|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2020 14:47:35 GMT
Anyone who has decided to mix with others needs to steer clear of me because of my own health concerns. That they don't (and many just won't) is the largest growing mental health problem here. I was out for a late night walk recently and saw a younger colleague breezily going into the pub. Are they going to distance from me if back in work? Unlikely, so, for me, I can only see months of torture ahead. Some days, being faced with this, makes it barely livable.
The mental health costs of the 'I can't believe it's not herd immunity' approach are massive, let alone the physical costs of which we are becoming all too aware.
|
|
2,024 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Aug 6, 2020 14:48:54 GMT
I would counterpoint that with how much sense does it make to open if audiences are too scared or unwilling to gather? That would be more damaging, theatres investing all the money to open then not getting the audiences they need to stay afloat. I'm thrilled at the amount of outdoor gigs that are happening and I hope it can go some way to regaining a bit if normality, but a lot of them are in London, which requires a train or coach, which many are avoiding at the moment. There are many though, that are not scared to gather, or to be in crowds. Download all the Merlin theme parks apps and check the queue times Look at the load factors on European flights. Look at the 100 or so people queued outside Wagamama on Tuesday night waiting for a table. A lot of people are very happy to go out and about, and if you're not one of them then that is your choice.
And thank god for them. People with some gumption.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2020 14:50:45 GMT
This is not flu-like. This is the major mistake made early on and some people are still dangerously fixated on that, including the UK government it seems. It starts out as respiratory but then rapidly turned into something much wider. Much damage is done to the cardiovascular system. If yours is already compromised then you can expect serious consequences, from further deterioration to death. If it isn’t then a serious response will cause CVD. Only now are those who have had limited symptoms finding this has affected them. There is also growing concern over long term neurological damage. This is not “flu-like”. Nowhere near. To vulnerable, old and people with risk factors, no. However the rest of us will get over it - the way we get over flu.
That's the reality, not the narrative being pushed to the point of brainwashing.
You are well behind on this. I really do recommend that people start to properly engage with this at the level of medical experts. You are falling prey to media simplification and their just downright being well behind the curve. Look at the research on long term effects and you will get a better sense of where this is going. |
|
2,024 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Aug 6, 2020 14:55:14 GMT
Anyone who has decided to mix with others needs to steer clear of me because of my own health concerns. That they don't (and many just won't) is the largest growing mental health problem here. I was out for a late night walk recently and saw a younger colleague breezily going into the pub. Are they going to distance from me if back in work? Unlikely, so, for me, I can only see months of torture ahead. Some days, being faced with this, makes it barely livable. The mental health costs of the 'I can't believe it's not herd immunity' approach are massive, let alone the physical costs of which we are becoming all too aware.
I do feel for people who are old and vulnerable (i.e. like the vast percentage of people that have died had "at least two serious health issues" - I read in The Times I think)
I really don't know what the answer is for them (other than shield until the magic vaccine, or at least a decent treatment presents itself -I thought it already had, but there's something fishy going on there.....)
It does indeed seem like a life with little hope, and please accept my sincerest best wishes to you that the situation changes soon. However, I think the bulk of us healthy, not obese and robust individuals need to get back to work (and keep paying into the NHS for us all).
|
|
2,024 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Aug 6, 2020 14:56:49 GMT
To vulnerable, old and people with risk factors, no. However the rest of us will get over it - the way we get over flu.
That's the reality, not the narrative being pushed to the point of brainwashing.
You are well behind on this. I really do recommend that people start to properly engage with this at the level of medical experts. You are falling prey to media simplification and their just downright being well behind the curve. Look at the research on long term effects and you will get a better sense of where this is going.
No, I am really not behind on this - I'm up on everything - all the conflicting scientific opinion, but thanks for pointing it out.
