Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[Jebus_lives]

Illegal to go to someone's house? It's tier 2 and above. Can't even sit in their garden.

Not sure how this means someone is legally forced to leave their house.

 

[Jebus_lives]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.te...lnerable-prioritised-coronavirus-vaccine/amp/

Over 50, not under 18 etc

We have had access to the flu vaccine for God knows how long and don't prioritise everyone in the country. Someone made a good point that the cost of making the covid one may make it unrealistic to make enough for everyone as well.

So back to my question. If you vaccinated everyone who is elderly , vunerable , pregnant etc. What happens to everyone who isn't vaccinated? Do they stay under lockdown measures? Do we still close industries? Because they will still catch the virus , still get sick and still end up in hospital.

Therein lies your answer. You manage risk and take appropriate measures.

 

[Kenshin]

A. How is that legally forcing people to leave their home. Absurd.
B. I asked you how you would 'protect the vulnerable?' you still haven't said. You've just posted your thoughts again.

A) because not every old person wants to sit in the house every day. Many so want to go out, see family , go the pub and all the rest of it. So for them to at the very least see family they have to go outside , where staying at home would render them safe.

They aren't having a house party , they may just want to see grandkids but it's illegal for them to do that.

B) and you haven't provided me with your great idea neither.

Prioritise those who need to stay at home to do so. If they want to leave then they know the risk. Anyone under 65 go back to work and some sense of normality with social distancing measures and masks in place , preferably masks everywhere outside of the home.

Put funding into creating a more secure care network for elderly in care homes. Those who aren't then arrange with businesses ways to safely allow them to shield for food and everything else much the same way as eat out to help out did for the food industry. Very easy to achieve if we can all get a half price McDonald's for a similar price.

Instead of paying off everyone who has to stay at home , provide financial support for anyone who is forced to shield no matter what age. If we can support business in general then we can at least provide a funding package for those who need to shield until safe to do otherwise. That way anyone who isn't vunerable can go back to work and we aren't blanket banning industries from opening their doors. Remove the fear for anyone having to stay at home financially and more people will be happy to do so.

And the most important part is communicate that it you choose not to shield , then it's your own decision.

I know you will dissect that Into how it can't work. If we are paying for people in general not to go to work then we can pay until a vaccine for support networks for those proven to be at risk of mortality to covid.

 

[Kenshin]

Not sure how this means someone is legally forced to leave their house.

Well because it's illegal for anyone to go to their house? So the only way to see people is to go out.

Otherwise elderly people are forced to not see any of their family?

How is this getting cross wires? People do actually want to see their family and friends you know right?

Therein lies your answer. You manage risk and take appropriate measures.

When has any of my posts not been about managing risk? That's all I ever say?

Managing risk isn't shutting down industries or literally cutting off social interaction. It's allowing for that to happen within a safe circumstance.

 

[Jebus_lives]

A) because not every old person wants to sit in the house every day. Many so want to go out, see family , go the pub and all the rest of it. So for them to at the very least see family they have to go outside , where staying at home would render them safe.

They aren't having a house party , they may just want to see grandkids but it's illegal for them to do that.

B) and you haven't provided me with your great idea neither.

Prioritise those who need to stay at home to do so. If they want to leave then they know the risk. Anyone under 65 go back to work and some sense of normality with social distancing measures and masks in place , preferably masks everywhere outside of the home.

Put funding into creating a more secure care network for elderly in care homes. Those who aren't then arrange with businesses ways to safely allow them to shield for food and everything else much the same way as eat out to help out did for the food industry. Very easy to achieve if we can all get a half price McDonald's for a similar price.

Instead of paying off everyone who has to stay at home , provide financial support for anyone who is forced to shield no matter what age. If we can support business in general then we can at least provide a funding package for those who need to shield until safe to do otherwise. That way anyone who isn't vunerable can go back to work and we aren't blanket banning industries from opening their doors. Remove the fear for anyone having to stay at home financially and more people will be happy to do so.

And the most important part is communicate that it you choose not to shield , then it's your own decision.

I know you will dissect that Into how it can't work. If we are paying for people in general not to go to work then we can pay until a vaccine for support networks for those proven to be at risk of mortality to covid.

Not legally forcing people to go out though is it.

I have on multiple occasions given my thoughts, but nevermind. Nor have you actually, until this point asked for them, you've just attributed different positions to me based upon your categorisation of people into the lockdown or open up camp.

 

[Jebus_lives]

Well because it's illegal for anyone to go to their house? So the only way to see people is to go out.

Otherwise elderly people are forced to not see any of their family?

How is this getting cross wires? People do actually want to see their family and friends you know right?


When has any of my posts not been about managing risk? That's all I ever say?

Managing risk isn't shutting down industries or literally cutting off social interaction. It's allowing for that to happen within a safe circumstance.

I just think you've used poor terminology..

 

[Jebus_lives]

A) because not every old person wants to sit in the house every day. Many so want to go out, see family , go the pub and all the rest of it. So for them to at the very least see family they have to go outside , where staying at home would render them safe.

