Coronavirus Thread (Off Topic, Politics) (13 Viewers)

CCFCSteve · Oct 8, 2020

Ring Of Steel said:
It is completely false and no I am not misquoting you. You are demonstrating my point by presenting several different decisions, not seeming to realise that those decisions are based on the same data.

That is not "science" having mixed views, it is individuals/ nations having mixed views. Science doesn't make decisions, science informs & provides evidence, it is up to people to make decisions based on that information, and those decisions are what is 'mixed' as they bring in other factors such as economies. To argue that "science has mixed views on Covid" is false.

Why do you keep cutting the end of my sentence then ?!! I said (again) ‘Science does have mixed views on Covid and how best deal with it, taking all wider considerations into account’

scientists have opinions on the wider considerations and provide them to governments but I’m saying the outcomes/impact of lockdowns are currently unknown and lockdowns (based on potentially differing scientific advice) have differed in countries. I have also said our knowledge is rapidly improving which will then probably lead to more consensus approaches for example - face masks.

Also, as far as I’m aware, Swedens Covid response was/still is formed by their chief/leading epidemiologist rather than government decisions

Ring Of Steel · Oct 8, 2020

Deleted member 5849 said:
But the thing is, high risk shifts according to what's being driven at.

Would somebody with chronic asthma but under 35, and therefore considered low risk on a H&S sheet, be considered an underlying condition in the stats if they were to suffer worse from it? Would someone with high blood pressure, where it's considered to be under control? Should you, therefore, move them to high risk, stop them going to work and tell them to work from home, as opposed to opening further up their job and placing them further into face-to-face contact with people who are younger still?

Exactly. People keep throwing buzzwords around- "underlying conditions", "over 65s", "high risk"- sounds all very nice and considerate but what does it really mean? If you spent time putting together a definitive list of what it does actually mean & applied it to the population, I'm pretty sure that approaching 50% of the entire country would be on it.

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Oct 8, 2020

CCFCSteve said:
Hmmm, not quite. I was saying immunity would having a bearing on what they were saying (not that I agree with it). Which it would.

I am also saying the impact of all of the other things is currently unknown. Which it is.

The lockdown was 100% correct the first time as it was put in place to protect the nhs capacity. A further one, if not done for that reason has to quite rightly be questioned ie what’s the end goal. If the end goal is that a vaccine will almost certainly be ready late this year/early next, so short term pain (loss of jobs, other health impacts etc) is worthwhile, then again I would 100% agree. If a vaccine might not be ready for 2-3 years then I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be asking whether having sporadic lockdowns until then is beneficial or not (unless it’s to protect NhS capacity)

There are noises that the way cases are increasing and now hospitalisations we could only be a few weeks away from a situation like earlier in the year in terms of NHS capacity. So shouldn't we be putting the measures in place now to prevent it? Of course if those actions prevent that capacity being used you'll get the inevitable 'harming the economy for no reason - NHS had spare capacity' noises but I'd rather that than having a totally overwhelmed system and scores of dead due to the decision made to protect the economy. Which would see those same people then complain why nothing was done to prevent it.

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 8, 2020

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
There are noises that the way cases are increasing and now hospitalisations we could only be a few weeks away from a situation like earlier in the year in terms of NHS capacity. So shouldn't we be putting the measures in place now to prevent it? Of course if those actions prevent that capacity being used you'll get the inevitable 'harming the economy for no reason - NHS had spare capacity' noises but I'd rather that than having a totally overwhelmed system and scores of dead due to the decision made to protect the economy. Which would see those same people then complain why nothing was done to prevent it.

Yeah, getting in early and quicker is probably better than waiting...and us being shut down for a couple of months or more.

We wait and see, of course, but the first wave was just as the weather was set to turn better, so we had a fair old time with things shut down in fairly decent months like May. November, December, January, could be hard... although of course I hope not!

