Stay at home this Easter Weekend

[mrsmelly]

3 minutes ago, Loddon said:

Should have been like that from the start.

 

Surely going for a walk and keeping your distance is less like ly to pass the cold on than going into a shop situation amongst others even if they are keeping their distance? If this happens it will only be because of numpties that keep meeting in parks and beaches etc. Remember homo sapien has many eeejuts amongst it. For more than sixty years we have known that smoking is a stupid thing to do ( It kills million and millions more than this virus ever will ) but people still smoke, unbeleivable but true. Stopping excercise could well be counter productive.

[MtB]

9 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Stopping excercise could well be counter productive.

 

I think you've lost sight of the big, over-arching reason for the social distancing.

 

It is to stop thousands of people presenting at our hospitals to die with bilateral pneumonia all at once and cluttering up the corridors etc as there won't be enough beds for them all. 

 

People dying from lack of exercise will present at hospital in a slow, easily managed trickle spread out over years. If there are any at all. 

[Athy]

Surely the "big over-arching reason" is to prevent as many people as possible from catching the bug at all.

Edited April 11, 2020 by Athy

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Athy said:

Surely the "big over-arching reason" is to prevent as many people as possible from catching the bug at all.

 

Hopelessly badly informed as usual.

 

 

[Athy]

4 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Hopelessly badly informed as usual.

 

 

Don't be so modest. I think you're often very well informed. But, if most British people thought that they were going to get the bug whether they took the recommended precautions or not, it would be understandable for many of them to think "Why should I bother?"

[MtB]

Just now, Athy said:

Don't be so modest. I think you're often very well informed. But, if most British people thought that they were going to get the bug whether they took the recommended precautions or not, it would be understandable for many of them to think "Why should I bother?"

 

See Post 27.

 

 

[tree monkey]

Just now, Athy said:

Don't be so modest. I think you're often very well informed. But, if most British people thought that they were going to get the bug whether they took the recommended precautions or not, it would be understandable for many of them to think "Why should I bother?"

It's to either slow infections to a level the hospitals can cope or being very optimistic allow time for a vaccine  but as this will likely take months the first is most probable.

 

 

[MtB]

1 minute ago, tree monkey said:

It's to either slow infections to a level the hospitals can cope or being very optimistic allow time for a vaccine  but as this will likely take months the first is most probable.

 

 

 

Its both really, plus a third. To buy time so hospitals can cope, to develop a vaccine or find a drug that cures it. 

 

 

[Quattrodave]

25 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

It is to stop thousands of people presenting at our hospitals to die with bilateral pneumonia all at once and cluttering up the corridors etc as there won't be enough beds for them all.

Agreed.  We will all (or at least the vast majority) catch it at some point, just like we all get colds from time to time...

Edited April 11, 2020 by Quattrodave
typo

[tree monkey]

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Its both really, plus a third. To buy time so hospitals can cope, to develop a vaccine or find a drug that cures it. 

 

 

Yes you are right, I forgot the drug/treatment thing.

i shouldn't be surprised that people don't understand the strategy for handling this but I still am.

[Athy]

12 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

See Post 27.

 

 

I DID see it - that is how I was able to comment upon it in the first place, eliciting your unnecessarily terse reply.

[Athy]

10 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

 

i shouldn't be surprised that people don't understand the strategy for handling this but I still am.

Me too. It is obvious that, as this virus is passed on by human contact, if no human came into contact with any other, then the virus would die out because it would have no new host to go to. Now, obviously that isn't possible in the real world, as we all have to have some degree of contact with other people from time to time. What we are doing, by obeying rules about keeping our distance, washing hands and surfaces, and staying at home, is minimising our risk of infection by getting as close to the ideal as we can.

[tree monkey]

2 minutes ago, Athy said:

Me too. It is obvious that, as this virus is passed on by human contact, if no human came into contact with any other, then the virus would die out because it would have no new host to go to. Now, obviously that isn't possible in the real world, as we all have to have some degree of contact with other people from time to time. What we are doing, by obeying rules about keeping our distance, washing hands and surfaces, and staying at home, is minimising our risk of infection by getting as close to the ideal as we can.

Yes but primarily because covid has such a high infection rate and relatively high serious complications, reducing the strain on the NHS.

If this was a normal winter flu/cold it would be business as usual 

[Quattrodave]

Talking about minimising risk, I popped into the local mini supermarket yesterday. There was a guy in the wearing gloves and mask. The bit that made me smirk was as soon as he left, without removing gloves or antibacterial, he pulled his mask down lit a cigarette and had  a chat on his mobile phone...

[GUMPY]

28 minutes ago, Athy said:

Me too. It is obvious that, as this virus is passed on by human contact, if no human came into contact with any other, then the virus would die out because it would have no new host to go to. Now, obviously that isn't possible in the real world, as we all have to have some degree of contact with other people from time to time. What we are doing, by obeying rules about keeping our distance, washing hands and surfaces, and staying at home, is minimising our risk of infection by getting as close to the ideal as we can.

 

Its not just direct contact. it can exist on plastic/metal surfaces for up to 72 hours, so 2 days after a person with the virus on their hands has touched a surface you can catch it if you touch that surface then rub your eyes, scratch your face etc.

