Coronavirus Thread (Off Topic, Politics) (70 Viewers)

Forums New posts
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
baldy said:
You can’t justify the lockdowns anyway....not when the death rate,according to the official national office of statistic,is is something like 5% - corona’s something like the 20th biggest killer disease this year,but we haven’t locked down the country & lost our shit over the flu or other viruses
Surely if there was a pandemic hospitals would be absolutely heaving,I know the one I work at isn’t because people aren‘t being seen - it really is a load of overhyped guff
Click to expand...
Jesus wept.
 
stupot07

stupot07

Well-Known Member
baldy said:
You can’t justify the lockdowns anyway....not when the death rate,according to the official national office of statistic,is is something like 5% - corona’s something like the 20th biggest killer disease this year,but we haven’t locked down the country & lost our shit over the flu or other viruses
Surely if there was a pandemic hospitals would be absolutely heaving,I know the one I work at isn’t because people aren‘t being seen - it really is a load of overhyped guff
Click to expand...

Hospitals are heaving. The one I work at is.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
 
C

CCFCSteve

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
I think what’s clear is we need proper enforcement of the rules TBF. It’s not a lockdown and people weren’t following the Tier rules either.

It’s blindingly obvious that the way to slow a pandemic is reduce contact between people.
Click to expand...

I don’t think anyone can doubt that. The questions as I’ve raised before are:

Do you lock down areas of the country where there is relatively low spread at the same time as those with significant transmission rates and

Do you close places/locations where you can’t confirm the benefits of doing so (hospitality etc), whilst leaving high transmission locations open ?

Sage, hancock (Johnson - possibly) Starmer and plenty on here don’t see the problem with just a blanket national lockdown, I do. All I know is that a significant proportion of the public dont buy into it and as only 10-20% were fully self isolating when they were diagnosed prior to the second lockdown, a national lockdown (such as ours France, Germanys etc) is likely to have minimal additional benefit to us compared to the tiered system we already had in operation...however does have huge additional costs (health and economic)

ps I’ve said before I understand why people are pushing for (and willing to accept) a national lockdown, I’m just saying look at the data and alternative views on the subject
 
Last edited:
Ian1779

Ian1779

Well-Known Member
CCFCSteve said:
I don’t think anyone can doubt that. The questions as I’ve raised before are:

Do you lock down areas of the country where there is relatively minimal spread at the same time as those with significant transmission rates and

Do you close places/locations where you can’t confirm the benefits of doing so (hospitality etc), whilst leaving high transmission locations open ?

Sage, hancock (Johnson - possibly) Starmer and plenty on here don’t see the problem with just a blanket national lockdown, I do. All I know is that a significant proportion of the public dont buy into it and as only 10-20% were fully self isolating when they were diagnosed prior to the second lockdown, a national lockdown (such as ours France, Germanys etc) is likely to have minimal additional benefit to us compared to the tiered system we already had in operation...however does have huge additional costs (health and economic)

ps I’ve said before I understand why people are pushing for (and willing to accept) a national lockdown, I’m just saying look at the data and alternative views on the subject
Click to expand...
You could argue that the hospital infrastructure in somewhere like Cornwall is insufficient to cope with even the smallest surge.
 
C

CCFCSteve

Well-Known Member
Ian1779 said:
You could argue that the hospital infrastructure in somewhere like Cornwall is insufficient to cope with even the smallest surge.
Click to expand...

100% Ian. Transmission and capacity in regions are what should be considered when implementing restrictions/measures

Edit - as well as understanding the likely benefits of any restrictions/measures taken - this is the main bit which I think is missing !
 
Ian1779

Ian1779

Well-Known Member
I see the PM has backtracked on the free school meals policy over the holidays, and picked a good time to tell everyone.

The cynic in me also thinks it’s because schools won’t make it to the end of term.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
CCFCSteve said:
I don’t think anyone can doubt that. The questions as I’ve raised before are:

Do you lock down areas of the country where there is relatively low spread at the same time as those with significant transmission rates and

Do you close places/locations where you can’t confirm the benefits of doing so (hospitality etc), whilst leaving high transmission locations open ?

Sage, hancock (Johnson - possibly) Starmer and plenty on here don’t see the problem with just a blanket national lockdown, I do. All I know is that a significant proportion of the public dont buy into it and as only 10-20% were fully self isolating when they were diagnosed prior to the second lockdown, a national lockdown (such as ours France, Germanys etc) is likely to have minimal additional benefit to us compared to the tiered system we already had in operation...however does have huge additional costs (health and economic)

ps I’ve said before I understand why people are pushing for (and willing to accept) a national lockdown, I’m just saying look at the data and alternative views on the subject
Click to expand...

Well polling suggests that actually the vast majority to buy into lockdown. The problem as I see it is lack of enforcement so everyone’s pushing it because they see everyone else pushing it. And whether you agree with it or not if you see no one else following you’re less likely to.

I suspect that the only way you’ll significantly impact spread is to close secondary schools, unis, and bars and pubs. Although even bars and pubs I suspect wouldn’t be that bad. It’s the pure numbers in secondary schools and unis that I think are doing it.

I’m not convinced by local lockdowns at all. In a small country with such a mobile workforce I don’t see how it’s workable.
 
B

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Ian1779 said:
I see the PM has backtracked on the free school meals policy over the holidays, and picked a good time to tell everyone.

The cynic in me also thinks it’s because schools won’t make it to the end of term.
Click to expand...

I still think he will stubbornly keep them open regardless. I’m taking the view that whatever fucks me over the most is what will happen
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
Well polling suggests that actually the vast majority to buy into lockdown. The problem as I see it is lack of enforcement so everyone’s pushing it because they see everyone else pushing it. And whether you agree with it or not if you see no one else following you’re less likely to.

