Coronavirus Thread

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

If you lived in a village of 10 people and 5 of them, one family, caught the rona, that would be 50,000 per 100,000 people. 

Yeah I get it mate, I’m laughing because 527 per 100, is a bit more than that.

[simFox]

1 hour ago, The People's Hero said:

 

When we stop reducing every issue and challenge to being about money, we might get somewhere.

 

If you ever stop to speak to actual nurses; I doubt you'll find the entered the profession out of greed, or want of money and I also see from your post that you understand this entirely, so whilst I'm quoting you, I agree with you.

 

The point I'm making is that I think the constant talk of money within the NHS completely obfuscates the issue which is more likely around working conditions, which I know for fact has alienated caring nurses from the NHS.

 

 

There are a lot of nurses off work, isolating according to the figures I read. There will no doubt be a bunch of nurses thinking why am I risking myself with covid for such a low wage. A bigger wage to work at covid wards will attract more people, nurses are humans and money talks.

[Super_horns]

1 hour ago, Leeds Fox said:

The government clearly know Christmas gatherings and mass return of university students to hometowns is going to happen. They’re trying to lower the R number before it inevitably rises again mid-late December. 

So really we are going around in circles till a vaccine is found safe enough to use?

[Guest Fktf]

2 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

So really we are going around in circles till a vaccine is found safe enough to use?

More 'up and down the waves' than 'round in circles'. We'll be right after this winter. The change in weather will give us time to mass vaccinate before next winter.

[Nalis]

All this talk that loosening lockdowns slightly will destroy any chance of getting back to normal in the new year is the biggest pile of shit ever.

 

If people are still allowed to go to school, work, etc then we arent going to decrease cases enough to get to even a nationwide Tier 1 lockdown let alone anything looser until at least spring.

 

Happy to be proved wrong (and hope I am wrong) so feel free to quote this if daily cases ever dip below 10k by the end of January on any standard/non weekend reporting day.

[Leeds Fox]

1 hour ago, Super_horns said:

So really we are going around in circles till a vaccine is found safe enough to use?

Yeah that was always going to be the case I think. The government are acting like they’re managing a class of naughty children, which even when it’s only a small proportion of the population acting like that, it’s having an impact on the whole nation. 
 

I’m not saying it’s the best way forward, but it’s what’s happening. It really is a balancing act and we’re going to see/saw our way through until the vaccine is rolled out. 

[MonmoreStef]

This lockdown isn’t getting lifted until March is it ? They might change the structure of it in December with a tier system but I can’t see any big Cities or Towns being in anything other than a tier system that is similar to where we are now. They might treat us and open up Golf Courses which must be packed during December and January!  
 

Seriously though if your chosen policy was to lockdown Pubs and Shops through November then surely logic says ,now the main damage is done, you may as well continue this policy through December as the positive effects of the closure will be totally wiped out during December making the November lockdown a pointless and futile effort. Surely it will be carnage in Pubs coming up to Xmas and New Year.  I’m anti lockdown but if that’s the chosen route then I’d rather they follow it through instead of stopping it through December only to panic again, which they inevitably will, when cases go through the roof again in late December if restrictions are all lifted. 

[RowlattsFox]

If all they do is allow meetings of up 10 people, or two households and then keep everything closed. I'd settle for that. Isn't is something like that Germany? Families have to decide how best to manage that and not to risk anyone vulnerable. People are going to break rules if there is a full lockdown on houses mixing, so you may as well give a little leeway and hope the majority of families use a bit of common sense. Can't just do it for Christmas day either, roads on Christmas eve will be ridiculous. 

 

It will be shit for pubs, restaurants and non-essential shops of course during their busiest time but you either keep them all closed or you open them all, difficult to open some things but not others. And chances are they would have to close again in the new year. 

 

Big decision around grassroots sports and gyms but again you'll just get the "why can they open and we can't" argument. 

Edited 19 November 2020 by RowlattsFox

[Carl the Llama]

From what I'm being told at work there won't be a return to the previous pre-lockdown restrictions.  There's plans for a more robust tier system with some tiers allowed to eat out again but only until 6pm when it will be takeaway only.  I don't imagine Leicester will be in one of those categories though.

