Coronavirus (OLD)

[Taf]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Wearing a mask steams up your spectacles, which is highly dangerous if you fall down an opened manhole!

Then you are not fitting it properly. The bridge wire should be pinched tight to prevent upwards leaks.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Taf

Then you are not fitting it properly. The bridge wire should be pinched tight to prevent upwards leaks.

Can't do that if its the simple cloth masks recommended

https://www.who.int/images/default-s...rsn=b15e3742_1

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Wearing a mask steams up your spectacles, which is highly dangerous if you fall down an opened manhole!

I think you may be confusing real life with a Roadrunner cartoon...

[papa smurf]

How to stop your glasses from fogging up while wearing a mask


https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...wearing-a-mask

[richard s]

Interesting when the banks ever open again and you walk in wearing a mask!

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

We can't afford not to lockdown if the situation deteriorates. The public politically won't tolerate hundreds of thousands of deaths where other countries have successfully suppressed the virus and have sports stadiums open, let alone the NHS be able to cope with the circumstances that were projected when we went into lockdown the first time.

Incidentally, 'if it mutates' can equally apply to a vaccine. Why perform healthcare at all if we decide to live by the worst case scenario all the time?

The public will not support another lockdown and the economy cannot withstand it.

To avoid mutation, the virus needs to get through the population quickly. We might think we have been oh, so clever slowing this down, but fhe danger in doing so is that we may be laughing on the other side of our faces soon.

Nature may well have the last laugh. But hopefully, not.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The public will not support another lockdown and the economy cannot withstand it.

To avoid mutation, the virus needs to get through the population quickly. We might think we have been oh, so clever slowing this down, but fhe danger in doing so is that we may be laughing on the other side of our faces soon.

Nature may well have the last laugh. But hopefully, not.

What do you base this on, please?

If anything the more it spreads the more it has a chance to mutate.....

I'm pretty sure its chances of mutation are low, and random.

Originally Posted by Paul

I'm pretty sure its chances of mutation are low, and random.

Certainly into something more lethal anyway. Viruses mutate all the time, this one would have mutated loads of times too - there are already many strains of it. It's just most of the time as you say they're random and also don't have a difference.

If there ever was a significant mutation it's likely to make it weaker. A virus which is less likely to kill someone, less likely to make them seriously ill or even better less likely to even give bad symptoms is much more likely to spread than one which is more deadly.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The public will not support another lockdown and the economy cannot withstand it.

There’s no evidence to support either of these points, and economies who are taking no real action against the virus are also suffering - namely the USA and Sweden.

You are, once again, under the false illusion that we simply open everything up and return to economic growth. This is far from true - fledgling businesses will not be sustainable where demand is suppressed by a deadly virus doing the rounds. Unemployment rises, more people decide to save for a rainy day in case they hit hard times due to the virus, the cycle continues.

Household budget economics cannot save it’s way out of this one with more austerity.

To avoid mutation, the virus needs to get through the population quickly. We might think we have been oh, so clever slowing this down, but fhe danger in doing so is that we may be laughing on the other side of our faces soon.

You are assuming that a mutation makes the virus worse.

Nature may well have the last laugh. But hopefully, not.

The countries that suppress the virus successfully will have the last laugh with the greatest economic growth. Countries who let it go would have years of economic hardship and a prolonged recession - and no guarantee of success as it gives the virus greater time, and more hosts, to mutate in.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by jfman

The countries that suppress the virus successfully will have the last laugh with the greatest economic growth. Countries who let it go would have years of economic hardship and a prolonged recession - and no guarantee of success as it gives the virus greater time, and more hosts, to mutate in.

Based on what fairytale evidence?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Based on what fairytale evidence?

It's far from fairlytale evidence pip. It stands to reason - countries that can operate their economies normally will get close to pre-Covid levels, quicker.

It's taken 4-5 months to get to antibody levels about 14% in the population. Getting to herd immunity levels o 60-80% means managing the flow for something in the region of 20 months. 20 months of less people going out, less tourism, more working from home - all of which increases unemployment from reduced demand in the economy.

The fairytale is the idea we ease restrictions and everything returns no normal. It's flawed classical economics - "if you build it they will come". Demand needs to be stimulated from somewhere - during a pandemic the question is where from?

[Taf]

Originally Posted by Paul

I'm pretty sure its chances of mutation are low, and random.

More than 1300 mutated forms have been found in the UK alone, with the majority coming from Italy, Spain and France.

I doubt anything will get back to normal..People are already struggling financially and it's only going to get worse. It's not going to be a situation that we can spend our way out of.