When will this shit end?

[Quark]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

The main point was not overwhelming the NHS...which is what they're still worried about despite the low hospitalisations rates now..because usually NHS beds full of flu patients over the winter.

Well, yes and no.  The main point was saving as many lives as possible; not overwhelming the NHS was a part of that.

Ultimately most of this is (or should be) a human aspect.  Whether it's lives lost directly to C19, or someone not getting their treatment for something else because the systems aren't able to function properly, or people losing their jobs and being unable to support their families, or domestic abuse, or care homes or...whatever.  There's so much to it and the nature of discussion, particularly online, ends up meaning that people will take a position for one and that's then seen or read as them not giving a shit about the other.

I don't know anyone who genuinely thinks "fuck 'em" to any of the cases I mentioned abvove, or that Henrik listed, or anything else. It's all just a bit fucked.

[Quark]

1 minute ago, Ryan1984 said:

Would you say around about now is the time to start having these conversations? Or wait it out through early winter?

I think it has to start now, but the problem is that it has to be done sensitively, openly and with clear statements that allow for both fact and emotion. So clearly the government would fuck that up.

We've had our first swing at it with lockdown and that was relatively successful in terms of where it got us to around numbers. And I mean the infection and mortality rates at the end, not the overall number of deaths and cases btw. It's now staging a comeback.  It's widely acknowledged, if not universally agreed, that a return to that strategy at that same level is not going to work because of the wider costs. So we've got to think a little differently, and that means the hard conversations.

There's a theoretical situation in an old David Gemmell book I read years ago.  If a city of 100,00 people faces destruction, but would be averted by the sacrifice of 10 children, would you pay that cost? Some will always say that's not a price worth paying, regardless of the total number of deaths as a result. And some will always look at it as a simple case of numbers. The challenge is finding the bridge between those schools of thought, and that's when you look for leadership. Unfortunately we have fuck all of that.

[steviewevie]

6 minutes ago, Quark said:

Well, yes and no.  The main point was saving as many lives as possible; not overwhelming the NHS was a part of that.

Ultimately most of this is (or should be) a human aspect.  Whether it's lives lost directly to C19, or someone not getting their treatment for something else because the systems aren't able to function properly, or people losing their jobs and being unable to support their families, or domestic abuse, or care homes or...whatever.  There's so much to it and the nature of discussion, particularly online, ends up meaning that people will take a position for one and that's then seen or read as them not giving a shit about the other.

I don't know anyone who genuinely thinks "fuck 'em" to any of the cases I mentioned abvove, or that Henrik listed, or anything else. It's all just a bit fucked.

if it was about saving as many lives possible then would have had a stricter lockdown, no?

[Quark]

Just now, steviewevie said:

if it was about saving as many lives possible then would have had a stricter lockdown, no?

Depends who you ask I guess.

Anyway, gotta get back to work. Actually got to deliver something this afternoon!

[steviewevie]

7 minutes ago, Quark said:

I don't know anyone who genuinely thinks "fuck 'em" to any of the cases I mentioned abvove, or that Henrik listed, or anything else. It's all just a bit fucked.

It really is very fucked. No easy answers.

[steviewevie]

 

[Fuzzy Afro]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

if it was about saving as many lives possible then would have had a stricter lockdown, no?

Confused how you think it could have been stricter? And please don’t feed me any bullshit about how outdoor exercise shouldn’t have been allowed because that’s incredibly low risk and is very good for mental health. 

[Ryan1984]

1 minute ago, Quark said:

I think it has to start now, but the problem is that it has to be done sensitively, openly and with clear statements that allow for both fact and emotion. So clearly the government would fuck that up.

We've had our first swing at it with lockdown and that was relatively successful in terms of where it got us to around numbers. And I mean the infection and mortality rates at the end, not the overall number of deaths and cases btw. It's now staging a comeback.  It's widely acknowledged, if not universally agreed, that a return to that strategy at that same level is not going to work because of the wider costs. So we've got to think a little differently, and that means the hard conversations.

