FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Coronavirus: Lockdown vote
Coronavirus: Lockdown vote
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, I have existing health conditions so k might die "I am same, so a Yes from me ohh and those masks that they say dont work, so why do all health workers wear them? just a thought | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No. I don’t have health issues and no vulnerable dependants. I’d rather get the virus and then be in a situation to help more." That's admirable and a nice thing to do. I might need some help so I'll let you know if I do  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One also has to wonder whether the cure might actually be worse than the disease...." In certain respects and for certain people it will probably seem that way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you feel we the UK should be completely on lockdown as they hard done in China, and other far eastern countries where after some weeks (7 for China) they reversed the spread of Coronavirus? I personally believe YES we should be in a lockdown! Since mid January I have believed this and have taken measures to isolate myself as soon as I could. I want to know what you all think and feel so let the voting begin. Reasons to your vote would be helpful. Thanks" We are living in lockdown now and believe me it is more than shit. However it is the only way to slow this thing down and must be done. It won't stop it but time is precious and while it may take a few weeks (as it did in China) the locked down countries will will start to see a decrease before the ones that haven't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Would a vote matter? Whoever lost would just cry about it and demand a revote "  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that in the UK roughly 12,500 people die every week in a normal year, you have to ask how different will it be with Covid-19? As others have said, is the cure worse than the disease - unemployment will be up, companies will close, the Government will not have enough money to do anything, Brexit will be delayed yet again. My vote is no for the vast majority, but yes for those most at risk. Destroying the economy is much riskier than focusing resources on those that need help, putting the resources in place to deliver it and ensuring we all work together to protect the vulnerable. Hiding away can’t be the answer "There is a world pandemic but you are concerned because brexit may be delayed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One also has to wonder whether the cure might actually be worse than the disease...." In what way? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, I don't. I think we need strong leadership from people we can trust who give clear advice we feel able to follow rather than complete lock down " Such as who? Not the government, whonreally does trust westminster. I also read yesterday that so far they have been recieving bad advice. That said i did listen to an interview with a gentleman from.the American CDC who said isolating may actually prolong the virus and that he recommends we simply carry on and let it play out (with exceptions to the old and vulnerable) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have just been talking to my counterpart colleague who lives and works in Shanghai. They've been under lock down for 7-8 weeks now and things are slowly being lifted. They will be able to work in the office again soon but mandatory temperature checks are in place for all workers, restaurants are only allowed 2 people at a table etc. He is quite worried about our ignorance in the UK and lack of action, we both feel this is because we didn't have SARS in 2003 so as a nation we don't know how serious the affects can be. He's advising me to just not leave the house, push buttons in lifts and handle doors using tissues only. He's also telling me that very large numbers of the "recovered" people in China now have significant lung damage that is probably permanent, this includes young people. " If the problem is seemingly being combatted successfully in other countries I'm baffled as to why we are not following their example. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have just been talking to my counterpart colleague who lives and works in Shanghai. They've been under lock down for 7-8 weeks now and things are slowly being lifted. They will be able to work in the office again soon but mandatory temperature checks are in place for all workers, restaurants are only allowed 2 people at a table etc. He is quite worried about our ignorance in the UK and lack of action, we both feel this is because we didn't have SARS in 2003 so as a nation we don't know how serious the affects can be. He's advising me to just not leave the house, push buttons in lifts and handle doors using tissues only. He's also telling me that very large numbers of the "recovered" people in China now have significant lung damage that is probably permanent, this includes young people. If the problem is seemingly being combatted successfully in other countries I'm baffled as to why we are not following their example." I'm far from actually defending the decision of the UK gov, but its far from a simple choice. Nobody knows what the truely correct course of action to take is. One action over another impacts different people in different ways. Until its over we won't ever really know who did the right or wrong things during it since it will ripple out for a long time. It is easy for the masses to say do this or do that because X and Y are. But what impact will it end up having long term, same goes for doing the opposite to what X and Y are doing. The main issue with the way UK is doing it is sneaky as fuck. Advising people not to go to pubs and restaurants, but not officially ordering them to close, so the gov doesn't have to take responsibility for helping these businesses out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have just been talking to my counterpart colleague who lives and works in Shanghai. They've been under lock down for 7-8 weeks now and things are slowly being lifted. They will be able to work in the office again soon but mandatory temperature checks are in place for all workers, restaurants are only allowed 2 people at a table etc. He is quite worried about our ignorance in the UK and lack of action, we both feel this is because we didn't have SARS in 2003 so as a nation we don't know how serious the affects can be. He's advising me to just not leave the house, push buttons in lifts and handle doors using tissues only. He's also telling me that very large numbers of the "recovered" people in China now have significant lung damage that is probably permanent, this includes young people. If the problem is seemingly being combatted successfully in other countries I'm baffled as to why we are not following their example. I'm far from actually defending the decision of the UK gov, but its far from a simple choice. Nobody knows what the truely correct course of action to take is. One action over another impacts different people in different ways. Until its over we won't ever really know who did the right or wrong things during it since it will ripple out for a long time. It is easy for the masses to say do this or do that because X and Y are. But what impact will it end up having long term, same goes for doing the opposite to what X and Y are doing. The main issue with the way UK is doing it is sneaky as fuck. Advising people not to go to pubs and restaurants, but not officially ordering them to close, so the gov doesn't have to take responsibility for helping these businesses out. " True..but it just seems like we very much seem to be going our way on this. If this gets really bad you think they are going to say..we fucked up? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have just been talking to my counterpart colleague who lives and works in Shanghai. They've been under lock down for 7-8 weeks now and things are slowly being lifted. They will be able to work in the office again soon but mandatory temperature checks are in place for all workers, restaurants are only allowed 2 people at a table etc. He is quite worried about our ignorance in the UK and lack of action, we both feel this is because we didn't have SARS in 2003 so as a nation we don't know how serious the affects can be. He's advising me to just not leave the house, push buttons in lifts and handle doors using tissues only. He's also telling me that very large numbers of the "recovered" people in China now have significant lung damage that is probably permanent, this includes young people. If the problem is seemingly being combatted successfully in other countries I'm baffled as to why we are not following their example. I'm far from actually defending the decision of the UK gov, but its far from a simple choice. Nobody knows what the truely correct course of action to take is. One action over another impacts different people in different ways. Until its over we won't ever really know who did the right or wrong things during it since it will ripple out for a long time. It is easy for the masses to say do this or do that because X and Y are. But what impact will it end up having long term, same goes for doing the opposite to what X and Y are doing. The main issue with the way UK is doing it is sneaky as fuck. Advising people not to go to pubs and restaurants, but not officially ordering them to close, so the gov doesn't have to take responsibility for helping these businesses out. True..but it just seems like we very much seem to be going our way on this. If this gets really bad you think they are going to say..we fucked up?" Oh not at all. I just mean in the grand scheme of things Bill, Dave, Jill, and Karen down the local calling for this and that to be done means very little when they don't have deep knowledge of viruses in general, and the impact such things have on the economy long term. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have just been talking to my counterpart colleague who lives and works in Shanghai. They've been under lock down for 7-8 weeks now and things are slowly being lifted. They will be able to work in the office again soon but mandatory temperature checks are in place for all workers, restaurants are only allowed 2 people at a table etc. He is quite worried about our ignorance in the UK and lack of action, we both feel this is because we didn't have SARS in 2003 so as a nation we don't know how serious the affects can be. He's advising me to just not leave the house, push buttons in lifts and handle doors using tissues only. He's also telling me that very large numbers of the "recovered" people in China now have significant lung damage that is probably permanent, this includes young people. If the problem is seemingly being combatted successfully in other countries I'm baffled as to why we are not following their example. I'm far from actually defending the decision of the UK gov, but its far from a simple choice. Nobody knows what the truely correct course of action to take is. One action over another impacts different people in different ways. Until its over we won't ever really know who did the right or wrong things during it since it will ripple out for a long time. It is easy for the masses to say do this or do that because X and Y are. But what impact will it end up having long term, same goes for doing the opposite to what X and Y are doing. The main issue with the way UK is doing it is sneaky as fuck. Advising people not to go to pubs and restaurants, but not officially ordering them to close, so the gov doesn't have to take responsibility for helping these businesses out. True..but it just seems like we very much seem to be going our way on this. If this gets really bad you think they are going to say..we fucked up?" The longer we wait the further up shits creek we go so this indeed is going bad. The fact that boris said dont go pubs but didnt say close all pubs for example is very telling and revealing in how the government is protecting itself first and foremost. We should be in complete lockdown plain and simple with measures in place to protect mortgages, economies of interest etc. We know how to combat this it's called look at what other countries such as japan Singapore Taiwan and china did. The results the methodology is all out there just google it. The fact that we arent is so backward. Were the United kingdom. We have more wealth here than we believe. The queen has more wealth the Duke of Westminster has wealth the royals have wealth. Surely if the nation needs it those with the means so now help both those that cannot and towards funding for vaccines? It's always astounded me how the royals have so much wealth and pomposity during state occasions yet yards away we have the homeless and destitute. Times havent progressed since the christmas carols london of Charles Dickens merely shifted. We need to wake up! I'm all for monarchy. I have no issues with them all I'm saying is if we go on lockdown I'm sure we can handle it better than even china. It will also assist the NHS too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One of the problems with a lockdown is that it stops the spread for a few weeks then after the lockdown it suddenly spreads across the population overnight. Keeping things moving will still allow it to spread but at a more manageable rate." how can you manage it if you can't control it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you feel we the UK should be completely on lockdown as they hard done in China, and other far eastern countries where after some weeks (7 for China) they reversed the spread of Coronavirus? I personally believe YES we should be in a lockdown! Since mid January I have believed this and have taken measures to isolate myself as soon as I could. I want to know what you all think and feel so let the voting begin. Reasons to your vote would be helpful. Thanks" No. I've only just become mobile again 11 months after a near fatal infection. