Coronavirus

[ariotofmyown]

30 minutes ago, angieram said:

I didn't see any discussion about this yesterday but it is something that we have all talked about in the past - the number of people working in offices who are at risk. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55843506

This is the first time I think that the Government has released these figures (after a freedom of information request). 

This paragraph is most telling - 

The data showed there were more than 500 outbreaks, or suspected outbreaks, in offices in the second half of 2020 - more than in supermarkets, construction sites, warehouses, restaurants and cafes combined.

Did you see the farcical situation at the DVLA in Swansea?

[BIllyD]

3 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

This is an issue that should be of concern to all of us and not just the parents of school age children.

While the government keep saying they want to see children back into school, they appear to be giving little help or added resources to many schools for this to happen. 

Getting teachers vaccinated may be a big step forward in getting schools reopen. I come into very little contact with other people due to self isolating, so I'd be happy to wait for a vaccination until all the teachers received theirs. 

My wife is a teacher so it's something that we have discussed at length. As someone pointed out earlier, although I believe that it will be proven, is that vaccines don't stop the spread. Therefore giving teachers the jab will only protect them, it doesn't stop the breeding ground for the virus which is the biggest concern for the schools environment.

Thats why the current philosophy is right for me, get them hospital numbers down, based on initial results in Israel, no one was hospitalised once having the vaccine and out of large trials those who caught the virus had little symptoms. 

[G STAR RAM]

Just now, BIllyD said:

Nobody is arguing that the lockdown isn't haven't an impact on a lot of people. 

What is your question though, you mention that people are insensitive to the people who have died as the result of this virus when not agreeing with the lockdown, so what is your actual stance as I struggle throughout all your posts to know what that is ?

One week it's that the headlines around the NHS being over egged, then it's pubs, masks, then not seeing your mates or your mates in the NHS thinking the lockdown rules are OTT. 

What do you therefore feel is the answer out of interest ?

I don't see anything that I have said as being inconsistent, I just talk about different issues as and when they arise. Plenty of my thoughts have been proven wrong, I have no problem with that.

Got to say that I felt the same about your views yesterday when you said you would manage your own risk when you are clearly not happy to let other people the same.

I think all of us are capable of advocating a position that is not consistent with our own preferred outcome. 

Personally I dont feel a countrywide lockdown is right, but have accepted it and played by the rules.

Right now I feel that if the vaccine is the silver bullet, then once the vulnarable groups have been vaccinated then the country should be opened up fully, with the promotion of mask wearing and social distancing.

No tiers, no opening some sectors but not others.

[G STAR RAM]

5 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Well I think that proves just how sinister the government really are. Knowingly forcing unnecessary lockdowns on people just because they want control over us, the people. As you have repeatedly pointed out, of course hospitals are only as full as any other year. Free the innocent 67 million!

(So there are some major downsides to lockdowns? Really, thanks for pointing that out, I'd never realised! What I actually find insensitive to people who have lost loved ones to Covid are the continual implications that a) the government are inflicting lockdowns for some shadowy, unknown reason and/or b) that do we really know that things are not much worse than a "normal" year...can we trust what these experts are telling us, when this clickbait columnists says the opposite?)

So maybe you will look at things differently in future and realise that as tragic as the deaths are we are all juggling our own personal problems and just to focus on just one thing could be insensitive to others...

[ariotofmyown]

9 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

This is an issue that should be of concern to all of us and not just the parents of school age children.

While the government keep saying they want to see children back into school, they appear to be giving little help or added resources to many schools for this to happen. 

Getting teachers vaccinated may be a big step forward in getting schools reopen. I come into very little contact with other people due to self isolating, so I'd be happy to wait for a vaccination until all the teachers received theirs. 

Luckily the children, whose families can't afford to feed them properly, never get depressed. Right? 

[BIllyD]

17 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I don't see anything that I have said as being inconsistent, I just talk about different issues as and when they arise. Plenty of my thoughts have been proven wrong, I have no problem with that.

