SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)
- Thread starter Don't Kill Bill
- Start date
If people were disciplined and unified, this thread would've been locked already. But nobody accounted for the entitled and affluent, like-minded individuals. Let's face it. Our desire for "freedom" is what fecked us here. Damn majority. Why don't I live in New Zealand?
I asked you about the Spectator article but next time I will try to be clearer. And I don't disagree with the conclusion, I just think that the conclusion is more nuanced than what The Spectator wrote.
What are you on about?
By any measure the British public have been incredibly obedient during this lockdown.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
If nobody leaves their home the virus would die. Obviously.
Group over the road started off 2m apart now after time and alcohol are right next to each other taking selfies and laughing. People become complacent after a while. I see it everywhere, even I'm not hand sanitizing as much as before
Okay yeah that's a point, but as people do need to leave their home it's a ridiculous one. Obviously.
Welcome to a ridiculous reality. Everything is. A hard lockdown (with food deliveries, obviously
) was the only thing that could've saved us from this economic and medical ridiculousness. Now we have to give a little and take a little to make a living. We have to find a balance between death and livelihoods. Now that is ridiculous.Supermarkets don't have the ability to deliver food to every household in this country.Welcome to a ridiculous reality. Everything is. A hard lockdown (with food deliveries, obviously
Even if they did, they'd need thousands of workers in a warehouses preparing deliveries, you'd need mechanics maintaining the vans. Why am I even explaining this?
Everyone who has a developed frontal lobes knows that people have to leave their homes and in the end there is a trade off between health and economy. Not in a single country on our planet is going to lockdown until there's vaccine.
We're going to have to come up with a new normal. A normal, that allows us to have some sort of economy, whilst keeping infections to a minimum thus not collapsing our health service.
Seriously. Why do most people have to leave their home? Explain it to me as if I don't have a developed frontal lobe. ALL we have to do is stay indoors for 21 feckin days dude! That can't be that hard? Ramp up 100% hygienic deliveries for goodness sake.
To organize those deliveries you will need a lot of people and those people will have to leave their home.
Are you also saying it is impossible to stay indoors for 21 days?
Well most people don't have access to deliveries, so in many cases it's impossible to stay indoors for 21 days. Also I'm not sure what staying indoors is supposed to do, you want people to drastically limit contacts with people that aren't in their household but going outside won't see catch the virus or spread it as long as you keep your distances.
It's clearly impossible for people to live and for all of those people to stay indoors for 3 weeks. Think about it for more than a few seconds.
You've answered your own question.
The people who deliver the food need to leave their homes. The people who process the orders need to leave their home. The mechanics mending this vans need to leave their homes. The cleaners disinfecting the facilities these people use need to leave their homes etc etc
Do you get it yet?
No offence, but I don't quite follow that bolded part.
As for the rest, we have now entered years of shite. We will suffer for years man! All because we couldn't snuff it out when we had the chance (like NZ). Ah well. So be it.
Yes.
Explain to me how you're going to get essential services if nobody runs power stations, warehouses, drives trucks, nobody for emergency gas/electrical/fire, what about food manufacturing? Yeah we may have enough for 21 days, then once that is up nobody has been making food for 21 days so we have nothing to eat.
Then you get all the emergency services.
OK, I thought about it for 10. Supposed someone leaves their home for whatever reason. If they follow a strict social distancing regime and adhere to all the rules set out then the virus would also bite the dust. So, staying indoors for 21 days, which I still think is possible, isn't quite so vital.
21 feckin days. I stayed indoors for 21 days. It wasn't that hard. The maskless people walking down our road clearly disagree.
The virus could have been snuffed out if the majority adhered to a hard lockdown. Not everyone needs to stay indoors. Essential services, and all the rest can be excluded (on the condition that they respect what's happening and take the proper precautions.)
C'mon. Tell me you agree. We could have beaten this thing.
No, not really, because those infected in hospitals could still pass on to NHS staff who then have to go home to their families and kids, who then have to goto school because their parents are key workers, who can then pass it on to other kids, which pass it on to their parents.
Open the country up 21 days later and boom, it all starts again pretty much.
You don't need to stay indoors all the time, you can go outside as long as you keep your distances with people that aren't from your household. For some reason you are fixated on staying indoors for 21 days.
I thought like that about a month ago, but the more I read things and see what's happening the less I believe it would work.
Only way it would have worked is a complete lock down of the country, nobody in or out. And lockdown of regions as it started. That way it would have been contained to certain areas. Maybe the north of England would never have had a case. Maybe Wales wouldn't, that way, those areas could have produced like normal, while the hub cities were locked down. It's too late for that now anyway.