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have just been talking to my counterpart colleague who lives and works in Shanghai. They've been under lock down for 7-8 weeks now and things are slowly being lifted. They will be able to work in the office again soon but mandatory temperature checks are in place for all workers, restaurants are only allowed 2 people at a table etc. He is quite worried about our ignorance in the UK and lack of action, we both feel this is because we didn't have SARS in 2003 so as a nation we don't know how serious the affects can be. He's advising me to just not leave the house, push buttons in lifts and handle doors using tissues only. He's also telling me that very large numbers of the "recovered" people in China now have significant lung damage that is probably permanent, this includes young people. If the problem is seemingly being combatted successfully in other countries I'm baffled as to why we are not following their example. I'm far from actually defending the decision of the UK gov, but its far from a simple choice. Nobody knows what the truely correct course of action to take is. One action over another impacts different people in different ways. Until its over we won't ever really know who did the right or wrong things during it since it will ripple out for a long time. It is easy for the masses to say do this or do that because X and Y are. But what impact will it end up having long term, same goes for doing the opposite to what X and Y are doing. The main issue with the way UK is doing it is sneaky as fuck. Advising people not to go to pubs and restaurants, but not officially ordering them to close, so the gov doesn't have to take responsibility for helping these businesses out. True..but it just seems like we very much seem to be going our way on this. If this gets really bad you think they are going to say..we fucked up? The longer we wait the further up shits creek we go so this indeed is going bad. The fact that boris said dont go pubs but didnt say close all pubs for example is very telling and revealing in how the government is protecting itself first and foremost. We should be in complete lockdown plain and simple with measures in place to protect mortgages, economies of interest etc. We know how to combat this it's called look at what other countries such as japan Singapore Taiwan and china did. The results the methodology is all out there just google it. The fact that we arent is so backward. Were the United kingdom. We have more wealth here than we believe. The queen has more wealth the Duke of Westminster has wealth the royals have wealth. Surely if the nation needs it those with the means so now help both those that cannot and towards funding for vaccines? It's always astounded me how the royals have so much wealth and pomposity during state occasions yet yards away we have the homeless and destitute. Times havent progressed since the christmas carols london of Charles Dickens merely shifted. We need to wake up! I'm all for monarchy. I have no issues with them all I'm saying is if we go on lockdown I'm sure we can handle it better than even china. It will also assist the NHS too." Again, short term it is working out well. What happens when/if another outbreak starts, back on lockdown for another 4 months? Only time will tell how their lockdown will hurt (or help) their countries going forward. I agree the UK government is doing it in their own personal benefit above that of the people as a whole. But until its over it could end up being that potentially we may have a stronger economy because of it. OR the wrong actions were taken and the lockdown did work long term which gives those countries the advantage. We really just don't know is the point at this stage. It is still very much long term vs short term decision making. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have just been talking to my counterpart colleague who lives and works in Shanghai. They've been under lock down for 7-8 weeks now and things are slowly being lifted. They will be able to work in the office again soon but mandatory temperature checks are in place for all workers, restaurants are only allowed 2 people at a table etc. He is quite worried about our ignorance in the UK and lack of action, we both feel this is because we didn't have SARS in 2003 so as a nation we don't know how serious the affects can be. He's advising me to just not leave the house, push buttons in lifts and handle doors using tissues only. He's also telling me that very large numbers of the "recovered" people in China now have significant lung damage that is probably permanent, this includes young people. If the problem is seemingly being combatted successfully in other countries I'm baffled as to why we are not following their example. I'm far from actually defending the decision of the UK gov, but its far from a simple choice. Nobody knows what the truely correct course of action to take is. One action over another impacts different people in different ways. Until its over we won't ever really know who did the right or wrong things during it since it will ripple out for a long time. It is easy for the masses to say do this or do that because X and Y are. But what impact will it end up having long term, same goes for doing the opposite to what X and Y are doing. The main issue with the way UK is doing it is sneaky as fuck. Advising people not to go to pubs and restaurants, but not officially ordering them to close, so the gov doesn't have to take responsibility for helping these businesses out. True..but it just seems like we very much seem to be going our way on this. If this gets really bad you think they are going to say..we fucked up? Oh not at all. I just mean in the grand scheme of things Bill, Dave, Jill, and Karen down the local calling for this and that to be done means very little when they don't have deep knowledge of viruses in general, and the impact such things have on the economy long term. " Said in another topic whilst the economy is important peoples health should be the no 1 priority. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have just been talking to my counterpart colleague who lives and works in Shanghai. They've been under lock down for 7-8 weeks now and things are slowly being lifted. They will be able to work in the office again soon but mandatory temperature checks are in place for all workers, restaurants are only allowed 2 people at a table etc. He is quite worried about our ignorance in the UK and lack of action, we both feel this is because we didn't have SARS in 2003 so as a nation we don't know how serious the affects can be. He's advising me to just not leave the house, push buttons in lifts and handle doors using tissues only. He's also telling me that very large numbers of the "recovered" people in China now have significant lung damage that is probably permanent, this includes young people. If the problem is seemingly being combatted successfully in other countries I'm baffled as to why we are not following their example. I'm far from actually defending the decision of the UK gov, but its far from a simple choice. Nobody knows what the truely correct course of action to take is. One action over another impacts different people in different ways. Until its over we won't ever really know who did the right or wrong things during it since it will ripple out for a long time. It is easy for the masses to say do this or do that because X and Y are. But what impact will it end up having long term, same goes for doing the opposite to what X and Y are doing. The main issue with the way UK is doing it is sneaky as fuck. Advising people not to go to pubs and restaurants, but not officially ordering them to close, so the gov doesn't have to take responsibility for helping these businesses out. True..but it just seems like we very much seem to be going our way on this. If this gets really bad you think they are going to say..we fucked up? Oh not at all. I just mean in the grand scheme of things Bill, Dave, Jill, and Karen down the local calling for this and that to be done means very little when they don't have deep knowledge of viruses in general, and the impact such things have on the economy long term. Said in another topic whilst the economy is important peoples health should be the no 1 priority." I agree but they go hand in hand. Poor economy reduces the quality of life and ability for a country to support its people. There is a delicate balance that must be walked or things just fall apart. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have just been talking to my counterpart colleague who lives and works in Shanghai. They've been under lock down for 7-8 weeks now and things are slowly being lifted. They will be able to work in the office again soon but mandatory temperature checks are in place for all workers, restaurants are only allowed 2 people at a table etc. He is quite worried about our ignorance in the UK and lack of action, we both feel this is because we didn't have SARS in 2003 so as a nation we don't know how serious the affects can be. He's advising me to just not leave the house, push buttons in lifts and handle doors using tissues only. He's also telling me that very large numbers of the "recovered" people in China now have significant lung damage that is probably permanent, this includes young people. If the problem is seemingly being combatted successfully in other countries I'm baffled as to why we are not following their example. I'm far from actually defending the decision of the UK gov, but its far from a simple choice. Nobody knows what the truely correct course of action to take is. One action over another impacts different people in different ways. Until its over we won't ever really know who did the right or wrong things during it since it will ripple out for a long time. It is easy for the masses to say do this or do that because X and Y are. But what impact will it end up having long term, same goes for doing the opposite to what X and Y are doing. The main issue with the way UK is doing it is sneaky as fuck. Advising people not to go to pubs and restaurants, but not officially ordering them to close, so the gov doesn't have to take responsibility for helping these businesses out. True..but it just seems like we very much seem to be going our way on this. If this gets really bad you think they are going to say..we fucked up? The longer we wait the further up shits creek we go so this indeed is going bad. The fact that boris said dont go pubs but didnt say close all pubs for example is very telling and revealing in how the government is protecting itself first and foremost. We should be in complete lockdown plain and simple with measures in place to protect mortgages, economies of interest etc. We know how to combat this it's called look at what other countries such as japan Singapore Taiwan and china did. The results the methodology is all out there just google it. The fact that we arent is so backward. Were the United kingdom. We have more wealth here than we believe. The queen has more wealth the Duke of Westminster has wealth the royals have wealth. Surely if the nation needs it those with the means so now help both those that cannot and towards funding for vaccines? It's always astounded me how the royals have so much wealth and pomposity during state occasions yet yards away we have the homeless and destitute. Times havent progressed since the christmas carols london of Charles Dickens merely shifted. We need to wake up! I'm all for monarchy. I have no issues with them all I'm saying is if we go on lockdown I'm sure we can handle it better than even china. It will also assist the NHS too. Again, short term it is working out well. What happens when/if another outbreak starts, back on lockdown for another 4 months? Only time will tell how their lockdown will hurt (or help) their countries going forward. I agree the UK government is doing it in their own personal benefit above that of the people as a whole. But until its over it could end up being that potentially we may have a stronger economy because of it. OR the wrong actions were taken and the lockdown did work long term which gives those countries the advantage. We really just don't know is the point at this stage. It is still very much long term vs short term decision making. " Surely those 4 months would buy us some time for increased testing etc? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"NO! We need herd immunity. The whole of the UK can't isolate and any one who thinks it can is showing selfish stupidity. Take a NHS nurse. He/she has to be available to work. To enable her to work she needs access to petrol for her car. To get petrol there needs to be someone who has filled up the tanks. Someone to man the purchase. She has kids. If the kids are not able to go to school she can't work. She also needs access to shower gel, soap, shampoo, washing powder so she can clean herself after shift. To enable her to do that you need someone selling the products. You need someone to put the products on the shelf you need someone to deliver the products to the store. To enable the nurse to do her job she needs porters, assistants, cleaners, people to deliver items to the ward. Etc etc Now the right way to do it is reduce the time you are in public places where possible. If you can work from home do so. Send your children to school as they can help develop herd immunity. Don't go to places you don't need to. Regular hand washing. Clean phones. Clean door handles. Clean steering wheels etc in car daily. Protect yourself and others however you can " Precisely. If the whole country were to go into complete lockdown there would be even bigger problems. Where would we get our food from if Lorry drivers are unable to work and therefore unable to deliver stocks to supermarkets. How do we then get that food from the supermarkets to our homes? Deliveries? Under a complete lockdown? Under a complete and total lockdown we may prevent the spread of the virus, but how many will die from starvation? Do we take such desperate steps with regard to Flu, which kills tens of thousands EVERY YEAR? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One also has to wonder whether the cure might actually be worse than the disease...." I don't see how everybody working from home and cancelling their plans for a fortnight could possibly be worse than thousands of avoidable deaths. It's inconvenient, but it's better than the alternative. Yes, I like having a proper desk setup with two big-ass monitors at work better than using this tiny laptop at home. Yes, I like going out, watching bands and drinking beer better than sitting on the sofa watching endless Netflix. I quite like still having a nan, though, so I'm going to do my time like a grown-up and stop complaining. On balance, no commuting and movies on tap isn't *that* bad... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, I don't. I think we need strong leadership from people we can trust who give clear advice we feel able to follow rather than complete lock down " I agree x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Tell me how you will feel when you start to lose all your elderly relatives, will you blame the government or yourselfs? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"France has said lockdown, and government are stopping all mortgage payments, bank charges etc. Macron has said that money will be made available so that not one single business will go bankrupt. Think of it this way. It's better to lockdown now, then ease restrictions in a little while when there is a better picture of how things are going. On the other hand, without any controls it continues spreading unchecked, we suddenly find that everyone is infected, and most of the population gets sick all in the same week. Yes, every year a whole bunch of people do die of the flu. But they don't all catch it at the same time, they don't all die on the same day." I'm not saying they are making the wrong decision. It very well could be the correct decision and I hope it is. But it could just as well potentially be the wrong one in the long term. Which is why the decision to do lockdown or not is far from black and white. It is all guess work, highly educated guesswork but that's why it's easy for the rest of us to start shouting "right decision" or "wrong decision". Personally yes I do think the UK needs to do more to combat it. But I partially understand why they are trying to avoid it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"NO! We need herd immunity. The whole of the UK can't isolate and any one who thinks it can is showing selfish stupidity. Take a NHS nurse. He/she has to be available to work. To enable her to work she needs access to petrol for her car. To get petrol there needs to be someone who has filled up the tanks. Someone to man the purchase. She has kids. If the kids are not able to go to school she can't work. She also needs access to shower gel, soap, shampoo, washing powder so she can clean herself after shift. To enable her to do that you need someone selling the products. You need someone to put the products on the shelf you need someone to deliver the products to the store. To enable the nurse to do her job she needs porters, assistants, cleaners, people to deliver items to the ward. Etc etc Now the right way to do it is reduce the time you are in public places where possible. If you can work from home do so. Send your children to school as they can help develop herd immunity. Don't go to places you don't need to. Regular hand washing. Clean phones. Clean door handles. Clean steering wheels etc in car daily. Protect yourself and others however you can Precisely. If the whole country were to go into complete lockdown there would be even bigger problems. Where would we get our food from if Lorry drivers are unable to work and therefore unable to deliver stocks to supermarkets. How do we then get that food from the supermarkets to our homes? Deliveries? Under a complete lockdown? Under a complete and total lockdown we may prevent the spread of the virus, but how many will die from starvation? Do we take such desperate steps with regard to Flu, which kills tens of thousands EVERY YEAR?" I'm assuming that essential supposies will still be allowed to move if heavily monitored. Other countries have had complete lockdown and the population hasnt starved to death. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"NO! We need herd immunity. The whole of the UK can't isolate and any one who thinks it can is showing selfish stupidity. Take a NHS nurse. He/she has to be available to work. To enable her to work she needs access to petrol for her car. To get petrol there needs to be someone who has filled up the tanks. Someone to man the purchase. She has kids. If the kids are not able to go to school she can't work. She also needs access to shower gel, soap, shampoo, washing powder so she can clean herself after shift. To enable her to do that you need someone selling the products. You need someone to put the products on the shelf you need someone to deliver the products to the store. To enable the nurse to do her job she needs porters, assistants, cleaners, people to deliver items to the ward. Etc etc Now the right way to do it is reduce the time you are in public places where possible. If you can work from home do so. Send your children to school as they can help develop herd immunity. Don't go to places you don't need to. Regular hand washing. Clean phones. Clean door handles. Clean steering wheels etc in car daily. Protect yourself and others however you can " Totally agree with this | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One also has to wonder whether the cure might actually be worse than the disease.... I don't see how everybody working from home and cancelling their plans for a fortnight could possibly be worse than thousands of avoidable deaths. It's inconvenient, but it's better than the alternative. Yes, I like having a proper desk setup with two big-ass monitors at work better than using this tiny laptop at home. Yes, I like going out, watching bands and drinking beer better than sitting on the sofa watching endless Netflix. I quite like still having a nan, though, so I'm going to do my time like a grown-up and stop complaining. On balance, no commuting and movies on tap isn't *that* bad... " How does a Lorry driver work from home? Or a Nurse? Or Paramedics? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that in the UK roughly 12,500 people die every week in a normal year, you have to ask how different will it be with Covid-19? As others have said, is the cure worse than the disease - unemployment will be up, companies will close, the Government will not have enough money to do anything, Brexit will be delayed yet again. My vote is no for the vast majority, but yes for those most at risk. Destroying the economy is much riskier than focusing resources on those that need help, putting the resources in place to deliver it and ensuring we all work together to protect the vulnerable. Hiding away can’t be the answer
There is a world pandemic but you are concerned because brexit may be delayed?"As a Remainer, I find it funny that this is the bit you pick up on | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One also has to wonder whether the cure might actually be worse than the disease.... I don't see how everybody working from home and cancelling their plans for a fortnight could possibly be worse than thousands of avoidable deaths. It's inconvenient, but it's better than the alternative. Yes, I like having a proper desk setup with two big-ass monitors at work better than using this tiny laptop at home. Yes, I like going out, watching bands and drinking beer better than sitting on the sofa watching endless Netflix. I quite like still having a nan, though, so I'm going to do my time like a grown-up and stop complaining. On balance, no commuting and movies on tap isn't *that* bad... How does a Lorry driver work from home? Or a Nurse? Or Paramedics?" Exceptions for essential services are obviously made... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t think we are at the lockdown point yet, but it’s not if, but when it happens at this point. Take care everyone. " Remember we are always 2 weeks behind actual figures and they have stopped testing, so nobody will ever know our true figures now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that in the UK roughly 12,500 people die every week in a normal year, you have to ask how different will it be with Covid-19? As others have said, is the cure worse than the disease - unemployment will be up, companies will close, the Government will not have enough money to do anything, Brexit will be delayed yet again. My vote is no for the vast majority, but yes for those most at risk. Destroying the economy is much riskier than focusing resources on those that need help, putting the resources in place to deliver it and ensuring we all work together to protect the vulnerable. Hiding away can’t be the answer "This | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Has this virus not been about a lot long longer than has been reported My Mrs had all the symptoms of this disease back in December early January so did most of her office drs put it all down to a bad chest infection but normal antibiotics hardly touched it so total lock down pointless now in my opinion for what’s it’s worth " Antibiotics are useless against a virus. Also there are different antibiotics for different bacteria. Bacteria have a longer shelf life than viruses. It's harder to shift a bacterial infection. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"France has said lockdown, and government are stopping all mortgage payments, bank charges etc. Macron has said that money will be made available so that not one single business will go bankrupt. Think of it this way. It's better to lockdown now, then ease restrictions in a little while when there is a better picture of how things are going. On the other hand, without any controls it continues spreading unchecked, we suddenly find that everyone is infected, and most of the population gets sick all in the same week. Yes, every year a whole bunch of people do die of the flu. But they don't all catch it at the same time, they don't all die on the same day." And we won't all die on the same day here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No I don’t think a ‘lockdown’ is the thing to do at this stage, if at all. Other countries may appear to be getting on top of it quicker than us but I believe long term they may be worse off with high infection rates after lockdown ends. No one really knows the answer to these conundrums and I can see the reasoning behind both approaches but on balance I think No to a lockdown at the current time. P.S. I do have an LTC and I also work in a job that both cannot be done from home and cannot be not done, so I will be out working whatever the situation is. This is not through ignorance or arrogance but simply because the job must be done on a daily basis. " I understand the lockdown is coming I just don't necessarily feel it's right to just decide to go into ourselves before advice too by the government. I understand about flattening the curve, but if we over flatten it when we come out of lockdown then there might be a great surge of new infections that push once again to hard against available supplies and resources. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that in the UK roughly 12,500 people die every week in a normal year, you have to ask how different will it be with Covid-19? As others have said, is the cure worse than the disease - unemployment will be up, companies will close, the Government will not have enough money to do anything, Brexit will be delayed yet again. My vote is no for the vast majority, but yes for those most at risk. Destroying the economy is much riskier than focusing resources on those that need help, putting the resources in place to deliver it and ensuring we all work together to protect the vulnerable. Hiding away can’t be the answer
There is a world pandemic but you are concerned because brexit may be delayed?
As a Remainer, I find it funny that this is the bit you pick up on "I do apologise.Must have misinterpreted yourd post. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No I don’t think a ‘lockdown’ is the thing to do at this stage, if at all. Other countries may appear to be getting on top of it quicker than us but I believe long term they may be worse off with high infection rates after lockdown ends. No one really knows the answer to these conundrums and I can see the reasoning behind both approaches but on balance I think No to a lockdown at the current time. P.S. I do have an LTC and I also work in a job that both cannot be done from home and cannot be not done, so I will be out working whatever the situation is. This is not through ignorance or arrogance but simply because the job must be done on a daily basis. I understand the lockdown is coming I just don't necessarily feel it's right to just decide to go into ourselves before advice too by the government. I understand about flattening the curve, but if we over flatten it when we come out of lockdown then there might be a great surge of new infections that push once again to hard against available supplies and resources. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Friends working in the nhs are telling me that the government have been winging it and its now biting them on the arse. The strategy appears to be to allow the virus to spread but try to control that spread by locking down social exposure (no indiscriminate shagging peeps) by closing public areas down so that the peak will spread over the country in gentle ripples rather than a tsunami, giving the nhs an opportunity to deal with it. Unfortunately they are taking these measures far too late and have ignored the question of how the vast amounts of people who work in hospitality, entertainment, the gig economy, education, etc are going to afford to live through the next twelve weeks at least. I don’t believe they have any idea what to do to manage this situation and they are doing everything they can to avoid committing to the massive expenditure that will be required to keep this country going. Still....at least its stopped raining "Boris Johnson? Winging it? Well I am shocked. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"With regards to China locking down. They locked down Hubei province. Which is the equivalent to us locking down Greater Manchester. The rest of China was a functioning economy admittedly with reduced exports outside world." The rest of the country has been locked down too, my colleague in Shanghai is still not back in the office 2 months later (they expect to get back in later this week or next week). The measures in Shanghai mean that to get into an office your temperature needs to be checked before you're allowed in and the restaurants that are now only reopening only allow 2 people per table, they are coming out of a lock down to a situation not dissimilar to what we have right now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"France has said lockdown, and government are stopping all mortgage payments, bank charges etc. Macron has said that money will be made available so that not one single business will go bankrupt. Think of it this way. It's better to lockdown now, then ease restrictions in a little while when there is a better picture of how things are going. On the other hand, without any controls it continues spreading unchecked, we suddenly find that everyone is infected, and most of the population gets sick all in the same week. Yes, every year a whole bunch of people do die of the flu. But they don't all catch it at the same time, they don't all die on the same day. And we won't all die on the same day here." Or the same week. