Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[Kenshin]

Yes. 1 life = 1 life.

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

But right now we are saying that by turning a blind eye to people struggling. A family struggling to pay rent right now is largely forgotten about over someone else's life.

Otherwise it would be full pay whilst they are forced to be off work. That would be looking after them, because not every workplace is topping those wages up.

 

[Kenshin]

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 ?

But in theory as long as the majority wear masks and all the rest of it then that should be fine. I've said it before but majority of people do wear masks and follow rules , probably every person on here follows the rules.

No matter what you tell people to do , some will still do it. Tell someone not to drink and drive , it happens. Tell someone not to jump off a cliff , it still happens. You can't account for every single person at all times , so if a minority aren't following rules then that will always be the case.

 

[COYBL25]

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

Oh, and bookies as well isnt it?

I`m going out for Sunday lunch with the family for a meal to the only pub open by me - also so I can watch the match ( missus doesn`t know ) lol

Here`s the deal with pubs :

Booking only - no walk ins.
A meal must be ordered off the main menu - no stuffing your face with a pastie, whilst glugging lager.
Max two hour stay and then on your way.
Table service only.
Masks to be worn everywhere but at the table whilst eating and drinking.
The usual track and trace and one way in one way out.

The pub has also reduced it`s hours from 12.00 / 00.00 to 12.00 / 8pm.

So you can`t just sit there necking lager all day with a bag of crisps lol

 

[Toast]

But in theory as long as the majority wear masks and all the rest of it then that should be fine. I've said it before but majority of people do wear masks and follow rules , probably every person on here follows the rules.

No matter what you tell people to do , some will still do it. Tell someone not to drink and drive , it happens. Tell someone not to jump off a cliff , it still happens. You can't account for every single person at all times , so if a minority aren't following rules then that will always be the case.

I certainly wasn’t telling the fella what to do. We’ve never done that. As customers come into the store we have staff thanking them for wearing a mask, if someone isn’t wearing one nowt gets said.

 

[roydo]

I certainly wasn’t telling the fella what to do. We’ve never done that. As customers come into the store we have staff thanking them for wearing a mask, if someone isn’t wearing one nowt gets said.

Your Nailsea store has traffic lights at the entrance now!

 

[Nymzee]

But right now we are saying that by turning a blind eye to people struggling. A family struggling to pay rent right now is largely forgotten about over someone else's life.

Otherwise it would be full pay whilst they are forced to be off work. That would be looking after them, because not every workplace is topping those wages up.

Which is a down to said workplace.

You're getting dangerously close to placing different levels of worth to peoples lives here.

 

[Kenshin]

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.

Once you release the shielded people, they are vaccinated , which is the plan for the vaccine at the start.

I've said my plan before. Financial support those who have to shield rather than financially support shutting their place of work. Care homes you would assume are using protection measures in place so that should be covered.

Anyone vunerable who still wants to go out then they know the risk. I know of people in their 80s who want to go out despite the risk. Just the same as I know 30 year olds who want to lock their doors and not go out until it's over.

Financially protect those who have to shield away. Even going to see elderly or vunerable family , remember it's them letting them through the door to then be at risk.

That's the funny thing, no matter all these restrictions put on place , vunerable people are still putting themselves at risk. They still go out , they still open the door to family and friends (until the law tells them not to). Even that 83 year old woman the other day in Yorkshire. Shutting down pubs to stop spread may be great in theory but if these people we are protecting don't care or flout the rules themselves then what do you do about that?

 

[Kenshin]

I certainly wasn’t telling the fella what to do. We’ve never done that. As customers come into the store we have staff thanking them for wearing a mask, if someone isn’t wearing one nowt gets said.

I had a thought about that. Our Asda has a lad with masks as you walk in. Never seen anyone refuse a mask to see what they are going to do in the face of that.

Perhaps it would be the same there then?

 

[davek]

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?

No. I mean that the two world's they inhabit aren't hermetically sealed from each other. Millions that inhabit each world will come into contact with each other and the transmission of this virus will never be managed to a point where tens of thousands wont succumb to it and / or die. To force down the infection rate we need multiple circuit breakers....something numb nuts Johnson told us would be the case back in March.

 

[ForeverBlue92]

Millions of people in the UK will get the vaccine before you because they're at higher risk than you. Given these will be new vaccines, that means that any side effects which aren't seen in trials, will almost certainly be picked up as the over 60's, and then probably the over 50's are vaccinated.

