|
|
Post by talkingheads on Sept 6, 2020 15:19:17 GMT
Has there been any studies yet into how long, after flu season of course, mask wearing and social distancing might go on? Have any realistic timeframes actually come up? This year has been a complete write off since March, there seems to be hope for next year but I don't know how much research has been done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2020 17:04:20 GMT
Has there been any studies yet into how long, after flu season of course, mask wearing and social distancing might go on? Have any realistic timeframes actually come up? The only realistic timeframes are either "until the number of cases reaches zero" or "until we have a vaccine". There seem to be a disturbingly large number of people who think that we've shown the virus who's boss and now it won't bother us any more, but it's the same virus it was at the start of the year and if we abandon the distancing and masks it'll behave the same way as before. No matter how much people want it to be otherwise or how much they insist that we must get back to normal, this isn't a problem that's just going to fade away. |
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Sept 6, 2020 17:08:07 GMT
Has there been any studies yet into how long, after flu season of course, mask wearing and social distancing might go on? Have any realistic timeframes actually come up? The only realistic timeframes are either "until the number of cases reaches zero" or "until we have a vaccine". There seem to be a disturbingly large number of people who think that we've shown the virus who's boss and now it won't bother us any more, but it's the same virus it was at the start of the year and if we abandon the distancing and masks it'll behave the same way as before. No matter how much people want it to be otherwise or how much they insist that we must get back to normal, this isn't a problem that's just going to fade away. But isn't saying 'until there's a vaccine or no cases' also wildly unrealistic? The virus mutates and a vaccine ceases to be useful. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2020 17:40:01 GMT
The only realistic timeframes are either "until the number of cases reaches zero" or "until we have a vaccine". There seem to be a disturbingly large number of people who think that we've shown the virus who's boss and now it won't bother us any more, but it's the same virus it was at the start of the year and if we abandon the distancing and masks it'll behave the same way as before. No matter how much people want it to be otherwise or how much they insist that we must get back to normal, this isn't a problem that's just going to fade away. But isn't saying 'until there's a vaccine or no cases' also wildly unrealistic? The virus mutates and a vaccine ceases to be useful. All viruses mutate but vaccines still work. Mutation is a problem for natural resistance because there are always going to be pockets of people whose immunity is out of date but a vaccination programme means the whole population gets resistant to a recent strain of the virus at once. Also, we can keep on updating vaccines. We may never completely eradicate this disease but with vaccination we can probably get it down to a few deaths a month, just like we have with other diseases. |
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Sept 6, 2020 18:36:51 GMT
I feel like the fact there were almost 3,000 new cases should be more headline news rather than snuck out in a tweet:
|
|
4,810 posts
|
Post by Mark on Sept 7, 2020 4:42:36 GMT
I feel like the fact there were almost 3,000 new cases should be more headline news rather than snuck out in a tweet: Test test test. The real question is how many of these people were actually Ill. |
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Sept 7, 2020 7:47:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by nick on Sept 7, 2020 7:50:07 GMT
I feel like the fact there were almost 3,000 new cases should be more headline news rather than snuck out in a tweet: Test test test. The real question is how many of these people were actually Ill. I know where you’re coming from. But the real question for me (my wife is highly vulnerable) is how many people are they infecting ( the good old R value). Then we can see where this is heading - back to March or a blip that goes away again. Then we can work out whether she can ease the almost total lockdown she’s had since March. |
|
318 posts
|
Post by MrBraithwaite on Sept 7, 2020 8:56:05 GMT
Always said, when I go back to London after Brexit (and now Covid) I will experience Britain in the 1970s.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Sept 7, 2020 12:28:33 GMT
Always said, when I go back to London after Brexit (and now Covid) I will experience Britain in the 1970s. I should have kept that brown and orange blouse with the puffy sleeves and long tight cuff. |
|
311 posts
|
Post by olliebean on Sept 7, 2020 23:03:09 GMT
Well, that escalated quickly... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2020 9:06:28 GMT
How, exactly, was it avoidable?
