Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nymzee said:
And they'll still whinge like mad when pubs & restaurants get shut.
Click to expand...

How long do you think people should be willing to comply? I’m not saying that compliance is full right now, or ever has been for that matter, but the tone of the article I’m responding to is implying that the “new normal” could be here for potentially years? Is it realistic or correct to expect people to support lockdowns for that period of time?
 
Deckard2049 said:
How long do you think people should be willing to comply? I’m not saying that compliance is full right now, or ever has been for that matter, but the tone of the article I’m responding to is implying that the “new normal” could be here for potentially years? Is it realistic or correct to expect people to support lockdowns for that period of time?
Click to expand...
hello buddy when u fill out forms do u list your occupation as “ hunter gatherer “?
 
JEBUS_LIVES said:
From the article I shared:
"This concept essentially warns that if a problem is characterised as nearly insurmountable then many people will just give up. These people surmise that the cost of the intervention is not worth it, given they perceive that the cost yields little benefit".

Didn't that cover it or are you suggesting an alternative to breakdown of distancing - boredom, lack of understanding, selfishness?
Click to expand...

The article you posted asserts that the fatalism people are feeling is occurring even with government promises of a holy grail vaccine being close. Therefore my position is that if the assertions laid out in this article where presented in the mainstream, fatalism would probably increase even more and lockdown support and compliance would sink even further.

It might be that the vaccines that ultimately become available are more like those described under scenario 2: slowing transmission in addition to limiting illness and death. This scenario will be more welcome than scenario 3 but will not change the need to maintain earlier interventions in place. It is time to forcefully impress on people that basic measures to limit the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 are here to stay. This is the new normal.

So the article tells us that governments portraying any potential vaccine as a holy grail is disingenuous and even with a working vaccine being distributed, it’s highly likely that other measures will need to remain in place “indefinitely”. My question (I guess more my belief) is if this information was presented today or tomorrow in a press conference, and with all the other implications concerning society, the economy, mental health etc would even more people than already are be turning to fatalism? If right now, people view the problem as “insurmountable” then I’d hate to think what a majority would think if they read that article. So again; how long should people expect to live in the “‘new normal”?
 
Deckard2049 said:
How long do you think people should be willing to comply? I’m not saying that compliance is full right now, or ever has been for that matter, but the tone of the article I’m responding to is implying that the “new normal” could be here for potentially years? Is it realistic or correct to expect people to support lockdowns for that period of time?
Click to expand...

I never read the article. I think people will support lockdowns and measures if they see it as logical, won't support it if not. Same with people that drive without seatbelts.

You can't change a mindset.
 
Deckard2049 said:
The article you posted asserts that the fatalism people are feeling is occurring even with government promises of a holy grail vaccine being close. Therefore my position is that if the assertions laid out in this article where presented in the mainstream, fatalism would probably increase even more and lockdown support and compliance would sink even further.

It might be that the vaccines that ultimately become available are more like those described under scenario 2: slowing transmission in addition to limiting illness and death. This scenario will be more welcome than scenario 3 but will not change the need to maintain earlier interventions in place. It is time to forcefully impress on people that basic measures to limit the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 are here to stay. This is the new normal.

So the article tells us that governments portraying any potential vaccine as a holy grail is disingenuous and even with a working vaccine being distributed, it’s highly likely that other measures will need to remain in place “indefinitely”. My question (I guess more my belief) is if this information was presented today or tomorrow in a press conference, and with all the other implications concerning society, the economy, mental health etc would even more people than already are be turning to fatalism? If right now, people view the problem as “insurmountable” then I’d hate to think what a majority would think if they read that article. So again; how long should people expect to live in the “‘new normal”?
Click to expand...
What do you reckon to that climate change nonsense mate? I'd rather have a more powerful vacuum cleaner than allegedly save 1/6000000000 of most mammals like.
 
Deckard2049 said:
The article you posted asserts that the fatalism people are feeling is occurring even with government promises of a holy grail vaccine being close. Therefore my position is that if the assertions laid out in this article where presented in the mainstream, fatalism would probably increase even more and lockdown support and compliance would sink even further.

It might be that the vaccines that ultimately become available are more like those described under scenario 2: slowing transmission in addition to limiting illness and death. This scenario will be more welcome than scenario 3 but will not change the need to maintain earlier interventions in place. It is time to forcefully impress on people that basic measures to limit the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 are here to stay. This is the new normal.

So the article tells us that governments portraying any potential vaccine as a holy grail is disingenuous and even with a working vaccine being distributed, it’s highly likely that other measures will need to remain in place “indefinitely”. My question (I guess more my belief) is if this information was presented today or tomorrow in a press conference, and with all the other implications concerning society, the economy, mental health etc would even more people than already are be turning to fatalism? If right now, people view the problem as “insurmountable” then I’d hate to think what a majority would think if they read that article. So again; how long should people expect to live in the “‘new normal”?
Click to expand...
Aside from the obvious 'how many people are reading the Lancet'....

It's not an insurmountable ask for people to continue to stick to basic measures like washing their hands and trying to maintain distancing is it?

It reminds me a little of the interventions that often occur after major incidents or flooding...so much help and assistance can be overwhelming and people switch off and do nothing, when simply doing small things can have very marked benefits.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top