 

And if someone sneezes close to you

https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/09/animation-shows-single-cough-spread-coronavirus-across-shop-12530656/

Edited April 11, 2020 by Loddon

[Athy]

2 minutes ago, Loddon said:

 

Its not just direct contact. it can exist on plastic/metal surfaces for up to 72 hours, so 2 days after a person with the virus on their hands has touched a surface you can catch it if you touch that surface then rub your eyes, scratch your face etc.

Yes indeed, which is why I mentioned "surfaces". I'm probably being unnecessarily cautious, but I even wash my hands after opening the morning post!

[nicknorman]

24 minutes ago, Athy said:

Me too. It is obvious that, as this virus is passed on by human contact, if no human came into contact with any other, then the virus would die out because it would have no new host to go to. Now, obviously that isn't possible in the real world, as we all have to have some degree of contact with other people from time to time. What we are doing, by obeying rules about keeping our distance, washing hands and surfaces, and staying at home, is minimising our risk of infection by getting as close to the ideal as we can.

No. As you say, the only way for the virus to die out is to eliminate all human contact. Which would certainly achieve that objective but also kill of most of the population due to their being no food, no power, no gas, no medical services beyond a zoom appointment etc. So in reality, it isn’t possible to do that. Thus we are either all going to get it, or if we remain in isolation long enough (as in another year or so) there might be a vaccine if we are lucky and the thing doesn’t mutate too much. Bear in mind the common cold is a type of Coronavirus and look how far we have got in creating a vaccine for that!

 

So most likely we are all going to get it. If we all get it at once, the NHS is overloaded and vast numbers of people die on trolleys or just waiting for treatment, who could otherwise have survived with proper medical care.

 

So as the government has repeatedly said, the lockdown is about slowing the virus transmission rate so that the NHS can vaguely cope. We are not minimising our risk of infection, we are increasing the time period that the average person will take to get it.

[Athy]

24 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

Yes but primarily because covid has such a high infection rate and relatively high serious complications, reducing the strain on the NHS.

If this was a normal winter flu/cold it would be business as usual 

Yes, we are agreeing but saying so in different ways. Putting the brake on is not an aim in itself: it's a step towards coming to a complete stop.

[frangar]

If the lockdown goes on for many months then more will die from poverty and related mental health issues than a virus...a fact which is now gaining traction. The world economy can only absorb so much before something gives....like most government policy this lockdown has been poorly thought through 

[nicknorman]

5 minutes ago, frangar said:

If the lockdown goes on for many months then more will die from poverty and related mental health issues than a virus...a fact which is now gaining traction. The world economy can only absorb so much before something gives....like most government policy this lockdown has been poorly thought through 

Agreed, but what is the alternative?

[frangar]

8 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Agreed, but what is the alternative?

How do we know that what we have at the moment is working? Maybe only a certain proportion of the population are susceptible and those are the ones that have it already. Others for whatever reason either show no symptoms or are already immune. 
 

Some people seem to have a permanent cold or sniffle while others never get it...why is it assumed that we all need to be protected? 
 

Thanks to the internet & rolling news this seems to be attracting more attention...flu pandemics are nothing new. There was a few in the 20th century...yet life went on pretty much as normal. 
 

For instance the 1968 pandemic is not being discussed widely yet killed a lot of people. 
 

 

Edited April 11, 2020 by frangar

[Athy]

6 minutes ago, frangar said:

 

For instance the 1968 pandemic is not being discussed widely yet killed a lot of people. 
 

 

From memory, known as Hong Kong Flu. Was it widespread in Britain? The Caribbean was severely affected (there was even a hit song about it in Jamaica) but I don't remember any mass illness here.

[frangar]

2 minutes ago, Athy said:

From memory, known as Hong Kong Flu. Was it widespread in Britain? The Caribbean was severely affected (there was even a hit song about it in Jamaica) but I don't remember any mass illness here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_flu
 

It seems it affected the USA too....maybe less widespread international travel meant it didn’t spread much in the UK. I wouldn’t have a problem with all international travel requiring 2 weeks in quarantine but I suspect that wouldn’t be well received. 

[ditchcrawler]

2 hours ago, Athy said:

Surely the "big over-arching reason" is to prevent as many people as possible from catching the bug at all.

No, they know most of us will catch it, they just dont want us all to do it on the same day

[nicknorman]

51 minutes ago, frangar said:

How do we know that what we have at the moment is working? Maybe only a certain proportion of the population are susceptible and those are the ones that have it already. Others for whatever reason either show no symptoms or are already immune. 
 

Some people seem to have a permanent cold or sniffle while others never get it...why is it assumed that we all need to be protected? 
 

Thanks to the internet & rolling news this seems to be attracting more attention...flu pandemics are nothing new. There was a few in the 20th century...yet life went on pretty much as normal. 
 

For instance the 1968 pandemic is not being discussed widely yet killed a lot of people. 
 

 

We don’t know. We don’t know whether or not a significant chunk of the population have already had it with only very mild symptoms. Testing for the antibody would of course help massively on that one. But until we know, is it your contention that the government should gamble with the lives of hundreds of thousands of people just to see if your point might be correct?