Coronavirus

[maxjam]

Just now, Albert said:

Not really sure why this argument is even given time of day at this point. We know it is simply a fantasy, it has worked no where, and in Sweden where they attempted it, their King has literally made a public apology that they went with such a bad strategy.

Don't know exactly what Sweden did tbh.  I'm sure with hindsight we could have managed the elderly/vulnerable better and kept the economy ticking over better than we have.

 

1 minute ago, Albert said:

Don't know, that's the point.

But given that we know the details of 45k deaths we can assume that it would be along similar lines?

 

2 minutes ago, Albert said:

Again, the implication of your argument seems to be that older people, and people with 'pre-existing conditions' don't matter as much. 

No, thats the assumption you're making and tbh given how these conversations usually end up I'll leave it here.

[Albert]

3 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Don't know exactly what Sweden did tbh.  I'm sure with hindsight we could have managed the elderly/vulnerable better and kept the economy ticking over better than we have.

How would you manage it? the elderly and vulnerable makes up a sizeable fraction of the population, depending on the definition you run with. How do you manage that risk when there are literally 10s of millions of people to 'shield'? 

3 minutes ago, maxjam said:

But given that we know the details of 45k deaths we can assume that it would be along similar lines?

Could be. Implies the actual numbers are bigger though. 

3 minutes ago, maxjam said:

No, thats the assumption you're making and tbh given how these conversations usually end up I'll leave it here.

What possible other point are you trying to make?

[DazaDunn]

I haven't read much but here is my current feelings. I'm at the end of my tether, I don't know how long I can keep going. 9 months of pure struggles, finances taking punches left right and centre, mental health at an all time low. The government has spent £280B and we're a lot worse off for it. 

I don't know where we go next. Lockdowns don't work long term, the tier system seems like a slow way of putting everyone back into a full lockdown which doesn't work long term.

[Eddie]

42 minutes ago, Albert said:

What possible other point are you trying to make?

He's saying that people like me should be locked up permanently so he can go to the pub, shops, cinema and basically anywhere he chooses, when he chooses.

I'd actually be in favour of that, provided said house arrest was in the Seychelles at his expense.

[Albert]

14 minutes ago, Eddie said:

He's saying that people like me should be locked up permanently so he can go to the pub, shops, cinema and basically anywhere he chooses, when he chooses.

I'd actually be in favour of that, provided said house arrest was in the Seychelles at his expense.

Apparently @maxjam's other trick is to laugh at others' misfortune with the laughing reactions. 

This is the thing with shielding strategies though, there are too many people in the vulnerable category for this to be a viable, realistic thing to attempt. The cost to the economy would be larger than what's happening now. 

[RamNut]

I pinned all my faith on our ability to develop a vaccine but just as we’ve got to that point, I’m fearful that the sheer global biomass of virus will produce new strains which may ultimately evolve to outwit our attempts to protect ourselves.
Will covid-19 spawn covid-20, covid-21a and 21b etc etc. 
I’m pinning my faith on the fact that the virus has limited potential for change but the rapid spread of the new strain is a worrying development.

[Archied]

6 hours ago, Eddie said:

He's saying that people like me should be locked up permanently so he can go to the pub, shops, cinema and basically anywhere he chooses, when he chooses.

I'd actually be in favour of that, provided said house arrest was in the Seychelles at his expense.

When is this kind disgusting argument/ accusation going to stop ,it’s tired ,boring and frankly offensive drivel , there is far more at play than just selfish trivia of wanting to go to the pub(always first trotted out) shop, cinema, there is also more at play than the fact people’s livelihoods are being destroyed and the mental health strains this brings , there is the very real issue of human life and instincts being destroyed with families unable to be with each other , old people dying alone , living out lives alone , the long term effect on children and many more really important issues .

please can people ffs knock this rubbish on the head , whatever side of the debate on lockdowns you lean towards please accept that this is a complicated issue and not just a straight choice of people dying so some can go to the pub, please stop this now

having spoken at length with a family member who is very high up in the nhs yesterday the major problem there is not about deaths ,it’s the fact that treatment is better and more people are surviving it but taking up beds longer for treatment longer hence bed numbers  are critical at this point in lots of hospitals, now this is very much a result of this virus hitting an nhs that has been underfunded ( mismanaged) for years and is always creaking at the seams this time of year ,

at this point in the here and now I really don’t know what the answer is but posts and attitudes like the above are helpful to no one .

oh and putting a laughing emoji on someone’s post you think is talkin rubbish on a subject is NOT laughing at people’s deaths , misfortune s or the seriousness of the issue ,,, gtfu 

[Norman]

6 hours ago, Eddie said:

He's saying that people like me should be locked up permanently so he can go to the pub, shops, cinema and basically anywhere he chooses, when he chooses.