I steer clear of most of the mainstream media and have a raft of credible sources
|
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Aug 6, 2020 14:58:32 GMT
The point I take issue with is that people who find lockdown incredibly difficult to survive seem to think that because they can't bear it any more there must be some other approach that will allow them to get their lives back, but no such option exists. If it was possible to open more things up without a death toll that would rival smallpox don't you think governments would be doing it? There's only one western government that's putting keeping things open ahead of health and it's going terribly for them: we had a high number of cases, but the US has had more than half that many deaths. We don't have a good option here. All we have is a least bad option that kills the fewest number of people while opening up enough that the economy doesn't tank. If we can get the number of cases down again and get a better tracking system in place then I see no reason why we can't open more areas up. Lockdown is an emergency approach when things are out of control. If we can reduce the number of cases to one or two per local authority per week (and a few weeks ago we weren't far off that) and have a reliable system for quarantining individuals who have been exposed before they show symptoms (what the hell happened to the tracing apps we were promised?) then we'll basically have this thing bottled up until we get a vaccine and in that situation a whole load more things can get back to normal. But if we do things in the wrong order then we'll be back in April again. That is exactly what I wanted to type. Essentially it comes down to those who want to take the risk will, but because the risk isn't just to them it's to everybody else they come in contact with, it's impossible to navigate and there are no easy answers. And I do wish people would refrain from labelling anybody who voices a modicum of concern as 'doom mongering'. Discussing the very real effects of this pandemic is part and parcel of the wider discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2020 15:00:06 GMT
You are well behind on this. I really do recommend that people start to properly engage with this at the level of medical experts. You are falling prey to media simplification and their just downright being well behind the curve. Look at the research on long term effects and you will get a better sense of where this is going.
No, I am really not behind on this - I'm up on everything - all the conflicting scientific opinion, but thanks for pointing it out.
I steer clear of most of the mainstream media and have a raft of credible sources
Twitter doesnt count |
|
2,763 posts
|
Post by n1david on Aug 6, 2020 15:01:56 GMT
So do you follow your self-selected experts, or what you "thought" you read in a mainstream newspaper that you claim to "steer clear" of?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2020 15:07:55 GMT
You are well behind on this. I really do recommend that people start to properly engage with this at the level of medical experts. You are falling prey to media simplification and their just downright being well behind the curve. Look at the research on long term effects and you will get a better sense of where this is going.
No, I am really not behind on this - I'm up on everything - all the conflicting scientific opinion, but thanks for pointing it out.
I steer clear of most of the mainstream media and have a raft of credible sources
Go straight to the source, if anybody is commenting on it they are spinning. Searchable database of each published study here - zika.ispm.unibe.ch/assets/data/pub/search_beta/ |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2020 15:10:42 GMT
Also, can we stop referring to people who are high-risk as 'the vulnerable' as if it's some sort of disability categorisation. There are thousands of 20-40 years olds who are at a higher risk of mortality or critical complications, I find it such a demeaning term with regard to COVID.
And. Yes everyones struggling with some degree of mental anguish currently.
All we want is to get back to our comfortable lives pre-covid.
Getting back into the theatre might temporary make us warm and fuzzy inside but you have to remember
THERE IS A GLOBAL PANDEMIC OCCURRING CURRENTLY.
We are all having to make sacrifices to some degree on a societal & personal level.
It is not about me or what I want, it is about what does or doesn't work for society as a whole.
If that includes not being able to go to a theatre, so be it.
We need to accept that and look at how we can comfort ourselves in other ways.
Contribute. Dont become the victim.
