Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
filbertway

Coronavirus Thread

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, RowlattsFox said:

So Germany and France announce "lockdowns" when they're aren't really from what I can see? Just additional restrictions. And now people are complaining we aren't doing the same when there isn't much different to a tier 3 here, just restaurants closed as well. 

 

Inevitably most areas will be tier 3 in sure. 

 

The only difference from March in France is that schools remain open. Not allowed to leave home but to go to work, school, food shop or exercise once again and have to fill in and carry a form to leave home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst City fans may be happy that Forest haven't been in the top flight for 20 years, they shouldn't be happy that Nottingham itself is soon going to be in Tier 3. The second wave could be deadlier than the first, and the areas moving into that tier could soon include Leicester. November, December and January could see the country as a whole losing 500+ people per day. That's like having a 9/11 catastrophe every week until well into next year, but hidden from the public's view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, String fellow said:

Whilst City fans may be happy that Forest haven't been in the top flight for 20 years, they shouldn't be happy that Nottingham itself is soon going to be in Tier 3. The second wave could be deadlier than the first, and the areas moving into that tier could soon include Leicester. November, December and January could see the country as a whole losing 500+ people per day. That's like having a 9/11 catastrophe every week until well into next year, but hidden from the public's view.

Other than an innocent joke, so you really think people are happy that Nottingham is having restrictions imposed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Stevosevic said:

Not really worth risking have Xmas dinner with your 85 year old granny this year. People need to make sensible decisions themselves regardless of the official measures.

 

 

You say sensible and I understand but think of it from the 85 year old grans point of view. She will realistically only have a handful of Christmas’s left.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Stevosevic said:

Not really worth risking have Xmas dinner with your 85 year old granny this year. People need to make sensible decisions themselves regardless of the official measures.

 

 

I agree. I just don't know why people are so hung up on rules of what they can and can't do at home. 

 

Listen to guidance sure, but work it out for yourself. If your 85 year old Grandma would rather risk it, then risk it. If she doesn't, don't. 

 

How hard can it be?

 

My mate and his mrs have had it..as his his sister and her partner. So they have (rightly, imo) worked out that they don't count in any 'rule of six' family get together. Simple logic.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Costock_Fox said:

You say sensible and I understand but think of it from the 85 year old grans point of view. She will realistically only have a handful of Christmas’s left.

Then if everyone involved is agreed to take that risk then I say do it. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

I agree. I just don't know why people are so hung up on rules of what they can and can't do at home. 

 

Listen to guidance sure, but work it out for yourself. If your 85 year old Grandma would rather risk it, then risk it. If she doesn't, don't. 

 

How hard can it be?

 

My mate and his mrs have had it..as his his sister and her partner. So they have (rightly, imo) worked out that they don't count in any 'rule of six' family get together. Simple logic.

 

Does it work like that ? 
 

how long ago did they have it ?

 

how badly were they affected ?

 

these are things that apparently affect how long they can stay with immunity .....and once they lose that, they can become infected again .....or maybe not .......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Does it work like that ? 
 

how long ago did they have it ?

 

how badly were they affected ?

 

these are things that apparently affect how long they can stay with immunity .....and once they lose that, they can become infected again .....or maybe not .......

Dunno, as you say - maybe, maybe not. 

 

The point is, they are using logic based on reasonable assumptions rather than expecting/wanting the govt to make a ruling for every micro action a person makes

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

On a family level, there are always people who die before their time because they go and see family for Christmas dinner.  And catching a respiratory disease is the most common way of doing it.  This year the odds will be worse - as I said earlier, the March/April rapid spread of coronavirus has changed the likelihood that a person over dies this year from 10% to 11%.  If we have a second wave as bad as the first, that will make it 12%.  Which means that if there is a 20% chance that this is your last Christmas, the odds are perhaps in your favour.

 

Even if your elderly family member does have five more years of life, what quality will they be?  The last 4 years may see them unable to walk.  This may be the last year when they are compos mentis.  The year of purdah will almost certainly set them back if they have any tendency to dementia at all.  If death is certain or highly likely from coming to Christmas dinner, it would be different; but as one Christmas dinner increases their chance of death from 10% to perhaps 10.01% (and even that is based on the idea that 1 in 100 old folks' coronavirus deaths were caused by 1 family dinner) then it isn't worth sacrificing this year in hope fo 4 more.

 

What I'm saying, basically, is that if you tell your old relatives who have been shielding for months that they can come and have a normal family Christmas, that will be far better for them than telling them that they are stuck on their own for another 6 months, see you in April if we have a vaccine.  There's more to life than breathing.

Wheyyyhey make way...wheres the Venison ,crispy Goose & stuffing...Ahh the colly & brussels look a treat...Some gud ol' Roasty tatties ,throw over a couple

of yorki-puds & lets pour over buckets of Tasty gravy.....Wake me up when the Vaccine has been dished out to 10Million people...Then I will be ready for my

Cognac-trifle & dollops of cream....Followed by irish-coffee,washed down with a nice port....