This virus isnt going away, outbreaks will happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Sept 8, 2020 9:22:22 GMT
How, exactly, was it avoidable? This virus isnt going away, outbreaks will happen. It was avoidable presumably because anyone with an iota of common sense could tell that opening schools would mean a lot of infections. And rather than find alternative ways, such as other countries having grants for laptops for students to work from home etc, or at the very least a system whereby not every student goes in on the same day. Johnson instead went on television at a school and said it was safe. Said school was then shut a few days later from infection. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2020 10:28:09 GMT
How, exactly, was it avoidable? This virus isnt going away, outbreaks will happen. It was avoidable presumably because anyone with an iota of common sense could tell that opening schools would mean a lot of infections. And rather than find alternative ways, such as other countries having grants for laptops for students to work from home etc, or at the very least a system whereby not every student goes in on the same day. Johnson instead went on television at a school and said it was safe. Said school was then shut a few days later from infection. Anyone with an iota of common sense could see that thinking something like grants for laptops is a solution is perpetuating inequality and difficulties for lower socio-economic classes - lack of equipment is not the only issue, or even the main one. Parents also cannot stay out of work indefinitely. Keeping schools closed is impossible on so many levels (and I say that as someone whose opinion of the PM could not be much lower). We have to learn to live with this virus, not let it dictate our lives, and part of that is accepting that outbreaks will happen and have effective tracing procedures in place to deal with them, rather than naively thinking we can avoid them by hiding under a rock for the next several years (if we are lucky) until there are enough effective vaccines. This can no longer be looked at as a single issue, it has to be balanced against the long term damage of severe limitations on other aspects of society like education. That has the potential to be far more damaging. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2020 11:01:25 GMT
So many contradictory signals have put us in a worse position now than necessary. Keeping an ‘acceptable’ level of 1000 infections a day being, maybe the worst, as it meant having no accurate and functioning track, trace and isolate system. The trade off of freedom and responsibility has also been unbalanced, so many can slip through the net and/or deliberately ignore unpoliced guidelines.
One important thing - young people are not to blame. They have been told they are not at risk, they have seen pubs open, schools open with few safety measures. How are we supposed to expect safe behaviour if the places they are, are (at least in the case of schools, though universities we have yet to see) given laxer guidelines?
The infection rate is high among 10-30 year olds in France, who have published figures, Yesterday Hancock suggested that the high point here is sixth form/university age, radiating out younger and older. So that message that ‘schools will be last to close’ is a massive unnecessary hostage to fortune. Are the government really going to be able to hold the two contradictory ideas together? Young people share the same places as older people, they clearly are transmitting it just as effectively, how do you stop it radiating out further to ages who are at real risk of severe illness?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2020 11:37:55 GMT
One important thing - young people are not to blame. They have been told they are not at risk, they have seen pubs open, schools open with few safety measures. How are we supposed to expect safe behaviour if the places they are, are (at least in the case of schools, though universities we have yet to see) given laxer guidelines? Have they actually been told they weren't at risk? Young people are certainly at lower risk of dying, but it wasn't long after the disease first hit Britain that we saw the first death of a young person with no previously existing health complications so it's not exactly news to anyone that everyone has at least some risk. And you don't need to have studied biology at university to understand the idea of diseases being transmitted from person to person. There are no excuses. I'm getting thoroughly sick of people blaming the government in an attempt to excuse members of the public behaving selfishly and irresponsibly. The message all along has been: keep your distance, wash your hands, sanitise things, and for the last couple of months wear masks. Even in the case of pubs it's been about maintaining distance, with table service only and no standing at the bar. Absolutely nothing anywhere has even hinted that's it's OK to go to a rave or crowd shoulder to shoulder in a bar or pile on to a small beach. If people adopt an attitude of "There's little risk to me so I'll do what I like" that's entirely on them. This isn't about people being confused. This about people not giving a f—. People need to think for themselves because that's the only way we can have a nuanced approach that permits partial opening. The government can't individually inspect every single venue and set policy on a case by case basis. Government can only set global policies, and if the government is going to clamp down it needs to do it everywhere. And that means a second lockdown, because if people won't make the responsible choice themselves the government has to take the choice away from them. We can't have it both ways. |
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Sept 8, 2020 11:44:51 GMT