True... So, what you're saying is it is absolutely impossible to contain the spread?
Yeah, I've mutated. I'm no longer fixated with staying indoors for 21 days.
How is it that this makes so much sense, yet no country did it? Surely it's not just a case of hindsight. It's so frustrating that the best minds on the planet couldn't reach that simple conclusion.
I think we can limit the spread, and contain it to a certain extent, but it's not a case of contain and it's gone. It's contain and slow the rate of infection down so NHS can cope. Eventually waiting for a vaccine, or a drug to deal with it, or herd immunity.
There's been talk of the virus becoming weaker the longer it goes on, hopefully if that is true then the herd immunity thing won't be as bad as everyone initially thought. However, studies also show the opposite aswell, so who knows.
What I think is going to happen is social distancing rules for quite some time anyway, and those who manage to stick to them will be pretty fine. The people flouting them will probably catch it in groups and all be infected within the next couple months, and hopefully that builds the immunity so they can't catch it again.
Once the community or spreaders(those who ignore social distancing) have had it, hopefully then the rate of spread drastically drops and it'll die out that way.
Obviously it's not ideal as even those trying to practice social distancing still have a chance of catching it.
Think it's very difficult to police tbh, the locking borders was much more simple to me, but the threat wasn't realised fast enough. We had warning of mass deaths and infections from other virus' that originated in the east, but they never came true. That's probably part of why it wasn't taken as seriously.
Locking down regions would have required a lot of planning which we didn't have time, it's also close to impossible to do with the resources we had I think, there would have been ways to do it, would have meant drafting in the armed forces I'd have expected, roadblocks on roads in and out of counties, that kind of thing.
Because it's easier said than done, where did it start? Which regions had or didn't had the virus? In theory it works because we are omniscient but in reality we know that the virus is somewhere when it's obvious because we can't test everyone in a matter of seconds. Think about it this way, the US have the best testing capacities at the moment and they barely tested the equivalent of London.
The way we can 'beat this thing' is by herd immunity.
Now, we all hope and pray that herd immunity comes via vaccination. In the mean time, we need to implement sensible social measures to limit transmission and make sure that the NHS can cope until a vaccine comes, if it comes.
I get it
Are essential Service staff immune?
Some places did similar. That’s why countries in Europe are relaxing their lockdowns now. A lot of places had very strict rules where you couldn’t leave your town, unless there was a very good reason. They also closed borders. We cant even control or test the people coming onto an island.
@Shakesey ,
My man, don't feel bad, or like we are against you. It's not personal. I see you're starting to understand our point of view a bit more now, while still holding your own.
Glad you haven't turned this into a childish argument like can so easily happen.
The good thing is we are all learning about what's happening and other people's opinions and views.
My man, don't feel bad, or like we are against you. It's not personal. I see you're starting to understand our point of view a bit more now, while still holding your own.
Glad you haven't turned this into a childish argument like can so easily happen.
The good thing is we are all learning about what's happening and other people's opinions and views.
@Pogue Mahone
I think it's inevitable that if figures of authority are constantly and relentlessly saying there is a flesh eating monster on the loose that is indiscriminately killing everyone; it's unlikely that people are going to happily frolic around town spending their money and run their businesses. Irrespective of whether they're forced into "lockdown" or not.
I assume we'd both agree that if no-one knew about coronavirus (even if it were still having the same effect) the economy would be almost completely unaffected? If so then we're talking about messaging, communication and leadership; both in the UK but also across particularly the Western world. I guarantee a completely fabricated disease with the current narrative would also cause a crippling recession.
My view is with the correct messaging, the correct communication and strong leadership; along with a measured and common sense reaction there could have been far different economic results. If leaders were echoing that actually almost no-one is dying under 80 or without pre-existing conditions and that whilst we need to be cautious, for huge swathes of the population this is nothing that social distancing and avoiding the vunerable won't mitigate; we'd see a different picture.
Unfortunately we're in an age of cowardice and risk aversion where our leaders change strategy with the blowing of a negative media narrative, with the spineless Johnson being the poster boy. I dread to think of how the miner's strike or worse WW2 would be dealt with in an age of social media and populism; appeasement I imagine.
I think it's inevitable that if figures of authority are constantly and relentlessly saying there is a flesh eating monster on the loose that is indiscriminately killing everyone; it's unlikely that people are going to happily frolic around town spending their money and run their businesses. Irrespective of whether they're forced into "lockdown" or not.
