Jump to content

Lockdown ? What Lockdown?


Momac

Featured Posts

7 minutes ago, BWM said:

All i can see is a reasonably orderly queue with most keeping a sensible distance

 

Yes, that's what I saw too. Different shops are taking different approaches to public and staff safety. None of us can tell whether any group of 3+ people are members of the same household (and if they are, that's fine and dandy)

 

Our household currently has 9 (nine) members, for reasons unconnected with Covid-19. but we are a multi-generational crowd if we go to the park.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

Yes, that's what I saw too. Different shops are taking different approaches to public and staff safety. None of us can tell whether any group of 3+ people are members of the same household (and if they are, that's fine and dandy)

 

Our household currently has 9 (nine) members, for reasons unconnected with Covid-19. but we are a multi-generational crowd if we go to the park.

 

 

Ideally households should be smaller. One gets it, others in the household are very likely to get it. The more in the household, the more get it.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Naughty Cal said:

I already have if you care to read my posts! 

Really? One video showing people queueing for shopping, and one article about residents in a Sheffield housing estate is hardly conclusive evidence of generic ethnic group behaviour.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

What did he say then?

 

He was all for seeking herd immunity, and if a few old people die, so be it, or something like that.

 

No 10 denied it, so you can be reasonably sure it was true :)

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/22/no-10-denies-claim-dominic-cummings-argued-to-let-old-people-die

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

Ideally households should be smaller. 

Ideally eh? :) 

 

Not something you get a chance to change, given the short notice there was of the lockdown. Even with advanced knowledge, along with the will, it would take some time.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Richard10002 said:

Ideally eh? :) 

 

Not something you get a chance to change, given the short notice there was of the lockdown. Even with advanced knowledge, along with the will, it would take some time.

take care what you say, or the next phase of lockdown may have to include 'social culling'.  :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

Ideally households should be smaller. One gets it, others in the household are very likely to get it. The more in the household, the more get it.

Stop talking sense. The reason many are getting it in care homes is obviously because of the close proximity in rooms, dining, tv etc etc. The asian communities in the UK are very often in large family groups with more to a house than the white majority groups. This is just fact that only an eeejut would discount or someone who has never lived amongst or had dealings with their communities. Of course this is " Racist " lol. :banghead:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mrsmelly said:

Stop talking sense. The reason many are getting it in care homes is obviously because of the close proximity in rooms, dining, tv etc etc. The asian communities in the UK are very often in large family groups with more to a house than the white majority groups. This is just fact that only an eeejut would discount or someone who has never lived amongst or had dealings with their communities. Of course this is " Racist " lol. :banghead:

And then sometimes people who live in these large groups, 'rules is rules' types, get hot under the collar when others get out and enjoy themselves, while posing no risk whatsoever to others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

And then sometimes people who live in these large groups, 'rules is rules' types, get hot under the collar when others get out and enjoy themselves, while posing no risk whatsoever to others. 

The problem is when peeps get out and enjoy themselves WHILST posing a risk to others. Your idea of risk is quite different to the majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

Ideally households should be smaller. One gets it, others in the household are very likely to get it. The more in the household, the more get it.

 

With one of the household being an NHS employee, it is better for the community at large if we isolate en masse, isn't it?

 

On the other hand, we may contribute/be contributing/have contributed to the development of herd immunity, but with no routine testing (yet) nobody knows.

As for "ideally", anyone is entitled to her opinion, but not to impose it on others about whom they know nothing.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

With one of the household being an NHS employee, it is better for the community at large if we isolate en masse, isn't it?

 

On the other hand, we may contribute/be contributing/have contributed to the development of herd immunity, but with no routine testing (yet) nobody knows.

As for "ideally", anyone is entitled to her opinion, but not to impose it on others about whom they know nothing.

 

 

 

The evidence for immunity is inconclusive and unproven, and is being questioned, whether is it ever likely to be a reliable protection against any further contracting of the virus. If CV-19 is found to be as variable as the cold, it is unlikely that a vaccine will be a complete treatment against mutations. CV-19 could be a continuing problem, to be handled by controlling the symptoms, as is the common cold. 

