Jump to content

When will this shit end?


Chrisp1986

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

 

I personally think there is an issue with having this at all..

Just a tidal wave of authoritarian powers - I'm not adverse to a bit of authoritarianism myself (I'm still in favour of proper quarantine and checks on self isolation for those who test positive or return from abroad for example) but I don't think a bunch of people roaming the streets trying to enforce extremely unclear rules is a great step. 

These powers will be permanent - and these "covid marshalls"  will merge into our new private police force - the cuts weren't for nothing... 

I agree it's not needed. But the point that it's a requirement it's SIA licence holders to apply is the right way forward if it is to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fuzzy Afro said:


With all due respect, is it really proportionate for a 91 year old to be in a “virtual lock in” for 6 months and counting at that age? I’m aware that Covid is far more likely to have dire consequences at that age (although not sure what her general health is like. A healthy 91 year old would still be odds on favourite against the virus), but I’m also aware that when you get to that age you never really know what’s around the corner and spending your says locked in could mean that you don’t get to spend the final years of your life around your loved ones. Obviously it’s a matter for individual risk assessment, but an elderly relative of mine recently passed away from heart failure after shielding for months and I can’t help but feel that we might as well have just visited her during the lockdown, given that even in the worst case scenario where she caught covid and passed away from it, it’s have only shortened her life by a few months and she would have gotten to spend her final months around us. 

This is a point that has been ignored in all this and it doesn't just apply to the old, because of these measures we have all effectively lost a year of our lives, we have been living in a kind of limbo just waiting for this to be over, all the joy has gone (I'm generalising here, i'm sure some haven't found it too bad), so in order to save older people we have all given up a year of life, if the average lifespan is 80 years then the "lives lost" in a population of 67 million is over 800,000 ( that's assuming this is gone after a year and that this year hasn't really been worth living). Of course I'm looking at this from a western point of view where life is a pleasure and worth living, not everyone has a good quality of live to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

This is a point that has been ignored in all this and it doesn't just apply to the old, because of these measures we have all effectively lost a year of our lives, we have been living in a kind of limbo just waiting for this to be over, all the joy has gone (I'm generalising here, i'm sure some haven't found it too bad), so in order to save older people we have all given up a year of life, if the average lifespan is 80 years then the "lives lost" in a population of 67 million is over 800,000 ( that's assuming this is gone after a year and that this year hasn't really been worth living). Of course I'm looking at this from a western point of view where life is a pleasure and worth living, not everyone has a good quality of live to begin with.

I don't know. I've had a different year, but I like reading, I like playing video games, I like doing puzzles, I like binge watching dramas, I like painting miniatures... they're all solo activities that I would be doing anyway in an average year. Obviously I've done more of those this year. Lots more.

But I also like going on city breaks, going to escape rooms, playing board games with friends, going to gigs and obviously festivals. Not done any of those. But I can do more of those and less of the first lot of things in future years to balance it out (assuming I'm still about).

I have found it a bit of a revelation how many people apparently don't have indoor, solo hobbys. I have far more than I ever have time for - I'm sat typing this in my study working at the PC and looking over at the half-painted Genestealers on the desk next to me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

I have found it a bit of a revelation how many people apparently don't have indoor, solo hobbys. I have far more than I ever have time for - I'm sat typing this in my study working at the PC and looking over at the half-painted Genestealers on the desk next to me!

I have an indoor solo hobby that I have been doing far too much of in lockdown!

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, jparx said:

What about anyone you might infect if you end up catching it? Can they fuck off too?

What about the bankrupt businesses? 

What about the undiagnosed cancer cases? 

What about the forced mortgages? 

What about the increase in domestic violence? 

What about the MASSIVE decline in people's mental health? 

It's time to move on. Life is all about managing risk. You take far more of a risk every time you step in a motor vehicle. Isolate the vulnerable and the scared and let the rest of us crack on. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

I don't know. I've had a different year, but I like reading, I like playing video games, I like doing puzzles, I like binge watching dramas, I like painting miniatures... they're all solo activities that I would be doing anyway in an average year. Obviously I've done more of those this year. Lots more.

But I also like going on city breaks, going to escape rooms, playing board games with friends, going to gigs and obviously festivals. Not done any of those. But I can do more of those and less of the first lot of things in future years to balance it out (assuming I'm still about).