They aren't having a house party , they may just want to see grandkids but it's illegal for them to do that.

B) and you haven't provided me with your great idea neither.

Prioritise those who need to stay at home to do so. If they want to leave then they know the risk. Anyone under 65 go back to work and some sense of normality with social distancing measures and masks in place , preferably masks everywhere outside of the home.

You dont need to have people shield if you have reduced the transmission rate sufficiently and put control measures in place.

Put funding into creating a more secure care network for elderly in care homes. Those who aren't then arrange with businesses ways to safely allow them to shield for food and everything else much the same way as eat out to help out did for the food industry. Very easy to achieve if we can all get a half price McDonald's for a similar price.

I'm not sure how sustainable it is for industry to continually provide food for those shielding not is it really an option to consider 'shielding' for those in society.

There were 12,374,440 people aged 65+ (where you see the greatest rate of risk) in the UK in 2019.

But there are 14,843,119 people who lived in a household with someone aged 65+ so how precisely you shield that group I'm not sure.

So we need to practical shield 15m people to 'protect the vulnerable'.

Even at 10% of that figure the health service is overwhelmed, households are lost, businesses are lost.

Instead of paying off everyone who has to stay at home , provide financial support for anyone who is forced to shield no matter what age. If we can support business in general then we can at least provide a funding package for those who need to shield until safe to do otherwise. That way anyone who isn't vunerable can go back to work and we aren't blanket banning industries from opening their doors. Remove the fear for anyone having to stay at home financially and more people will be happy to do so.

You're onto something here. We should incentivise ways to isolate those that display symptoms and those that have been identified through T&T to isolate. It's no good telling people to 'do the right thing' if you give them a choice between their health or livelihood. You shouldn't force people to do that. No solution which suggests you wholeheartedly endorse one or the other should be considered.

And the most important part is communicate that it you choose not to shield , then it's your own decision.

You don't need to, unless there are localised outbreaks. Lots of countries have ways of managing outbreak management which we could follow, but it hinges upon T,T&I, incentives to do so and enforcement for those that don't (generally the last resort).

I know you will dissect that Into how it can't work. If we are paying for people in general not to go to work then we can pay until a vaccine for support networks for those proven to be at risk of mortality to covid.

We can pay for all of the measures that countries which have a resource before restriction model have, but it's predicted on having a sufficiently low transmission rate (may need a second lockdown) and then clear, focussed restrictions.

This isn't really rocket science, it's general public health strategy. Continuous lockdown is rarely advocated..

 

[Nobby Nobbs]

Grandson's school year were told not to come to school today because one of the kids has tested positive and they all have to isolate for 2 weeks, now me and the wife are in his support bubble can
someone tell me if we've got to stay away from him and his mum. Genuine question because I've no idea.

 

[Armaghtoffee]

A Senior DUP politician going to the media to state that Covid transmission is higher in Catholic council areas of NI has me head in hands.

How are we ever supposed to work together if we can’t even do it when facing a life changing pandemic.

 

[Billy Dean]

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Have heard correctly that these tiers have different meanings in different parts of England?

 

[Jebus_lives]

It's very good that thread. Draws on a lot of the useful scientific & practical considerations as to why the GBD is completely inappropriate

 

[COYBL25]

Grandson's school year were told not to come to school today because one of the kids has tested positive and they all have to isolate for 2 weeks, now me and the wife are in his support bubble can
someone tell me if we've got to stay away from him and his mum. Genuine question because I've no idea.

Not until / if he starts to display symptoms.

 

[Jebus_lives]

Scientific consensus on the COVID-19 pandemic: we need to act now

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has infected more than 35 million people globally, with more than 1 million deaths recorded by WHO as of Oct 12, 2020. As a second wave of COVID-19 affects Europe, and with winter approaching, we need clear communication about the...

www.thelancet.com

This is excellent.

 

[Catfish Blues]

This really.....

If leaders were being totally honest, they would say we have a plan which is something like :-

• We will tolerate a certain level of COVID related hospital admissions over the next six months
• We know that level will result in 10 to 15% patients of those patients being admitted to ICU and we will tolerate that
• We know that that will result in COVID related deaths being in the order of x thousand to y thousand, and though we don't want that to happen, we accept that that will be the outcome
• To have that sort of outcome, we currently believe we'll need the following level of restrictions
• If cases leading to likely hospital admissions rise above our accepted level, then we'll increase restrictions
• If hospital admissions are less than we're expecting, then we'll look at relaxing some restrictions
• We'll do all that, pretty much at NHS region level

What level of deaths are people willing to tolerate ? To be totally dispassionate about it, you'd likely accept something akin to a bad flu year, and hope, probably correctly, that the restrictions will limit flu deaths so the net result wouldn't be so awful.

I don't, for a moment believe that that level of honesty will be forthcoming, nor do I believe that that level of honesty would be accepted.