Coronavirus

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Mick

This argument does not stack up, one iota.

In January this year when cases were reaching 50-60 thousand positive cases a day, deaths were at or around over 1,000+, last few days has seen same amount of cases, but significantly amount of reduced deaths. The vaccines are doing their thing.

We cannot stay in lockdown limbo forever, our children have missed out on education for a long time, they’re essentially a year behind, this isn’t good. Also people’s mental health are suffering, suicides up tenfold. COVID-19 is something we just gonna have to live with, like the flu. Hospital admissions are up, but deaths aren’t and we have to get back to increased freedoms.

The hospitality sector is on its knees, so I’m glad we’re on the road to recovery, deaths are down, the easing of restrictions can now stop the real suffering.

We're seeing approx. fifty deaths a day from cases ten days again where case rates were nowhere near the level they are. lets see what the deaths are looking like in the next few days. then we can do back of a fag packet maths and then extrapolate that against 100,000 or perhaps up to 200,000 cases a day. You're right about the vaccines, they are working but the link as has been repeatedly stated by the government and also the boffins is severed not completely broken.

I take your point regarding education and yes children have suffered during this past eighteen months. However (and i stress this is only what i have seen locally) parents are dead set against both extending the school day or shortening the school holidays. If we need to make up for the past eighteen months then surely should parents should be welcoming such options.

I did some reading before responding to this regarding suicides The BMJ is unable to prove a significant increase in suicides during the pandemic , never mind a ten fold increase. if you have evidence to the contrary I'd genuinely like to read it.


To your next point regarding the hospitality sector IMHO only certain areas are on their knees nightclub etc. Those same night clubs however refusing to use the NHS app. onto other areas of hospitality have you tried booking a staycation? Lake District, Cornwall etc. has little to no availability and the very limited availability is being priced exorbitantly £5k for a cottage in Whitby for a week?

I'm most concerned about those frontline NHS staff who have gone through more than a lot us would be able to comprehend over the past eighteen months. Those who now it appears are going to have to deal with yet another significant influx of patients. They IMHO need and deserve time to recover before they then have to start dealing with the huge backlog of those on waiting lists.

releasing everything in a 'big bang' is IMHO a reckless decision, BoJo himself is 'begging us to use our common sense' it will either pay off handsomely or we will by September/October be in yet another lockdown. I very much hope it's the former, but I very much believe it will be the latter.

just my 2p

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Was Smurf asked to wear a mask by anyone? I'm sure if was asked he would.

Was it appropriate to not wear a mask? perhaps he was shopping in a very large, spacious, airconditioned, supermarket with very few people in.

I think some people really need to calm the f down.

I think it might be on sky news later under the headline

Man buys wholemeal loaf, pastrami and bag of oranges, while following government guidelines on shopping.

[heero_yuy]

My Sainsbury's is asking people to keep wearing masks so I shall. If only to stop some deranged lunatic attacking me because I'm not.

Originally Posted by Hugh

Luckily, Project "selfish" is fighting back…

Enough.

I don’t want to see anyone attacking someone else for doing nothing wrong.

---------- Post added at 15:38 ---------- Previous post was at 15:24 ----------

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

My Sainsbury's is asking people to keep wearing masks so I shall. If only to stop some deranged lunatic attacking me because I'm not.

They can ask you, but they cannot tell you. You’re not being selfish either.

We have to get back to normal way of life and live with the virus like all other illnesses etc.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Mick

Enough.

I don’t want to see anyone attacking someone else for doing nothing wrong.

---------- Post added at 15:38 ---------- Previous post was at 15:24 ----------



They can ask you, but they cannot tell you. You’re not being selfish either.

We have to get back to normal way of life and live with the virus like all other illnesses etc.

I wonder if those who refuse to wear a mask will be denied entry? Businesses won't want to turn away money, but will want to try and protect others in their stores.

I do understand that we have to get back to some sort of normality, but can't see the point of dropping procedures that help to stop the virus spreading.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Mick

Enough.

I don’t want to see anyone attacking someone else for doing nothing wrong.

---------- Post added at 15:38 ---------- Previous post was at 15:24 ----------



They can ask you, but they cannot tell you. You’re not being selfish either.

We have to get back to normal way of life and live with the virus like all other illnesses etc.

I think there's a degree of selfishness, what happens if you're carrying the virus
unwittingly, you go mask free and there's people who are immunocompromised or immunosuppressed also shopping? Is it right for your actions to place them at increased risk? Or does getting back to a normal way of life exclude those who are most vulnerable?

Wearing a mask offers some reduction in the risk of transmission and infection. it's not a hardship, it's not a reduction of civil liberties. it's a considerate gesture to those who still need as much protection as possible.

[tweetiepooh]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

I think there's a degree of selfishness, what happens if you're carrying the virus
unwittingly, you go mask free and there's people who are immunocompromised or immunosuppressed also shopping? Is it right for your actions to place them at increased risk? Or does getting back to a normal way of life exclude those who are most vulnerable?

Wearing a mask offers some reduction in the risk of transmission and infection. it's not a hardship, it's not a reduction of civil liberties. it's a considerate gesture to those who still need as much protection as possible.

Well it's not a great hardship but it isn't very nice and you can't easily taste samples with a mask on, and some masks may even block scent. Buying food should use more than just eyes, touch, smell even sound sometimes and where available taste.

[RichardCoulter]

I'm still shielding, this 'Freedom day' has actually made things worse for vulnerable people like myself.

I had a medication delivery today and the guy was no longer wearing a face mask! I called the pharmacy and was told that they could no longer legally insist on their staff wearing them. I explained that they could require them as their employer, which is especially relevant given their nature of business.

