• REMINDER - COVID-19

    Any content, information, or advice found on social media platforms and the wider Internet, including forums such as YBW, should NOT be acted upon unless checked against a reliable, authoritative source, and re-checked, particularly where personal health and liberty is at stake. Seek professional advice/confirmation before acting on such at all times.

    Users who are found to promulgate FAKE NEWS on the forum in regard to this issue, intentional or otherwise, may find their access terminated. It is your responsibility to provide references to bona fide sources.

    FAKE NEWS, in this regard, is that which is posited by organisations, media, etc., that is repeated on the forum, or used to support personal opinion/hypothesis posted by users - FAKE NEWS is not necessarily the personal opinion/hypothesis being posted in itself, any issues with such should be challenged respectfully.

Are we on high alert?

pvb

Well-known member
Joined
16 May 2001
Messages
41,309
Location
UK East Coast
maybe yes maybe no ?
It's a definite yes. Average age of people who've died as a result of coronavirus is 82 - that's older than the average UK life expectancy. To kill our economy for a virus which mainly affects people who were close to death anyway is madness. And that's ignoring all the deaths of people who didn't get treated because our beloved NHS shut down.
 

PeterWright

Active member
Joined
23 Aug 2006
Messages
697
Location
Burnham-on-Crouch, UK
You didn't mention the fact that, for the vast majority of the population, the virus poses no serious threat.
Even if that is the case (and there's precious little evidence for your assertion) it has a significant probability of being fatal for a significant proportion of our population. To protect our fellow citizens, we should be working together to keep the prevalence of infection, which is synonymous with infective, a low as we reasonably can. I see that as the objective of the rules and I find all the attempts to circumvent or gratuitously breach the rules as a mark of complete lack of compassion for fellow citizens.
 

johnalison

Well-known member
Joined
14 Feb 2007
Messages
26,593
Location
Essex
You didn't mention the fact that, for the vast majority of the population, the virus poses no serious threat.
I didn't because it is irrelevant. There is some evidence that a significant number of relatively young patients suffer debilitating symptoms for a prolonged period, though my guess is that much of this is mixed up with psychological and common post-viral symptoms. The point for you youngsters is that if I do the decent thing and succumb to the virus it may well take me weeks or months to do it, and even if I recover, which I have an 85% chance of doing, I will still consume resources that you would not unreasonably prefer to reserve for yourself and your family. We have examples from other countries that have been almost brought to a standstill by the disease, and I understand that the health service in the Czech republic is on the verge of breakdown this week.
 

Tomahawk

Well-known member
Joined
5 Sep 2010
Messages
16,607
Location
Where life is good
I am hearing that Essex CC asked government to announce an increase in lockdown measurs.
Having known a few of the higher characters at ECC, I can well believe they have done this to boost their idea of their standing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pvb

pvb

Well-known member
Joined
16 May 2001
Messages
41,309
Location
UK East Coast
I didn't because it is irrelevant. There is some evidence that a significant number of relatively young patients suffer debilitating symptoms for a prolonged period, though my guess is that much of this is mixed up with psychological and common post-viral symptoms. The point for you youngsters is that if I do the decent thing and succumb to the virus it may well take me weeks or months to do it, and even if I recover, which I have an 85% chance of doing, I will still consume resources that you would not unreasonably prefer to reserve for yourself and your family. We have examples from other countries that have been almost brought to a standstill by the disease, and I understand that the health service in the Czech republic is on the verge of breakdown this week.
It is totally relevant. Lockdowns (or other social restrictions) do nothing to get rid of the virus, they simply delay the likelihood of people catching it, whilst in the process bankrupting our country.
 

pvb

Well-known member
Joined
16 May 2001
Messages
41,309
Location
UK East Coast
Even if that is the case (and there's precious little evidence for your assertion) it has a significant probability of being fatal for a significant proportion of our population. To protect our fellow citizens, we should be working together to keep the prevalence of infection, which is synonymous with infective, a low as we reasonably can. I see that as the objective of the rules and I find all the attempts to circumvent or gratuitously breach the rules as a mark of complete lack of compassion for fellow citizens.
You can't "protect our fellow citizens", it's impossible. The virus won't go away. Some people will catch it; the vast majority will be OK, a few won't.
 

Tomahawk

Well-known member
Joined
5 Sep 2010
Messages
16,607
Location
Where life is good
PVB..

I have been saying this since March..
But we needs remember this is the East Coast and we must not get hot under the collar like happens over in the Lounge.
 

pvb

Well-known member
Joined
16 May 2001
Messages
41,309
Location
UK East Coast
PVB..

