Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[roydo]

Well I'm only occasionally in one and never in the other

I just want 5 a side back lol

Couldnt you argue that the sports hall you use is a gym? It does seem mad to me.

 

[Jebus_lives]

What's the point?

I say protect them , you say that's pretending they don't exist.

So keeping them safe over everyone else apparantly means lock them in a big room somewhere and coming back for them when it all blows over right?

I think the issue is how you effectively protect them. It doesn't seem practically possible.

The best method of protection is limiting the spread.

 

[Kenshin]

You seem to think that "The vulnerable" are a small number of unfortunates.

Its probably 25% of the population, maybe more. The first lock down was to preserve the NHS. Now, we need to live with this thing, minimise infections, and if that means closing a few places for a week or two, so be it. Just be sensible.

And FWIW, I am being paid to look after a (proper) vulnerable person at home. Since mid Feb. My first payment hit my bank account on Tuesday.

I have no idea your financial situation mate but the possibility of single parent families struggling to get by now isn't beyond the realms of possibility , same as people who live alone. Not every workplace paid the extra 20% when staff were laid off. The effects of all of this go beyond covid and it does seem people are happy to dismiss them.

At some point these types of people need to be considered and protected. We aren't protecting people struggling for income being affected by this , and that involves families not just individuals.

I just don't get why people are so against protecting vunerable and letting others negatively affected go back to normality in terms of work and income. I'm such an evil [Poor language removed] for considering more than just covid patients even when I know someone personally being affected and therefore can see how it affects people. God forbid I was in a minimum wage job myself I wouldn't be able to support my mum financially.

 

[davek]

At some point these types of people need to be considered and protected. We aren't protecting people struggling for income being affected by this , and that involves families not just individuals.

I just don't get why people are so against protecting vunerable and letting others negatively affected go back to normality in terms of work and income. I'm such an evil [Poor language removed] for considering more than just covid patients even when I know someone personally being affected and therefore can see how it affects people. God forbid I was in a minimum wage job myself I wouldn't be able to support my mum financially.

Because that's a false premise. There is no seperation between those two 'worlds'.

You argue in abstractions and not reality.

 

[Kenshin]

I think the issue is how you effectively protect them. It doesn't seem practically possible.

The best method of protection is limiting the spread.

It's said many times but at what cost?

There is more than one way of managing a pandemic. Sweden, china and New Zealand come to mind in different ways of successfully managing it with different population climates as well. None of them have the same situation but all managed to deal with it.

We tried lockdown and here we are. We are trying tier lockdowns, which for what it is worth make a lot of sense over s complete shutdown. There has to be a better plan than just limiting the spread because clearly limiting just delays the here and now . We did a fantastic job of limiting the spread first time around , yet here we are. So perhaps limiting the spread is never going to work long term no matter how many of us wear masks and wash our hands?

 

[Kenshin]

Because that's a false premise. There is no seperation between those two 'worlds'.

You argue in abstractions and not reality.

So a single 40 year old parent with two kids who is out of work and at a reduced payment on their minimum wage is the same as an 80 year old person who has health issues?

 

[roydo]

I have no idea your financial situation mate but the possibility of single parent families struggling to get by now isn't beyond the realms of possibility , same as people who live alone. Not every workplace paid the extra 20% when staff were laid off. The effects of all of this go beyond covid and it does seem people are happy to dismiss them.

At some point these types of people need to be considered and protected. We aren't protecting people struggling for income being affected by this , and that involves families not just individuals.

I just don't get why people are so against protecting vunerable and letting others negatively affected go back to normality in terms of work and income. I'm such an evil [Poor language removed] for considering more than just covid patients even when I know someone personally being affected and therefore can see how it affects people. God forbid I was in a minimum wage job myself I wouldn't be able to support my mum financially.

Oh financially we are absolutely fine. Point is, it took nearly 4 months to end up with some Govt support, but we could cover it ;others maybe not so.

And like @davek says; This isnt A never meets B.

 

[YoboCopter]

What've Wales & Ireland got to do with it when you posted stats of England.

Not alot

 

[Toast]

It's said many times but at what cost?

There is more than one way of managing a pandemic. Sweden, china and New Zealand come to mind in different ways of successfully managing it with different population climates as well. None of them have the same situation but all managed to deal with it.

We tried lockdown and here we are. We are trying tier lockdowns, which for what it is worth make a lot of sense over s complete shutdown. There has to be a better plan than just limiting the spread because clearly limiting just delays the here and now . We did a fantastic job of limiting the spread first time around , yet here we are. So perhaps limiting the spread is never going to work long term no matter how many of us wear masks and wash our hands?

I can give you an example literally from today with regards to limiting the spread.
There’s a building site opposite work.
Lunchtime one of the builders comes in, no mask.
Me “do you want a mask mate ?”
Builder “ No I’m alright mate, I’m only going to the hot chicken counter, I won’t be long, thanks for the offer though.”

What can you say to that ?

 

[Nymzee]

Unless said pub sells substantial meals? Or has that changed.

Oh, and bookies as well isnt it?

Yeh I was just generalising it; pointing out not much has changed from a week ago.

 

[roydo]

I can give you an example literally from today with regards to limiting the spread.
There’s a building site opposite work.
Lunchtime one of the builders comes in, no mask.
Me “do you want a mask mate ?”
Builder “ No I’m alright mate, I’m only going to the hot chicken counter, I won’t be long, thanks for the offer though.”

What can you say to that ?

"As long as there are no pensioners on your site, nice one?"

 

[Nymzee]

So a single 40 year old parent with two kids who is out of work and at a reduced payment on their minimum wage is the same as an 80 year old person who has health issues?

Yes. 1 life = 1 life.

Unless you're suggesting one person is worth more than the other?

 

[orchard]

 

[Toast]

"As long as there are no pensioners on your site, nice one?"

Oh they are all fit lads mate.
Most are sound.
Bet they wouldn’t even know they had it, which is what I suppose the problem is ?!

 

[Catfish Blues]

Yeah so my suggestion of perhaps letting people who aren't at risk go back to relative normality and protecting the old and sick is horse manure.

In principle, this is a fine idea, but where it falls down is the practicalities of protecting the at risk group, Depending on the definition of at risk you fancy using, you're talking about protecting between 15 and 30% of the population. My stab at it would be 25%.

So you have to pretty much isolate that 25% of the population until virtually everyone else has been infected, which assumes infection = immunity, which, to be fair, in the short to medium term is probably right.

So 25% of the population has to be fully shielded for maybe six to twelve months ? You also have to make sure that anyone caring for the subset of that 25% isn't going to infect them. So, at a minimum, that's medics and those working in social care who, though not totally shielding, will have to isolate themselves from the rest of society to some extent.

Then you have the issue that the 75% of the population not shielding won't all get infected, because that's what natural herd immunity means and there'll always be a bit of transmission going on.

So, when you release the shielded population, the virus will then have new hosts to infect, which it would. The only way to stop that happening is to do what New Zealand did and persue an elimination strategy, so that's closed borders for the foreseeable.

As plans go, although at first glance it's an appealing one, once you scratch the surface you start to see the large holes in it, holes which no-one who argues for that plan has put forward a coherent plan for filling.

If you have a coherent plan, then spit it out mate, because you could save our economy from a pretty dire situation with such a plan.