I assume we'd both agree that if no-one knew about coronavirus (even if it were still having the same effect) the economy would be almost completely unaffected? If so then we're talking about messaging, communication and leadership; both in the UK but also across particularly the Western world. I guarantee a completely fabricated disease with the current narrative would also cause a crippling recession.
My view is with the correct messaging, the correct communication and strong leadership; along with a measured and common sense reaction there could have been far different economic results. If leaders were echoing that actually almost no-one is dying under 80 or without pre-existing conditions and that whilst we need to be cautious, for huge swathes of the population this is nothing that social distancing and avoiding the vunerable won't mitigate; we'd see a different picture.
Unfortunately we're in an age of cowardice and risk aversion where our leaders change strategy with the blowing of a negative media narrative, with the spineless Johnson being the poster boy. I dread to think of how the miner's strike or worse WW2 would be dealt with in an age of social media and populism; appeasement I imagine.
Last edited:
Wow.
That's the most mature and decent post I've seen on this forum for a very long time.
I'm not doing that at all. From our latest death figures you can assume aminimum of around 20-30% of the population already HAS had the virus. In all likelyhood it's going to be something well above that as we have no fully accurate way of knowing how many people get it without showing symptoms. We're still getting over 4,000 new cases a day just from people who are being tested. From the number of recorded deaths, the virus IS running riot. It is going through care homes. It has infecting "at risk" people faster than our government has been able to test them.
And as I keep saying, I'm not suggesting coming out of lockdown and carrying on as normal is the right thing to do. I'm saying that what the UK is doing, is the wrong thing to do, because we don't even have a plan, we are plundering along and no matter how obvious it becomes that we need a plan one way or the other we just continue to plunder along, making up what we'll do next from one day to the other. Affecting everyone's day to day life and causing avoidable hardship for millions of people without even having a clear idea why we are doing it. It's quite ridiculous.
Staying in lockdown makes sense if you have a strategy like Germany have. They have been fully on top of knowinhg the number of infections the whole time, so know who it affects more, where it affects more, and how to contain and control it. They are down to only hundreds of new cases a day. By the time they come out of lockdown (which incidentally, will likely be less time than we're in it for) they will have the pandemic fully under control. They may even eridacte it completely, and will be in a position to try to contain it completely when it comes back. This in turn will be a massive help to getting their economy back on its feet. An example of what the whole point of going into a lockdown is meant to be.
Can you explain to me what we are doing? When we come out of lockdown, whether its next week, next month, whenever, we will be lucky if our testing is even keeping up with the number of new infections...we wont have anything under control. We wont have any kind of platform to keep the virus from continuing to cause damage. What we are doing only ever made sense from a short term perspective of protecting the NHS during it's busy period, by slowing the rate of infection and allowing our health service to cope. I presumed this must have been the idea because a) if we're trying to do anything beyond that then we are doing it VERY wrong, and b) this is what we were REPEATEDLY told the plan was at the start, before the narrative started to change every couple of hours.
Pogue I don't know what you are actually expecting to happen here. The numbers don't lie and what the numbers tell you is that our idea of lockdown doesn't actually work. You factor in the economic impacts, the fact the mortality of the virus mainly targets older, unwell people, the fact what we are doing doesn't actually include any effective way to control the virus or protect those people, and you're looking at a very ineffective plan that is causing major disruption to literally everything and everyone. It is creating situations where some people can't even get food to eat...and in a year's time you're going to be looking at a death toll that will be veyr similar to what would have been estimated had we done nothing at all.
The idea lockdown isn't a major effect on the economy is just obvious and complete bollocks. I mean come on now. The entire Swedish strategy was based around avoiding lockdown BECAUSE of the obvious long term effect it will have on the economy. People trying to at this point claim the opposite are living in a complete dream world...the reason I can't go to my office and work as normal has nothing to do with the virus. The reason my dad can't go out and buy himself food or get it delivered has nothing to do with the virus. The reason my brother's girlfriend no longer has a job has nothing to do with the virus. Lockdown is the reason for these things...you can argue it's necesary to combat the virus IF it actually combats the virus...but in order for that to be the case you kind of have to do the whole thing properly.
I dont see the virus getting weaker. Where have you heard that?
What's happening in Brazil? Their numbers beginning to look really terrible now.
Cant remember exactly, I'll try finding it. I look at allsorts during break at work, it was a piece about how virus' can naturally become weaker over time and how this from some testing was looking like it could be on a similar path.
Like I said though, I've seen articles stating the exact opposite too.
I'll post here if/when I find it.