FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Split
Split
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"There seems to be an increasing split in the country. Those whose jobs are secure, and so any restrictions are an irritant and those who’s jobs or businesses are threatened due to the restrictions. We are in the latter camp. We are very unworried about the prospect of the illness, but panicked about the prospect of zero income for the foreseeable future. How do others on here feel? Personally, I’d prefer the vulnerable to self isolate and the rest of us get on with our lives" I thought vulnerable people were shielding? | |||
"There seems to be an increasing split in the country. Those whose jobs are secure, and so any restrictions are an irritant and those who’s jobs or businesses are threatened due to the restrictions. We are in the latter camp. We are very unworried about the prospect of the illness, but panicked about the prospect of zero income for the foreseeable future. How do others on here feel? Personally, I’d prefer the vulnerable to self isolate and the rest of us get on with our lives I thought vulnerable people were shielding?" You need to keep up with the News Lionel. | |||
"There seems to be an increasing split in the country. Those whose jobs are secure, and so any restrictions are an irritant and those who’s jobs or businesses are threatened due to the restrictions. We are in the latter camp. We are very unworried about the prospect of the illness, but panicked about the prospect of zero income for the foreseeable future. How do others on here feel? Personally, I’d prefer the vulnerable to self isolate and the rest of us get on with our lives I thought vulnerable people were shielding? You need to keep up with the News Lionel. " Vulnerable people are working from home in our office? | |||
"There seems to be an increasing split in the country. Those whose jobs are secure, and so any restrictions are an irritant and those who’s jobs or businesses are threatened due to the restrictions. We are in the latter camp. We are very unworried about the prospect of the illness, but panicked about the prospect of zero income for the foreseeable future. How do others on here feel? Personally, I’d prefer the vulnerable to self isolate and the rest of us get on with our lives I thought vulnerable people were shielding? You need to keep up with the News Lionel. " It's YOUR website - you pay for it with your taxes - so much info' there - most of it politics free . . . https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-shielding-and-protecting-extremely-vulnerable-persons-from-covid-19/guidance-on-shielding-and-protecting-extremely-vulnerable-persons-from-covid-19 | |||
"There seems to be an increasing split in the country. Those whose jobs are secure, and so any restrictions are an irritant and those who’s jobs or businesses are threatened due to the restrictions. We are in the latter camp. We are very unworried about the prospect of the illness, but panicked about the prospect of zero income for the foreseeable future. How do others on here feel? Personally, I’d prefer the vulnerable to self isolate and the rest of us get on with our lives I thought vulnerable people were shielding? You need to keep up with the News Lionel. Vulnerable people are working from home in our office?" Vulnerable and extremely vulnerable teachers are in and working ...  | |||
| |||
"There seems to be an increasing split in the country. Those whose jobs are secure, and so any restrictions are an irritant and those who’s jobs or businesses are threatened due to the restrictions. We are in the latter camp. We are very unworried about the prospect of the illness, but panicked about the prospect of zero income for the foreseeable future. How do others on here feel? Personally, I’d prefer the vulnerable to self isolate and the rest of us get on with our lives I thought vulnerable people were shielding? You need to keep up with the News Lionel. Vulnerable people are working from home in our office? Vulnerable and extremely vulnerable teachers are in and working ... "Well I'm not one to deny I'm wrong. Which happens occasionally. But if we sent home everyone who was vulnerable wouldnt we be a little understaffed? | |||
"There seems to be an increasing split in the country. Those whose jobs are secure, and so any restrictions are an irritant and those who’s jobs or businesses are threatened due to the restrictions. We are in the latter camp. We are very unworried about the prospect of the illness, but panicked about the prospect of zero income for the foreseeable future. How do others on here feel? Personally, I’d prefer the vulnerable to self isolate and the rest of us get on with our lives" So what you are saying is that you want the vulnerable to isolate until some unknown time in the future so you are ok? Are you aware that’s somewhere in the region of 20 million people? | |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours."  | |||
" But if we sent home everyone who was vulnerable wouldnt we be a little understaffed?" Oh. Well. They can carry on until they die then. We'll get a Temp in. !!! | |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours." How are you meant to survive?financially | |||
" But if we sent home everyone who was vulnerable wouldnt we be a little understaffed? Oh. Well. They can carry on until they die then. We'll get a Temp in. !!!" So 20m should isolate till it's over? We gonna pay them? | |||
| |||
| |||
"There seems to be an increasing split in the country. Those whose jobs are secure, and so any restrictions are an irritant and those who’s jobs or businesses are threatened due to the restrictions. We are in the latter camp. We are very unworried about the prospect of the illness, but panicked about the prospect of zero income for the foreseeable future. How do others on here feel? Personally, I’d prefer the vulnerable to self isolate and the rest of us get on with our lives" I feel it's a selfish idea. Covid has no age or health restricted targets. The long term effects on the body from contracting Covid are yet unknown, but there have been reports of potential long term detrimental effects which the NHS will have to pick up the bill and then there's all the associated issues. So I'd be concerned about contracting it and infecting someone else. | |||
| |||
"There seems to be an increasing split in the country. Those whose jobs are secure, and so any restrictions are an irritant and those who’s jobs or businesses are threatened due to the restrictions. We are in the latter camp. We are very unworried about the prospect of the illness, but panicked about the prospect of zero income for the foreseeable future. How do others on here feel? Personally, I’d prefer the vulnerable to self isolate and the rest of us get on with our lives So what you are saying is that you want the vulnerable to isolate until some unknown time in the future so you are ok? Are you aware that’s somewhere in the region of 20 million people?" Presumably then you are against another lockdown which would be of similar financial effect but for 65m+ | |||
"A friend of mine works for a very large Mobile Phone Company. Because she is a Senior she sees who is at home and who is not. 98% of Vulnerable staff have been found a way to work from home. They are even accommodating those who have a high anxiety about working alongside colleagues in an office. Now I full well realise that there are many jobs that can't be done from home - so what they did was to job-swop with no change of rates. It can be done with encouragement, planning and will. She even got a bonus for championing the cause. I do have to add that the Company is American." Working from home is very different to the type of shielding that would be required to ensure everyone else can get on with their lives without risking the lives of the vulnerable. | |||
"There seems to be an increasing split in the country. Those whose jobs are secure, and so any restrictions are an irritant and those who’s jobs or businesses are threatened due to the restrictions. We are in the latter camp. We are very unworried about the prospect of the illness, but panicked about the prospect of zero income for the foreseeable future. How do others on here feel? Personally, I’d prefer the vulnerable to self isolate and the rest of us get on with our lives So what you are saying is that you want the vulnerable to isolate until some unknown time in the future so you are ok? Are you aware that’s somewhere in the region of 20 million people? Presumably then you are against another lockdown which would be of similar financial effect but for 65m+" I want the inconvenience to be shared by all rather than ‘the vulnerable’. Have we sank so low that we are comfortable with creating an underclass that has fewer rights so the rest of us can carry on as if a pandemic never happened? | |||
| |||
"I think lockdown needs to end so people can get back to normal mix get antibodies as like flu stronger yes and people will die like they do with flu or this country will never recover more jobs lost the longer lockdown is here take more care in what we do yes but needs to get things back to normal that's my view on thing rigth or wrongly " Are your parents still alive? | |||
"A friend of mine works for a very large Mobile Phone Company. Because she is a Senior she sees who is at home and who is not. 98% of Vulnerable staff have been found a way to work from home. They are even accommodating those who have a high anxiety about working alongside colleagues in an office. Now I full well realise that there are many jobs that can't be done from home - so what they did was to job-swop with no change of rates. It can be done with encouragement, planning and will. She even got a bonus for championing the cause. I do have to add that the Company is American. Working from home is very different to the type of shielding that would be required to ensure everyone else can get on with their lives without risking the lives of the vulnerable." The salient point is with will and planning it can be done. | |||
"There seems to be an increasing split in the country. Those whose jobs are secure, and so any restrictions are an irritant and those who’s jobs or businesses are threatened due to the restrictions. We are in the latter camp. We are very unworried about the prospect of the illness, but panicked about the prospect of zero income for the foreseeable future. How do others on here feel? Personally, I’d prefer the vulnerable to self isolate and the rest of us get on with our lives I thought vulnerable people were shielding? You need to keep up with the News Lionel. Vulnerable people are working from home in our office? Vulnerable and extremely vulnerable teachers are in and working ... "Indeed. | |||
"A friend of mine works for a very large Mobile Phone Company. Because she is a Senior she sees who is at home and who is not. 98% of Vulnerable staff have been found a way to work from home. They are even accommodating those who have a high anxiety about working alongside colleagues in an office. Now I full well realise that there are many jobs that can't be done from home - so what they did was to job-swop with no change of rates. It can be done with encouragement, planning and will. She even got a bonus for championing the cause. I do have to add that the Company is American. Working from home is very different to the type of shielding that would be required to ensure everyone else can get on with their lives without risking the lives of the vulnerable. The salient point is with will and planning it can be done." The work bit can be done, yes but what about all the bits of life that happen when you aren’t in work? | |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours. How are you meant to survive? financially" Not that it has anything to do with you. I will survived same way I always have. By working an teaching. | |||
| |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours." Such angry words......Covid is certainly causing psychological issues amongst us. | |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours. Such angry words......Covid is certainly causing psychological issues amongst us." I understand why he's angry and I'm angry too. Imagine being in a group where you are constantly told you should shut yourself away and sacrifice your wellbeing, job and mental health so everyone else can just get on with theirs. it is demoralising and yes causes psychological issues. | |||
"A friend of mine works for a very large Mobile Phone Company. Because she is a Senior she sees who is at home and who is not. 98% of Vulnerable staff have been found a way to work from home. They are even accommodating those who have a high anxiety about working alongside colleagues in an office. Now I full well realise that there are many jobs that can't be done from home - so what they did was to job-swop with no change of rates. It can be done with encouragement, planning and will. She even got a bonus for championing the cause. I do have to add that the Company is American. Working from home is very different to the type of shielding that would be required to ensure everyone else can get on with their lives without risking the lives of the vulnerable. The salient point is with will and planning it can be done. The work bit can be done, yes but what about all the bits of life that happen when you aren’t in work?" But we all do that all of the time. We all help where we can (I'm guessing most of us wouldn't flinch from helping where we could). We are in a Pandemic and should be saying clearly to people who have a special need - what are those needs? And then with planning and will help them fulfill them. I no more want someone to die of cancer than to die of Covid. The Pandemic has a life-span (at least we can all hope it does) temporary measures will love care and consideration can help people to live not die. | |||
| |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours. How are you meant to survive? financially Not that it has anything to do with you. I will survived same way I always have. By working an teaching." I was on your side. | |||
| |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours. Such angry words......Covid is certainly causing psychological issues amongst us." Probally a but miffed and being told he should lock himself away. | |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours. Such angry words......Covid is certainly causing psychological issues amongst us. Probally a but miffed and being told he should lock himself away." Exactly. | |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours. Such angry words......Covid is certainly causing psychological issues amongst us." To right angry words, Ive already done 12 weeks shielding an now just coming to the end of 2weeks shielding. To right Im angry, | |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours. Such angry words......Covid is certainly causing psychological issues amongst us. To right angry words, Ive already done 12 weeks shielding an now just coming to the end of 2weeks shielding. To right Im angry, " May I ask what do you think the solution should be ? | |||
"There seems to be an increasing split in the country. Those whose jobs are secure, and so any restrictions are an irritant and those who’s jobs or businesses are threatened due to the restrictions. We are in the latter camp. We are very unworried about the prospect of the illness, but panicked about the prospect of zero income for the foreseeable future. How do others on here feel? Personally, I’d prefer the vulnerable to self isolate and the rest of us get on with our lives" What if it turns out you have an underlying health condition and now have to spend a completely undetermined amount of time shut in your house. Don't worry about going out, you can pay to have your food delivered. After all, wouldn't want to be an inconvenience to all those "normal people" who just want to go to the pub again.  | |||
"There seems to be an increasing split in the country. Those whose jobs are secure, and so any restrictions are an irritant and those who’s jobs or businesses are threatened due to the restrictions. We are in the latter camp. We are very unworried about the prospect of the illness, but panicked about the prospect of zero income for the foreseeable future. How do others on here feel? Personally, I’d prefer the vulnerable to self isolate and the rest of us get on with our lives I thought vulnerable people were shielding? You need to keep up with the News Lionel. Vulnerable people are working from home in our office? Vulnerable and extremely vulnerable teachers are in and working ... "Yes they are :/ I should know :/ Just waiting for the first teacher to die of this in the next month or so. | |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours. Such angry words......Covid is certainly causing psychological issues amongst us. To right angry words, Ive already done 12 weeks shielding an now just coming to the end of 2weeks shielding. To right Im angry, May I ask what do you think the solution should be ?" Every country in the world is asking the same question there is currently no solution. Unless we get a vaccine all we can do is limit spead, thats what lockdiwn and restrictions do. | |||
"There seems to be an increasing split in the country. Those whose jobs are secure, and so any restrictions are an irritant and those who’s jobs or businesses are threatened due to the restrictions. We are in the latter camp. We are very unworried about the prospect of the illness, but panicked about the prospect of zero income for the foreseeable future. How do others on here feel? Personally, I’d prefer the vulnerable to self isolate and the rest of us get on with our lives I thought vulnerable people were shielding? You need to keep up with the News Lionel. Vulnerable people are working from home in our office? Vulnerable and extremely vulnerable teachers are in and working ...
Yes they are :/
I should know :/
Just waiting for the first teacher to die of this in the next month or so."Teachers and support staff have already died. | |||
| |||
"There seems to be an increasing split in the country. Those whose jobs are secure, and so any restrictions are an irritant and those who’s jobs or businesses are threatened due to the restrictions. We are in the latter camp. We are very unworried about the prospect of the illness, but panicked about the prospect of zero income for the foreseeable future. How do others on here feel? Personally, I’d prefer the vulnerable to self isolate and the rest of us get on with our lives What if it turns out you have an underlying health condition and now have to spend a completely undetermined amount of time shut in your house. Don't worry about going out, you can pay to have your food delivered. After all, wouldn't want to be an inconvenience to all those "normal people" who just want to go to the pub again. "Yes because it's all about just getting back to the pub ? FFS this forum sometimes. | |||
" Teachers and support staff have already died. " Have they? Hmmm. That was kept EXTREMELY QUIET!! Not even the unions are acknowledging it!! Teacher myself, and there are definitely a few very very vulnerable teachers even where I am. If the gov mention it, then there will likely be massive uproar in the public. "What about my kids" etc | |||
Lock all the vulnerable in their homes.
Lock every worker in their workplace
Lock every school child and students into their place of learning.
This would lower the r number in no time and its fair on all!
Doesn't seem too great to be in a group get locked in tho | |||
"There seems to be an increasing split in the country. Those whose jobs are secure, and so any restrictions are an irritant and those who’s jobs or businesses are threatened due to the restrictions. We are in the latter camp. We are very unworried about the prospect of the illness, but panicked about the prospect of zero income for the foreseeable future. How do others on here feel? Personally, I’d prefer the vulnerable to self isolate and the rest of us get on with our lives What if it turns out you have an underlying health condition and now have to spend a completely undetermined amount of time shut in your house. Don't worry about going out, you can pay to have your food delivered. After all, wouldn't want to be an inconvenience to all those "normal people" who just want to go to the pub again.