|
|
2,504 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Aug 6, 2020 15:15:43 GMT
Its doesn't matter whether a person themselves feels like they want to take the risk. Its so infectious you'll more than likely pass it on to someone who doesn't want to catch it/die
|
|
2,412 posts
|
Post by theatreian on Aug 6, 2020 15:16:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2020 15:40:58 GMT
For the apparently large section of the population that never wanted to do anything apart from sit in their pants and watch Netflix, I understand that this will be less of an issue. I have to agree with sf that this is a very low blow @abby - before the pandemic I was out 4-5 nights a week, but with both of us with underlying health conditions that are likely to make Covid infection a bit more serious than the flu, I have to be careful about how to reintegrate with society. I am absolutely supportive of those who want to restart now, going out and partying, watching theatre in a non-SD way, going back to work or whatever. You want to do it, you go for it, believe me I understand the mental health issues around lockdown and if someone can help jumpstart the economy then I'm all for that. But if I can be respectful and understanding of those who do want to take the risk, maybe I can ask for some consideration in return? The risks are different for everyone - whether they be health risks, financial risks, to those and others around you. Implying that we are lazy or irrationally scared is an equally abhorrent view to those that say we should stay in lockdown forever. The risks are out there, we see that in Leicester, in Aberdeen, in Manchester. I'm monitoring what's going on, I'm dipping my toe in the water of life again whilst keeping an eye on the national and international trends on infection. I'm not ready for non-SD theatre yet, maybe I will be next month, or in November, or maybe it will be next year. I'll see how this virus evolves and what reopening society does for infection rates, and if we can get our damn track and trace system functioning in a meaningful way. I really hope you get to see the theatre you want to see soon, But maybe don't portray those of us who aren't willing to get out there in such an enthusiastic way as any less passionate about theatre and the economy and any more lazy or disinterested in society than you are. Thank you You're completely right, I knew what I wanted to say and that wasn't it. Apologies for upsetting you or offending you. |
|
1,972 posts
|
Post by sf on Aug 6, 2020 16:01:00 GMT
However, I think the bulk of us healthy, not obese and robust individuals need to get back to work (and keep paying into the NHS for us all). There's a rather nasty - not to mention staggeringly arrogant - underlying assumption here which needs to be challenged. Plenty of people, whether they're considered higher-risk or not, who have chosen to stay at home have never stopped working, and have never stopped contributing. |
|
19,803 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 6, 2020 16:05:06 GMT
My life. And yes I’ve been working throughout 🙂   |
|
2,412 posts
|
Post by theatreian on Aug 6, 2020 16:13:15 GMT
Now I want Ben and Jerry's Peanut Butter Ice Cream!
|
|
2,024 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Aug 6, 2020 17:05:51 GMT
However, I think the bulk of us healthy, not obese and robust individuals need to get back to work (and keep paying into the NHS for us all). There's a rather nasty - not to mention staggeringly arrogant - underlying assumption here which needs to be challenged. Plenty of people, whether they're considered higher-risk or not, who have chosen to stay at home have never stopped working, and have never stopped contributing.
That didn't come out how it was supposed to - all I am saying is there are massive sectors of commerce that are literally dying on their arses, and their employees are on the breadline. Should they or should they not have an opportunity to go out and provide for themselves and their family?
|
|
2,024 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Aug 6, 2020 17:08:11 GMT
So do you follow your self-selected experts, or what you "thought" you read in a mainstream newspaper that you claim to "steer clear" of? No. I listen to a whole raft, including people who I know who are part of the science community and send me stuff from eminent people they work with - the views run the gamut. I don't live in an echo chamber. |
|
1,972 posts
|
Post by sf on Aug 6, 2020 17:19:55 GMT
There's a rather nasty - not to mention staggeringly arrogant - underlying assumption here which needs to be challenged. Plenty of people, whether they're considered higher-risk or not, who have chosen to stay at home have never stopped working, and have never stopped contributing.
That didn't come out how it was supposed to - all I am saying is there are massive sectors of commerce that are literally dying on their arses, and their employees are on the breadline. Should they or should they not have an opportunity to go out and provide for themselves and their family?
The trouble is, it isn't that simple - and that's a cynically loaded proposition, because we both know it isn't that simple. If it was only about weighing the risk to yourself, of course the answer would be an unequivocal yes. But it isn't, and whether people should have the right to choose to put other people at risk - people who may be more vulnerable than they are themselves - is a much more complicated moral question. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2020 17:32:30 GMT
To vulnerable, old and people with risk factors, no. However the rest of us will get over it - the way we get over flu.
That's the reality, not the narrative being pushed to the point of brainwashing.