After saying that I required any of their staff to wear a mask on my property or they will be turned away and that risk assessments should have been made under the 'Health & Safety At Wotk Act', he said he'd consult a senior manager and get back to me.

I imagine that there will be similar situations all over the country from today onwards.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

Well it's not a great hardship but it isn't very nice and you can't easily taste samples with a mask on, and some masks may even block scent. Buying food should use more than just eyes, touch, smell even sound sometimes and where available taste.

If we all didn't do things because they 'weren't very nice' there would be a a lot of things not getting done.

Your argument holds some sway in terms of food shopping, and perhaps cosmetics. but little else.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I'm still shielding, this 'Freedom day' has actually made things worse for vulnerable people like myself.

I had a medication delivery today and the guy was no longer wearing a face mask! I called the pharmacy and was told that they could no longer legally insist on their staff wearing them. I explained that they could require them as their employer, which is especially relevant given their nature of business.

After saying that I required any of their staff to wear a mask on my property or they will be turned away and that risk assessments should have been made under the 'Health & Safety At Wotk Act', he said he'd consult a senior manager and get back to me.

I imagine that there will be similar situations all over the country from today onwards.

So you're choosing to go without medication .

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I'm still shielding, this 'Freedom day' has actually made things worse for vulnerable people like myself.

I had a medication delivery today and the guy was no longer wearing a face mask! I called the pharmacy and was told that they could no longer legally insist on their staff wearing them. I explained that they could require them as their employer, which is especially relevant given their nature of business.

After saying that I required any of their staff to wear a mask on my property or they will be turned away and that risk assessments should have been made under the 'Health & Safety At Wotk Act', he said he'd consult a senior manager and get back to me.

I imagine that there will be similar situations all over the country from today onwards.

This however is total and utter overkill, if you're still shielding ask them to put the package down, step back and if needs be spray it or wipe it down with disinfectant wipes etc. What you've done above is antagonistic,inflammatory and puerile

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

I think there's a degree of selfishness, what happens if you're carrying the virus
unwittingly, you go mask free and there's people who are immunocompromised or immunosuppressed also shopping? Is it right for your actions to place them at increased risk? Or does getting back to a normal way of life exclude those who are most vulnerable?

Wearing a mask offers some reduction in the risk of transmission and infection. it's not a hardship, it's not a reduction of civil liberties. it's a considerate gesture to those who still need as much protection as possible.

If they need protection or are in the vulnerable group then they should have had the vaccine by now.

There is absolutely no selfishness for not wearing a mask - anyone could pass on any other illness that existed long before covid, that can still potentially kill people and masks were not a requirement then.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Mick

If they need protection or are in the vulnerable group then they should have had the vaccine by now.

There is absolutely no selfishness for not wearing a mask - anyone could pass on any other illness that existed long before covid, that can still potentially kill people and masks were not a requirement then.

An immunocompromised or suppressed individual does not have the same amount of protection against the virus as you or i do as 'normal' individuals. a subset of this group wont be able to EVEN have the vaccine. The boffins we're saying on the news the other night that an eighty year old with both doses of the vaccine has the equivalent protection to a 35yr old who has had no vaccinations.

I can't think of a disease in my lifetime that has posed such a significant risk to the elderly or those as i've mentioned above which can spread so rapidly or so silently. Can you ?

I'll retain my stance that is is to a degree selfish. Thankfully, it would appear from what i've seen on the news today that the vast majority of the public are keen to keep masks.

We have a duty of care to those who who are at risk most in society. this to me comes over and above the fact that we legally not required to wear masks.

[tweetiepooh]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

If we all didn't do things because they 'weren't very nice' there would be a a lot of things not getting done.

Your argument holds some sway in terms of food shopping, and perhaps cosmetics. but little else.

Trouble here that things get complex very quickly. Wear here but not there but not if you are buying this only in this situation.


As can be seen on here there are competing and valid reasons behind wearing or not wearing masks, keeping or dropping rules. Our leaders (again wouldn't matter who they are) have to think in a bigger scale that we as individuals and whichever way things move it's going to "discomfort" someone.


We are looking forward to getting back to church, meeting together, singing together. Our building is big enough and setup in a way that we can have areas separated off for those wanting to "isolate" and the rest of those of us not wanting (or needing) to do so.


I guess shops could set aside periods where masks would be required/requested more strongly for those wanting/needing more protection and that could possibly work except for those in those groups who can't make those times and how do you police the changeover?

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

An immunocompromised or suppressed individual does not have the same amount of protection against the virus as you or i do as 'normal' individuals. a subset of this group wont be able to EVEN have the vaccine. The boffins we're saying on the news the other night that an eighty year old with both doses of the vaccine has the equivalent protection to a 35yr old who has had no vaccinations.

I can't think of a disease in my lifetime that has posed such a significant risk to the elderly or those as i've mentioned above which can spread so rapidly or so silently. Can you ?

I'll retain my stance that is is to a degree selfish. Thankfully, it would appear from what i've seen on the news today that the vast majority of the public are keen to keep masks.

We have a duty of care to those who who are at risk most in society. this to me comes over and above the fact that we legally not required to wear masks.

No it is not selfish.

The media have not seen the vast amount of people today, so I do not equate that to any valid opinion to as to who wants to wear a mask and who does not.

An immunocompromised or suppressed individual does not have the same amount of protection against the virus as you or i do as 'normal' individuals.

And in those circumstances, these individuals would be advised to stay in isolation for their own personal protection. I hope you're not suggesting thousands of these very vulnerable people will be out and about with such a compromised immune system, like it's the normal thing to do.