Yes because it's all about just getting back to the pub ?
FFS this forum sometimes."So what is it about then, that's so important people are prepared to literally write off millions of vulnerable people who, quite often, perform critical jobs that help our economy and society function on a daily basis? | |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours. Such angry words......Covid is certainly causing psychological issues amongst us. I understand why he's angry and I'm angry too. Imagine being in a group where you are constantly told you should shut yourself away and sacrifice your wellbeing, job and mental health so everyone else can just get on with theirs. it is demoralising and yes causes psychological issues." As another vulnerable person - 100% in agreement with this. | |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours. Such angry words......Covid is certainly causing psychological issues amongst us. To right angry words, Ive already done 12 weeks shielding an now just coming to the end of 2weeks shielding. To right Im angry, May I ask what do you think the solution should be ? Every country in the world is asking the same question there is currently no solution. Unless we get a vaccine all we can do is limit spead, thats what lockdiwn and restrictions do. " Thank you for that you took the words right of my mouth | |||
" Teachers and support staff have already died. Have they? Hmmm. That was kept EXTREMELY QUIET!! Not even the unions are acknowledging it!! Teacher myself, and there are definitely a few very very vulnerable teachers even where I am. If the gov mention it, then there will likely be massive uproar in the public. "What about my kids" etc" OK I suggest you do a little more research. I work in a school and lost a college. | |||
| |||
| |||
" Teachers and support staff have already died. Have they? Hmmm. That was kept EXTREMELY QUIET!! Not even the unions are acknowledging it!! Teacher myself, and there are definitely a few very very vulnerable teachers even where I am. If the gov mention it, then there will likely be massive uproar in the public. "What about my kids" etc OK I suggest you do a little more research. I work in a school and lost a college. " I know its almost half term and we are all tired and short fused but is that a necessary reply? What do you think I'm doing now? I have found something out that I did not know.. "research". We have lost noone in our school or even in our locality which is a massive academy.. hence being blind to it. | |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours. Such angry words......Covid is certainly causing psychological issues amongst us. I understand why he's angry and I'm angry too. Imagine being in a group where you are constantly told you should shut yourself away and sacrifice your wellbeing, job and mental health so everyone else can just get on with theirs. it is demoralising and yes causes psychological issues." Imagine being in a group (the young and healthy and mostly under 60 that has a 99.6% survival rate) being told to shut themselfs away and sacrafice their wellbeing, jobs and mentle health, loss of buisness etc just so the 20% of vulnerable/elderly don't have to go through it alone. I think i know which group is the more selfish of the two. The thing is away from this site I'm yet to meet an elderly or vulnerable person that wants the rest of the country being in lock down or having all kinds of restrictions in place just so they feel protected or not having to go through it alone. | |||
"I empathise with anyone who has fears for their financial future. But I fear more about the loss of life from this pandemic, then I do for its financial implications. We have seen that this virus does not exclusively target the vulnerable, and we ALL have a part to play in minimising its transmission. " My issue isn't the individual financial loss, but the crippling economic one. At this point, I'd say it's already too late | |||
" Teachers and support staff have already died. Have they? Hmmm. That was kept EXTREMELY QUIET!! Not even the unions are acknowledging it!! Teacher myself, and there are definitely a few very very vulnerable teachers even where I am. If the gov mention it, then there will likely be massive uproar in the public. "What about my kids" etc OK I suggest you do a little more research. I work in a school and lost a college. " Tbf fair I'm surprised that hasn't made the news. The gmnt put massive pressure on teachers to go back. | |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours. Such angry words......Covid is certainly causing psychological issues amongst us. I understand why he's angry and I'm angry too. Imagine being in a group where you are constantly told you should shut yourself away and sacrifice your wellbeing, job and mental health so everyone else can just get on with theirs. it is demoralising and yes causes psychological issues. Imagine being in a group (the young and healthy and mostly under 60 that has a 99.6% survival rate) being told to shut themselfs away and sacrafice their wellbeing, jobs and mentle health, loss of buisness etc just so the 20% of vulnerable/elderly don't have to go through it alone. I think i know which group is the more selfish of the two. The thing is away from this site I'm yet to meet an elderly or vulnerable person that wants the rest of the country being in lock down or having all kinds of restrictions in place just so they feel protected or not having to go through it alone. " Survival doesn't mean consequence free. And if all those people wandering around mistakenly thinking "I'll be fine" would actually follow the guidance then they don't have to be locked away as well. But they don't, they selfishly believe that they don't have to accept anything they don't like, but still claim they are part of society. In life there are many things you don't want to do, but if you want to actually reap the benefits of a civilised society, then that comes with responsibility. | |||
"I empathise with anyone who has fears for their financial future. But I fear more about the loss of life from this pandemic, then I do for its financial implications. We have seen that this virus does not exclusively target the vulnerable, and we ALL have a part to play in minimising its transmission. My issue isn't the individual financial loss, but the crippling economic one. At this point, I'd say it's already too late " It's not "too late". That's a bit over dramatic! Gdp is slowly growing, not shrinking anymore! The sky's not going to fall in! | |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours. Such angry words......Covid is certainly causing psychological issues amongst us. I understand why he's angry and I'm angry too. Imagine being in a group where you are constantly told you should shut yourself away and sacrifice your wellbeing, job and mental health so everyone else can just get on with theirs. it is demoralising and yes causes psychological issues. Imagine being in a group (the young and healthy and mostly under 60 that has a 99.6% survival rate) being told to shut themselfs away and sacrafice their wellbeing, jobs and mentle health, loss of buisness etc just so the 20% of vulnerable/elderly don't have to go through it alone. I think i know which group is the more selfish of the two. The thing is away from this site I'm yet to meet an elderly or vulnerable person that wants the rest of the country being in lock down or having all kinds of restrictions in place just so they feel protected or not having to go through it alone. " That is a ridiculous statement to make and if you understood the impact of shielding you would understand why it's impractical and the rest of the economy would pretty much collapse. So Lots of people who have viable jobs will have to give up work because they can't afford child care and their parents will be in the shielding group. Also if the government were going to say we will shield anybody who is at high risk of this virus they will increase the number of people that have to shield. That would include nearly 8 million diabetic people in this country, 5 million people who have other illnesses and health issues, 12 million over 65's that is roughly 25 million people. Plus the people the vulnerable shielders live with won't be able to go to work either because otherwise it will be pointless for the shielding person. The voluntary sector which is Paramount in making sure that the vulnerable are looked after is mostly made up of those over 65. Now do you still think its selfish or do you think that maybe you and everyone else should speak to the rules in the short term so that we can limit the spread in the long term. | |||
" Teachers and support staff have already died. Have they? Hmmm. That was kept EXTREMELY QUIET!! Not even the unions are acknowledging it!! Teacher myself, and there are definitely a few very very vulnerable teachers even where I am. If the gov mention it, then there will likely be massive uproar in the public. "What about my kids" etc OK I suggest you do a little more research. I work in a school and lost a college. Tbf fair I'm surprised that hasn't made the news. The gmnt put massive pressure on teachers to go back." Problem is.. the government are VERY good at quashing things. They have likely made a deal with unions and papers to not allow them to report on it for "national security" or something... .. I mean it has potential to cause strikes for teachers and when they are touting " we need all kids in education" it would not go down well | |||
"I empathise with anyone who has fears for their financial future. But I fear more about the loss of life from this pandemic, then I do for its financial implications. We have seen that this virus does not exclusively target the vulnerable, and we ALL have a part to play in minimising its transmission. My issue isn't the individual financial loss, but the crippling economic one. At this point, I'd say it's already too late It's not "too late". That's a bit over dramatic! Gdp is slowly growing, not shrinking anymore! The sky's not going to fall in! "You not noticed the price of litterally every thing going up? Litterally every company has losses to recover, which gets passed on to the public, where do you see this going well for anyone? | |||
" Teachers and support staff have already died. Have they? Hmmm. That was kept EXTREMELY QUIET!! Not even the unions are acknowledging it!! Teacher myself, and there are definitely a few very very vulnerable teachers even where I am. If the gov mention it, then there will likely be massive uproar in the public. "What about my kids" etc OK I suggest you do a little more research. I work in a school and lost a college. Tbf fair I'm surprised that hasn't made the news. The gmnt put massive pressure on teachers to go back." It’s there if you look for it... type teacher death covid uk into google and you’ll find it. In may the ONS said there had been 65 die from the education sector, to name one link | |||
" Teachers and support staff have already died. Have they? Hmmm. That was kept EXTREMELY QUIET!! Not even the unions are acknowledging it!! Teacher myself, and there are definitely a few very very vulnerable teachers even where I am. If the gov mention it, then there will likely be massive uproar in the public. "What about my kids" etc OK I suggest you do a little more research. I work in a school and lost a college. Tbf fair I'm surprised that hasn't made the news. The gmnt put massive pressure on teachers to go back." I have definitely seen news articles of teachers and teaching assistance and support staff who have died. Maybe your watching the wrong kind of news because there was definitely an interview with a head teacher 3 or 4 weeks ago who had oast a member of staff plus I've seen others. | |||
" Teachers and support staff have already died. Have they? Hmmm. That was kept EXTREMELY QUIET!! Not even the unions are acknowledging it!! Teacher myself, and there are definitely a few very very vulnerable teachers even where I am. If the gov mention it, then there will likely be massive uproar in the public. "What about my kids" etc OK I suggest you do a little more research. I work in a school and lost a college. Tbf fair I'm surprised that hasn't made the news. The gmnt put massive pressure on teachers to go back. I have definitely seen news articles of teachers and teaching assistance and support staff who have died. Maybe your watching the wrong kind of news because there was definitely an interview with a head teacher 3 or 4 weeks ago who had oast a member of staff plus I've seen others." Probably true. I mean I listen to radio 4 every morning and evening (on the drive in) Controlled by the gov BBC | |||
" Teachers and support staff have already died. Have they? Hmmm. That was kept EXTREMELY QUIET!! Not even the unions are acknowledging it!! Teacher myself, and there are definitely a few very very vulnerable teachers even where I am. If the gov mention it, then there will likely be massive uproar in the public. "What about my kids" etc OK I suggest you do a little more research. I work in a school and lost a college. Tbf fair I'm surprised that hasn't made the news. The gmnt put massive pressure on teachers to go back. Problem is.. the government are VERY good at quashing things. They have likely made a deal with unions and papers to not allow them to report on it for "national security" or something... .. I mean it has potential to cause strikes for teachers and when they are touting " we need all kids in education" it would not go down well" It definitely would. | |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours. Such angry words......Covid is certainly causing psychological issues amongst us. I understand why he's angry and I'm angry too. Imagine being in a group where you are constantly told you should shut yourself away and sacrifice your wellbeing, job and mental health so everyone else can just get on with theirs. it is demoralising and yes causes psychological issues. Imagine being in a group (the young and healthy and mostly under 60 that has a 99.6% survival rate) being told to shut themselfs away and sacrafice their wellbeing, jobs and mentle health, loss of buisness etc just so the 20% of vulnerable/elderly don't have to go through it alone. I think i know which group is the more selfish of the two. The thing is away from this site I'm yet to meet an elderly or vulnerable person that wants the rest of the country being in lock down or having all kinds of restrictions in place just so they feel protected or not having to go through it alone. Survival doesn't mean consequence free. And if all those people wandering around mistakenly thinking "I'll be fine" would actually follow the guidance then they don't have to be locked away as well. But they don't, they selfishly believe that they don't have to accept anything they don't like, but still claim they are part of society. In life there are many things you don't want to do, but if you want to actually reap the benefits of a civilised society, then that comes with responsibility. " Whilst i can not prove this so its just opinion. But even if every single person wore their masks and kept their distance the numbers of cases was always going to increase dramatically this time of year, as people get sick, catch colds and flu. More people go get tested and seeing as no tests have proven to being able to isolate covid 19 (even the guy that invented the tests said before he died that the tests are not fit for purpose) Anyways so ofcourse the rates was going to increase in huge numbers and everything thats happening now with all these tier 1 2 and 3 and probably soon a full lock down (circuit breaker) would still be happening. | |||
" Teachers and support staff have already died. Have they? Hmmm. That was kept EXTREMELY QUIET!! Not even the unions are acknowledging it!! Teacher myself, and there are definitely a few very very vulnerable teachers even where I am. If the gov mention it, then there will likely be massive uproar in the public. "What about my kids" etc OK I suggest you do a little more research. I work in a school and lost a college. Tbf fair I'm surprised that hasn't made the news. The gmnt put massive pressure on teachers to go back. I have definitely seen news articles of teachers and teaching assistance and support staff who have died. Maybe your watching the wrong kind of news because there was definitely an interview with a head teacher 3 or 4 weeks ago who had oast a member of staff plus I've seen others." I'm not denying it happened I'm just saying the pressure put on the teachers by the gmnt was intense. So for this to then happen would certainly not shed them in a good light. | |||
" Teachers and support staff have already died. Have they? Hmmm. That was kept EXTREMELY QUIET!! Not even the unions are acknowledging it!! Teacher myself, and there are definitely a few very very vulnerable teachers even where I am. If the gov mention it, then there will likely be massive uproar in the public. "What about my kids" etc OK I suggest you do a little more research. I work in a school and lost a college. Tbf fair I'm surprised that hasn't made the news. The gmnt put massive pressure on teachers to go back. I have definitely seen news articles of teachers and teaching assistance and support staff who have died. Maybe your watching the wrong kind of news because there was definitely an interview with a head teacher 3 or 4 weeks ago who had oast a member of staff plus I've seen others. Probably true. I mean I listen to radio 4 every morning and evening (on the drive in) Controlled by the gov BBC" This interview was on the BBC. So according to ONS education workers have died up until May. 17 secondly school teachers, 7 primary school teachers, 12 teaching assistants, 6 dinner ladies and 2 school secretarys. | |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours. Such angry words......Covid is certainly causing psychological issues amongst us. I understand why he's angry and I'm angry too. Imagine being in a group where you are constantly told you should shut yourself away and sacrifice your wellbeing, job and mental health so everyone else can just get on with theirs. it is demoralising and yes causes psychological issues. Imagine being in a group (the young and healthy and mostly under 60 that has a 99.6% survival rate) being told to shut themselfs away and sacrafice their wellbeing, jobs and mentle health, loss of buisness etc just so the 20% of vulnerable/elderly don't have to go through it alone. I think i know which group is the more selfish of the two. The thing is away from this site I'm yet to meet an elderly or vulnerable person that wants the rest of the country being in lock down or having all kinds of restrictions in place just so they feel protected or not having to go through it alone. That is a ridiculous statement to make and if you understood the impact of shielding you would understand why it's impractical and the rest of the economy would pretty much collapse. So Lots of people who have viable jobs will have to give up work because they can't afford child care and their parents will be in the shielding group. Also if the government were going to say we will shield anybody who is at high risk of this virus they will increase the number of people that have to shield. That would include nearly 8 million diabetic people in this country, 5 million people who have other illnesses and health issues, 12 million over 65's that is roughly 25 million people. Plus the people the vulnerable shielders live with won't be able to go to work either because otherwise it will be pointless for the shielding person. The voluntary sector which is Paramount in making sure that the vulnerable are looked after is mostly made up of those over 65. Now do you still think its selfish or do you think that maybe you and everyone else should speak to the rules in the short term so that we can limit the spread in the long term. " | |||
