UK should follow Ireland’s example and close the pubs and restaurants, as some people just don’t get it. My in-laws say that they are staying in then when we phone they’re not in, out buying a bunch of flowers ffs. Choices need to be taken away from people until they understand the gravity
SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)
- Thread starter Don't Kill Bill
- Start date
Schools should have been closed by the useless government, and I would hope nobody is using the public transportation you mention unless it is essential for them to do so.
Going to the pub is very different.
I understand “mild” cases of this will include similar experiences like mine with the flu two years ago when it was the worst week of my life. Mild has a wide range!
Well, yes?
The example here just happens to be a pub. Some of the morons who are forcing people to travel (from the government to bosses ignoring advice) deserve even greater stick, but we can still all expect each other to make sensible decisions ourselves.
I would probably say to stay with you, the advice from royal collage of obstetricians and gynaecologists is that the risk for preganant women isn’t that high from coronavirus with only one pregnant person worldwide requiring ventilation and she made a good recovery. There is very little evidence that it has any effect on the fetus as the virus doesn’t seem to transmit in utero to baby.
however if she is isolating alongside older parents and especially a brother with cystic fibrosis then more people self isolating together could seriously put the brother at risk because he will be extremely vulnerable.
see page 9-11 for more information
https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalasset...vid-19-infection-in-pregnancy-v2-20-03-13.pdf
Ultimately you’ve got to try and balance the risks and benefits as best you can amongst you’re family but I would suggest that it seems that you’re partner would be in a much better position if she got it compared to her brother
Not defending China's handling and delaying information at the start, but want to point out that it hasn't been officially confirmed that it came from the wet markets, only that it jumped from animal to human. H5N1 outbreak came from live chickens iirc, banning exotic animals wouldn't have prevented that.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I agree that the choice will most likely be taken out of my hands (regrettably).
Everyone I encountered in the pub yesterday evening had made the same decision I made. Perhaps they had friends or family that they put at risk as a result of their decision, but they were at the pub of their own volition, not because I was there (I hadn't even met them before).
Given the present government guidelines, I won't be in direct contact with friends and family so, unless this virus can be transmitted electronically, there is no risk whatsoever.
No-one is going to die, or even get ill, as a result of my pint.
None of us really know what we would do if push came to shove, but if said document were legally binding I'd still be signing it in a heartbeat.
I know, I mentioned the markets because from a sanitary standpoint they are a hazard that chinese authorities aren't handling, so I don't want to hear about how great they are at handling anything. They messed up everything and their luck is that they are a massive country that can function even if they totally isolate 50m people in Hubei.
Ultimately the government sets the tone. If they keep schools and pubs open then people will inevitably behave in this way. That's just people.
Elderly people are facing months of loneliness along with a disease that carries a very real risk of killing them over the next year or so. If you want to call someone in that position a cnut then fine, they are certainly behaving very cuntishly, selfishly, stupidly and callously. But I'm acutely aware that life is about to get extremely shit for anyone in that situation so my inclination would be to frame any irritation in a slightly more empathetic manner.
Elderly people are facing months of loneliness along with a disease that carries a very real risk of killing them over the next year or so. If you want to call someone in that position a cnut then fine, they are certainly behaving very cuntishly, selfishly, stupidly and callously. But I'm acutely aware that life is about to get extremely shit for anyone in that situation so my inclination would be to frame any irritation in a slightly more empathetic manner.
It could very well be 18 months if you look at the numbers the health service can cope with and the total who need to be infected to generate that amount vs the population.
I think we could be in this social isolation malarkey until there's a vaccine. Hopefully it's not 18 months till it's available.
You don't know that.
This thing is contact transferrable. You cannot say for sure who may end up contracting the virus as a result of your non-essential pint.
Unless you have a death wish, if your lungs were filling with fluid and you were gasping for breath... you would be thinking to your self "if only I didnt sign that".
Schools are not closed though and millions of parents are choosing to send their kids to them everyday. I hope you're equally as critical of them as you are the boozers.
As for "essential" travel, what is that really? Getting to work? Most adults in the UK could walk an hour to work if they really wanted to but prefer that extra hours kip so the buses are still full and the pavements are empty.
