When will this shit end?

[Homer]

15 hours ago, zahidf said:

Ah cool.  I got a warm up gig with Dylan moran at the bill Murray in Angel for Tuesday.  Fingers crossed the local lockdowns won't effect it

Didn't know it had reopened - good news! Which night are you going to Greenwich Comedy Festival?

[zahidf]

6 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

Playing devils advocate but what about those who will be affected going forward because of the locking down & associated rules?

The % of the population who become seriously ill is low and even lower is the volume of deaths.

We are essentially protecting a very small minority of the country (is it in the 0.0...%?) when the ongoing issues of a crushed economy, mental health and also physical health will be affecting the majority in the months and years ahead.

It's an immensely difficult and delicate situation I realise however at some point does focus need to shift to beyond that of the next few months / year?

 

Depends. If a vaccine or treatment is on the way, then yes we should do as we are doing ( but a lot better). If its going to be 2-5 years? then yes, adapt our systems but get rid of social distancing

[JoeyT]

I should probably add that I don't want to come across in a sort of "if they die, they die" Ivan Drago sort of way, this isn't my intention at all.

Indeed I don't know what the answer is and am not suggesting I do but I think a debate over what we should do next to protect us all in both health & wealth (so to speak) needs to be had.

[zahidf]

1 minute ago, Homer said:

Didn't know it had reopened - good news! Which night are you going to Greenwich Comedy Festival?

SAt afternoon show. Fingers crossed it can go ahead!

[JoeyT]

ignore

Edited September 21, 2020 by JoeyT
still getting used to the new site setup!

[Homer]

Just now, zahidf said:

SAt afternoon show. Fingers crossed it can go ahead!

Looks like the weather is on your side! Fingers crossed. Who you seeing? Bill Bailey is Sunday isn't he?

[Mr.Tease]

15 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

Playing devils advocate but what about those who will be affected going forward because of the locking down & associated rules?

The % of the population who become seriously ill is low and even lower is the volume of deaths.

We are essentially protecting a very small minority of the country (is it in the 0.0...%?) when the ongoing issues of a crushed economy, mental health and also physical health will be affecting the majority in the months and years ahead.

It's an immensely difficult and delicate situation I realise however at some point does focus need to shift to beyond that of the next few months / year?

 

I work offering support to those people, so I don't think they're disposable. I think people who advocate the above tend to do so thinking they won't die or no one they care about will, because if they did, they wouldn't advocate it. 

Also, you misunderstand the purpose of lockdown--it's not only to protect older people and people with underlying health conditions, it's to stop the health system collapsing. Once the NHS gets overloaded it then increases mortality for all ages because basic hospital treatment is no longer available. 

Also I'd add, working in mental health, it might be hard for people during a lockdown, but the alternative is much worse for mental health - bereavements, guilt (thinking you've infected someone else), anxiety, possible long term health decline from covid- can you imagine going about your daily business with high prevelance rates of covid? Wouldn't even help the economy because no one would go out anyways if they have a high chance of getting infected. 

Edited September 21, 2020 by Mr.Tease

[Homer]

12 minutes ago, FakeEmpire said:

Also, if your Location is correct, then you are London-based where there's generally a lot more to do.  Those of us outside of major cities don't actually have any of those socially-distanced kind of events to go to. We still have significantly reduced public transport as well.

Fair enough, though that's the first gig of any kind I've been to for about a month. I just don't think that life generally is that bad at the moment (for the average person). Can watch live sport, go out to eat, go to the park, exercise, meet a friend for a drink. Doesn't feel that different to real life to me (but working from home).

[Mr.Tease]

6 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Depends. If a vaccine or treatment is on the way, then yes we should do as we are doing ( but a lot better). If its going to be 2-5 years? then yes, adapt our systems but get rid of social distancing

I agree--for me, it's wait til we hear about the Oxford vaccine, if it looks viable, then we can hold on for some more months, if not then we need to have a think about how to proceed. Think it's daft to advocate giving up at this point

[JoeyT]

1 minute ago, Mr.Tease said:

I work offering support to those people, so I don't think they're disposable. I think people who advocate the above tend to do so thinking they won't die or no one they care about will, because if they did, they wouldn't advocate it. 

Also, you misunderstand the purpose of lockdown--it's not only to protect older people and people with underlying health conditions, it's to stop the health system collapsing. Ones the NHS gets overloaded it then increases mortality for all ages because basic hospital treatment is no longer available. 

Also I'd add, working in mental health, it might be hard for people during a lockdown, but the alternative is much worse for mental health - bereavements, guilt (thinking you've infected someone else), anxiety, possible long term health decline from covid- can you imagine going about your daily business with high prevelance rates of covid? Wouldn't even help the economy because no one would go out anyways if they have a high chance of getting infected. 

I'm not suggesting that anyone is "disposable" but it's a topic which has to be debated given that although we currently have many vaccines in development there is no way of knowing if we will ever actually get one.