"A friend of mine works for a very large Mobile Phone Company. Because she is a Senior she sees who is at home and who is not. 98% of Vulnerable staff have been found a way to work from home. They are even accommodating those who have a high anxiety about working alongside colleagues in an office. Now I full well realise that there are many jobs that can't be done from home - so what they did was to job-swop with no change of rates. It can be done with encouragement, planning and will. She even got a bonus for championing the cause. I do have to add that the Company is American. Working from home is very different to the type of shielding that would be required to ensure everyone else can get on with their lives without risking the lives of the vulnerable. The salient point is with will and planning it can be done. The work bit can be done, yes but what about all the bits of life that happen when you aren’t in work? But we all do that all of the time. We all help where we can (I'm guessing most of us wouldn't flinch from helping where we could). We are in a Pandemic and should be saying clearly to people who have a special need - what are those needs? And then with planning and will help them fulfill them. I no more want someone to die of cancer than to die of Covid. The Pandemic has a life-span (at least we can all hope it does) temporary measures will love care and consideration can help people to live not die." But it is still putting all of the ‘inconvenience’ on to the vulnerable for an indeterminate period of time. | |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours. Such angry words......Covid is certainly causing psychological issues amongst us. I understand why he's angry and I'm angry too. Imagine being in a group where you are constantly told you should shut yourself away and sacrifice your wellbeing, job and mental health so everyone else can just get on with theirs. it is demoralising and yes causes psychological issues. Imagine being in a group (the young and healthy and mostly under 60 that has a 99.6% survival rate) being told to shut themselfs away and sacrafice their wellbeing, jobs and mentle health, loss of buisness etc just so the 20% of vulnerable/elderly don't have to go through it alone. I think i know which group is the more selfish of the two. The thing is away from this site I'm yet to meet an elderly or vulnerable person that wants the rest of the country being in lock down or having all kinds of restrictions in place just so they feel protected or not having to go through it alone. Survival doesn't mean consequence free. And if all those people wandering around mistakenly thinking "I'll be fine" would actually follow the guidance then they don't have to be locked away as well. But they don't, they selfishly believe that they don't have to accept anything they don't like, but still claim they are part of society. In life there are many things you don't want to do, but if you want to actually reap the benefits of a civilised society, then that comes with responsibility. Whilst i can not prove this so its just opinion. But even if every single person wore their masks and kept their distance the numbers of cases was always going to increase dramatically this time of year, as people get sick, catch colds and flu. More people go get tested and seeing as no tests have proven to being able to isolate covid 19 (even the guy that invented the tests said before he died that the tests are not fit for purpose) Anyways so ofcourse the rates was going to increase in huge numbers and everything thats happening now with all these tier 1 2 and 3 and probably soon a full lock down (circuit breaker) would still be happening. " The RT-PCR test is perfectly capable of testing for Covid. This has been proven world wide time and again. It has its flaws, but it's become the test most used globally for a reason. I'm not even sure how the rest of your text was related to what I previously said. Given that Covid is not flu or a cold and both of those affect people both in and out of the vulnerable categories for Covid. | |||
"A friend of mine works for a very large Mobile Phone Company. Because she is a Senior she sees who is at home and who is not. 98% of Vulnerable staff have been found a way to work from home. They are even accommodating those who have a high anxiety about working alongside colleagues in an office. Now I full well realise that there are many jobs that can't be done from home - so what they did was to job-swop with no change of rates. It can be done with encouragement, planning and will. She even got a bonus for championing the cause. I do have to add that the Company is American. Working from home is very different to the type of shielding that would be required to ensure everyone else can get on with their lives without risking the lives of the vulnerable. The salient point is with will and planning it can be done. The work bit can be done, yes but what about all the bits of life that happen when you aren’t in work? But we all do that all of the time. We all help where we can (I'm guessing most of us wouldn't flinch from helping where we could). We are in a Pandemic and should be saying clearly to people who have a special need - what are those needs? And then with planning and will help them fulfill them. I no more want someone to die of cancer than to die of Covid. The Pandemic has a life-span (at least we can all hope it does) temporary measures will love care and consideration can help people to live not die. But it is still putting all of the ‘inconvenience’ on to the vulnerable for an indeterminate period of time." Then I don't really know what to say - I'm not advocating what the OP said - I'm saying we can find a way with the will - We all need to stop fighting with each and pretending that we can't find a way - we can. | |||
| |||
"There aren’t just those two options I fall into the group where I am grateful I have a job yet can sadly see the devastating impact lockdown is having on businesses. However- I don’t see it as an irritant " Exactly. | |||
"There seems to be an increasing split in the country. Those whose jobs are secure, and so any restrictions are an irritant and those who’s jobs or businesses are threatened due to the restrictions. We are in the latter camp. We are very unworried about the prospect of the illness, but panicked about the prospect of zero income for the foreseeable future. How do others on here feel? Personally, I’d prefer the vulnerable to self isolate and the rest of us get on with our lives" Bragging your selfish very odd | |||
"There seems to be an increasing split in the country. Those whose jobs are secure, and so any restrictions are an irritant and those who’s jobs or businesses are threatened due to the restrictions. We are in the latter camp. We are very unworried about the prospect of the illness, but panicked about the prospect of zero income for the foreseeable future. How do others on here feel? Personally, I’d prefer the vulnerable to self isolate and the rest of us get on with our livesBragging your selfish very odd" Yes I notice the OP has not responded to a single post. | |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours. Such angry words......Covid is certainly causing psychological issues amongst us. I understand why he's angry and I'm angry too. Imagine being in a group where you are constantly told you should shut yourself away and sacrifice your wellbeing, job and mental health so everyone else can just get on with theirs. it is demoralising and yes causes psychological issues." Well we have a few choices on what we can do. 1: Full lockdown for 100% everyone until there's no virus left, no work or shopping, education or anything, no ifs, no buts, though say hello to the biggest ever depression, financially and physically mentally ever known. 2: Recommend vulnerable to shield (25%) of the population going by your figures if they wish and the other 75% keep working to keep the economy going, schools open etc. 3: Don't recommend anyone to shield because it's unfair to single out the vulnerable , everyone resumes normal life. | |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours. Such angry words......Covid is certainly causing psychological issues amongst us. I understand why he's angry and I'm angry too. Imagine being in a group where you are constantly told you should shut yourself away and sacrifice your wellbeing, job and mental health so everyone else can just get on with theirs. it is demoralising and yes causes psychological issues. Well we have a few choices on what we can do. 1: Full lockdown for 100% everyone until there's no virus left, no work or shopping, education or anything, no ifs, no buts, though say hello to the biggest ever depression, financially and physically mentally ever known. 2: Recommend vulnerable to shield (25%) of the population going by your figures if they wish and the other 75% keep working to keep the economy going, schools open etc. 3: Don't recommend anyone to shield because it's unfair to single out the vulnerable , everyone resumes normal life. " Or we stick to rules and have local lockdown when needed. | |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours. Such angry words......Covid is certainly causing psychological issues amongst us. I understand why he's angry and I'm angry too. Imagine being in a group where you are constantly told you should shut yourself away and sacrifice your wellbeing, job and mental health so everyone else can just get on with theirs. it is demoralising and yes causes psychological issues. Well we have a few choices on what we can do. 1: Full lockdown for 100% everyone until there's no virus left, no work or shopping, education or anything, no ifs, no buts, though say hello to the biggest ever depression, financially and physically mentally ever known. 2: Recommend vulnerable to shield (25%) of the population going by your figures if they wish and the other 75% keep working to keep the economy going, schools open etc. 3: Don't recommend anyone to shield because it's unfair to single out the vulnerable , everyone resumes normal life. Or we stick to rules and have local lockdown when needed. " Oh and actually that 25% is the lowest figure and based on the shielding list last time. The government have estimated closer to 38% And also no country has some this and there has to be a reason for that because it wont-work at it isn't reasonable. | |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours. Such angry words......Covid is certainly causing psychological issues amongst us. I understand why he's angry and I'm angry too. Imagine being in a group where you are constantly told you should shut yourself away and sacrifice your wellbeing, job and mental health so everyone else can just get on with theirs. it is demoralising and yes causes psychological issues. Well we have a few choices on what we can do. 1: Full lockdown for 100% everyone until there's no virus left, no work or shopping, education or anything, no ifs, no buts, though say hello to the biggest ever depression, financially and physically mentally ever known. 2: Recommend vulnerable to shield (25%) of the population going by your figures if they wish and the other 75% keep working to keep the economy going, schools open etc. 3: Don't recommend anyone to shield because it's unfair to single out the vulnerable , everyone resumes normal life. Or we stick to rules and have local lockdown when needed. " Rolling lockdowns potentially forever because without a silver bullet vaccine that's what your saying | |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours. Such angry words......Covid is certainly causing psychological issues amongst us. I understand why he's angry and I'm angry too. Imagine being in a group where you are constantly told you should shut yourself away and sacrifice your wellbeing, job and mental health so everyone else can just get on with theirs. it is demoralising and yes causes psychological issues. Well we have a few choices on what we can do. 1: Full lockdown for 100% everyone until there's no virus left, no work or shopping, education or anything, no ifs, no buts, though say hello to the biggest ever depression, financially and physically mentally ever known. 2: Recommend vulnerable to shield (25%) of the population going by your figures if they wish and the other 75% keep working to keep the economy going, schools open etc. 3: Don't recommend anyone to shield because it's unfair to single out the vulnerable , everyone resumes normal life. Or we stick to rules and have local lockdown when needed. Rolling lockdowns potentially forever because without a silver bullet vaccine that's what your saying " Yes that's exactly what I'm saying because you really don't understand what shielding means or what the consequences of that is. It's not a simple as just stay at home. It is unreasonable as the government has said and it wont-work. | |||
| |||
"People are so nieve if they genuinely believe that by shutting away a huge portion of society thatt somehow they are going to be able to get their normal nhs treatment or jobs are suddenly going to be viable and the economy will have a boost. " So we'll just shut the entire society away instead over and over and over again and you still believe there will be jobs left for anyone to go back to and leave again, go back to, ohh lockdown and leave again. There simply won't be any economy left to do anything. And you mention people being nieve  | |||
"There seems to be an increasing split in the country. Those whose jobs are secure, and so any restrictions are an irritant and those who’s jobs or businesses are threatened due to the restrictions. We are in the latter camp. We are very unworried about the prospect of the illness, but panicked about the prospect of zero income for the foreseeable future. How do others on here feel? Personally, I’d prefer the vulnerable to self isolate and the rest of us get on with our lives I thought vulnerable people were shielding? You need to keep up with the News Lionel. Vulnerable people are working from home in our office?" Ideally everyone who can work from home should be shouldn't they? | |||
"People are so nieve if they genuinely believe that by shutting away a huge portion of society thatt somehow they are going to be able to get their normal nhs treatment or jobs are suddenly going to be viable and the economy will have a boost. So we'll just shut the entire society away instead over and over and over again and you still believe there will be jobs left for anyone to go back to and leave again, go back to, ohh lockdown and leave again. There simply won't be any economy left to do anything. And you mention people being nieve "Sorry would you like to tell me exactly which part of society has been totally shut away. | |||
"People are so nieve if they genuinely believe that by shutting away a huge portion of society thatt somehow they are going to be able to get their normal nhs treatment or jobs are suddenly going to be viable and the economy will have a boost. So we'll just shut the entire society away instead over and over and over again and you still believe there will be jobs left for anyone to go back to and leave again, go back to, ohh lockdown and leave again. There simply won't be any economy left to do anything. And you mention people being nieve "You are nieve if you believe that the government are just gonna say we can a shut away a huge portion of society so the rest of you can do as you please and that is the only way to totally open up the economy. But then more and more people will get sick and people that would never have died from this virus will. Like I said show me one country that has done this. Because if that was an easy solution it would have been done by now. | |||
"There seems to be an increasing split in the country. Those whose jobs are secure, and so any restrictions are an irritant and those who’s jobs or businesses are threatened due to the restrictions. We are in the latter camp. We are very unworried about the prospect of the illness, but panicked about the prospect of zero income for the foreseeable future. How do others on here feel? Personally, I’d prefer the vulnerable to self isolate and the rest of us get on with our lives I thought vulnerable people were shielding? You need to keep up with the News Lionel. Vulnerable people are working from home in our office? Ideally everyone who can work from home should be shouldn't they? " Only in tier 2 and 3. | |||
" Teachers and support staff have already died. Have they? Hmmm. That was kept EXTREMELY QUIET!! Not even the unions are acknowledging it!! Teacher myself, and there are definitely a few very very vulnerable teachers even where I am. If the gov mention it, then there will likely be massive uproar in the public. "What about my kids" etc OK I suggest you do a little more research. I work in a school and lost a college. " I'm. So sorry Lorna ( | |||
"There seems to be an increasing split in the country. Those whose jobs are secure, and so any restrictions are an irritant and those who’s jobs or businesses are threatened due to the restrictions. We are in the latter camp. We are very unworried about the prospect of the illness, but panicked about the prospect of zero income for the foreseeable future. How do others on here feel? Personally, I’d prefer the vulnerable to self isolate and the rest of us get on with our lives I thought vulnerable people were shielding? You need to keep up with the News Lionel. Vulnerable people are working from home in our office? Ideally everyone who can work from home should be shouldn't they? Only in tier 2 and 3. " Oh right.. I'm in 3 right now.. But my dIghters business has been WFH since March.. The whole office. Xx | |||
" Teachers and support staff have already died. Have they? Hmmm. That was kept EXTREMELY QUIET!! Not even the unions are acknowledging it!! Teacher myself, and there are definitely a few very very vulnerable teachers even where I am. If the gov mention it, then there will likely be massive uproar in the public. "What about my kids" etc OK I suggest you do a little more research. I work in a school and lost a college. I'm. So sorry Lorna ("Thank you lovely and actually you were the only person on this thread who has said that we are genuinely just losing humanity. | |||
| |||
"People are so nieve if they genuinely believe that by shutting away a huge portion of society thatt somehow they are going to be able to get their normal nhs treatment or jobs are suddenly going to be viable and the economy will have a boost. So we'll just shut the entire society away instead over and over and over again and you still believe there will be jobs left for anyone to go back to and leave again, go back to, ohh lockdown and leave again. There simply won't be any economy left to do anything. And you mention people being nieve
You are nieve if you believe that the government are just gonna say we can a shut away a huge portion of society so the rest of you can do as you please and that is the only way to totally open up the economy. But then more and more people will get sick and people that would never have died from this virus will. Like I said show me one country that has done this. Because if that was an easy solution it would have been done by now. "We've been down this rabbit hole before and it didn't go that well for you last time  | |||
And whilst the rest of the country lives and plays freely, getting richer. It's not going to happen.