At that point the powers that be know far more about any risks associated with the vaccine, and will be able to say whether or not it's sensible to vaccinate young, healthy people. It almost certainly will be sensible to vaccinate everyone, but there are a minority of people who are nervous about vaccination, so the more data you have the better.

Also ...



... so stop being a soft tw@t and make your mind up if you want to be vaccinated or not !

You get it first and if you sprout a 3rd bollock I'll take it lol

 

[Catfish Blues]

Once you release the shielded people, they are vaccinated , which is the plan for the vaccine at the start.

I've said my plan before. Financial support those who have to shield rather than financially support shutting their place of work. Care homes you would assume are using protection measures in place so that should be covered.

Anyone vunerable who still wants to go out then they know the risk. I know of people in their 80s who want to go out despite the risk. Just the same as I know 30 year olds who want to lock their doors and not go out until it's over.

Financially protect those who have to shield away. Even going to see elderly or vunerable family , remember it's them letting them through the door to then be at risk.

That's the funny thing, no matter all these restrictions put on place , vunerable people are still putting themselves at risk. They still go out , they still open the door to family and friends (until the law tells them not to). Even that 83 year old woman the other day in Yorkshire. Shutting down pubs to stop spread may be great in theory but if these people we are protecting don't care or flout the rules themselves then what do you do about that?

Fair enough.

There are a couple of obvious holes in that. Firstly, care home staff will now have decent levels of PPE, which will mitigate transmission, but if life is back to normal then transmission in the community will be rife, so more care home workers will, unknowingly, be infectious and testing them can only do so much ( partly because of false negatives ). Infection control in hospitals is far from perfect, it's even harder in many care homes.

The other problem is that living life as normal will almost certainly result in increased hospital admissions of relatively young people. They're pretty unlikely to die, and they might not need ICU care, but they'll likely be swamping COVID wards until they recover ... on average, for about ten days. That makes keeping normal care levels going very hard, so the likely effect is to cripple elective surgery.

As for people ignoring rules and guidance, you're right, there's liitle you can do about that.

Seems to me, your plan involves swapping mental health issues in one section of the community for another, and also swapping one economic hit for another, while taking a risk, admittedly a calculated risk, on actually being able to succesfully shelter the vulnerable. It might work, but, given the infrastructure in this country compared to say the infrastructure in the Scando countries, I'd say it's unlikely to work, and the consequences of it not working are pretty severe. Putting that into a risk matrix wouldn't look very hopeful, but fair play to you, because it is a coherent argument.

 

[Toast]

I had a thought about that. Our Asda has a lad with masks as you walk in. Never seen anyone refuse a mask to see what they are going to do in the face of that.

Perhaps it would be the same there then?

Once you start giving masks out, people won’t be arsed bringing their own.
Then, if we run out, you end up with loads of people not wearing them.

The sales of kids toys this last week, during a half price event btw, suggests people are getting ready for Xmas now. Makes sense considering how our government could easily make a balls of any further restrictions.
People have had a crap year and want a nice Xmas. That’s why the chance of the circuit breaker lockdown over this half term school holidays, to potentially give people a family Xmas is yet another missed opportunity by Boris.

 

[Jebus_lives]

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?

Citing different countries response doesn't really help unless you're detailing what precisely they did, whether it's legally possible here and whether it's ethically acceptable.

We did a fantastic job of reducing the spread first time round, we haven't really done a good job in keeping it suppressed. Lockdown is a strategic necessity as the virus starts to peak. Continuous lockdown is a failure to put in place effective suppression strategies. So as you say 'here we are'.

Washing hands and wearing masks does limit spread, it's a mitigation that reduces the rate of spread. It needs to be accompanied with other measures which are effective.

 

[Jebus_lives]

I certainly wasn’t telling the fella what to do. We’ve never done that. As customers come into the store we have staff thanking them for wearing a mask, if someone isn’t wearing one nowt gets said.

"No mask....no chicken"

 

[BlueStevie35]

Hospital figures - 192 deaths were announced today, up 66 on yesterday and up 82 on last Thursday. 152 deaths were in English hospitals, up 58 on yesterday and up 71 on last week with 151 occurring in the past 10 days. The 7 day rolling average rises to 119.71

All settings - for the 28 day cut off, 189 deaths were announced today, down 2 on yesterday and up 51 on last Thursday. The 7 day rolling average rises to 150.57

For the 60 day cut off, 202 deaths were announced today, up 2 on yesterday and up 63 on last Thursday. The 7 day rolling average rises to 158.43