There's a theoretical situation in an old David Gemmell book I read years ago.  If a city of 100,00 people faces destruction, but would be averted by the sacrifice of 10 children, would you pay that cost? Some will always say that's not a price worth paying, regardless of the total number of deaths as a result. And some will always look at it as a simple case of numbers. The challenge is finding the bridge between those schools of thought, and that's when you look for leadership. Unfortunately we have fuck all of that.

Essentially a real-life, real- time version of the trolley problem?
You wouldn’t wish this on anyone - even the lot in charge.

[Leyrulion]

2 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Confused how you think it could have been stricter? And please don’t feed me any bullshit about how outdoor exercise shouldn’t have been allowed because that’s incredibly low risk and is very good for mental health. 

You've just given a example of how it could be stricter and also why it's a terrible idea.

[DeanoL]

2 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Confused how you think it could have been stricter? And please don’t feed me any bullshit about how outdoor exercise shouldn’t have been allowed because that’s incredibly low risk and is very good for mental health. 

Shut down workplaces forceably. It's easy if you're in the office worker bubble to not realise how many people on minimum wage jobs were still working. Someone was still making, warehousing and shipping all that stuff you ordered online because the shops were closed.

[DeanoL]

I think the problem with "we have to live with it" is, we really don't. A vaccine would not be a miracle. It's in fact almost a certainty. It's just we're not sure if it's 4 months or 12 months away. 

And that's the problem, if we knew we couldn't get a vaccine, we'd need to have those conversations about what is and isn't worth it. But we will get a vaccine. And relatively soon.

[Fuzzy Afro]

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

Shut down workplaces forceably. It's easy if you're in the office worker bubble to not realise how many people on minimum wage jobs were still working. Someone was still making, warehousing and shipping all that stuff you ordered online because the shops were closed.

That’s a valid point tbf. I was thinking at the time that there’s an argument only key workers should be working at all if you can’t WFH. 

[Fuzzy Afro]

Just now, DeanoL said:

I think the problem with "we have to live with it" is, we really don't. A vaccine would not be a miracle. It's in fact almost a certainty. It's just we're not sure if it's 4 months or 12 months away. 

And that's the problem, if we knew we couldn't get a vaccine, we'd need to have those conversations about what is and isn't worth it. But we will get a vaccine. And relatively soon.

There’s a high chance we won’t get one 

[Crazyfool01]

As  a vulnerable  I would be happy to remain locked down whilst people continued about their daily business but for a limited and known period of time ... I did 4 months anyway and I think I would have been able to do a  year .... but the people doing this would need much improved services and a time that they were able to get out and about for exercise as a minimum .....  how far has sweden got with its herd strategy ? 

[steviewevie]

9 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Confused how you think it could have been stricter? And please don’t feed me any bullshit about how outdoor exercise shouldn’t have been allowed because that’s incredibly low risk and is very good for mental health. 

err...yeah, they could have banned outdoor exercise. Not saying whether they should have, infact I definitely think this would have been a bad idea...but they did this in other countries (Spain or France, can't remember).

[kaytee...]

I come on here now and then just to find updates on the situation so I can avoid mindlessly scrolling twitter. So guess how my day went when I found out I'm up for redundancy on the same day new restrictions were put in place. Worst 24 hours of my life. The events industry needs saving sharpish.

[steviewevie]

6 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I think the problem with "we have to live with it" is, we really don't. A vaccine would not be a miracle. It's in fact almost a certainty. It's just we're not sure if it's 4 months or 12 months away. 

And that's the problem, if we knew we couldn't get a vaccine, we'd need to have those conversations about what is and isn't worth it. But we will get a vaccine. And relatively soon.

yeah, at moment it all depends on a vaccine.

Is it not possible this virus just dies out anyway...what happened to first SARS virus?

[Radiochicken]

20 minutes ago, Quark said:

Well, yes and no.  The main point was saving as many lives as possible; not overwhelming the NHS was a part of that.

Ultimately most of this is (or should be) a human aspect.  Whether it's lives lost directly to C19, or someone not getting their treatment for something else because the systems aren't able to function properly, or people losing their jobs and being unable to support their families, or domestic abuse, or care homes or...whatever.  There's so much to it and the nature of discussion, particularly online, ends up meaning that people will take a position for one and that's then seen or read as them not giving a shit about the other.