Add to this that the BAME populations are vulnerable. Do you sense that cutting them off from others is going to be viewed as anything other than a hideous apartheid proposition, as the other vulnerable people would see it too.
Is it worse that poorer people have no protection from tenancy eviction, are unable to feed and home families than much wealthier people who have more? It's tough for everyone, especially those who are losing loved ones.
Letting a group of society run free, leaving them to let the virus fester amongst them is inhumane, as that breeding ground will spread to others who will get very ill, with some of them not escaping death. There is no magical divide between the vulnerable and the rest. Many of the vulnerable need support and contact with the rest. It would promote death sentences. Would you be the person to tell people that they must isolate, lose their contact with family and friends, because some others insisted on wealth retention? That they'd get a 2nd rate life, for your convenience? Good luck with it! | |||
" Teachers and support staff have already died. Have they? Hmmm. That was kept EXTREMELY QUIET!! Not even the unions are acknowledging it!! Teacher myself, and there are definitely a few very very vulnerable teachers even where I am. If the gov mention it, then there will likely be massive uproar in the public. "What about my kids" etc OK I suggest you do a little more research. I work in a school and lost a college. I'm. So sorry Lorna (
Thank you lovely and actually you were the only person on this thread who has said that we are genuinely just losing humanity. "It's become very divisive, hasn't it? Sorry about your colleague. I lost 2 colleagues and a very dear friend. All 3 were shielding. Xc | |||
"People are so nieve if they genuinely believe that by shutting away a huge portion of society thatt somehow they are going to be able to get their normal nhs treatment or jobs are suddenly going to be viable and the economy will have a boost. So we'll just shut the entire society away instead over and over and over again and you still believe there will be jobs left for anyone to go back to and leave again, go back to, ohh lockdown and leave again. There simply won't be any economy left to do anything. And you mention people being nieve
You are nieve if you believe that the government are just gonna say we can a shut away a huge portion of society so the rest of you can do as you please and that is the only way to totally open up the economy. But then more and more people will get sick and people that would never have died from this virus will. Like I said show me one country that has done this. Because if that was an easy solution it would have been done by now.
We've been down this rabbit hole before and it didn't go that well for you last time "It went fine for me because you gave up giving sensible answers because you didn't have any. If I remember you resorted to insults and character slurs. | |||
"I had to shield until 1st August. I live on my own and it was absolute hell, mentally. But I followed the rules because 1. I was worried and 2. I'm not selfish. I'm currently working at home, and will be for the foreseeable future. So please, shut up about locking me away again and just FOLLOW THE GODDAMN RULES!!!" We did exactly the same and I totally feel for you. Unfortunately people can't see past the end of their own nose and are so selfish. A genuinely believe that the vulnerable in society are to blame those who already usually the most marginalised. Thankfully most normal sensible people don't think like this. | |||
"I had to shield until 1st August. I live on my own and it was absolute hell, mentally. But I followed the rules because 1. I was worried and 2. I'm not selfish. I'm currently working at home, and will be for the foreseeable future. So please, shut up about locking me away again and just FOLLOW THE GODDAMN RULES!!! We did exactly the same and I totally feel for you. Unfortunately people can't see past the end of their own nose and are so selfish. A genuinely believe that the vulnerable in society are to blame those who already usually the most marginalised. Thankfully most normal sensible people don't think like this. " It's a really sad state of affairs, isn't it? Xx | |||
"I had to shield until 1st August. I live on my own and it was absolute hell, mentally. But I followed the rules because 1. I was worried and 2. I'm not selfish. I'm currently working at home, and will be for the foreseeable future. So please, shut up about locking me away again and just FOLLOW THE GODDAMN RULES!!!" If vulnerable people don't want to isolate that's damn fine with me, just they shouldn't expect the entire country to do the same just because they are, that's the crux of my point. Now if the percentage of normally healthy people dying of covid started to rocket then yes I'd be fully behind another lockdown because the majority of the country would be adversely affected by covid but what's been suggested here of locking down potentially over and over and over again will be causing far more damage than the damn virus is currently capable of. | |||
"People are so nieve if they genuinely believe that by shutting away a huge portion of society thatt somehow they are going to be able to get their normal nhs treatment or jobs are suddenly going to be viable and the economy will have a boost. So we'll just shut the entire society away instead over and over and over again and you still believe there will be jobs left for anyone to go back to and leave again, go back to, ohh lockdown and leave again. There simply won't be any economy left to do anything. And you mention people being nieve
You are nieve if you believe that the government are just gonna say we can a shut away a huge portion of society so the rest of you can do as you please and that is the only way to totally open up the economy. But then more and more people will get sick and people that would never have died from this virus will. Like I said show me one country that has done this. Because if that was an easy solution it would have been done by now.
We've been down this rabbit hole before and it didn't go that well for you last time
It went fine for me because you gave up giving sensible answers because you didn't have any. If I remember you resorted to insults and character slurs. "I most definitely did not, maybe you take a read back and apologise | |||
"People are so nieve if they genuinely believe that by shutting away a huge portion of society thatt somehow they are going to be able to get their normal nhs treatment or jobs are suddenly going to be viable and the economy will have a boost. So we'll just shut the entire society away instead over and over and over again and you still believe there will be jobs left for anyone to go back to and leave again, go back to, ohh lockdown and leave again. There simply won't be any economy left to do anything. And you mention people being nieve
You are nieve if you believe that the government are just gonna say we can a shut away a huge portion of society so the rest of you can do as you please and that is the only way to totally open up the economy. But then more and more people will get sick and people that would never have died from this virus will. Like I said show me one country that has done this. Because if that was an easy solution it would have been done by now.
We've been down this rabbit hole before and it didn't go that well for you last time
It went fine for me because you gave up giving sensible answers because you didn't have any. If I remember you resorted to insults and character slurs.
I most definitely did not, maybe you take a read back and apologise "Anyone that can have a look for themselves. | |||
"I had to shield until 1st August. I live on my own and it was absolute hell, mentally. But I followed the rules because 1. I was worried and 2. I'm not selfish. I'm currently working at home, and will be for the foreseeable future. So please, shut up about locking me away again and just FOLLOW THE GODDAMN RULES!!! If vulnerable people don't want to isolate that's damn fine with me, just they shouldn't expect the entire country to do the same just because they are, that's the crux of my point. Now if the percentage of normally healthy people dying of covid started to rocket then yes I'd be fully behind another lockdown because the majority of the country would be adversely affected by covid but what's been suggested here of locking down potentially over and over and over again will be causing far more damage than the damn virus is currently capable of. " Show down you have the audacity to say that if normal healthy people die then it's a worry but if people who have and underlyings condition but does not affect their life expectancy then you don't care that says a lot about your attitude. | |||
"I had to shield until 1st August. I live on my own and it was absolute hell, mentally. But I followed the rules because 1. I was worried and 2. I'm not selfish. I'm currently working at home, and will be for the foreseeable future. So please, shut up about locking me away again and just FOLLOW THE GODDAMN RULES!!! If vulnerable people don't want to isolate that's damn fine with me, just they shouldn't expect the entire country to do the same just because they are, that's the crux of my point. Now if the percentage of normally healthy people dying of covid started to rocket then yes I'd be fully behind another lockdown because the majority of the country would be adversely affected by covid but what's been suggested here of locking down potentially over and over and over again will be causing far more damage than the damn virus is currently capable of. " It must be great to be so healthy. And to not have to worry about vulnerable family/friends. I have a genetic autoimmune disease, that I already know will cut at least 10yrs off my life. I am a fully functioning member of society and I'd rather not spend more time isolated at home, on my own, just so you can lead your best life. Surely you can see how divisive and upsetting this is? | |||
"I had to shield until 1st August. I live on my own and it was absolute hell, mentally. But I followed the rules because 1. I was worried and 2. I'm not selfish. I'm currently working at home, and will be for the foreseeable future. So please, shut up about locking me away again and just FOLLOW THE GODDAMN RULES!!! If vulnerable people don't want to isolate that's damn fine with me, just they shouldn't expect the entire country to do the same just because they are, that's the crux of my point. Now if the percentage of normally healthy people dying of covid started to rocket then yes I'd be fully behind another lockdown because the majority of the country would be adversely affected by covid but what's been suggested here of locking down potentially over and over and over again will be causing far more damage than the damn virus is currently capable of. Show down you have the audacity to say that if normal healthy people die then it's a worry but if people who have and underlyings condition but does not affect their life expectancy then you don't care that says a lot about your attitude. " No, you're really having difficulty understanding a simple point and this is exactly where you came unstuck last week. You said you can't keep the vulnerable locked away. I said OK but you can't keep the entire society locked away either, the effects of doing that will be 10 fold. So it ended up as... You saying the Vulnerable not to isolate to stay safer because you're not happy with that so that only left locking down the whole country but I said you can't isolate the whole country forever, that just cannot be maintained for any length of time due to obvious reasons. So I asked you for your alternative, you didn't have one, you didn't want the vulnerable to isolate yet you didn't want anyone at all to live a normal life either, so that only left everyone to isolate in lockdown. You couldn't come up with an idea on what should be done, only shutdown the country as a whole. Then you were the one pouring scorn when I said the vulnerable could protect themselves and the rest get on with working and you said.... "name one country that hasn't locked down or has protected the vulnerable and the rest carry on as normal" So I named 4 countries If that's what you suggest was slurring you or being abusive or whatever then I pity you. Last point Unlike you I only want to adversely affect the majority with crippling economic harm if it was the majority of people possibly at risk of dying from coronavirus, whereas you are happy to financially ruin everyone to make the minority... erm do what they probably should do anyway and isolate to stay safer. You contradict yourself something chronic to be honest then try and twist everything I say in an attempt to make me look bad. Bit sad really init  | |||
"I had to shield until 1st August. I live on my own and it was absolute hell, mentally. But I followed the rules because 1. I was worried and 2. I'm not selfish. I'm currently working at home, and will be for the foreseeable future. So please, shut up about locking me away again and just FOLLOW THE GODDAMN RULES!!! If vulnerable people don't want to isolate that's damn fine with me, just they shouldn't expect the entire country to do the same just because they are, that's the crux of my point. Now if the percentage of normally healthy people dying of covid started to rocket then yes I'd be fully behind another lockdown because the majority of the country would be adversely affected by covid but what's been suggested here of locking down potentially over and over and over again will be causing far more damage than the damn virus is currently capable of. Show down you have the audacity to say that if normal healthy people die then it's a worry but if people who have and underlyings condition but does not affect their life expectancy then you don't care that says a lot about your attitude. " Ohh, one last thing since you're being so presumptuous... I'm in a vulnerable group, I've not shielded or isolated because that's been my choice I've worked the entire pandemic I've worked my spare time on weekends at mobile Covid-19 testing sites all around the county. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't give you licence to start throwing your bile at me starting I don't care about vulnerable people..... | |||
"I had to shield until 1st August. I live on my own and it was absolute hell, mentally. But I followed the rules because 1. I was worried and 2. I'm not selfish. I'm currently working at home, and will be for the foreseeable future. So please, shut up about locking me away again and just FOLLOW THE GODDAMN RULES!!! If vulnerable people don't want to isolate that's damn fine with me, just they shouldn't expect the entire country to do the same just because they are, that's the crux of my point. Now if the percentage of normally healthy people dying of covid started to rocket then yes I'd be fully behind another lockdown because the majority of the country would be adversely affected by covid but what's been suggested here of locking down potentially over and over and over again will be causing far more damage than the damn virus is currently capable of. Show down you have the audacity to say that if normal healthy people die then it's a worry but if people who have and underlyings condition but does not affect their life expectancy then you don't care that says a lot about your attitude. No, you're really having difficulty understanding a simple point and this is exactly where you came unstuck last week. You said you can't keep the vulnerable locked away. I said OK but you can't keep the entire society locked away either, the effects of doing that will be 10 fold. So it ended up as... You saying the Vulnerable not to isolate to stay safer because you're not happy with that so that only left locking down the whole country but I said you can't isolate the whole country forever, that just cannot be maintained for any length of time due to obvious reasons. So I asked you for your alternative, you didn't have one, you didn't want the vulnerable to isolate yet you didn't want anyone at all to live a normal life either, so that only left everyone to isolate in lockdown. You couldn't come up with an idea on what should be done, only shutdown the country as a whole. Then you were the one pouring scorn when I said the vulnerable could protect themselves and the rest get on with working and you said.... "name one country that hasn't locked down or has protected the vulnerable and the rest carry on as normal" So I named 4 countries If that's what you suggest was slurring you or being abusive or whatever then I pity you. Last point Unlike you I only want to adversely affect the majority with crippling economic harm if it was the majority of people possibly at risk of dying from coronavirus, whereas you are happy to financially ruin everyone to make the minority... erm do what they probably should do anyway and isolate to stay safer. You contradict yourself something chronic to be honest then try and twist everything I say in an attempt to make me look bad. Bit sad really init "You know everyone can read this right? And you have the nerve to say you don't resort to personal slurs. I suggest you re read what you have written. Also when others have said very similar things to me is it just me you target? | |||
