Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
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 |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Covid is not going to be beaten by our efforts. It will not be eradicated, even if we do find a vaccine that works and is viable. We have exterminated exactly ONE human virus in all of history and doing so took over 200 years (vaccine found 1796, eradicated 1979). Anyone who thinks we are going to magically eradicate Covid in months is delusional. The picture that is emerging worldwide strongly suggests that Covid is a serious risk to a small percentage of the overall population, generally the same group who are at increased risk from many other diseases. That same picture is telling us that severe restrictions to control the virus in general society in the long term are unpopular, socially damaging and economically unworkable. They also carry health consequences of their own. Less severe restrictions are proving ineffective (Spain, France and others all seeing rapid rises in infections). Even extreme responses and national isolation (New Zealand) have proven ineffective in preventing a return of the virus once most general restrictions on the population are lifted. The fact is that we as a society need to accept these facts and have a sensible, honest and grown up conversation about how we go on. We cannot run our entire society around the suppression of the virus on an indefinite basis. It's clear the measures required for suppression to be effective are too economically and socially damaging to be sustained - AND THEY DON'T NEED TO BE. We must stop fixating on infection rates when deciding on policy. How many people have the disease really doesn't matter much for anything other than assessing your risk of catching it. We DO need to focus on hospitalization rates and death rates DIRECTLY from Covid. Those are important, infection rates not so much. We need to improve resourcing for healthcare in general and for social care/residential care in particular. These are extremely high risk areas of our society and we must provide them the resources they need to reduce that risk as much as possible. We need to look at the sick pay system and the whole 'zero hour contract' fiasco. There needs to be a rapid change from the 'soldier on' attitude to an attitude of social responsibility that sees those who are ill (with any illness) or who know that have been exposed voluntarily staying at home and does not penalize them for it. We need to stop restricting social activities, particularly those mostly frequented by young adults. It won't work and will only lead to the rise of unregulated, uncontrolled social gatherings with all the problems we already know that brings. To sum up, it's time to accept reality and get on with our lives."  amen | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Covid is not going to be beaten by our efforts. It will not be eradicated, even if we do find a vaccine that works and is viable. We have exterminated exactly ONE human virus in all of history and doing so took over 200 years (vaccine found 1796, eradicated 1979). Anyone who thinks we are going to magically eradicate Covid in months is delusional. The picture that is emerging worldwide strongly suggests that Covid is a serious risk to a small percentage of the overall population, generally the same group who are at increased risk from many other diseases. That same picture is telling us that severe restrictions to control the virus in general society in the long term are unpopular, socially damaging and economically unworkable. They also carry health consequences of their own. Less severe restrictions are proving ineffective (Spain, France and others all seeing rapid rises in infections). Even extreme responses and national isolation (New Zealand) have proven ineffective in preventing a return of the virus once most general restrictions on the population are lifted. The fact is that we as a society need to accept these facts and have a sensible, honest and grown up conversation about how we go on. We cannot run our entire society around the suppression of the virus on an indefinite basis. It's clear the measures required for suppression to be effective are too economically and socially damaging to be sustained - AND THEY DON'T NEED TO BE. We must stop fixating on infection rates when deciding on policy. How many people have the disease really doesn't matter much for anything other than assessing your risk of catching it. We DO need to focus on hospitalization rates and death rates DIRECTLY from Covid. Those are important, infection rates not so much. We need to improve resourcing for healthcare in general and for social care/residential care in particular. These are extremely high risk areas of our society and we must provide them the resources they need to reduce that risk as much as possible. We need to look at the sick pay system and the whole 'zero hour contract' fiasco. There needs to be a rapid change from the 'soldier on' attitude to an attitude of social responsibility that sees those who are ill (with any illness) or who know that have been exposed voluntarily staying at home and does not penalize them for it. We need to stop restricting social activities, particularly those mostly frequented by young adults. It won't work and will only lead to the rise of unregulated, uncontrolled social gatherings with all the problems we already know that brings. To sum up, it's time to accept reality and get on with our lives." A vaccine is the next step. Im not prepared to but wealth before health Once we have vaccine we can manage it Do you have parents? Do you value vulnerable people Or is it I'm OK so sod everyone else | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Bill Gates would like to know your location. " That's the sort of crazy attitude that helps nobody. I've no time at all for conspiracy theories as should I hope be clear from just about everything I've ever posted. Feel free to disagree with my views or my reasoning if you like, but do it in a sensible way please. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Covid is not going to be beaten by our efforts. It will not be eradicated, even if we do find a vaccine that works and is viable. We have exterminated exactly ONE human virus in all of history and doing so took over 200 years (vaccine found 1796, eradicated 1979). Anyone who thinks we are going to magically eradicate Covid in months is delusional. The picture that is emerging worldwide strongly suggests that Covid is a serious risk to a small percentage of the overall population, generally the same group who are at increased risk from many other diseases. That same picture is telling us that severe restrictions to control the virus in general society in the long term are unpopular, socially damaging and economically unworkable. They also carry health consequences of their own. Less severe restrictions are proving ineffective (Spain, France and others all seeing rapid rises in infections). Even extreme responses and national isolation (New Zealand) have proven ineffective in preventing a return of the virus once most general restrictions on the population are lifted. The fact is that we as a society need to accept these facts and have a sensible, honest and grown up conversation about how we go on. We cannot run our entire society around the suppression of the virus on an indefinite basis. It's clear the measures required for suppression to be effective are too economically and socially damaging to be sustained - AND THEY DON'T NEED TO BE. We must stop fixating on infection rates when deciding on policy. How many people have the disease really doesn't matter much for anything other than assessing your risk of catching it. We DO need to focus on hospitalization rates and death rates DIRECTLY from Covid. Those are important, infection rates not so much. We need to improve resourcing for healthcare in general and for social care/residential care in particular. These are extremely high risk areas of our society and we must provide them the resources they need to reduce that risk as much as possible. We need to look at the sick pay system and the whole 'zero hour contract' fiasco. There needs to be a rapid change from the 'soldier on' attitude to an attitude of social responsibility that sees those who are ill (with any illness) or who know that have been exposed voluntarily staying at home and does not penalize them for it. We need to stop restricting social activities, particularly those mostly frequented by young adults. It won't work and will only lead to the rise of unregulated, uncontrolled social gatherings with all the problems we already know that brings. To sum up, it's time to accept reality and get on with our lives. A vaccine is the next step. Im not prepared to but wealth before health Once we have vaccine we can manage it Do you have parents? Do you value vulnerable people Or is it I'm OK so sod everyone else " A vaccine...nice punchline, to the joke. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Covid is not going to be beaten by our efforts. It will not be eradicated, even if we do find a vaccine that works and is viable. We have exterminated exactly ONE human virus in all of history and doing so took over 200 years (vaccine found 1796, eradicated 1979). Anyone who thinks we are going to magically eradicate Covid in months is delusional. The picture that is emerging worldwide strongly suggests that Covid is a serious risk to a small percentage of the overall population, generally the same group who are at increased risk from many other diseases. That same picture is telling us that severe restrictions to control the virus in general society in the long term are unpopular, socially damaging and economically unworkable. They also carry health consequences of their own. Less severe restrictions are proving ineffective (Spain, France and others all seeing rapid rises in infections). Even extreme responses and national isolation (New Zealand) have proven ineffective in preventing a return of the virus once most general restrictions on the population are lifted. The fact is that we as a society need to accept these facts and have a sensible, honest and grown up conversation about how we go on. We cannot run our entire society around the suppression of the virus on an indefinite basis. It's clear the measures required for suppression to be effective are too economically and socially damaging to be sustained - AND THEY DON'T NEED TO BE. We must stop fixating on infection rates when deciding on policy. How many people have the disease really doesn't matter much for anything other than assessing your risk of catching it. We DO need to focus on hospitalization rates and death rates DIRECTLY from Covid. Those are important, infection rates not so much. We need to improve resourcing for healthcare in general and for social care/residential care in particular. These are extremely high risk areas of our society and we must provide them the resources they need to reduce that risk as much as possible. We need to look at the sick pay system and the whole 'zero hour contract' fiasco. There needs to be a rapid change from the 'soldier on' attitude to an attitude of social responsibility that sees those who are ill (with any illness) or who know that have been exposed voluntarily staying at home and does not penalize them for it. We need to stop restricting social activities, particularly those mostly frequented by young adults. It won't work and will only lead to the rise of unregulated, uncontrolled social gatherings with all the problems we already know that brings. To sum up, it's time to accept reality and get on with our lives. A vaccine is the next step. Im not prepared to but wealth before health Once we have vaccine we can manage it Do you have parents? Do you value vulnerable people Or is it I'm OK so sod everyone else " Answer the above Mr selfish | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Or maybe move away from the commercial economic world system of accumulating wealth for the few and move to a society things for the greater good where the don't have to rely on cash? Kind of like in star trek. " Well yes...crypto  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" A vaccine is the next step. Im not prepared to but wealth before health Once we have vaccine we can manage it Do you have parents? Do you value vulnerable people Or is it I'm OK so sod everyone else " Yes I have family, most over 70 and some over 80. I never suggested I don't value the vulnerable, in fact I specifically said we need to provide more resources for the care of our most vulnerable. Perhaps you should read my posting again. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Or maybe move away from the commercial economic world system of accumulating wealth for the few and move to a society things for the greater good where the don't have to rely on cash? Kind of like in star trek. " What type of Marxist nonsense is this? None of that common sense on here ty. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Answer the above Mr selfish " I did. Who's more selfish, the person who's suggesting a way forward or the person who's sitting on their arse hoping for a miracle? If you don't want to face facts that's up to you. I'm tired of sugar coating things just so it doesn't offend the snowflakes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I cannot dispute anything you've stated. However, I will state I believe there are two distinct groups of fatalities:1, those at risk, and 2, those whose immune systems become dysregulated. With 1, we can plan policies around as we have the data but 2 is largely unknown (unless there are studies on autoimmune and cv19) and can happen to anyone (perhaps Immunology will find a DNA link to immune dysregulation/hyperinflammation/sepsis/viral sepsis in the future). It can happen with any pathogen to anyone with or without risk factors (I've got the t-shirt). At this present time, group 2 is rare but doesn't seem like it when you consider the vast number of deaths and we don't know the percentage of this group. If you take the study in the thread "I'm glad I'm female" and discount those at risk due to age 70+, that would result in (thousands) 77-61=16 (m) 59-52=07 (f) 136-113=23 136/23 approx 1/6, approx 17% IE 17% of covid-19 deaths could be the result of our own immune systems. Now apply that percentage to our fatalities figure, and out of a population of 69 million, it's a small number that we cannot hold our country to ransom for. What I'm trying to say is, there'll always be a percentage we, as yet, are unable to protect. But members of group 1 do need forward thinking plans and appropriate health care. This may include drastic measures for those with metabolic syndromes - diabetes, cardiac issues and obesity. " Not that I don't appreciate your eloquent, data filled explanations but sadly I feel like they mostly fall on deaf ears. I fear we'll have to get to a level where people are dropping in the streets for the "freedom fighters" to care. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The sick pay part of your rant will never happen. No matter what level of sick pay or criteria for receiving a decent amount of sick pay is used will always unfortunately be abused by too many people. In my early working years at my first employer we were entitled to full sick pay for 10 days in a year then it dropped to 50%. It was amazing how many people used to have exactly 10 days off sick each year. At another place if you hadn’t had any time off for a full 12 months then you were entitled to full pay if you went off sick. They did this to discourage the Friday sickies but it then became a competition to get 12 months clear under your belt and then sign off for a few months with a bad back! The current statutory pay is obviously not enough which means that people can’t afford to stay off work and will consequently carry on working and inadvertently spread the disease but how can you increase the sick pay without encouraging the people who abuse it to take unnecessary time off?" I think there needs to be new Govt "benefit" called Self Isolation Pay, which would be like furlough, where up to 80% salary was subsidised by Govt and employer can top up. You would claim it by being in receipt of a formal request to self isolate eg from your GP, from the Border Agency upon arrival, from the Track and Trace service etc. Everyone re entering the UK, including UK nationals, are currently having to fill in landing cards and isolate if arriving from certain places, so wouldn't take any more infrastructure to hand out a "you must isolate" chitty. You'd need to produce the chitty to your employer to qualify for the self isolation pay. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I cannot dispute anything you've stated. However, I will state I believe there are two distinct groups of fatalities:1, those at risk, and 2, those whose immune systems become dysregulated. With 1, we can plan policies around as we have the data but 2 is largely unknown (unless there are studies on autoimmune and cv19) and can happen to anyone (perhaps Immunology will find a DNA link to immune dysregulation/hyperinflammation/sepsis/viral sepsis in the future). It can happen with any pathogen to anyone with or without risk factors (I've got the t-shirt). At this present time, group 2 is rare but doesn't seem like it when you consider the vast number of deaths and we don't know the percentage of this group. If you take the study in the thread "I'm glad I'm female" and discount those at risk due to age 70+, that would result in (thousands) 77-61=16 (m) 59-52=07 (f) 136-113=23 136/23 approx 1/6, approx 17% IE 17% of covid-19 deaths could be the result of our own immune systems. Now apply that percentage to our fatalities figure, and out of a population of 69 million, it's a small number that we cannot hold our country to ransom for. What I'm trying to say is, there'll always be a percentage we, as yet, are unable to protect. But members of group 1 do need forward thinking plans and appropriate health care. This may include drastic measures for those with metabolic syndromes - diabetes, cardiac issues and obesity. Not that I don't appreciate your eloquent, data filled explanations but sadly I feel like they mostly fall on deaf ears. I fear we'll have to get to a level where people are dropping in the streets for the "freedom fighters" to care. " To be honest, I do it for brain rehab. If it does make sense to people then great. If it doesn't, then I won't get upset about it. Thank you  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Answer the above Mr selfish I did. Who's more selfish, the person who's suggesting a way forward or the person who's sitting on their arse hoping for a miracle? If you don't want to face facts that's up to you. I'm tired of sugar coating things just so it doesn't offend the snowflakes." "Getting on" with life pretending covid doesn't exist is not a way forward. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I cannot dispute anything you've stated. However, I will state I believe there are two distinct groups of fatalities:1, those at risk, and 2, those whose immune systems become dysregulated. With 1, we can plan policies around as we have the data but 2 is largely unknown (unless there are studies on autoimmune and cv19) and can happen to anyone (perhaps Immunology will find a DNA link to immune dysregulation/hyperinflammation/sepsis/viral sepsis in the future). It can happen with any pathogen to anyone with or without risk factors (I've got the t-shirt). At this present time, group 2 is rare but doesn't seem like it when you consider the vast number of deaths and we don't know the percentage of this group. If you take the study in the thread "I'm glad I'm female" and discount those at risk due to age 70+, that would result in (thousands) 77-61=16 (m) 59-52=07 (f) 136-113=23 136/23 approx 1/6, approx 17% IE 17% of covid-19 deaths could be the result of our own immune systems. Now apply that percentage to our fatalities figure, and out of a population of 69 million, it's a small number that we cannot hold our country to ransom for. What I'm trying to say is, there'll always be a percentage we, as yet, are unable to protect. But members of group 1 do need forward thinking plans and appropriate health care. This may include drastic measures for those with metabolic syndromes - diabetes, cardiac issues and obesity. " At last, a sensible reply
You are completely correct, there is always risk even from illnesses we know well and understand. Thankfully those risks are relatively small and we can live with them.
In time treatments for these rare cases will improve and hopefully the effort being focussed on Covid will help with the treatment of these conditions in other situations too.
