Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

The problem with this is that people respond to seeing other people out and about. It's a domino effect. I can go for a walk. He's going for a walk, so I can go for a walk with my pal. He's going for a walk with his pal, I'll pop in and visit my mate. I'm visiting my mate, do you want to come along?

You should just stay home. Being at home should be the default position.

Again though, I'm back at work tomorrow (through no choice of my own) commuting on a train to a crowded City Centre office which ISN'T following the social distancing advice for a variety of reasons including insufficient space and only certain applications loaded to certain / specific base units.

Today I considered going out Golfing (but didn't), so is it more of a risk for myself and others to go to work in the conditions mentioned or go for a game of Golf where I'm actually distanced from others and not really coming into any direct contact ??

As far as I'm concerned you either have a lockdown or you don't. This "advisory" stuff just doesn't work and the Government information continues to be conflicting and contradictory.

Personally I believe we SHOULD have a lockdown, otherwise we're likely to pay dearly in the coming weeks.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

You don't need enough to enforce it. You just need a presence to get the message to your average diddy that this is serious.
There's army on the streets in Malaysia now, and apparently it has done wonders for compliance levels.
They're not there to shoot people. They're there because their presence gives people a shock.

Youre talking about a government who refuse to properly equip police because people get scared at the thought of a police officer with a taser. Theres no chance at this stage they’ll want the army in the streets and based on the size of the british army they’d barely have enough soldiers to lock down half of London. Scotland doesnt have enough police officers to enforce a lock down when you consider that this virus is going to impact front line police who are being exposed to the virus on a daily basis without any protective equipment.

[Granny Danger]

22 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

The problem with this is that people respond to seeing other people out and about. It's a domino effect. I can go for a walk. He's going for a walk, so I can go for a walk with my pal. He's going for a walk with his pal, I'll pop in and visit my mate. I'm visiting my mate, do you want to come along?

You should just stay home. Being at home should be the default position.

You have a valid opinion, and we might move to more or less complete lockdown.  Meanwhile I am happy to criticise the idiots ignoring the medical advice but not those who are following it.

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, pandarilla said:

There's a balance though.

We need to be outdoors for our sanity. But while we're there we need to follow the social distancing guidelines.

I called my mum and she was telling me my kids shouldn't be out for a walk with their mum - she thought the official advice was to stay indoors. But that's for those self-isolating.

For the rest of us it's about being very sensible about where we go, and keeping our distances and touching as few surfaces as possible when we get there.

Ideally, I'd agree with you.

However, the global picture is showing us that people do not get the message about what is and is not ok.

This should be considered a team sport. The team has to work together to keep each other safe, but the team is only as good at doing this as its daftest member.

Original advice in Malaysia was that going for a run was ok. Now, you'll get lifted for it.

Being out and about encourages others to be out and about. Stay at home.

Nobody likes this. It's rubbish staying at home. But it will save lives. Stay at home.

[Sergeant Wilson]

2 minutes ago, BawWatchin said:

It's easier to program a 3 item limit on all duplicate barcodes regardless of the item or item packs. It would take them too much time to go through each type of item individually to determine whether it should have a purchase limit or not.

I see, he'd need to go out and back in again to buy more than three.

[Derry Alli]

15 minutes ago, alta-pete said:

This goes very well with your avatar, tbf.

[Romeo]

6 minutes ago, BawWatchin said:

Everybody thinks they're the lord of critical thinking, including yourself.

Not really, I just know drinking hand sanatizer doesn't cure covid and going to the pub is a dick move.

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, PauloPerth said:

There are 7.7 billion people in the world.

Say, and this is a hugely conservative figure going on current predictions within countries already effected, that 20% of the world population become infected.

Thats 1.54 billion people.

At a current death rate of 2% of those infected. (Bearing in mind many of the people infected so far have been in countries with good healthcare systems, so the rate of fatalities could be far higher elsewhere). But using the 2% death rate figure:

2% of 1.54 billion is over 30 million people.

The virus has already spent three months in the largest country in the world in terms of population and in highly dense cities (Wuhan: 11 million people). Despite the authorities having no chance to prepare at all, the current total of infections in China today is just over 81,000 - 3261 deaths - with just a handful of new cases coming in each day. Even if some western countries make a monumental arse of things - the US is really your best shot here - the idea of over 1 billion people being infected by the end of the year is still fanciful. We're currently 999,680,000 short of that figure.

And the death rate isn't '2% of people infected' at all. It's (arguably less than ) 2% of symptomatic infections serious enough to warrant testing or successful contract traces - a bar that increases massively as an outbreak progresses. We simply don't know how many people have been exposed to the virus and have displayed either mild symptoms or no symptoms at all - but it is likely to be much, much higher than the tested and confirmed case rate. Which sends both the official infection rate and overall death tally downwards spectacularly.