Yeah, and all these longer term health conditions that are emerging as a result of having had COVID, they are all brainwashing. 1 in 2 of us will get cancer in our lifetime anyway - long term health conditions and serious illnesses are unfortunately part of being human. There is taking adequate precautions (mask, sanitizer and distancing where possible), and then there is trying to wrap yourself in cotton wool. The latter is unrealistic for anyone who leaves the house at all. It is obviously different for people with existing underlying health conditions which make them more vulnerable to this virus than most, but for those who aren't in that high risk category (and don't regularly come into contact with those who are) then there is no reason not to get on with life with a few adaptations like masks, while you can. I think what it boils down to for me is that everyone should be capable of assessing their own risk level - I'm not vulnerable, I don't live with or come into contact deliberately with anyone vulnerable. Anyone vulnerable that I do come into contact with will be on a train, in a supermarket or walking down a street, where they have chosen to be. I wear a mask, I keep my distance. I'm not sure what else I can do, and I'm not sure it's of any benefit to anyone to keep me locked down in my house when I could be out spending the money I saved during lockdown and pumping it in to the local economy. Otherwise really what is the point of keeping going at all? |
|
1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Aug 6, 2020 17:38:58 GMT
sf you are right it is not all about the individual but their risk of infecting others. I consider myself low risk and am going out more as I live alone, have no family nearby and keep myself to myself (now working from home and can be weeks before I talk or meet up with anyone) and therefore when not out and about am more or less self-isolating when at home. If I was meeting elderly relatives / friends regularly or going to a workplace where infecting others was a possibility I would be more cautious. At the moment I would attend a production with pre-COVID seating arrangements on the understanding that I have a duty of care in the days afterwards to minimise the risk of infecting others if I was unlucky to become infected.
|
|
2,763 posts
|
Post by n1david on Aug 6, 2020 18:41:38 GMT
So do you follow your self-selected experts, or what you "thought" you read in a mainstream newspaper that you claim to "steer clear" of? No. I listen to a whole raft, including people who I know who are part of the science community and send me stuff from eminent people they work with - the views run the gamut. I don't live in an echo chamber. You absolutely miss my point, which isn't surprising. You claim to be on top of the science from experts, but when push comes to shove you quote an article that you can't source, from a newspaper you claim not to read. |
|
4,033 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Aug 6, 2020 19:09:01 GMT
Anyone vulnerable that I do come into contact with will be on a train, in a supermarket or walking down a street, where they have chosen to be. Hasn't the government just ended shielding & associated support to people who were shielding though? So now vulnerable people might be forced to, for instance, go to the supermarket if they're no longer receiving food parcels & can't get a delivery when they need one or afford the minimum spend required for a delivery. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2020 19:15:53 GMT
Well, if they want theatre to survive on the offchance they may contract a flu like virus that we're just going to have to live with.
Make your choice. Some of us are happy to get on with it, and not live cowering in fear.
This is not flu-like. This is the major mistake made early on and some people are still dangerously fixated on that, including the UK government it seems. It starts out as respiratory but then rapidly turned into something much wider. Much damage is done to the cardiovascular system. If yours is already compromised then you can expect serious consequences, from further deterioration to death. If it isn’t then a serious response will cause CVD. Only now are those who have had limited symptoms finding this has affected them. There is also growing concern over long term neurological damage. This is not “flu-like”. Nowhere near. They put the flu figures against Covid but the Covid figures are with social distancing and we never hear about hospitals being overrun with flu like they nearly were with Covid. |
|
5,073 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Aug 6, 2020 19:19:50 GMT
I don't think anyone is advocating going into complete lock-down again. But it is finding the point where we can have a economy and controlling the Covid infection rate, the dangers of opening too quick has been laid bare in some states in the US, such as Florida, Texas, California and Georgia. Where states that have proceeded with caution and listened to the science such as New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and New Jersey have fared a whole lot better.
If we all wore masks, washed our hands, sanitised and social distanced for 3 weeks, we could get rid of this damn thing. Ultimately it is short term pain for long term gain.
It is clear that a strong economy and Covid will not live together.
|
|