One important thing - young people are not to blame. They have been told they are not at risk, they have seen pubs open, schools open with few safety measures. How are we supposed to expect safe behaviour if the places they are, are (at least in the case of schools, though universities we have yet to see) given laxer guidelines? Have they actually been told they weren't at risk? Young people are certainly at lower risk of dying, but it wasn't long after the disease first hit Britain that we saw the first death of a young person with no previously existing health complications so it's not exactly news to anyone that everyone has at least some risk. And you don't need to have studied biology at university to understand the idea of diseases being transmitted from person to person. There are no excuses. I'm getting thoroughly sick of people blaming the government in an attempt to excuse members of the public behaving selfishly and irresponsibly. The message all along has been: keep your distance, wash your hands, sanitise things, and for the last couple of months wear masks. Even in the case of pubs it's been about maintaining distance, with table service only and no standing at the bar. Absolutely nothing anywhere has even hinted that's it's OK to go to a rave or crowd shoulder to shoulder in a bar or pile on to a small beach. If people adopt an attitude of "There's little risk to me so I'll do what I like" that's entirely on them. This isn't about people being confused. This about people not giving a f—. People need to think for themselves because that's the only way we can have a nuanced approach that permits partial opening. The government can't individually inspect every single venue and set policy on a case by case basis. Government can only set global policies, and if the government is going to clamp down it needs to do it everywhere. And that means a second lockdown, because if people won't make the responsible choice themselves the government has to take the choice away from them. We can't have it both ways. In many ways I wish the Government would implement a second lockdown. It was absolutely the wishy washy 'do this is you possibly maybe could but no worries if not, go to work but don't' messaging that got the country into deeper trouble. A concentrated strict lockdown was needed from the start. Getting the economy going doesn't mean a damn if numbers keep rising. I do honestly think that, eventually, we're heading for Universal Basic Income. The stop-start of opening and closing isn't viable for businesses and with Covid being such a fluid situation it is really the only fair way, especially to those who haven't been able to work since March and won't be able to for a long time to come. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2020 12:35:26 GMT
Saying that no masks should be worn in schools was one massive government indication that teens are safe. Many other countries have done the opposite, this was a deliberate message being sent. Twenty-somethings less of an excuse bur, even then, the message has been that you will not have a serious version of the disease. The panicked ‘don’t kill Granny’ rhetoric we now see wouldn’t be necessary if that message had been conveyed more calmly by policy and actions to police that policy earlier.
The problem flows from government. They have abdicated responsibility so that they can blame others instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2020 12:53:33 GMT
Have they actually been told they weren't at risk? Young people are certainly at lower risk of dying, but it wasn't long after the disease first hit Britain that we saw the first death of a young person with no previously existing health complications so it's not exactly news to anyone that everyone has at least some risk. And you don't need to have studied biology at university to understand the idea of diseases being transmitted from person to person. There are no excuses. I'm getting thoroughly sick of people blaming the government in an attempt to excuse members of the public behaving selfishly and irresponsibly. The message all along has been: keep your distance, wash your hands, sanitise things, and for the last couple of months wear masks. Even in the case of pubs it's been about maintaining distance, with table service only and no standing at the bar. Absolutely nothing anywhere has even hinted that's it's OK to go to a rave or crowd shoulder to shoulder in a bar or pile on to a small beach. If people adopt an attitude of "There's little risk to me so I'll do what I like" that's entirely on them. This isn't about people being confused. This about people not giving a f—. People need to think for themselves because that's the only way we can have a nuanced approach that permits partial opening. The government can't individually inspect every single venue and set policy on a case by case basis. Government can only set global policies, and if the government is going to clamp down it needs to do it everywhere. And that means a second lockdown, because if people won't make the responsible choice themselves the government has to take the choice away from them. We can't have it both ways. In many ways I wish the Government would implement a second lockdown. It was absolutely the wishy washy 'do this is you possibly maybe could but no worries if not, go to work but don't' messaging that got the country into deeper trouble. A concentrated strict lockdown was needed from the start. Getting the economy going doesn't mean a damn if numbers keep rising. I do honestly think that, eventually, we're heading for Universal Basic Income. The stop-start of opening and closing isn't viable for businesses and with Covid being such a fluid situation it is really the only fair way, especially to those who haven't been able to work since March and won't