Edited 19 November 2020 by Carl the Llama

[Super_horns]

20 minutes ago, Leeds Fox said:

Yeah that was always going to be the case I think. The government are acting like they’re managing a class of naughty children, which even when it’s only a small proportion of the population acting like that, it’s having an impact on the whole nation. 
 

I’m not saying it’s the best way forward, but it’s what’s happening. It really is a balancing act and we’re going to see/saw our way through until the vaccine is rolled out. 

Seems to be 2 sides to this.

 

Those maybe not affected by the lockdown but want to see family at Christmas so will take anything just to have normal few days.

 

and those in sectors where even more lockdowns would be a disaster for them so they’d rather have no lockdowns and just restrictions.

[Babylon]

So how to the Government expect this Christmas mixing to go? (if true). Surely they have to point out to the idiots that having your 85 year old Gran round for 4 days over Christmas with all the kids is probably not the wisest of things?

[Ashley]

5 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

From what I'm being told at work there won't be a return to the previous pre-lockdown restrictions.  There's plans for a more robust tier system with some tiers allowed to eat out again but only until 6pm when it will be takeaway only.

So practically non existant then until weekends?

[Guest Harrydc]

By the sounds of things we will never return to normality. Sad, sad times. 

 

Can't wait for everyone to be so thankful to the government for 'letting us out again' for them to then put us back in our cages. 

 

 

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, Ashley said:

So practically non existant then until weekends?

It depends on the restrictions on other types of business (I have no idea about general shops yet but I guess if we're open they will be too) and each place's typical customer base but for a lot of places, yes.  Personally I'm expecting a return of laptop-wielding students (at least until they go home for Xmas) and the xmas shopper crowd if the shops are opening up too. 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Harrydc said:

By the sounds of things we will never return to normality. Sad, sad times. 

 

Can't wait for everyone to be so thankful to the government for 'letting us out again' for them to then put us back in our cages. 

 

 

Thankfully a vaccine option seems pretty close so we might be returning to s semblance of normality soon enough.

 

However, perhaps all of this might open people's eyes to just how difficult things are when it's "not normal", and how easy it is for a simple act of nature to make it so. Especially considering the next one round the corner (and relatively speaking it *isn't* far away) might not be able to be merely vaccinated away.

 

[Nalis]

10 minutes ago, Babylon said:

So how to the Government expect this Christmas mixing to go? (if true). Surely they have to point out to the idiots that having your 85 year old Gran round for 4 days over Christmas with all the kids is probably not the wisest of things?

That would be the hope and there has to be a common sense approach really,  in that circumstance it should be the decision of the 85 year old nan to either not see her family at christmas (which could be her last either way) or to risk it and face the potential consequences.

[yorkie1999]

1 hour ago, simFox said:

There are a lot of nurses off work, isolating according to the figures I read. There will no doubt be a bunch of nurses thinking why am I risking myself with covid for such a low wage. A bigger wage to work at covid wards will attract more people, nurses are humans and money talks.

I wouldn't blame them if they used the present situation  to do something about it, "right we're not coming into work tomorrow unless we get 500 quid a day danger money" , although they'd get lambasted by everyone in the media. 

[MonmoreStef]

5 minutes ago, Nalis said:

That would be the hope and there has to be a common sense approach really,  in that circumstance it should be the decision of the 85 year old nan to either not see her family at christmas (which could be her last either way) or to risk it and face the potential consequences.

My family have decided the big day itself is happening. There’s normally just over 20 of us from about 7/8 houses if you count the kids who live with their other parent.  I hate the day myself, being a miserable sort who just wants to talk sport and gambling and instead the young kids take centre stage which bores me 😆. I’m holding out hope that I pick up a mild cough or cold on Xmas eve and will use the Covid as an excuse to send the Wife as our sole representative. I’ll be happy watching Netflix in peace. If it’s illegal come the day they will still be doing it. Some will think it’s madness and selfish of them but surely thee will be millions who will be the same and do what they normally do.