I have found it a bit of a revelation how many people apparently don't have indoor, solo hobbys. I have far more than I ever have time for - I'm sat typing this in my study working at the PC and looking over at the half-painted Genestealers on the desk next to me!

As I said I was generalising, my circumstances are pretty good so I wouldn't say this year wasn't worth living personally, but I do know people who are living alone afraid to go out, and have very little pleasure in their lives at the moment so the point does apply to some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Wow. There’s been some interesting views from some today in here. Ditching old people, telling concerned colleagues to F off. Geez.

Agreed. This is meant to be a thread in a section of the forum which has "the spirit of Glastonbury all year round".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stuie said:

If Matt Hancock says anything of interest in this briefing can someone post it here please?

I've been forced back to the office today to help out Pret a Manger and Costa so I can't listen to it unfortunately.

Seemingly following Boris’s line of attack them if they dare ask any questions:

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I don't know. I've had a different year, but I like reading, I like playing video games, I like doing puzzles, I like binge watching dramas, I like painting miniatures... they're all solo activities that I would be doing anyway in an average year. Obviously I've done more of those this year. Lots more.

But I also like going on city breaks, going to escape rooms, playing board games with friends, going to gigs and obviously festivals. Not done any of those. But I can do more of those and less of the first lot of things in future years to balance it out (assuming I'm still about).

I have found it a bit of a revelation how many people apparently don't have indoor, solo hobbys. I have far more than I ever have time for - I'm sat typing this in my study working at the PC and looking over at the half-painted Genestealers on the desk next to me!


I struggle with these indoor solo hobbies because (A) I’m a very social person, (B) I don’t live with my closest loved ones, and (C) I feel guilty for enjoying myself so I end up just looking at coronavirus stuff on here or Reddit or something. 
 

Lately though with sport coming back, that’s something I enjoy watching on TV so I can use that as more escapism. It also means that even when there’s not a game on I can distract myself with premier league podcasts or tinkering with my fantasy team. Having the NFL back will be great as well. I hope elite sport is not affected by any second wave.

 

@FestivalJamie - Scotland has gone ahead and made face coverings mandatory for staff in indoor hospitality, and for customers when they are not seated at a table. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trouble is that, whether we like it or not, sooner or later the world will have to take a pragmatic approach.  Over time the costs of locking down and isolating en masse will end up outweighing the benefits.  I'm not suggesting it's every man for himself or that we treat old or vulnerable people as collateral damage, and it's not just about economics and numbers, but at some point the human cost of one will outweigh the other.

Unless we end up with a miracle vaccine or treatment any time soon, they're conversations that will need to be had. It's just going to be a case of taking the least shit options :(

We just need to be careful I think how we word these things in discussion. Joys of communicating on the internet and all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Henrik said:

What about the bankrupt businesses? 

What about the undiagnosed cancer cases? 

What about the forced mortgages? 

What about the increase in domestic violence? 

What about the MASSIVE decline in people's mental health? 

It's time to move on. Life is all about managing risk. You take far more of a risk every time you step in a motor vehicle. Isolate the vulnerable and the scared and let the rest of us crack on. 

I'm in agrement with this. We have a disproportionate perspective on risk now. I say this as I'm right this moment on a Teams meeting regarding the Cancer Recovery Program within a major NHS establishment. It's not pretty, diagnosis and treatment is still falling further behind (People still daren't go to their GP or into hospital). Guaranteed much greater loss of life due to this than recent Covid death rates.

I've a happy mentality in so much as having had the virus in May I view it now as a big positive for me in removing the shackles of fear. I hope many more can move on too...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Quark said:

Trouble is that, whether we like it or not, sooner or later the world will have to take a pragmatic approach.  Over time the costs of locking down and isolating en masse will end up outweighing the benefits.  I'm not suggesting it's every man for himself or that we treat old or vulnerable people as collateral damage, and it's not just about economics and numbers, but at some point the human cost of one will outweigh the other.

Unless we end up with a miracle vaccine or treatment any time soon, they're conversations that will need to be had. It's just going to be a case of taking the least shit options :(

We just need to be careful I think how we word these things in discussion. Joys of communicating on the internet and all that.