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have just been talking to my counterpart colleague who lives and works in Shanghai. They've been under lock down for 7-8 weeks now and things are slowly being lifted. They will be able to work in the office again soon but mandatory temperature checks are in place for all workers, restaurants are only allowed 2 people at a table etc. He is quite worried about our ignorance in the UK and lack of action, we both feel this is because we didn't have SARS in 2003 so as a nation we don't know how serious the affects can be. He's advising me to just not leave the house, push buttons in lifts and handle doors using tissues only. He's also telling me that very large numbers of the "recovered" people in China now have significant lung damage that is probably permanent, this includes young people. If the problem is seemingly being combatted successfully in other countries I'm baffled as to why we are not following their example. I'm far from actually defending the decision of the UK gov, but its far from a simple choice. Nobody knows what the truely correct course of action to take is. One action over another impacts different people in different ways. Until its over we won't ever really know who did the right or wrong things during it since it will ripple out for a long time. It is easy for the masses to say do this or do that because X and Y are. But what impact will it end up having long term, same goes for doing the opposite to what X and Y are doing. The main issue with the way UK is doing it is sneaky as fuck. Advising people not to go to pubs and restaurants, but not officially ordering them to close, so the gov doesn't have to take responsibility for helping these businesses out. True..but it just seems like we very much seem to be going our way on this. If this gets really bad you think they are going to say..we fucked up? The longer we wait the further up shits creek we go so this indeed is going bad. The fact that boris said dont go pubs but didnt say close all pubs for example is very telling and revealing in how the government is protecting itself first and foremost. We should be in complete lockdown plain and simple with measures in place to protect mortgages, economies of interest etc. We know how to combat this it's called look at what other countries such as japan Singapore Taiwan and china did. The results the methodology is all out there just google it. The fact that we arent is so backward. Were the United kingdom. We have more wealth here than we believe. The queen has more wealth the Duke of Westminster has wealth the royals have wealth. Surely if the nation needs it those with the means so now help both those that cannot and towards funding for vaccines? It's always astounded me how the royals have so much wealth and pomposity during state occasions yet yards away we have the homeless and destitute. Times havent progressed since the christmas carols london of Charles Dickens merely shifted. We need to wake up! I'm all for monarchy. I have no issues with them all I'm saying is if we go on lockdown I'm sure we can handle it better than even china. It will also assist the NHS too." Think you'll find the big financial institutions have all the cash. The Royal Family do not have all that much to be honest | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can someone help me out as I'm very confused by pretty much the world soon to be in lockdown. Lets look at the figures. 150,000 cases out of 700,000,000,000 Of which 7500 are deaths world wide. In the UK. 1500 cases out of 70,000,000 Of which 55 deaths. Now compare those numbers to any given year for the winter months between january and march and the cases of flu and deaths from flu world wide are astronomically higher. In England alone last year from the 22 feb to 3rd of march when we had that bad winter period there was 1770 upto 2000 EXTRA deaths ontop of the average from cold/flu virus in that 11 day period. Just by looking at these numbers i just simply cannot understand why putting most of the world on lock down for several weeks to several months resulting in millions of lost jobs, probably millions may go homless and econmys worldwide being decimated. Just not making sense to me at all. " Because no one knows of the exact numbers?because we are still only testing very small numbers of people. Because it is suspected those figures are much..more higher. Because we are still not testing people coming on from infected areas? Because some countries Iran,italy ,china have been absolutely decimated? I'd say peoples lives are more important than how much the economy Is making. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can someone help me out as I'm very confused by pretty much the world soon to be in lockdown. Lets look at the figures. 150,000 cases out of 700,000,000,000 Of which 7500 are deaths world wide. In the UK. 1500 cases out of 70,000,000 Of which 55 deaths. Now compare those numbers to any given year for the winter months between january and march and the cases of flu and deaths from flu world wide are astronomically higher. In England alone last year from the 22 feb to 3rd of march when we had that bad winter period there was 1770 upto 2000 EXTRA deaths ontop of the average from cold/flu virus in that 11 day period. Just by looking at these numbers i just simply cannot understand why putting most of the world on lock down for several weeks to several months resulting in millions of lost jobs, probably millions may go homless and econmys worldwide being decimated. Just not making sense to me at all. " It's nearly twice as contagious. Stats are being reported that each infected person infects 2.2 others, whereas the flu 1.3. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have just been talking to my counterpart colleague who lives and works in Shanghai. They've been under lock down for 7-8 weeks now and things are slowly being lifted. They will be able to work in the office again soon but mandatory temperature checks are in place for all workers, restaurants are only allowed 2 people at a table etc. He is quite worried about our ignorance in the UK and lack of action, we both feel this is because we didn't have SARS in 2003 so as a nation we don't know how serious the affects can be. He's advising me to just not leave the house, push buttons in lifts and handle doors using tissues only. He's also telling me that very large numbers of the "recovered" people in China now have significant lung damage that is probably permanent, this includes young people. If the problem is seemingly being combatted successfully in other countries I'm baffled as to why we are not following their example. I'm far from actually defending the decision of the UK gov, but its far from a simple choice. Nobody knows what the truely correct course of action to take is. One action over another impacts different people in different ways. Until its over we won't ever really know who did the right or wrong things during it since it will ripple out for a long time. It is easy for the masses to say do this or do that because X and Y are. But what impact will it end up having long term, same goes for doing the opposite to what X and Y are doing. The main issue with the way UK is doing it is sneaky as fuck. Advising people not to go to pubs and restaurants, but not officially ordering them to close, so the gov doesn't have to take responsibility for helping these businesses out. True..but it just seems like we very much seem to be going our way on this. If this gets really bad you think they are going to say..we fucked up? The longer we wait the further up shits creek we go so this indeed is going bad. The fact that boris said dont go pubs but didnt say close all pubs for example is very telling and revealing in how the government is protecting itself first and foremost. We should be in complete lockdown plain and simple with measures in place to protect mortgages, economies of interest etc. We know how to combat this it's called look at what other countries such as japan Singapore Taiwan and china did. The results the methodology is all out there just google it. The fact that we arent is so backward. Were the United kingdom. We have more wealth here than we believe. The queen has more wealth the Duke of Westminster has wealth the royals have wealth. Surely if the nation needs it those with the means so now help both those that cannot and towards funding for vaccines? It's always astounded me how the royals have so much wealth and pomposity during state occasions yet yards away we have the homeless and destitute. Times havent progressed since the christmas carols london of Charles Dickens merely shifted. We need to wake up! I'm all for monarchy. I have no issues with them all I'm saying is if we go on lockdown I'm sure we can handle it better than even china. It will also assist the NHS too. Think you'll find the big financial institutions have all the cash. The Royal Family do not have all that much to be honest" Are you suggesting the royals are not financially well off? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 150,000 cases out of 700,000,000,000 Of which 7500 are deaths world wide. In the UK. 1500 cases out of 70,000,000 Of which 55 deaths. " First off, your numbers are "so far", and much of the reductions have been after people have been put into lock down to reduce deaths (a huge number of those deaths were in Wuhan alone), the government are saying if we do nothing then we get an extra 510,000 deaths in the UK in the next year. This is precisely why measures need to be taken. Also, after speaking to my colleague in China today a significant number of people who are "recovered" have what appears to be permanent damage to their lungs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Compared to the big banks and the multinationals then no - also the royals have no power whatsoever" Power or money? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can someone help me out as I'm very confused by pretty much the world soon to be in lockdown. Lets look at the figures. 150,000 cases out of 700,000,000,000 Of which 7500 are deaths world wide. In the UK. 1500 cases out of 70,000,000 Of which 55 deaths. Now compare those numbers to any given year for the winter months between january and march and the cases of flu and deaths from flu world wide are astronomically higher. In England alone last year from the 22 feb to 3rd of march when we had that bad winter period there was 1770 upto 2000 EXTRA deaths ontop of the average from cold/flu virus in that 11 day period. Just by looking at these numbers i just simply cannot understand why putting most of the world on lock down for several weeks to several months resulting in millions of lost jobs, probably millions may go homless and econmys worldwide being decimated. Just not making sense to me at all. Because no one knows of the exact numbers?because we are still only testing very small numbers of people. Because it is suspected those figures are much..more higher. Because we are still not testing people coming on from infected areas? Because some countries Iran,italy ,china have been absolutely decimated? I'd say peoples lives are more important than how much the economy Is making." How has china been decimated??? China population of nearly 2 billion. 88,000 cases 3300 deaths. Compare those numbers from flu deaths in china any given year during their einter period and again the numbers are vastly higher. So no china is not being decimated no more so than any average winter year. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can someone help me out as I'm very confused by pretty much the world soon to be in lockdown. Lets look at the figures. 150,000 cases out of 700,000,000,000 Of which 7500 are deaths world wide. In the UK. 1500 cases out of 70,000,000 Of which 55 deaths. Now compare those numbers to any given year for the winter months between january and march and the cases of flu and deaths from flu world wide are astronomically higher. In England alone last year from the 22 feb to 3rd of march when we had that bad winter period there was 1770 upto 2000 EXTRA deaths ontop of the average from cold/flu virus in that 11 day period. Just by looking at these numbers i just simply cannot understand why putting most of the world on lock down for several weeks to several months resulting in millions of lost jobs, probably millions may go homless and econmys worldwide being decimated. Just not making sense to me at all. Because no one knows of the exact numbers?because we are still only testing very small numbers of people. Because it is suspected those figures are much..more higher. Because we are still not testing people coming on from infected areas? Because some countries Iran,italy ,china have been absolutely decimated? I'd say peoples lives are more important than how much the economy Is making. How has china been decimated??? China population of nearly 2 billion. 88,000 cases 3300 deaths. Compare those numbers from flu deaths in china any given year during their einter period and again the numbers are vastly higher. So no china is not being decimated no more so than any average winter year." You dont think nearly 3 and a half thousand deaths in a few months is bad? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Compared to the big banks and the multinationals then no - also the royals have no power whatsoever Power or money?" Take any big bank and their assets are around 10-20 times what the royals have and that is just one bank. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, I don't. I think we need strong leadership from people we can trust who give clear advice we feel able to follow rather than complete lock down " What if the advice is to lockdown? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can someone help me out as I'm very confused by pretty much the world soon to be in lockdown. Lets look at the figures. 