FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Virus

wouldn't it better to isolate the vulnerable

Jump to newest
 

By *etsome OP   Man
over a year ago

birmingham

rather than everyone?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You don’t always know you’re vulnerable.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here


"rather than everyone?"

Have you been watching the interview with Professor Johan Giesecke, one of the world’s most senior epidemiologists?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's not just killing the vulnerable.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *etsome OP   Man
over a year ago

birmingham


"rather than everyone?

Have you been watching the interview with Professor Johan Giesecke, one of the world’s most senior epidemiologists?"

no - msm don't tend to highlight anyone who challenges the narrative

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adetMan
over a year ago

South of Ipswich


"rather than everyone?

Have you been watching the interview with Professor Johan Giesecke, one of the world’s most senior epidemiologists?"

What's the gist? Genuine question

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *etsome OP   Man
over a year ago

birmingham


"You don’t always know you’re vulnerable. "

we are all vulverable to something or other. We could cut road deaths to 1% of what they are now if we limit cars to 20mph

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here


"rather than everyone?

Have you been watching the interview with Professor Johan Giesecke, one of the world’s most senior epidemiologists?

What's the gist? Genuine question "

Couple of pertinent points:

“UK policy on lockdown and in other European countries is not evidence-based”

“The initial UK response, before the “180 degree U-turn”, was better”

And the reason for asking the op the question:

“The correct policy is to protect the old and the frail only”

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You do know this is killing perfectly healthy people too OP

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *bi HaiveMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Cheeseville, Somerset

I think eventually this will be the approach but not now.

Lockdown is helping to flatten the curve but isn't sustainable longer term, socially, economically or practically.

It can't continue indefinitely until a vaccine is found. As has been said before - we don't have a vaccine for the common cold or many other illnesses and there's no guarantee one will be found for this.

At the right time in several weeks/months this could be the next best move.

A

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Agree.

Ideally seal off care homes. Restrict care assistants to one facility and force homes to accommodate them.

Is it only this week that we've been testing in care homes... The real numbers would be massive of we'd been doing that early doors

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *itty9899Man
over a year ago

Craggy Island

My dad got a letter this morning from his GP surgery saying he wasn't high risk.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *bi HaiveMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Cheeseville, Somerset


"You do know this is killing perfectly healthy people too OP"

The issue is that whilst seemingly 'perfectly healthy' people have died from this they're a tiny percentage of cases and whilst apparently having no underlying conditions there's so far no proof that they didn't in fact have something that made them susceptible. Just because someone hasn't previously been diagnosed with a condition it doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

People drop down dead from previously unknown conditions all the time and so far there's been no detailed autopsies that I've heard of.

A

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *xMFM3sumsxxWoman
over a year ago

SouthWest Lancashire

The lock down is to stop the virus spreading quickly.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *herryblossom_BJWoman
over a year ago

Oxfordshire/Hampshire


"Agree.

Ideally seal off care homes. Restrict care assistants to one facility and force homes to accommodate them.

Is it only this week that we've been testing in care homes... The real numbers would be massive of we'd been doing that early doors"

Its not fair on the staff at these care homes who have families to look after when they go off shifts. People aren't robots.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hickennchipsWoman
over a year ago

up above the streets and houses


"rather than everyone?"

How would you define the vulnerable? Age? Health? Lifestyle? Region? Race? Where does it end?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *orny PTMan
over a year ago

Peterborough


"You don’t always know you’re vulnerable. "

True

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *herryblossom_BJWoman
over a year ago

Oxfordshire/Hampshire

Social distancing and high hygiene practices is the way forward. If the virus has no host. It will die off naturally. See it like a domino effect. Take dominoes out by creating social distancing and high standard of hygiene. Less people will get infected and we can have semi normal life.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

H

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oxy_minxWoman
over a year ago

Scotland - Aberdeen

How the hell would you feel if you received 'advise' to self isolate for 18 months like my dad has? You would say 'fuck off'

Yes you would take precautions, but get a grip with reality!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *allySlinkyWoman
over a year ago

Leeds

Self isolate for 18 months ? Unimaginable.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"How the hell would you feel if you received 'advise' to self isolate for 18 months like my dad has? You would say 'fuck off'

Yes you would take precautions, but get a grip with reality!"