be able to for a long time to come. There have been months to restructure things like education but the ‘back to normal’ attitude has left us high and dry. To a certain extent, businesses continuing WFH will allow for transition to a permanent different way of working but the infrastructure plans don’t seem to have any real work being done on them. We’re supposed to be a nation of innovators but we are going to be left way behind if it is not allowed to flourish. Take education, there has been nothing of note done on creating a proper national online learning platform. Using current staffing there could easily have been a drive to get all schools up and running, to have staff training online during holidays, to source and distribute ways of accessing it. Now that we have also seen how using schools as frontline social services is fraught with danger, where is the bolstering of outside school agencies to support at risk and disadvantaged children properly? So, ‘back to school’ is spiralling within a few days, schools split apart and unable to deliver both live and online education, no alternative plan ready to go, further division of the advantaged/disadvantaged. We have wasted the summer months in a misplaced belief that we were going to be able to return to what was before, Add in examination disasters and we are in a terrible place. We have failed children. Oh, and UBI. Yes, looks absolutely necessary now. |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Sept 8, 2020 14:33:06 GMT
One important thing - young people are not to blame. They have been told they are not at risk, they have seen pubs open, schools open with few safety measures. How are we supposed to expect safe behaviour if the places they are, are (at least in the case of schools, though universities we have yet to see) given laxer guidelines? I'm getting thoroughly sick of people blaming the government We know, you say it in every single post... |
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Sept 8, 2020 15:02:13 GMT
One important thing - young people are not to blame. They have been told they are not at risk, they have seen pubs open, schools open with few safety measures. How are we supposed to expect safe behaviour if the places they are, are (at least in the case of schools, though universities we have yet to see) given laxer guidelines? I'm getting thoroughly sick of people blaming the government I'm getting thoroughly sick of the Government blaming the people. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2020 15:12:11 GMT
I'm getting thoroughly sick of people blaming the government We know, you say it in every single post... Perhaps I wouldn't need to keep saying it if other people didn't keep expecting the government to do all their thinking for them. It's not clever or insightful to keep blaming the government. It's the lazy, mindless option. People rush to the beaches on a sunny day? Blame the government. People refuse to weak masks? Blame the government. Illegal parties? Blame the government. Can't go on holiday? Blame the government. Can't go out? Blame the government. Can go out? Blame the government. Restrictions imposed slowly? Government should have acted faster. Restrictions imposed quickly? Government should have given more warning. I have no idea what the government is going to do over the next few months but I know exactly what some of you are going to say about it, which makes for an excellent drinking game but terrible discussion. But hey, if people want to live in a little bubble of self-congratulatory smugness where everyone around them is utterly incompetent, so be it. |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Sept 8, 2020 15:32:44 GMT
We know, you say it in every single post... but I know exactly what some of you are going to say about it And we know exactly what you're going to say about it... |
|
1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Sept 8, 2020 15:34:51 GMT
The government is incompetent but that does not mean we have to be.
There is enough information on what we need to do to restrict transmission and be relatively safe
- Keep your distance
- Wear a face mask when indoors or interacting closely with strangers
- Wash your hands regularly
- Avoid busy places
- .......
The duty of care lies with the individual not the state, we all need to interact with strangers every day from both a social and economic perspective and this can be done relatively safely as long as we respect each other and make the effort.
Effort is the weakness as we all know we should exercise regularly but very few of us do as it is tough and being COVID aware at all times is tough but it is what we need to do.
Expecting to live your life by government dictat is abdicating responsibility and even more so with this government of imbeciles.
|
|
2,342 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Sept 8, 2020 16:02:37 GMT
The government is incompetent but that does not mean we have to be. There is enough information on what we need to do to restrict transmission and be relatively safe - Keep your distance - Wear a face mask when indoors or interacting closely with strangers - Wash your hands regularly - Avoid busy places - ....... The duty of care lies with the individual not the state, we all need to interact with strangers every day from both a social and economic perspective and this can be done relatively safely as long as we respect each other and make the effort. Effort is the weakness as we all know we should exercise regularly but very few of us do as it is tough and being COVID aware at all times is tough but it is what we need to do. Expecting to live your life by government dictat is abdicating responsibility and even more so with this government of imbeciles. With the rest of the post, does it matter if the government are imbeciles? |
|