I suspect that the only way you’ll significantly impact spread is to close secondary schools, unis, and bars and pubs. Although even bars and pubs I suspect wouldn’t be that bad. It’s the pure numbers in secondary schools and unis that I think are doing it.

I’m not convinced by local lockdowns at all. In a small country with such a mobile workforce I don’t see how it’s workable.
Click to expand...

I agree about the local lockdowns - if people can move freely between areas what's the point? If anything it encourages people to go to areas in lower tiers and less restrictions thus aiding the spread.

I can also understand the mentality towards lockdown - not just because of how hard it was last time but this time if they're trying to keep workplaces/schools open - often indoor places with many people who then go home etc - but other activities are banned which are far less likely to spread the disease which are more fun/recreational, people are going to think "why am I putting myself in these environments doing stuff I don't particularly enjoy if I can't go into other safer environments to relieve the stress and pressure? Either it's dangerous and we should keep away from all of these environments or it's not and they're all fine."

Once again they're trying to protect the economy and by so doing are going to cause more damage to it by endangering lives.
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
baldy said:
You can’t justify the lockdowns anyway....not when the death rate,according to the official national office of statistic,is is something like 5% - corona’s something like the 20th biggest killer disease this year,but we haven’t locked down the country & lost our shit over the flu or other viruses
Surely if there was a pandemic hospitals would be absolutely heaving,I know the one I work at isn’t because people aren‘t being seen - it really is a load of overhyped guff
Click to expand...

Most of the biggest killers aren't transmissible person to person. Flu is but we've got a vaccines (not foolproof) to manage/mitigate the problem.

If you've got hospitals with huge influxes of Covid patients it then doesn't have the ability to deal with the other diseases either so you get a double whammy. Control the spread of corona as best as possible, minimise hospitalisations and there's more capacity for sorting out cancer/heart patients/flu etc.
 
K

Kieranp96

Well-Known Member
Deleted member 5849 said:
Roads are busy this time too (including me, I suppose, in order to notice!).

Last time, when I took my car out just to check the battery wasn't dead, I was about the only car on the road.
Click to expand...
It sbecause alot of places still have there work force working, first lockdown there was no where open apart from the essential, now warehouses, manufacturing and offices are all open.
 
Skybluefaz

Skybluefaz

Well-Known Member
skybluetony176 said:
Some much needed good news
www.bbc.co.uk

Covid vaccine: First 'milestone' vaccine offers 90% protection

The vaccine is a "significant step" forward for getting life back to normal, but challenges remain.
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
Let's get it out there and return to some sort of normality. I was daydreaming about watching the city (wherever that may be) in a packed out stadium, with everyone singing the sky blue song. Hopefully a reality in the coming months. Albeit not a full stadium for a myriad of reasons.
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Great news. Lets hope it all comes good and we can start to see things returning to normal. Timing certainly ties in with other things we've heard.
 
skybluetony176

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
clint van damme said:
50 million doses to be produced this year, 1.3 billion doses to be produced next year, odds on world war 3 kicks off over who gets them!!
Click to expand...
Apparently we’ve already paid for 30M doses. Some experts also saying we’ll need more than one vaccine type as it won’t be one size fits all, pointing to the flu vaccine as an example. Children have a different vaccine administered in a different way compared to the elderly.
 
Liquid Gold

Liquid Gold

Well-Known Member
Get it in my veins


giphy.gif
 
Sbarcher

Sbarcher

Well-Known Member
With no reported side-effects. I'm told it's based around a current vaccine with a few "tweaks" so therefore confidence it can move forward quickly with the Review Bodies.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
What does 90% protection actually mean in reality? It's still unclear how long protection lasts, too, but I guess that's not as relevant, as the point is to suppress how much it's transmitted, so it becomes more like catching pneumonia, or something else - unlucky!
 
jimmyhillsfanclub

jimmyhillsfanclub

Well-Known Member
The data presented is not the final analysis. It is based on the first 94 volunteers to test positive for Covid - the precise effectiveness of the vaccine may change when the full results are analysed.
Click to expand...

1604926647987.png
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Deleted member 5849 said:
What does 90% protection actually mean in reality? It's still unclear how long protection lasts, too, but I guess that's not as relevant, as the point is to suppress how much it's transmitted, so it becomes more like catching pneumonia, or something else - unlucky!
Click to expand...
The how long it lasts thing is interesting. If its just a case of having it annually like the flu jab then not really an issue. If it means it wears off and then you're back to square one that's a very different scenario. Assume its the former as that seems to be how it works with other vaccines.
 
skybluetony176

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Deleted member 5849 said:
What does 90% protection actually mean in reality? It's still unclear how long protection lasts, too, but I guess that's not as relevant, as the point is to suppress how much it's transmitted, so it becomes more like catching pneumonia, or something else - unlucky!
Click to expand...
I think it’s similar to the pneumonia vaccine in that it trains the immune system. Think I’m right in thinking that the pneumonia vaccine as an adult is a one off vaccine, different for children as they have a course of vaccines.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Deleted member 5849 said:
What does 90% protection actually mean in reality? It's still unclear how long protection lasts, too, but I guess that's not as relevant, as the point is to suppress how much it's transmitted, so it becomes more like catching pneumonia, or something else - unlucky!
Click to expand...

Reading up a bit it seems to at least make people asymptomatic with 90% efficacy.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
shmmeee said:
Reading up a bit it seems to at least make people asymptomatic with 90% efficacy.
Click to expand...
What does that mean practically, however?

I mean, that's just a number to me. Is 10% non-asymptomatic a risk that's deemed suitable in normality?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 66 (members: 0, guests: 66)
Top