Got to say that I felt the same about your views yesterday when you said you would manage your own risk when you are clearly not happy to let other people the same.

I think all of us are capable of advocating a position that is not consistent with our own preferred outcome. 

Personally I dont feel a countrywide lockdown is right, but have accepted it and played by the rules.

Right now I feel that if the vaccine is the silver bullet, then once the vulnarable groups have been vaccinated then the country should be opened up fully, with the promotion of mask wearing and social distancing.

No tiers, no opening some sectors but not others.

I didn't say they was inconsistent, I just said I didn't understand which direction you were coming from. You say you don't think a country wide lockdown is right, so what do you think would be at this point in time ?

My own outlook on the pandemic has changed throughout it, I have no problems holding my hands up to that, I have also always said my own family is the first priority and it will always therefore be mainly based upon this. I don't agree with opening all the country up straight away, but would with the rest.

As for not letting other people manage their own risk, not having that, never ever advocated that and never will. Maybe you don't understand the difference between that and what I was saying, but I can tell you that wasn't the case.

[ariotofmyown]

2 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

So maybe you will look at things differently in future and realise that as tragic as the deaths are we are all juggling our own personal problems and just to focus on just one thing could be insensitive to others...

As you admit, you have regularly got things wrong on Covid. The same mistakes that the fringe scientists and clickbait columnists have been making. I shudder to think how bad things could have been if they had been listened to more.

My view on lockdowns is that they an unfortunately necessary last resort to prevent loads more deaths. A death toll that is already horrific, and higher than it should have been if the correct action had been taken at the correct time.

Lockdowns have been a real struggle for nearly everyone and we will feel the effects for a long time to come. I have complete sympathy for people whose who have suffered really badly.

I would be highly surprised if any of the "lockdown accepters" on here think any differently.

The part of my post you ignored was how I find it insensitive for people to a) keep implying the government are just trying to control us for unspecific reasons or b) continually question if things are really that bad, in the face of overwhelming evidence and expert opinion, especially when previous such questioning was now openly admitted to be wrong.

 

[ariotofmyown]

1 hour ago, maxjam said:

Got a 18yo and a 13yo myself. 

The 18yo is starting to show the strain of being locked up 24/7.  They both have a good group of 'internet friends' that they chat and play games with but its not the same as going out with your mates and wandering around Ashby or whatever it is they do ?

I know you are into Gaming too and I'm wondering if online gaming has been the saviour for many kids during this lockdown. 

Games have gone from a distrusted waste of time to being the only way for kids to play and talk with other people their own age. Mine have been mostly on FFornite

I think that later teen/early 20s age could be the worst age to be in lockdown, especially if you are furloughed or unemployed. At least school/education gives them something else they have to do.

[G STAR RAM]

8 minutes ago, BIllyD said:

I didn't say they was inconsistent, I just said I didn't understand which direction you were coming from. You say you don't think a country wide lockdown is right, so what do you think would be at this point in time ?

My own outlook on the pandemic has changed throughout it, I have no problems holding my hands up to that, I have also always said my own family is the first priority and it will always therefore be mainly based upon this. I don't agree with opening all the country up straight away, but would with the rest.

As for not letting other people manage their own risk, not having that, never ever advocated that and never will. Maybe you don't understand the difference between that and what I was saying, but I can tell you that wasn't the case.

I think after the first lockdown didnt work then there was very little point doing them again.

During the first lockdown businesses took it seriously, you had to queue for half an hour to get into a supermarket, now its a free for all so what is the point?

I can't go for a round of golf in the outdoors with one friend yet I can go and walk around a supermarket for half an hour with hundreds of people. Makes absolutely no sense.

Re your personal opinion, you advocated all hospitality venues being closed and, to me, that is inconsistent with letting people manage their own risks.

[ariotofmyown]

1 minute ago, G STAR RAM said:

I think after the first lockdown didnt work then there was very little point doing them again.

You what? Do you seriously believe this? I hope I've misunderstood!

[angieram]

1 hour ago, Tyler Durden said:

Some of the comments made by the protagonists in the article are a bit strange - call centre worker Dan stated that the toilets at work are shared, people hotdesk and windows haven't been opened. 

I've been working in those conditions for nearly a year now for a multinational and didn't think anything of them at all - how can you not have shared toilets for example? And if you do hotdesk you need to sanitise the keyboard and mouse and desk before you use it?

Do you mean you don't worry about them or don't see them as a risk? 

Do you think it's ok that you have had to work like this? 

I am interested how what is perceived as a risk to some, doesn't concern others at all.

[Albert]

7 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

As you admit, you have regularly got things wrong on Covid. The same mistakes that the fringe scientists and clickbait columnists have been making. I shudder to think how bad things could have been if they had been listened to more.

My view on lockdowns is that they an unfortunately necessary last resort to prevent loads more deaths. A death toll that is already horrific, and higher than it should have been if the correct action had been taken at the correct time.

Lockdowns have been a real struggle for nearly everyone and we will feel the effects for a long time to come. I have complete sympathy for people whose who have suffered really badly.

I would be highly surprised if any of the "lockdown accepters" on here think any differently.

The part of my post you ignored was how I find it insensitive for people to a) keep implying the government are just trying to control us for unspecific reasons or b) continually question if things are really that bad, in the face of overwhelming evidence and expert opinion, especially when previous such questioning was now openly admitted to be wrong.

 

This speaks to the heart of what concerned me with some of the comments on here for the longest time, these undercurrents of it being 'overblown' or there being 'overreach' in the actions. We had people claiming that there was no second wave, while it was well underway. We had people claiming that the lockdowns were ineffective, when we had the data to show this wasn't the case. We had people claiming the UK couldn't have controlled this better, when the impact of restrictions on infection rates prove that the tools they had worked exactly the same as countries that have controlled it; the difference was always when and how the tools were used, not whether they actually worked. 

The one that gets me most of all in this though is people who spent so long trying to say that it's really the lockdowns doing damage to lives, when it was the reticence to actually use them when they could have saved the country that has condemned people to this fate. The UK should never have been in a position where this perpetual lockdown, and panic vaccination program, was seen as the only way out. 

The other one that's so very annoying has been this suggestion that there was 'no playbook for Covid'. Yeah, there was no playbook for Covid, but there was for rapidly spreading coronaviruses thanks to the SARS and MERS outbreaks, and epidemiology didn't spring into existence mid last year. It's no coincidence that the countries that were successful were the ones that followed recommendations developed through experience with diseases like SARS, and MERS. 

Ultimately, those in charge deserve every ounce of blame for this fiasco though, and for the lockdowns people are now suffering. This is the consequences of their mismanagement. Ultimately, it seems that these are the very people who are least impacted by the restrictions, and are best equipped to weather this crisis though. The spin to claim that none of this is their fault is well under way though. I just hope, even if that effort is successful, lessons are learned from this. If such a crisis can happen once, it can happen again. While it could be 100, 200 years from now, it could also be within the next decade. 

[angieram]

46 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Did you see the farcical situation at the DVLA in Swansea?

Yes, and didn't someone on here say that Severn Trent were insisting on workers who could work from home (and successfully did so during the first lockdown) being in the office this lockdown? 

 

[Albert]

6 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

You what? Do you seriously believe this? I hope I've misunderstood!

They have maintained this all along. The drop in cases that occurred after each lockdown has just been due to fairies and magic apparently. 

[G STAR RAM]

2 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

You what? Do you seriously believe this? I hope I've misunderstood!

Nope not at all.

As previously stated, all it did was kicked the can down the road and ended with us ravaged by the virus at the worst possible time of year.

Did it stop the NHS from being overwhelmed? Well we are now told we have 50% more people with Covid in hospital now than we did during the first wave, so one can only assume that we were absolutely nowhere near capacity. (Thats even before thinking about the Nightingale hospitals).

As it happens, I understand why we are in lockdown now but think it is only acceptable if it is coupled with a road map out of the situation. 