Quote

Its hard to get our head round this when we're at 13,000 deaths currently.  Watch a video explanation on exponential growth and you'll understand the jumps will start to get huge if the current trend continues.  It's horrific the way it's headed.

Uh huh - but there's actually no reason at all to think that exponential growth will continue as a sustained trend. Whatever would have been the exponential outcome in China from one month ago until now simply has not happened, not even close. It isn't some magical force that just takes hold: it is something that can and normally is checked by sound public health measures, behavioural changes, changing weather conditions and about a hundred other factors that are in play.

So once again, your instant reference point of the worst pandemic disease outbreak in nearly 600 fucking years is hysterical, shrieking nonsense. Stop watching Youtube videos and turn the computer off for a wee while until you calm down.

[Rovers2017]

What are peoples thoughts on here on the chances of a full on lockdown? 

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Terry Singh said:

If the Govt go to lockdown, how long do you give it before a certain percentage get bored and go f*ck it and do what they want.

Has anyone got a moron percentage ratio to compare to Italy or China?

I'd reckon the USA are the only country who could give us a run for our money.

[vikingTON]

2 hours ago, Angusfifer said:

Why are you unable/ unwilling to discuss anything without adopting a sneering/ patronising tone?

Mumsnet for this tone-trolling pish.

[throbber]

15 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:

 

The medical officials have been quite open why they didn’t do this six weeks ago.

^^^ Boris 

[Donathan]

What are peoples thoughts on here on the chances of a full on lockdown? 

If this is done all that happens is the problem is pushed into the future and rears its ugly head in a few months

Hundreds of thousands of deaths in the UK is inevitable

[Guest JTS98]

4 minutes ago, WATTOO said:

Personally I believe we SHOULD have a lockdown, otherwise we're likely to pay dearly in the coming weeks.

Again, it's all about minimizing risk. There are some things we have to do, but we should be doing nothing that we don't have to. Very simple.

If it's not absolutely necessary, don't do it. Stay home.

4 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Youre talking about a government who refuse to properly equip police because people get scared at the thought of a police officer with a taser. Theres no chance at this stage they’ll want the army in the streets and based on the size of the british army they’d barely have enough soldiers to lock down half of London. Scotland doesnt have enough police officers to enforce a lock down when you consider that this virus is going to impact front line police who are being exposed to the virus on a daily basis without any protective equipment.

Doesn't really matter how many they put out or what they give them. Any military presence sends a message. It'll jolt the public.

Listening to what's come out from the government, I think they're moving towards the point of being prepared to do something very tough. They're clearly very concerned.

[Derry Alli]

3 minutes ago, Rovers2017 said:

What are peoples thoughts on here on the chances of a full on lockdown? 

Little to none. 

[BawWatchin]

3 minutes ago, Romeo said:

Not really, I just know drinking hand sanatizer doesn't cure covid and going to the pub is a dick move.

As does 99.9% of the population. It's the sheer stupidity of the 0.1% that makes them stand out and appear like more people than they actually are.

[jagfox]

1 hour ago, D.A.F.C said:

Ice cream van coming round my street today. People queueing up ffs.

 

42 minutes ago, ayrmad said:

Get me a cone and a mix up. 

Hundreds and billions for Granny...

[Guest JTS98]

6 minutes ago, Rovers2017 said:

What are peoples thoughts on here on the chances of a full on lockdown? 

Depends what you mean by 'full lockdown'.

People have to eat. People have to have access to medicine etc. So people simply being locked in their homes and unable to leave is extremely unlikely to happen. That's counter productive.

What is more likely is a situation like what we have here in Malaysia at the moment. You stay at home unless you are going out to buy food or get medicine/go to hospital etc. One person per household is allowed out. Breaking the rules is punishable by heavy fine or imprisonment.

[philpy]

Hordes of people at the beaches in East Lothian today. What a bunch of selfish fuckwits, no concern whatsoever for themselves and other folks.

[Savage Henry]

Depends what you mean by 'full lockdown'.
People have to eat. People have to have access to medicine etc. So people simply being locked in their homes and unable to leave is extremely unlikely to happen. That's counter productive.
What is more likely is a situation like what we have here in Malaysia at the moment. You stay at home unless you are going out to buy food or get medicine/go to hospital etc. One person per household is allowed out. Breaking the rules is punishable by heavy fine or imprisonment.

That’s really what people should be doing at this point. A full lockdown doesn’t mean you can never go out. It means you should stay at home unless you really need to. It may take the Prime Minister to use that word in order for folk to listen though.