Ring Of Steel · Oct 8, 2020

CCFCSteve said:
Why do you keep cutting the end of my sentence then ?!! I said (again) ‘Science does have mixed views on Covid and how best deal with it, taking all wider considerations into account’

scientists have opinions on the wider considerations and provide them to governments but I’m saying the outcomes/impact of lockdowns are currently unknown and lockdowns (based on potentially differing scientific advice) have differed in countries. I have also said our knowledge is rapidly improving which will then probably lead to more consensus approaches for example - face masks.

Also, as far as I’m aware, Swedens Covid response was/still is formed by their chief/leading epidemiologist rather than government decisions

Wrong again, we know exactly what the impact of the first lockdown was, its available in many places to see for yourself, and we can also see what is happening now that schools/ universities etc are back.

We can also see what is coming down the track towards us, just as we could at the start of the year, and just as happened at the start of the year some people are in complete denial & trying to make out the picture is a lot more foggy than it actually is.

Its blatantly obvious whats going to happen now, and all this talk of "well there's actually low risk for me, I'm young" and "we have to protect the economy"- yeah ok, great, but be prepared for what comes with that particular set of decisions.

CCFCSteve · Oct 8, 2020

Deleted member 5849 said:
But the thing is, high risk shifts according to what's being driven at.

Would somebody with chronic asthma but under 35, and therefore considered low risk on a H&S sheet, be considered an underlying condition in the stats if they were to suffer worse from it? Would someone with high blood pressure, where it's considered to be under control? Should you, therefore, move them to high risk, stop them going to work and tell them to work from home, as opposed to opening further up their job and placing them further into face-to-face contact with people who are younger still?

I would say someone with Chronic asthma whatever age is high risk and suggest they WFH if possible and minimise risk by avoiding large indoor/confined space gatherings (supermarkets). Probably different advice than I’d have for a person under 35 without any health conditions

Same with high blood pressure ie provide better protection for them. I don’t know if having it ‘under control‘ makes any difference if you get Covid, but if it was me or a member of my family, I’d recommend the same as above

Kieranp96 · Oct 8, 2020

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
There are noises that the way cases are increasing and now hospitalisations we could only be a few weeks away from a situation like earlier in the year in terms of NHS capacity. So shouldn't we be putting the measures in place now to prevent it? Of course if those actions prevent that capacity being used you'll get the inevitable 'harming the economy for no reason - NHS had spare capacity' noises but I'd rather that than having a totally overwhelmed system and scores of dead due to the decision made to protect the economy. Which would see those same people then complain why nothing was done to prevent it.

We won't ever reach the stage of the beginning of the year, there a drugs out there that have been helping people recover, as well as hospitals being more prepared, I believed cov hospital has something like 8 wards covid ready, although only 2 are in use atm.

Earlsdon_Skyblue1 · Oct 8, 2020

Kieranp96 said:
So what if its only killing the majority of elderly, they have been the backbone of this country for years, unless your selfish as fuck have some respect.

chiefdave said:
Exactly. There's so many unknowns with this. There was a study I saw from the University of Texas last month that suggested some children who had been asymptomatic are now showing signs of MIS-C with damage to the heart so severe they will need lifelong treatment. Yet people will happily tell you kids don't get symptoms so no problem with schools being open.

The underlying conditions thing is really getting to me. I have two things that would be classed as underlying conditions however I've only had 2 days sick off work in the last 15 years so hardly at deaths door, and they are both things that with about 24 months left of treatment will be completely eliminated. Yet now I'm considered expendable.

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
There's more to it than 'do you die or not?'. Long term implications are largely unknown but cases of young people being affected by fatigue etc after the infection are being known. They could have decades of poor health, inability to work and even premature death due to it. Is that not worthy of consideration?

I also find it a bit callous that over 65 and vulnerable/underlying conditions are almost seem as 'acceptable losses'. Some of those dying may have had decades of healthy life left. Why shouldn't they be thought of as meaningful people? They're not because they're the sectors least likely to be adding to the economy or taking more out in benefits/pensions etc and that is what matters to those in power - can we make money from you? If not you're an irrelevance.