Give the bus wankers and the parents who leave their kids with 100s of snot-nosed mouth breathers the same stick you do the piss-heads, that's all I ask!
Does anyone think 18 months isolation is even feesible?
Even if the government told us it was 18 months, people would last 2 and think feck this I'll take my chances.
Imagine you're old and you live 17 months in isolation then die anyway.
Even if the government told us it was 18 months, people would last 2 and think feck this I'll take my chances.
Imagine you're old and you live 17 months in isolation then die anyway.
The following is a list of people I touched at the pub, or on the way home from the pub, or or will touch in the next few days; -
I agree with you that all of the above are at risk.
Exactly, and it's because people make stupid decisions like your one that the virus spreads. Of course your own decision is ultimately almost statistically irrelevant, but there's many many reasons why it's a terrible idea
There's a lot of stupid people in the world, making silly decisions - I've made a few of my own and would have done things differently had we been given better information earlier - but the only way we stop it spreading is by, collectively, doing the right things to avoid it spreading.
I have tremendous sympathy for what must seem an incredibly daunting period of loneliness, my housemate is immunocompromised and has the exact same thing ahead of him, but it doesn't give you carte blanche to avoid criticism for making decisions that are directly or indirectly going to put people at risk, increase strain on the NHS and get people killed because other people are doing it too.
I withold more criticism for the government for not taking the decision to close everything down themselves, but it's still within our own collective purview to follow the advice we've been given to slow the spread of it. Proudly flouting that you've ignored it, with an almost impressive lack of knowledge about how the virus spreads or is transmitted, is, obviously, going to rile people up.
Your joking? My commutes and a lot of other peoples are a motorway drive to work.
Perhaps yes, but it would still have been a decision I'd made 'eyes open' (this is actually something that goes way beyond Covid-19).
Nope. When the number of new cases goes to two digits (per day), I expect the restriction to loosen, maybe a bit similar to China, South Korea or Singapore. It might also go away in the summer (though in that case, the good governments would prepare for a second wave). And there are some chances that some anti-viral will be licensed in a few months, which might decrease the fatality rate to something manageable.
I think some extra-caution will be until the vaccine will come (so probably no clubbing until 2022), but some type of normality is going to return in a few months IMO.
I suspect you are drunk so engaging with you on this is probably futile, but contact transferrable means any door handle, traffic light, bar counter, glass, crisp packet, chair or other inanimate object you touched on the way to, from or while at the pub was a potential point of transfer for the virus.
That's why i didn't say "all adults could walk to work".
I'm talking people using public transport (buses, the tube), not driving where there's zero risk of infecting someone else or getting infected yourself.
Last edited:
Flu is a bitch but the worst I’ve ever had was throat infections... three years in a row, always just after Christmas in time for New Year. It felt like someone poked a bunch of needles into my throat. The first time nothing helped until I got antibiotics which sorted me out in like 2 hours.
Not to mention fecking breathing in a confined space for long periods of time . If it was purely by surface transmission it would have been much more manageable.
Load of crap most probably, trying to mislead people. I don’t believe a single word of it.
Even after this, I fear humanity would still not be properly prepared for such an event.
Looking at the case number graph and the fatality number graph, it looks like the lines follow each other with about a 2 week lag.
We went up to 71 deaths today. 2 weeks ago, we had roughly the same number of cases. Similarity, we had our first death on 5 March. 2 weeks before that was our first case.
Before anyone says anything, I'm only doing this to get a rough idea of where we're heading rather than trying to come up with an accurate mathematical model. But if the number of cases is increasing by 30% per day, the CFR remains relatively steady at 2%, and the incubation period doesn't change, it makes sense that there'd be a predictable shift between the two datasets.
Anyway, if that pattern holds, I think we could be looking at about 1,500 people lost to the virus by the end of the month.
EDIT: and about 5,000 in the US (probably more because of their slow start)
We went up to 71 deaths today. 2 weeks ago, we had roughly the same number of cases. Similarity, we had our first death on 5 March. 2 weeks before that was our first case.
Before anyone says anything, I'm only doing this to get a rough idea of where we're heading rather than trying to come up with an accurate mathematical model. But if the number of cases is increasing by 30% per day, the CFR remains relatively steady at 2%, and the incubation period doesn't change, it makes sense that there'd be a predictable shift between the two datasets.