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any lockdown won't be as effective with schools staying open. Plus factories will be classed as key services and we've seen huge outbreaks in those places.

 

If we lockdown we have to have minimal things open to make an impact and control it. Even then, I still think people will meet in houses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Corky said:

Any lockdown won't be as effective with schools staying open. Plus factories will be classed as key services and we've seen huge outbreaks in those places.

 

If we lockdown we have to have minimal things open to make an impact and control it. Even then, I still think people will meet in houses. 

I’ve no idea what’s happening up there where you’ve been effective tier 2 for ages but down here I see people who are clearly not from the same household socialising in bars and restaurants......is anyone actually taking the restrictions seriously ?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stevosevic said:

Not really worth risking have Xmas dinner with your 85 year old granny this year. People need to make sensible decisions themselves regardless of the official measures.

 

 

Here are some numbers.

 

There are 3 million people over 80 in this country.  

 

50,000 of them are going to die before Christmas in the normal run of things.  That would happen with or without coronavirus.

 

What are the odds that a single family day, with a family that has been taking good precaustions for the previous week, is going to kill an old person?  1 in 120 have died of coronavirus so far, but most of those caught it either before lockdown started or in a nursing home.  Perhaps 1 in 100 caught it at a single family dinner.  So let's say 1 in 12,000 of the Christmas party-goers will die of coronavirus.  That's 245 people.  A 0.008% chance of dying.  245 tragedies.  Bad news.  Is that enough to cancel Christmas all round?

 

NO NO NO.  

 

If we tell these 3 million people that Christmas is as normal, 50,000 of them will die before they get there and 245 more will die as a result of the day.  So we get 50,245 deaths where we could have had 50,000.  BUT - those 3 million people have had something to look forward to for the next two months.  OK, 50,000 died too soon so the hope was all they had; but of the 2,950,000, how many - if they don't have anything to look forward to at all - would have given up and died anyway?  Or their brains atrophied?  Or their legs ceased to work?  Basically, if you tell close to 3m old people that they have nothing to look forward to at all, how many give in to despair?

 

Your 85 year ok granny has on average 7 more Christmases.  On average, 2 of those will be spent in a nursing home.  If she really wants to give up 1 of those perhaps 5 more normal Christmas because her chance that it will be her last rises from 10% to 10.008%, then fair enough.  But it's a lot to give up for a tiny increase in risk.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, fuchsntf said:

Wheyyyhey make way...wheres the Venison ,crispy Goose & stuffing...Ahh the colly & brussels look a treat...Some gud ol' Roasty tatties ,throw over a couple

of yorki-puds & lets pour over buckets of Tasty gravy.....Wake me up when the Vaccine has been dished out to 10Million people...Then I will be ready for my

Cognac-trifle & dollops of cream....Followed by irish-coffee,washed down with a nice port....

 

 

 

If your old granny is eating that lot, then she is genuinely more likely to die from heart failure from over-eating than she is to catch covid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Corky said:

Any lockdown won't be as effective with schools staying open. Plus factories will be classed as key services and we've seen huge outbreaks in those places.

 

If we lockdown we have to have minimal things open to make an impact and control it. Even then, I still think people will meet in houses. 

With schools open, key workplaces open and university students mixing, the R rate will always be above 1 IMO.

 

Like you say, a lot of people have just had enough, they'll still have friends over for meals etc. The only difference now is that it'll probably all be happening indoors due to the colder weather.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

Here are some numbers.

 

There are 3 million people over 80 in this country.  

 

50,000 of them are going to die before Christmas in the normal run of things.  That would happen with or without coronavirus.

 

What are the odds that a single family day, with a family that has been taking good precaustions for the previous week, is going to kill an old person?  1 in 120 have died of coronavirus so far, but most of those caught it either before lockdown started or in a nursing home.  Perhaps 1 in 100 caught it at a single family dinner.  So let's say 1 in 12,000 of the Christmas party-goers will die of coronavirus.  That's 245 people.  A 0.008% chance of dying.  245 tragedies.  Bad news.  Is that enough to cancel Christmas all round?

 

NO NO NO.  

 

If we tell these 3 million people that Christmas is as normal, 50,000 of them will die before they get there and 245 more will die as a result of the day.  So we get 50,245 deaths where we could have had 50,000.  BUT - those 3 million people have had something to look forward to for the next two months.  OK, 50,000 died too soon so the hope was all they had; but of the 2,950,000, how many - if they don't have anything to look forward to at all - would have given up and died anyway?  Or their brains atrophied?  Or their legs ceased to work?  Basically, if you tell close to 3m old people that they have nothing to look forward to at all, how many give in to despair?

