UK News, Updates and Discussion

SternAAlbifrons · Post by **SternAAlbifrons** » Thu Nov 19, 2020 1:56 am

Personally, imo only, i am a fan of our targeted lockdown regimes here in the Antipodes.
They work. and the alternative, of simply giving up, is quite obviously not the smart thing to do at this point.

But that is in a situ with low enough numbers that it can be managed.
I can't imagine how in Hell lockdowns are going to work when millions of people are already infected, and half the rest are not fully on board with the attempts at containment.
This thing is so contagious that just a few cases can send up the the whole munitions dump in a flash.

On the other hand, even tho' it may be too late to tame the beast - your current lockdowns will at least slow it enough so the hospitals and mortuaries are not totally overwhelmed. That would make the situ even worse.
??

nerdlinger · Post by **nerdlinger** » Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:19 am

covidsux wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 12:16 pm However, the reaction to Covid is a little bizarre, in my opinion. Economies and businesses have been sacrificed for just over a million deaths worldwide?

It’s a million *because* we locked down. The way you’re saying it is as though it’s just one million lives at stake. With zero lockdown and restrictions we’d be talking about a complete collapse of the healthcare systems of every country and (fag packet calculation based on cfr plus knock on effects of collapsed healthcare) anything from 50-100 million people dead plus as much as a billion with long-term “long covid” health problems.

It’s like asking why I’ve wasted time and money on buying a lock for my front door and locking it every time I go out, when my house has only been burgled a couple of times.

nerdlinger · Post by **nerdlinger** » Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:27 am

Doc67 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 9:23 am
hburns wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 3:52 am PM Boris Johnson self-isolating after contact with someone who tested positive for Covid-19, Downing Street says

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54954698
Why? He's had it, and should have immunity. Is he afraid of catching it again? Why would someone immune need to self isolate? Does he know something we don't?

It is daft but I don’t blame him given the number of “do as we say not as we do” scandals involving MPs and Cummings breaking coronavirus rules. If he didn’t isolate he’d be sending the message that anyone can make themselves exempt from the law by just claiming to have already had covid.

Also there’s an increasing number of cases of people getting it and then getting it again months later.

nerdlinger · Post by **nerdlinger** » Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:33 am

nerdlinger wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:19 am
covidsux wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 12:16 pm However, the reaction to Covid is a little bizarre, in my opinion. Economies and businesses have been sacrificed for just over a million deaths worldwide?
It’s a million *because* we locked down. The way you’re saying it is as though it’s just one million lives at stake. With zero lockdown and restrictions we’d be talking about a complete collapse of the healthcare systems of every country and (fag packet calculation based on cfr plus knock on effects of collapsed healthcare) anything from 50-100 million people dead plus as much as a billion with long-term “long covid” health problems.

Presumably by your logic if the lockdowns had got global deaths down to 100 they would have been an even bigger waste of resources?

It’s like asking why I’ve wasted time and money on buying a lock for my front door and locking it every time I go out, when my house has only been burgled a couple of times.

nerdlinger · Post by **nerdlinger** » Thu Nov 19, 2020 4:04 am

Fml I don’t know how editing posts works here

covidsux · Post by **covidsux** » Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:32 am

someone wrote: Why? He's had it, and should have immunity.

I don't think it's been proven that having it makes one 100% immune. Several people have had it twice.

Also not sure we should assume numbers if we hadn't done anything. Cambodia actually did very little, and ha shad fortunate results. America, on the other hand, seemed determined to get rid of the old and vulnerable

Would a mask mandate and other measures have worked if applied solely to vulnerable groups?

covidsux · Post by **covidsux** » Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:38 am

DaveG wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 12:57 am over 500 dead today alone and here we go again " fuckin Christmas" they should just cancel it this year and be done with it

What is the normal daily death rate for November in the UK? (I did Google it, but couldn't find anything)

hburns · Post by **hburns** » Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:48 am

covidsux wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:32 am someone wrote: Why? He's had it, and should have immunity.

I don't think it's been proven that having it makes one 100% immune. Several people have had it twice.

Also not sure we should assume numbers if we hadn't done anything. Cambodia actually did very little, and ha shad fortunate results. America, on the other hand, seemed determined to get rid of the old and vulnerable

Would a mask mandate and other measures have worked if applied solely to vulnerable groups?

No. The mask is not to protect the mask wearer, it is to minimise the risk of people with the virus passing it on to others. That really shouldn't need explaining by now. With so many people having the virus and showing no symptoms it is important to be wearing a mask.

Maybe, just maybe, if everyone had been following all of the advice the country wouldn't be as bad off as it is now. Its really annoyed me how ignorant and selfish so many have been. Not only have those people cost others their lives but they also need to bear some of the responsibility for the huge number of jobs being lost.

covidsux · Post by **covidsux** » Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:54 am

hburns wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:48 amNo. The mask is not to protect the mask wearer, it is to minimise the risk of people with the virus passing it on to others. That really shouldn't need explaining by now.

I know that.

Not sure why you assumed my statement implied I didn't know about why we wear masks.

You realize that an old mask-wearer wearing a mask will not be infecting other old and vulnerable people, yes?

The aim would be to reduce infections among the most vulnerable.

hburns · Post by **hburns** » Thu Nov 19, 2020 6:21 am

covidsux wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:54 am
hburns wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:48 amNo. The mask is not to protect the mask wearer, it is to minimise the risk of people with the virus passing it on to others. That really shouldn't need explaining by now.
I know that.

Not sure why you assumed my statement implied I didn't know about why we wear masks.

You realize that an old mask-wearer wearing a mask will not be infecting other old and vulnerable people, yes?

The aim would be to reduce infections among the most vulnerable.

This will be why.

covidsux wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:32 am Would a mask mandate and other measures have worked if applied solely to vulnerable groups?

The second wave in Britain and in much of Europe began with increased infections amongst the young and spread to the older and more vulnerable groups. Everyone has been told to wear a mask to reduce infections among everyone. Are you trying to say that old people don't wear them or are you saying that only old people should be wearing them?

UK News, Updates and Discussion

Re: UK News, Updates and Discussion

Re: UK News, Updates and Discussion

Re: UK News, Updates and Discussion

Re: UK News, Updates and Discussion

Re: UK News, Updates and Discussion

Re: UK News, Updates and Discussion

Re: UK News, Updates and Discussion

Re: UK News, Updates and Discussion

Re: UK News, Updates and Discussion

Re: UK News, Updates and Discussion

Who is online

Register/Login to CEO with your Social Media Account: