Coronavirus

[Gaspode]

14 minutes ago, Coconut said:

Pubs to close at 10pm probably just means pubs to open at 9-10am instead of their usual 11am-12pm tbh, depending on their license, to try and ensure their takings don't take a massive hit.

We can't close hospitality down entirely again or else there'll be very little to go back to that isn't some chain pub / restaurant.

...not that I'm suggesting a tory government would intentionally duck over the small independents to pay lip service to their mates in big business or anything like that, ahem.

I must admit that in my younger days I would probably have seen the earlier closing time as a challenge and simply drunk more quickly (in fact, I seem to remember 10.30pm as being official closing time when I first started drinking). Also ignores the fact that a lot of young folk now do a thing called 'pre-drinks' where they buy booze from the supermarket and meet up before 'going out' in order to get in the mood more cheaply than they could in the pubs...

I understand the government wanting to send a message, but it shows a lack of understanding of human nature if they really think closing pubs earlier will stop people getting drunk - and once they're inebriated, social distancing simply goes out of the window....

[rammieib]

This is just driving people to sitting at home (possibly with friends over) drinking alcohol and eating chocolate.

Great for health purposes.

My football has been cancelled from Sunday nights - what do I do instead - I ate chocolate watching Bryson smash a ball 350 yards.

At the very least, if the Government is legally going to force a business to close due to their rules, they need to compensate for the loss of earnings.

[ariotofmyown]

2 hours ago, Andicis said:

What a predictable comment from someone who got to enjoy their younger years and now happily wants to strip that away from others. 

 

 

Erm...surely it was obvious I was joking. You said first few weeks you go out drinking at uni, I said that was rubbish, it is really first few years.

[ariotofmyown]

25 minutes ago, rammieib said:

This is just driving people to sitting at home (possibly with friends over) drinking alcohol and eating chocolate.

Great for health purposes.

My football has been cancelled from Sunday nights - what do I do instead - I ate chocolate watching Bryson smash a ball 350 yards.

At the very least, if the Government is legally going to force a business to close due to their rules, they need to compensate for the loss of earnings.

My football is still on. Whoever is organising yours needs to check the advice. Or perhaps we do.

[ariotofmyown]

1 hour ago, TexasRam said:

I wasn’t going to post in this topic again, but you’ve asked a good question. I’d have done nothing other than put extra measures in for care homes and asked those at risk so take extra care. For the rest i’d have said lives you lives look after yourselves and enjoy. 

We are communicating on a football forum, I assume because we all have a love for Derby County. We carry on with the way of life as we are now, Derby County won’t exist and if they do it’ll be by the skin of our teeth. Unfortunately Numerous social institutions up and down the country 100% won’t exist. People will post, human life is more important etc etc, but when the social fabric is about to be ripped apart (and it will)  I just ask is it worth it and the worth the damage it’ll do, compared to what we are seeing due to Covid?.  I personally I think not. 
 

Good question though, thank you.

I assume you were saying that in April when 1000 or so people were dying everyday right?

[Norman]

6 hours ago, SchtivePesley said:

OK - so a couple of days ago, we were asked which of us personally knew people who had covid and/or had died or been hospitalised. There were a lot of responses

I will now ask the same question of the forum - how many of you know someone perosnally who has died purely as a result of the covid restrictions?

 

 

Wasnt it 100,000 who died due to 10 years of austerity?

Good luck in the next 10.

[ariotofmyown]

1 hour ago, B4ev6is said:

Yes sweden 

Sorry wrong country. 

Read @StockholmRams post on what happened in Sweden if you think they have all the answers.

[B4ev6is]

Well no lock down no restoctions and there just living life normal.

[ariotofmyown]

3 hours ago, SaintRam said:

Boris just announced the potential to call on the military to enforce Covid restrictions where police are stretched.

That seems like an action that a government competently managing a crisis would take. ?

 

 

[Gone]

8 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

I assume you were saying that in April when 1000 or so people were dying everyday right?

They aren’t now are they? and yes I was, I would of used the same tactics. 

[Marriot Ram99]

I really think the remedies applied to Corona are not proportional to the effect for the following reasons:

The death toll is currently around  20 a day, even if it hits 100 or more it is no way worth the restrictions applied, for the following reasons. 

1. Suicides out weigh or at least match corona death tolls at the moment, this will be worsened by people with depression from the restrictions, loosing their jobs and suffering increased anxiety. 

2. As of 2015-2017 which is the most up-to-date I could find, 450 people died of cancer each day. Because of people being too scared for treatment or being encouraged to stay at home , deaths will rise in this regard leading to a further cancelling out of the reduction of deaths from restrictions.  In addition, in the long term if the restrictions continue for a year or more, the health impacts of increased inactivity will cause more deaths in the long term to further cancel out saved lives. 

3. Financial impact - absolutely huge impact which some may see as 'just money'. If people loose their livelihoods thanks to government intervention that will dramatically impact peoples lives and mental health and in some cases also physical health if it leads to poverty. 

4. Traditions and social side:

Lots of sports clubs and professional teams will go out of business, leading to loss of jobs and a massive impact on people's lives and local communities if football clubs and other sports teams or organisations go bust.  Lots of elements of the cultural sector like theatres and other events face going bust, and traditional events like Christmas markets will be ruined. 

On the social side it is scientifically proven in many studies that people with social isolation live for less years and are mentally and physically more unhealthy. Restrictions while mainly only prolonging very old people's lives with the average death age being 81 (as distasteful as that sounds) may be very unlikely to do so if people become lonely, isolated and sad. Furthermore, quality of life is more important than an extra few years at on old age  and actually being able to see family and friends is important. 

5. Government debt-someone has to pay for the massive costs. That means either austerity and worse schools and health care or more likely tax rises which is bad for the economy and won't be able to be done at a rate to pay for the costs, so it becomes a burden on future generations with it being likely bigger than the costs of world War 2 as has been reported to already be likely. This will only worsen to astronomical levels that will cripple the country in the long term. 

Just my opinion, open to criticism and I support the wearing of masks and being cautious where possible but not when it ruins lives and destroys the countries long term prospects. The vaccine may not stop the spread for many reasons and it will realistically take 18 months to get back to normal, for me the costs outweigh the benefits. 

 

 

 

[Norman]

"The majority of deaths involving COVID-19 have been among people aged 65 years and over (46,874 out of 52,482" 

Office of National Statistics. 

5,500 deaths are from people aged under 65. duck knows how many of those didn't have underlying health conditions, and how many weren't the result of cancer or car accidents. 

Does anyone have a figure of those aged under 65, who have no other health problems, that have died?

[ariotofmyown]

7 minutes ago, Marriott Ram99 said:

I really think the remedies applied to Corona are not proportional to the effect for the following reasons:

The death toll is currently around  20 a day, even if it hits 100 or more it is no way worth the restrictions applied, for the following reasons. 

1. Suicides out weigh or at least match corona death tolls at the moment, this will be worsened by people with depression from the restrictions, loosing their jobs and suffering increased anxiety. 

2. As of 2015-2017 which is the most up-to-date I could find, 450 people died of cancer each day. Because of people being too scared for treatment or being encouraged to stay at home , deaths will rise in this regard leading to a further cancelling out of the reduction of deaths from restrictions.  In addition, in the long term if the restrictions continue for a year or more, the health impacts of increased inactivity will cause more deaths in the long term to further cancel out saved lives. 

3. Financial impact - absolutely huge impact which some may see as 'just money'. If people loose their livelihoods thanks to government intervention that will dramatically impact peoples lives and mental health and in some cases also physical health if it leads to poverty. 

4. Traditions and social side:

Lots of sports clubs and professional teams will go out of business, leading to loss of jobs and a massive impact on people's lives and local communities if football clubs and other sports teams or organisations go bust.  Lots of elements of the cultural sector like theatres and other events face going bust, and traditional events like Christmas markets will be ruined. 

On the social side it is scientifically proven in many studies that people with social isolation live for less years and are mentally and physically more unhealthy. Restrictions while mainly only prolonging very old people's lives with the average death age being 81 (as distasteful as that sounds) may be very unlikely to do so if people become lonely, isolated and sad. Furthermore, quality of life is more important than an extra few years at on old age  and actually being able to see family and friends is important. 

5. Government debt-someone has to pay for the massive costs. That means either austerity and worse schools and health care or more likely tax rises which is bad for the economy and won't be able to be done at a rate to pay for the costs, so it becomes a burden on future generations with it being likely bigger than the costs of world War 2 as has been reported to already be likely. This will only worsen to astronomical levels that will cripple the country in the long term. 

Just my opinion, open to criticism and I support the wearing of masks and being cautious where possible but not when it ruins lives and destroys the countries long term prospects. The vaccine may not stop the spread for many reasons and it will realistically take 18 months to get back to normal, for me the costs outweigh the benefits. 

 

 

 

Which restrictions do you particularly disagree with and think will lead to all those issues you describe?

[Marriot Ram99]

6 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Which restrictions do you particularly disagree with and think will lead to all those issues you describe?

Mainly lock downs of any forms, closing schools, closing down businesses and making it harder for people to stay in contact with friends and family and stay active. 

Only things I agree with are mask wearing on public transport and in shops, not letting people go to countries with high rates of corona, and encouraging people to wash their hands and keep good hygiene. Should be more up to individuals to manage risks imo, cover peoples wages who can't work because they have a high vulnerability. Everyone else should work as normal but try and do minor things to slightly reduce the speed of spread. 

[GboroRam]

[TuffLuff]

39 minutes ago, Marriott Ram99 said:

I really think the remedies applied to Corona are not proportional to the effect for the following reasons:

The death toll is currently around  20 a day, even if it hits 100 or more it is no way worth the restrictions applied, for the following reasons. 

1. Suicides out weigh or at least match corona death tolls at the moment, this will be worsened by people with depression from the restrictions, loosing their jobs and suffering increased anxiety. 

2. As of 2015-2017 which is the most up-to-date I could find, 450 people died of cancer each day. Because of people being too scared for treatment or being encouraged to stay at home , deaths will rise in this regard leading to a further cancelling out of the reduction of deaths from restrictions.  In addition, in the long term if the restrictions continue for a year or more, the health impacts of increased inactivity will cause more deaths in the long term to further cancel out saved lives. 

3. Financial impact - absolutely huge impact which some may see as 'just money'. If people loose their livelihoods thanks to government intervention that will dramatically impact peoples lives and mental health and in some cases also physical health if it leads to poverty. 

4. Traditions and social side:

Lots of sports clubs and professional teams will go out of business, leading to loss of jobs and a massive impact on people's lives and local communities if football clubs and other sports teams or organisations go bust.  Lots of elements of the cultural sector like theatres and other events face going bust, and traditional events like Christmas markets will be ruined. 

On the social side it is scientifically proven in many studies that people with social isolation live for less years and are mentally and physically more unhealthy. Restrictions while mainly only prolonging very old people's lives with the average death age being 81 (as distasteful as that sounds) may be very unlikely to do so if people become lonely, isolated and sad. Furthermore, quality of life is more important than an extra few years at on old age  and actually being able to see family and friends is important. 

5. Government debt-someone has to pay for the massive costs. That means either austerity and worse schools and health care or more likely tax rises which is bad for the economy and won't be able to be done at a rate to pay for the costs, so it becomes a burden on future generations with it being likely bigger than the costs of world War 2 as has been reported to already be likely. This will only worsen to astronomical levels that will cripple the country in the long term. 

Just my opinion, open to criticism and I support the wearing of masks and being cautious where possible but not when it ruins lives and destroys the countries long term prospects. The vaccine may not stop the spread for many reasons and it will realistically take 18 months to get back to normal, for me the costs outweigh the benefits. 

 

 

 

The problem with what you are saying it’s largely down to interpretation of figures or looking at future unknowns and thinking it’s a fact. I think some of the points you raise are the unfortunate knock on effects of a pandemic rather than the mishandling of it. 

It’s very difficult as we all read up on info that suits our certain arguments and it’s easy to get bogged down in it. To be honest I thought the biggest thing to come out of today was the idea of people working from home and the wash hands and wear a mask stuff. I don’t think much has changed past that really, essentially have a higher aware level that we are in a pandemic. 

[Norman]

5 minutes ago, TuffLuff said:

The problem with what you are saying it’s largely down to interpretation of figures or looking at future unknowns and thinking it’s a fact. I think some of the pints you raise are the unfortunate knock on effects of a pandemic rather than the mishandling of it. 

And what are you doing differently?

[Norman]

42 minutes ago, Norman said:

"The majority of deaths involving COVID-19 have been among people aged 65 years and over (46,874 out of 52,482" 

Office of National Statistics. 

5,500 deaths are from people aged under 65. duck knows how many of those didn't have underlying health conditions, and how many weren't the result of cancer or car accidents. 

Does anyone have a figure of those aged under 65, who have no other health problems, that have died?

To quote myself. Less than 600 died under the age of 45 from Covid up until 11th of September.  With 4 of those being under the age of 14.

How many of those had preexisting conditions, how many died of other things? 

[Gritstone Ram]

3 minutes ago, Norman said:

To quote myself. Less than 600 died under the age of 45 from Covid up until 11th of September.  With 4 of those being under the age of 14.

How many of those had preexisting conditions, how many died of other things? 

Do you think if you were 48 then you are quite close to the 45 with no pre existing conditions then you’ll have a good chance of survival. May be a bit over weight but fairly fit. 
I’m just asking for a friend.

[Norman]

Just now, Van Gritters said:

Do you think if you were 48 then you are quite close to the 45 with no pre existing conditions then you’ll have a good chance of survival. May be a bit over weight but fairly fit. 
I’m just asking for a friend.

If less than 400 males or so have died around your age from Covid, then I'm guessing you should be more worried about a heart attack or your prostate. 

Sleep well, Gritters.