150,000 cases out of 700,000,000,000 Of which 7500 are deaths world wide. In the UK. 1500 cases out of 70,000,000 Of which 55 deaths. Now compare those numbers to any given year for the winter months between january and march and the cases of flu and deaths from flu world wide are astronomically higher. In England alone last year from the 22 feb to 3rd of march when we had that bad winter period there was 1770 upto 2000 EXTRA deaths ontop of the average from cold/flu virus in that 11 day period. Just by looking at these numbers i just simply cannot understand why putting most of the world on lock down for several weeks to several months resulting in millions of lost jobs, probably millions may go homless and econmys worldwide being decimated. Just not making sense to me at all. Because no one knows of the exact numbers?because we are still only testing very small numbers of people. Because it is suspected those figures are much..more higher. Because we are still not testing people coming on from infected areas? Because some countries Iran,italy ,china have been absolutely decimated? I'd say peoples lives are more important than how much the economy Is making. How has china been decimated??? China population of nearly 2 billion. 88,000 cases 3300 deaths. Compare those numbers from flu deaths in china any given year during their einter period and again the numbers are vastly higher. So no china is not being decimated no more so than any average winter year. You dont think nearly 3 and a half thousand deaths in a few months is bad?" Thats my point in china during the winter months in any given year deaths from cold/flu/pneumonia symptons are vastly superior. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Compared to the big banks and the multinationals then no - also the royals have no power whatsoever Power or money? Take any big bank and their assets are around 10-20 times what the royals have and that is just one bank." I agree that big nationals and bank are insanely wealthy but their reason to exist is to make money. The queen alone is estimated to be worth £530 million. Theyes live a life of luxury none of us could dream about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can someone help me out as I'm very confused by pretty much the world soon to be in lockdown. Lets look at the figures. 150,000 cases out of 700,000,000,000 Of which 7500 are deaths world wide. In the UK. 1500 cases out of 70,000,000 Of which 55 deaths. Now compare those numbers to any given year for the winter months between january and march and the cases of flu and deaths from flu world wide are astronomically higher. In England alone last year from the 22 feb to 3rd of march when we had that bad winter period there was 1770 upto 2000 EXTRA deaths ontop of the average from cold/flu virus in that 11 day period. Just by looking at these numbers i just simply cannot understand why putting most of the world on lock down for several weeks to several months resulting in millions of lost jobs, probably millions may go homless and econmys worldwide being decimated. Just not making sense to me at all. Because no one knows of the exact numbers?because we are still only testing very small numbers of people. Because it is suspected those figures are much..more higher. Because we are still not testing people coming on from infected areas? Because some countries Iran,italy ,china have been absolutely decimated? I'd say peoples lives are more important than how much the economy Is making. How has china been decimated??? China population of nearly 2 billion. 88,000 cases 3300 deaths. Compare those numbers from flu deaths in china any given year during their einter period and again the numbers are vastly higher. So no china is not being decimated no more so than any average winter year. You dont think nearly 3 and a half thousand deaths in a few months is bad? Thats my point in china during the winter months in any given year deaths from cold/flu/pneumonia symptons are vastly superior. " I think you either accept this is a major cause of concern or you dont. I know what I believe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Has this virus not been about a lot long longer than has been reported My Mrs had all the symptoms of this disease back in December early January so did most of her office drs put it all down to a bad chest infection but normal antibiotics hardly touched it so total lock down pointless now in my opinion for what’s it’s worth " I've been saying this and also to alleviate the poor scared people. I did point out that at this point not even 0.01% of the world is affected. Actually it's a lot less than that officially. And this has definitely been around longer.. and if they tested people the true morality rate may seem less scary. People are focussing to much on the few that sadly pass away... and not on the over 150,000 that have survived ( and many many more will have done because we dont know who is affected | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can someone help me out as I'm very confused by pretty much the world soon to be in lockdown. Lets look at the figures. 150,000 cases out of 700,000,000,000 Of which 7500 are deaths world wide. In the UK. 1500 cases out of 70,000,000 Of which 55 deaths. Now compare those numbers to any given year for the winter months between january and march and the cases of flu and deaths from flu world wide are astronomically higher. In England alone last year from the 22 feb to 3rd of march when we had that bad winter period there was 1770 upto 2000 EXTRA deaths ontop of the average from cold/flu virus in that 11 day period. Just by looking at these numbers i just simply cannot understand why putting most of the world on lock down for several weeks to several months resulting in millions of lost jobs, probably millions may go homless and econmys worldwide being decimated. Just not making sense to me at all. " For me there is either more To it than we have been told or a vast over reaction. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Compared to the big banks and the multinationals then no - also the royals have no power whatsoever Power or money? Take any big bank and their assets are around 10-20 times what the royals have and that is just one bank. I agree that big nationals and bank are insanely wealthy but their reason to exist is to make money. The queen alone is estimated to be worth £530 million. Theyes live a life of luxury none of us could dream about." You're right of course. But ironically banks are not there to make lots of money. This may sound stupid, but it's the power that is important. Banks finance wars to garner power. The rest like money, land, oil etc is just the spoils of war. Of course more money gains more power...think I've shot myself with me own gun now x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have just been talking to my counterpart colleague who lives and works in Shanghai. They've been under lock down for 7-8 weeks now and things are slowly being lifted. They will be able to work in the office again soon but mandatory temperature checks are in place for all workers, restaurants are only allowed 2 people at a table etc. He is quite worried about our ignorance in the UK and lack of action, we both feel this is because we didn't have SARS in 2003 so as a nation we don't know how serious the affects can be. He's advising me to just not leave the house, push buttons in lifts and handle doors using tissues only. He's also telling me that very large numbers of the "recovered" people in China now have significant lung damage that is probably permanent, this includes young people. If the problem is seemingly being combatted successfully in other countries I'm baffled as to why we are not following their example. I'm far from actually defending the decision of the UK gov, but its far from a simple choice. Nobody knows what the truely correct course of action to take is. One action over another impacts different people in different ways. Until its over we won't ever really know who did the right or wrong things during it since it will ripple out for a long time. It is easy for the masses to say do this or do that because X and Y are. But what impact will it end up having long term, same goes for doing the opposite to what X and Y are doing. The main issue with the way UK is doing it is sneaky as fuck. Advising people not to go to pubs and restaurants, but not officially ordering them to close, so the gov doesn't have to take responsibility for helping these businesses out. True..but it just seems like we very much seem to be going our way on this. If this gets really bad you think they are going to say..we fucked up? The longer we wait the further up shits creek we go so this indeed is going bad. The fact that boris said dont go pubs but didnt say close all pubs for example is very telling and revealing in how the government is protecting itself first and foremost. We should be in complete lockdown plain and simple with measures in place to protect mortgages, economies of interest etc. We know how to combat this it's called look at what other countries such as japan Singapore Taiwan and china did. The results the methodology is all out there just google it. The fact that we arent is so backward. Were the United kingdom. We have more wealth here than we believe. The queen has more wealth the Duke of Westminster has wealth the royals have wealth. Surely if the nation needs it those with the means so now help both those that cannot and towards funding for vaccines? It's always astounded me how the royals have so much wealth and pomposity during state occasions yet yards away we have the homeless and destitute. Times havent progressed since the christmas carols london of Charles Dickens merely shifted. We need to wake up! I'm all for monarchy. I have no issues with them all I'm saying is if we go on lockdown I'm sure we can handle it better than even china. It will also assist the NHS too. Again, short term it is working out well. What happens when/if another outbreak starts, back on lockdown for another 4 months? Only time will tell how their lockdown will hurt (or help) their countries going forward. I agree the UK government is doing it in their own personal benefit above that of the people as a whole. But until its over it could end up being that potentially we may have a stronger economy because of it. OR the wrong actions were taken and the lockdown did work long term which gives those countries the advantage. We really just don't know is the point at this stage. It is still very much long term vs short term decision making. " Ironically enough, with the way it is looking right now, one of the countries whose economy will flourish the finest in a few years will be China. They've had a head start of a few months and whereas South Korea look to be "teching" their way out of this mess, their totalitarian methods seem to have brought dividends initially at least. If their economy booms against the majority of the world as they get back on their feet the earliest, would we be within rights to level them with a mammoth bill for their scant regard for food hygiene shafting ours?
B | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can someone help me out as I'm very confused by pretty much the world soon to be in lockdown. Lets look at the figures. 150,000 cases out of 700,000,000,000 Of which 7500 are deaths world wide. In the UK. 1500 cases out of 70,000,000 Of which 55 deaths. Now compare those numbers to any given year for the winter months between january and march and the cases of flu and deaths from flu world wide are astronomically higher. In England alone last year from the 22 feb to 3rd of march when we had that bad winter period there was 1770 upto 2000 EXTRA deaths ontop of the average from cold/flu virus in that 11 day period. Just by looking at these numbers i just simply cannot understand why putting most of the world on lock down for several weeks to several months resulting in millions of lost jobs, probably millions may go homless and econmys worldwide being decimated. Just not making sense to me at all. Because no one knows of the exact numbers?because we are still only testing very small numbers of people. Because it is suspected those figures are much..more higher. Because we are still not testing people coming on from infected areas? Because some countries Iran,italy ,china have been absolutely decimated? I'd say peoples lives are more important than how much the economy Is making. How has china been decimated??? China population of nearly 2 billion. 88,000 cases 3300 deaths. Compare those numbers from flu deaths in china any given year during their einter period and again the numbers are vastly higher. So no china is not being decimated no more so than any average winter year. You dont think nearly 3 and a half thousand deaths in a few months is bad? Thats my point in china during the winter months in any given year deaths from cold/flu/pneumonia symptons are vastly superior. I think you either accept this is a major cause of concern or you dont. I know what I believe." Why is it more of a concern than any other year if the numbers of deaths from flu each year are higher? Why not be concerned every single winter and lock down countries every winter to stop spread of flus and colds and kill the elderly? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"With some Russian funded social media propaganda, people would vote for the Coronovirus in a referendum." clearly still nursing the wounds of Brexit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One of the problems with a lockdown is that it stops the spread for a few weeks then after the lockdown it suddenly spreads across the population overnight. Keeping things moving will still allow it to spread but at a more manageable rate." This is exactly what the government is doing. And in my opinion, quite right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"France has said lockdown, and government are stopping all mortgage payments, bank charges etc. Macron has said that money will be made available so that not one single business will go bankrupt. Think of it this way. It's better to lockdown now, then ease restrictions in a little while when there is a better picture of how things are going. On the other hand, without any controls it continues spreading unchecked, we suddenly find that everyone is infected, and most of the population gets sick all in the same week. Yes, every year a whole bunch of people do die of the flu. But they don't all catch it at the same time, they don't all die on the same day. And we won't all die on the same day here." You do know how exponential growth works right? Every observation of this virus in every country shows that without controls the number of cases doubles every two days. And the number of deaths doubles every two days, because death date = approximately three weeks after infection date, for about 4 in every 100 infected. Without controls, there will be a day not far in the future where one quarter of the population are infected. Two days later half the population is infected. Two days later 100% have been exposed. So three quarters of the population get infected during just four days. That's about 45 million people. Three weeks later there are four million people all needing hospital care at the same time. There is hospital care available for maybe 10 thousand? Of those 4 million people, at least two million will die during the same week. Another million will die slowly during the following few weeks. One million will live but have severe respiratory damage that will kill them over a five year period. Ten thousand will get hospital care. Five thousand will recover okay. This is what every country is totally shit scared of. Every medic in the world has done the sums. There are going to be a lot of people die whatever. But it can be over a long period, and deaths minimised by hospitals managing to cope, and the possibility of better treatments being developed in the coming few months. Or you can have a week during which several years worth of the normal death rate happens all at once. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One of the problems with a lockdown is that it stops the spread for a few weeks then after the lockdown it suddenly spreads across the population overnight. Keeping things moving will still allow it to spread but at a more manageable rate. how can you manage it if you can't control it. " You control it by not letting it bottle neck then releasing it all at once. This is exactly what will happen if we go for immediate lock down then release it in 6-8 weeks time in one massive tidal wave. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Compared to the big banks and the multinationals then no - also the royals have no power whatsoever Power or money? Take any big bank and their assets are around 10-20 times what the royals have and that is just one bank. I agree that big nationals and bank are insanely wealthy but their reason to exist is to make money. The queen alone is estimated to be worth £530 million. Theyes live a life of luxury none of us could dream about. You're right of course. But ironically banks are not there to make lots of money. This may sound stupid, but it's the power that is important. Banks finance wars to garner power. The rest like money, land, oil etc is just the spoils of war. Of course more money gains more power...think I've shot myself with me own gun now x" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can someone help me out as I'm very confused by pretty much the world soon to be in lockdown. Lets look at the figures. 150,000 cases out of 700,000,000,000 Of which 7500 are deaths world wide. In the UK. 1500 cases out of 70,000,000 Of which 55 deaths. Now compare those numbers to any given year for the winter months between january and march and the cases of flu and deaths from flu world wide are astronomically higher. In England alone last year from the 22 feb to 3rd of march when we had that bad winter period there was 1770 upto 2000 EXTRA deaths ontop of the average from cold/flu virus in that 11 day period. Just by looking at these numbers i just simply cannot understand why putting most of the world on lock down for several weeks to several months resulting in millions of lost jobs, probably millions may go homless and econmys worldwide being decimated. Just not making sense to me at all. Because no one knows of the exact numbers?because we are still only testing very small numbers of people. Because it is suspected those figures are much..more higher. Because we are still not testing people coming on from infected areas? Because some countries Iran,italy ,china have been absolutely decimated? I'd say peoples lives are more important than how much the economy Is making. How has china been decimated??? China population of nearly 2 billion. 88,000 cases 3300 deaths. Compare those numbers from flu deaths in china any given year during their einter period and again the numbers are vastly higher. So no china is not being decimated no more so than any average winter year. You dont think nearly 3 and a half thousand deaths in a few months is bad? Thats my point in china during the winter months in any given year deaths from cold/flu/pneumonia symptons are vastly superior. I think you either accept this is a major cause of concern or you dont. I know what I believe. Why is it more of a concern than any other year if the numbers of deaths from flu each year are higher? Why not be concerned every single winter and lock down countries every winter to stop spread of flus and colds and kill the elderly?" Because the NHS is on its arse already? And a pandemic which is estimated will affect 80% of the population is a serious cause of alarm? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unless they start using a vaccine, how are we suppose to gain heard immunity if we all stay in? Only venerable health groups should isolate... " Herd immunity correction | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Every person that says herd immunity? Herd immunity without a vaccine means letting every single person catch it, letting everyone die who is going to die, and hoping that it's something that you can't catch again after you've had it once. Herd immunity means "i think I'm going to be okay, as long as lots of other people die"." To my mind it's many will get it, survive and create antigens for if they are exposed to it again, meaning if those who didn't get it the first time around, statistically have a lower chance of getting than this time around. I admit to not researching it and am using my logic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unless they start using a vaccine, how are we suppose to gain heard immunity if we all stay in? Only venerable health groups should isolate... Herd immunity correction " I notice you've made religious leaders an at risk group... What aren't you telling us? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One of the problems with a lockdown is that it stops the spread for a few weeks then after the lockdown it suddenly spreads across the population overnight. Keeping things moving will still allow it to spread but at a more manageable rate. how can you manage it if you can't control it. You control it by not letting it bottle neck then releasing it all at once. This is exactly what will happen if we go for immediate lock down then release it in 6-8 weeks time in one massive tidal wave." If nothing is done now, today, then the massive tidal wave happens now. If we have immediate lockdown, then we don't get a tidal wave, because we don't suddenly just drop all restrictions in 6 weeks time. (a) It gives time for those already infected to develop symptoms so they know that they're infected, and they can stay isolated for a while longer. (b) It allows for any areas that are totally infection free to cautiously resume almost-normal life, but being careful to avoid crowds and watching closely for any new flareups. (c) It gives a few weeks for medical services to prepare more, to get more intensive care equipment, to acquire more drugs (because it isn't a 100% lockdown, vital services and preparations continue during the lockdown). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Every person that says herd immunity? Herd immunity without a vaccine means letting every single person catch it, letting everyone die who is going to die, and hoping that it's something that you can't catch again after you've had it once. Herd immunity means "i think I'm going to be okay, as long as lots of other people die". To my mind it's many will get it, survive and create antigens for if they are exposed to it again, meaning if those who didn't get it the first time around, statistically have a lower chance of getting than this time around. I admit to not researching it and am using my logic. " There have been reports of people who recovered getting re- infected... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Every person that says herd immunity? Herd immunity without a vaccine means letting every single person catch it, letting everyone die who is going to die, and hoping that it's something that you can't catch again after you've had it once. Herd immunity means "i think I'm going to be okay, as long as lots of other people die". To my mind it's many will get it, survive and create antigens for if they are exposed to it again, meaning if those who didn't get it the first time around, statistically have a lower chance of getting than this time around. I admit to not researching it and am using my logic. " "Those who didn't get it first time around". The governments own figures show 80% infected first time around. Italy is showing more like 98% exposed will get it. This herd immunity is going to work really well for the 2% that didn't catch it first time. Shame that at least 2 million people in the uk will die during the next three months. When it could have been only a tenth of that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One also has to wonder whether the cure might actually be worse than the disease.... I don't see how everybody working from home and cancelling their plans for a fortnight could possibly be worse than thousands of avoidable deaths. It's inconvenient, but it's better than the alternative. Yes, I like having a proper desk setup with two big-ass monitors at work better than using this tiny laptop at home. Yes, I like going out, watching bands and drinking beer better than sitting on the sofa watching endless Netflix. I quite like still having a nan, though, so I'm going to do my time like a grown-up and stop complaining. On balance, no commuting and movies on tap isn't *that* bad... How does a Lorry driver work from home? Or a Nurse? Or Paramedics?" A lorry driver doesn't, but then again, they're not exactly surrounded by people while they're working, are they? A nurse doesn't, but if everyone else is on lockdown, they're significantly less likely to become infected. Same with a paramedic. Some jobs can't be done remotely and are essential. If the non-essential workers stand down and those who can work from home do, the potential for spreading the virus around reduces drastically. The main issue with this is that some workers don't get sick pay or holidays. These are the people who need support. The companies that have profited from low pay and zero hours contracts now need to step up to the plate, or the whole thing falls apart. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a tough call. I'm veering towards self isolation due to existing health conditions (I need shooting). However, my 7 year old school isn't closed and I don't want to adversely affect her education. That said, yesterday her class was full - today nearly half the class are not there and teachers are self isolating too. The panic is that real though that one parent, on walking in to the class this morning, took one look at how many kids were missing and turned round with their child and left. Hell - even her dad and I have had a reasonable chat about it, and that's a first in nearly 8 years. Basically I'm trying to get to the end of this week before shutters go up and the red cross goes on the door. But I doubt we will get that far." If you have preexisting conditions that make you vulnerable then in say isolate and take your kid out of school. We have to decide for ourselves. Ive had my youngest off school a week already as he has a cough...i was taking no chances as he has no reserve lung capacity. GP told me on Friday i did the right thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Every person that says herd immunity? Herd immunity without a vaccine means letting every single person catch it, letting everyone die who is going to die, and hoping that it's something that you can't catch again after you've had it once. Herd immunity means "i think I'm going to be okay, as long as lots of other people die". To my mind it's many will get it, survive and create antigens for if they are exposed to it again, meaning if those who didn't get it the first time around, statistically have a lower chance of getting than this time around. I admit to not researching it and am using my logic. There have been reports of people who recovered getting re- infected..." Apparently it's just a very small minority of people who don't store the antibodies once the virus has been fought off once so it's unlikely to infect anyone twice. That isn't to say you are immune from picking up the virus on your body and passing it on that way despite having the antibodies | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Every person that says herd immunity? Herd immunity without a vaccine means letting every single person catch it, letting everyone die who is going to die, and hoping that it's something that you can't catch again after you've had it once. Herd immunity means "i think I'm going to be okay, as long as lots of other people die". To my mind it's many will get it, survive and create antigens for if they are exposed to it again, meaning if those who didn't get it the first time around, statistically have a lower chance of getting than this time around. I admit to not researching it and am using my logic. "Those who didn't get it first time around". The governments own figures show 80% infected first time around. Italy is showing more like 98% exposed will get it. This herd immunity is going to work really well for the 2% that didn't catch it first time. Shame that at least 2 million people in the uk will die during the next three months. When it could have been only a tenth of that." 2 million people going to die where the hell did you get that figure from the total population of the uk is between 6/7 million and this virus only kills about 2% you do the maths | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Every person that says herd immunity? Herd immunity without a vaccine means letting every single person catch it, letting everyone die who is going to die, and hoping that it's something that you can't catch again after you've had it once. Herd immunity means "i think I'm going to be okay, as long as lots of other people die". To my mind it's many will get it, survive and create antigens for if they are exposed to it again, meaning if those who didn't get it the first time around, statistically have a lower chance of getting than this time around. I admit to not researching it and am using my logic. "Those who didn't get it first time around". The governments own figures show 80% infected first time around. Italy is showing more like 98% exposed will get it. This herd immunity is going to work really well for the 2% that didn't catch it first time. Shame that at least 2 million people in the uk will die during the next three months. When it could have been only a tenth of that. 2 million people going to die where the hell did you get that figure from the total population of the uk is between 6/7 million and this virus only kills about 2% you do the maths " There are more than 7m people in the uk I think. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Every person that says herd immunity? Herd immunity without a vaccine means letting every single person catch it, letting everyone die who is going to die, and hoping that it's something that you can't catch again after you've had it once. Herd immunity means "i think I'm going to be okay, as long as lots of other people die". To my mind it's many will get it, survive and create antigens for if they are exposed to it again, meaning if those who didn't get it the first time around, statistically have a lower chance of getting than this time around. I admit to not researching it and am using my logic. "Those who didn't get it first time around". The governments own figures show 80% infected first time around. Italy is showing more like 98% exposed will get it. This herd immunity is going to work really well for the 2% that didn't catch it first time. Shame that at least 2 million people in the uk will die during the next three months. When it could have been only a tenth of that. 2 million people going to die where the hell did you get that figure from the total population of the uk is between 6/7 million and this virus only kills about 2% you do the maths There are more than 7m people in the uk I think." 67 million I think it is | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Every person that says herd immunity? Herd immunity without a vaccine means letting every single person catch it, letting everyone die who is going to die, and hoping that it's something that you can't catch again after you've had it once. Herd immunity means "i think I'm going to be okay, as long as lots of other people die". To my mind it's many will get it, survive and create antigens for if they are exposed to it again, meaning if those who didn't get it the first time around, statistically have a lower chance of getting than this time around. I admit to not researching it and am using my logic. There have been reports of people who recovered getting re- infected..." That's because our very clever adaptive immune system cannot stop reinfection but simply knows how to fight it second time around. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One also has to wonder whether the cure might actually be worse than the disease.... I don't see how everybody working from home and cancelling their plans for a fortnight could possibly be worse than thousands of avoidable deaths. It's inconvenient, but it's better than the alternative. Yes, I like having a proper desk setup with two big-ass monitors at work better than using this tiny laptop at home. Yes, I like going out, watching bands and drinking beer better than sitting on the sofa watching endless Netflix. I quite like still having a nan, though, so I'm going to do my time like a grown-up and stop complaining. On balance, no commuting and movies on tap isn't *that* bad... " some of us dont have the choice of working from home.been told by our firm will get 29quid a day if we close.pretty sure people aint gona waive my rent council tax water rates while im sat at home with no money coming in.wether its total or partial lockdown people are gona be fucked one way or another after this has passed.and as for the lockdown in china id say wait a month or two after urfew has beenn lifted to see how sucsesfull its been or not as the case may be | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One also has to wonder whether the cure might actually be worse than the disease.... I don't see how everybody working from home and cancelling their plans for a fortnight could possibly be worse than thousands of avoidable deaths. It's inconvenient, but it's better than the alternative. Yes, I like having a proper desk setup with two big-ass monitors at work better than using this tiny laptop at home. Yes, I like going out, watching bands and drinking beer better than sitting on the sofa watching endless Netflix. I quite like still having a nan, though, so I'm going to do my time like a grown-up and stop complaining. On balance, no commuting and movies on tap isn't *that* bad... some of us dont have the choice of working from home.been told by our firm will get 29quid a day if we close.pretty sure people aint gona waive my rent council tax water rates while im sat at home with no money coming in.wether its total or partial lockdown people are gona be fucked one way or another after this has passed.and as for the lockdown in china id say wait a month or two after urfew has beenn lifted to see how sucsesfull its been or not as the case may be" If things got really bad they would have to suspend council tax..utilities etc They wouldnt have a choice | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 ) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"some of us dont have the choice of working from home.been told by our firm will get 29quid a day if we close.pretty sure people aint gona waive my rent council tax water rates while im sat at home with no money coming in.wether its total or partial lockdown people are gona be fucked one way or another after this has passed.and as for the lockdown in china id say wait a month or two after urfew has beenn lifted to see how sucsesfull its been or not as the case may be" Yeah, absolutely. Like I said earlier: those who can, should. Essential services need to keep running, but with provisions in place to reduce possible transmissions. Everyone else is going to need some kind of support during lockdown, either from their employers, from the state, or some combination of the two. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely yes. And my main reason is because I believe it will come to that anyway but in the meantime we will have faffed about and let the situation get even more out of control and thousands will die and many hundreds of thousands will be affected financially and the country will be fucked. There is no point pretending it isn't going to happen and then admit it will and go into lockdown days or weeks later than we could have. I can see why the herd immunity tactic might have it's merits but it's all theory, the only practical lessons we have to go on are what the countries before us have done and how well, or not, it's worked for them. English exceptionalism is going to kill people and destroy our countries faster and more devastatingly than if we bite the bullet and go for locking everything down immediately. (In my never humble opinion )"I forgot to add that I'm not speaking as someone who will "be alright Jack" because I don't get sick pay, I'm not well off, I rent so mortgage payment deferrment (if it happens) won't help me. I'm shit scared of what I will do financially, but I believe it just can't be helped. I don't believe in sacrificing the old, the immuno-suppressed, those with "underlying conditions" or anyone else for the good of the masses. We're better than that...or at least we fucking should be! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Would a vote matter? Whoever lost would just cry about it and demand a revote " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Every person that says herd immunity? Herd immunity without a vaccine means letting every single person catch it, letting everyone die who is going to die, and hoping that it's something that you can't catch again after you've had it once. Herd immunity means "i think I'm going to be okay, as long as lots of other people die". To my mind it's many will get it, survive and create antigens for if they are exposed to it again, meaning if those who didn't get it the first time around, statistically have a lower chance of getting than this time around. I admit to not researching it and am using my logic. "Those who didn't get it first time around". The governments own figures show 80% infected first time around. Italy is showing more like 98% exposed will get it. This herd immunity is going to work really well for the 2% that didn't catch it first time. Shame that at least 2 million people in the uk will die during the next three months. When it could have been only a tenth of that. 2 million people going to die where the hell did you get that figure from the total population of the uk is between 6/7 million and this virus only kills about 2% you do the maths " The UK population is 67,886,011 (estimated as of today, source google). That's sixty seven million plus. Not six or seven million. The virus actually kills about 4%, more when there's no health care available. You do the math. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Time will tell if the uk are doing the right thing or not. " So true | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Time will tell if the uk are doing the right thing or not. " So true It’s a tough balance to manage | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Time will tell if the uk are doing the right thing or not. " If we are not..its a big price to pay. And if not..will They hold their hands up? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Every person that says herd immunity? Herd immunity without a vaccine means letting every single person catch it, letting everyone die who is going to die, and hoping that it's something that you can't catch again after you've had it once. Herd immunity means "i think I'm going to be okay, as long as lots of other people die". To my mind it's many will get it, survive and create antigens for if they are exposed to it again, meaning if those who didn't get it the first time around, statistically have a lower chance of getting than this time around. I admit to not researching it and am using my logic. There have been reports of people who recovered getting re- infected... That's because our very clever adaptive immune system cannot stop reinfection but simply knows how to fight it second time around. " It should be a case of the body is able to fight it before symptoms come about the second time around but this isn't always the case. Immunology is complex and as an ology further research is required (especially with regards to auto-immune diseases). There are some fun YouTube videos about the innate and adaptive immune systems. Have a look  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a tough call. I'm veering towards self isolation due to existing health conditions (I need shooting). However, my 7 year old school isn't closed and I don't want to adversely affect her education. That said, yesterday her class was full - today nearly half the class are not there and teachers are self isolating too. The panic is that real though that one parent, on walking in to the class this morning, took one look at how many kids were missing and turned round with their child and left. Hell - even her dad and I have had a reasonable chat about it, and that's a first in nearly 8 years. Basically I'm trying to get to the end of this week before shutters go up and the red cross goes on the door. But I doubt we will get that far. If you have preexisting conditions that make you vulnerable then in say isolate and take your kid out of school. We have to decide for ourselves. Ive had my youngest off school a week already as he has a cough...i was taking no chances as he has no reserve lung capacity. GP told me on Friday i did the right thing. " Decision was made for me. She came out of school coughing today and isn't allowed back for 14 days. I wish I'd gone with my gut yesterday and kept her home then- maybe she wouldn't now be a snot goblin | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a tough call. I'm veering towards self isolation due to existing health conditions (I need shooting). However, my 7 year old school isn't closed and I don't want to adversely affect her education. That said, yesterday her class was full - today nearly half the class are not there and teachers are self isolating too. The panic is that real though that one parent, on walking in to the class this morning, took one look at how many kids were missing and turned round with their child and left. Hell - even her dad and I have had a reasonable chat about it, and that's a first in nearly 8 years. Basically I'm trying to get to the end of this week before shutters go up and the red cross goes on the door. But I doubt we will get that far. If you have preexisting conditions that make you vulnerable then in say isolate and take your kid out of school. We have to decide for ourselves. Ive had my youngest off school a week already as he has a cough...i was taking no chances as he has no reserve lung capacity. GP told me on Friday i did the right thing. Decision was made for me. She came out of school coughing today and isn't allowed back for 14 days. I wish I'd gone with my gut yesterday and kept her home then- maybe she wouldn't now be a snot goblin" Aww well i hope she makes a quick recovery and you stay well x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Every person that says herd immunity? Herd immunity without a vaccine means letting every single person catch it, letting everyone die who is going to die, and hoping that it's something that you can't catch again after you've had it once. Herd immunity means "i think I'm going to be okay, as long as lots of other people die". To my mind it's many will get it, survive and create antigens for if they are exposed to it again, meaning if those who didn't get it the first time around, statistically have a lower chance of getting than this time around. I admit to not researching it and am using my logic. "Those who didn't get it first time around". The governments own figures show 80% infected first time around. Italy is showing more like 98% exposed will get it. This herd immunity is going to work really well for the 2% that didn't catch it first time. Shame that at least 2 million people in the uk will die during the next three months. When it could have been only a tenth of that. 2 million people going to die where the hell did you get that figure from the total population of the uk is between 6/7 million and this virus only kills about 2% you do the maths The UK population is 67,886,011 (estimated as of today, source google). That's sixty seven million plus. Not six or seven million. The virus actually kills about 4%, more when there's no health care available. You do the math." The virus kills 4% only when using very basic math, real figure around 1%. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Every person that says herd immunity? Herd immunity without a vaccine means letting every single person catch it, letting everyone die who is going to die, and hoping that it's something that you can't catch again after you've had it once. Herd immunity means "i think I'm going to be okay, as long as lots of other people die". To my mind it's many will get it, survive and create antigens for if they are exposed to it again, meaning if those who didn't get it the first time around, statistically have a lower chance of getting than this time around. I admit to not researching it and am using my logic. "Those who didn't get it first time around". The governments own figures show 80% infected first time around. Italy is showing more like 98% exposed will get it. This herd immunity is going to work really well for the 2% that didn't catch it first time. Shame that at least 2 million people in the uk will die during the next three months. When it could have been only a tenth of that. 2 million people going to die where the hell did you get that figure from the total population of the uk is between 6/7 million and this virus only kills about 2% you do the maths The UK population is 67,886,011 (estimated as of today, source google). That's sixty seven million plus. Not six or seven million. The virus actually kills about 4%, more when there's no health care available. You do the math. The virus kills 4% only when using very basic math, real figure around 1%." 3.7% when there are small numbers of patients and hospital treatment is available for them. Italy is currently seeing 6%. With a complete breakdown of healthcare, it is estimated up to 10%. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Italy is currently seeing 6%. With a complete breakdown of healthcare, it is estimated up to 10%." Italy has an older population demographic than the UK and would be expected to have a higher death rate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Italy is currently seeing 6%. With a complete breakdown of healthcare, it is estimated up to 10%. Italy has an older population demographic than the UK and would be expected to have a higher death rate." Britain is going to lose a lot more people now because they allowed large gatherings right up to last weekend | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Italy is currently seeing 6%. With a complete breakdown of healthcare, it is estimated up to 10%. Italy has an older population demographic than the UK and would be expected to have a higher death rate. Britain is going to lose a lot more people now because they allowed large gatherings right up to last weekend " The herd immunity strategy the most absurd BS given to the public has been turned around and yet they refrain from locking down giving the NHS as a reason. I wonder what's really the strategy at play or rather the goal of all this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Complete shutdown of cities and the transport system. People can only shop at certain times and only in there post coded area. All police to be issued with firearms and any civil disobedience or acts of violence will be met with ultimate force. Anyone outside without valid reason is detained and later fined £10k. If the public are warned in advance there can be no excuses. Harsh maybe. Don't we are talking about saving lives and slowing this down." I got confused there why a 10k when the police have firearms to use? Haha I agree though lock it down lock it all down! The queens on lockdown so if it's good for her it's good for us surely | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Every person that says herd immunity? Herd immunity without a vaccine means letting every single person catch it, letting everyone die who is going to die, and hoping that it's something that you can't catch again after you've had it once. Herd immunity means "i think I'm going to be okay, as long as lots of other people die". To my mind it's many will get it, survive and create antigens for if they are exposed to it again, meaning if those who didn't get it the first time around, statistically have a lower chance of getting than this time around. I admit to not researching it and am using my logic. "Those who didn't get it first time around". The governments own figures show 80% infected first time around. Italy is showing more like 98% exposed will get it. This herd immunity is going to work really well for the 2% that didn't catch it first time. Shame that at least 2 million people in the uk will die during the next three months. When it could have been only a tenth of that. 2 million people going to die where the hell did you get that figure from the total population of the uk is between 6/7 million and this virus only kills about 2% you do the maths The UK population is 67,886,011 (estimated as of today, source google). That's sixty seven million plus. Not six or seven million. The virus actually kills about 4%, more when there's no health care available. You do the math. The virus kills 4% only when using very basic math, real figure around 1%. 3.7% when there are small numbers of patients and hospital treatment is available for them. Italy is currently seeing 6%. With a complete breakdown of healthcare, it is estimated up to 10%." As now the figure in Italy is up to 8%, the highest death rate of countries that have a large amount of data to work with. Their actual rate will be significantly lower though as far from all cases have been identified. Also like said earlier, their population does have a far larger demographic of the elderly than most nations. B | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Every person that says herd immunity? Herd immunity without a vaccine means letting every single person catch it, letting everyone die who is going to die, and hoping that it's something that you can't catch again after you've had it once. Herd immunity means "i think I'm going to be okay, as long as lots of other people die". To my mind it's many will get it, survive and create antigens for if they are exposed to it again, meaning if those who didn't get it the first time around, statistically have a lower chance of getting than this time around. I admit to not researching it and am using my logic. "Those who didn't get it first time around". The governments own figures show 80% infected first time around. Italy is showing more like 98% exposed will get it. This herd immunity is going to work really well for the 2% that didn't catch it first time. Shame that at least 2 million people in the uk will die during the next three months. When it could have been only a tenth of that. 2 million people going to die where the hell did you get that figure from the total population of the uk is between 6/7 million and this virus only kills about 2% you do the maths The UK population is 67,886,011 (estimated as of today, source google). That's sixty seven million plus. Not six or seven million. The virus actually kills about 4%, more when there's no health care available. You do the math. The virus kills 4% only when using very basic math, real figure around 1%. 3.7% when there are small numbers of patients and hospital treatment is available for them. Italy is currently seeing 6%. With a complete breakdown of healthcare, it is estimated up to 10%. As now the figure in Italy is up to 8%, the highest death rate of countries that have a large amount of data to work with. Their actual rate will be significantly lower though as far from all cases have been identified. Also like said earlier, their population does have a far larger demographic of the elderly than most nations. B" They have an elderly population because they have a healthy lifestyle. where as in this part of Europe we have a lot of people with an unhealthy lifestyle, obesity is going to play a big part in how things go for the under 60s | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If they did proper lock down like italy spain n france.. perhaps they could fix the potholes" Really shouldn't but.......  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Generally I’m an optimistic person and don’t go in for panic, but the data from Italy 2 weeks ago for deaths matches exactly where we are now. She is Italian, so we watch the news from there a lot and you get a much greater sense of transparency in what is shared on TV there. It feels like we are being fed what the politicians want to share here, rather than objective facts. I think it will get a lot worse. " Yes, I read that to. They need to act yesterday. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Every person that says herd immunity? Herd immunity without a vaccine means letting every single person catch it, letting everyone die who is going to die, and hoping that it's something that you can't catch again after you've had it once. Herd immunity means "i think I'm going to be okay, as long as lots of other people die". To my mind it's many will get it, survive and create antigens for if they are exposed to it again, meaning if those who didn't get it the first time around, statistically have a lower chance of getting than this time around. I admit to not researching it and am using my logic. "Those who didn't get it first time around". The governments own figures show 80% infected first time around. Italy is showing more like 98% exposed will get it. This herd immunity is going to work really well for the 2% that didn't catch it first time. Shame that at least 2 million people in the uk will die during the next three months. When it could have been only a tenth of that. 2 million people going to die where the hell did you get that figure from the total population of the uk is between 6/7 million and this virus only kills about 2% you do the maths The UK population is 67,886,011 (estimated as of today, source google). That's sixty seven million plus. Not six or seven million. The virus actually kills about 4%, more when there's no health care available. You do the math. The virus kills 4% only when using very basic math, real figure around 1%. 3.7% when there are small numbers of patients and hospital treatment is available for them. Italy is currently seeing 6%. With a complete breakdown of healthcare, it is estimated up to 10%. As now the figure in Italy is up to 8%, the highest death rate of countries that have a large amount of data to work with. Their actual rate will be significantly lower though as far from all cases have been identified. Also like said earlier, their population does have a far larger demographic of the elderly than most nations. B They have an elderly population because they have a healthy lifestyle. where as in this part of Europe we have a lot of people with an unhealthy lifestyle, obesity is going to play a big part in how things go for the under 60s" They have an elderly population because their birth rate has been a lot lower in the past decades. Also a lot of young people leave to find work in other countries. But, you are right they have a much lower incidence of lifestyle disease than in this country across all social groups. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Problem is with a total lockdown is you only delay the spread of the virus. The only way to become immune to it is for it to spread through the population. I say isolate the vulnerable and just keep up the current measures so hopefully not to many people become infected at once. " That's exactly what they are trying to do, delay the spread! There is no such thing as a complete lockdown, it will still spread, but hopefully at a rate the NHS can manage. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that in the UK roughly 12,500 people die every week in a normal year, you have to ask how different will it be with Covid-19? As others have said, is the cure worse than the disease - unemployment will be up, companies will close, the Government will not have enough money to do anything, Brexit will be delayed yet again. My vote is no for the vast majority, but yes for those most at risk. Destroying the economy is much riskier than focusing resources on those that need help, putting the resources in place to deliver it and ensuring we all work together to protect the vulnerable. Hiding away can’t be the answer "Yes let’s not do anything and let loads of people end up in hospital that the nhs can’t manage . Brilliant strategy. Idiot. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No. I don’t have health issues and no vulnerable dependants. I’d rather get the virus and then be in a situation to help more." Finally, somebody whom I can wholeheartedly agree with. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Problem is with a total lockdown is you only delay the spread of the virus. The only way to become immune to it is for it to spread through the population. I say isolate the vulnerable and just keep up the current measures so hopefully not to many people become infected at once. That's exactly what they are trying to do, delay the spread! There is no such thing as a complete lockdown, it will still spread, but hopefully at a rate the NHS can manage." My point being if you delay it too much you end up with too many fatalities | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Problem is with a total lockdown is you only delay the spread of the virus. The only way to become immune to it is for it to spread through the population. I say isolate the vulnerable and just keep up the current measures so hopefully not to many people become infected at once. That's exactly what they are trying to do, delay the spread! There is no such thing as a complete lockdown, it will still spread, but hopefully at a rate the NHS can manage. My point being if you delay it too much you end up with too many fatalities " And nowhere to put the bodies | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
