Jump to content

Exit strategy


sage

Recommended Posts

@Eddie I think what you have very well documented there though is strategies for mitigating or reducing loss/risk.. Its not an absolute 'stop everything as no one single life can be risked'

Football will have no crowds, testing for players, that is massively reducing risk.

Schools will be protect/isolate vulnerable children and staff, send home anyone with symptoms, demand testing of people who are ill, handwash, have desks apart etc...that is reducing risk.... But you cannot have no risk.

I just feel there is an agenda where people are shot down who don't say the right things.. Ie they are pushed into a 'Are you saying people should die so you can play football' type corner.

No one dares argue back 'well equally should someone die, so you can go and buy fresh brown bread cos you only have frozen white bread, or should someone die so you can have shorter grass and buy a mower, or have freshly painted walls...or should someone die just so you can go for a nice walk etc etc. 

Clearly the answer would be no, who would say yes.. ...but I feel that is conflating/reframing separate arguments. 

Anyway, know we aren't going to change our minds, my point is that I feel that the media and the general public are very much against a return to some semblance of normal but for reasons I don't necessarily agree with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 214
  • Created
  • Last Reply
4 hours ago, sage said:

 

I haven't been back to school yet but my colleagues tell me that the (primary school) kids can't cope with the social distancing once outside the classroom. i.e. playgrounds, corridors and home time.

 

My sister in law is a midday supervisor and she says every day they dutifully sit the kids at opposite ends of long tables to have their lunch. 

Afterwards they all go out into the playground and immediately run together to start playing. Only 5 - 8 of them at the moment. Imagine with a schoolful! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chester40 said:

@Eddie I think what you have very well documented there though is strategies for mitigating or reducing loss/risk.. Its not an absolute 'stop everything as no one single life can be risked'

Football will have no crowds, testing for players, that is massively reducing risk.

Schools will be protect/isolate vulnerable children and staff, send home anyone with symptoms, demand testing of people who are ill, handwash, have desks apart etc...that is reducing risk.... But you cannot have no risk.

I just feel there is an agenda where people are shot down who don't say the right things.. Ie they are pushed into a 'Are you saying people should die so you can play football' type corner.

No one dares argue back 'well equally should someone die, so you can go and buy fresh brown bread cos you only have frozen white bread, or should someone die so you can have shorter grass and buy a mower, or have freshly painted walls...or should someone die just so you can go for a nice walk etc etc. 

Clearly the answer would be no, who would say yes.. ...but I feel that is conflating/reframing separate arguments. 

Anyway, know we aren't going to change our minds, my point is that I feel that the media and the general public are very much against a return to some semblance of normal but for reasons I don't necessarily agree with. 

I'm not sure we will see 'normal' again for at least one year - perhaps as many as two years. Social distancing will be a must-do for quite some time - probably until we know a lot more about the risks of specific activities, the actual percentage of the population who are asymptomatic (and of course for that, a reasonably reliable antibody test is required).

The biggest problem for me was receiving 'the letter'. OK, it solved a number of issues, not least of which being I now have no problem whatsoever booking a weekly delivery slot, but it hammered home my perceived mortality. I don't smoke (any more, although I do vape), I've lost over 8 stone in weight and am now below 14 stone, and I am reasonably fit, healthy and mobile - but 11 years ago, when I was 22 stone, smoked like a chimney and could barely walk, swine flu nearly killed me. The NHS and my GP remembered - and so does my wife, so it's a joint self-isolation. She will do anything she can to protect me.

My own attitude to death is that if my number's up, then it's up - but the Memsahib is terrified that she wouldn't be able to cope on her own. She suffers from claustrophobia and SAD very badly, so any fears I might have are for her really because she lacks any sort of confidence at all.

So every now and again, I take my frustrations out on people - I know that I shouldn't, and I've felt the ban-hammer on a number of occasions for letting my feelings run away with me - especially when I perceive (or even suspect) that they might not be taking this self-isolation as seriously as I would like them to, because I don't want to be virtually imprisoned for what seems a life sentence. If there is an imminent partial relaxation of the lockdown, I have a horrible suspicion that a) some will abuse it and b) it won't apply to me and those like me, and that makes me quite bitter because I took this Covid-19 very seriously indeed a month before it was fashionable to do so.

As a country, we were at least 3 weeks too late to slam the doors shut as the government contemplated other strategies (or perhaps contemplated their collective navels) and we are still lagging that far behind the other badly-hit countries in Europe, so in my mind we shouldn't be contemplating any relaxation at all for at least another two weeks. Apart from garden centres, of course. I'm down to my last bag of potting compost and I have 40 chilli plants that need re-potting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting angle on things @Eddie, we all have our own situation and its ok to disagree and be annoyed without being demonised.

I just feel for me, enough is enough but people darent say it or have lost perspective. As I read your post, I was listening to some football owner on SSN moaning about the integrity of the league if the players have to go on a long coach journey with no hotel to stay in ...really..?? We are talking about doing what we can, just accept it ain't gonna be perfect!

He then trotted out another pet annoyance the 'we can't be taking away valuable resources from the NHS'. Please, stop playing to the gallery. How many medical staff are we talking 3.. 4? even if its 10, to get a game on? (obviously like almost all of us, I have played regularly for over 40 years without a single medical person there). There are literally millions and millions of NHS, St Johns Ambulance, First Aiders in the country, thousands who would probably volunteer their free time to help see a game go ahead.

Again, the dialogue is very negative to me, people looking for reasons to not try, rather than an agenda to be reckless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chester40 said:

Interesting angle on things @Eddie, we all have our own situation and its ok to disagree and be annoyed without being demonised.

I just feel for me, enough is enough but people darent say it or have lost perspective. As I read your post, I was listening to some football owner on SSN moaning about the integrity of the league if the players have to go on a long coach journey with no hotel to stay in ...really..?? We are talking about doing what we can, just accept it ain't gonna be perfect!

He then trotted out another pet annoyance the 'we can't be taking away valuable resources from the NHS'. Please, stop playing to the gallery. How many medical staff are we talking 3.. 4? even if its 10, to get a game on? (obviously like almost all of us, I have played regularly for over 40 years without a single medical person there). There are literally millions and millions of NHS, St Johns Ambulance, First Aiders in the country, thousands who would probably volunteer their free time to help see a game go ahead.

Again, the dialogue is very negative to me, people looking for reasons to not try, rather than an agenda to be reckless. 

 

I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about here.  Hey, I could even be 100% wrong!  But my (wild) guess would be that if prem games went ahead with a couple of St Johns Ambulance guys as sole medical cover, the multi-million pound assets wouldn't actually be insured, should they sustain a career threatening injury.

?‍♂️

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sith Happens
7 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

 

I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about here.  Hey, I could even be 100% wrong!  But my (wild) guess would be that if prem games went ahead with a couple of St Johns Ambulance guys as sole medical cover, the multi-million pound assets wouldn't actually be insured, should they sustain a career threatening injury.

?‍♂️

 

Certainly its been said the minutes after a serious injury can be the most important. Wouldn't have a clue how many people are involved but would 'guess' has to be double figures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Eddie said:

I didn't realise that some people thought that children couldn't transmit the virus - however, it is statistically sound to suggest that kids in general are less likely to suffer serious illness themselves. Two separate issues.

 

13 hours ago, Chester40 said:

I do think that's a fair enough assessment from your perspective. 

I think the opposite though. There is lots of statistical evidence that kids are at very low risk. However the vast majority of the media and the general public on social media are forensically analysing how children can be in school, do work, go to the toilet, eat...and still stay 2metres apart (I know headteachers who are working exactly those numbers out). Yet this is all totally ignoring the fact that there is very little risk to them if they don't. 

It's not the fact that they're a low risk group, because even if they don't have symptoms or become ill, they can still carry the virus around and transmit it to others.  If that wasn't the case then surely everyone would be allowed out to ferry their kids to see their grandparents??  If it can live on plastics and cardboard for a few hours, it can certainly stay active on a 6 year old...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sith Happens
31 minutes ago, ramsbottom said:

 

It's not the fact that they're a low risk group, because even if they don't have symptoms or become ill, they can still carry the virus around and transmit it to others.  If that wasn't the case then surely everyone would be allowed out to ferry their kids to see their grandparents??  If it can live on plastics and cardboard for a few hours, it can certainly stay active on a 6 year old...

I don't know I am sure I heard that kids under a certain age were less liable to spread it too.

Despite the fact it seems like we have had ti forever it is still a new virus to us, and we are learning all the time, lets face it we are still unsure if having had it provides immunity yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paul71 said:

I don't know I am sure I heard that kids under a certain age were less liable to spread it too.

Despite the fact it seems like we have had ti forever it is still a new virus to us, and we are learning all the time, lets face it we are still unsure if having had it provides immunity yet.

Yet that lisping fop in Downing Street wants to send us back out there without a care in the world!!!  The man is deranged...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sith Happens
6 minutes ago, ramsbottom said:

Yet that lisping fop in Downing Street wants to send us back out there without a care in the world!!!  The man is deranged...

I thought @GboroRamhad asked for political posts to be kept to the politics forum. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Paul71 said:

I thought @GboroRamhad asked for political posts to be kept to the politics forum. 

I'm merely commenting on our government's response to this situation, and in particular it's plans to bring the country out of this lockdown.  Which is, as far as I'm concerned incompetent...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sith Happens
3 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I'm pretty sure that "Exit Strategy" shouldn't make me think about a 1-way ticket to Switzerland, so I guess I'm actually as deranged as some of you suspect.

I was thinking Germany,  but then I realised exit in German is ausfahrt and I just get the childish giggles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, B4ev6is said:

Well some resitions are being lifted but I know on about sending kids back to school in june you think just tell them come back in september.

Although that looks more and more likely now who do you think looks after the 1.8 million kids (maybe one million who actually need a parent at home). Those parents needs to get back into work soon as well.

The impact on the economy is just too severe for me - too many losing Jobs. We need to get people back to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sith Happens
1 hour ago, B4ev6is said:

Well in july they get 6 weeks holiday thats why I say no point then going back then.

if going back is achievable I would consider reducing the holiday to enable some catching up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sith Happens
2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Would probably be better quality than the stuff we got from Turkey

was never going to be any good,  I've seen the fake football shirts they sell, shocking.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...