 

 

Edited by Higgs
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

And then sometimes people who live in these large groups, 'rules is rules' types, get hot under the collar when others get out and enjoy themselves, while posing no risk whatsoever to others. 

Perhaps the sensible thing then is to have no collective response and leave it to each individual to make their own judgement about what does or does not constitute a risk? If I behave in a way that I judge is no risk but you consider puts you at high risk which judgement prevails? We could put the judgement in the hands of virologists and epidemiologists but that means you don't get to make your own judgement. So who's hands do we put ourselves in? The 5g conspiracy loonies are sure of their facts too, how about we let them run the response their way. Individual judgement includes idiots but not one person considers themselves one of the idiots.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

With one of the household being an NHS employee, it is better for the community at large if we isolate en masse, isn't it?

 

On the other hand, we may contribute/be contributing/have contributed to the development of herd immunity, but with no routine testing (yet) nobody knows.

As for "ideally", anyone is entitled to her opinion, but not to impose it on others about whom they know nothing.

 

 

My opinion is that the health of the nation would be better served if NHS employees self isolate as much as possible, rather than living in large family, or other, groups. Of course, this isn't always practical. Better for one person to get it rather than spread it to another 8. That's the whole purpose of the lockdown, is it not?  

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mrsmelly said:

Stop talking sense. The reason many are getting it in care homes is obviously because of the close proximity in rooms, dining, tv etc etc. The asian communities in the UK are very often in large family groups with more to a house than the white majority groups. This is just fact that only an eeejut would discount or someone who has never lived amongst or had dealings with their communities. Of course this is " Racist " lol. :banghead:

There was a family on TV, at the moment quite healthy with 4 generations in the same house. Is it a bad idea, if they are unlucky enough to get infected that is 2 old people at risk, not 70 in an old folks home and I bet it doesn't cost £2000 a month to keep them.

 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

Perhaps the sensible thing then is to have no collective response and leave it to each individual to make their own judgement about what does or does not constitute a risk? If I behave in a way that I judge is no risk but you consider puts you at high risk which judgement prevails? We could put the judgement in the hands of virologists and epidemiologists but that means you don't get to make your own judgement. So who's hands do we put ourselves in? The 5g conspiracy loonies are sure of their facts too, how about we let them run the response their way. Individual judgement includes idiots but not one person considers themselves one of the idiots.

 

I don't make any judgement, based solely on my own needs. What is a risk to me is a risk to everyone. So, I do not place myself at risk. Even in the last few days, public information has elaborated on the very simple and inflexible choice of staying home, which is impossible, because no one is going to guarantee the means to enable people to stay home. Going out at all is a risk of some degree. Going out cannot be totally eliminated. The next best thing - going out with the minimum of risk, because it cannot be avoided. Staying home is never going to be an absolute possibility. It just isn't. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

There was a family on TV, at the moment quite healthy with 4 generations in the same house. Is it a bad idea, if they are unlucky enough to get infected that is 2 old people at risk, not 70 in an old folks home and I bet it doesn't cost £2000 a month to keep them.

 

Not saying it a bad idea, just a fact of life that asians do live in large households and look after their own better than we do. I am fully aware of how much care homes cost, I got yesterday the cost of mums room as from april first where of course it has gone up from last years rate lol. Happy to say its nowhere near 2k a month though. So far no onein here care home has fallen ill so hoping for the best!! Just editing this lol. Its way more than 2k a month, I misread it as week!!

Edited by mrsmelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Machpoint005 said:

we may contribute/be contributing/have contributed to the development of herd immunity, but with no routine testing (yet) nobody knows.

 

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

The evidence for immunity is inconclusive and unproven

 

Good grief! You seem to be agreeing with me!

24 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I bet it doesn't cost £2000 a month to keep them.

 

If you can find a residential home for £2000 a month, let me know where it is!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

Good grief! You seem to be agreeing with me!

 

Well, I always keep hoping I'm never going to get another cold, but there's always a different one I bump into. I think this virus is going to be similar, if with a more worrying ability to cause a bad outcome. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Richard10002 said:

Unless I am missing something, the only way to beat this thing is by enough people becoming immune to it, and the only 2 ways that can happen is by either being infected, and surviving with antibodies, (herd immunity), or by being given a vaccine.

 

It seems to be well known that the NHS cant cure it, it can only try to keep you alive long enough for you to beat it yourself.

 

The medium term consequence of allowing the virus to spread, but delaying said spread such that the NHS can cope, is more and more people with immunity as time goes by and, eventually, when a vaccine is found, more and more people with immunity due to the vaccine.

 

I think Cummings dropped a major clanger when he said what he said. He effectively made it such that herd immunity is something that could no longer be discussed in the open, (significant that he has been completely absent from anything that could reach the public for some time).

 

However, whether you call it a strategy or not, it is one of 2 goals in the battle to beat the thing. 

 

 

That is not quite the whole story - the only strategy that can affect the eventual outcome is to alter the rate of transmission. In the first instance, the priority was to 'flatten the curve' which is to spread the total transmission over a longer period, with a lower peak number of cases. The early hope was that a vaccine would be available in short order which would then reduce the total number of transmissions (and, more importantly, the number of deaths attributed to COVID-19) That hope is now dashed (see the clears words given by Sir Patrick Vallance in Friday's briefing) and the immediate concern is that the infections will continue at some rate until over 85% have acquired immunity through surviving an infection.

 

As I understand it, the virus needs to 'find' sufficient viable hosts for it to survive, largely through inter-person transmission. If that number is very low then it will eventually die out, unless it somehow mutates to find a secret place to hide until re-released.

 

At present the highest estimate of the proportion of UK population that have been infected is around 4% (although I did see this morning a report that just one US study is finding a much higher level, not so far measured through the failure to undertake sufficient testing to know). Even so, there is still a long way to go to such herd immunity is achieved.

 

There is a third element which you did not mention - other social measures to reduce transmission. If we all lived in sealed compartments, then the virus would die out much sooner - as soon as all the existing carriers gain immunity - or die off. This then becomes a political issue as we see in Trump's latest twittering - in which he appears to encourage a political rebellion against increasing or extending the lockdown measures. I suspect that the UK govt's reluctance to be more specific about exit strategies is that they asses the public's willingness to accept serious social disruption for perhaps 9 - 12 months as very limited or even to accept a shorter period with almost no economic activity beyond that needed for immediate survival (even that is worryingly high) There can be little doubt that Trump puts economic revival at a higher level than individual health and survival. As a political issue, rather than scientific or medical one, the choice is starkly between the rich and the poor. The poor have already become seriously disadvantaged whilst those like Trump hunker down in their bunkers (protecting their cash as well as their safety) at the expense of everyone else.

 

If there are sufficient people who share the same priority then, in a democracy, that is what will happen - but is that a world in which we want to survive? We cannot continue for much long putting an absolute priority on the health side of the balance but, for me anyway, I'd still want it to be very much the dominant factor whilst accepting a degree of health damage that will at least allow the major part of the economy to survive. It is looking increasingly likely that, with the complex inter-contentedness of the economy, far more business with fail or be seriously damaged, than has so far been admitted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 if with a more worrying ability to cause a bad outcome. 

To put it in perspective, and possibly add to your worries, the bad outcome of Covid 19 is no different to the bad outcome of "normal influenza".

 

On average, according to PHE, 17,000 people a year have died from "normal influenza", since 2014.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

There is a third element which you did not mention - other social measures to reduce transmission. If we all lived in sealed compartments, then the virus would die out much sooner - as soon as all the existing carriers gain immunity - or die off. This then becomes a political issue as we see in Trump's latest twittering - in which he appears to encourage a political rebellion against increasing or extending the lockdown measures.

 

If there are sufficient people who share the same priority then, in a democracy, that is what will happen - but is that a world in which we want to survive? We cannot continue for much long putting an absolute priority on the health side of the balance but, for me anyway, I'd still want it to be very much the dominant factor whilst accepting a degree of health damage that will at least allow the major part of the economy to survive. It is looking increasingly likely that, with the complex inter-contentedness of the economy, far more business with fail or be seriously damaged, than has so far been admitted.

 

Your third option, being the most likely to succeed in its goal, it is entirely impossible to accomplish - living in sealed compartments. This is the balance that has to be faced when considering the guidance. 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.