I don't know anyone who genuinely thinks "fuck 'em" to any of the cases I mentioned abvove, or that Henrik listed, or anything else. It's all just a bit fucked.

Respectfully I’d disagree with that. I think 100% the goal was not the overwhelm the NHS. You could assume that’s synonymous with saving as many lives as possible, but actually it’s not. Hence why we saw patients discharged back into Care Homes to free up beds. If the actual goal was the save as many lives as possible, the restrictions on our lives at the time, and now, would be much greater.

[Fuzzy Afro]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

err...yeah, they could have banned outdoor exercise. Not saying whether they should have, infact I definitely think this would have been a bad idea...but they did this in other countries (Spain or France, can't remember).

The point of a lockdown is to remove activities which are a transmission vector. Outdoor exercise isn't something that spreads the virus. So you could go full Spain and ban it, but that wouldn't achieve anything.

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, kaytee... said:

I come on here now and then just to find updates on the situation so I can avoid mindlessly scrolling twitter. So guess how my day went when I found out I'm up for redundancy on the same day new restrictions were put in place. Worst 24 hours of my life. The events industry needs saving sharpish.

really sorry to hear that.

[Fuzzy Afro]

Just now, steviewevie said:

yeah, at moment it all depends on a vaccine.

Is it not possible this virus just dies out anyway...what happened to first SARS virus?

SARS was contained because there were no asymptomatic spreaders. SARS was a much, much, much more serious virus than COVID-19 (at least 10x more deadly) but was a lot easier to contain because you were not contagious until you had pretty severe symptoms. That meant it was very easy to quarantine people when they got sick and thus pus the R number below 1 and stop is getting out of China and the other hotspots like Canada.

[squirrelarmy]

I work in manufacturing, while I could do some of the theoretical work at home especially in terms of design I have needed to be in my workshop building prototypes quite a lot recently. The guys on the shopfloor can’t wfh. 
 

My work is also ridiculously busy, breaking records every week in terms of amount of products being produced purely off the back of everyone not going on holiday so spending their furlough cash on large pieces of furniture instead. 
 

Just in my business alone there’s about 100 people frantically working to keep up with the demands of the countries spending. 

[Zoo Music Girl]

18 minutes ago, Quark said:

I think it has to start now, but the problem is that it has to be done sensitively, openly and with clear statements that allow for both fact and emotion. So clearly the government would fuck that up.

We've had our first swing at it with lockdown and that was relatively successful in terms of where it got us to around numbers. And I mean the infection and mortality rates at the end, not the overall number of deaths and cases btw. It's now staging a comeback.  It's widely acknowledged, if not universally agreed, that a return to that strategy at that same level is not going to work because of the wider costs. So we've got to think a little differently, and that means the hard conversations.

There's a theoretical situation in an old David Gemmell book I read years ago.  If a city of 100,00 people faces destruction, but would be averted by the sacrifice of 10 children, would you pay that cost? Some will always say that's not a price worth paying, regardless of the total number of deaths as a result. And some will always look at it as a simple case of numbers. The challenge is finding the bridge between those schools of thought, and that's when you look for leadership. Unfortunately we have fuck all of that.

It's like that old train track dilemma innit. Also known as the Trolley Problem (and nothing to do with supermarkets).

Out of upvotes but @Quark speaking the most sense today.

[steviewevie]

Just now, Fuzzy Afro said:

The point of a lockdown is to remove activities which are a transmission vector. Outdoor exercise isn't something that spreads the virus. So you could go full Spain and ban it, but that wouldn't achieve anything.

you haven't seen the trail of mucus, snot and spit I leave when I go for a jog.

[Ozanne]

3 minutes ago, kaytee... said:

I come on here now and then just to find updates on the situation so I can avoid mindlessly scrolling twitter. So guess how my day went when I found out I'm up for redundancy on the same day new restrictions were put in place. Worst 24 hours of my life. The events industry needs saving sharpish.

Sorry to hear that, I hope you are ok.