Hear hear, but we should have been having this conversation months ago 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Avalon_Fields said:

Yes, I'm on it, the English version, as I'm an NHS volunteer responder. Nothing happened on it yet.

ah ok not for me yet .. not sure it will work very well for my circumstances as I rarely contact for more than 15 mins but ill download it anyway 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Hear hear, but we should have been having this conversation months ago 

This is what I keep thinking. Spring will see a return to ‘normal’ with more hygiene procedures in place and screens/one-way systems still in place. Hopefully some form of mass testing (even if it’s not Moonshine) will be available.
 

Whether we’ll be on Worthy Farm next summer is another question... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gizmoman said:

This is a point that has been ignored in all this and it doesn't just apply to the old, because of these measures we have all effectively lost a year of our lives, we have been living in a kind of limbo just waiting for this to be over, all the joy has gone (I'm generalising here, i'm sure some haven't found it too bad), so in order to save older people we have all given up a year of life, if the average lifespan is 80 years then the "lives lost" in a population of 67 million is over 800,000 ( that's assuming this is gone after a year and that this year hasn't really been worth living). Of course I'm looking at this from a western point of view where life is a pleasure and worth living, not everyone has a good quality of live to begin with.

I've had the best year of my life.

Edited by steviewevie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Hear hear, but we should have been having this conversation months ago 

It's a tricky one, as regardless of my opinion of this shitshow of a government the general steps of lockdown, isolation and shutdown did end up having the effect of lowering infection rates and deaths and all the rest of it.  It's as time goes on that the conversation needs to happen, as we genuinely didn't know what that pathway would look like at the time. It's one of the only areas where the "well they're dealing with something completely unknown" apologists have (I think) any kind of point. So I do think it's the conversation that would have been impossible too early on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Henrik said:

What about the bankrupt businesses? 

What about the undiagnosed cancer cases? 

What about the forced mortgages? 

What about the increase in domestic violence? 

What about the MASSIVE decline in people's mental health? 

It's time to move on. Life is all about managing risk. You take far more of a risk every time you step in a motor vehicle. Isolate the vulnerable and the scared and let the rest of us crack on. 

Yeah, fuck'em.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Quark said:

It's a tricky one, as regardless of my opinion of this shitshow of a government the general steps of lockdown, isolation and shutdown did end up having the effect of lowering infection rates and deaths and all the rest of it.  It's as time goes on that the conversation needs to happen, as we genuinely didn't know what that pathway would look like at the time. It's one of the only areas where the "well they're dealing with something completely unknown" apologists have (I think) any kind of point. So I do think it's the conversation that would have been impossible too early on.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Quark said:

It's a tricky one, as regardless of my opinion of this shitshow of a government the general steps of lockdown, isolation and shutdown did end up having the effect of lowering infection rates and deaths and all the rest of it.  It's as time goes on that the conversation needs to happen, as we genuinely didn't know what that pathway would look like at the time. It's one of the only areas where the "well they're dealing with something completely unknown" apologists have (I think) any kind of point. So I do think it's the conversation that would have been impossible too early on.


Let’s for a second “believe” the Neil Ferguson imperial model.

 

Option 1 was to do nothing and go for full on herd immunity. Model predicted the pandemic would rip through the UK in 6 months with 500,000 deaths and the health system would collapse.

 

Option 2 was to still go for herd immunity, but to put measures in to mitigate the impact and slow the spread. This would mean banning mass gatherings and shielding the vulnerable, but largely allowing the rest of society to go about their daily business. This model predicted 250,000 deaths with the pandemic lasting around a year before herd immunity was achieved. NHS would be overwhelmed. 
 

Then the final option was to suppress the virus. That meant locking down in order to drive the case rate to a very low level. Model predicted 20,000 deaths in the first wave, but crucially it didn’t have an exit strategy and the to reach herd immunity using this strategy would take over 30 years. So although this strategy reduced the number of deaths in the first wave, it would mean that you’re basically relying on a silver bullet such as a vaccine or effective cure. 
 

We are effectively now somewhere between option 2 and option 3. They can’t go fully back to the second one without overwhelming the NHS. Option 1 is a non starter. The main problem with that is that previously healthy people would die because they wouldn’t be able to access life saving treatment. The vulnerable people, as horrible as it is, a lot of them don’t survive even when they do get treated. 

 

Edited by Fuzzy Afro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...