Just my take of course and if any of it is factually incorrect happy to be corrected.

 

 

[BIllyD]

3 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I think after the first lockdown didnt work then there was very little point doing them again.

During the first lockdown businesses took it seriously, you had to queue for half an hour to get into a supermarket, now its a free for all so what is the point?

I can't go for a round of golf in the outdoors with one friend yet I can go and walk around a supermarket for half an hour with hundreds of people. Makes absolutely no sense.

Re your personal opinion, you advocated all hospitality venues being closed and, to me, that is inconsistent with letting people manage their own risks.

Ah I thought you meant the conv from yesterday.

Fair point, I'd have to caveat that as I did then I think, with people managing their own risk, whilst not under the influence of several beers. As with anything though, when I talk about "happy with other managing their own risk" is not including someone who is putting others at a much greater risk, want to break the rules and meet more people, fine don't agree but I get it, going to a supermarket without a mask to prove a point, not so. 
 

Yes there are some lockdown rules that don't make sense, no arguments there.

[G STAR RAM]

21 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

As you admit, you have regularly got things wrong on Covid. The same mistakes that the fringe scientists and clickbait columnists have been making. I shudder to think how bad things could have been if they had been listened to more.

My view on lockdowns is that they an unfortunately necessary last resort to prevent loads more deaths. A death toll that is already horrific, and higher than it should have been if the correct action had been taken at the correct time.

Lockdowns have been a real struggle for nearly everyone and we will feel the effects for a long time to come. I have complete sympathy for people whose who have suffered really badly.

I would be highly surprised if any of the "lockdown accepters" on here think any differently.

The part of my post you ignored was how I find it insensitive for people to a) keep implying the government are just trying to control us for unspecific reasons or b) continually question if things are really that bad, in the face of overwhelming evidence and expert opinion, especially when previous such questioning was now openly admitted to be wrong.

Until you get out of the habit of viewing every view that you disagree with as 'fringe scientist' or 'clickbait columnist' then I find it hard to even consider your views.

Just as a reminder, the experts that you are relying on said 20,000 deaths would be a good result...we are now at over 100,000. Maybe listening to the 'fringe scientists' may have had us closer to the good result, who knows.

[G STAR RAM]

5 minutes ago, Albert said:

They have maintained this all along. The drop in cases that occurred after each lockdown has just been due to fairies and magic apparently. 

Who has maintained this?

 

[Albert]

4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Nope not at all.

As previously stated, all it did was kicked the can down the road and ended with us ravaged by the virus at the worst possible time of year.

Did it stop the NHS from being overwhelmed? Well we are now told we have 50% more people with Covid in hospital now than we did during the first wave, so one can only assume that we were absolutely nowhere near capacity. (Thats even before thinking about the Nightingale hospitals).

As it happens, I understand why we are in lockdown now but think it is only acceptable if it is coupled with a road map out of the situation. 

Just my take of course and if any of it is factually incorrect happy to be corrected.

Fair enough, this logic works better than your position earlier in the year, and in some ways I agree. That said, the lockdown wasn't the issue, but rather, the lack of an exit strategy and maintenance strategy. Opening up, schools going back, etc., was never going to work longtime with those remaining case loads without a property strategy. The issue was that there wasn't one. This, in effect, wasted what was gained in that lockdown. That said, without it, what is happening now would likely have occurred earlier, without a vaccine, and the way out from there would have been a lot harder to see. 

[Tyler Durden]

6 minutes ago, angieram said:

Do you mean you don't worry about them or don't see them as a risk? 

Do you think it's ok that you have had to work like this? 

I am interested how what is perceived as a risk to some, doesn't concern others at all.

I'm pretty ambivalent but also have faith in my employer that they also understand the risks and are trying to mitigate them as much as possible.

Going back to my original comments - shared toilets not sure how any company can reasonably mitigate that or even be expected to, hot desking again if the employer provides saniwipes then there's nothing stopping an employer then wiping a keyboard or mouse down and so on. 

I just found the comments a bit strange as anything in life can be a problem if you make it such.