I have been saying this since March..
But we needs remember this is the East Coast and we must not get hot under the collar like happens over in the Lounge.
So at least two of use have some common sense! I'm not hot under the collar either.
 

johnalison

Well-known member
Joined
14 Feb 2007
Messages
26,593
Location
Essex
It is totally relevant. Lockdowns (or other social restrictions) do nothing to get rid of the virus, they simply delay the likelihood of people catching it, whilst in the process bankrupting our country.
A lockdown in the Chinese style, by carting infected or disobedient people off into isolation does appear to have eliminated the virus, at least until it reappears. Nobody has suggested that our limited actions are going to do the same, only that they are necessary to prevent even worse disruption to our essential services. It is not only the NHS, but transport and food distribution that would collapse in a megademic. There are those who would favour even tighter or earlier restrictions, so those like me who have come to accept the current situation are somewhere in the middle of opinions.
 

pvb

Well-known member
Joined
16 May 2001
Messages
41,309
Location
UK East Coast
It is not only the NHS, but transport and food distribution that would collapse in a megademic.
That's merely alarmist talk. The vast majority of people catching coronavirus will either have no symptoms, or will have mild symptoms. Very old people, and those with serious existing health problems, are more vulnerable. We could easily shield these vulnerable people, without closing the economy down, but nobody seems to have thought of that.
 

Denek

Member
Joined
12 Jan 2013
Messages
239
Location
Thurleigh bedfordshire
We flew to Cyprus 3 weeks ago ( still here) to get onto the flight we had to have a negative test. To say that we are part of the problem is unjust. Where the problem is in my opinion is people not wearing masks and gathering in large groups. It’s not rocket science.
 

dansaskip

Member
Joined
12 Nov 2004
Messages
218
Location
Various
It is totally relevant. Lockdowns (or other social restrictions) do nothing to get rid of the virus, they simply delay the likelihood of people catching it, whilst in the process bankrupting our country.
If lockdowns do nothing to get rid of the virus than how come New Zealand, by use of lockdown measures managed to stop the spread of infection there? and they have been virtually free of Covid since?
 

pvb

Well-known member
Joined
16 May 2001
Messages
41,309
Location
UK East Coast
If lockdowns do nothing to get rid of the virus than how come New Zealand, by use of lockdown measures managed to stop the spread of infection there? and they have been virtually free of Covid since?
Because it's a tiny country, with a tiny population, in the middle of nowhere. Very easy to lock it down. However, it's now in the deepest economic recession for decades.
 

Lucy52

Active member
Joined
21 Dec 2014
Messages
293
Location
In the Mud, Conyer
If lockdowns do nothing to get rid of the virus than how come New Zealand, by use of lockdown measures managed to stop the spread of infection there? and they have been virtually free of Covid since?
Regrettably, if the population have no immunity from social contact then they will be wide open to a resurgence of the virus should it start up again in their country. They hope for a vaccine before that happens but there is no guarantee of that any time soon. They have to be eternally vigilant now or that will happen, again with no guarantee they can stop it's spread. You cannot kill the virus by hiding from it, it won’t go away, it is still there. You can try and buy time and shield the vunerable that is all.
 

johnalison

Well-known member
Joined
14 Feb 2007
Messages
26,593
Location
Essex
I too believe that it is a mistake to draw conclusions from other countries' experience, although it is evident that some much-trumpeted policies have failed. I think we have to accept China's assertion that the virus has been effectively eliminated, but as you say, they have no current defence against its resurgence and it will be a race against time to get an effective vaccine used before re-infection occurs and they have to lockdown in their authoritarian fashion again.
 

Marmalade

Well-known member
Joined
15 Feb 2005
Messages
2,205
Location
Essex
We know full lockdown works - because it had the desired effect earlier this year. It came with a huge social and economic cost. The difference now, is that politicians are trying to balance the cost and the benefit - whereas earlier in the year it was "contain the virus at all costs".
What's changed? Why are the priorities different now?
 

sailorman

Well-known member
Joined
21 May 2003
Messages
77,961
Location
Here or there
If lockdowns do nothing to get rid of the virus than how come New Zealand, by use of lockdown measures managed to stop the spread of infection there? and they have been virtually free of Covid since?
they stopped importing people, unlike us who chartered aircraft to bring in folk from hotspots worldwide & kept out airport hubs working
 

steve yates

Well-known member
Joined
16 Oct 2014
Messages
2,365
Location
Benfleet, Essex/Keswick, Cumbria
You didn't mention the fact that, for the vast majority of the population, the virus poses no serious threat.
A vast majority of 66 million people could be anything from 40 million plus. That still leaves up to 26 million then where it could be a serious threat.
And while some folk may have few or mild symptoms, the rules are not designed to protect them from that, but to protect those of their family, friends and colleagues from transmission. Whats so hard to understand about that?

There is no danger to a murderer from the machete he carries around with him, but he is clearly a threat to others. Just because you may not suffer much or be asymptomatic from a transmitabble disease does not mean you should be free to spread it to others for whom it may be fatal.

Yes the rules are poorly designed and thought out and badly communicated, but the basic premise is simple.
 
Top