All three of you have taken my post and basically said that I'm suggesting over 65s or those with underlying health conditions are expendable. It is completely untrue and deflecting from the points I am trying to make. Please do not put words into my mouth. I have followed the rules all the way through and have even done the two week isolation at home after holiday despite my workplace trying to push me into going in. If you ask me, it seems as if you have one set of people not giving a fuck about each other on both sides.

I'm more or less saying if people outside of the above two categories are 'largely' fine, then shouldn't we be looking at a dual system so we can run the country in a certain way for people who are of low or no risk, while using the resources to protect those that are vulnerable?

How can you expect people who are aged 18 to take it seriously when they are of almost no risk at all? Sadly we do live in a selfish world and we also live in one which is falling to pieces, not because of the disease, but because of the side effects of what it is doing to society.

The current solution is not working, and the data is also being pushed in a certain way. I have no doubts that it is a very serious illness to a respectable percentage of the population, but it clearly also isn't serious to a large majority of the rest of the population. That needs to be taken into account with some common sense decisions in my opinion..

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 8, 2020

Ring Of Steel said:
We can also see what is coming down the track towards us, just as we could at the start of the year, and just as happened at the start of the year some people are in complete denial & trying to make out the picture is a lot more foggy than it actually is.

What I would say is we have some practical experience based on the first wave now. That showed we were late doing it but... that was understandable as there was nothing to compare to. Now we have the comparison however...

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 8, 2020

CCFCSteve said:
I would say someone with Chronic asthma whatever age is high risk and suggest they WFH if possible and minimise risk by avoiding large indoor/confined space gatherings (supermarkets). Probably different advice than I’d have for a person under 35 without any health conditions

Same with high blood pressure ie provide better protection for them. I don’t know if having it ‘under control‘ makes any difference if you get Covid, but if it was me or a member of my family, I’d recommend the same as above

But government (and therefore work) advice has them as low risk, and carry on as normal.

Ring Of Steel · Oct 8, 2020

Deleted member 5849 said:
What I would say is we have some practical experience based on the first wave now. That showed we were late doing it but... that was understandable as there was nothing to compare to. Now we have the comparison however...

This is it- I totally understand why the decisions are being made as they are, with the economy in tatters & all that, I get it- what annoys me is that people make out that its because the 'science' is vague- its not.

Earlsdon_Skyblue1 · Oct 8, 2020

Ring Of Steel said:
Exactly. People keep throwing buzzwords around- "underlying conditions", "over 65s", "high risk"- sounds all very nice and considerate but what does it really mean? If you spent time putting together a definitive list of what it does actually mean & applied it to the population, I'm pretty sure that approaching 50% of the entire country would be on it.

I don't think it would be as high as 50%, but I do totally get your point. If that is the case then, shouldn't we use the remaining percent of the population to keep the country going? It might help bring people together a bit too. This blanket rule thing for a virus that clearly does affect people differently would be alright if the country wasn't falling apart, but it seems like it is.

CCFCSteve · Oct 8, 2020

Ring Of Steel said:
Wrong again, we know exactly what the impact of the first lockdown was, its available in many places to see for yourself, and we can also see what is happening now that schools/ universities etc are back.

We can also see what is coming down the track towards us, just as we could at the start of the year, and just as happened at the start of the year some people are in complete denial & trying to make out the picture is a lot more foggy than it actually is.

Its blatantly obvious whats going to happen now, and all this talk of "well there's actually low risk for me, I'm young" and "we have to protect the economy"- yeah ok, great, but be prepared for what comes with that particular set of decisions.

no point debating with you ROS, if you’re going to take stuff out of context

I also said I’d support another lockdown but knowing what the end goal was and knowing that the restrictions are based on science. You may not agree with what I say but at least read the posts properly

ps we don’t know the wider impact of the first lockdown at all and may not do so for some time yet

Brighton Sky Blue · Oct 8, 2020

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
But there are more cases of them suffering from 'Long Covid' with fatigue and pain after the infection which was asymptomatic. As I suggested ages ago it needs to be more considered what the long term effects might be over the months and years. It's all very well knowing a young person isn't likely to die from Covid but if they then have years of ill health ahead of them as a consequence that's arguably even worse. The effect on their mental and physical health and the cost to the NHS of caring/treating this will dwarf any benefits of letting things carry on largely as normal for those who're younger.

