Coronavirus (OLD)

[OLD BOY]

[Post deleted]

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You have totally ignored the point about the different treatment of these twogroups, which is the point being made.

The LAW was different between the 2 events.

[1andrew1]

Extract from a lengthy article comparing different countries success in fighting Covid.

So why – in so far as we can find answers – are we back in such a mess? Many scientists believe that, having got numbers down in the summer, we failed to finish the job off and reduce them to a low enough level before easing restrictions. We moved too fast, too early. And when the restrictions were removed, there is a consensus emerging that the easing was done unsystematically, instead of individual restrictions being lifted one by one at different times.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...k-in-this-mess

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Paul

Back to the topic please.

---------- Post added at 05:03 ---------- Previous post was at 04:38 ----------


His recent actions and dictatorship imposition of endless rules are killing the support of everyone I knew that once supported him.

I supported the early decisions, I grugingly supported the lockdown.

But over the last few weeks its just been one knee jerk reaction after another, and as per previous post, a lot of the general public (that I know of, and myself as well) are getting pretty cheesed off with all these constant (and inconsistant) rules for something none of us have see any evidence of (other than on TV).

I went out for a meal tonight. The rules forced me to wear a mask to walk 20 or so feet from the door to my table, and the same when I left.
A trip of about 10 seconds each way, Im sure it made all the difference (esp as its almost a certainty there is no CV19 anywhere near the place).

I had to keep asking staff to repeat what they were saying to me because their masks muffled their voice so much I could not make it out (a noisy environment).

I happened upon the official government site on masks, which states ;

Not exactly a ringing endorsment of their usefulness (and presumably thats real masks, not the homemade/makshift ones many people use).

The PM is reacting to the way the virus is spreading. If he did not react, the measures taken up until that point would have been inadequate to achieve the required results.

However, I must agree that enough is enough. There is growing pressure now for a different approach - one that I have been advocating for sometime now. Protect the vulnerable and let the rest of the population to go about their business.

Hopefully,the Commons debate on 6 October will achieve just that. I just hope they don’t force the older population to shield, because many of them are still hail and hearty. Some of us are even healthier than some people in their 30s and so it would be massively unfair to subject them to such restrictions.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Extract from a lengthy article comparing different countries success in fighting Covid.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...k-in-this-mess

You can't know in advance how any easing of restrictions would turn out. If it could've been known, that would've made things easy.
Which countries HAVEN'T been caught out by easing of restrictions? Just look at the list of countries, where you are required to quarantine upon return to the UK.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by nomadking

You can't know in advance how any easing of restrictions would turn out. If it could've been known, that would've made things easy.
Which countries HAVEN'T been caught out by easing of restrictions? Just look at the list of countries, where you are required to quarantine upon return to the UK.

I think we can safely say that lockdowns and quarantines are not working. It’s time to get real.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I think we can safely say that lockdowns and quarantines are not working. It’s time to get real.

Surely it's easing of any measures that is the problem? The infection rate spirals upwards when restrictions are eased.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Surely it's easing of any measures that is the problem? The infection rate spirals upwards when restrictions are eased.

Agreed. This should be an uncontroversial statement.

---------- Post added at 14:36 ---------- Previous post was at 14:34 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

You can't know in advance how any easing of restrictions would turn out. If it could've been known, that would've made things easy.
Which countries HAVEN'T been caught out by easing of restrictions? Just look at the list of countries, where you are required to quarantine upon return to the UK.

That's the whole point - ease the restrictions more gradually to establish the impact each one has.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Agreed. This should be an uncontroversial statement.

---------- Post added at 14:36 ---------- Previous post was at 14:34 ----------


That's the whole point - ease the restrictions more gradually to establish the impact each one has.

There is no known single source of the problem. You don't know where it is going to originate. All the the activities are potentially a problem, it all depends on which activities any infected people take part in.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

RULE OF 600 Hundreds of boozers spill out of pubs into street ‘party’ and packed Tubes after ‘fun police’ enforce 10pm curfews


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/127743...urfew-boozers/

One of our pubs had a visit from the police at 22:04. Without getting into whether the 10pm curfew is right or not, it's odd that they have the resources for this. After years of austerity cuts the police have complained that they don't have the manpower to deal with even serious crimes like child sex abuse, burglary etc, yet they have the resources to visit pubs with Environmental Health Officers to check compliance of the smoking ban and the curfew

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

One of our pubs had a visit from the police at 22:04. Without getting into whether the 10pm curfew is right or not, it's odd that they have the resources for this. After years of austerity cuts the police have complained that they don't have the manpower to deal with even serious crimes like child sex abuse, burglary etc, yet they have the resources to visit pubs with Environmental Health Officers to check compliance of the smoking ban and the curfew

Give them the chance of a power trip and they'll be all over it ,ask them to solve a burglary and you get nothing .