"I had to shield until 1st August. I live on my own and it was absolute hell, mentally. But I followed the rules because 1. I was worried and 2. I'm not selfish. I'm currently working at home, and will be for the foreseeable future. So please, shut up about locking me away again and just FOLLOW THE GODDAMN RULES!!! If vulnerable people don't want to isolate that's damn fine with me, just they shouldn't expect the entire country to do the same just because they are, that's the crux of my point. Now if the percentage of normally healthy people dying of covid started to rocket then yes I'd be fully behind another lockdown because the majority of the country would be adversely affected by covid but what's been suggested here of locking down potentially over and over and over again will be causing far more damage than the damn virus is currently capable of. Show down you have the audacity to say that if normal healthy people die then it's a worry but if people who have and underlyings condition but does not affect their life expectancy then you don't care that says a lot about your attitude. Ohh, one last thing since you're being so presumptuous... I'm in a vulnerable group, I've not shielded or isolated because that's been my choice I've worked the entire pandemic I've worked my spare time on weekends at mobile Covid-19 testing sites all around the county. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't give you licence to start throwing your bile at me starting I don't care about vulnerable people..... " You have literally just said if normal healthy people start dying you would back a lockdown. Can you please explain to me how are you or anyone else is meant to interpret that other than you don't care about the vulnerable. | |||
"I had to shield until 1st August. I live on my own and it was absolute hell, mentally. But I followed the rules because 1. I was worried and 2. I'm not selfish. I'm currently working at home, and will be for the foreseeable future. So please, shut up about locking me away again and just FOLLOW THE GODDAMN RULES!!! If vulnerable people don't want to isolate that's damn fine with me, just they shouldn't expect the entire country to do the same just because they are, that's the crux of my point. Now if the percentage of normally healthy people dying of covid started to rocket then yes I'd be fully behind another lockdown because the majority of the country would be adversely affected by covid but what's been suggested here of locking down potentially over and over and over again will be causing far more damage than the damn virus is currently capable of. Show down you have the audacity to say that if normal healthy people die then it's a worry but if people who have and underlyings condition but does not affect their life expectancy then you don't care that says a lot about your attitude. No, you're really having difficulty understanding a simple point and this is exactly where you came unstuck last week. You said you can't keep the vulnerable locked away. I said OK but you can't keep the entire society locked away either, the effects of doing that will be 10 fold. So it ended up as... You saying the Vulnerable not to isolate to stay safer because you're not happy with that so that only left locking down the whole country but I said you can't isolate the whole country forever, that just cannot be maintained for any length of time due to obvious reasons. So I asked you for your alternative, you didn't have one, you didn't want the vulnerable to isolate yet you didn't want anyone at all to live a normal life either, so that only left everyone to isolate in lockdown. You couldn't come up with an idea on what should be done, only shutdown the country as a whole. Then you were the one pouring scorn when I said the vulnerable could protect themselves and the rest get on with working and you said.... "name one country that hasn't locked down or has protected the vulnerable and the rest carry on as normal" So I named 4 countries If that's what you suggest was slurring you or being abusive or whatever then I pity you. Last point Unlike you I only want to adversely affect the majority with crippling economic harm if it was the majority of people possibly at risk of dying from coronavirus, whereas you are happy to financially ruin everyone to make the minority... erm do what they probably should do anyway and isolate to stay safer. You contradict yourself something chronic to be honest then try and twist everything I say in an attempt to make me look bad. Bit sad really init
You know everyone can read this right? And you have the nerve to say you don't resort to personal slurs. I suggest you re read what you have written. Also when others have said very similar things to me is it just me you target?"Where have I typed a slur against you? Pointing out what you yourself have typed is not a personal slur. | |||
  | |||
 | |||
"I had to shield until 1st August. I live on my own and it was absolute hell, mentally. But I followed the rules because 1. I was worried and 2. I'm not selfish. I'm currently working at home, and will be for the foreseeable future. So please, shut up about locking me away again and just FOLLOW THE GODDAMN RULES!!! If vulnerable people don't want to isolate that's damn fine with me, just they shouldn't expect the entire country to do the same just because they are, that's the crux of my point. Now if the percentage of normally healthy people dying of covid started to rocket then yes I'd be fully behind another lockdown because the majority of the country would be adversely affected by covid but what's been suggested here of locking down potentially over and over and over again will be causing far more damage than the damn virus is currently capable of. Show down you have the audacity to say that if normal healthy people die then it's a worry but if people who have and underlyings condition but does not affect their life expectancy then you don't care that says a lot about your attitude. Ohh, one last thing since you're being so presumptuous... I'm in a vulnerable group, I've not shielded or isolated because that's been my choice I've worked the entire pandemic I've worked my spare time on weekends at mobile Covid-19 testing sites all around the county. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't give you licence to start throwing your bile at me starting I don't care about vulnerable people..... You have literally just said if normal healthy people start dying you would back a lockdown. Can you please explain to me how are you or anyone else is meant to interpret that other than you don't care about the vulnerable. " I believe I said if the death rates rocketed | |||
"I had to shield until 1st August. I live on my own and it was absolute hell, mentally. But I followed the rules because 1. I was worried and 2. I'm not selfish. I'm currently working at home, and will be for the foreseeable future. So please, shut up about locking me away again and just FOLLOW THE GODDAMN RULES!!! If vulnerable people don't want to isolate that's damn fine with me, just they shouldn't expect the entire country to do the same just because they are, that's the crux of my point. Now if the percentage of normally healthy people dying of covid started to rocket then yes I'd be fully behind another lockdown because the majority of the country would be adversely affected by covid but what's been suggested here of locking down potentially over and over and over again will be causing far more damage than the damn virus is currently capable of. " But wouldn't it make more sense for the sake of the economy to isolate the whole of society for short bursts of time rather than keep it going at 62% (because of the 38% vulnerable) for god knows how long? And that's not even counting those that will choose to isolate for the sake of vulnerable family members. Don't know if the way I've explained it makes sense, basically wouldn't it be better to have virtually no economy for a very small amount of time, rather than a kind of half-economy all of the time? | |||
| |||
"I had to shield until 1st August. I live on my own and it was absolute hell, mentally. But I followed the rules because 1. I was worried and 2. I'm not selfish. I'm currently working at home, and will be for the foreseeable future. So please, shut up about locking me away again and just FOLLOW THE GODDAMN RULES!!! If vulnerable people don't want to isolate that's damn fine with me, just they shouldn't expect the entire country to do the same just because they are, that's the crux of my point. Now if the percentage of normally healthy people dying of covid started to rocket then yes I'd be fully behind another lockdown because the majority of the country would be adversely affected by covid but what's been suggested here of locking down potentially over and over and over again will be causing far more damage than the damn virus is currently capable of. But wouldn't it make more sense for the sake of the economy to isolate the whole of society for short bursts of time rather than keep it going at 62% (because of the 38% vulnerable) for god knows how long? And that's not even counting those that will choose to isolate for the sake of vulnerable family members. Don't know if the way I've explained it makes sense, basically wouldn't it be better to have virtually no economy for a very small amount of time, rather than a kind of half-economy all of the time? " I don't think businesses would survive unfortunately but that does seem to be the route the government is going down yes. | |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours. Such angry words......Covid is certainly causing psychological issues amongst us. I understand why he's angry and I'm angry too. Imagine being in a group where you are constantly told you should shut yourself away and sacrifice your wellbeing, job and mental health so everyone else can just get on with theirs. it is demoralising and yes causes psychological issues. Imagine being in a group (the young and healthy and mostly under 60 that has a 99.6% survival rate) being told to shut themselfs away and sacrafice their wellbeing, jobs and mentle health, loss of buisness etc just so the 20% of vulnerable/elderly don't have to go through it alone. I think i know which group is the more selfish of the two. The thing is away from this site I'm yet to meet an elderly or vulnerable person that wants the rest of the country being in lock down or having all kinds of restrictions in place just so they feel protected or not having to go through it alone. " This right here. There was a reply further up the chain where someone basically admitted that the entire country should be locked down purely because it is unfair that only those that need it be locked down. The selfishness and "misery loves company" sentiment that goes into making a statement like that are amazing. Your sister has cancer, so you're going in for radiotherapy tomorrow. It's not fair that only she has to go through it. It's hilariously moronic. | |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours. Such angry words......Covid is certainly causing psychological issues amongst us. I understand why he's angry and I'm angry too. Imagine being in a group where you are constantly told you should shut yourself away and sacrifice your wellbeing, job and mental health so everyone else can just get on with theirs. it is demoralising and yes causes psychological issues. Imagine being in a group (the young and healthy and mostly under 60 that has a 99.6% survival rate) being told to shut themselfs away and sacrafice their wellbeing, jobs and mentle health, loss of buisness etc just so the 20% of vulnerable/elderly don't have to go through it alone. I think i know which group is the more selfish of the two. The thing is away from this site I'm yet to meet an elderly or vulnerable person that wants the rest of the country being in lock down or having all kinds of restrictions in place just so they feel protected or not having to go through it alone. This right here. There was a reply further up the chain where someone basically admitted that the entire country should be locked down purely because it is unfair that only those that need it be locked down. The selfishness and "misery loves company" sentiment that goes into making a statement like that are amazing. Your sister has cancer, so you're going in for radiotherapy tomorrow. It's not fair that only she has to go through it. It's hilariously moronic. " I couldn't agree more
While schools, colleges and uni's and general business are open to keep life as normal as possible for the majority, I don't see that exactly as "letting them swann around doing what they want", I see it as letting them take their chances because statistically they are at least risk.
The crux of the argument was actually over how to protect the vulnerable while not utterly destroying everyone's livelihood believe it or not lol | |||
"I empathise with anyone who has fears for their financial future. But I fear more about the loss of life from this pandemic, then I do for its financial implications. We have seen that this virus does not exclusively target the vulnerable, and we ALL have a part to play in minimising its transmission. My issue isn't the individual financial loss, but the crippling economic one. At this point, I'd say it's already too late It's not "too late". That's a bit over dramatic! Gdp is slowly growing, not shrinking anymore! The sky's not going to fall in!
You not noticed the price of litterally every thing going up? Litterally every company has losses to recover, which gets passed on to the public, where do you see this going well for anyone? "Everything going up? None of my bills have! Supermarkets haven't lost money over covid, quite the contrary. So no, everything hasn't risen in price. Don't forget price rises are totally normal EVERY Year! | |||
"I empathise with anyone who has fears for their financial future. But I fear more about the loss of life from this pandemic, then I do for its financial implications. We have seen that this virus does not exclusively target the vulnerable, and we ALL have a part to play in minimising its transmission. My issue isn't the individual financial loss, but the crippling economic one. At this point, I'd say it's already too late It's not "too late". That's a bit over dramatic! Gdp is slowly growing, not shrinking anymore! The sky's not going to fall in!
You not noticed the price of litterally every thing going up? Litterally every company has losses to recover, which gets passed on to the public, where do you see this going well for anyone?
Everything going up? None of my bills have! Supermarkets haven't lost money over covid, quite the contrary. So no, everything hasn't risen in price. Don't forget price rises are totally normal EVERY Year! "Supermarkets aren't an part of the industry that's been required to close and really only made minor adaptations. My bills have gone up, so has the cost of next year's holiday. Also, interest rates are low right now (lowest they've ever been i think I heard on radio) but how long can they stay that low? And how quickly will it rise when it inevitably does? | |||
"There seems to be an increasing split in the country. Those whose jobs are secure, and so any restrictions are an irritant and those who’s jobs or businesses are threatened due to the restrictions. We are in the latter camp. We are very unworried about the prospect of the illness, but panicked about the prospect of zero income for the foreseeable future. How do others on here feel? Personally, I’d prefer the vulnerable to self isolate and the rest of us get on with our livesBragging your selfish very odd Yes I notice the OP has not responded to a single post. " Maybe the OP’s purpose was to encourage that very split they were talking about? | |||
"There seems to be an increasing split in the country. Those whose jobs are secure, and so any restrictions are an irritant and those who’s jobs or businesses are threatened due to the restrictions. We are in the latter camp. We are very unworried about the prospect of the illness, but panicked about the prospect of zero income for the foreseeable future. How do others on here feel? Personally, I’d prefer the vulnerable to self isolate and the rest of us get on with our lives I thought vulnerable people were shielding? You need to keep up with the News Lionel. Vulnerable people are working from home in our office? Ideally everyone who can work from home should be shouldn't they? " Who knows? First the government says anyone who work from home should, then they say everyone should get back to work, then they say everyone who can should work from home again. You can hardly blame staff and employers for being a little confused. | |||
"I empathise with anyone who has fears for their financial future. But I fear more about the loss of life from this pandemic, then I do for its financial implications. We have seen that this virus does not exclusively target the vulnerable, and we ALL have a part to play in minimising its transmission. " You fail to realise it’s financial implications that lead to death further down the line. Shielders shouldn’t be made to stay in, it should be up to them what they do. We all just need to carry on as normal and learn to live with this virus, because eventually everyone will be exposed to it anyway. | |||
| |||
"I empathise with anyone who has fears for their financial future. But I fear more about the loss of life from this pandemic, then I do for its financial implications. We have seen that this virus does not exclusively target the vulnerable, and we ALL have a part to play in minimising its transmission. You fail to realise it’s financial implications that lead to death further down the line. Shielders shouldn’t be made to stay in, it should be up to them what they do. We all just need to carry on as normal and learn to live with this virus, because eventually everyone will be exposed to it anyway. " | |||
"I empathise with anyone who has fears for their financial future. But I fear more about the loss of life from this pandemic, then I do for its financial implications. We have seen that this virus does not exclusively target the vulnerable, and we ALL have a part to play in minimising its transmission. My issue isn't the individual financial loss, but the crippling economic one. At this point, I'd say it's already too late It's not "too late". That's a bit over dramatic! Gdp is slowly growing, not shrinking anymore! The sky's not going to fall in!
You not noticed the price of litterally every thing going up? Litterally every company has losses to recover, which gets passed on to the public, where do you see this going well for anyone?
Everything going up? None of my bills have! Supermarkets haven't lost money over covid, quite the contrary. So no, everything hasn't risen in price. Don't forget price rises are totally normal EVERY Year!
