The coronabrexit thread. I mean, coronavirus thread

[Marriot Ram99]

On 13/07/2021 at 09:44, JoetheRam said:

Let's be honest, the latest 'relaxation' is all just going to create more divisions and fraught interactions between the masked and the mask-less and put more people at risk - Government are essentially saying they're fine with paying for the economy getting going with 200 deaths per day. Don't think I'd be happy dying for the economy to be honest.

All done by design by a shambles of a Government to deflect attention away from their own failings by setting the public against one another.

Judging by this thread it will work as well. 

As Gdp drops death rates go up and life expectancy decreases,  everything can't be stopped forever to save the very small minority who will get badly impacted.  

200 deaths a day is very small in the grand scheme of things from the population we have, also have to factor in the average age of death will be about 80 as well so not many years of life will be taken away. 

Personally wouldnt have had any lockdowns whatsoever but that's just my opinion, I don't think it's the governments job to take care of individuals health,  keeping the law in place and the economy going would be my expectation of them. 

Edited July 15, 2021 by Marriot Ram99

[RoyMac5]

11 minutes ago, Marriott Ram99 said:

Personally wouldnt have had any lockdowns whatsoever but that's just my opinion, I don't think it's the governments job to take care of individuals health,  keeping the law in place and the economy going would be my expectation of them. 

No NHS then?

[Archied]

Electronic devices seized from two homes in london in Matt Hancock leaking case ,,,,,, 10 and 11 Downing Street ?????

[Marriot Ram99]

33 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

No NHS then?

I'd have one but Im not all that concinve with the government acting as health protectors when some of them can't even keep their own health in check. 

[Gone]

36 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

No NHS then?

Not quite sure it’s up to the Government or NHS to stop folk eating badly, being lazy and becoming morbidly obese or stop them smoking 20 a day etc etc. I dont think it’s their job either to encourage people to do exercise, put sun cream on when needed etc etc. At times maybe people should be responsible for their own health and well-being 

[RoyMac5]

12 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Not quite sure it’s up to the Government or NHS to stop folk eating badly, being lazy and becoming morbidly obese or stop them smoking 20 a day etc etc. I dont think it’s their job either to encourage people to do exercise, put sun cream on when needed etc etc. At times maybe people should be responsible for their own health and well-being 

I agree, but sometimes that is more difficult than other times, through no fault of the person involved. Sometimes too the education needed to put a healthy lifestyle into practice - in the face of overwhelming junk-style eating habits and pressure advertising - has been/is missing for generations.

How ultra-processed food may affect your brain - BBC Food

"The way ultra-processed foods may affect the brain has caused concern among some health experts. They suggest brain changes caused by eating a diet high in these foods can make cutting down on them difficult, especially for younger people."

"Research shows some foods, particularly those high in fat and sugar (as many ultra-processed foods are), stimulate a greater sense of reward than others. This can lead to a “dietary pleasure trap”, according to psychologist Dr Douglas Lisle, as your biological instincts tell you “to seek the most pleasure for the least pain and the least effort”.

Dopamine may also interact with the neurotransmitter glutamate, which plays a role in habit learning, craving and relapse."

Basically the research is showing 'junk food' is a highly addictive drug that alters the brain itself.

Edited July 15, 2021 by RoyMac5

[Gone]

5 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

I agree, but sometimes that is more difficult than other times, through no fault of the person involved. Sometimes too the education needed to put a healthy lifestyle into practice - in the face of overwhelming junk-style eating habits and pressure advertising - has been/is missing for generations.

How ultra-processed food may affect your brain - BBC Food

"The way ultra-processed foods may affect the brain has caused concern among some health experts. They suggest brain changes caused by eating a diet high in these foods can make cutting down on them difficult, especially for younger people."

"Research shows some foods, particularly those high in fat and sugar (as many ultra-processed foods are), stimulate a greater sense of reward than others. This can lead to a “dietary pleasure trap”, according to psychologist Dr Douglas Lisle, as your biological instincts tell you “to seek the most pleasure for the least pain and the least effort”.

Dopamine may also interact with the neurotransmitter glutamate, which plays a role in habit learning, craving and relapse."

Basically the research is showing 'junk food' is a highly addictive drug that alters the brain itself.

Utter ********, sorry I’m not convinced. I love a Burger as much as the next person, But I also know I can’t eat one for breakfast, lunch and dinner everyday. I’m sure you don’t need to be taught that. Laziness and stupidity, just look at smokers outside the hospital doors

[RoyMac5]

21 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Utter ********, sorry I’m not convinced. I love a Burger as much as the next person, But I also know I can’t eat one for breakfast, lunch and dinner everyday. I’m sure you don’t need to be taught that. Laziness and stupidity, just look at smokers outside the hospital doors

Not everyone is as clever as you mate! Not everyone has the same ability to know what to have for breakfast, etc. Anyway I'll leave it cos obviously you chose what you believe and science doesn't come into it.

 

[Gone]

3 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Not everyone is as clever as you mate! Not everyone has the same ability to know what to have for breakfast, etc. Anyway I'll leave it cos obviously you chose what you believe and science doesn't come into it.

 

Fair enough, just gets my goat that people need hand holding with this basic stuff, absolute nanny state.

[RoyMac5]

5 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Fair enough, just gets my goat that people need hand holding with this basic stuff, absolute nanny state.

Yes I agree, but when they are fighting without knowledge it makes it very difficult. I'm old enough to remember when almost no-one was even fat! When people could cook, they learnt from parents or school, they probably had cooked school dinners - not pizza and chips type dinners either. When there wasn't as much choice for easy, convenient junk to eat. Etc.

I watch the 'I can't lose weight' type programmes and wonder why. But then you see that most are utterly clueless about food and cooking and taste and seasonality, etc. I watched with a certain jaundice, but tbh after I watched the program showing just what effect highly processed food can have on people's brain - like other drugs can - then I try to be a little more understanding of other's difficluties.

I'm not (now) overweight but I have been, mostly through eating too large portions not owing to junk food particularly (well fair amounts of processed carbs I guess). I can cook, I grew up enjoying fresh veg and fruit, but still it was easy to put on weight.

Basic stuff has often been not just disregarded, but positively buried under an avalanche of 'modern food practices'.

Lots of money to be made from (processed) junk food, not so much from ordinary 'meat and two veg'. 

[uttoxram75]

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

I agree, but sometimes that is more difficult than other times, through no fault of the person involved. Sometimes too the education needed to put a healthy lifestyle into practice - in the face of overwhelming junk-style eating habits and pressure advertising - has been/is missing for generations.

How ultra-processed food may affect your brain - BBC Food

"The way ultra-processed foods may affect the brain has caused concern among some health experts. They suggest brain changes caused by eating a diet high in these foods can make cutting down on them difficult, especially for younger people."

"Research shows some foods, particularly those high in fat and sugar (as many ultra-processed foods are), stimulate a greater sense of reward than others. This can lead to a “dietary pleasure trap”, according to psychologist Dr Douglas Lisle, as your biological instincts tell you “to seek the most pleasure for the least pain and the least effort”.

Dopamine may also interact with the neurotransmitter glutamate, which plays a role in habit learning, craving and relapse."

Basically the research is showing 'junk food' is a highly addictive drug that alters the brain itself.

Absolutely true.

it’s why the advertising budget for junk food is so great, to push as much rubbish onto us as possible.

The government should educate children on fresh food. growing your own veg home cooking etc to give them the tools to lead a healthier lifestyle while still having the choice to munch burgers of course.

If the government proposed such a policy there would be a huge kickback from the large food processors, big pharma, pesticide corporations and massive media coverage of “nanny state interference”.

 

[sage]

5 hours ago, Marriott Ram99 said:

As Gdp drops death rates go up and life expectancy decreases,  everything can't be stopped forever to save the very small minority who will get badly impacted.  

200 deaths a day is very small in the grand scheme of things from the population we have, also have to factor in the average age of death will be about 80 as well so not many years of life will be taken away. 

Personally wouldnt have had any lockdowns whatsoever but that's just my opinion, I don't think it's the governments job to take care of individuals health,  keeping the law in place and the economy going would be my expectation of them. 

73,000 a year. Very small?

[maxjam]

40 minutes ago, sage said:

73,000 a year. Very small?

Depends...

Its approx 0.1% of the population

Its 250 per day less than die of heart disease

But if its 1 person you know, its devastating.

[ariotofmyown]

43 minutes ago, sage said:

73,000 a year. Very small?

In the grand scheme of things 73k is basically nothing. Look at how many atoms there are in the universe for example?