Saying 'young people are largely unaffected so should be allowed to catch the disease' is a massively short-sighted and irresponsible position.

I didn’t say that.

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 8, 2020

Ring Of Steel said:
This is it- I totally understand why the decisions are being made as they are, with the economy in tatters & all that, I get it- what annoys me is that people make out that its because the 'science' is vague- its not.

What we seem to be doing, catastrophically, is fudging it because we're scared of making a decision, and government is scared of owning the consequences.

But the result of that is we're helping neither the economy, nor public health.

Ring Of Steel · Oct 8, 2020

Deleted member 5849 said:
What we seem to be doing, catastrophically, is fudging it because we're scared of making a decision, and government is scared of owning the consequences.

But the result of that is we're helping neither the economy, nor public health.

We're doing what we do best basically

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Oct 8, 2020

Kieranp96 said:
We won't ever reach the stage of the beginning of the year, there a drugs out there that have been helping people recover, as well as hospitals being more prepared, I believed cov hospital has something like 8 wards covid ready, although only 2 are in use atm.

Don't be so sure.

We're reaching that time of year where the NHS is struggling even when there isn't a pandemic due to winter diseases like flu and norovirus. Add one in and it's going to really stretch us and a lot of stuff will end up being backlogged/cancelled to deal with it and the repercussions in stuff like cancer diagnosis a treatment,dialysis etc.

No-one is particularly sure how even healthy people will be affected who get both flu and covid at the same time, but there are some reports that it doesn't go well.

Of course having the new drugs help but will we have a sufficient supply? I'm sure (or at least hopeful) they been stockpiling while the disease has been 'quieter' but what do we do if stocks get short? The wards may be ready but what about staffing? What if/when staff getting sick as cases rise? You can have as many beds as you like but if the clinical care is stretched it's not of much help. I think most of the Nightingale hospitals are mothballed so could be reopened at short notice which is good, although again are there enough people to staff them?

Nick · Oct 8, 2020

Aren't all of the cases students now pretty much?

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Oct 8, 2020

Brighton Sky Blue said:
I didn’t say that.

Sorry. Wasn't aimed at you specifically. It was more at people in general that say that.

CCFCSteve · Oct 8, 2020

Deleted member 5849 said:
What we seem to be doing, catastrophically, is fudging it because we're scared of making a decision, and government is scared of owning the consequences.

But the result of that is we're helping neither the economy, nor public health.

To be fair they are intertwined and it’s a fine balancing act (not saying I agree with all actions/non actions taken to date by the way...although feel free to slice off that part off and reply, as others do)

Ps I’ve been speaking to people on total opposite sides of the argument so whatever decisions are made they probably won’t please anyone

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Oct 8, 2020

Nick said:
Aren't all of the cases students now pretty much?

Predominantly, but when it first started it was younger (work-aged) people getting it due to travel. It was once it inevitably got into other areas of society that it became a big problem.

Now we've got people bored of restrictions and poor/confusing advice just not giving a shit anymore. People who think the economic damage is too much and should just carry on regardless. Others who are deniers who fail to see the actual evidence of it. All mixed up with the 'sick season' when little help from mother nature in killing diseases off with high UV and high tempatures. It'll be wet, cold and dark and cold/flu/noro run rampant in those conditions.

It might be them now. It won't stay that way.

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 8, 2020

CCFCSteve said:
Ps I’ve been speaking to people on total opposite sides of the argument so whatever decisions are made they probably won’t please anyone

Of course they won't, but they're better off making a decision and owning the consequences, than sitting in the middle and causing death by a thousand cuts.

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 8, 2020

Nick said:
Aren't all of the cases students now pretty much?