I'd actually be in favour of that, provided said house arrest was in the Seychelles at his expense.

That isn't what he is saying though, is it? And we all know you don't like being called a liar, so probably best to not make stuff up. 

[EtoileSportiveDeDerby]

7 hours ago, Eddie said:

He's saying that people like me should be locked up permanently so he can go to the pub, shops, cinema and basically anywhere he chooses, when he chooses.

I'd actually be in favour of that, provided said house arrest was in the Seychelles at his expense.

Can i get arrested please ?

[maxjam]

6 hours ago, Albert said:

Apparently @maxjam's other trick is to laugh at others' misfortune with the laughing reactions.

No, I laugh when you purposefully miss the point and jump to your own conclusions.

Where did I ever say the following:

8 hours ago, Albert said:

the implication of your argument seems to be that older people, and people with 'pre-existing conditions' don't matter as much. 

The posts you question both argue for protecting the elderly/vulnerable whilst allowing the rest to receive education or go to work.  To jump to your conclusion is an obvious attempt at trying to bait me into an argument which we have done before and no one wants to see again.

 

7 hours ago, Eddie said:

He's saying that people like me should be locked up permanently so he can go to the pub, shops, cinema and basically anywhere he chooses, when he chooses.

I'd actually be in favour of that, provided said house arrest was in the Seychelles at his expense.

As opposed to locking everyone up and run the pubs, shops and cinema's into the ground so there are non left for anybody? 

I have asked this question to you before but don't recall an answer - what would you have done differently if just the elderly/vulnerable had been asked to shield rather than all of us?  My 75yo parents would have done nothing differently - they have taken excellent measures to protect themselves whilst worrying about mine, my brother and sisters jobs and wishing that we could have better enjoyed this past year.  They are looking forwards to getting their jabs in the coming months so that we can all have a family get together again.

And before anyone asks how shielding the elderly/vulnerable could have been achieved, I dunno and I can't be bothered to spend all day replying on here.  If my parents can manage it and given that we have wasted literally billions on various schemes, support packages and lost revenue I'm sure that some of it could have been put to better use to target at risk groups rather than locking everyone down.

[EtoileSportiveDeDerby]

7 hours ago, DazaDunn said:

I haven't read much but here is my current feelings. I'm at the end of my tether, I don't know how long I can keep going. 9 months of pure struggles, finances taking punches left right and centre, mental health at an all time low. The government has spent £280B and we're a lot worse off for it. 

I don't know where we go next. Lockdowns don't work long term, the tier system seems like a slow way of putting everyone back into a full lockdown which doesn't work long term.

Sorry to hear that, and I hope 2021 with vaccines will see us getting back to a better life and help you with your struggles. If you are struggling there is in Jim Smith a mental health topic better suited than here as it can get pretty rough and may not be the best place to cheer up.

[Tamworthram]

8 hours ago, DazaDunn said:

I haven't read much but here is my current feelings. I'm at the end of my tether, I don't know how long I can keep going. 9 months of pure struggles, finances taking punches left right and centre, mental health at an all time low. The government has spent £280B and we're a lot worse off for it. 

I don't know where we go next. Lockdowns don't work long term, the tier system seems like a slow way of putting everyone back into a full lockdown which doesn't work long term.

The only point I’d challenge is that in bold. You don’t actually know that we’re a lot worse off for it. Things could have been a whole lot worse if they hadn’t spent it. That would have meant either no lockdown or no furlough/other support schemes. We obviously don’t know what difference the former would have made but I’m pretty sure there would have a whole lot more financial misery without the latter.

[Sith Happens]

The topic of isolating the elderly and vulnerable comes up regularly, yet despite some people being in favour of, no one has been able to detail how it could practically work.

Surely if it was a viable option some country somewhere would have done it and achieved success?

To say elderly managed it so it cant be that difficult just doesnt cut it, what about the millions who are of working age? Or have families.

Shielding the elderly and vulnerable how it has been done is one thing, but doing it if we open up the country to whay is likely to be a much wider spread of the virus will be a totally different manner.

When I had to shield, under the guidance my wife continued to work, this was allowed. However to do it properly if the virus is allowed to spread more rapidly would likely require her to isolate herself too, or somehow i isolate from her (dont event suggest the nightingales). The same for families with children and so on.

Add in the financial support that all those extra people having to isolate could well exceed signifcantly what we are spending today.

I have yet to see any reasonable suggestion about how it could be handled on a much grander scale.

 

 

[Sith Happens]

6 hours ago, RamNut said:

I pinned all my faith on our ability to develop a vaccine but just as we’ve got to that point, I’m fearful that the sheer global biomass of virus will produce new strains which may ultimately evolve to outwit our attempts to protect ourselves.
Will covid-19 spawn covid-20, covid-21a and 21b etc etc. 
I’m pinning my faith on the fact that the virus has limited potential for change but the rapid spread of the new strain is a worrying development.