 

Your 85 year ok granny has on average 7 more Christmases.  On average, 2 of those will be spent in a nursing home.  If she really wants to give up 1 of those perhaps 5 more normal Christmas because her chance that it will be her last rises from 10% to 10.008%, then fair enough.  But it's a lot to give up for a tiny increase in risk.

To be fair, older folk probably haven't been having family dinners so the 1 in 100 number won't wash.

 

I agree with you though. The sacrifice won't be worth the saved risk. Not even close.

 

Not to mention 50,000 of those will die of other usual causes again next year. So a 1.6% chance that by turning down this Christmas, they'd be turning down their last ever one.

 

While I don't think your 0.008% number will be quite right, even if you doubled it a few times is way less than the risk people are going to be turning down their last ever Christmas.

 

As I said, the small level of increased risk doesn't justify the precaution and sacrifice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, st albans fox said:

I’ve no idea what’s happening up there where you’ve been effective tier 2 for ages but down here I see people who are clearly not from the same household socialising in bars and restaurants......is anyone actually taking the restrictions seriously ?.

No, same in Birmingham. Only area I’ve seen it properly done is that of Selly Oak where the students are generally based. They have bouncers on the doors now at all times 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

Here are some numbers.

 

There are 3 million people over 80 in this country.  

 

50,000 of them are going to die before Christmas in the normal run of things.  That would happen with or without coronavirus.

 

What are the odds that a single family day, with a family that has been taking good precaustions for the previous week, is going to kill an old person?  1 in 120 have died of coronavirus so far, but most of those caught it either before lockdown started or in a nursing home.  Perhaps 1 in 100 caught it at a single family dinner.  So let's say 1 in 12,000 of the Christmas party-goers will die of coronavirus.  That's 245 people.  A 0.008% chance of dying.  245 tragedies.  Bad news.  Is that enough to cancel Christmas all round?

 

NO NO NO.  

 

If we tell these 3 million people that Christmas is as normal, 50,000 of them will die before they get there and 245 more will die as a result of the day.  So we get 50,245 deaths where we could have had 50,000.  BUT - those 3 million people have had something to look forward to for the next two months.  OK, 50,000 died too soon so the hope was all they had; but of the 2,950,000, how many - if they don't have anything to look forward to at all - would have given up and died anyway?  Or their brains atrophied?  Or their legs ceased to work?  Basically, if you tell close to 3m old people that they have nothing to look forward to at all, how many give in to despair?

 

Your 85 year ok granny has on average 7 more Christmases.  On average, 2 of those will be spent in a nursing home.  If she really wants to give up 1 of those perhaps 5 more normal Christmas because her chance that it will be her last rises from 10% to 10.008%, then fair enough.  But it's a lot to give up for a tiny increase in risk.


iF your figures were correct (and I strongly doubt that they are) then that’s 245 families who will live the next ten years wondering which one of them killed grandma - and if it becomes obvious which one did then they are in for a rough time from their siblings - when a new grandkid is born and grandma isn’t around to see it 

 

fwiw, I would be looking at a relaxation of the rules whereby the six is relaxed to 12 people (over the age of 14) and only for Xmas day. Unfortunately, no one will be able to travel more than 30 miles for Xmas day. 

 

infact, if the govt are going to keep the rules tight for Xmas then I would suggest they simply go the whole way and have a firebreak for the two weeks when most offices and factories are shut anyway.  I doubt given the latest study that says 100k per day are being infected (Lots of people are Sorry sir Patrick)  that we get past November without a nationwide lockdown in any case and the justification that Xmas can see some relaxation will be used.

 

 

3 hours ago, Nod.E said:

And that's just London...


huge problem.  Sad that so many the general public simply don’t have the individual responsibility required to get us through this without so many dying.  Yes the govt are culpable with their abject attempt at test/trace but joe bloggs could have helped us all out much more than he was prepared to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:


iF your figures were correct (and I strongly doubt that they are) then that’s 245 families who will live the next ten years wondering which one of them killed grandma - and if it becomes obvious which one did then they are in for a rough time from their siblings - when a new grandkid is born and grandma isn’t around to see it 

 

fwiw, I would be looking at a relaxation of the rules whereby the six is relaxed to 12 people (over the age of 14) and only for Xmas day. Unfortunately, no one will be able to travel more than 30 miles for Xmas day. 

 

infact, if the govt are going to keep the rules tight for Xmas then I would suggest they simply go the whole way and have a firebreak for the two weeks when most offices and factories are shut anyway.  I doubt given the latest study that says 100k per day are being infected (Lots of people are Sorry sir Patrick)  that we get past November without a nationwide lockdown in any case and the justification that Xmas can see some relaxation will be used.

 

 


huge problem.  Sad that so many the general public simply don’t have the individual responsibility required to get us through this without so many dying.  Yes the govt are culpable with their abject attempt at test/trace but joe bloggs could have helped us all out much more than he was prepared to. 

Yeah good luck with that...

Link to comment
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...