Main Coronavirus / Covid-19 Discussion Thread

Yoda said:

I would assume the closer we get to having the vaccine ready to roll out the Government may well go down that route. Shield those vulnerable (and families) so they can then be inoculated in their own safety, while opening up all sectors to everyone (but still socially distanced & not fully to begin with) so the virus will spread through those unlikely to have complications (slowly, as letting rip could overload the NHS IF there were too many that become too ill.

I've never been in the group of letting this thing rip, but we can't keep going from lock down, to trickling the tap open, to closing things, to eventually locking down again and repeat.

Click to expand...

Bozza said:

Indeed.

In the US, Fauci has stated the vulnerable to be 30% so if we "only" have 12m, we're well below them, based on respective population sizes. Even so, "Team Lock Up The Vulnerable and Live With It" don't have answers for many obvious questions that come from their ridiculous suggestion:

1. Denying 12m people from undertaking most of their economic activity will give a massive hit to the economy they are so keen to protect.
2. Many of those 12m people live under the same roof as those who will be permitted to "get back to living". Just how protected are they?
3. Presumably these mental health concerns melt away if you're able to go to the pub and football, and those 12m people won't suffer in any way.

There's lots more, but I'm running out of patience.

Click to expand...

The Complete Badger said:

I care about elderly people who are living the final years of their life without being able to see their families. I care about children missing out on months of their education. I care about hard working people whose businesses are going up in smoke. I care about former colleagues who have been unemployed for six months through no fault of their own. I care about people missing out on crucial medical attention. I care about lonely and vulnerable people whose mental health has been through a torturous period. I care about my 18 month old daughter who is growing up without some of the normal social integrations that are part of childhood. I care about everyone under the age of 30 who will spend their lives paying for this disaster.

Is it just those people you don’t like?

Click to expand...

e77 said:

Your weekly reminder that shielding the vulnerable would involve 12 million people

Click to expand...

keaton said:

But surely a lot of elderly people won't be able to see their families if you open everything up and shield the vulnerable? They'll be shielding? And if they choose not to they'll face far greater risks going out or seeing people than they do now.
I'm not sure it'll be the economic boon people think it will be. I am happy now to shop, go to football and pubs safely. If my risks of getting c19 vastly increase I will stop doing those things. Many people will not be able to if they want to have contact with the vulnerable. I have mates who are self-employed and able to do things. They will not be able to do as much if everything is opened up, for risk of getting ill, losing work, infecting clients.

Click to expand...

A1X said:

And in reality more than that as many who are not deemed vulnerable will live with people who are.

Click to expand...

Mustafa said:

- Even if that's true, 85% is not a strong enough probability to make the reward outweigh the risk. 15% chance of it not happening would be far too great.
- A few months is far too long, when we need to come out of lock down immediately.

We can't carry on kicking our heels with half arsed but astonishly expensive efforts to delay the inevitable.

Hopefully an effective vaccine will come out by next year so we can further protect the vulnerable, but until then we just need to get back to normal ASAFP.

Click to expand...

darkwolf666 said:

[/B]

So leave the vulnerable to get on with things and hope they don't die before a vaccine is available.

I think your stance is quite clear, why do you keep repeating it - for me, my stance is also clear, as a response to those that clearly are happy for the vulnerable to be cannon fodder, so they can get on with the rest of their hapless lives.

PS - must have missed it, when did Hove go into lockdown?

Click to expand...

Kinky Gerbils said:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....-to-prison-like-coronavirus-restrictions/amp/

Seems like some of the vulnerable you speak for want Some normality as well

Click to expand...

darkwolf666 said:

I know, that’s the bit people don’t seem to get. Opening things back up completely will cause its own problems. More people going to hospital, more beds taken up, more people with Covid using ICU beds, more staff being dragged away from other wards, more appointments and surgeries cancelled, etc., etc., etc...

And so it goes on. The “we’ve got to learn to live with it” brigade don’t appear to understand that in a bad flu winter the NHS is stretched to breaking. The advantage of flu (if that’s the right thing to say), is that’s it’s seasonal and passes relatively quickly, Covid appears to be here to stay all year round. Consequently services will be stretched all year round - until Covid kills off all the vulnerable or an effective vaccine is available.

Click to expand...

Weststander said:

The irony of the “we’ve got to learn to live with it” cliche accompanied by demanding the end to CV19 restrictions, is that the price paid would be seemingly expendable lives. We’ve already had 64,000 total excess deaths, the epidemic only brought under control by a full lockdown.

Plus the people demanding that nightclubs, pubs and football matches resume as was, also mention their concern that cancer, mental health and similar NHS services are suffering. A contradiction, as shirley an end to CV19 restrictions would lead to CV19 patients overwhelming hospitals completely. As seen in Italy, Spain, New York and New Jersey back in the spring.

This autumn/winter imho the only responsible strategy is enforced restrictions, with businesses/jobs eased through.

Click to expand...

darkwolf666 said:

Oh come on, is that the best you can do... Of course there will be people who want to be released to do what they want, but I am not sure a care home was indicative of the general population. Care home restrictions have, for good reason, been quite savage - in an attempt to keep the most vulnerable of our elderly population safe.

I would like to think that no one is being kept prisoner in a care home, and can elect to leave any time they like...

Click to expand...

Weststander said:

The irony of the “we’ve got to learn to live with it” cliche accompanied by demanding the end to CV19 restrictions, is that the price paid would be seemingly expendable lives. We’ve already had 64,000 total excess deaths, the epidemic only brought under control by a full lockdown.

Plus the people demanding that nightclubs, pubs and football matches resume as was, also mention their concern that cancer, mental health and similar NHS services are suffering. A contradiction, as shirley an end to CV19 restrictions would lead to CV19 patients overwhelming hospitals completely. As seen in Italy, Spain, New York and New Jersey back in the spring.

This autumn/winter imho the only responsible strategy is enforced restrictions, with businesses/jobs eased through.

Click to expand...

Kinky Gerbils said:

Who is demanding night clubs open?

Most sensible people are saying there needs to be some restrictions as things open up

There is no reason why football grounds can’t have some crowds

Click to expand...

Weststander said:

Some young people (including in my family) and older busybodies, plus many of the flat earthers who hate this CV19 “attack on liberties“, have whinged since March that young people should be able to do all the things now that every other generation have done. An exaggeration, as hopefully this will last just 18 months. The same people who demand 10,000’s at football matches because they miss it. Short term pain for us all.

I do always understand your angle completely, your industry and livelihoods have been decimated. You don’t post quack Facebook based tripe.

Click to expand...

Kinky Gerbils said:

Football grounds seem one of the easiest places to open - start with 10 percent (other figures are available) percent of the ground capacity.

I saw one of the arguments against it was people stopping off for beers/food - but if they are covid secure what’s the harm?

London could be an issue due to the number of clubs - but given the games being moved around, Arsenal/Spurs can’t play at home the same day - it’s easy to work around.

Click to expand...