Anyway, if that pattern holds, I think we could be looking at about 1,500 people lost to the virus by the end of the month.
EDIT: and about 5,000 in the US (probably more because of their slow start)
Last edited:
I’m extremely concerned about my gran. My grandfather died in January and she’s in her late 80s. Had a fall last week to make matters worse and I was going over there to see her as much as I could. I’ve been told her general mood has decreased massively in last two weeks because no one has been to see her (I was away on holiday). Loneliness can make people go insane.
This (bolded) is something I can agree with.
My initial thought was that I should simply go to the pub and to hell with the consequences (yes, I'm angry). My subsequent thought was that if everyone behaved in that way, the consequences would be great (effectively sabotaging the government's efforts to contain the virus).
So, I considered whether I should go or not. In the end, I decided that the way to resolve the question was to assess the actual risk - me, uninfected, going to the pub and taking sensible precautions - and to base my decision on that. If I'd had any of the symptoms associated with the virus, I would not have gone (and the pub's website had indeed asked for patrons to apply the same rules).
The government may decide to go 'French' and impose an almost total lockdown. That is their decision, and I guess I'll abide by it, albeit reluctantly. Right now, the government has issued guidance, but allowed individuals the leeway to decide. Whilst that leeway exists, I will use my own judgement to decide what I will or will not do.
The general feeling right now is that we should be doing everything we can to slow or stop (a pipedream) the virus. Eventually we will tire of the restrictions, some sooner than others, and that feeling will change. The difference between 'existence' and 'life' will become the debate, and I for one hope that happens sooner rather than later.
Any lockdown needs to timed for maximum effectiveness and minimal length. We also need to make sure we don't do it so early that a second one is needed at a later stage.
It's easy to say "shut everything down and keep people locked in their homes", but the reality of that is just as terrifying as C19.
It’s never going to happen and I think the media even saying things like this, even saying months has caused the mass panic buying. The max it will be is a month before people will come out of isolation due to work, lack of funds, boredom, loneliness. At that point a lot of people will take their chances. I think we have only a couple of weeks to contain it otherwise it’s just going to spread anyway. That’s just my opinion but how can you make billions of people sit at home for months without any way to fund it?
Is there any chance that a second lockdown will not be needed ?
It's not literally "contact transferable", it doesn't burrow into your skin the moment it touches you. You have to touch your mouth, nose or possibly eyes after touching it.
Yeah it's not going to work even people with rainy day funds are going to need to earn a living again at some point. Moreover, as the weather improves it will be almost impossible to stop people going out.
If this was happening in November a lockdown would be doable but we're on the verge of spring and nobody is going to sit indoors throughout the summer.
The British policy is designed to try and avoid it. As far as I can tell, we're one of the few nations in the world that's worrying about doing so at the moment.
Whether it works out that way or not, it remains to be seen. I think it's a 50-50 chance.
The likes of Italy, Spain, China and South Korea will almost certainly need additional lockdowns.
You are an idiot and exactly how community spread happens.
Last edited:
I am by no stretch of the imagination drunk!
I accept the point you make about the ability of the virus to persist on solid surfaces. Having said that, I'm as confident as I can be that I arrived at the premises virus free (there are people who get it and remain entirely asymptomatic, so without testing I can't entirely rule out having it - the odds are extremely low).
If I touched the kinds of surfaces you talk about, and I most likely did, then there is a risk that I could have picked up the virus from someone else. If so, I will start to exhibit symptoms in a few days and will self-isolate. There is no-one who I came into close contact with between leaving the pub and arriving home, and no-one I am likely to come into close contact with between now and the point at which I would become symptomatic.
In short, the only risk has been to myself, and I'm happy to accept that risk.
We will be having a police curfew with armed army etc from tomorrow here in Serbia. Because people are stupid and simply wont listen. We are at the 72 registered cases so far but there is probably much more.
I don't think they're going to just finish the lockdown, I imagine it will be done in stages to prevent a second one being needed. All these countries must be aware that a second one could happen so I think they'll take small steps before things go back to normal.