Spot on

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Self isolate for 18 months ? Unimaginable. "

Whens the vaccine?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oxy_minxWoman
over a year ago

Scotland - Aberdeen


"Self isolate for 18 months ? Unimaginable. "

Exactly! And his first grandchild was born on the 16th March! It's killing them both already not being able to see her, but they are doing all they can to keep everyone safe

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think your personal view of the risk posed may well be directly related to your financial position through the lockdown.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple
over a year ago

Basingstoke


"rather than everyone?

Have you been watching the interview with Professor Johan Giesecke, one of the world’s most senior epidemiologists?

What's the gist? Genuine question

Couple of pertinent points:

“UK policy on lockdown and in other European countries is not evidence-based”

“The initial UK response, before the “180 degree U-turn”, was better”

And the reason for asking the op the question:

“The correct policy is to protect the old and the frail only”"

Watching it now. He's ripping on the imperial university modelling which I can confirm was an absolute pile of wank full of basic errors. It's shocking anyone in government was fooled by it. However, I would point out that sweden has more deaths per 1m than America which is one of the most popular countries to criticise (150 v 116).

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The vulnerable are having to isolate more than the general public.

The known vulnerable are not the ones in the ICU beds. They are needed for the "healthy" people who get harder hit than predicted - they are impossible to predicy

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *elnkazCouple
over a year ago

cheshire

I certainly didnt think i was vulnerable or at risk. Im healthy i have no health problems except.

...

Im overweight and if you have bmi of 40+ then im on the vulnerable list

Just goes to show eh ..k

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 18/04/20 22:17:52]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The elderly and vulnerable are more isolated than the average person, we have been told not to leave our comes for 12 weeks ending the earliest 15th of june, with potential to go on longer.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So how about the fact that all cancer treatments have stalled including my own fathers. Far more people are going to die of illnesses not even related to COVID-19. Whether it be cancer or mental health related illnesses etc. There's a bigger picture here .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *orny PTMan
over a year ago

Peterborough

If we are not immune, then we are all vulnerable. Only the severity of our immune deficiencies makes all the difference.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andyMinx_tvTV/TS
over a year ago

Leeds

Yes it would. This isn't the bubonic plague.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple
over a year ago

Basingstoke


"rather than everyone?

Have you been watching the interview with Professor Johan Giesecke, one of the world’s most senior epidemiologists?

What's the gist? Genuine question

Couple of pertinent points:

“UK policy on lockdown and in other European countries is not evidence-based”

“The initial UK response, before the “180 degree U-turn”, was better”

And the reason for asking the op the question:

“The correct policy is to protect the old and the frail only”"

Don't rate him to be honest. He's basically saying "fuck it, you're going to get it anyway". He presents a lot of opinions as facts. He thinks South Korea / Singapore/ taiwan / Vietnam will end up with a lot of deaths, we'll see but I think he's wrong.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Get out there, get mildly ill ( if you haven't already had it as up to 50% may already have), get immunity, get well, get on with it. Oh and vulnerable to be isolated until 'herd' immunity

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Oh and lockdown based on BS model from someone who has a terrible record of modelling past events. Foot and mouth and seine flu being the 2 I've seen cited.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple
over a year ago

Basingstoke


"Oh and lockdown based on BS model from someone who has a terrible record of modelling past events. Foot and mouth and seine flu being the 2 I've seen cited. "

His predictions of coronavirus in china were also wildly inaccurate

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

The vulnerable need special care and consideration but anyone can get and die of this disease as well as pass it on.

Whilst there's 1 person with it, they can become a source of thousands of chained infections in a short period, especially if they think they are safe and it would be a problem for just those who are ops supposedly vulnerable group.

Test, test, test and contact trace the infected - then isolate and treat as needed.

Lockdown slows transmission rate peaks, so is effectively helping the NHS to cope, whilst they also have normal emergencies to deal with too, cardiac arrests, strokes, near fatal issues etc.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The RT-PRC test is a pile of crap anyway. Loads of false negatives and even more false positives. Need a decent test first!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple
over a year ago

Basingstoke


"The vulnerable need special care and consideration but anyone can get and die of this disease as well as pass it on.

Whilst there's 1 person with it, they can become a source of thousands of chained infections in a short period, especially if they think they are safe and it would be a problem for just those who are ops supposedly vulnerable group.

Test, test, test and contact trace the infected - then isolate and treat as needed.

Lockdown slows transmission rate peaks, so is effectively helping the NHS to cope, whilst they also have normal emergencies to deal with too, cardiac arrests, strokes, near fatal issues etc. "

I agree with most of what you post about coronavirus, but not "anyone can get and die" from coronavirus. In fact a lot of us could never die from it or even have any symptoms at all. It's to do with your genetic profile and how that effects the attempts of the virus to attach itself to you. We don't fully understand the whole thing yet but we know enough to know the deaths are not random.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"rather than everyone?"

Yes this should always have been the case.

It is ultimately your own responsibility to protect yourself from illness. The vast majority of people without underlying conditions will be totally fine.

Its like saying we should stop selling peanuts because some people are allergic and could die when they take them.... Its the person with the allergies responsibility not to eat peanuts, not everyone elses.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hy_bangor_bi-girlWoman
over a year ago

Bangor


"So how about the fact that all cancer treatments have stalled including my own fathers. Far more people are going to die of illnesses not even related to COVID-19. Whether it be cancer or mental health related illnesses etc. There's a bigger picture here . "

Really sorry to hear this, really is unacceptable

But it that just in your area?

My friends treatment has continued every fortnight. It's taken longer as not as many are being treated at same time but it hasn't been cancelled. Next week is her last week.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Thank you for your kind words. No my Dad has had his cancelled altogether which I think is utterly disgraceful. I don't know what it is like in other areas x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *allySlinkyWoman
over a year ago

Leeds

I have a relative and a friend both having radiotherapy in Leeds and their treatment is still continuing.My full blood count tests and an appointment with an oncology consultant are still going ahead as scheduled in May.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Agree.

Ideally seal off care homes. Restrict care assistants to one facility and force homes to accommodate them.

Is it only this week that we've been testing in care homes... The real numbers would be massive of we'd been doing that early doors"

Lol

As someone who works in a care home once my shift is over I'm outta there

Sorry it's a job that pays my mortgage and bills, not a way of life. All the best to some of the staff around the country who have opted to be live in carers during the pandemic but the majority of social care workers wouldn't agree to move in to their workplace, same as not many other professions would I'd expect

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uckandbunnyCouple
over a year ago

In your bed


"rather than everyone?"

This is the likely end game. However, sometimes to encourage compliance you have to get everyone to change their behaviour.

If you let everyone move as normal and just lock down the vulnerable then the contamination of products would have been so high and the non compliance so high that the deaths resulting would have been unacceptable from a societal point of view.

By flattening the curve and keeping deaths to under say 50k whilst each one is a personal tragedy, from a political (and yes it is a consideration for any government) view they can claim a crisis managed.

In my own opinion now the new behaviour has been set with everyone it then becomes a case of letting the least vulnerable out first. That will be under nines or primary school children (barring vulnerable kids).

But this will pose an issue as teaching staff will be short as some teachers will be vulnerable and some kids will live with other vulnerable people.

Whether this is considered and how it is managed is beyond me.

But you can see that the government will eventually play a game of trial and error.

Let a group go back see how the death rate changes, but they could not do this whilst deaths were close to 1000 per week. So I figure they will wait for it to drop to about 300 a week and then monitor each group being back and that impact.

If vulnerable groups ignore the continued lockdown then that will be their own choice but it's the mixed households where the biggest challenge will be in terms of relaxing any control measures.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *iss_tressWoman
over a year ago

London


"I think your personal view of the risk posed may well be directly related to your financial position through the lockdown. "

Not necessarily.

I started a new job end of November after retiring, but ill health meant I wasn't in the position to renovate my house, sell and move to the country. For three years I paid my mortgage etc from savings and had to return to work.

The other half is a self employed heating engineer who has developed the same heart condition I had but whilst treatment worked for me it hasn't for him. He is unable to work so I'm doing everything.

I'm currently furloughed and will probably lose my job. I'll probably be forced to sell at a knockdown price, but I'll be alive to restart even at 60.

Lockdown or 6ft under: not a difficult choice to make from where I'm standing.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top