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Answer the above Mr selfish I did. Who's more selfish, the person who's suggesting a way forward or the person who's sitting on their arse hoping for a miracle? If you don't want to face facts that's up to you. I'm tired of sugar coating things just so it doesn't offend the snowflakes. "Getting on" with life pretending covid doesn't exist is not a way forward. " Oh didn't you hear about the new miracle cure for covid? That's weird... It involves getting a fuck ton of sand and then just burying your head right in there. 100% guaranteed recovery rate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The sick pay part of your rant will never happen. No matter what level of sick pay or criteria for receiving a decent amount of sick pay is used will always unfortunately be abused by too many people. In my early working years at my first employer we were entitled to full sick pay for 10 days in a year then it dropped to 50%. It was amazing how many people used to have exactly 10 days off sick each year. At another place if you hadn’t had any time off for a full 12 months then you were entitled to full pay if you went off sick. They did this to discourage the Friday sickies but it then became a competition to get 12 months clear under your belt and then sign off for a few months with a bad back! The current statutory pay is obviously not enough which means that people can’t afford to stay off work and will consequently carry on working and inadvertently spread the disease but how can you increase the sick pay without encouraging the people who abuse it to take unnecessary time off?" We need to weigh the potential cost of abuse with the potential cost of infection increase. A balance can be found, perhaps by allowing employers more discretion when handling frequent sickness claims. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The sick pay part of your rant will never happen. No matter what level of sick pay or criteria for receiving a decent amount of sick pay is used will always unfortunately be abused by too many people. In my early working years at my first employer we were entitled to full sick pay for 10 days in a year then it dropped to 50%. It was amazing how many people used to have exactly 10 days off sick each year. At another place if you hadn’t had any time off for a full 12 months then you were entitled to full pay if you went off sick. They did this to discourage the Friday sickies but it then became a competition to get 12 months clear under your belt and then sign off for a few months with a bad back! The current statutory pay is obviously not enough which means that people can’t afford to stay off work and will consequently carry on working and inadvertently spread the disease but how can you increase the sick pay without encouraging the people who abuse it to take unnecessary time off? We need to weigh the potential cost of abuse with the potential cost of infection increase. A balance can be found, perhaps by allowing employers more discretion when handling frequent sickness claims." My idea of only qualifying for self isolation pay by having to receive a formal, written thingy from one of the agencies responsible for public health, would hopefully keep fake claims to a minimum. There can never be a perfect solution, but asking low paid workers to have two unpaid weeks off to protect people they don't know is obviously flawed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I cannot dispute anything you've stated. However, I will state I believe there are two distinct groups of fatalities:1, those at risk, and 2, those whose immune systems become dysregulated. With 1, we can plan policies around as we have the data but 2 is largely unknown (unless there are studies on autoimmune and cv19) and can happen to anyone (perhaps Immunology will find a DNA link to immune dysregulation/hyperinflammation/sepsis/viral sepsis in the future). It can happen with any pathogen to anyone with or without risk factors (I've got the t-shirt). At this present time, group 2 is rare but doesn't seem like it when you consider the vast number of deaths and we don't know the percentage of this group. If you take the study in the thread "I'm glad I'm female" and discount those at risk due to age 70+, that would result in (thousands) 77-61=16 (m) 59-52=07 (f) 136-113=23 136/23 approx 1/6, approx 17% IE 17% of covid-19 deaths could be the result of our own immune systems. Now apply that percentage to our fatalities figure, and out of a population of 69 million, it's a small number that we cannot hold our country to ransom for. What I'm trying to say is, there'll always be a percentage we, as yet, are unable to protect. But members of group 1 do need forward thinking plans and appropriate health care. This may include drastic measures for those with metabolic syndromes - diabetes, cardiac issues and obesity. " So if you add to this Autonomous sensory meridian response (ASMER) Cancer and underling health issues as yet not detected that's probably close to 33% that would need support in one way or another is it worth the risk. and if to do we then just go back to how we where in February no restrictions on travel theatres etc it would jump back to pre lock down fingers very quickly as in 4 week's but keep climbing? ? so to the OP i ask! If the death rate Hit 2000 per day would this be OK. And would you be happy to be in a busy place of work knowing most around you might have C-19 and if you get it then NHS might not be able to treat you as it was now concentrating on traditional work | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Bill Gates would like to know your location. That's the sort of crazy attitude that helps nobody. I've no time at all for conspiracy theories as should I hope be clear from just about everything I've ever posted. Feel free to disagree with my views or my reasoning if you like, but do it in a sensible way please." I found your position to be rhetoric than reason. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" "Getting on" with life pretending covid doesn't exist is not a way forward. " Again, try reading what I actually wrote instead of what you want to see. I never suggested pretending it doesn't exist. I did saw we need to get on with life because we do. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The sick pay part of your rant will never happen. No matter what level of sick pay or criteria for receiving a decent amount of sick pay is used will always unfortunately be abused by too many people. In my early working years at my first employer we were entitled to full sick pay for 10 days in a year then it dropped to 50%. It was amazing how many people used to have exactly 10 days off sick each year. At another place if you hadn’t had any time off for a full 12 months then you were entitled to full pay if you went off sick. They did this to discourage the Friday sickies but it then became a competition to get 12 months clear under your belt and then sign off for a few months with a bad back! The current statutory pay is obviously not enough which means that people can’t afford to stay off work and will consequently carry on working and inadvertently spread the disease but how can you increase the sick pay without encouraging the people who abuse it to take unnecessary time off? I think there needs to be new Govt "benefit" called Self Isolation Pay, which would be like furlough, where up to 80% salary was subsidised by Govt and employer can top up. You would claim it by being in receipt of a formal request to self isolate eg from your GP, from the Border Agency upon arrival, from the Track and Trace service etc. Everyone re entering the UK, including UK nationals, are currently having to fill in landing cards and isolate if arriving from certain places, so wouldn't take any more infrastructure to hand out a "you must isolate" chitty. You'd need to produce the chitty to your employer to qualify for the self isolation pay. " Would that mean i could go on holiday for a day every 15 days and almost get full pay  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Bill Gates would like to know your location. That's the sort of crazy attitude that helps nobody. I've no time at all for conspiracy theories as should I hope be clear from just about everything I've ever posted. Feel free to disagree with my views or my reasoning if you like, but do it in a sensible way please. I found your position to be rhetoric than reason." Fair enough, you're entitled to your view. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" "Getting on" with life pretending covid doesn't exist is not a way forward. Again, try reading what I actually wrote instead of what you want to see. I never suggested pretending it doesn't exist. I did saw we need to get on with life because we do. " We are getting on with life it is just a different life. Life has changed and will not easily go back but we will move forward with this. I have not been off at all but life is different and we need to change with it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Covid is not going to be beaten by our efforts. It will not be eradicated, even if we do find a vaccine that works and is viable. We have exterminated exactly ONE human virus in all of history and doing so took over 200 years (vaccine found 1796, eradicated 1979). Anyone who thinks we are going to magically eradicate Covid in months is delusional. The picture that is emerging worldwide strongly suggests that Covid is a serious risk to a small percentage of the overall population, generally the same group who are at increased risk from many other diseases. That same picture is telling us that severe restrictions to control the virus in general society in the long term are unpopular, socially damaging and economically unworkable. They also carry health consequences of their own. Less severe restrictions are proving ineffective (Spain, France and others all seeing rapid rises in infections). Even extreme responses and national isolation (New Zealand) have proven ineffective in preventing a return of the virus once most general restrictions on the population are lifted. The fact is that we as a society need to accept these facts and have a sensible, honest and grown up conversation about how we go on. We cannot run our entire society around the suppression of the virus on an indefinite basis. It's clear the measures required for suppression to be effective are too economically and socially damaging to be sustained - AND THEY DON'T NEED TO BE. We must stop fixating on infection rates when deciding on policy. How many people have the disease really doesn't matter much for anything other than assessing your risk of catching it. We DO need to focus on hospitalization rates and death rates DIRECTLY from Covid. Those are important, infection rates not so much. We need to improve resourcing for healthcare in general and for social care/residential care in particular. These are extremely high risk areas of our society and we must provide them the resources they need to reduce that risk as much as possible. We need to look at the sick pay system and the whole 'zero hour contract' fiasco. There needs to be a rapid change from the 'soldier on' attitude to an attitude of social responsibility that sees those who are ill (with any illness) or who know that have been exposed voluntarily staying at home and does not penalize them for it. We need to stop restricting social activities, particularly those mostly frequented by young adults. It won't work and will only lead to the rise of unregulated, uncontrolled social gatherings with all the problems we already know that brings. To sum up, it's time to accept reality and get on with our lives. A vaccine is the next step. Im not prepared to but wealth before health Once we have vaccine we can manage it Do you have parents? Do you value vulnerable people Or is it I'm OK so sod everyone else " Answer the above Mr selfish | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I If the death rate Hit 2000 per day would this be OK. And would you be happy to be in a busy place of work knowing most around you might have C-19 and if you get it then NHS might not be able to treat you as it was now concentrating on traditional work " Did you even read what I wrote? I specifically said we need to monitor hospitalisation and death rates, not infection rates. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Answer the above Mr selfish " Sorry, I've run out of troll food, there might be some under that bridge over there... ps... try reading, it helps you not to look like an idiot all the time. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I think there needs to be new Govt "benefit" called Self Isolation Pay, which would be like furlough, where up to 80% salary was subsidised by Govt and employer can top up. You would claim it by being in receipt of a formal request to self isolate eg from your GP, from the Border Agency upon arrival, from the Track and Trace service etc. Everyone re entering the UK, including UK nationals, are currently having to fill in landing cards and isolate if arriving from certain places, so wouldn't take any more infrastructure to hand out a "you must isolate" chitty. You'd need to produce the chitty to your employer to qualify for the self isolation pay. Would that mean i could go on holiday for a day every 15 days and almost get full pay "No, because presumably you wouldn't be in receipt of a demand to self isolate every 15 days, unless you go round licking the walls in ICU?!  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I cannot dispute anything you've stated. However, I will state I believe there are two distinct groups of fatalities:1, those at risk, and 2, those whose immune systems become dysregulated. With 1, we can plan policies around as we have the data but 2 is largely unknown (unless there are studies on autoimmune and cv19) and can happen to anyone (perhaps Immunology will find a DNA link to immune dysregulation/hyperinflammation/sepsis/viral sepsis in the future). It can happen with any pathogen to anyone with or without risk factors (I've got the t-shirt). At this present time, group 2 is rare but doesn't seem like it when you consider the vast number of deaths and we don't know the percentage of this group. If you take the study in the thread "I'm glad I'm female" and discount those at risk due to age 70+, that would result in (thousands) 77-61=16 (m) 59-52=07 (f) 136-113=23 136/23 approx 1/6, approx 17% IE 17% of covid-19 deaths could be the result of our own immune systems. Now apply that percentage to our fatalities figure, and out of a population of 69 million, it's a small number that we cannot hold our country to ransom for. What I'm trying to say is, there'll always be a percentage we, as yet, are unable to protect. But members of group 1 do need forward thinking plans and appropriate health care. This may include drastic measures for those with metabolic syndromes - diabetes, cardiac issues and obesity. At last, a sensible reply
You are completely correct, there is always risk even from illnesses we know well and understand. Thankfully those risks are relatively small and we can live with them.
In time treatments for these rare cases will improve and hopefully the effort being focussed on Covid will help with the treatment of these conditions in other situations too.
"There are treatments already, and in some cases are time sensitive such as for sepsis and encephalitis. Charli Grace may have knowledge of ICU and monitoring for covid/immune anomalies. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I think there needs to be new Govt "benefit" called Self Isolation Pay, which would be like furlough, where up to 80% salary was subsidised by Govt and employer can top up. You would claim it by being in receipt of a formal request to self isolate eg from your GP, from the Border Agency upon arrival, from the Track and Trace service etc. Everyone re entering the UK, including UK nationals, are currently having to fill in landing cards and isolate if arriving from certain places, so wouldn't take any more infrastructure to hand out a "you must isolate" chitty. You'd need to produce the chitty to your employer to qualify for the self isolation pay. Would that mean i could go on holiday for a day every 15 days and almost get full pay
No, because presumably you wouldn't be in receipt of a demand to self isolate every 15 days, unless you go round licking the walls in ICU?! "Yer self isolate for 14 days go to France come back and self isolate again for 14 days and get 10 days pay at 80% | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I think there needs to be new Govt "benefit" called Self Isolation Pay, which would be like furlough, where up to 80% salary was subsidised by Govt and employer can top up. You would claim it by being in receipt of a formal request to self isolate eg from your GP, from the Border Agency upon arrival, from the Track and Trace service etc. Everyone re entering the UK, including UK nationals, are currently having to fill in landing cards and isolate if arriving from certain places, so wouldn't take any more infrastructure to hand out a "you must isolate" chitty. You'd need to produce the chitty to your employer to qualify for the self isolation pay. Would that mean i could go on holiday for a day every 15 days and almost get full pay
No, because presumably you wouldn't be in receipt of a demand to self isolate every 15 days, unless you go round licking the walls in ICU?!
Yer self isolate for 14 days go to France come back and self isolate again for 14 days and get 10 days pay at 80% "If you can afford to do that, you probably don't need the self isolation pay! Just retire to France and ditch the UK?! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Covid is not going to be beaten by our efforts. It will not be eradicated, even if we do find a vaccine that works and is viable. We have exterminated exactly ONE human virus in all of history and doing so took over 200 years (vaccine found 1796, eradicated 1979). Anyone who thinks we are going to magically eradicate Covid in months is delusional. The picture that is emerging worldwide strongly suggests that Covid is a serious risk to a small percentage of the overall population, generally the same group who are at increased risk from many other diseases. That same picture is telling us that severe restrictions to control the virus in general society in the long term are unpopular, socially damaging and economically unworkable. They also carry health consequences of their own. Less severe restrictions are proving ineffective (Spain, France and others all seeing rapid rises in infections). Even extreme responses and national isolation (New Zealand) have proven ineffective in preventing a return of the virus once most general restrictions on the population are lifted. The fact is that we as a society need to accept these facts and have a sensible, honest and grown up conversation about how we go on. We cannot run our entire society around the suppression of the virus on an indefinite basis. It's clear the measures required for suppression to be effective are too economically and socially damaging to be sustained - AND THEY DON'T NEED TO BE. We must stop fixating on infection rates when deciding on policy. How many people have the disease really doesn't matter much for anything other than assessing your risk of catching it. We DO need to focus on hospitalization rates and death rates DIRECTLY from Covid. Those are important, infection rates not so much. We need to improve resourcing for healthcare in general and for social care/residential care in particular. These are extremely high risk areas of our society and we must provide them the resources they need to reduce that risk as much as possible. We need to look at the sick pay system and the whole 'zero hour contract' fiasco. There needs to be a rapid change from the 'soldier on' attitude to an attitude of social responsibility that sees those who are ill (with any illness) or who know that have been exposed voluntarily staying at home and does not penalize them for it. We need to stop restricting social activities, particularly those mostly frequented by young adults. It won't work and will only lead to the rise of unregulated, uncontrolled social gatherings with all the problems we already know that brings. To sum up, it's time to accept reality and get on with our lives." *************************************** Spot-on, a sensible post. In my opinion, as per. Thank you. Eva X | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" "Getting on" with life pretending covid doesn't exist is not a way forward. Again, try reading what I actually wrote instead of what you want to see. I never suggested pretending it doesn't exist. I did saw we need to get on with life because we do. " You're implying lockdown measures do not work, comparing the lockdown measures of Spain and New Zealand. Yes NZ has had a number of new cases recently however their early lockdown measures *have* been proven effective as the number of cases per 100000 is very low. It's ridiculous to imply their measures did not work. If the UK followed NZ's approach we wouldn't be in the situation where many have died *and* our economy has collapsed. You're downplaying the affect COVID has on people, despite younger and healthy people getting very ill from the virus. It's also not just the affect COVID has, it's the rapid transfer of the virus from person to person. A high R number means those vulnerable with inevitably get the virus. You're saying we need to focus on hospitalisation rates. Manipulating data to make things look better than they actually are isn't going to help anyone. I can't get on with my life as normal. I might come into contact with someone who has covid. I may have no symptoms, I may pass covid onto someone else who lives with vulnerable people, and so on. That's why the R number is important. Focusing on the hospitalisation rate ignores the whole story. My point is you're saying all these things, and then you're ending with we need to "get on with our lives". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I think there needs to be new Govt "benefit" called Self Isolation Pay, which would be like furlough, where up to 80% salary was subsidised by Govt and employer can top up. You would claim it by being in receipt of a formal request to self isolate eg from your GP, from the Border Agency upon arrival, from the Track and Trace service etc. Everyone re entering the UK, including UK nationals, are currently having to fill in landing cards and isolate if arriving from certain places, so wouldn't take any more infrastructure to hand out a "you must isolate" chitty. You'd need to produce the chitty to your employer to qualify for the self isolation pay. Would that mean i could go on holiday for a day every 15 days and almost get full pay
No, because presumably you wouldn't be in receipt of a demand to self isolate every 15 days, unless you go round licking the walls in ICU?!
Yer self isolate for 14 days go to France come back and self isolate again for 14 days and get 10 days pay at 80%
If you can afford to do that, you probably don't need the self isolation pay! Just retire to France and ditch the UK?! "Euro star day pass £39 as a foot passenger 25 x a year £975 and the year off it would be abused oh and i could work for cash when off as there is no enforcement I know lots that where on Furlough and where working for cash Most in the building sector | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I think there needs to be new Govt "benefit" called Self Isolation Pay, which would be like furlough, where up to 80% salary was subsidised by Govt and employer can top up. You would claim it by being in receipt of a formal request to self isolate eg from your GP, from the Border Agency upon arrival, from the Track and Trace service etc. Everyone re entering the UK, including UK nationals, are currently having to fill in landing cards and isolate if arriving from certain places, so wouldn't take any more infrastructure to hand out a "you must isolate" chitty. You'd need to produce the chitty to your employer to qualify for the self isolation pay. Would that mean i could go on holiday for a day every 15 days and almost get full pay
No, because presumably you wouldn't be in receipt of a demand to self isolate every 15 days, unless you go round licking the walls in ICU?!
Yer self isolate for 14 days go to France come back and self isolate again for 14 days and get 10 days pay at 80%
If you can afford to do that, you probably don't need the self isolation pay! Just retire to France and ditch the UK?!