Supermarkets aren't an part of the industry that's been required to close and really only made minor adaptations. My bills have gone up, so has the cost of next year's holiday. Also, interest rates are low right now (lowest they've ever been i think I heard on radio) but how long can they stay that low? And how quickly will it rise when it inevitably does?"Interest rates are complicated. They've been low since 2008,to help with the last turndown. My food, gas, electric, diesel, council tax, are all the same. Even flights are cheaper than last year! | |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours. Such angry words......Covid is certainly causing psychological issues amongst us. I understand why he's angry and I'm angry too. Imagine being in a group where you are constantly told you should shut yourself away and sacrifice your wellbeing, job and mental health so everyone else can just get on with theirs. it is demoralising and yes causes psychological issues. Imagine being in a group (the young and healthy and mostly under 60 that has a 99.6% survival rate) being told to shut themselfs away and sacrafice their wellbeing, jobs and mentle health, loss of buisness etc just so the 20% of vulnerable/elderly don't have to go through it alone. I think i know which group is the more selfish of the two. The thing is away from this site I'm yet to meet an elderly or vulnerable person that wants the rest of the country being in lock down or having all kinds of restrictions in place just so they feel protected or not having to go through it alone. This right here. There was a reply further up the chain where someone basically admitted that the entire country should be locked down purely because it is unfair that only those that need it be locked down. The selfishness and "misery loves company" sentiment that goes into making a statement like that are amazing. Your sister has cancer, so you're going in for radiotherapy tomorrow. It's not fair that only she has to go through it. It's hilariously moronic. " There’s a huge irony about you calling an idea hilariously moronic after that post. I realise that as humans we like to make things simple because otherwise our lazy old brains have to work hard but let’s break that down shall we? If someone is having radiotherapy it’s because it is the most effective treatment for their cancer. There aren’t really any other options because if there were you wouldn’t choose the really fucking painful one. Radiotherapy is used to both destroy the cancer and slow it’s spread. A person without cancer having radiotherapy does not stop the spread of cancer in people who have cancer. Therefore, someone else having radiotherapy too wouldn’t have any effect on whether the first person’s treatment is effective or not. Having to wear a mask, washing hands often, maintaining social distance and not going to the pub does have an effect on the spread of Covid-19. Even though I’m not in a vulnerable group my actions still positively effect those who are. Covid-19 is a very contagious virus that kills indiscriminately. Locking down is a reasonably effective way of halting its spread. You and I having some restrictions placed on what we do so potentially 40% of society can also get on with doing things with a reduced chance of catching Covid-19, is an effective way to allow society to function somewhat normally. What do you think will happen if we take 40% of the population out of society and support them financially to isolate? Do you think the other 60% will be able to bear that load? Except it’s not 60% it’s 45% because 15% of the population are under 18. Do you think businesses will be able to function with 25-40% of their staff unavailable? | |||
"There seems to be an increasing split in the country. Those whose jobs are secure, and so any restrictions are an irritant and those who’s jobs or businesses are threatened due to the restrictions. We are in the latter camp. We are very unworried about the prospect of the illness, but panicked about the prospect of zero income for the foreseeable future. How do others on here feel? Personally, I’d prefer the vulnerable to self isolate and the rest of us get on with our lives" You think the split is only along the lines of jobs? Divide and conquer is the order of the day: black v white, old v young, fat v slim, north v South, workers v those on benefits, workers on furlough v those not...the list is endless. Everyone I know is working from home or working: for me this pandemic isn't about money as I'm not financially suffering. I think for many people it's more the social contact. I can travel on packed transport to work but I can't visit my daughter in hospital or travel to see my other daughter and her family in Wales. Not much of a life at the moment when I can make my employer money but can't visit people I want to see. | |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours. Such angry words......Covid is certainly causing psychological issues amongst us. I understand why he's angry and I'm angry too. Imagine being in a group where you are constantly told you should shut yourself away and sacrifice your wellbeing, job and mental health so everyone else can just get on with theirs. it is demoralising and yes causes psychological issues. Imagine being in a group (the young and healthy and mostly under 60 that has a 99.6% survival rate) being told to shut themselfs away and sacrafice their wellbeing, jobs and mentle health, loss of buisness etc just so the 20% of vulnerable/elderly don't have to go through it alone. I think i know which group is the more selfish of the two. The thing is away from this site I'm yet to meet an elderly or vulnerable person that wants the rest of the country being in lock down or having all kinds of restrictions in place just so they feel protected or not having to go through it alone. This right here. There was a reply further up the chain where someone basically admitted that the entire country should be locked down purely because it is unfair that only those that need it be locked down. The selfishness and "misery loves company" sentiment that goes into making a statement like that are amazing. Your sister has cancer, so you're going in for radiotherapy tomorrow. It's not fair that only she has to go through it. It's hilariously moronic. There’s a huge irony about you calling an idea hilariously moronic after that post. I realise that as humans we like to make things simple because otherwise our lazy old brains have to work hard but let’s break that down shall we? If someone is having radiotherapy it’s because it is the most effective treatment for their cancer. There aren’t really any other options because if there were you wouldn’t choose the really fucking painful one. Radiotherapy is used to both destroy the cancer and slow it’s spread. A person without cancer having radiotherapy does not stop the spread of cancer in people who have cancer. Therefore, someone else having radiotherapy too wouldn’t have any effect on whether the first person’s treatment is effective or not. Having to wear a mask, washing hands often, maintaining social distance and not going to the pub does have an effect on the spread of Covid-19. Even though I’m not in a vulnerable group my actions still positively effect those who are. Covid-19 is a very contagious virus that kills indiscriminately. Locking down is a reasonably effective way of halting its spread. You and I having some restrictions placed on what we do so potentially 40% of society can also get on with doing things with a reduced chance of catching Covid-19, is an effective way to allow society to function somewhat normally. What do you think will happen if we take 40% of the population out of society and support them financially to isolate? Do you think the other 60% will be able to bear that load? Except it’s not 60% it’s 45% because 15% of the population are under 18. Do you think businesses will be able to function with 25-40% of their staff unavailable? " You say the virus kills "indiscriminately" well thats just not true is it. When over 90% of all deaths world wide is the over 80's This virus certainty does discriminate and that is the very elderly. Also i am not sure where you got that number of 40% of the population as vulnerable and elderly. I think its more around the 25-30% mark. | |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours. Such angry words......Covid is certainly causing psychological issues amongst us. I understand why he's angry and I'm angry too. Imagine being in a group where you are constantly told you should shut yourself away and sacrifice your wellbeing, job and mental health so everyone else can just get on with theirs. it is demoralising and yes causes psychological issues. Imagine being in a group (the young and healthy and mostly under 60 that has a 99.6% survival rate) being told to shut themselfs away and sacrafice their wellbeing, jobs and mentle health, loss of buisness etc just so the 20% of vulnerable/elderly don't have to go through it alone. I think i know which group is the more selfish of the two. The thing is away from this site I'm yet to meet an elderly or vulnerable person that wants the rest of the country being in lock down or having all kinds of restrictions in place just so they feel protected or not having to go through it alone. This right here. There was a reply further up the chain where someone basically admitted that the entire country should be locked down purely because it is unfair that only those that need it be locked down. The selfishness and "misery loves company" sentiment that goes into making a statement like that are amazing. Your sister has cancer, so you're going in for radiotherapy tomorrow. It's not fair that only she has to go through it. It's hilariously moronic. " At no point have I or anybody else said the entire country should be locked up and it isn't and never has been. We have never been in full lockdown in this country. It's not me saying the vulnerable shouldn't shield its the government and I agree and every other government in the world is saying the same thing. Shielding the vulnerable whilst letting the rest of the population just go about their normal business does work. | |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours. Such angry words......Covid is certainly causing psychological issues amongst us. I understand why he's angry and I'm angry too. Imagine being in a group where you are constantly told you should shut yourself away and sacrifice your wellbeing, job and mental health so everyone else can just get on with theirs. it is demoralising and yes causes psychological issues. Imagine being in a group (the young and healthy and mostly under 60 that has a 99.6% survival rate) being told to shut themselfs away and sacrafice their wellbeing, jobs and mentle health, loss of buisness etc just so the 20% of vulnerable/elderly don't have to go through it alone. I think i know which group is the more selfish of the two. The thing is away from this site I'm yet to meet an elderly or vulnerable person that wants the rest of the country being in lock down or having all kinds of restrictions in place just so they feel protected or not having to go through it alone. This right here. There was a reply further up the chain where someone basically admitted that the entire country should be locked down purely because it is unfair that only those that need it be locked down. The selfishness and "misery loves company" sentiment that goes into making a statement like that are amazing. Your sister has cancer, so you're going in for radiotherapy tomorrow. It's not fair that only she has to go through it. It's hilariously moronic. There’s a huge irony about you calling an idea hilariously moronic after that post. I realise that as humans we like to make things simple because otherwise our lazy old brains have to work hard but let’s break that down shall we? If someone is having radiotherapy it’s because it is the most effective treatment for their cancer. There aren’t really any other options because if there were you wouldn’t choose the really fucking painful one. Radiotherapy is used to both destroy the cancer and slow it’s spread. A person without cancer having radiotherapy does not stop the spread of cancer in people who have cancer. Therefore, someone else having radiotherapy too wouldn’t have any effect on whether the first person’s treatment is effective or not. Having to wear a mask, washing hands often, maintaining social distance and not going to the pub does have an effect on the spread of Covid-19. Even though I’m not in a vulnerable group my actions still positively effect those who are. Covid-19 is a very contagious virus that kills indiscriminately. Locking down is a reasonably effective way of halting its spread. You and I having some restrictions placed on what we do so potentially 40% of society can also get on with doing things with a reduced chance of catching Covid-19, is an effective way to allow society to function somewhat normally. What do you think will happen if we take 40% of the population out of society and support them financially to isolate? Do you think the other 60% will be able to bear that load? Except it’s not 60% it’s 45% because 15% of the population are under 18. Do you think businesses will be able to function with 25-40% of their staff unavailable? You say the virus kills "indiscriminately" well thats just not true is it. When over 90% of all deaths world wide is the over 80's This virus certainty does discriminate and that is the very elderly. Also i am not sure where you got that number of 40% of the population as vulnerable and elderly. I think its more around the 25-30% mark. " The government’s figures state that around 38% of the population are in groups that are considered vulnerable. The virus doesn’t discriminate, it kills people of all ages, the majority are over 80 but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t kill people below that age. Fancy having a bash at answering my questions? | |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours. Such angry words......Covid is certainly causing psychological issues amongst us. I understand why he's angry and I'm angry too. Imagine being in a group where you are constantly told you should shut yourself away and sacrifice your wellbeing, job and mental health so everyone else can just get on with theirs. it is demoralising and yes causes psychological issues. Imagine being in a group (the young and healthy and mostly under 60 that has a 99.6% survival rate) being told to shut themselfs away and sacrafice their wellbeing, jobs and mentle health, loss of buisness etc just so the 20% of vulnerable/elderly don't have to go through it alone. I think i know which group is the more selfish of the two. The thing is away from this site I'm yet to meet an elderly or vulnerable person that wants the rest of the country being in lock down or having all kinds of restrictions in place just so they feel protected or not having to go through it alone. This right here. There was a reply further up the chain where someone basically admitted that the entire country should be locked down purely because it is unfair that only those that need it be locked down. The selfishness and "misery loves company" sentiment that goes into making a statement like that are amazing. Your sister has cancer, so you're going in for radiotherapy tomorrow. It's not fair that only she has to go through it. It's hilariously moronic. There’s a huge irony about you calling an idea hilariously moronic after that post. I realise that as humans we like to make things simple because otherwise our lazy old brains have to work hard but let’s break that down shall we? If someone is having radiotherapy it’s because it is the most effective treatment for their cancer. There aren’t really any other options because if there were you wouldn’t choose the really fucking painful one. Radiotherapy is used to both destroy the cancer and slow it’s spread. A person without cancer having radiotherapy does not stop the spread of cancer in people who have cancer. Therefore, someone else having radiotherapy too wouldn’t have any effect on whether the first person’s treatment is effective or not. Having to wear a mask, washing hands often, maintaining social distance and not going to the pub does have an effect on the spread of Covid-19. Even though I’m not in a vulnerable group my actions still positively effect those who are. Covid-19 is a very contagious virus that kills indiscriminately. Locking down is a reasonably effective way of halting its spread. You and I having some restrictions placed on what we do so potentially 40% of society can also get on with doing things with a reduced chance of catching Covid-19, is an effective way to allow society to function somewhat normally. What do you think will happen if we take 40% of the population out of society and support them financially to isolate? Do you think the other 60% will be able to bear that load? Except it’s not 60% it’s 45% because 15% of the population are under 18. Do you think businesses will be able to function with 25-40% of their staff unavailable? You say the virus kills "indiscriminately" well thats just not true is it. When over 90% of all deaths world wide is the over 80's This virus certainty does discriminate and that is the very elderly. Also i am not sure where you got that number of 40% of the population as vulnerable and elderly. I think its more around the 25-30% mark. The government’s figures state that around 38% of the population are in groups that are considered vulnerable. The virus doesn’t discriminate, it kills people of all ages, the majority are over 80 but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t kill people below that age. Fancy having a bash at answering my questions?" Exactly 21% of under 65's in the UK have diabetes that in itself is a serious risk factor. If the government going to go for herd immunity thenn they will extend the number of people in that vulnerable group. Add to that the 18% of over 65's and the nearly 3 million who are already in the shielding group. Thats already over 40%. Factor in black and ethnic minorities A also considered at higher risk and may make up another 8% of the population. Now you need to factor in the people that live with shielers who also won't be able to go to work. People just don't have a clue and its unfair and unnecessary to blame nearly half the population. | |||
| |||
""Exactly 21% of under 65's in the UK have diabetes that in itself is a serious risk factor. " No. I'm diabetic but my hba1c is controlled, I am not over weight and I'm under 65, I'm not in the serious risk category. Initially it was feared Diabetic people would be at increased risk of hospitalization from covid but that changed very early on. Being diabetic and other risk factors maybe higher risk but certainly not all diabetics at all." According to the government's own website and the ONS 26% of all covid deaths in the UK have been in people who are diabetic. that is the 2nd highest group of people. Actually if you look at risk factors diabetes is in the top 3 risk factors so yes having diabetes does make you high risk. You may well be lower risk than somebody who has higher hba1c. But you can guarantee but is the government say that people in the very high risk category have to shield all diabetics will be in that group. | |||
""Exactly 21% of under 65's in the UK have diabetes that in itself is a serious risk factor. " No. I'm diabetic but my hba1c is controlled, I am not over weight and I'm under 65, I'm not in the serious risk category. Initially it was feared Diabetic people would be at increased risk of hospitalization from covid but that changed very early on. Being diabetic and other risk factors maybe higher risk but certainly not all diabetics at all. According to the government's own website and the ONS 26% of all covid deaths in the UK have been in people who are diabetic. that is the 2nd highest group of people. Actually if you look at risk factors diabetes is in the top 3 risk factors so yes having diabetes does make you high risk. You may well be lower risk than somebody who has higher hba1c. But you can guarantee but is the government say that people in the very high risk category have to shield all diabetics will be in that group. " But not all diabetics are in that category. The numbers are being inflated. Yes being diabetic and another factor (over weight, poor control, other medical issues) could have a significant risk but not all of them, is the point. | |||
""Exactly 21% of under 65's in the UK have diabetes that in itself is a serious risk factor. " No. I'm diabetic but my hba1c is controlled, I am not over weight and I'm under 65, I'm not in the serious risk category. Initially it was feared Diabetic people would be at increased risk of hospitalization from covid but that changed very early on. Being diabetic and other risk factors maybe higher risk but certainly not all diabetics at all. According to the government's own website and the ONS 26% of all covid deaths in the UK have been in people who are diabetic. that is the 2nd highest group of people. Actually if you look at risk factors diabetes is in the top 3 risk factors so yes having diabetes does make you high risk. You may well be lower risk than somebody who has higher hba1c. But you can guarantee but is the government say that people in the very high risk category have to shield all diabetics will be in that group. But not all diabetics are in that category. The numbers are being inflated. Yes being diabetic and another factor (over weight, poor control, other medical issues) could have a significant risk but not all of them, is the point." Every diabetic is at increased risk simply by having it. Yes of course someone who has other risk factors like being overweight is at a higher risk again. Originally they wanted to put diabetics in the shielding group but it was considered unworkable as there are 8 million in the UK. My friends father died of covid in March, he was 62 With well managed diabetes and no other health conditions. His family were told that the diabetes was almost certainly the reason his body couldn't cope. | |||
"There seems to be an increasing split in the country. Those whose jobs are secure, and so any restrictions are an irritant and those who’s jobs or businesses are threatened due to the restrictions. We are in the latter camp. We are very unworried about the prospect of the illness, but panicked about the prospect of zero income for the foreseeable future. How do others on here feel? Personally, I’d prefer the vulnerable to self isolate and the rest of us get on with our lives I thought vulnerable people were shielding? You need to keep up with the News Lionel. Vulnerable people are working from home in our office? Vulnerable and extremely vulnerable teachers are in and working ... "I read an interesting article based on Scottish health care workers, it turns out those with children, especially 2 or more living with them actually have better immunity from sars-cov2, the paper put this down to children passing on lots more other similar related Corona viruses and therefore providing added t-cell immunity. It added that they also see similar patterns in teachers. | |||
"There seems to be an increasing split in the country. Those whose jobs are secure, and so any restrictions are an irritant and those who’s jobs or businesses are threatened due to the restrictions. We are in the latter camp. We are very unworried about the prospect of the illness, but panicked about the prospect of zero income for the foreseeable future. How do others on here feel? Personally, I’d prefer the vulnerable to self isolate and the rest of us get on with our lives I thought vulnerable people were shielding? You need to keep up with the News Lionel. Vulnerable people are working from home in our office? Vulnerable and extremely vulnerable teachers are in and working ...
I read an interesting article based on Scottish health care workers, it turns out those with children, especially 2 or more living with them actually have better immunity from sars-cov2, the paper put this down to children passing on lots more other similar related Corona viruses and therefore providing added t-cell immunity.