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The PM is reacting to the way the virus is spreading. If he did not react, the measures taken up until that point would have been inadequate to achieve the required results.

However, I must agree that enough is enough. There is growing pressure now for a different approach - one that I have been advocating for sometime now. Protect the vulnerable and let the rest of the population to go about their business.

Hopefully,the Commons debate on 6 October will achieve just that. I just hope they don’t force the older population to shield, because many of them are still hail and hearty. Some of us are even healthier than some people in their 30s and so it would be massively unfair to subject them to such restrictions.

Age is a major factor in how serious Covid affects people. A doctor on Channel 5 said that 50+ is when the risk heightens and it gets worse the older a person is. A caller asked if a healthy pensioner was at less risk than an at risk younger person and she said no.

I too thought that it could be better to shield at risk groups and let the rest go about their business as normal, but a couple of days ago both Johnson and Sturgeon said that this wouldn't work as the virus would find it's way to the vulnerable by doing this.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

One of our pubs had a visit from the police at 22:04. Without getting into whether the 10pm curfew is right or not, it's odd that they have the resources for this. After years of austerity cuts the police have complained that they don't have the manpower to deal with even serious crimes like child sex abuse, burglary etc, yet they have the resources to visit pubs with Environmental Health Officers to check compliance of the smoking ban and the curfew

They would in normal times, have officers on the streets having to deal with drunken behaviour etc. So not necessarily extra spending or staff required.

---------- Post added at 18:19 ---------- Previous post was at 18:17 ----------

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Age is a major factor in how serious Covid affects people. A doctor on Channel 5 said that 50+ is when the risk heightens and it gets worse the older a person is. A caller asked if a healthy pensioner was at less risk than an at risk younger person and she said no.

I too thought that it could be better to shield at risk groups and let the rest go about their business as normal, but a couple of days ago both Johnson and Sturgeon said that this wouldn't work as the virus would find it's way to the vulnerable by doing this.

I've shut myself away for several weeks now, because of a localized increased risk. How much longer should I do that, so that others can continue with their selfish behaviour?

[RichardCoulter]

'The Week' publication has reported that new research suggests that the virus could evolve and start to circumvent our efforts to stop it spreading via the use of social distancing & hand washing. They did stress that this mutation hasn't made the virus any more deadly than it was before.

https://www.theweek.co.uk/108191/cor...e-mask-wearing

'The Covid-19 coronavirus has mutated to become more contagious and resistant to social distancing and hygiene measures, new research suggests.'

---------- Post added at 18:30 ---------- Previous post was at 18:21 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

They would in normal times, have officers on the streets having to deal with drunken behaviour etc. So not necessarily extra spending or staff required.

---------- Post added at 18:19 ---------- Previous post was at 18:17 ----------


I've shut myself away for several weeks now, because of a localized increased risk. How much longer should I do that, so that others can continue with their selfish behaviour?

I've been shut away since March, with no sign of when I can go outside again. The Government sent me a letter saying that I no longer needed to shield from 1/8/20 and promptly stopped my weekly delivery of food! I, along with what's claimed to be 95% of other vulnerable people, chose to continue to shield. I've recently had another letter saying I should shield again; i'm so glad that I didn't stop shielding.

I have come across some elderly people who say that, as they are in their twilight years, they don't know how much time they have left on this Earth and would be prepared to take a risk, rather than risk never seeing their family again.

AFAIK shielding isn't mandatory (yet?), so at the moment it's a choice that only the individual themselves can make.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

They would in normal times, have officers on the streets having to deal with drunken behaviour etc. So not necessarily extra spending or staff required.

Agreeing with nomadking on two consecutive days. I'm going to see if I can get a Covid test in case it's a symptom.

But yes, you are right that the resource already exists. It's just moving it from midnight/1am/3am. Create a visible presence to get landlords talking to each other. Promote adherence.