post
Share on other sites

How's this new job support scheme supposed to work? The chancellor has now reduced the employer contribution from 30% to 5%. Does this mean the employee will be another 25% out of money or are the government intended to pay 55% of an employees wages. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

1 hour ago, The People's Hero said:

That is absolutely damning. Quite frankly his promises are worth absolutely zero and I have no idea why anyone takes any notice anymore.

 

 

Phrases I've heard about Boris in the last couple of months:

 

'He's my mate, Boris' 

'He'll sort' em out! '

'He says it like it is.' 

 

This isn't about him not delivering or being an outright liar. It's the cult of personality surrounding him; sections of the British public yearn for a rich, privileged person to tell them what to do. An old throwback of the class system...he's rich so he MUST be better. 

  • 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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...