Dont worry about it, sequels are never as good. It will be like the policy academy films...by the time we get to the 7th reiteration no one will even know it ever existed. ?

[Sith Happens]

8 hours ago, DazaDunn said:

I haven't read much but here is my current feelings. I'm at the end of my tether, I don't know how long I can keep going. 9 months of pure struggles, finances taking punches left right and centre, mental health at an all time low. The government has spent £280B and we're a lot worse off for it. 

I don't know where we go next. Lockdowns don't work long term, the tier system seems like a slow way of putting everyone back into a full lockdown which doesn't work long term.

It is tough and sorry you are struggling. Hopefully the vaccine is the way out of this. It looks like the Oxford one could be approved in the next couple of days,

[Albert]

56 minutes ago, maxjam said:

No, I laugh when you purposefully miss the point and jump to your own conclusions.

Is that what you want to call it. Maybe try and avoid doing it on posts about people suffering them. 

56 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Where did I ever say the following:

The posts you question both argue for protecting the elderly/vulnerable whilst allowing the rest to receive education or go to work.  To jump to your conclusion is an obvious attempt at trying to bait me into an argument which we have done before and no one wants to see again.

How can this possibly be achieved? You run from the point and distance yourself, using 'shielding the vulnerable' as an easy out to the obvious implications of what you're saying. There is no known way of achieving this, and countries that have attempted something of the sort have failed so badly at it that they've had to turn around and apologise. 

The inconvenient truth of it all is that there is no shielding strategy better than just not letting the virus burn. Hell, the amount of time this has been left to run has led to the obvious consequence of mutations appearing, which is now hitting the UK economy even more, with large sections of the World scared of people coming from the UK. 

All of this could have been avoided with better strategy from the start, even better strategy from a few months ago. The let it burn crowd wouldn't have any of that though, and so the UK is stuck in what seems like purgatory for the foreseeable future. 

[GboroRam]

17 hours ago, maxjam said:

There is an interesting breakdown of stats in the attached spreadsheet, especially Tab4

I was wondering what the health of the population is, and how many people could be classed as having a pre existing condition. Of course there will be multiple illnesses at once in individuals but its shocking. I'm not surprised at all that most people who die have a pre existing condition. 

Asthma - 12%

Chronic kidney disease - c. 3m, 4%

Chronic neurological disease - hard to find a definition, but between 1 and 10m, so could be up to 6.5%

COPD - 1.2m, nearly 2%

Dementia - 850k, just over 1%

Diabetes - 4.7m, 7%

Rheumatoid arthritis - 1%. Other diseases may be added in this category 

Coronary heart disease - 7.4m, 11%

Obesity, not on the list but added as we're talking about it - 28.7%

 

1. https://statistics.blf.org.uk/asthma

2. https://www.kidneycareuk.org/news-and-campaigns/facts-and-stats/

3. https://www.bsrm.org.uk/downloads/long-term-neurological-conditions-concise.pdf

4. https://statistics.blf.org.uk/#:~:text=About 10%2C000 people in the,mainly inhalers) for lung disease.

5. https://www.england.nhs.uk/mental-health/dementia/#:~:text=In England it is estimated,roughly doubles every five years.

6. https://www.diabetes.org.uk/about_us/news/new-stats-people-living-with-diabetes

7. https://nras.org.uk/resource/what-is-ra/

8. https://www.bhf.org.uk/what-we-do/our-research/heart-statistics

9. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn03336/#:~:text=The Health Survey for England,BMI) of 30 or above.

[Archied]

Serious question ,,, do people who have tested positive need to be vaccinated? and if the answer is yes don’t they logically go to the bottom of the list of those prioritised as they have a level of immunity for a time ?

[Spanish]

4 minutes ago, Archied said:

Serious question ,,, do people who have tested positive need to be vaccinated? and if the answer is yes don’t they logically go to the bottom of the list of those prioritised as they have a level of immunity for a time ?

Is there such a thing as immunity and if so how long does it last?

How long does the vax provide protection for and will the vulnerable go back to the top of the queue it it needs regularly topped up.?

[Archied]

2 minutes ago, Spanish said:

Is there such a thing as immunity and if so how long does it last?

How long does the vax provide protection for and will the vulnerable go back to the top of the queue it it needs regularly topped up.?

Don’t know ,, my admittedly very simple understanding of vaccines was that they built an immunity in you by exposing you to a very weakened amount of the virus/ disease that wasn’t dangerous so it’s kind of hard to get my head around why/ if having survived the virus or having been vaccinated would have too much of a difference in terms of immunity going forward except perhaps timescale of immunity ??‍♂️