[Leeds Fox]

27 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

Seems to be 2 sides to this.

 

Those maybe not affected by the lockdown but want to see family at Christmas so will take anything just to have normal few days.

 

and those in sectors where even more lockdowns would be a disaster for them so they’d rather have no lockdowns and just restrictions.

Of course there is mate. Everyone’s in a different situation and wants/needs different things to happen to help them. Whether that be emotionally or financially. 
 

To someone, being able to see family over Christmas will mean more to them than the local pub keeping afloat. To that landlord/lady, he just wants his/her business to survive. 
 

I don’t think there is a right or wrong answer (or way to move forward). 

[Babylon]

13 minutes ago, Nalis said:

That would be the hope and there has to be a common sense approach really,  in that circumstance it should be the decision of the 85 year old nan to either not see her family at christmas (which could be her last either way) or to risk it and face the potential consequences.

That's what worries me, my mum and my mrs parents are in their 70's and seemingly have little understanding of social distancing and seem to struggle to grasp how serious it is. 

[Strokes]

36 minutes ago, Babylon said:

So how to the Government expect this Christmas mixing to go? (if true). Surely they have to point out to the idiots that having your 85 year old Gran round for 4 days over Christmas with all the kids is probably not the wisest of things?

Cheaper than dignitas.

[Leeds Fox]

13 minutes ago, Babylon said:

That's what worries me, my mum and my mrs parents are in their 70's and seemingly have little understanding of social distancing and seem to struggle to grasp how serious it is. 

I think it’s a generational thing. Especially at those ages where they have seen and been through even tougher hardships (although completely different situations).

 

I work/live away, and I don’t have to come into contact with many people while I’m away if I don’t want to, which currently is very easy with bars/restaurants been shut. I’ve used my girlfriend and her families household as my support bubble. Consciously not seeing my own family as her parents visit their parents (which is their decision and risk), to help them through mentally. 
 

So I explained that I’d not seen my own family etc for a while, and it came out that one of their parents, while shopping ‘likes to go to around 3/4 supermarkets’ because certain items are better value or sell certain brands they like. Which made how I’d been acting feel rather redundant (although I’m happy to carry on as it keeps my family a little bit safer). 
 

Also, I’ve been invited to Christmas dinner at one of these grandparents. I explained, I am happy to come, however, the risk isn’t really on me. After the gathering I’ll be back to limiting who I see  etc. I can see why they want to do it, they are at a completely different stage in life and don’t know what’s around the corner. 

Edited 19 November 2020 by Leeds Fox

[dsr-burnley]

27 minutes ago, Nalis said:

That would be the hope and there has to be a common sense approach really,  in that circumstance it should be the decision of the 85 year old nan to either not see her family at christmas (which could be her last either way) or to risk it and face the potential consequences.

Many of these grandmas and granddads know that there's a good chance this will be their last Christmas anyway - that will be true for about half a million of them no matter what - and so they will take the relatively small increased risk.  After all, if you have a 10% chance of dying next year and this Covid makes it a 12% risk, perhaps you would take the chance.  (Broadly speaking, across the board, it seems that Covid is increasing the chances of death by about 20% across the board, based on 120,000 deaths by the time it's over.)

 

 

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, dsr-burnley said:

Many of these grandmas and granddads know that there's a good chance this will be their last Christmas anyway - that will be true for about half a million of them no matter what - and so they will take the relatively small increased risk.  After all, if you have a 10% chance of dying next year and this Covid makes it a 12% risk, perhaps you would take the chance.  (Broadly speaking, across the board, it seems that Covid is increasing the chances of death by about 20% across the board, based on 120,000 deaths by the time it's over.)

is that right ? all grandparents have a 10% chance of dying in a normal year ?

[CosbehFox]

6 hours ago, Babylon said:

Germans, like the Scandi countries, tend to do what they're told. Better off comparing us to France, whose "**** off" attitude seems more akin to us 

Apparently around 47% of the French won't have a vaccine