Surely you realise that our economy can't be consistently in a cycle of shutting down / re-opening different sectors & then relying on government funding to help them survive? 

[Fuzzy Afro]

7 minutes ago, Homer said:

Fair enough, though that's the first gig of any kind I've been to for about a month. I just don't think that life generally is that bad at the moment (for the average person). Can watch live sport, go out to eat, go to the park, exercise, meet a friend for a drink. Doesn't feel that different to real life to me (but working from home).

I think if you look at the current restrictions that apply England wide (rule of six. 1m+ distancing, masks in certain circumstances), I’d be happy living with all of the above until there’s a vaccine or treatment, or until it becomes clear we aren’t getting one and herd immunity is the only option.

 

The worry is the everlasting threat of further restrictions. If you look at the local lockdown, you can’t even have your friend or partner visit you in your home. That’s draconian as fuck and utterly unthinkable that it would be against the law even nine months ago. I have a really hard time with restrictions like that. 

[steviewevie]

we should do a 2nd lockdown poll on this thread...not sure how though.
I am definitely in the "not sure" camp.

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

I think if you look at the current restrictions that apply England wide (rule of six. 1m+ distancing, masks in certain circumstances), I’d be happy living with all of the above until there’s a vaccine or treatment, or until it becomes clear we aren’t getting one and herd immunity is the only option.

 

The worry is the everlasting threat of further restrictions. If you look at the local lockdown, you can’t even have your friend or partner visit you in your home. That’s draconian as fuck and utterly unthinkable that it would be against the law even nine months ago. I have a really hard time with restrictions like that. 

but in large parts of the country they have more restrictions than that.

[Fuzzy Afro]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

but in large parts of the country they have more restrictions than that.

My point exactly. The local restrictions feel like a step too far. 

[DeanoL]

8 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

Surely you realise that our economy can't be consistently in a cycle of shutting down / re-opening different sectors & then relying on government funding to help them survive? 

Just to be clear, it absolutely could be. 

Many of the issues we have now are around the fact that we're adopting to this as a temporary problem, as it's likely to be a temporary problem as we are likely to get a vaccine. 

If somehow we knew tomorrow that a vaccine was never going to happen, and we had to live with this forever, it's wrong to assume that it would just then need to be "well let the old and ill die".

Instead, our ways of life would adapt. Things like gigs and so on would be done socially distant, venues could permanently refurb to allow socially distanced shows, offices would be permanently redesigned for socially distant working, certain things would go away, but new things would come along to replace them. 

Regular lockdowns could be factored into business planning and hence the rental cost of properties, and insurance markets for "irregularly large" amounts of lockdown would pop up.

We absolutely could handle this as a society without having to just let loads of people die. But those sort of changes are difficult to make and would be difficult to reverse. And a vaccine is a near certainty, if we're honest.

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

My point exactly. The local restrictions feel like a step too far. 

yeah...sorry...I really should read the whole of someone's post before reacting.

[Leyrulion]

2 hours ago, Chapple12345 said:

Along the psychology side of it they made huge error going on about turning the tide in 12 weeks as it gave a lot of people the mindframe it would all be over in a few months, any other lockdowns will see a huge surge in people suffering mental health problems, for example I knew late on in lockdown I was struggling not seeing friends and family and having to stay within the same place 

In fairness they did actually turn the tide in 12 weeks. Just forget that the tide comes in twice a day!

[Mr.Tease]

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Just to be clear, it absolutely could be. 

Many of the issues we have now are around the fact that we're adopting to this as a temporary problem, as it's likely to be a temporary problem as we are likely to get a vaccine. 

If somehow we knew tomorrow that a vaccine was never going to happen, and we had to live with this forever, it's wrong to assume that it would just then need to be "well let the old and ill die".

Instead, our ways of life would adapt. Things like gigs and so on would be done socially distant, venues could permanently refurb to allow socially distanced shows, offices would be permanently redesigned for socially distant working, certain things would go away, but new things would come along to replace them. 

Regular lockdowns could be factored into business planning and hence the rental cost of properties, and insurance markets for "irregularly large" amounts of lockdown would pop up.

We absolutely could handle this as a society without having to just let loads of people die. But those sort of changes are difficult to make and would be difficult to reverse. And a vaccine is a near certainty, if we're honest.

I agree, I think people who are saying 'give up now' basically mean "I don't want to give up any of the things I enjoy doing for several more months, and if some old people die, so be it". Basically the Cummings mentality. 

[squirrelarmy]

8 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

we should do a 2nd lockdown poll on this thread...not sure how though.
I am definitely in the "not sure" camp.

Think you have to set it up as a new topic although another covid topic won’t be popular. Not sure if you can make it a time limited thing. Have it up for this week and then close it if possible. Not sure if normal users can close their own threads. 

[Fuzzy Afro]

3 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Just to be clear, it absolutely could be. 

Many of the issues we have now are around the fact that we're adopting to this as a temporary problem, as it's likely to be a temporary problem as we are likely to get a vaccine. 