It added that they also see similar patterns in teachers. "Sounds good, where did you read the article? | |||
"There seems to be an increasing split in the country. Those whose jobs are secure, and so any restrictions are an irritant and those who’s jobs or businesses are threatened due to the restrictions. We are in the latter camp. We are very unworried about the prospect of the illness, but panicked about the prospect of zero income for the foreseeable future. How do others on here feel? Personally, I’d prefer the vulnerable to self isolate and the rest of us get on with our lives I thought vulnerable people were shielding? You need to keep up with the News Lionel. Vulnerable people are working from home in our office? Vulnerable and extremely vulnerable teachers are in and working ...
I read an interesting article based on Scottish health care workers, it turns out those with children, especially 2 or more living with them actually have better immunity from sars-cov2, the paper put this down to children passing on lots more other similar related Corona viruses and therefore providing added t-cell immunity.
It added that they also see similar patterns in teachers.
Sounds good, where did you read the article?"Probably on medrxiv online as that's the one I use most often for browsing. Google study of 300,000 Scottish health care workers with children, you should find it. | |||
| |||
"Please use significant care when reading reports from medrxiv. They have not been peer reviewed. To its credit, the site clearly states on its front page that the information "should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health related behaviour and should not be reported in news media as established information". However if you follow links directly to the articles, it is possible to miss this important disclaimer. " If you read the actual paper it's from Glasgow university, peer reviewing is important but can take several months. | |||
"Please use significant care when reading reports from medrxiv. They have not been peer reviewed. To its credit, the site clearly states on its front page that the information "should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health related behaviour and should not be reported in news media as established information". However if you follow links directly to the articles, it is possible to miss this important disclaimer. If you read the actual paper it's from Glasgow university, peer reviewing is important but can take several months." It doesn't matter where it is from, peer reviewing is not just important it is vital before any article is taken as fact. I have seen many papers from prestigious individuals and establishments fail peer review. Note I am not saying the reports are false, I am merely urging caution (as is the front page of the site publishing them in big red letters) that they are not leapt upon as the next cure or treatment until they have been properly checked and reviewed. | |||
"Please use significant care when reading reports from medrxiv. They have not been peer reviewed. To its credit, the site clearly states on its front page that the information "should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health related behaviour and should not be reported in news media as established information". However if you follow links directly to the articles, it is possible to miss this important disclaimer. If you read the actual paper it's from Glasgow university, peer reviewing is important but can take several months. It doesn't matter where it is from, peer reviewing is not just important it is vital before any article is taken as fact. I have seen many papers from prestigious individuals and establishments fail peer review. Note I am not saying the reports are false, I am merely urging caution (as is the front page of the site publishing them in big red letters) that they are not leapt upon as the next cure or treatment until they have been properly checked and reviewed." I wasn't advertising it as the next cure or treatment, I actually said it was an interesting article on prevalence amongst health workers with children. But I'll take your point on board | |||
"There seems to be an increasing split in the country. Those whose jobs are secure, and so any restrictions are an irritant and those who’s jobs or businesses are threatened due to the restrictions. We are in the latter camp. We are very unworried about the prospect of the illness, but panicked about the prospect of zero income for the foreseeable future. How do others on here feel? Personally, I’d prefer the vulnerable to self isolate and the rest of us get on with our lives I thought vulnerable people were shielding? You need to keep up with the News Lionel. Vulnerable people are working from home in our office? Vulnerable and extremely vulnerable teachers are in and working ...
Well I'm not one to deny I'm wrong.
Which happens occasionally.
But if we sent home everyone who was vulnerable wouldnt we be a little understaffed?"Love the word "occasionally ". For me it should read "most of the time". | |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours. Such angry words......Covid is certainly causing psychological issues amongst us. I understand why he's angry and I'm angry too. Imagine being in a group where you are constantly told you should shut yourself away and sacrifice your wellbeing, job and mental health so everyone else can just get on with theirs. it is demoralising and yes causes psychological issues. Imagine being in a group (the young and healthy and mostly under 60 that has a 99.6% survival rate) being told to shut themselfs away and sacrafice their wellbeing, jobs and mentle health, loss of buisness etc just so the 20% of vulnerable/elderly don't have to go through it alone. I think i know which group is the more selfish of the two. The thing is away from this site I'm yet to meet an elderly or vulnerable person that wants the rest of the country being in lock down or having all kinds of restrictions in place just so they feel protected or not having to go through it alone. This right here. There was a reply further up the chain where someone basically admitted that the entire country should be locked down purely because it is unfair that only those that need it be locked down. The selfishness and "misery loves company" sentiment that goes into making a statement like that are amazing. Your sister has cancer, so you're going in for radiotherapy tomorrow. It's not fair that only she has to go through it. It's hilariously moronic. There’s a huge irony about you calling an idea hilariously moronic after that post. I realise that as humans we like to make things simple because otherwise our lazy old brains have to work hard but let’s break that down shall we? If someone is having radiotherapy it’s because it is the most effective treatment for their cancer. There aren’t really any other options because if there were you wouldn’t choose the really fucking painful one. Radiotherapy is used to both destroy the cancer and slow it’s spread. A person without cancer having radiotherapy does not stop the spread of cancer in people who have cancer. Therefore, someone else having radiotherapy too wouldn’t have any effect on whether the first person’s treatment is effective or not. Having to wear a mask, washing hands often, maintaining social distance and not going to the pub does have an effect on the spread of Covid-19. Even though I’m not in a vulnerable group my actions still positively effect those who are. Covid-19 is a very contagious virus that kills indiscriminately. Locking down is a reasonably effective way of halting its spread. You and I having some restrictions placed on what we do so potentially 40% of society can also get on with doing things with a reduced chance of catching Covid-19, is an effective way to allow society to function somewhat normally. What do you think will happen if we take 40% of the population out of society and support them financially to isolate? Do you think the other 60% will be able to bear that load? Except it’s not 60% it’s 45% because 15% of the population are under 18. Do you think businesses will be able to function with 25-40% of their staff unavailable? " You managed to use an awful lot of words without once explaining how locking everyone down (ie reducing the workforce by near 100%, minus key workers) is an easier financial cross to bear than locking down only the vulnerable, a largely unquantifiable number of which one of the few things we can say for sure is it's less than everyone. I don't disagree with hand washing, I don't even give a shit about masks. I give a shit about another lockdown, because it's moronic and you have still utterly failed to demonstrate why it's better that we have one. Slowing the spread? Great, let's absolutely destroy the country to stop a disease that has a 99.9% recovery rate in those not otherwise vulnerable. Of course we won't actually stop it, just slow it. So instead of having X number of deaths, we can be broke, with X number of deaths. | |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours. Such angry words......Covid is certainly causing psychological issues amongst us. I understand why he's angry and I'm angry too. Imagine being in a group where you are constantly told you should shut yourself away and sacrifice your wellbeing, job and mental health so everyone else can just get on with theirs. it is demoralising and yes causes psychological issues. Imagine being in a group (the young and healthy and mostly under 60 that has a 99.6% survival rate) being told to shut themselfs away and sacrafice their wellbeing, jobs and mentle health, loss of buisness etc just so the 20% of vulnerable/elderly don't have to go through it alone. I think i know which group is the more selfish of the two. The thing is away from this site I'm yet to meet an elderly or vulnerable person that wants the rest of the country being in lock down or having all kinds of restrictions in place just so they feel protected or not having to go through it alone. This right here. There was a reply further up the chain where someone basically admitted that the entire country should be locked down purely because it is unfair that only those that need it be locked down. The selfishness and "misery loves company" sentiment that goes into making a statement like that are amazing. Your sister has cancer, so you're going in for radiotherapy tomorrow. It's not fair that only she has to go through it. It's hilariously moronic. There’s a huge irony about you calling an idea hilariously moronic after that post. I realise that as humans we like to make things simple because otherwise our lazy old brains have to work hard but let’s break that down shall we? If someone is having radiotherapy it’s because it is the most effective treatment for their cancer. There aren’t really any other options because if there were you wouldn’t choose the really fucking painful one. Radiotherapy is used to both destroy the cancer and slow it’s spread. A person without cancer having radiotherapy does not stop the spread of cancer in people who have cancer. Therefore, someone else having radiotherapy too wouldn’t have any effect on whether the first person’s treatment is effective or not. Having to wear a mask, washing hands often, maintaining social distance and not going to the pub does have an effect on the spread of Covid-19. Even though I’m not in a vulnerable group my actions still positively effect those who are. Covid-19 is a very contagious virus that kills indiscriminately. Locking down is a reasonably effective way of halting its spread. You and I having some restrictions placed on what we do so potentially 40% of society can also get on with doing things with a reduced chance of catching Covid-19, is an effective way to allow society to function somewhat normally. What do you think will happen if we take 40% of the population out of society and support them financially to isolate? Do you think the other 60% will be able to bear that load? Except it’s not 60% it’s 45% because 15% of the population are under 18. Do you think businesses will be able to function with 25-40% of their staff unavailable? You managed to use an awful lot of words without once explaining how locking everyone down (ie reducing the workforce by near 100%, minus key workers) is an easier financial cross to bear than locking down only the vulnerable, a largely unquantifiable number of which one of the few things we can say for sure is it's less than everyone. I don't disagree with hand washing, I don't even give a shit about masks. I give a shit about another lockdown, because it's moronic and you have still utterly failed to demonstrate why it's better that we have one. Slowing the spread? Great, let's absolutely destroy the country to stop a disease that has a 99.9% recovery rate in those not otherwise vulnerable. Of course we won't actually stop it, just slow it. So instead of having X number of deaths, we can be broke, with X number of deaths. " Again we have an example of looking for a simple answer to a complex problem, something we can understand and cling to, something that doesn’t require much effort. Locking down 100% of the population isn’t what I was suggesting, spreading the pain is. You managed to use an awful lot of words to avoid answering the questions I asked, fancy giving it a go now? | |||
| |||
"Seem to have opened a bit of a can of worms here, which wasn’t quite my intention. My point was that the agenda and rules are being set by politicians, civil servants and the media, who all have very safe jobs. We have a company which works in the events sector, so have had zero income from it since lockdown. Now we could cope with this for a certain amount of time, but not indefinitely. So my main worry is not illness, but whether we will still have a house. And there are lots I know in the same position, many more than I know who have been ill. All for an illness that has something like a 99% recovery rate. I’m not advocating locking vulnerable people up. If they wish to self isolate, or take extra precautions, that is their choice. Incidentally, my parents in law would be classed as vulnerable - they both had it and survived. Some seem to be under the impression that’s it’s an automatic death sentence if you catch it - it’s not" And what exactly do you think vulnerable people are doing? What you are suggesting is already happening. And you said in your OP that you want the vulnerable to shield which means no interaction. You did know what you were doing because you have said very similar on other threads and seen the responses. | |||
| |||
"I meant that vulnerable people should self isolate if they feel it is right for them, not that they should be compelled to. And yes, I am consistent in my opinions" And do the 29% of those vunerable who work do? Or those that live alone or those that live in rural communities where there is already a lack of support or those who look after grandchildren so the parents can go to work. it is not as simple as choosing to isolate so you can just get on with your life. | |||
| |||
| |||
"If they choose to, yes. If they are that concerned about catching it, they probably should. ‘Vulnerable’ is a relative term, some are more vulnerable than others. " That doesn't make any sense what so ever. The only way you could go for herd immunity without massive hospitalisation and death is to completely shield anybody at high risk. So a few people who are vulnerable decide to isolate is not going to make any difference to the current situation. | |||
| |||
"Yes it does. Are you assuming that vulnerable equals automatic death if caught?" No im not but you really done to get it. If you let this thing just go so many people are going to get sick. Too many for everyone who needs it to receive appropriate medical care therefore more people and those that would have survived will probably die. If you could come up with a reasonable alternative that didn't involve the most vulnerable in our society suffering the most then go for it but you haven't. | |||
"If they choose to, yes. If they are that concerned about catching it, they probably should. ‘Vulnerable’ is a relative term, some are more vulnerable than others. " Please explain the relativity of vulnerableness to me. | |||
"If they choose to, yes. If they are that concerned about catching it, they probably should. ‘Vulnerable’ is a relative term, some are more vulnerable than others. That doesn't make any sense what so ever. The only way you could go for herd immunity without massive hospitalisation and death is to completely shield anybody at high risk. So a few people who are vulnerable decide to isolate is not going to make any difference to the current situation." I think your wrong,I think all the data is showing that herd immunity will come long before a vaccine, I think this winter is probably the worst of it hopefully and sometime around march cases will be steadily dropping. | |||
"If they choose to, yes. If they are that concerned about catching it, they probably should. ‘Vulnerable’ is a relative term, some are more vulnerable than others. That doesn't make any sense what so ever. The only way you could go for herd immunity without massive hospitalisation and death is to completely shield anybody at high risk. So a few people who are vulnerable decide to isolate is not going to make any difference to the current situation. I think your wrong,I think all the data is showing that herd immunity will come long before a vaccine, I think this winter is probably the worst of it hopefully and sometime around march cases will be steadily dropping. "What is this data that shows we will achieve herd immunity? | |||
"If they choose to, yes. If they are that concerned about catching it, they probably should. ‘Vulnerable’ is a relative term, some are more vulnerable than others. That doesn't make any sense what so ever. The only way you could go for herd immunity without massive hospitalisation and death is to completely shield anybody at high risk. So a few people who are vulnerable decide to isolate is not going to make any difference to the current situation. I think your wrong,I think all the data is showing that herd immunity will come long before a vaccine, I think this winter is probably the worst of it hopefully and sometime around march cases will be steadily dropping. "What data? | |||
"If they choose to, yes. If they are that concerned about catching it, they probably should. ‘Vulnerable’ is a relative term, some are more vulnerable than others. Please explain the relativity of vulnerableness to me." Some people are more vulnerable than others. If you are under 50 with no underlying issues, you are very unlikely to die. If you have asthma, you aRe more at risk. If you have asthma and are more than 65, more at risk still. If you are 85 and have cancer, more at risk. So to say that 20% are vulnerable, and extrapolate from that that they are all equally at risk is just wrong | |||
"There seems to be an increasing split in the country. Those whose jobs are secure, and so any restrictions are an irritant and those who’s jobs or businesses are threatened due to the restrictions. We are in the latter camp. We are very unworried about the prospect of the illness, but panicked about the prospect of zero income for the foreseeable future. How do others on here feel? Personally, I’d prefer the vulnerable to self isolate and the rest of us get on with our lives" I don't believe that this is where the split lies. Both myself and my wife and many friends are in "secure" uneffected by restrictions, many other of my friends are self employed and massively effected by the restrictions, nonetheless both groups are generally in agreement and understand the reason for the restrictions. I have other friends though who don't "believe" in the virus or accept the reasons for the restrictions. One person told me yesterday that "they are just trying to take everything away from us, that Bill Gates is even trying to block out the sun" The device to me seem to lie between those who accept/believe and those who don't. Cal | |||