[sage]

Just now, maxjam said:

Depends...

Its approx 0.1% of the population

Its 250 per day less than die of heart disease

But if its 1 person you know, its devastating.

Personally I don't think 73,000 dying a year is an acceptable price to pay for not having to wear masks on trains and having to have table service in pubs, but each to their own.  

[G STAR RAM]

9 minutes ago, sage said:

Personally I don't think 73,000 dying a year is an acceptable price to pay for not having to wear masks on trains and having to have table service in pubs, but each to their own.  

Will wearing masks on trains and pub table service save them 73000 lives then? Hasnt seemed to over the last 16 months.

[nottingram]

4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Will wearing masks on trains and pub table service save them 73000 lives then? Hasnt seemed to over the last 16 months.

Surely it is worth it if it saves even one?

Whether it would or not, I don’t know. But seems a small price to pay for any chance at saving even one life, to me anyway.

To be clear I mean the individual decision to wear a mask. I understand pub table service provides significant challenges to the hospitality sector that perhaps need to be considered from an economic POV

[Leeds Ram]

27 minutes ago, sage said:

Personally I don't think 73,000 dying a year is an acceptable price to pay for not having to wear masks on trains and having to have table service in pubs, but each to their own.  

i highly doubt covid will kill 73,000 people a year given the enhanced vaccination programme and that in this country it's killed around 130,000 people since the pandemic began and the vast majority of those were before the vaccine. Covid for people with no underlying conditions who are under the age of around 55-60 isn't that deadly. It's when you go above that age category and then include people with underlying conditions that are a bit younger that the number starts to spike and it becomes more concerning. 

I honestly think masking up only makes sense as a policy if other people do it and do it correctly otherwise it's akin to scooping up water when the bucket is filled with holes. After-all there is a reason why despite masking up for 18 months it's not seemed to really stop the spread particularly well or efficiently, pretending now that masking up is going to massively saves lives just strikes me as nonsense. Too many people use the wrong masks, don't cover their noses, or take it off intermittently therefore defeating the point and this is especially true in summer when medical grade masks do make it feel difficult to breathe for a great many people.

You've also had too many people simply not wearing masks anyway for a variety of reasons such as simply not wanting to be inconvenienced, mixed messaging on the value of masking in the beginning and broad exemptions to people with invisible disabilities that supposedly meant they couldn't wear masks (true in some cases not true in others). But this was accompanied with a broad message of not to ask someone to mask up if they weren't wearing one therefore undermining the supposed necessary importance of wearing them in the first place. 

This is all before you get onto the hospitality sectors opening up full throttle. It'd be much better if pubs and restaurants during these summer months were allowed extra space outdoors basically take over the streets and roads near them and make them into walkways whilst closing the indoor spaces. This would give us time to complete the vaccination programme and what is crucial is that the airflow would be at its maximum outside. The good thing is many pubs and restaurants are now equipped with space heaters and blankets due to earlier events in the pandemic if the weather becomes all too British again. 
 

[Archied]

26 minutes ago, nottingram said:

Surely it is worth it if it saves even one?

Whether it would or not, I don’t know. But seems a small price to pay for any chance at saving even one life, to me anyway.

To be clear I mean the individual decision to wear a mask. I understand pub table service provides significant challenges to the hospitality sector that perhaps need to be considered from an economic POV

Can see the thinking when you look at things singularly but the truth is you just can’t do it that way , we live and we all die , there’s multitude s of things we die from and so so many of them are preventable but there’s a trade off , do we ban motor vehicles as one road death is too much , do we ban swimming as one drowning is too much , the list is endless ,

if I believed for one second that having a piece of paper or old cloth over your face had any REAL impact then perhaps I may see it differently but it’s just plain daft , now do I want kids sitting all day in masks at school ? No and for a multitude of reasons 

[sage]

45 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Will wearing masks on trains and pub table service save them 73000 lives then? Hasnt seemed to over the last 16 months.

How do you know?

As we are being warned of deaths being around 7 times higher than under current restrictions, then maybe just 63,000 of those lives will be lost. Now I dare say, there is an economic argument to be made in the hospitality sector, I fail to see any rational thinking behind not wearing masks on trains and buses and in shops. 

Instead we have 'you can now do it, but you shouldn't' and 'it's up to businesses to set their own rules'.

Complete abdication of responsibility.