That's fine until they come into contact with other people.

CCFCSteve · Oct 8, 2020

Deleted member 5849 said:
Of course they won't, but they're better off making a decision and owning the consequences, than sitting in the middle and causing death by a thousand cuts.

I think sitting in the middle, like most countries, is the decision (rightly or wrongly)

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Oct 8, 2020

Deleted member 5849 said:
Of course they won't, but they're better off making a decision and owning the consequences, than sitting in the middle and causing death by a thousand cuts.

I agree, but their entire ethos is accept no responsibility for anything that goes wrong.

Quick to accept the praise and plaudits (and financial rewards that go with them), total reluctance to accept any criticism or blame.

CCFCSteve · Oct 8, 2020

Deleted member 5849 said:
That's fine until they come into contact with other people.

Agreed. Although I’d hope a majority are isolating

Kieranp96 · Oct 8, 2020

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
Don't be so sure.

We're reaching that time of year where the NHS is struggling even when there isn't a pandemic due to winter diseases like flu and norovirus. Add one in and it's going to really stretch us and a lot of stuff will end up being backlogged/cancelled to deal with it and the repercussions in stuff like cancer diagnosis a treatment,dialysis etc.

No-one is particularly sure how even healthy people will be affected who get both flu and covid at the same time, but there are some reports that it doesn't go well.

Of course having the new drugs help but will we have a sufficient supply? I'm sure (or at least hopeful) they been stockpiling while the disease has been 'quieter' but what do we do if stocks get short? The wards may be ready but what about staffing? What if/when staff getting sick as cases rise? You can have as many beds as you like but if the clinical care is stretched it's not of much help. I think most of the Nightingale hospitals are mothballed so could be reopened at short notice which is good, although again are there enough people to staff them?

They will just call up retired and medical students again.

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 8, 2020

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
We're reaching that time of year where the NHS is struggling even when there isn't a pandemic due to winter diseases like flu and norovirus.

In that respect, it's an argument for a quick lockdown now as well, given they're struggling to get the flu vaccine out to everyone. Keep us in until we're all vaccinated there, prevent complications (and NHS capacity being used up) further down the line.

Brighton Sky Blue · Oct 8, 2020

Deleted member 5849 said:
In that respect, it's an argument for a quick lockdown now as well, given they're struggling to get the flu vaccine out to everyone. Keep us in until we're all vaccinated there, prevent complications (and NHS capacity being used up) further down the line.

It’s an argument to shut schools which will never happen

Sky Blue Pete · Oct 8, 2020

Up to 17500 infections today
77 deaths

Can’t believe they didn’t just embrace it like trump and come through it stronger

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 8, 2020

Brighton Sky Blue said:
It’s an argument to shut schools which will never happen

It is an argument to shut schools, indeed. All this talking about waiting until half term is nonsense, though, if waiting means we don't open again after half term. Better to *shift* half term if that's the case.

Brighton Sky Blue · Oct 8, 2020

Deleted member 5849 said:
It is an argument to shut schools, indeed. All this talking about waiting until half term is nonsense, though, if waiting means we don't open again after half term. Better to *shift* half term if that's the case.

Forwards or backwards?

fernandopartridge · Oct 8, 2020

This is interesting

Weird that no trace for workplace nor public transport though
In fact, not just weird but convenient for these mendacious cunts

David O'Day · Oct 8, 2020

fernandopartridge said:
This is interesting

Weird that no trace for workplace nor public transport though

They've been removed because as the opening paragraph says the government won't restrict education or workplaces.

It's pointless and basically massaged data.

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 8, 2020

fernandopartridge said:
This is interesting

Weird that no trace for workplace nor public transport though

What that doesn't necessarily show is the percentage of people who visit those places who end up contracting the virus? I noticed supermarket (working in) at the bottom and, initially, thought that was reassuring. But I'm guessing there are far, far less working in a supermarket, than shopping in it...

Coronavirus Thread (Off Topic, Politics) (13 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency