Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[Alan Whittle]

TBF where you live they could be just about to rob it

 

[spectateur]

All depends on how many vunerable people you will encounter in every day life.

As much as it's not a popular thing to say, if you don't encounter anyone who would be at risk then there's less of a risk to you.

3 months ago it was the fear factor thing to say , think of someone else. If you know you aren't encountering any in the next few weeks then what's the real harm? Plus he won't have got the virus as he would be sick no?

I mean everyone I know who had it was sick to some capacity.

You seem to have, in my opinion, a particularly cavaleer attitude. From which I would guess you are in the 30s age group at most.
It is certainly not a thing that anyone should be not bothered about catching.
I known 2 people who caught the virus and were quite ill a couple of months ago. One still has breathlessness and the other still has fatigue and and general aches and pains.
So do take care.

 

[tsubaki]

he lives closer to the Den than Selhurst!

 

[Catfish Blues]

I mean everyone I know who had it was sick to some capacity

Thing is, although all those people were sick, you probably know more people who had it without any symptoms, so you didn't know that second group were infected.

Your more general point about not worrying about catching/having the virus if you're not interacting with anyone at risk sounds, on the surface, reasonable. But though you might not be directly interacting with people at risk, sooner or later, people you're interacting with will be exposing people at risk. It might take three or four chains of transmission to move into vulnerable groups, but eventually, it'll get there.

The obvious examples are relatively young people who work in hospitals, care homes and supermarkets. You might not interact with them, but your friends, or your friends friends will do. At which point, they go into work and risk infected vulnerable people.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

he lives closer to the Den than Selhurst!

'avit

 

[Kenshin]

You seem to have, in my opinion, a particularly cavaleer attitude. From which I would guess you are in the 30s age group at most.
It is certainly not a thing that anyone should be not bothered about catching.
I known 2 people who caught the virus and were quite ill a couple of months ago. One still has breathlessness and the other still has fatigue and and general aches and pains.
So do take care.

Thing is, although all those people were sick, you probably know more people who had it without any symptoms, so you didn't know that second group were infected.

Your more general point about not worrying about catching/having the virus if you're not interacting with anyone at risk sounds, on the surface, reasonable. But though you might not be directly interacting with people at risk, sooner or later, people you're interacting with will be exposing people at risk. It might take three or four chains of transmission to move into vulnerable groups, but eventually, it'll get there.

The obvious examples are relatively young people who work in hospitals, care homes and supermarkets. You might not interact with them, but your friends, or your friends friends will do. At which point, they go into work and risk infected vulnerable people.

I'm talking about the risk factor.

4 months ago noone knew to what extent the virus has spread around the country but now they do. So if you know for a fact that both you and someone else aren't sick then what's the issue? If you know off the back of that you aren't going to come across anyone who would be at risk from the virus in the next two weeks then what's the risk?

That's even going on the basis that you are sick but perfectly fine.

At what point do you finally admit that maybe the risk element has decreased to a level that you don't keep going around acting like the plague is upon us still? By all means if you come across people who are at risk if they caught it then caution has to be taken. But not everyone is in that same scenario so should they be restricted to the same degree? They have to wear masks everywhere (well not everywhere, just in ore determined situations that make no sense 4 months later). So people are already reducing the risk in the first place.

And how long do you keep doing it for? The numbers are already significantly dropped , the cases have significantly slowed down. 3 months ? 6 months? Forever?

Given that thousands upon thousands have mass gathered and the numbers have STILL dropped in the last 2 months, unless you are directly involved with people who could be killed then why is the risk determined so high still?

 

[Alan Whittle]

he lives closer to the Den than Selhurst!

Yellow card rescinded on appeal.

 

[roydo]

Given that thousands upon thousands have mass gathered and the numbers have STILL dropped in the last 2 months, unless you are directly involved with people who could be killed then why is the risk determined so high still?

Because we have seen what can happen if you take your eye off it. I think its clear as a bell that the current strategy is to maximise sensible economic and social interaction, to minimise the inevitable local outbreaks, and to keep these measures in place well into winter.

Like the population in my area is 140,000, and we get 1 or 2 infections a day. Its tiny, and if we social distance, wear a mask in shops, and wash hands, we have a chance of keeping it that way, till it goes away/vaccine is found.

 

[Toast]

Early days, but everyone wearing a mask here and no idiots making a scene to film it for their Facebook yet.

 

[brieverton]

Because we have seen what can happen if you take your eye off it. I think its clear as a bell that the current strategy is to maximise sensible economic and social interaction, to minimise the inevitable local outbreaks, and to keep these measures in place well into winter.

Like the population in my area is 140,000, and we get 1 or 2 infections a day. Its tiny, and if we social distance, wear a mask in shops, and wash hands, we have a chance of keeping it that way, till it goes away/vaccine is found.

That is all correct, and on top of it all of the public health measures taken together increase peoples sense of comfort which leads to more confidence to go shopping and stimulate the economy that everyone agrees is essential.

I think its the single most ridiculous thing of this pandemic, people who argue against and won't use face masks. They serve a vital purpose both in public health terms and for economic activity.

 

[roydo]

Early days, but everyone wearing a mask here and no idiots making a scene to film it for their Facebook yet.

Off to Sainsburys later, and fully expect full compliance.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

Early days, but everyone wearing a mask here and no idiots making a scene to film it for their Facebook yet.

I live in a total Tory, gammon village. Gonna check the local coop later. Hopefully see some kick offs

 

[Billy Dean]

That is all correct, and on top of it all of the public health measures taken together increase peoples sense of comfort which leads to more confidence to go shopping and stimulate the economy that everyone agrees is essential.

I think its the single most ridiculous thing of this pandemic, people who argue against and won't use face masks. They serve a vital purpose both in public health terms and for economic activity.

It's odd isn't it?

"If you put this mask on you reduce the risk of pensioners dying"
"Nah sorry, don't fancy that"

 

[Kenshin]

Because we have seen what can happen if you take your eye off it. I think its clear as a bell that the current strategy is to maximise sensible economic and social interaction, to minimise the inevitable local outbreaks, and to keep these measures in place well into winter.

Like the population in my area is 140,000, and we get 1 or 2 infections a day. Its tiny, and if we social distance, wear a mask in shops, and wash hands, we have a chance of keeping it that way, till it goes away/vaccine is found.

But like I ask, at what point do you stop?

Given the idea that it never goes away , when you do stop being cautious? At any given time you can pass a virus onto someone else which could kill them. Sure it's not as risky as this one but then the long term effects are there.

We keep wearing masks for months on end right? Until it goes away, keep us all safe. Yet the one thing that gets affected more than anything else is our immune system. It's meant to take bad stuff in to make us all healthier, the longer you stop it doing that , the more at risk we all get for getting ill with something else.

But more onto the specific point. When people get the flu vaccine, what's in it? The flu , to allow the body to develop antibodies to protect it from getting a much bigger dose. So if you spent months stopping healthy people getting even a small amount of covid 19 into their system to naturally create antibodies for the reason of fear then it amplifies the risk in the long term. You don't just 'get' covid-19. You can have it in your system and not be sick, like any other virus.

I see a danger where the fear of covid-19 gets to the point of normalised sensible behaviour. People are already going overboard in cleaning which will affect them in the future. There will be a point that the numbers will be bottom lined yet we all still have to be careful we don't catch it. At some point it will just 'go away' because that's what it is doing right now.

There was a time that having caution and fear was perfectly justifiable. At some point that has to go away with the virus, otherwise we will all be living in fear for the rest of our lives for any sort of silent killer.

 

[dead_soft]

I live in a total Tory, gammon village. Gonna check the local coop later. Hopefully see some kick offs

I'm getting VERY excited about the possibility of seeing some gammon outrage - I'm purposefully going on day trips to Cheshire for it.