If somehow we knew tomorrow that a vaccine was never going to happen, and we had to live with this forever, it's wrong to assume that it would just then need to be "well let the old and ill die".

Instead, our ways of life would adapt. Things like gigs and so on would be done socially distant, venues could permanently refurb to allow socially distanced shows, offices would be permanently redesigned for socially distant working, certain things would go away, but new things would come along to replace them. 

Regular lockdowns could be factored into business planning and hence the rental cost of properties, and insurance markets for "irregularly large" amounts of lockdown would pop up.

We absolutely could handle this as a society without having to just let loads of people die. But those sort of changes are difficult to make and would be difficult to reverse. And a vaccine is a near certainty, if we're honest.

No, no. We can’t be social distancing for good. Not an option. It goes against everything that makes life worth living for us. Let’s get this absolutely clear, if it becomes clear that a vaccine is unviable then the virus will be allowed to spread. The current strategy is effectively betting that a vaccine will happen. 

[DeanoL]

1 minute ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

No, no. We can’t be social distancing for good. Not an option. It goes against everything that makes life worth living for us. Let’s get this absolutely clear, if it becomes clear that a vaccine is unviable then the virus will be allowed to spread. The current strategy is effectively betting that a vaccine will happen. 

You said the economy couldn't handle it. Not that you couldn't.

If a vaccine can't work that almost certainly means herd immunity doesn't work either, so you're essentially arguing to cull 0.5%-1% of the population so you can stand near people.

[Mr.Tease]

17 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

I'm not suggesting that anyone is "disposable" but it's a topic which has to be debated given that although we currently have many vaccines in development there is no way of knowing if we will ever actually get one.

Surely you realise that our economy can't be consistently in a cycle of shutting down / re-opening different sectors & then relying on government funding to help them survive? 

I'm not saying your advocating it (you said you were playing devils advocate), but I am say people advocating not having any more lockdown are saying those people are disposable - that's literally their argument, as much as they try and say 'well it's the economic damage to lives I worry about'. I agree with John mcdonnell, economies can be rebuilt, but lives can't be resurrected. 

[st dan]

9 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Just to be clear, it absolutely could be. 

Many of the issues we have now are around the fact that we're adopting to this as a temporary problem, as it's likely to be a temporary problem as we are likely to get a vaccine. 

If somehow we knew tomorrow that a vaccine was never going to happen, and we had to live with this forever, it's wrong to assume that it would just then need to be "well let the old and ill die".

Instead, our ways of life would adapt. Things like gigs and so on would be done socially distant, venues could permanently refurb to allow socially distanced shows, offices would be permanently redesigned for socially distant working, certain things would go away, but new things would come along to replace them. 

Regular lockdowns could be factored into business planning and hence the rental cost of properties, and insurance markets for "irregularly large" amounts of lockdown would pop up.

We absolutely could handle this as a society without having to just let loads of people die. But those sort of changes are difficult to make and would be difficult to reverse. And a vaccine is a near certainty, if we're honest.

But why would the world change so drastically for the 0.xxx% of people this virus will cause death to? This isn’t being harsh to those effected because of course they’re lives matter and they need protecting as much as possible,  but it’s not realistic or necessary to do any of this long term or permanently. 

Edited September 21, 2020 by st dan

[JoeyT]

5 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Just to be clear, it absolutely could be. 

Many of the issues we have now are around the fact that we're adopting to this as a temporary problem, as it's likely to be a temporary problem as we are likely to get a vaccine. 

If somehow we knew tomorrow that a vaccine was never going to happen, and we had to live with this forever, it's wrong to assume that it would just then need to be "well let the old and ill die".

Instead, our ways of life would adapt. Things like gigs and so on would be done socially distant, venues could permanently refurb to allow socially distanced shows, offices would be permanently redesigned for socially distant working, certain things would go away, but new things would come along to replace them. 

Regular lockdowns could be factored into business planning and hence the rental cost of properties, and insurance markets for "irregularly large" amounts of lockdown would pop up.

We absolutely could handle this as a society without having to just let loads of people die. But those sort of changes are difficult to make and would be difficult to reverse. And a vaccine is a near certainty, if we're honest.

The example of gigs you use let's make it the leisure / hospitality sector for arguments sake...

Where does the money for a complete refurb as you've put it come from?

Are you expecting staff in those industries to take a wage cut because in turn the companies they work for won't be able to pay them as much?

[Fuzzy Afro]

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

You said the economy couldn't handle it. Not that you couldn't.

If a vaccine can't work that almost certainly means herd immunity doesn't work either, so you're essentially arguing to cull 0.5%-1% of the population so you can stand near people.

If social distancing was a permanent feature of society I’d take myself down to the tube station and throw myself in front of the next Jubilee line and I guarantee you I’m not alone in that. It’s a temporary measure until we can find a vaccine, but the way we’ve lived this year really isn’t acceptable in the long run. And I don’t mean that from an economic standpoint.