"If they choose to, yes. If they are that concerned about catching it, they probably should. ‘Vulnerable’ is a relative term, some are more vulnerable than others. Please explain the relativity of vulnerableness to me. Some people are more vulnerable than others. If you are under 50 with no underlying issues, you are very unlikely to die. If you have asthma, you aRe more at risk. If you have asthma and are more than 65, more at risk still. If you are 85 and have cancer, more at risk. So to say that 20% are vulnerable, and extrapolate from that that they are all equally at risk is just wrong" Again I don't know where you are getting your figures from because actually asthma on its own and unless it's a very severe form doesn't put you in the vulnerable category. And actually the government the government figures are closer to 38% of the population. | |||
"There seems to be an increasing split in the country. Those whose jobs are secure, and so any restrictions are an irritant and those who’s jobs or businesses are threatened due to the restrictions. We are in the latter camp. We are very unworried about the prospect of the illness, but panicked about the prospect of zero income for the foreseeable future. How do others on here feel? Personally, I’d prefer the vulnerable to self isolate and the rest of us get on with our lives" Totally agree ... my job is secure I’m in mental health but I’m going into lockdown Friday in Wales and I have lots of friends with business | |||
"There seems to be an increasing split in the country. Those whose jobs are secure, and so any restrictions are an irritant and those who’s jobs or businesses are threatened due to the restrictions. We are in the latter camp. We are very unworried about the prospect of the illness, but panicked about the prospect of zero income for the foreseeable future. How do others on here feel? Personally, I’d prefer the vulnerable to self isolate and the rest of us get on with our lives I don't believe that this is where the split lies. Both myself and my wife and many friends are in "secure" uneffected by restrictions, many other of my friends are self employed and massively effected by the restrictions, nonetheless both groups are generally in agreement and understand the reason for the restrictions. I have other friends though who don't "believe" in the virus or accept the reasons for the restrictions. One person told me yesterday that "they are just trying to take everything away from us, that Bill Gates is even trying to block out the sun" The device to me seem to lie between those who accept/believe and those who don't. Cal" Lot of truth in what you're saying. | |||
Fab cranks | |||
"If they choose to, yes. If they are that concerned about catching it, they probably should. ‘Vulnerable’ is a relative term, some are more vulnerable than others. Please explain the relativity of vulnerableness to me. Some people are more vulnerable than others. If you are under 50 with no underlying issues, you are very unlikely to die. If you have asthma, you aRe more at risk. If you have asthma and are more than 65, more at risk still. If you are 85 and have cancer, more at risk. So to say that 20% are vulnerable, and extrapolate from that that they are all equally at risk is just wrong" So where do you draw the line? When is someone vulnerable enough to be shielded (and paid for doing so) and who has to go to work and put themselves at risk because although they are classed as vulnerable they aren’t vulnerable enough? Relatively speaking. | |||
"I heard a stat yesterday that ONLY 18% of those who are positive and supposed to be isolating, actually are. If that is true, it is absolutely shocking and appaling that over 80% of people who are infectious and should be isolating are not doing so. If that is the case, then its clear why it is spreading like it is. " Depends how they asked the question. If I had it & they said “Are you staying home?” The answer would be no. Which they may then infer I’m seeing others. If they asked “Are you staying isolated, away from others?” The answer would be yes. Because we live in the middle of nowhere & I can walk all day & see no one if I head in the right direction so even if I did get it I would not stay indoors. So I might be in the 18% I might not, it depends how the question is worded & the assumptions made from the answers. S | |||
"If they choose to, yes. If they are that concerned about catching it, they probably should. ‘Vulnerable’ is a relative term, some are more vulnerable than others. Please explain the relativity of vulnerableness to me. Some people are more vulnerable than others. If you are under 50 with no underlying issues, you are very unlikely to die. If you have asthma, you aRe more at risk. If you have asthma and are more than 65, more at risk still. If you are 85 and have cancer, more at risk. So to say that 20% are vulnerable, and extrapolate from that that they are all equally at risk is just wrong So where do you draw the line? When is someone vulnerable enough to be shielded (and paid for doing so) and who has to go to work and put themselves at risk because although they are classed as vulnerable they aren’t vulnerable enough? Relatively speaking." Try shielding a school age kid that’s had to be tested twice in less than a month. It’s “Fun” atm 
S | |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours. Such angry words......Covid is certainly causing psychological issues amongst us. I understand why he's angry and I'm angry too. Imagine being in a group where you are constantly told you should shut yourself away and sacrifice your wellbeing, job and mental health so everyone else can just get on with theirs. it is demoralising and yes causes psychological issues. Imagine being in a group (the young and healthy and mostly under 60 that has a 99.6% survival rate) being told to shut themselfs away and sacrafice their wellbeing, jobs and mentle health, loss of buisness etc just so the 20% of vulnerable/elderly don't have to go through it alone. I think i know which group is the more selfish of the two. The thing is away from this site I'm yet to meet an elderly or vulnerable person that wants the rest of the country being in lock down or having all kinds of restrictions in place just so they feel protected or not having to go through it alone. This right here. There was a reply further up the chain where someone basically admitted that the entire country should be locked down purely because it is unfair that only those that need it be locked down. The selfishness and "misery loves company" sentiment that goes into making a statement like that are amazing. Your sister has cancer, so you're going in for radiotherapy tomorrow. It's not fair that only she has to go through it. It's hilariously moronic. There’s a huge irony about you calling an idea hilariously moronic after that post. I realise that as humans we like to make things simple because otherwise our lazy old brains have to work hard but let’s break that down shall we? If someone is having radiotherapy it’s because it is the most effective treatment for their cancer. There aren’t really any other options because if there were you wouldn’t choose the really fucking painful one. Radiotherapy is used to both destroy the cancer and slow it’s spread. A person without cancer having radiotherapy does not stop the spread of cancer in people who have cancer. Therefore, someone else having radiotherapy too wouldn’t have any effect on whether the first person’s treatment is effective or not. Having to wear a mask, washing hands often, maintaining social distance and not going to the pub does have an effect on the spread of Covid-19. Even though I’m not in a vulnerable group my actions still positively effect those who are. Covid-19 is a very contagious virus that kills indiscriminately. Locking down is a reasonably effective way of halting its spread. You and I having some restrictions placed on what we do so potentially 40% of society can also get on with doing things with a reduced chance of catching Covid-19, is an effective way to allow society to function somewhat normally. What do you think will happen if we take 40% of the population out of society and support them financially to isolate? Do you think the other 60% will be able to bear that load? Except it’s not 60% it’s 45% because 15% of the population are under 18. Do you think businesses will be able to function with 25-40% of their staff unavailable? You managed to use an awful lot of words without once explaining how locking everyone down (ie reducing the workforce by near 100%, minus key workers) is an easier financial cross to bear than locking down only the vulnerable, a largely unquantifiable number of which one of the few things we can say for sure is it's less than everyone. I don't disagree with hand washing, I don't even give a shit about masks. I give a shit about another lockdown, because it's moronic and you have still utterly failed to demonstrate why it's better that we have one. Slowing the spread? Great, let's absolutely destroy the country to stop a disease that has a 99.9% recovery rate in those not otherwise vulnerable. Of course we won't actually stop it, just slow it. So instead of having X number of deaths, we can be broke, with X number of deaths. Again we have an example of looking for a simple answer to a complex problem, something we can understand and cling to, something that doesn’t require much effort. Locking down 100% of the population isn’t what I was suggesting, spreading the pain is. You managed to use an awful lot of words to avoid answering the questions I asked, fancy giving it a go now?" It's possibly worth you clarifying exactly what you are advocating for then, because the last time we had a lockdown it applied to everyone (except key workers) Can businesses operate with only 20-40% of their staff? Depends on the business. But it's fairly unassailable to suggest that more of them can survive with 20-40% of their staff than they can with 0% of their staff when they are shut down by government dictat. | |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours. Such angry words......Covid is certainly causing psychological issues amongst us. I understand why he's angry and I'm angry too. Imagine being in a group where you are constantly told you should shut yourself away and sacrifice your wellbeing, job and mental health so everyone else can just get on with theirs. it is demoralising and yes causes psychological issues. Imagine being in a group (the young and healthy and mostly under 60 that has a 99.6% survival rate) being told to shut themselfs away and sacrafice their wellbeing, jobs and mentle health, loss of buisness etc just so the 20% of vulnerable/elderly don't have to go through it alone. I think i know which group is the more selfish of the two. The thing is away from this site I'm yet to meet an elderly or vulnerable person that wants the rest of the country being in lock down or having all kinds of restrictions in place just so they feel protected or not having to go through it alone. This right here. There was a reply further up the chain where someone basically admitted that the entire country should be locked down purely because it is unfair that only those that need it be locked down. The selfishness and "misery loves company" sentiment that goes into making a statement like that are amazing. Your sister has cancer, so you're going in for radiotherapy tomorrow. It's not fair that only she has to go through it. It's hilariously moronic. There’s a huge irony about you calling an idea hilariously moronic after that post. I realise that as humans we like to make things simple because otherwise our lazy old brains have to work hard but let’s break that down shall we? If someone is having radiotherapy it’s because it is the most effective treatment for their cancer. There aren’t really any other options because if there were you wouldn’t choose the really fucking painful one. Radiotherapy is used to both destroy the cancer and slow it’s spread. A person without cancer having radiotherapy does not stop the spread of cancer in people who have cancer. Therefore, someone else having radiotherapy too wouldn’t have any effect on whether the first person’s treatment is effective or not. Having to wear a mask, washing hands often, maintaining social distance and not going to the pub does have an effect on the spread of Covid-19. Even though I’m not in a vulnerable group my actions still positively effect those who are. Covid-19 is a very contagious virus that kills indiscriminately. Locking down is a reasonably effective way of halting its spread. You and I having some restrictions placed on what we do so potentially 40% of society can also get on with doing things with a reduced chance of catching Covid-19, is an effective way to allow society to function somewhat normally. What do you think will happen if we take 40% of the population out of society and support them financially to isolate? Do you think the other 60% will be able to bear that load? Except it’s not 60% it’s 45% because 15% of the population are under 18. Do you think businesses will be able to function with 25-40% of their staff unavailable? You managed to use an awful lot of words without once explaining how locking everyone down (ie reducing the workforce by near 100%, minus key workers) is an easier financial cross to bear than locking down only the vulnerable, a largely unquantifiable number of which one of the few things we can say for sure is it's less than everyone. I don't disagree with hand washing, I don't even give a shit about masks. I give a shit about another lockdown, because it's moronic and you have still utterly failed to demonstrate why it's better that we have one. Slowing the spread? Great, let's absolutely destroy the country to stop a disease that has a 99.9% recovery rate in those not otherwise vulnerable. Of course we won't actually stop it, just slow it. So instead of having X number of deaths, we can be broke, with X number of deaths. Again we have an example of looking for a simple answer to a complex problem, something we can understand and cling to, something that doesn’t require much effort. Locking down 100% of the population isn’t what I was suggesting, spreading the pain is. You managed to use an awful lot of words to avoid answering the questions I asked, fancy giving it a go now? It's possibly worth you clarifying exactly what you are advocating for then, because the last time we had a lockdown it applied to everyone (except key workers) Can businesses operate with only 20-40% of their staff? Depends on the business. But it's fairly unassailable to suggest that more of them can survive with 20-40% of their staff than they can with 0% of their staff when they are shut down by government dictat. " Just to clarify, do you think 45% of the population can bear the load for the 40% who are vulnerable and would need to isolate? | |||
"My shielding/isolating ends on Tuesday morning. All I keep hearing that people of my age should stay shielding. Why should we, Ive not committed any crime but you want us to be locked in doors for fuck knows how long. I for one say up yours. Such angry words......Covid is certainly causing psychological issues amongst us. I understand why he's angry and I'm angry too. Imagine being in a group where you are constantly told you should shut yourself away and sacrifice your wellbeing, job and mental health so everyone else can just get on with theirs. it is demoralising and yes causes psychological issues. Imagine being in a group (the young and healthy and mostly under 60 that has a 99.6% survival rate) being told to shut themselfs away and sacrafice their wellbeing, jobs and mentle health, loss of buisness etc just so the 20% of vulnerable/elderly don't have to go through it alone. I think i know which group is the more selfish of the two. The thing is away from this site I'm yet to meet an elderly or vulnerable person that wants the rest of the country being in lock down or having all kinds of restrictions in place just so they feel protected or not having to go through it alone. This right here. There was a reply further up the chain where someone basically admitted that the entire country should be locked down purely because it is unfair that only those that need it be locked down. The selfishness and "misery loves company" sentiment that goes into making a statement like that are amazing. Your sister has cancer, so you're going in for radiotherapy tomorrow. It's not fair that only she has to go through it. It's hilariously moronic. There’s a huge irony about you calling an idea hilariously moronic after that post. I realise that as humans we like to make things simple because otherwise our lazy old brains have to work hard but let’s break that down shall we? If someone is having radiotherapy it’s because it is the most effective treatment for their cancer. There aren’t really any other options because if there were you wouldn’t choose the really fucking painful one. Radiotherapy is used to both destroy the cancer and slow it’s spread. A person without cancer having radiotherapy does not stop the spread of cancer in people who have cancer. Therefore, someone else having radiotherapy too wouldn’t have any effect on whether the first person’s treatment is effective or not. Having to wear a mask, washing hands often, maintaining social distance and not going to the pub does have an effect on the spread of Covid-19. Even though I’m not in a vulnerable group my actions still positively effect those who are. Covid-19 is a very contagious virus that kills indiscriminately. Locking down is a reasonably effective way of halting its spread. You and I having some restrictions placed on what we do so potentially 40% of society can also get on with doing things with a reduced chance of catching Covid-19, is an effective way to allow society to function somewhat normally. What do you think will happen if we take 40% of the population out of society and support them financially to isolate? Do you think the other 60% will be able to bear that load? Except it’s not 60% it’s 45% because 15% of the population are under 18. Do you think businesses will be able to function with 25-40% of their staff unavailable? You managed to use an awful lot of words without once explaining how locking everyone down (ie reducing the workforce by near 100%, minus key workers) is an easier financial cross to bear than locking down only the vulnerable, a largely unquantifiable number of which one of the few things we can say for sure is it's less than everyone. I don't disagree with hand washing, I don't even give a shit about masks. I give a shit about another lockdown, because it's moronic and you have still utterly failed to demonstrate why it's better that we have one. Slowing the spread? Great, let's absolutely destroy the country to stop a disease that has a 99.9% recovery rate in those not otherwise vulnerable. Of course we won't actually stop it, just slow it. So instead of having X number of deaths, we can be broke, with X number of deaths. Again we have an example of looking for a simple answer to a complex problem, something we can understand and cling to, something that doesn’t require much effort. Locking down 100% of the population isn’t what I was suggesting, spreading the pain is. You managed to use an awful lot of words to avoid answering the questions I asked, fancy giving it a go now? It's possibly worth you clarifying exactly what you are advocating for then, because the last time we had a lockdown it applied to everyone (except key workers) Can businesses operate with only 20-40% of their staff? Depends on the business. But it's fairly unassailable to suggest that more of them can survive with 20-40% of their staff than they can with 0% of their staff when they are shut down by government dictat. Just to clarify, do you think 45% of the population can bear the load for the 40% who are vulnerable and would need to isolate?" As I said in my previous post, I think it depends on the business, their scalability and their staffing headroom to begin with. Some businesses will be able to function to some extent on 40% staff. Possibly enough to keep the wolves from the door, or at least keep them away longer. Others won't. But some is better than none. | |||