Euro star day pass £39 as a foot passenger
25 x a year £975 and the year off it would be abused oh and i could work for cash when off as there is no enforcement
I know lots that where on Furlough and where working for cash Most in the building sector "In all seriousness, there has to be some proper provision for self isolators, otherwise people simply will carry on because they are low paid and can't afford to live. China, despite its many many failings, at least covers the cost of mandatory quarantine for its citizens. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Covid is not going to be beaten by our efforts. It will not be eradicated, even if we do find a vaccine that works and is viable. We have exterminated exactly ONE human virus in all of history and doing so took over 200 years (vaccine found 1796, eradicated 1979). Anyone who thinks we are going to magically eradicate Covid in months is delusional. The picture that is emerging worldwide strongly suggests that Covid is a serious risk to a small percentage of the overall population, generally the same group who are at increased risk from many other diseases. That same picture is telling us that severe restrictions to control the virus in general society in the long term are unpopular, socially damaging and economically unworkable. They also carry health consequences of their own. Less severe restrictions are proving ineffective (Spain, France and others all seeing rapid rises in infections). Even extreme responses and national isolation (New Zealand) have proven ineffective in preventing a return of the virus once most general restrictions on the population are lifted. The fact is that we as a society need to accept these facts and have a sensible, honest and grown up conversation about how we go on. We cannot run our entire society around the suppression of the virus on an indefinite basis. It's clear the measures required for suppression to be effective are too economically and socially damaging to be sustained - AND THEY DON'T NEED TO BE. We must stop fixating on infection rates when deciding on policy. How many people have the disease really doesn't matter much for anything other than assessing your risk of catching it. We DO need to focus on hospitalization rates and death rates DIRECTLY from Covid. Those are important, infection rates not so much. We need to improve resourcing for healthcare in general and for social care/residential care in particular. These are extremely high risk areas of our society and we must provide them the resources they need to reduce that risk as much as possible. We need to look at the sick pay system and the whole 'zero hour contract' fiasco. There needs to be a rapid change from the 'soldier on' attitude to an attitude of social responsibility that sees those who are ill (with any illness) or who know that have been exposed voluntarily staying at home and does not penalize them for it. We need to stop restricting social activities, particularly those mostly frequented by young adults. It won't work and will only lead to the rise of unregulated, uncontrolled social gatherings with all the problems we already know that brings. To sum up, it's time to accept reality and get on with our lives. amen "In total agreement. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I cannot dispute anything you've stated. However, I will state I believe there are two distinct groups of fatalities:1, those at risk, and 2, those whose immune systems become dysregulated. With 1, we can plan policies around as we have the data but 2 is largely unknown (unless there are studies on autoimmune and cv19) and can happen to anyone (perhaps Immunology will find a DNA link to immune dysregulation/hyperinflammation/sepsis/viral sepsis in the future). It can happen with any pathogen to anyone with or without risk factors (I've got the t-shirt). At this present time, group 2 is rare but doesn't seem like it when you consider the vast number of deaths and we don't know the percentage of this group. If you take the study in the thread "I'm glad I'm female" and discount those at risk due to age 70+, that would result in (thousands) 77-61=16 (m) 59-52=07 (f) 136-113=23 136/23 approx 1/6, approx 17% IE 17% of covid-19 deaths could be the result of our own immune systems. Now apply that percentage to our fatalities figure, and out of a population of 69 million, it's a small number that we cannot hold our country to ransom for. What I'm trying to say is, there'll always be a percentage we, as yet, are unable to protect. But members of group 1 do need forward thinking plans and appropriate health care. This may include drastic measures for those with metabolic syndromes - diabetes, cardiac issues and obesity. So if you add to this Autonomous sensory meridian response (ASMER) Cancer and underling health issues as yet not detected that's probably close to 33% that would need support in one way or another is it worth the risk. and if to do we then just go back to how we where in February no restrictions on travel theatres etc it would jump back to pre lock down fingers very quickly as in 4 week's but keep climbing? ? so to the OP i ask! If the death rate Hit 2000 per day would this be OK. And would you be happy to be in a busy place of work knowing most around you might have C-19 and if you get it then NHS might not be able to treat you as it was now concentrating on traditional work " Explain how you got to 33%, please. Also, explain what ASMR has to do with group 2 fatalities when it's a psychological form of parathesia (which is the only positive side effect I have been left with following encephalitis - a tingling "caress" within my scalp and/or upon my limbs). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I cannot dispute anything you've stated. However, I will state I believe there are two distinct groups of fatalities:1, those at risk, and 2, those whose immune systems become dysregulated. With 1, we can plan policies around as we have the data but 2 is largely unknown (unless there are studies on autoimmune and cv19) and can happen to anyone (perhaps Immunology will find a DNA link to immune dysregulation/hyperinflammation/sepsis/viral sepsis in the future). It can happen with any pathogen to anyone with or without risk factors (I've got the t-shirt). At this present time, group 2 is rare but doesn't seem like it when you consider the vast number of deaths and we don't know the percentage of this group. If you take the study in the thread "I'm glad I'm female" and discount those at risk due to age 70+, that would result in (thousands) 77-61=16 (m) 59-52=07 (f) 136-113=23 136/23 approx 1/6, approx 17% IE 17% of covid-19 deaths could be the result of our own immune systems. Now apply that percentage to our fatalities figure, and out of a population of 69 million, it's a small number that we cannot hold our country to ransom for. What I'm trying to say is, there'll always be a percentage we, as yet, are unable to protect. But members of group 1 do need forward thinking plans and appropriate health care. This may include drastic measures for those with metabolic syndromes - diabetes, cardiac issues and obesity. So if you add to this Autonomous sensory meridian response (ASMER) Cancer and underling health issues as yet not detected that's probably close to 33% that would need support in one way or another is it worth the risk. and if to do we then just go back to how we where in February no restrictions on travel theatres etc it would jump back to pre lock down fingers very quickly as in 4 week's but keep climbing? ? so to the OP i ask! If the death rate Hit 2000 per day would this be OK. And would you be happy to be in a busy place of work knowing most around you might have C-19 and if you get it then NHS might not be able to treat you as it was now concentrating on traditional work " LOL ASMR is a comorbidity?! Didn't know I was putting my health at risk by listening to YouTube videos of people whispering to give me tingles and help me get to sleep  thanks for saving my life | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Think it's quite quaint really that people or rather some cling to the notion that we had a economy to speak of ?? and so this virus is doing untold damage to it ?? the only thing that this virus has proved or should have is that the poorest paid and in most cases over worked and undervalued and in most cases totally ignored and abused by the general public are the ones that matter most as they are one that kept this wee little special island going ?? and it's us the tax payers who have once again had to bail out the big boys despite years add years and years of being told these are special people and they have reinvented the wheel so they are worth their jaw dropping wages and bonuses ?? so where has all their money gone ?? and as for the virus it will be yet another thing to live with sadly, but the immune system does seem to be the key and being overweight brings higher risks?? but as per the points above poverty breeds diseases and so poverty wages plus long hours ...going to be a long and bumpy ride for all of us and i survived the 80's and really have no desire to do so..again but looking more & more like it !! and it's quite clear no one has much of clue as yet as still on the learning curve but we do need some adults in charge capable of joined thinking and see this virus as part of a bigger and much larger picture ?? "They called them essential but they meant expendable. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Covid is not going to be beaten by our efforts. It will not be eradicated, even if we do find a vaccine that works and is viable. We have exterminated exactly ONE human virus in all of history and doing so took over 200 years (vaccine found 1796, eradicated 1979). Anyone who thinks we are going to magically eradicate Covid in months is delusional. The picture that is emerging worldwide strongly suggests that Covid is a serious risk to a small percentage of the overall population, generally the same group who are at increased risk from many other diseases. That same picture is telling us that severe restrictions to control the virus in general society in the long term are unpopular, socially damaging and economically unworkable. They also carry health consequences of their own. Less severe restrictions are proving ineffective (Spain, France and others all seeing rapid rises in infections). Even extreme responses and national isolation (New Zealand) have proven ineffective in preventing a return of the virus once most general restrictions on the population are lifted. The fact is that we as a society need to accept these facts and have a sensible, honest and grown up conversation about how we go on. We cannot run our entire society around the suppression of the virus on an indefinite basis. It's clear the measures required for suppression to be effective are too economically and socially damaging to be sustained - AND THEY DON'T NEED TO BE. We must stop fixating on infection rates when deciding on policy. How many people have the disease really doesn't matter much for anything other than assessing your risk of catching it. We DO need to focus on hospitalization rates and death rates DIRECTLY from Covid. Those are important, infection rates not so much. We need to improve resourcing for healthcare in general and for social care/residential care in particular. These are extremely high risk areas of our society and we must provide them the resources they need to reduce that risk as much as possible. We need to look at the sick pay system and the whole 'zero hour contract' fiasco. There needs to be a rapid change from the 'soldier on' attitude to an attitude of social responsibility that sees those who are ill (with any illness) or who know that have been exposed voluntarily staying at home and does not penalize them for it. We need to stop restricting social activities, particularly those mostly frequented by young adults. It won't work and will only lead to the rise of unregulated, uncontrolled social gatherings with all the problems we already know that brings. To sum up, it's time to accept reality and get on with our lives. A vaccine is the next step. Im not prepared to but wealth before health Once we have vaccine we can manage it Do you have parents? Do you value vulnerable people Or is it I'm OK so sod everyone else " An interesting way of putting it. I dont know about the OP but yes, i do have parents. One of whom is in the high risk category. We kept from visiting them for a long time, until the "Bubble" thing was brought in to allow it, but they long before that decided that they would rather take their chances with the virus than live the lockdown life. They are both retired and without socialising, visiting family, engaging in activities so far as they are concerned life isnt really worth living in any meaningful sense. It isnt as simple as "Keep everyone from dying" we also have to allow them to live. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I think there needs to be new Govt "benefit" called Self Isolation Pay, which would be like furlough, where up to 80% salary was subsidised by Govt and employer can top up. You would claim it by being in receipt of a formal request to self isolate eg from your GP, from the Border Agency upon arrival, from the Track and Trace service etc. Everyone re entering the UK, including UK nationals, are currently having to fill in landing cards and isolate if arriving from certain places, so wouldn't take any more infrastructure to hand out a "you must isolate" chitty. You'd need to produce the chitty to your employer to qualify for the self isolation pay. Would that mean i could go on holiday for a day every 15 days and almost get full pay
No, because presumably you wouldn't be in receipt of a demand to self isolate every 15 days, unless you go round licking the walls in ICU?!
Yer self isolate for 14 days go to France come back and self isolate again for 14 days and get 10 days pay at 80%
If you can afford to do that, you probably don't need the self isolation pay! Just retire to France and ditch the UK?!
Euro star day pass £39 as a foot passenger
25 x a year £975 and the year off it would be abused oh and i could work for cash when off as there is no enforcement
I know lots that where on Furlough and where working for cash Most in the building sector "are we supposed to give you a high five here? you are just proving the point that if policies are implemented to make it affordable to be socially responsible and self isolate, there will always be the selfish ones that use it as an opportunity to take what they can and put nothing back in this is why we can’t compare ourselves to the likes of the scandinavian countries ... their models don’t work here because we have a much more selfish society | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Covid is not going to be beaten by our efforts. It will not be eradicated, even if we do find a vaccine that works and is viable. We have exterminated exactly ONE human virus in all of history and doing so took over 200 years (vaccine found 1796, eradicated 1979). Anyone who thinks we are going to magically eradicate Covid in months is delusional. The picture that is emerging worldwide strongly suggests that Covid is a serious risk to a small percentage of the overall population, generally the same group who are at increased risk from many other diseases. That same picture is telling us that severe restrictions to control the virus in general society in the long term are unpopular, socially damaging and economically unworkable. They also carry health consequences of their own. Less severe restrictions are proving ineffective (Spain, France and others all seeing rapid rises in infections). Even extreme responses and national isolation (New Zealand) have proven ineffective in preventing a return of the virus once most general restrictions on the population are lifted. The fact is that we as a society need to accept these facts and have a sensible, honest and grown up conversation about how we go on. We cannot run our entire society around the suppression of the virus on an indefinite basis. It's clear the measures required for suppression to be effective are too economically and socially damaging to be sustained - AND THEY DON'T NEED TO BE. We must stop fixating on infection rates when deciding on policy. How many people have the disease really doesn't matter much for anything other than assessing your risk of catching it. We DO need to focus on hospitalization rates and death rates DIRECTLY from Covid. Those are important, infection rates not so much. We need to improve resourcing for healthcare in general and for social care/residential care in particular. These are extremely high risk areas of our society and we must provide them the resources they need to reduce that risk as much as possible. We need to look at the sick pay system and the whole 'zero hour contract' fiasco. There needs to be a rapid change from the 'soldier on' attitude to an attitude of social responsibility that sees those who are ill (with any illness) or who know that have been exposed voluntarily staying at home and does not penalize them for it. We need to stop restricting social activities, particularly those mostly frequented by young adults. It won't work and will only lead to the rise of unregulated, uncontrolled social gatherings with all the problems we already know that brings. To sum up, it's time to accept reality and get on with our lives. A vaccine is the next step. Im not prepared to but wealth before health Once we have vaccine we can manage it Do you have parents? Do you value vulnerable people Or is it I'm OK so sod everyone else An interesting way of putting it. I dont know about the OP but yes, i do have parents. One of whom is in the high risk category. We kept from visiting them for a long time, until the "Bubble" thing was brought in to allow it, but they long before that decided that they would rather take their chances with the virus than live the lockdown life. They are both retired and without socialising, visiting family, engaging in activities so far as they are concerned life isnt really worth living in any meaningful sense. It isnt as simple as "Keep everyone from dying" we also have to allow them to live. " Very well put x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"ummmm NZ is about 2 to 3 hours flight away from their nearest neighbour and with a population density tiny compared to ours they were always likely to have a lot more success than us. I mean come on do you seriously think we are comparable to NZ ? I think the OP makes many good points and it is nice to see someone standing up and making a well reasoned argument put forward to change direction as this current path is going to kill 10s of thousand more from neglect and non diagnosis of other illnesses and diseases. Good try but failed. Good luck with finding a vaccine. By the looks of it like most viruses it mutates, branches off and gives us a different strain a year or 2 later, just like most cold type viruses." We are an island, we have a natural border. The gov decided it was fine to let 1000s of people travel for sports. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Covid is not going to be beaten by our efforts. It will not be eradicated, even if we do find a vaccine that works and is viable. We have exterminated exactly ONE human virus in all of history and doing so took over 200 years (vaccine found 1796, eradicated 1979). Anyone who thinks we are going to magically eradicate Covid in months is delusional. The picture that is emerging worldwide strongly suggests that Covid is a serious risk to a small percentage of the overall population, generally the same group who are at increased risk from many other diseases. That same picture is telling us that severe restrictions to control the virus in general society in the long term are unpopular, socially damaging and economically unworkable. They also carry health consequences of their own. Less severe restrictions are proving ineffective (Spain, France and others all seeing rapid rises in infections). Even extreme responses and national isolation (New Zealand) have proven ineffective in preventing a return of the virus once most general restrictions on the population are lifted. The fact is that we as a society need to accept these facts and have a sensible, honest and grown up conversation about how we go on. We cannot run our entire society around the suppression of the virus on an indefinite basis. It's clear the measures required for suppression to be effective are too economically and socially damaging to be sustained - AND THEY DON'T NEED TO BE. We must stop fixating on infection rates when deciding on policy. How many people have the disease really doesn't matter much for anything other than assessing your risk of catching it. We DO need to focus on hospitalization rates and death rates DIRECTLY from Covid. Those are important, infection rates not so much. We need to improve resourcing for healthcare in general and for social care/residential care in particular. These are extremely high risk areas of our society and we must provide them the resources they need to reduce that risk as much as possible. We need to look at the sick pay system and the whole 'zero hour contract' fiasco. There needs to be a rapid change from the 'soldier on' attitude to an attitude of social responsibility that sees those who are ill (with any illness) or who know that have been exposed voluntarily staying at home and does not penalize them for it. We need to stop restricting social activities, particularly those mostly frequented by young adults. It won't work and will only lead to the rise of unregulated, uncontrolled social gatherings with all the problems we already know that brings. To sum up, it's time to accept reality and get on with our lives." What are we talking about here? A virus that goes extinct after two weeks. A virus that owes it's entire existence to characteristic of human nature to look after one's own interest rather than that of the greater good. A characteristic that has been demonstrated from the man on the street to the higest levels of government. Covid-19 is just a symptom of the real sickness which is the self serving nature of humanity. If the sub million fatalities of Covid-19 concern us, should we be proportionately concerned about the 100's of millions of lives put at risk by climate change? The reality is that we aren't prepared to change our lifestyles one iota even if that means our grandchildren have no future. As a species the human being is incapable of forecasting disaster until it hits us in the face. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The solution is pretty simple and doesn’t cost that much relatively as it will lead to opening the economy properly. Test everyone once every fortnight Use the new saliva tests Batching sampling’s will allowing group sampling of up to 50 tests. Most samples will be negative so you can pool/ batch test up to 50 tests. Sort out international travel immediately ie stringent testing. This will eliminate the need for test and trace and people’s compliance. Not my idea but Paul Romers( Nobel prize winning economist) Please Google for his ideas." I don't know but i guess you have cheeked if we have the capacity to process that many tests as i thought it was about 200,000 / day and would need 3,000,000 and can you get that many test kits  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Or maybe move away from the commercial economic world system of accumulating wealth for the few and move to a society things for the greater good where the don't have to rely on cash? Kind of like in star trek. Well yes...crypto "Did you know that the story of 'The Wizard of Oz' was a political satire about the Gold Standard we use now? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have to say I agree with the opp, we arent going to win this war against covid anytime soon and look what chaos its caused around the world, as time goes by its becoming clear that its not the most deadly virus at all and only really effects those with weakened immune systems or those on the front line. We can all get it just the same as several winter virus that can knock us off our feet. I've said for a while now those that are at risk should still be isolating and those that aren't, well, someone has to run the country or keep working or keep doing stuff but with some kind of eye on covid restrictions. As it goes we will all be living in a society with 200 years of progress wiped off in the next year or so. It's looking like a slow gradual decline in everyone's living standards through various different ways. I feel for e eryone that has suffered at the hands of this virus but as it happens most of us won't even know we've had it. Time to move on and get on with life again, in some form or another. " It is the unwillingness to have a bit of self discipline for 2 weeks that has had us all suffering for 7 months. It's like ripping off a band aid. You can either do it properly for a short time or live with it for an extended period because we feel we are too entitled to do what's necessary. That's why Covid-19 has hit us so hard. The virus doesn't care about our sense of self entitlement. It just says thank you for keeping it alive. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Covid is not going to be beaten by our efforts. It will not be eradicated, even if we do find a vaccine that works and is viable. We have exterminated exactly ONE human virus in all of history and doing so took over 200 years (vaccine found 1796, eradicated 1979). Anyone who thinks we are going to magically eradicate Covid in months is delusional. The picture that is emerging worldwide strongly suggests that Covid is a serious risk to a small percentage of the overall population, generally the same group who are at increased risk from many other diseases. That same picture is telling us that severe restrictions to control the virus in general society in the long term are unpopular, socially damaging and economically unworkable. They also carry health consequences of their own. Less severe restrictions are proving ineffective (Spain, France and others all seeing rapid rises in infections). Even extreme responses and national isolation (New Zealand) have proven ineffective in preventing a return of the virus once most general restrictions on the population are lifted. The fact is that we as a society need to accept these facts and have a sensible, honest and grown up conversation about how we go on. We cannot run our entire society around the suppression of the virus on an indefinite basis. It's clear the measures required for suppression to be effective are too economically and socially damaging to be sustained - AND THEY DON'T NEED TO BE. We must stop fixating on infection rates when deciding on policy. How many people have the disease really doesn't matter much for anything other than assessing your risk of catching it. We DO need to focus on hospitalization rates and death rates DIRECTLY from Covid. Those are important, infection rates not so much. We need to improve resourcing for healthcare in general and for social care/residential care in particular. These are extremely high risk areas of our society and we must provide them the resources they need to reduce that risk as much as possible. We need to look at the sick pay system and the whole 'zero hour contract' fiasco. There needs to be a rapid change from the 'soldier on' attitude to an attitude of social responsibility that sees those who are ill (with any illness) or who know that have been exposed voluntarily staying at home and does not penalize them for it. We need to stop restricting social activities, particularly those mostly frequented by young adults. It won't work and will only lead to the rise of unregulated, uncontrolled social gatherings with all the problems we already know that brings. To sum up, it's time to accept reality and get on with our lives." Totally agree | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Prehaps history has already told us all a similar tale? When the push for world trade in the Victorian era caused the Europeans to discover the America's it's believed that the common cold or the flu or some other virus went with them and had not been experienced by the inhabitants who had no resilience in their natural immunities. Meny became unwell and died but those who survived the exposure went on with the resilience in their own natural immune system and also past on throughout the gene pool. Vacancies work in a similar fashion but just infect with a weakened strain that the immune system can get under control and adapt to quickly without serious illness. At the end of the day everyone will become exposed at some point and everyone will react differently it's only a matter of time plus how many actually know if they have actually had it regardless of if they had symptoms or not? Lockdown and restrictions only allow the health service keep ahead of the numbers with the infection and can't fight it off. people with the strong and healthy immune systems will get over it and be stronger in the long run and those who don't fall in to this category are always going to be at risk. Restrictions and lockdown will only prevent everyone getting ill at the same time and not been able to get treatment it just can continue for ever! Mother nature has funny ways and will always be a step ahead of mankind. At some point life will have to get over it and continue fact." We tried herd immunity. I didnt work. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Prehaps history has already told us all a similar tale? Mother nature has funny ways and will always be a step ahead of mankind. At some point life will have to get over it and continue fact." I agree. we just need to stop rushing things and demanding all freedoms now because its our right to enjoy ourselves. Drop the it doesn't affect us so sod everyone else attitude and show some compassion to others, but thats probably a step too far... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Prehaps history has already told us all a similar tale? When the push for world trade in the Victorian era caused the Europeans to discover the America's it's believed that the common cold or the flu or some other virus went with them and had not been experienced by the inhabitants who had no resilience in their natural immunities. Meny became unwell and died but those who survived the exposure went on with the resilience in their own natural immune system and also past on throughout the gene pool. Vacancies work in a similar fashion but just infect with a weakened strain that the immune system can get under control and adapt to quickly without serious illness. At the end of the day everyone will become exposed at some point and everyone will react differently it's only a matter of time plus how many actually know if they have actually had it regardless of if they had symptoms or not? Lockdown and restrictions only allow the health service keep ahead of the numbers with the infection and can't fight it off. people with the strong and healthy immune systems will get over it and be stronger in the long run and those who don't fall in to this category are always going to be at risk. Restrictions and lockdown will only prevent everyone getting ill at the same time and not been able to get treatment it just can continue for ever! Mother nature has funny ways and will always be a step ahead of mankind. At some point life will have to get over it and continue fact. We tried herd immunity. I didnt work. " I don't think anyone is suggesting herd immunity. The gist of this thread is that if you ignore Covid-19 it will go away. Like 2750kg of ammonium nitrate... pretending it doesn't exist only works for so long... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Prehaps history has already told us all a similar tale? When the push for world trade in the Victorian era caused the Europeans to discover the America's it's believed that the common cold or the flu or some other virus went with them and had not been experienced by the inhabitants who had no resilience in their natural immunities. Meny became unwell and died but those who survived the exposure went on with the resilience in their own natural immune system and also past on throughout the gene pool. Vacancies work in a similar fashion but just infect with a weakened strain that the immune system can get under control and adapt to quickly without serious illness. At the end of the day everyone will become exposed at some point and everyone will react differently it's only a matter of time plus how many actually know if they have actually had it regardless of if they had symptoms or not? Lockdown and restrictions only allow the health service keep ahead of the numbers with the infection and can't fight it off. people with the strong and healthy immune systems will get over it and be stronger in the long run and those who don't fall in to this category are always going to be at risk. Restrictions and lockdown will only prevent everyone getting ill at the same time and not been able to get treatment it just can continue for ever! Mother nature has funny ways and will always be a step ahead of mankind. At some point life will have to get over it and continue fact. We tried herd immunity. I didnt work. " How did we try herd immunity? How did it fail? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Prehaps history has already told us all a similar tale? When the push for world trade in the Victorian era caused the Europeans to discover the America's it's believed that the common cold or the flu or some other virus went with them and had not been experienced by the inhabitants who had no resilience in their natural immunities. Meny became unwell and died but those who survived the exposure went on with the resilience in their own natural immune system and also past on throughout the gene pool. Vacancies work in a similar fashion but just infect with a weakened strain that the immune system can get under control and adapt to quickly without serious illness. At the end of the day everyone will become exposed at some point and everyone will react differently it's only a matter of time plus how many actually know if they have actually had it regardless of if they had symptoms or not? Lockdown and restrictions only allow the health service keep ahead of the numbers with the infection and can't fight it off. people with the strong and healthy immune systems will get over it and be stronger in the long run and those who don't fall in to this category are always going to be at risk. Restrictions and lockdown will only prevent everyone getting ill at the same time and not been able to get treatment it just can continue for ever! Mother nature has funny ways and will always be a step ahead of mankind. At some point life will have to get over it and continue fact. We tried herd immunity. I didnt work. I don't think anyone is suggesting herd immunity. The gist of this thread is that if you ignore Covid-19 it will go away. Like 2750kg of ammonium nitrate... pretending it doesn't exist only works for so long... " I didn't interpret the gist in that way. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Covid-19 is just a symptom of the real sickness which is the self serving nature of humanity. If the sub million fatalities of Covid-19 concern us, should we be proportionately concerned about the 100's of millions of lives put at risk by climate change? The reality is that we aren't prepared to change our lifestyles one iota even if that means our grandchildren have no future. As a species the human being is incapable of forecasting disaster until it hits us in the face. the best point on this as yet. and even when we can see it we don't want to change man kind is just greedy "Are you unable to respond to questions on your post re ASMR? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Covid is not going to be beaten by our efforts. It will not be eradicated, even if we do find a vaccine that works and is viable. We have exterminated exactly ONE human virus in all of history and doing so took over 200 years (vaccine found 1796, eradicated 1979). Anyone who thinks we are going to magically eradicate Covid in months is delusional. The picture that is emerging worldwide strongly suggests that Covid is a serious risk to a small percentage of the overall population, generally the same group who are at increased risk from many other diseases. That same picture is telling us that severe restrictions to control the virus in general society in the long term are unpopular, socially damaging and economically unworkable. They also carry health consequences of their own. Less severe restrictions are proving ineffective (Spain, France and others all seeing rapid rises in infections). Even extreme responses and national isolation (New Zealand) have proven ineffective in preventing a return of the virus once most general restrictions on the population are lifted. The fact is that we as a society need to accept these facts and have a sensible, honest and grown up conversation about how we go on. We cannot run our entire society around the suppression of the virus on an indefinite basis. It's clear the measures required for suppression to be effective are too economically and socially damaging to be sustained - AND THEY DON'T NEED TO BE. We must stop fixating on infection rates when deciding on policy. How many people have the disease really doesn't matter much for anything other than assessing your risk of catching it. We DO need to focus on hospitalization rates and death rates DIRECTLY from Covid. Those are important, infection rates not so much. We need to improve resourcing for healthcare in general and for social care/residential care in particular. These are extremely high risk areas of our society and we must provide them the resources they need to reduce that risk as much as possible. We need to look at the sick pay system and the whole 'zero hour contract' fiasco. There needs to be a rapid change from the 'soldier on' attitude to an attitude of social responsibility that sees those who are ill (with any illness) or who know that have been exposed voluntarily staying at home and does not penalize them for it. We need to stop restricting social activities, particularly those mostly frequented by young adults. It won't work and will only lead to the rise of unregulated, uncontrolled social gatherings with all the problems we already know that brings. To sum up, it's time to accept reality and get on with our lives." We can't even get the world to agree climate change is real... be man induced or not. And the polar caps have been melting infront of the worlds eyes for decades Now throw war and all the other geopolitical junk in there. Do you think the world will all just agree on taking a rational plan. Russia and Saudi Arab airlines tried to bankrupt each other over the price of oil as a pandemic just started. I know all the disaster and alien invasion movies sold this idea that when mankind is on the brink of destruction we will come together as one. But actually of the social and psychological studies suggest the opposite. Don't be surprised to see nationalosm take an even stronger foot hold in the future. I work in financial markets and I had a war in the middle east or south China sea pegged at 50/50 after the US drone striked Irans top military leader this year. Take a guess what odds I and lots of the rest of the market has war pegged at now. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have to say I agree with the opp, we arent going to win this war against covid anytime soon and look what chaos its caused around the world, as time goes by its becoming clear that its not the most deadly virus at all and only really effects those with weakened immune systems or those on the front line. We can all get it just the same as several winter virus that can knock us off our feet. I've said for a while now those that are at risk should still be isolating and those that aren't, well, someone has to run the country or keep working or keep doing stuff but with some kind of eye on covid restrictions. As it goes we will all be living in a society with 200 years of progress wiped off in the next year or so. It's looking like a slow gradual decline in everyone's living standards through various different ways. I feel for e eryone that has suffered at the hands of this virus but as it happens most of us won't even know we've had it. Time to move on and get on with life again, in some form or another. It is the unwillingness to have a bit of self discipline for 2 weeks that has had us all suffering for 7 months. It's like ripping off a band aid. You can either do it properly for a short time or live with it for an extended period because we feel we are too entitled to do what's necessary. That's why Covid-19 has hit us so hard. The virus doesn't care about our sense of self entitlement. It just says thank you for keeping it alive." I don't think virus's have brains do they ?. It's just a self replicating virus. They've been round since the dawn of time. We just lived in a ridiculously sanitised world where this was just an event waiting to happen due to over population. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Covid is not going to be beaten by our efforts. It will not be eradicated, even if we do find a vaccine that works and is viable. We have exterminated exactly ONE human virus in all of history and doing so took over 200 years (vaccine found 1796, eradicated 1979). Anyone who thinks we are going to magically eradicate Covid in months is delusional. The picture that is emerging worldwide strongly suggests that Covid is a serious risk to a small percentage of the overall population, generally the same group who are at increased risk from many other diseases. That same picture is telling us that severe restrictions to control the virus in general society in the long term are unpopular, socially damaging and economically unworkable. They also carry health consequences of their own. Less severe restrictions are proving ineffective (Spain, France and others all seeing rapid rises in infections). Even extreme responses and national isolation (New Zealand) have proven ineffective in preventing a return of the virus once most general restrictions on the population are lifted. The fact is that we as a society need to accept these facts and have a sensible, honest and grown up conversation about how we go on. We cannot run our entire society around the suppression of the virus on an indefinite basis. It's clear the measures required for suppression to be effective are too economically and socially damaging to be sustained - AND THEY DON'T NEED TO BE. We must stop fixating on infection rates when deciding on policy. How many people have the disease really doesn't matter much for anything other than assessing your risk of catching it. We DO need to focus on hospitalization rates and death rates DIRECTLY from Covid. Those are important, infection rates not so much. We need to improve resourcing for healthcare in general and for social care/residential care in particular. These are extremely high risk areas of our society and we must provide them the resources they need to reduce that risk as much as possible. We need to look at the sick pay system and the whole 'zero hour contract' fiasco. There needs to be a rapid change from the 'soldier on' attitude to an attitude of social responsibility that sees those who are ill (with any illness) or who know that have been exposed voluntarily staying at home and does not penalize them for it. We need to stop restricting social activities, particularly those mostly frequented by young adults. It won't work and will only lead to the rise of unregulated, uncontrolled social gatherings with all the problems we already know that brings. To sum up, it's time to accept reality and get on with our lives." Well said .... someone else thinking sensibly | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Covid is not going to be beaten by our efforts. It will not be eradicated, even if we do find a vaccine that works and is viable. We have exterminated exactly ONE human virus in all of history and doing so took over 200 years (vaccine found 1796, eradicated 1979). Anyone who thinks we are going to magically eradicate Covid in months is delusional. The picture that is emerging worldwide strongly suggests that Covid is a serious risk to a small percentage of the overall population, generally the same group who are at increased risk from many other diseases. That same picture is telling us that severe restrictions to control the virus in general society in the long term are unpopular, socially damaging and economically unworkable. They also carry health consequences of their own. Less severe restrictions are proving ineffective (Spain, France and others all seeing rapid rises in infections). Even extreme responses and national isolation (New Zealand) have proven ineffective in preventing a return of the virus once most general restrictions on the population are lifted. The fact is that we as a society need to accept these facts and have a sensible, honest and grown up conversation about how we go on. We cannot run our entire society around the suppression of the virus on an indefinite basis. It's clear the measures required for suppression to be effective are too economically and socially damaging to be sustained - AND THEY DON'T NEED TO BE. We must stop fixating on infection rates when deciding on policy. How many people have the disease really doesn't matter much for anything other than assessing your risk of catching it. We DO need to focus on hospitalization rates and death rates DIRECTLY from Covid. Those are important, infection rates not so much. We need to improve resourcing for healthcare in general and for social care/residential care in particular. These are extremely high risk areas of our society and we must provide them the resources they need to reduce that risk as much as possible. We need to look at the sick pay system and the whole 'zero hour contract' fiasco. There needs to be a rapid change from the 'soldier on' attitude to an attitude of social responsibility that sees those who are ill (with any illness) or who know that have been exposed voluntarily staying at home and does not penalize them for it. We need to stop restricting social activities, particularly those mostly frequented by young adults. It won't work and will only lead to the rise of unregulated, uncontrolled social gatherings with all the problems we already know that brings. To sum up, it's time to accept reality and get on with our lives." A bloody men OP... now can you go tell the idiots in parliament!!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have to say I agree with the opp, we arent going to win this war against covid anytime soon and look what chaos its caused around the world, as time goes by its becoming clear that its not the most deadly virus at all and only really effects those with weakened immune systems or those on the front line. We can all get it just the same as several winter virus that can knock us off our feet. I've said for a while now those that are at risk should still be isolating and those that aren't, well, someone has to run the country or keep working or keep doing stuff but with some kind of eye on covid restrictions. As it goes we will all be living in a society with 200 years of progress wiped off in the next year or so. It's looking like a slow gradual decline in everyone's living standards through various different ways. I feel for e eryone that has suffered at the hands of this virus but as it happens most of us won't even know we've had it. Time to move on and get on with life again, in some form or another. It is the unwillingness to have a bit of self discipline for 2 weeks that has had us all suffering for 7 months. It's like ripping off a band aid. You can either do it properly for a short time or live with it for an extended period because we feel we are too entitled to do what's necessary. That's why Covid-19 has hit us so hard. The virus doesn't care about our sense of self entitlement. It just says thank you for keeping it alive. I don't think virus's have brains do they ?. It's just a self replicating virus. They've been round since the dawn of time. We just lived in a ridiculously sanitised world where this was just an event waiting to happen due to over population." My apologies. I didnt expect to be taken literally. Whilst control of the virus is a function of population density, some scientists think that the development of world travel is what makes us more vulnerable to pandemics. In the Netflix series "Pandemic, ironically brought out in the year preceding covid epidemiologists warned that governments were cutting back on public health care at a time when we should be ramping it up. Without getting into politics it has been a general trend in industrialised nations to vote for leaders who are jovial and pump their rhetoric full of adjectives, rather than people who make good decisions. The Kennedy's and Churchills have been replaced by the Trumps and the Johnsons of this world. Is it any wonder we are in the mess we are in? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Covid is not going to be beaten by our efforts. It will not be eradicated, even if we do find a vaccine that works and is viable. We have exterminated exactly ONE human virus in all of history and doing so took over 200 years (vaccine found 1796, eradicated 1979). Anyone who thinks we are going to magically eradicate Covid in months is delusional. The picture that is emerging worldwide strongly suggests that Covid is a serious risk to a small percentage of the overall population, generally the same group who are at increased risk from many other diseases. That same picture is telling us that severe restrictions to control the virus in general society in the long term are unpopular, socially damaging and economically unworkable. They also carry health consequences of their own. Less severe restrictions are proving ineffective (Spain, France and others all seeing rapid rises in infections). Even extreme responses and national isolation (New Zealand) have proven ineffective in preventing a return of the virus once most general restrictions on the population are lifted. The fact is that we as a society need to accept these facts and have a sensible, honest and grown up conversation about how we go on. We cannot run our entire society around the suppression of the virus on an indefinite basis. It's clear the measures required for suppression to be effective are too economically and socially damaging to be sustained - AND THEY DON'T NEED TO BE. We must stop fixating on infection rates when deciding on policy. How many people have the disease really doesn't matter much for anything other than assessing your risk of catching it. We DO need to focus on hospitalization rates and death rates DIRECTLY from Covid. Those are important, infection rates not so much. We need to improve resourcing for healthcare in general and for social care/residential care in particular. These are extremely high risk areas of our society and we must provide them the resources they need to reduce that risk as much as possible. We need to look at the sick pay system and the whole 'zero hour contract' fiasco. There needs to be a rapid change from the 'soldier on' attitude to an attitude of social responsibility that sees those who are ill (with any illness) or who know that have been exposed voluntarily staying at home and does not penalize them for it. We need to stop restricting social activities, particularly those mostly frequented by young adults. It won't work and will only lead to the rise of unregulated, uncontrolled social gatherings with all the problems we already know that brings. To sum up, it's time to accept reality and get on with our lives." Very well said, I completely agree... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Prehaps history has already told us all a similar tale? When the push for world trade in the Victorian era caused the Europeans to discover the America's it's believed that the common cold or the flu or some other virus went with them and had not been experienced by the inhabitants who had no resilience in their natural immunities. Meny became unwell and died but those who survived the exposure went on with the resilience in their own natural immune system and also past on throughout the gene pool. Vacancies work in a similar fashion but just infect with a weakened strain that the immune system can get under control and adapt to quickly without serious illness. At the end of the day everyone will become exposed at some point and everyone will react differently it's only a matter of time plus how many actually know if they have actually had it regardless of if they had symptoms or not? Lockdown and restrictions only allow the health service keep ahead of the numbers with the infection and can't fight it off. people with the strong and healthy immune systems will get over it and be stronger in the long run and those who don't fall in to this category are always going to be at risk. Restrictions and lockdown will only prevent everyone getting ill at the same time and not been able to get treatment it just can continue for ever! Mother nature has funny ways and will always be a step ahead of mankind. At some point life will have to get over it and continue fact. We tried herd immunity. I didnt work. I don't think anyone is suggesting herd immunity. The gist of this thread is that if you ignore Covid-19 it will go away. Like 2750kg of ammonium nitrate... pretending it doesn't exist only works for so long... I didn't interpret the gist in that way. " If a lack of control of social interaction is what got us into this mess in the first place, then why does the OP think a lack of social control will get us out of it? We were keeping calm and carrying on while other countries in Europe were locking down. We have the worst record in Europe to show for it. Did we learn nothing from that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Snip To sum up, it's time to accept reality and get on with our lives." Been saying this for months, to much abuse on forums like this. A virus will take it's natural course. Lockdown and social distancing just change the rate of spread - nothing else. The infection fatality rate is similar to severe flu and overall UK deaths have been below the 5 year average for several weeks now. A safe vaccine may or may not come along although it is not really needed but big pharma is pushing for it. I won't be having it for the very same reason that the Pharma companies have asked the government to indemnify them. People die, it's a fact but more will die of the policy decisions taken than from the virus. Thousands more will die from the economic consequences to come. Great to see some common sense here at last. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Snip To sum up, it's time to accept reality and get on with our lives. Been saying this for months, to much abuse on forums like this. A virus will take it's natural course. Lockdown and social distancing just change the rate of spread - nothing else. The infection fatality rate is similar to severe flu and overall UK deaths have been below the 5 year average for several weeks now. A safe vaccine may or may not come along although it is not really needed but big pharma is pushing for it. I won't be having it for the very same reason that the Pharma companies have asked the government to indemnify them. People die, it's a fact but more will die of the policy decisions taken than from the virus. Thousands more will die from the economic consequences to come. Great to see some common sense here at last." Straight from the trump playbook Let me guess... Covid is going to magically dissappear. What from the news? Because it's not leaving are immune system alone. But het let's, let a brand new virus run rampant over the globe because... Economy duuuh. Heres the 101 on economies. Economies are not companies or billionaires shouting the opinions to push markets in the way of their financial investments on the bloomberg livewire . Economies are you and me... The are the labour we put in and measurement of the spending we put out from the income that labour brings us. So what we should all line up and go back to work because Elon musk said its a good idea. Elon musk the famous epidemiologist? These people want economoes to reopen because they are loosing millions of dollars a day. Everyones entitled their own opinion but jeez most of the forum post need to understand how finance works to begin with. There is a post in this verythread saying the economy is on the gold standard... Did we just time travel back to 1945? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"New Zealand has shown that tight goals and strategies are able to free up the people and society to a great extent. Our great hopes are for an effective vaccine and strategy, in the near term. We should have a clearer understanding of our key vaccine options this year. That's not long to wait, to determine our next steps. The virus appears not to mutate as much as other coranaviruses, like the common cold viruses do. That is a help towards holding hope on a vaccine, if safe and effective. Rather than thinking of how the world gets through this, just the focus on the UK is enough. We have a moral duty not to throw our vulnerable populations to the wolves. They must not be left to be the sole groups responsible for lifestyle changes, restrictions, infections, health damage and deaths, like second class citizens, whilst the rest of the population carries on as they wish, like the old normal. That's morally repugnant and should not be permitted in any decent society. The concept of leper colonies and excluding those who are most deserving of care and respect, must not be entertained. We've had a stream of conspiracy theories erc here, brutal ideas for what those who are 'guilty' of being human, albeit towards the vulnerable parts of the health spectra, should dictate the terms of society, along the lines of the tyranny of the masses, there have been stupid, cruel, degrading and disgusting ideas pushed through, often with the drift that the economy should be that which is most respected, rather than all of the people that it must serve. The UK is not an impoverished country, it is vastly wealthy. This wealth must be regarded as the cost to potentially invest towards safeguarding all of the population. This has and would happen for wars and should be the same for the appropriate measures to protect all citizens from the risks of this virus. Reorganising our parliament's approach, via cross-party government of our epidemic management would be better than letting 1 party handle this. Doing things right just now is vital for our future. A 12 month plan would be helpful, as we've been largely devoid of explicit public plans. " I fail to see or grasp what the comprehensive details are of the type of idea, similar to the ops, that quite a few people herw seem to support. I note there's never any forecast numbers that are included in these ideas, to allow any real evaluation of what's being proposed. Numbers of infections, deaths, those acquiring longer-term/permanent health conditions, such as organ damage, etc. Nor what the forecasts are for people who may get repeated infections. If these were sketchy concept draft proposals that would affect a handful of people and small amounts of money, they'd be laughed at | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And of course we can all hand on heart state we have abided by all the rules set out by the government, stayed exactly 2 meters apart ,not made any unnecessary journeys, not stocked up on food ." The headline on my news feed says "Britain records HIGHEST infection rate for a Saturday in EIGHT weeks with 1,012 new Covid cases - as three deaths in last 24 hours bring tally to 41,361" So what do you think? Is it ok just so long as the human race doesn't go extinct? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And of course we can all hand on heart state we have abided by all the rules set out by the government, stayed exactly 2 meters apart ,not made any unnecessary journeys, not stocked up on food . The headline on my news feed says "Britain records HIGHEST infection rate for a Saturday in EIGHT weeks with 1,012 new Covid cases - as three deaths in last 24 hours bring tally to 41,361" So what do you think? Is it ok just so long as the human race doesn't go extinct?" I’d consider it lazy journalism unless they also compared testing numbers and whether it involved targeted testing. That said media has always gone for a good sensational headline for years on all subjects. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The op is correct . The psychological ramifications and economic repercussions of lockdowns and most government policies equates to far more deaths than the virus claims. " So over 40,000 people are going to commit suicide? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The op is correct . The psychological ramifications and economic repercussions of lockdowns and most government policies equates to far more deaths than the virus claims. So over 40,000 people are going to commit suicide?" That's 40 000 people WITH lockdown. You'd have to consider the death rate without lockdown. So that would need to be more than 500 people per day. Donald Trump made the same claim to defend his covid denial. It's not even slightly true. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The op is correct . The psychological ramifications and economic repercussions of lockdowns and most government policies equates to far more deaths than the virus claims. So over 40,000 people are going to commit suicide?" Look how many deaths austerity was apparently responsible for. It’s not an unrealistic estimate | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The op is correct . The psychological ramifications and economic repercussions of lockdowns and most government policies equates to far more deaths than the virus claims. So over 40,000 people are going to commit suicide? Look how many deaths austerity was apparently responsible for. It’s not an unrealistic estimate" Austerity killed over 500 people a day? Does anyone have a peer reviewed scientific analysis of death toll of the psychological and economic effects of government intervention. What is the official death toll as a result of austerity? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The op is correct . The psychological ramifications and economic repercussions of lockdowns and most government policies equates to far more deaths than the virus claims. So over 40,000 people are going to commit suicide? Look how many deaths austerity was apparently responsible for. It’s not an unrealistic estimate Austerity killed over 500 people a day? Does anyone have a peer reviewed scientific analysis of death toll of the psychological and economic effects of government intervention. What is the official death toll as a result of austerity? " According to a BMJ journal 120.000 people. Run through the channel 4 fact check. I would take with a pinch of caution. However it’s clear Covid and the potential Austerity and social issues that follows It’s going to be a lot. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And of course we can all hand on heart state we have abided by all the rules set out by the government, stayed exactly 2 meters apart ,not made any unnecessary journeys, not stocked up on food . The headline on my news feed says "Britain records HIGHEST infection rate for a Saturday in EIGHT weeks with 1,012 new Covid cases - as three deaths in last 24 hours bring tally to 41,361" So what do you think? Is it ok just so long as the human race doesn't go extinct? I’d consider it lazy journalism unless they also compared testing numbers and whether it involved targeted testing. That said media has always gone for a good sensational headline for years on all subjects." "The Government said in the 24-hour period up to 9am on Saturday, there had been a further 1,012 lab-confirmed cases of the coronavirus. Overall, a total of 317,379 cases have been confirmed." This is another article from a different newspaper. I'm skeptical of anything I read in a newspaper, but at the same time I won't say it's untrue unless I have reason to believe otherwise. So maybe the real figure is 700 or 800.... it's still a lot of people getting infected every day considering we're all so strictly social distancing... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I don't think virus's have brains do they ?. It's just a self replicating virus. They've been round since the dawn of time. We just lived in a ridiculously sanitised world where this was just an event waiting to happen due to over population." Well viruses are pretty clever a survival and mutation to do so. You are exposed to millions of different types every day thay just don't effect you in a noticeable fashion. This one evolved to be able to live and reproduce in a new species (humans) and the same reason why the common cold or flu can change enough to re infect, well let's be clear they become different strains or a different virus This is why vaccination is always 2 steps behind and it's best to only use on the more at risk. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Agreed. Sadly some will die but is that just harvesting or natural selection? I don't want it to be me or my next of kin but we all have to go sometime. My 90+ mother is at high risk, not just of C19, but of mortality. My daughter is also at high risk, of becoming pregnant and subsequently of giving birth(she is at that stage of her life). Death or birth, its all part of the circle of life. The bit in the middle, living, is now being harmed but a social reaction to C19. It is what it is and I agree at some point I will get it, either recover or be harmed. That is true of all manner of viruses and diseases. As for C19 it does not care about equality, wealth, nationality etc. It is just acting as a virus. " Contracting covid in a hospital because it's doesn't have sufficient ppe or some dickhead coughing all over you because they won't wear a mask isn't... natural selection Are your daughter is (at risk) of pregnancy? Maybe you should have had a chat about condoms and birth control with her. Jeez the comments in this thread... Are some of you evening reading what you have written before you post? Or does you ego just think... The first idea that comes into mind. Yes thats interesting let me posted so everyone can agree with me. Doeant matter if it has any logic or grounding. Wow, this whole section...what an eye opener to people's inner thoughts | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And of course we can all hand on heart state we have abided by all the rules set out by the government, stayed exactly 2 meters apart ,not made any unnecessary journeys, not stocked up on food . The headline on my news feed says "Britain records HIGHEST infection rate for a Saturday in EIGHT weeks with 1,012 new Covid cases - as three deaths in last 24 hours bring tally to 41,361" So what do you think? Is it ok just so long as the human race doesn't go extinct? I’d consider it lazy journalism unless they also compared testing numbers and whether it involved targeted testing. That said media has always gone for a good sensational headline for years on all subjects. "The Government said in the 24-hour period up to 9am on Saturday, there had been a further 1,012 lab-confirmed cases of the coronavirus. Overall, a total of 317,379 cases have been confirmed." This is another article from a different newspaper. I'm skeptical of anything I read in a newspaper, but at the same time I won't say it's untrue unless I have reason to believe otherwise. So maybe the real figure is 700 or 800.... it's still a lot of people getting infected every day considering we're all so strictly social distancing..." I’m not questioning the numbers of cases. The point I’m making is that case numbers on their own doesn’t give a true reflection of the spread of the disease. You need also consider where that testing has been done. Do those new cases include somewhere like the m&s factory that registered over 300 cases alone so skews the National figures. The best way is the percentage of tests that are positive, our media for some reason don’t appear to be keen to quote that figure as the numbers are a lot smaller I.e not as sensational. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The op is correct . The psychological ramifications and economic repercussions of lockdowns and most government policies equates to far more deaths than the virus claims. So over 40,000 people are going to commit suicide? Look how many deaths austerity was apparently responsible for. It’s not an unrealistic estimate" Austerity lasted 8 years Bit weird that not too many people were worried about people killing themselves over gmnt policies..during that period. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Agreed. Sadly some will die but is that just harvesting or natural selection? I don't want it to be me or my next of kin but we all have to go sometime. My 90+ mother is at high risk, not just of C19, but of mortality. My daughter is also at high risk, of becoming pregnant and subsequently of giving birth(she is at that stage of her life). Death or birth, its all part of the circle of life. The bit in the middle, living, is now being harmed but a social reaction to C19. It is what it is and I agree at some point I will get it, either recover or be harmed. That is true of all manner of viruses and diseases. As for C19 it does not care about equality, wealth, nationality etc. It is just acting as a virus. Contracting covid in a hospital because it's doesn't have sufficient ppe or some dickhead coughing all over you because they won't wear a mask isn't... natural selection Are your daughter is (at risk) of pregnancy? Maybe you should have had a chat about condoms and birth control with her. Jeez the comments in this thread... Are some of you evening reading what you have written before you post? Or does you ego just think... The first idea that comes into mind. Yes thats interesting let me posted so everyone can agree with me. Doeant matter if it has any logic or grounding. Wow, this whole section...what an eye opener to people's inner thoughts " The phrase natural selectivity was more than a little worrying. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And of course we can all hand on heart state we have abided by all the rules set out by the government, stayed exactly 2 meters apart ,not made any unnecessary journeys, not stocked up on food . The headline on my news feed says "Britain records HIGHEST infection rate for a Saturday in EIGHT weeks with 1,012 new Covid cases - as three deaths in last 24 hours bring tally to 41,361" So what do you think? Is it ok just so long as the human race doesn't go extinct? I’d consider it lazy journalism unless they also compared testing numbers and whether it involved targeted testing. That said media has always gone for a good sensational headline for years on all subjects. "The Government said in the 24-hour period up to 9am on Saturday, there had been a further 1,012 lab-confirmed cases of the coronavirus. Overall, a total of 317,379 cases have been confirmed." This is another article from a different newspaper. I'm skeptical of anything I read in a newspaper, but at the same time I won't say it's untrue unless I have reason to believe otherwise. So maybe the real figure is 700 or 800.... it's still a lot of people getting infected every day considering we're all so strictly social distancing... I’m not questioning the numbers of cases. The point I’m making is that case numbers on their own doesn’t give a true reflection of the spread of the disease. You need also consider where that testing has been done. Do those new cases include somewhere like the m&s factory that registered over 300 cases alone so skews the National figures. The best way is the percentage of tests that are positive, our media for some reason don’t appear to be keen to quote that figure as the numbers are a lot smaller I.e not as sensational." you can really use the percentage either as we know they are widening up testing to anyone now when it used to be just symptoms and before that , just key at risk people and their partners, before that just hospitalised ... the percentage is naturally going to fall as you introduce people less likely to be infected into the test pool there isnt one magical statistic that we can use as a measure and this is probably why they don't publish it as people can draw conclusions that are not helpful to current strategy | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The op is correct . The psychological ramifications and economic repercussions of lockdowns and most government policies equates to far more deaths than the virus claims. So over 40,000 people are going to commit suicide? Look how many deaths austerity was apparently responsible for. It’s not an unrealistic estimate Austerity lasted 8 years Bit weird that not too many people were worried about people killing themselves over gmnt policies..during that period. " I think the worried bit depends on the person. My career at the time was dealing with Austerity and it’s associated problems. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And of course we can all hand on heart state we have abided by all the rules set out by the government, stayed exactly 2 meters apart ,not made any unnecessary journeys, not stocked up on food . The headline on my news feed says "Britain records HIGHEST infection rate for a Saturday in EIGHT weeks with 1,012 new Covid cases - as three deaths in last 24 hours bring tally to 41,361" So what do you think? Is it ok just so long as the human race doesn't go extinct? I’d consider it lazy journalism unless they also compared testing numbers and whether it involved targeted testing. That said media has always gone for a good sensational headline for years on all subjects. "The Government said in the 24-hour period up to 9am on Saturday, there had been a further 1,012 lab-confirmed cases of the coronavirus. Overall, a total of 317,379 cases have been confirmed." This is another article from a different newspaper. I'm skeptical of anything I read in a newspaper, but at the same time I won't say it's untrue unless I have reason to believe otherwise. So maybe the real figure is 700 or 800.... it's still a lot of people getting infected every day considering we're all so strictly social distancing... I’m not questioning the numbers of cases. The point I’m making is that case numbers on their own doesn’t give a true reflection of the spread of the disease. You need also consider where that testing has been done. Do those new cases include somewhere like the m&s factory that registered over 300 cases alone so skews the National figures. The best way is the percentage of tests that are positive, our media for some reason don’t appear to be keen to quote that figure as the numbers are a lot smaller I.e not as sensational." Yeah I get that. But if we compare our stats compared to China with 1.3 Billion people who only have 22 recorded cases in the last 24 hours it's a huge contrast. I mean this is the country where it all originated. Despite their huge population and high density in some areas they were able to get the virus under control, proving it can be done if quarantine is enforced strictly. With infections in the double digits it is possible to track trace and isolate. With numbers in the tripple digits we don't have a hope. The idea if lockdown was to get numbers low enough to make track, trace and isolate effective. Because of our attitude that the rules aren't for us we labour under the extended confines of lockdown and shall continue to do so until a vaccine is rolled out. The difference between us and countries like China is that the Chinese didn't think lockdown was nonsense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The op is correct . The psychological ramifications and economic repercussions of lockdowns and most government policies equates to far more deaths than the virus claims. So over 40,000 people are going to commit suicide? Look how many deaths austerity was apparently responsible for. It’s not an unrealistic estimate Austerity lasted 8 years Bit weird that not too many people were worried about people killing themselves over gmnt policies..during that period. I think the worried bit depends on the person. My career at the time was dealing with Austerity and it’s associated problems. " True But I don't recall too many sympathetic headlines about people who suffered. Quite the opposite in fact. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And of course we can all hand on heart state we have abided by all the rules set out by the government, stayed exactly 2 meters apart ,not made any unnecessary journeys, not stocked up on food . The headline on my news feed says "Britain records HIGHEST infection rate for a Saturday in EIGHT weeks with 1,012 new Covid cases - as three deaths in last 24 hours bring tally to 41,361" So what do you think? Is it ok just so long as the human race doesn't go extinct? I’d consider it lazy journalism unless they also compared testing numbers and whether it involved targeted testing. That said media has always gone for a good sensational headline for years on all subjects. "The Government said in the 24-hour period up to 9am on Saturday, there had been a further 1,012 lab-confirmed cases of the coronavirus. Overall, a total of 317,379 cases have been confirmed." This is another article from a different newspaper. I'm skeptical of anything I read in a newspaper, but at the same time I won't say it's untrue unless I have reason to believe otherwise. So maybe the real figure is 700 or 800.... it's still a lot of people getting infected every day considering we're all so strictly social distancing... I’m not questioning the numbers of cases. The point I’m making is that case numbers on their own doesn’t give a true reflection of the spread of the disease. You need also consider where that testing has been done. Do those new cases include somewhere like the m&s factory that registered over 300 cases alone so skews the National figures. The best way is the percentage of tests that are positive, our media for some reason don’t appear to be keen to quote that figure as the numbers are a lot smaller I.e not as sensational. Yeah I get that. But if we compare our stats compared to China with 1.3 Billion people who only have 22 recorded cases in the last 24 hours it's a huge contrast. I mean this is the country where it all originated. Despite their huge population and high density in some areas they were able to get the virus under control, proving it can be done if quarantine is enforced strictly. With infections in the double digits it is possible to track trace and isolate. With numbers in the tripple digits we don't have a hope. The idea if lockdown was to get numbers low enough to make track, trace and isolate effective. Because of our attitude that the rules aren't for us we labour under the extended confines of lockdown and shall continue to do so until a vaccine is rolled out. The difference between us and countries like China is that the Chinese didn't think lockdown was nonsense. " The Chinese Police welding people into their homes and catching people in nets probably went some way towards it as well.
I also remember a rather cool looking villager in full armour on horseback patrolling his village with a spear.
You do sometimes have to admire a no nonsense approach | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And of course we can all hand on heart state we have abided by all the rules set out by the government, stayed exactly 2 meters apart ,not made any unnecessary journeys, not stocked up on food . The headline on my news feed says "Britain records HIGHEST infection rate for a Saturday in EIGHT weeks with 1,012 new Covid cases - as three deaths in last 24 hours bring tally to 41,361" So what do you think? Is it ok just so long as the human race doesn't go extinct? I’d consider it lazy journalism unless they also compared testing numbers and whether it involved targeted testing. That said media has always gone for a good sensational headline for years on all subjects. "The Government said in the 24-hour period up to 9am on Saturday, there had been a further 1,012 lab-confirmed cases of the coronavirus. Overall, a total of 317,379 cases have been confirmed." This is another article from a different newspaper. I'm skeptical of anything I read in a newspaper, but at the same time I won't say it's untrue unless I have reason to believe otherwise. So maybe the real figure is 700 or 800.... it's still a lot of people getting infected every day considering we're all so strictly social distancing... I’m not questioning the numbers of cases. The point I’m making is that case numbers on their own doesn’t give a true reflection of the spread of the disease. You need also consider where that testing has been done. Do those new cases include somewhere like the m&s factory that registered over 300 cases alone so skews the National figures. The best way is the percentage of tests that are positive, our media for some reason don’t appear to be keen to quote that figure as the numbers are a lot smaller I.e not as sensational. you can really use the percentage either as we know they are widening up testing to anyone now when it used to be just symptoms and before that , just key at risk people and their partners, before that just hospitalised ... the percentage is naturally going to fall as you introduce people less likely to be infected into the test pool there isnt one magical statistic that we can use as a measure and this is probably why they don't publish it as people can draw conclusions that are not helpful to current strategy " It’s the method recommended by WHO as stated in May. According to them if a countries positive percentage is below 5% then it’s under control. If it goes above 5% then it can be said to be spreading. The U.K. 7 day rolling average is 0.6%. In April it was over 20% but has fallen consistently since then. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And of course we can all hand on heart state we have abided by all the rules set out by the government, stayed exactly 2 meters apart ,not made any unnecessary journeys, not stocked up on food . The headline on my news feed says "Britain records HIGHEST infection rate for a Saturday in EIGHT weeks with 1,012 new Covid cases - as three deaths in last 24 hours bring tally to 41,361" So what do you think? Is it ok just so long as the human race doesn't go extinct? I’d consider it lazy journalism unless they also compared testing numbers and whether it involved targeted testing. That said media has always gone for a good sensational headline for years on all subjects. "The Government said in the 24-hour period up to 9am on Saturday, there had been a further 1,012 lab-confirmed cases of the coronavirus. Overall, a total of 317,379 cases have been confirmed." This is another article from a different newspaper. I'm skeptical of anything I read in a newspaper, but at the same time I won't say it's untrue unless I have reason to believe otherwise. So maybe the real figure is 700 or 800.... it's still a lot of people getting infected every day considering we're all so strictly social distancing... I’m not questioning the numbers of cases. The point I’m making is that case numbers on their own doesn’t give a true reflection of the spread of the disease. You need also consider where that testing has been done. Do those new cases include somewhere like the m&s factory that registered over 300 cases alone so skews the National figures. The best way is the percentage of tests that are positive, our media for some reason don’t appear to be keen to quote that figure as the numbers are a lot smaller I.e not as sensational. Yeah I get that. But if we compare our stats compared to China with 1.3 Billion people who only have 22 recorded cases in the last 24 hours it's a huge contrast. I mean this is the country where it all originated. Despite their huge population and high density in some areas they were able to get the virus under control, proving it can be done if quarantine is enforced strictly. With infections in the double digits it is possible to track trace and isolate. With numbers in the tripple digits we don't have a hope. The idea if lockdown was to get numbers low enough to make track, trace and isolate effective. Because of our attitude that the rules aren't for us we labour under the extended confines of lockdown and shall continue to do so until a vaccine is rolled out. The difference between us and countries like China is that the Chinese didn't think lockdown was nonsense. The Chinese Police welding people into their homes and catching people in nets probably went some way towards it as well.
I also remember a rather cool looking villager in full armour on horseback patrolling his village with a spear.
You do sometimes have to admire a no nonsense approach "In some countries they have strange customs like prioritising the lives of their vulnerable loved ones over having a pissup in the pub with their mates. Weird huh? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And of course we can all hand on heart state we have abided by all the rules set out by the government, stayed exactly 2 meters apart ,not made any unnecessary journeys, not stocked up on food . The headline on my news feed says "Britain records HIGHEST infection rate for a Saturday in EIGHT weeks with 1,012 new Covid cases - as three deaths in last 24 hours bring tally to 41,361" So what do you think? Is it ok just so long as the human race doesn't go extinct? I’d consider it lazy journalism unless they also compared testing numbers and whether it involved targeted testing. That said media has always gone for a good sensational headline for years on all subjects. "The Government said in the 24-hour period up to 9am on Saturday, there had been a further 1,012 lab-confirmed cases of the coronavirus. Overall, a total of 317,379 cases have been confirmed." This is another article from a different newspaper. I'm skeptical of anything I read in a newspaper, but at the same time I won't say it's untrue unless I have reason to believe otherwise. So maybe the real figure is 700 or 800.... it's still a lot of people getting infected every day considering we're all so strictly social distancing... I’m not questioning the numbers of cases. The point I’m making is that case numbers on their own doesn’t give a true reflection of the spread of the disease. You need also consider where that testing has been done. Do those new cases include somewhere like the m&s factory that registered over 300 cases alone so skews the National figures. The best way is the percentage of tests that are positive, our media for some reason don’t appear to be keen to quote that figure as the numbers are a lot smaller I.e not as sensational. you can really use the percentage either as we know they are widening up testing to anyone now when it used to be just symptoms and before that , just key at risk people and their partners, before that just hospitalised ... the percentage is naturally going to fall as you introduce people less likely to be infected into the test pool there isnt one magical statistic that we can use as a measure and this is probably why they don't publish it as people can draw conclusions that are not helpful to current strategy It’s the method recommended by WHO as stated in May. According to them if a countries positive percentage is below 5% then it’s under control. If it goes above 5% then it can be said to be spreading. The U.K. 7 day rolling average is 0.6%. In April it was over 20% but has fallen consistently since then." again it’s consistently fallen by widening the test pool to people more likely to be negative ... the number is far too easily manipulated no matter what the WHO say | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And of course we can all hand on heart state we have abided by all the rules set out by the government, stayed exactly 2 meters apart ,not made any unnecessary journeys, not stocked up on food . The headline on my news feed says "Britain records HIGHEST infection rate for a Saturday in EIGHT weeks with 1,012 new Covid cases - as three deaths in last 24 hours bring tally to 41,361" So what do you think? Is it ok just so long as the human race doesn't go extinct? I’d consider it lazy journalism unless they also compared testing numbers and whether it involved targeted testing. That said media has always gone for a good sensational headline for years on all subjects. "The Government said in the 24-hour period up to 9am on Saturday, there had been a further 1,012 lab-confirmed cases of the coronavirus. Overall, a total of 317,379 cases have been confirmed." This is another article from a different newspaper. I'm skeptical of anything I read in a newspaper, but at the same time I won't say it's untrue unless I have reason to believe otherwise. So maybe the real figure is 700 or 800.... it's still a lot of people getting infected every day considering we're all so strictly social distancing... I’m not questioning the numbers of cases. The point I’m making is that case numbers on their own doesn’t give a true reflection of the spread of the disease. You need also consider where that testing has been done. Do those new cases include somewhere like the m&s factory that registered over 300 cases alone so skews the National figures. The best way is the percentage of tests that are positive, our media for some reason don’t appear to be keen to quote that figure as the numbers are a lot smaller I.e not as sensational. you can really use the percentage either as we know they are widening up testing to anyone now when it used to be just symptoms and before that , just key at risk people and their partners, before that just hospitalised ... the percentage is naturally going to fall as you introduce people less likely to be infected into the test pool there isnt one magical statistic that we can use as a measure and this is probably why they don't publish it as people can draw conclusions that are not helpful to current strategy It’s the method recommended by WHO as stated in May. According to them if a countries positive percentage is below 5% then it’s under control. If it goes above 5% then it can be said to be spreading. The U.K. 7 day rolling average is 0.6%. In April it was over 20% but has fallen consistently since then. again it’s consistently fallen by widening the test pool to people more likely to be negative ... the number is far too easily manipulated no matter what the WHO say " Ah ok. Shall we dismiss the advice re masks or are we going to be selective on what advice we follow and do a mix of WHO and FAB. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And of course we can all hand on heart state we have abided by all the rules set out by the government, stayed exactly 2 meters apart ,not made any unnecessary journeys, not stocked up on food . The headline on my news feed says "Britain records HIGHEST infection rate for a Saturday in EIGHT weeks with 1,012 new Covid cases - as three deaths in last 24 hours bring tally to 41,361" So what do you think? Is it ok just so long as the human race doesn't go extinct? I’d consider it lazy journalism unless they also compared testing numbers and whether it involved targeted testing. That said media has always gone for a good sensational headline for years on all subjects. "The Government said in the 24-hour period up to 9am on Saturday, there had been a further 1,012 lab-confirmed cases of the coronavirus. Overall, a total of 317,379 cases have been confirmed." This is another article from a different newspaper. I'm skeptical of anything I read in a newspaper, but at the same time I won't say it's untrue unless I have reason to believe otherwise. So maybe the real figure is 700 or 800.... it's still a lot of people getting infected every day considering we're all so strictly social distancing... I’m not questioning the numbers of cases. The point I’m making is that case numbers on their own doesn’t give a true reflection of the spread of the disease. You need also consider where that testing has been done. Do those new cases include somewhere like the m&s factory that registered over 300 cases alone so skews the National figures. The best way is the percentage of tests that are positive, our media for some reason don’t appear to be keen to quote that figure as the numbers are a lot smaller I.e not as sensational. you can really use the percentage either as we know they are widening up testing to anyone now when it used to be just symptoms and before that , just key at risk people and their partners, before that just hospitalised ... the percentage is naturally going to fall as you introduce people less likely to be infected into the test pool there isnt one magical statistic that we can use as a measure and this is probably why they don't publish it as people can draw conclusions that are not helpful to current strategy It’s the method recommended by WHO as stated in May. According to them if a countries positive percentage is below 5% then it’s under control. If it goes above 5% then it can be said to be spreading. The U.K. 7 day rolling average is 0.6%. In April it was over 20% but has fallen consistently since then. again it’s consistently fallen by widening the test pool to people more likely to be negative ... the number is far too easily manipulated no matter what the WHO say " Strange that I have a graph in front of me that shows a steady increase in UK infections since 14 July.... lies, damned lies and statistics? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And of course we can all hand on heart state we have abided by all the rules set out by the government, stayed exactly 2 meters apart ,not made any unnecessary journeys, not stocked up on food . The headline on my news feed says "Britain records HIGHEST infection rate for a Saturday in EIGHT weeks with 1,012 new Covid cases - as three deaths in last 24 hours bring tally to 41,361" So what do you think? Is it ok just so long as the human race doesn't go extinct? I’d consider it lazy journalism unless they also compared testing numbers and whether it involved targeted testing. That said media has always gone for a good sensational headline for years on all subjects. "The Government said in the 24-hour period up to 9am on Saturday, there had been a further 1,012 lab-confirmed cases of the coronavirus. Overall, a total of 317,379 cases have been confirmed." This is another article from a different newspaper. I'm skeptical of anything I read in a newspaper, but at the same time I won't say it's untrue unless I have reason to believe otherwise. So maybe the real figure is 700 or 800.... it's still a lot of people getting infected every day considering we're all so strictly social distancing... I’m not questioning the numbers of cases. The point I’m making is that case numbers on their own doesn’t give a true reflection of the spread of the disease. You need also consider where that testing has been done. Do those new cases include somewhere like the m&s factory that registered over 300 cases alone so skews the National figures. The best way is the percentage of tests that are positive, our media for some reason don’t appear to be keen to quote that figure as the numbers are a lot smaller I.e not as sensational. you can really use the percentage either as we know they are widening up testing to anyone now when it used to be just symptoms and before that , just key at risk people and their partners, before that just hospitalised ... the percentage is naturally going to fall as you introduce people less likely to be infected into the test pool there isnt one magical statistic that we can use as a measure and this is probably why they don't publish it as people can draw conclusions that are not helpful to current strategy It’s the method recommended by WHO as stated in May. According to them if a countries positive percentage is below 5% then it’s under control. If it goes above 5% then it can be said to be spreading. The U.K. 7 day rolling average is 0.6%. In April it was over 20% but has fallen consistently since then. again it’s consistently fallen by widening the test pool to people more likely to be negative ... the number is far too easily manipulated no matter what the WHO say Strange that I have a graph in front of me that shows a steady increase in UK infections since 14 July.... lies, damned lies and statistics?" the reason i said it dropped was because I've taken the poster i quoted saying it dropped to be truthful ... i guess your post just proves my point ... if you zone in on only one kind of data you can selectively choose data type to back up any message you want | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And of course we can all hand on heart state we have abided by all the rules set out by the government, stayed exactly 2 meters apart ,not made any unnecessary journeys, not stocked up on food . The headline on my news feed says "Britain records HIGHEST infection rate for a Saturday in EIGHT weeks with 1,012 new Covid cases - as three deaths in last 24 hours bring tally to 41,361" So what do you think? Is it ok just so long as the human race doesn't go extinct? I’d consider it lazy journalism unless they also compared testing numbers and whether it involved targeted testing. That said media has always gone for a good sensational headline for years on all subjects. "The Government said in the 24-hour period up to 9am on Saturday, there had been a further 1,012 lab-confirmed cases of the coronavirus. Overall, a total of 317,379 cases have been confirmed." This is another article from a different newspaper. I'm skeptical of anything I read in a newspaper, but at the same time I won't say it's untrue unless I have reason to believe otherwise. So maybe the real figure is 700 or 800.... it's still a lot of people getting infected every day considering we're all so strictly social distancing... I’m not questioning the numbers of cases. The point I’m making is that case numbers on their own doesn’t give a true reflection of the spread of the disease. You need also consider where that testing has been done. Do those new cases include somewhere like the m&s factory that registered over 300 cases alone so skews the National figures. The best way is the percentage of tests that are positive, our media for some reason don’t appear to be keen to quote that figure as the numbers are a lot smaller I.e not as sensational. you can really use the percentage either as we know they are widening up testing to anyone now when it used to be just symptoms and before that , just key at risk people and their partners, before that just hospitalised ... the percentage is naturally going to fall as you introduce people less likely to be infected into the test pool there isnt one magical statistic that we can use as a measure and this is probably why they don't publish it as people can draw conclusions that are not helpful to current strategy It’s the method recommended by WHO as stated in May. According to them if a countries positive percentage is below 5% then it’s under control. If it goes above 5% then it can be said to be spreading. The U.K. 7 day rolling average is 0.6%. In April it was over 20% but has fallen consistently since then. again it’s consistently fallen by widening the test pool to people more likely to be negative ... the number is far too easily manipulated no matter what the WHO say Ah ok. Shall we dismiss the advice re masks or are we going to be selective on what advice we follow and do a mix of WHO and FAB." you mean the way we pick and choose the distance for social distancing? read my posts back and tell me where i mentioned masks  using common sense about how statistics work is in no way related to my stance on masks , same way it is in no way related to my politics, etc etc ... people seem to have the overwhelming need just now to connect everything together into what they deem to be nice neat conclusions about people and this virus ... or take a piece of information and infer it to be 5 more ... things dont always fit nicely into your boxes | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Covid is not going to be beaten by our efforts. It will not be eradicated, even if we do find a vaccine that works and is viable. We have exterminated exactly ONE human virus in all of history and doing so took over 200 years (vaccine found 1796, eradicated 1979). Anyone who thinks we are going to magically eradicate Covid in months is delusional. The picture that is emerging worldwide strongly suggests that Covid is a serious risk to a small percentage of the overall population, generally the same group who are at increased risk from many other diseases. That same picture is telling us that severe restrictions to control the virus in general society in the long term are unpopular, socially damaging and economically unworkable. They also carry health consequences of their own. Less severe restrictions are proving ineffective (Spain, France and others all seeing rapid rises in infections). Even extreme responses and national isolation (New Zealand) have proven ineffective in preventing a return of the virus once most general restrictions on the population are lifted. The fact is that we as a society need to accept these facts and have a sensible, honest and grown up conversation about how we go on. We cannot run our entire society around the suppression of the virus on an indefinite basis. It's clear the measures required for suppression to be effective are too economically and socially damaging to be sustained - AND THEY DON'T NEED TO BE. We must stop fixating on infection rates when deciding on policy. How many people have the disease really doesn't matter much for anything other than assessing your risk of catching it. We DO need to focus on hospitalization rates and death rates DIRECTLY from Covid. Those are important, infection rates not so much. We need to improve resourcing for healthcare in general and for social care/residential care in particular. These are extremely high risk areas of our society and we must provide them the resources they need to reduce that risk as much as possible. We need to look at the sick pay system and the whole 'zero hour contract' fiasco. There needs to be a rapid change from the 'soldier on' attitude to an attitude of social responsibility that sees those who are ill (with any illness) or who know that have been exposed voluntarily staying at home and does not penalize them for it. We need to stop restricting social activities, particularly those mostly frequented by young adults. It won't work and will only lead to the rise of unregulated, uncontrolled social gatherings with all the problems we already know that brings. To sum up, it's time to accept reality and get on with our lives." This will get worse before it gets better and the risk is not the individual deaths of the already elderly and infirm ( sad though that is). The risk is the overwhelming of hospitals and medical facilities and mass infections there which result in hundreds of thousands of other avoidable deaths. It’s a nice rant - but a vaccine is the first step to managing this situation not just sticking your hard above the parapet because YOU feel invincible. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Covid is not going to be beaten by our efforts. It will not be eradicated, even if we do find a vaccine that works and is viable. We have exterminated exactly ONE human virus in all of history and doing so took over 200 years (vaccine found 1796, eradicated 1979). Anyone who thinks we are going to magically eradicate Covid in months is delusional. The picture that is emerging worldwide strongly suggests that Covid is a serious risk to a small percentage of the overall population, generally the same group who are at increased risk from many other diseases. That same picture is telling us that severe restrictions to control the virus in general society in the long term are unpopular, socially damaging and economically unworkable. They also carry health consequences of their own. Less severe restrictions are proving ineffective (Spain, France and others all seeing rapid rises in infections). Even extreme responses and national isolation (New Zealand) have proven ineffective in preventing a return of the virus once most general restrictions on the population are lifted. The fact is that we as a society need to accept these facts and have a sensible, honest and grown up conversation about how we go on. We cannot run our entire society around the suppression of the virus on an indefinite basis. It's clear the measures required for suppression to be effective are too economically and socially damaging to be sustained - AND THEY DON'T NEED TO BE. We must stop fixating on infection rates when deciding on policy. How many people have the disease really doesn't matter much for anything other than assessing your risk of catching it. We DO need to focus on hospitalization rates and death rates DIRECTLY from Covid. Those are important, infection rates not so much. We need to improve resourcing for healthcare in general and for social care/residential care in particular. These are extremely high risk areas of our society and we must provide them the resources they need to reduce that risk as much as possible. We need to look at the sick pay system and the whole 'zero hour contract' fiasco. There needs to be a rapid change from the 'soldier on' attitude to an attitude of social responsibility that sees those who are ill (with any illness) or who know that have been exposed voluntarily staying at home and does not penalize them for it. We need to stop restricting social activities, particularly those mostly frequented by young adults. It won't work and will only lead to the rise of unregulated, uncontrolled social gatherings with all the problems we already know that brings. To sum up, it's time to accept reality and get on with our lives. This will get worse before it gets better and the risk is not the individual deaths of the already elderly and infirm ( sad though that is). The risk is the overwhelming of hospitals and medical facilities and mass infections there which result in hundreds of thousands of other avoidable deaths. It’s a nice rant - but a vaccine is the first step to managing this situation not just sticking your hard above the parapet because YOU feel invincible." Well that’s great news! We can all look forward to you sticking your little head over the parapet and testing this vaccine with your own body, and letting us know how you get on! I would like to thank you for volunteering! I hope you are feeling invincible! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The op is correct . The psychological ramifications and economic repercussions of lockdowns and most government policies equates to far more deaths than the virus claims. So over 40,000 people are going to commit suicide?" Yes, they're called "smokers". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Covid is not going to be beaten by our efforts. It will not be eradicated, even if we do find a vaccine that works and is viable. We have exterminated exactly ONE human virus in all of history and doing so took over 200 years (vaccine found 1796, eradicated 1979). Anyone who thinks we are going to magically eradicate Covid in months is delusional. The picture that is emerging worldwide strongly suggests that Covid is a serious risk to a small percentage of the overall population, generally the same group who are at increased risk from many other diseases. That same picture is telling us that severe restrictions to control the virus in general society in the long term are unpopular, socially damaging and economically unworkable. They also carry health consequences of their own. Less severe restrictions are proving ineffective (Spain, France and others all seeing rapid rises in infections). Even extreme responses and national isolation (New Zealand) have proven ineffective in preventing a return of the virus once most general restrictions on the population are lifted. The fact is that we as a society need to accept these facts and have a sensible, honest and grown up conversation about how we go on. We cannot run our entire society around the suppression of the virus on an indefinite basis. It's clear the measures required for suppression to be effective are too economically and socially damaging to be sustained - AND THEY DON'T NEED TO BE. We must stop fixating on infection rates when deciding on policy. How many people have the disease really doesn't matter much for anything other than assessing your risk of catching it. We DO need to focus on hospitalization rates and death rates DIRECTLY from Covid. Those are important, infection rates not so much. We need to improve resourcing for healthcare in general and for social care/residential care in particular. These are extremely high risk areas of our society and we must provide them the resources they need to reduce that risk as much as possible. We need to look at the sick pay system and the whole 'zero hour contract' fiasco. There needs to be a rapid change from the 'soldier on' attitude to an attitude of social responsibility that sees those who are ill (with any illness) or who know that have been exposed voluntarily staying at home and does not penalize them for it. We need to stop restricting social activities, particularly those mostly frequented by young adults. It won't work and will only lead to the rise of unregulated, uncontrolled social gatherings with all the problems we already know that brings. To sum up, it's time to accept reality and get on with our lives." I absolutely agree, the whole thing is ludicrous and it’s made everyone paranoid and scared to live their lives! Time to get back to normal  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As I said you can group tests together up to 50 at a time so if capacity is even 100,000 a day then group testing allows 3000000 tests a day. Obviously if one of these tests is Positive the you have to individually test them but the likelihood is that it will be negative " but if the infection rate is even as low as 1% that could be 1 positive in every second batch of 50 which then all need individual testing | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's rather naive to assume increased infection wont lead to increased hospitalisations. Where did the evidence for that come from ? Look back to March ? Has the wider population suddenly developed an immunity I haven't read about ?" Clearly there will be an increase but it's doubtful if that increase will be to the extent you're anticipating. Take for example recent events in Aberdeen. 200+ cases in a single, linked cluster and not one hospitalization recorded so far. All 'mild illness' apparently, which seems to be very much the case for most clusters. That's not unexpected - statistically mild illness accounts for at least 80% of symptomatic Covid cases, particularly in those without serious health conditions or other risk factors (ie. they sort of people who tend to be going to pubs, nightclubs etc.) You would expect those most vulnerable to be affected worst and first - pretty much what we saw in March/April with the less vulnerable correspondingly less badly affected and less likely to become ill enough to need hospital treatment. That doesn't mean we can ignore the level of hospitalization & death, it needs to be monitored and should be used to tailor any response, after all it's the serious cases that load the health service while the mild cases fill the headlines with scary infection numbers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As I said you can group tests together up to 50 at a time so if capacity is even 100,000 a day then group testing allows 3000000 tests a day. Obviously if one of these tests is Positive the you have to individually test them but the likelihood is that it will be negative but if the infection rate is even as low as 1% that could be 1 positive in every second batch of 50 which then all need individual testing " You would only have used 52 tests, 2 for the batches and 50 for the batch that was positive. You would have saved 48 tests. The method only works in places where chances of infection is low. In hotspots where outbreak is happening, it doesn’t work and you can end up using more tests than doing them individually | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As I said you can group tests together up to 50 at a time so if capacity is even 100,000 a day then group testing allows 3000000 tests a day. Obviously if one of these tests is Positive the you have to individually test them but the likelihood is that it will be negative " So are you really suggesting you want to use one swab for 50 people ? And if the first person has it you will have just given it to the other 49 cross contamination. How would want to be number 50? If you did it like this you might as well ask all 50 to isolate. Bulk testing would mean Bulk isolating. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can argue your point as much as you like but normal WONT happen again for a long time. I have found out today my favourite local rock bar is reopening next weekend but with booked tables, no singing, no dancing, no standing. This is what it is till we have a vaccine or we have days with no infection. Until that day comes just stop bitching and adjust " I will never stop bitching about authoritarian measures and I won’t adjust to this “new normal” that has been imposed on us. This is not the sort of society I want to live in. “No singing, no dancing, no standing”.... Jesus Christ. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can argue your point as much as you like but normal WONT happen again for a long time. I have found out today my favourite local rock bar is reopening next weekend but with booked tables, no singing, no dancing, no standing. This is what it is till we have a vaccine or we have days with no infection. Until that day comes just stop bitching and adjust I will never stop bitching about authoritarian measures and I won’t adjust to this “new normal” that has been imposed on us. This is not the sort of society I want to live in. “No singing, no dancing, no standing”.... Jesus Christ. " WOW really dose that mean in your book I can drive down your road as fast as I like and if you step out and I hit you it's not my fault as we all have a right to do what we want | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can argue your point as much as you like but normal WONT happen again for a long time. I have found out today my favourite local rock bar is reopening next weekend but with booked tables, no singing, no dancing, no standing. This is what it is till we have a vaccine or we have days with no infection. Until that day comes just stop bitching and adjust " Yes. The quicker we can all adjust and just get on with it without moaning the better, you can enjoy some of the things you are used to just in a different way | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can argue your point as much as you like but normal WONT happen again for a long time. I have found out today my favourite local rock bar is reopening next weekend but with booked tables, no singing, no dancing, no standing. This is what it is till we have a vaccine or we have days with no infection. Until that day comes just stop bitching and adjust I will never stop bitching about authoritarian measures and I won’t adjust to this “new normal” that has been imposed on us. This is not the sort of society I want to live in. “No singing, no dancing, no standing”.... Jesus Christ. WOW really dose that mean in your book I can drive down your road as fast as I like and if you step out and I hit you it's not my fault as we all have a right to do what we want " I don’t get the comparison between driving a huge hunk of metal at vast speed down a residential road and me saying I’m not going to stop bitching about the “rules” that seem to be picked out of a hat by our governemt. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can argue your point as much as you like but normal WONT happen again for a long time. I have found out today my favourite local rock bar is reopening next weekend but with booked tables, no singing, no dancing, no standing. This is what it is till we have a vaccine or we have days with no infection. Until that day comes just stop bitching and adjust I will never stop bitching about authoritarian measures and I won’t adjust to this “new normal” that has been imposed on us. This is not the sort of society I want to live in. “No singing, no dancing, no standing”.... Jesus Christ. WOW really dose that mean in your book I can drive down your road as fast as I like and if you step out and I hit you it's not my fault as we all have a right to do what we want I don’t get the comparison between driving a huge hunk of metal at vast speed down a residential road and me saying I’m not going to stop bitching about the “rules” that seem to be picked out of a hat by our governemt. " You imply you don't like the new rules and restrictions imposed on your freedom but we all ready have restrictions on ever part of life by government but it's just about change | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can argue your point as much as you like but normal WONT happen again for a long time. I have found out today my favourite local rock bar is reopening next weekend but with booked tables, no singing, no dancing, no standing. This is what it is till we have a vaccine or we have days with no infection. Until that day comes just stop bitching and adjust I will never stop bitching about authoritarian measures and I won’t adjust to this “new normal” that has been imposed on us. This is not the sort of society I want to live in. “No singing, no dancing, no standing”.... Jesus Christ. WOW really dose that mean in your book I can drive down your road as fast as I like and if you step out and I hit you it's not my fault as we all have a right to do what we want I don’t get the comparison between driving a huge hunk of metal at vast speed down a residential road and me saying I’m not going to stop bitching about the “rules” that seem to be picked out of a hat by our governemt. You imply you don't like the new rules and restrictions imposed on your freedom but we all ready have restrictions on ever part of life by government but it's just about change " The example I quoted (no singing, no dancing, no standing) is not comparable to the example you gave. It’s a human compulsion to enjoy music, rhythm and beat. I just feel like we are having little chips of humanity taken away from us one “rule” at a time, and I’m not going to feel sorry for saying I don’t like it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The example I quoted (no singing, no dancing, no standing) is not comparable to the example you gave. It’s a human compulsion to enjoy music, rhythm and beat. I just feel like we are having little chips of humanity taken away from us one “rule” at a time, and I’m not going to feel sorry for saying I don’t like it. I don't like it and financial it has hit me hard but I a happy to do what is right for the good of the majority. " Yeah me too. But I need to see an exit strategy. An end point. Because life like this is not worth living, IMO. It is my great fear that if people just accept this “new normal” then it will be with us forever. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Covid is not going to be beaten by our efforts. It will not be eradicated, even if we do find a vaccine that works and is viable. We have exterminated exactly ONE human virus in all of history and doing so took over 200 years (vaccine found 1796, eradicated 1979). Anyone who thinks we are going to magically eradicate Covid in months is delusional. The picture that is emerging worldwide strongly suggests that Covid is a serious risk to a small percentage of the overall population, generally the same group who are at increased risk from many other diseases. That same picture is telling us that severe restrictions to control the virus in general society in the long term are unpopular, socially damaging and economically unworkable. They also carry health consequences of their own. Less severe restrictions are proving ineffective (Spain, France and others all seeing rapid rises in infections). Even extreme responses and national isolation (New Zealand) have proven ineffective in preventing a return of the virus once most general restrictions on the population are lifted. The fact is that we as a society need to accept these facts and have a sensible, honest and grown up conversation about how we go on. We cannot run our entire society around the suppression of the virus on an indefinite basis. It's clear the measures required for suppression to be effective are too economically and socially damaging to be sustained - AND THEY DON'T NEED TO BE. We must stop fixating on infection rates when deciding on policy. How many people have the disease really doesn't matter much for anything other than assessing your risk of catching it. We DO need to focus on hospitalization rates and death rates DIRECTLY from Covid. Those are important, infection rates not so much. We need to improve resourcing for healthcare in general and for social care/residential care in particular. These are extremely high risk areas of our society and we must provide them the resources they need to reduce that risk as much as possible. We need to look at the sick pay system and the whole 'zero hour contract' fiasco. There needs to be a rapid change from the 'soldier on' attitude to an attitude of social responsibility that sees those who are ill (with any illness) or who know that have been exposed voluntarily staying at home and does not penalize them for it. We need to stop restricting social activities, particularly those mostly frequented by young adults. It won't work and will only lead to the rise of unregulated, uncontrolled social gatherings with all the problems we already know that brings. To sum up, it's time to accept reality and get on with our lives." Sadly absolutely correct in my opinion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The example I quoted (no singing, no dancing, no standing) is not comparable to the example you gave. It’s a human compulsion to enjoy music, rhythm and beat. I just feel like we are having little chips of humanity taken away from us one “rule” at a time, and I’m not going to feel sorry for saying I don’t like it. I don't like it and financial it has hit me hard but I a happy to do what is right for the good of the majority. Yeah me too. But I need to see an exit strategy. An end point. Because life like this is not worth living, IMO. It is my great fear that if people just accept this “new normal” then it will be with us forever. " exit strategy. Will be when it can be treated esaly, herd imunity or a vaccine has been found till then I think we are in the new norm. Or am I not seeing something ? ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The example I quoted (no singing, no dancing, no standing) is not comparable to the example you gave. It’s a human compulsion to enjoy music, rhythm and beat. I just feel like we are having little chips of humanity taken away from us one “rule” at a time, and I’m not going to feel sorry for saying I don’t like it. I don't like it and financial it has hit me hard but I a happy to do what is right for the good of the majority. Yeah me too. But I need to see an exit strategy. An end point. Because life like this is not worth living, IMO. It is my great fear that if people just accept this “new normal” then it will be with us forever. exit strategy. Will be when it can be treated esaly, herd imunity or a vaccine has been found till then I think we are in the new norm. Or am I not seeing something ? ? " Yes- the government statement saying “this is our exit strategy” | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The OP is correct For reference my daughter is at risk of pregnancy because she and her husband are trying to start a family. The point being that humans are born and die all the time. And yes lack of PPE in hospitals and care homes spreads C19. But the outcome is, I argue, one of natural selection. Many people, I speculate, have had C19 with either no or minor symptoms. It is not a case of catch it and die. It is not a plague that causes death in every person that catches it. There are worst and more deadly ailments for humans. At some point, all humans reach a point where their lifespan is coming to an end. Their bodies are not fit anymore. C19 will harm these people: young or old, black or white, Asian or European, rich or poor. It is natural selection. Everyone that has died has had an underlying health condition. It is just a question of whether they were aware of the underlying health condition, whether it had been diagnosed or treated or whether it was present and had not displayed symptoms. So survival of the fittest is the way forward and if the old and sick die then the government will save on care for them reducing the cost anda balance will be restored " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The OP is correct For reference my daughter is at risk of pregnancy because she and her husband are trying to start a family. The point being that humans are born and die all the time. And yes lack of PPE in hospitals and care homes spreads C19. But the outcome is, I argue, one of natural selection. Many people, I speculate, have had C19 with either no or minor symptoms. It is not a case of catch it and die. It is not a plague that causes death in every person that catches it. There are worst and more deadly ailments for humans. At some point, all humans reach a point where their lifespan is coming to an end. Their bodies are not fit anymore. C19 will harm these people: young or old, black or white, Asian or European, rich or poor. It is natural selection. Everyone that has died has had an underlying health condition. It is just a question of whether they were aware of the underlying health condition, whether it had been diagnosed or treated or whether it was present and had not displayed symptoms. " Wow...its a good job you believe in survival of the fittest and not survival of the smartest. You daughter isnt at risk of pregnancy... She is trying to conceive a baby. Not exactly what I would call a smart life choice during a pandemic but... Hey entitlement. Basically the premises of your your entire rant. Not even scratching the surface of your other opinions that look like they have come of the info wars Web page. Tell me what are the long term effects of covid say in 10 or 20 years time? How is a babies development affected by it if their mother has covid when they are born but she showwd no symptoms. Its a new disease num nuts... That's why precautions are in place. But hey if wanna just see what happens head over to Brazil where there is no health care infrastructure and the economy is booming. Maybe spend sometime educating yourself before shouting your opinions into the black void that is an internet comment section. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How is a babies development affected by it if their mother has covid when they are born but she showwd no symptoms. Don't know is there the chance that it will grow up with imunity as we humans carry on to evolve." I don't know... Go ask a zika baby? Thats point nobody does. Jesus this feels like I'm talking to a brick wall. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The OP is correct For reference my daughter is at risk of pregnancy because she and her husband are trying to start a family. The point being that humans are born and die all the time. And yes lack of PPE in hospitals and care homes spreads C19. But the outcome is, I argue, one of natural selection. Many people, I speculate, have had C19 with either no or minor symptoms. It is not a case of catch it and die. It is not a plague that causes death in every person that catches it. There are worst and more deadly ailments for humans. At some point, all humans reach a point where their lifespan is coming to an end. Their bodies are not fit anymore. C19 will harm these people: young or old, black or white, Asian or European, rich or poor. It is natural selection. Everyone that has died has had an underlying health condition. It is just a question of whether they were aware of the underlying health condition, whether it had been diagnosed or treated or whether it was present and had not displayed symptoms. Wow...its a good job you believe in survival of the fittest and not survival of the smartest. You daughter isnt at risk of pregnancy... She is trying to conceive a baby. Not exactly what I would call a smart life choice during a pandemic but... Hey entitlement. Basically the premises of your your entire rant. Not even scratching the surface of your other opinions that look like they have come of the info wars Web page. Tell me what are the long term effects of covid say in 10 or 20 years time? How is a babies development affected by it if their mother has covid when they are born but she showwd no symptoms. Its a new disease num nuts... That's why precautions are in place. But hey if wanna just see what happens head over to Brazil where there is no health care infrastructure and the economy is booming. Maybe spend sometime educating yourself before shouting your opinions into the black void that is an internet comment section. " So you are planning on isolating for 10 to 20 years until the long term effects are known? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Work this out. COVID-19 did not originate in the UK. It came in through an airport or a port If we had enforced a strict quarantine with all incoming then there would be none of this "nonsense". No COVID-19 deaths, no quarantine, no social distancing, no economic turmoil.... none of what we have now. But no. It was too inconvenient. So now we have much more inconvenience instead. And now some are suggesting that the same attitude that caused the problem is also the solution. I certainly hope that one day my life does not depend on my fellow man's willpower to stay out of the pub..." Ditto...my thought at the time. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The OP is correct For reference my daughter is at risk of pregnancy because she and her husband are trying to start a family. The point being that humans are born and die all the time. And yes lack of PPE in hospitals and care homes spreads C19. But the outcome is, I argue, one of natural selection. Many people, I speculate, have had C19 with either no or minor symptoms. It is not a case of catch it and die. It is not a plague that causes death in every person that catches it. There are worst and more deadly ailments for humans. At some point, all humans reach a point where their lifespan is coming to an end. Their bodies are not fit anymore. C19 will harm these people: young or old, black or white, Asian or European, rich or poor. It is natural selection. Everyone that has died has had an underlying health condition. It is just a question of whether they were aware of the underlying health condition, whether it had been diagnosed or treated or whether it was present and had not displayed symptoms. Wow...its a good job you believe in survival of the fittest and not survival of the smartest. You daughter isnt at risk of pregnancy... She is trying to conceive a baby. Not exactly what I would call a smart life choice during a pandemic but... Hey entitlement. Basically the premises of your your entire rant. Not even scratching the surface of your other opinions that look like they have come of the info wars Web page. Tell me what are the long term effects of covid say in 10 or 20 years time? How is a babies development affected by it if their mother has covid when they are born but she showwd no symptoms. Its a new disease num nuts... That's why precautions are in place. But hey if wanna just see what happens head over to Brazil where there is no health care infrastructure and the economy is booming. Maybe spend sometime educating yourself before shouting your opinions into the black void that is an internet comment section. So you are planning on isolating for 10 to 20 years until the long term effects are known? " Wait and see... Oh yeah that how scientific research is done. All the bright sparks are out this morning. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The OP is correct For reference my daughter is at risk of pregnancy because she and her husband are trying to start a family. The point being that humans are born and die all the time. And yes lack of PPE in hospitals and care homes spreads C19. But the outcome is, I argue, one of natural selection. Many people, I speculate, have had C19 with either no or minor symptoms. It is not a case of catch it and die. It is not a plague that causes death in every person that catches it. There are worst and more deadly ailments for humans. At some point, all humans reach a point where their lifespan is coming to an end. Their bodies are not fit anymore. C19 will harm these people: young or old, black or white, Asian or European, rich or poor. It is natural selection. Everyone that has died has had an underlying health condition. It is just a question of whether they were aware of the underlying health condition, whether it had been diagnosed or treated or whether it was present and had not displayed symptoms. Wow...its a good job you believe in survival of the fittest and not survival of the smartest. You daughter isnt at risk of pregnancy... She is trying to conceive a baby. Not exactly what I would call a smart life choice during a pandemic but... Hey entitlement. Basically the premises of your your entire rant. Not even scratching the surface of your other opinions that look like they have come of the info wars Web page. Tell me what are the long term effects of covid say in 10 or 20 years time? How is a babies development affected by it if their mother has covid when they are born but she showwd no symptoms. Its a new disease num nuts... That's why precautions are in place. But hey if wanna just see what happens head over to Brazil where there is no health care infrastructure and the economy is booming. Maybe spend sometime educating yourself before shouting your opinions into the black void that is an internet comment section. So you are planning on isolating for 10 to 20 years until the long term effects are known? Wait and see... Oh yeah that how scientific research is done. All the bright sparks are out this morning." Someone got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning!!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The OP is correct For reference my daughter is at risk of pregnancy because she and her husband are trying to start a family. The point being that humans are born and die all the time. And yes lack of PPE in hospitals and care homes spreads C19. But the outcome is, I argue, one of natural selection. Many people, I speculate, have had C19 with either no or minor symptoms. It is not a case of catch it and die. It is not a plague that causes death in every person that catches it. There are worst and more deadly ailments for humans. At some point, all humans reach a point where their lifespan is coming to an end. Their bodies are not fit anymore. C19 will harm these people: young or old, black or white, Asian or European, rich or poor. It is natural selection. Everyone that has died has had an underlying health condition. It is just a question of whether they were aware of the underlying health condition, whether it had been diagnosed or treated or whether it was present and had not displayed symptoms. Wow...its a good job you believe in survival of the fittest and not survival of the smartest. You daughter isnt at risk of pregnancy... She is trying to conceive a baby. Not exactly what I would call a smart life choice during a pandemic but... Hey entitlement. Basically the premises of your your entire rant. Not even scratching the surface of your other opinions that look like they have come of the info wars Web page. Tell me what are the long term effects of covid say in 10 or 20 years time? How is a babies development affected by it if their mother has covid when they are born but she showwd no symptoms. Its a new disease num nuts... That's why precautions are in place. But hey if wanna just see what happens head over to Brazil where there is no health care infrastructure and the economy is booming. Maybe spend sometime educating yourself before shouting your opinions into the black void that is an internet comment section. So you are planning on isolating for 10 to 20 years until the long term effects are known? Wait and see... Oh yeah that how scientific research is done. All the bright sparks are out this morning. Someone got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning!!! " People can be as dumb as they want. I've been making money hand over fist out of their stupidity. And if they want to broadcast those opinions to the world I'm not here to stop them. But I'll happily use logic to dismantle their (opinion) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How is a babies development affected by it if their mother has covid when they are born but she showwd no symptoms. Don't know is there the chance that it will grow up with imunity as we humans carry on to evolve. I don't know... Go ask a zika baby? Thats point nobody does. Jesus this feels like I'm talking to a brick wall. " Youre not talking to a brick wall. You are expressing your opinion, others are expresing theirs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Perhaps we are looking at this all wrong. Perhaps it is not the government that is keeping us in lockdown. Perhaps it is not the virus that keeps us in lockdown. Perhaps it's ourselves. The people who refuse to follow the rules. This virus cannot spread in isolation. It requires our deliberate and willful participation in order to continue to exist. It reqyires some people to say these rules are nonsense, they aren't for me. The obstinate desire to return to normally, the consequences be damned is the reason why we cannot return to normality." So on that logic it only spreads amongst those who choose to not follow the rules. Not those who are out working on the front line, be that shop workers, train conductors, care workers, NHS staff | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Perhaps we are looking at this all wrong. Perhaps it is not the government that is keeping us in lockdown. Perhaps it is not the virus that keeps us in lockdown. Perhaps it's ourselves. The people who refuse to follow the rules. This virus cannot spread in isolation. It requires our deliberate and willful participation in order to continue to exist. It reqyires some people to say these rules are nonsense, they aren't for me. The obstinate desire to return to normally, the consequences be damned is the reason why we cannot return to normality." New Zealand has shown that eradicating the virus is not a sustainable solution. You have to live with it, particularly when it's medical consequences are so slight. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Perhaps we are looking at this all wrong. Perhaps it is not the government that is keeping us in lockdown. Perhaps it is not the virus that keeps us in lockdown. Perhaps it's ourselves. The people who refuse to follow the rules. This virus cannot spread in isolation. It requires our deliberate and willful participation in order to continue to exist. It reqyires some people to say these rules are nonsense, they aren't for me. The obstinate desire to return to normally, the consequences be damned is the reason why we cannot return to normality. New Zealand has shown that eradicating the virus is not a sustainable solution. You have to live with it, particularly when it's medical consequences are so slight." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Perhaps we are looking at this all wrong. Perhaps it is not the government that is keeping us in lockdown. Perhaps it is not the virus that keeps us in lockdown. Perhaps it's ourselves. The people who refuse to follow the rules. This virus cannot spread in isolation. It requires our deliberate and willful participation in order to continue to exist. It reqyires some people to say these rules are nonsense, they aren't for me. The obstinate desire to return to normally, the consequences be damned is the reason why we cannot return to normality. So on that logic it only spreads amongst those who choose to not follow the rules. Not those who are out working on the front line, be that shop workers, train conductors, care workers, NHS staff" What percentage of our country's population are frontline workers? They can only get infected once. Are you suggesting that the 1000 new cases we get every day are all frontline workers? This very thread is not a suggestion that frontline workers leave the house. It's a suggestion that we go back to a normal way of life and that means mass graves they are happy with that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Perhaps we are looking at this all wrong. Perhaps it is not the government that is keeping us in lockdown. Perhaps it is not the virus that keeps us in lockdown. Perhaps it's ourselves. The people who refuse to follow the rules. This virus cannot spread in isolation. It requires our deliberate and willful participation in order to continue to exist. It reqyires some people to say these rules are nonsense, they aren't for me. The obstinate desire to return to normally, the consequences be damned is the reason why we cannot return to normality. So on that logic it only spreads amongst those who choose to not follow the rules. Not those who are out working on the front line, be that shop workers, train conductors, care workers, NHS staff What percentage of our country's population are frontline workers? They can only get infected once. Are you suggesting that the 1000 new cases we get every day are all frontline workers? This very thread is not a suggestion that frontline workers leave the house. It's a suggestion that we go back to a normal way of life and that means mass graves they are happy with that." So if it continues to spread even amongst those front line workers, because lets be honest they certainly haven't all had it, we have to admit it's going nowhere fast. How long do you think we should hide away. Look at Blackburn and Darwen. They had a large spike in cases a few weeks back and yet there have been no substantial uptick in hospitalisations. Maybe just maybe we have forgotten what was said right at the beginning of this. That 80% will have no or very mild symtoms, 15% may need hospital treatment, 5 % could be severly effected. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Perhaps we are looking at this all wrong. Perhaps it is not the government that is keeping us in lockdown. Perhaps it is not the virus that keeps us in lockdown. Perhaps it's ourselves. The people who refuse to follow the rules. This virus cannot spread in isolation. It requires our deliberate and willful participation in order to continue to exist. It reqyires some people to say these rules are nonsense, they aren't for me. The obstinate desire to return to normally, the consequences be damned is the reason why we cannot return to normality. New Zealand has shown that eradicating the virus is not a sustainable solution. You have to live with it, particularly when it's medical consequences are so slight." How many people have died of Covid-19 in New Zealand? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Covid is not going to be beaten by our efforts. It will not be eradicated, even if we do find a vaccine that works and is viable. We have exterminated exactly ONE human virus in all of history and doing so took over 200 years (vaccine found 1796, eradicated 1979). Anyone who thinks we are going to magically eradicate Covid in months is delusional. The picture that is emerging worldwide strongly suggests that Covid is a serious risk to a small percentage of the overall population, generally the same group who are at increased risk from many other diseases. That same picture is telling us that severe restrictions to control the virus in general society in the long term are unpopular, socially damaging and economically unworkable. They also carry health consequences of their own. Less severe restrictions are proving ineffective (Spain, France and others all seeing rapid rises in infections). Even extreme responses and national isolation (New Zealand) have proven ineffective in preventing a return of the virus once most general restrictions on the population are lifted. The fact is that we as a society need to accept these facts and have a sensible, honest and grown up conversation about how we go on. We cannot run our entire society around the suppression of the virus on an indefinite basis. It's clear the measures required for suppression to be effective are too economically and socially damaging to be sustained - AND THEY DON'T NEED TO BE. We must stop fixating on infection rates when deciding on policy. How many people have the disease really doesn't matter much for anything other than assessing your risk of catching it. We DO need to focus on hospitalization rates and death rates DIRECTLY from Covid. Those are important, infection rates not so much. We need to improve resourcing for healthcare in general and for social care/residential care in particular. These are extremely high risk areas of our society and we must provide them the resources they need to reduce that risk as much as possible. We need to look at the sick pay system and the whole 'zero hour contract' fiasco. There needs to be a rapid change from the 'soldier on' attitude to an attitude of social responsibility that sees those who are ill (with any illness) or who know that have been exposed voluntarily staying at home and does not penalize them for it. We need to stop restricting social activities, particularly those mostly frequented by young adults. It won't work and will only lead to the rise of unregulated, uncontrolled social gatherings with all the problems we already know that brings. To sum up, it's time to accept reality and get on with our lives." Well said.... lets just crack on | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Perhaps we are looking at this all wrong. Perhaps it is not the government that is keeping us in lockdown. Perhaps it is not the virus that keeps us in lockdown. Perhaps it's ourselves. The people who refuse to follow the rules. This virus cannot spread in isolation. It requires our deliberate and willful participation in order to continue to exist. It reqyires some people to say these rules are nonsense, they aren't for me. The obstinate desire to return to normally, the consequences be damned is the reason why we cannot return to normality. So on that logic it only spreads amongst those who choose to not follow the rules. Not those who are out working on the front line, be that shop workers, train conductors, care workers, NHS staff What percentage of our country's population are frontline workers? They can only get infected once. Are you suggesting that the 1000 new cases we get every day are all frontline workers? This very thread is not a suggestion that frontline workers leave the house. It's a suggestion that we go back to a normal way of life and that means mass graves they are happy with that. So if it continues to spread even amongst those front line workers, because lets be honest they certainly haven't all had it, we have to admit it's going nowhere fast. How long do you think we should hide away. Look at Blackburn and Darwen. They had a large spike in cases a few weeks back and yet there have been no substantial uptick in hospitalisations. Maybe just maybe we have forgotten what was said right at the beginning of this. That 80% will have no or very mild symtoms, 15% may need hospital treatment, 5 % could be severly effected." There is a very good study done on two cities in American during the Spanish Flu epidemic. Philadelphia and St Louis. The effectiveness of social distancing is obvious. The problem is that if you don't do it properly it isn't 100% effective. If we are going to be honest with ourselves as a nation we will admit that our lockdown was never more than half hearted. I'm not following your argument. We always expected a drop in hospitalisations during the summer months. With the expectation that a vaccine will not be available before the winter flu season I don't see current data as an excuse to become lackadaisical about something that has taken over 40 000 lives in 7 months. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Perhaps we are looking at this all wrong. Perhaps it is not the government that is keeping us in lockdown. Perhaps it is not the virus that keeps us in lockdown. Perhaps it's ourselves. The people who refuse to follow the rules. This virus cannot spread in isolation. It requires our deliberate and willful participation in order to continue to exist. It reqyires some people to say these rules are nonsense, they aren't for me. The obstinate desire to return to normally, the consequences be damned is the reason why we cannot return to normality. So on that logic it only spreads amongst those who choose to not follow the rules. Not those who are out working on the front line, be that shop workers, train conductors, care workers, NHS staff What percentage of our country's population are frontline workers? They can only get infected once. Are you suggesting that the 1000 new cases we get every day are all frontline workers? This very thread is not a suggestion that frontline workers leave the house. It's a suggestion that we go back to a normal way of life and that means mass graves they are happy with that. So if it continues to spread even amongst those front line workers, because lets be honest they certainly haven't all had it, we have to admit it's going nowhere fast. How long do you think we should hide away. Look at Blackburn and Darwen. They had a large spike in cases a few weeks back and yet there have been no substantial uptick in hospitalisations. Maybe just maybe we have forgotten what was said right at the beginning of this. That 80% will have no or very mild symtoms, 15% may need hospital treatment, 5 % could be severly effected." So 5% not very many About 2.4 million people mmm sounds more | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Covid is not going to be beaten by our efforts. It will not be eradicated, even if we do find a vaccine that works and is viable. We have exterminated exactly ONE human virus in all of history and doing so took over 200 years (vaccine found 1796, eradicated 1979). Anyone who thinks we are going to magically eradicate Covid in months is delusional. The picture that is emerging worldwide strongly suggests that Covid is a serious risk to a small percentage of the overall population, generally the same group who are at increased risk from many other diseases. That same picture is telling us that severe restrictions to control the virus in general society in the long term are unpopular, socially damaging and economically unworkable. They also carry health consequences of their own. Less severe restrictions are proving ineffective (Spain, France and others all seeing rapid rises in infections). Even extreme responses and national isolation (New Zealand) have proven ineffective in preventing a return of the virus once most general restrictions on the population are lifted. The fact is that we as a society need to accept these facts and have a sensible, honest and grown up conversation about how we go on. We cannot run our entire society around the suppression of the virus on an indefinite basis. It's clear the measures required for suppression to be effective are too economically and socially damaging to be sustained - AND THEY DON'T NEED TO BE. We must stop fixating on infection rates when deciding on policy. How many people have the disease really doesn't matter much for anything other than assessing your risk of catching it. We DO need to focus on hospitalization rates and death rates DIRECTLY from Covid. Those are important, infection rates not so much. We need to improve resourcing for healthcare in general and for social care/residential care in particular. These are extremely high risk areas of our society and we must provide them the resources they need to reduce that risk as much as possible. We need to look at the sick pay system and the whole 'zero hour contract' fiasco. There needs to be a rapid change from the 'soldier on' attitude to an attitude of social responsibility that sees those who are ill (with any illness) or who know that have been exposed voluntarily staying at home and does not penalize them for it. We need to stop restricting social activities, particularly those mostly frequented by young adults. It won't work and will only lead to the rise of unregulated, uncontrolled social gatherings with all the problems we already know that brings. To sum up, it's time to accept reality and get on with our lives. Well said.... lets just crack on " ..... no matter how many people it kills... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Covid is not going to be beaten by our efforts. It will not be eradicated, even if we do find a vaccine that works and is viable. We have exterminated exactly ONE human virus in all of history and doing so took over 200 years (vaccine found 1796, eradicated 1979). Anyone who thinks we are going to magically eradicate Covid in months is delusional. The picture that is emerging worldwide strongly suggests that Covid is a serious risk to a small percentage of the overall population, generally the same group who are at increased risk from many other diseases. That same picture is telling us that severe restrictions to control the virus in general society in the long term are unpopular, socially damaging and economically unworkable. They also carry health consequences of their own. Less severe restrictions are proving ineffective (Spain, France and others all seeing rapid rises in infections). Even extreme responses and national isolation (New Zealand) have proven ineffective in preventing a return of the virus once most general restrictions on the population are lifted. The fact is that we as a society need to accept these facts and have a sensible, honest and grown up conversation about how we go on. We cannot run our entire society around the suppression of the virus on an indefinite basis. It's clear the measures required for suppression to be effective are too economically and socially damaging to be sustained - AND THEY DON'T NEED TO BE. We must stop fixating on infection rates when deciding on policy. How many people have the disease really doesn't matter much for anything other than assessing your risk of catching it. We DO need to focus on hospitalization rates and death rates DIRECTLY from Covid. Those are important, infection rates not so much. We need to improve resourcing for healthcare in general and for social care/residential care in particular. These are extremely high risk areas of our society and we must provide them the resources they need to reduce that risk as much as possible. We need to look at the sick pay system and the whole 'zero hour contract' fiasco. There needs to be a rapid change from the 'soldier on' attitude to an attitude of social responsibility that sees those who are ill (with any illness) or who know that have been exposed voluntarily staying at home and does not penalize them for it. We need to stop restricting social activities, particularly those mostly frequented by young adults. It won't work and will only lead to the rise of unregulated, uncontrolled social gatherings with all the problems we already know that brings. To sum up, it's time to accept reality and get on with our lives. Well said.... lets just crack on ..... no matter how many people it kills..." So back to what I said Back to normal and survival of the fittest is then | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Covid is not going to be beaten by our efforts. It will not be eradicated, even if we do find a vaccine that works and is viable. We have exterminated exactly ONE human virus in all of history and doing so took over 200 years (vaccine found 1796, eradicated 1979). Anyone who thinks we are going to magically eradicate Covid in months is delusional. The picture that is emerging worldwide strongly suggests that Covid is a serious risk to a small percentage of the overall population, generally the same group who are at increased risk from many other diseases. That same picture is telling us that severe restrictions to control the virus in general society in the long term are unpopular, socially damaging and economically unworkable. They also carry health consequences of their own. Less severe restrictions are proving ineffective (Spain, France and others all seeing rapid rises in infections). Even extreme responses and national isolation (New Zealand) have proven ineffective in preventing a return of the virus once most general restrictions on the population are lifted. The fact is that we as a society need to accept these facts and have a sensible, honest and grown up conversation about how we go on. We cannot run our entire society around the suppression of the virus on an indefinite basis. It's clear the measures required for suppression to be effective are too economically and socially damaging to be sustained - AND THEY DON'T NEED TO BE. We must stop fixating on infection rates when deciding on policy. How many people have the disease really doesn't matter much for anything other than assessing your risk of catching it. We DO need to focus on hospitalization rates and death rates DIRECTLY from Covid. Those are important, infection rates not so much. We need to improve resourcing for healthcare in general and for social care/residential care in particular. These are extremely high risk areas of our society and we must provide them the resources they need to reduce that risk as much as possible. We need to look at the sick pay system and the whole 'zero hour contract' fiasco. There needs to be a rapid change from the 'soldier on' attitude to an attitude of social responsibility that sees those who are ill (with any illness) or who know that have been exposed voluntarily staying at home and does not penalize them for it. We need to stop restricting social activities, particularly those mostly frequented by young adults. It won't work and will only lead to the rise of unregulated, uncontrolled social gatherings with all the problems we already know that brings. To sum up, it's time to accept reality and get on with our lives. Well said.... lets just crack on ..... no matter how many people it kills... So back to what I said Back to normal and survival of the fittest is then" A notion championed by the fit but not so fondly supported by the vulnerable... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
