Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Billy Jean King]

You've missed the point.
Blanket shielding over 65s is unfair but, if we were determined to avoid people dying, necessary, as this is the demographic that, almost exclusively, has been dying.
Shielding them for 4½ months, however, was outrageous, and by shutting pretty much everyone else away too, was done in a way that there is a chance they might have to do it again.
It was possible to protect them without completely shutting society down, and doing so would have allowed them to rejoin society much sooner, whilst also not destroying people's livelihoods
On your second point, It is pretty much harmless to under 40s. That doesn't mean I don't understand why some parents might be scared for being fed nothing but fear for the last 5 months.

BAME 20% more likely to die of C19 than indigenous northern Europeans. Are we going to tell all ethnic minorities to shield just so the local white kids can keep on raving or packing the beaches. No, as that would rightly be seen as discrimination exactly as telling everyone over a certain age to do the same. I am of the opinion that you would literally do ANYTHING as long as you could could get your own life back to normal. Boris talking of telling millions over 50 to stay at home, lunacy !

[Todd_is_God]

2 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

15 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

You've missed the point.
Blanket shielding over 65s is unfair but, if we were determined to avoid people dying, necessary, as this is the demographic that, almost exclusively, has been dying.
Shielding them for 4½ months, however, was outrageous, and by shutting pretty much everyone else away too, was done in a way that there is a chance they might have to do it again.
It was possible to protect them without completely shutting society down, and doing so would have allowed them to rejoin society much sooner, whilst also not destroying people's livelihoods
On your second point, It is pretty much harmless to under 40s. That doesn't mean I don't understand why some parents might be scared for being fed nothing but fear for the last 5 months.

BAME 20% more likely to die of C19 than indigenous northern Europeans. Are we going to tell all ethnic minorities to shield just so the local white kids can keep on raving or packing the beaches. No, as that would rightly be seen as discrimination exactly as telling everyone over a certain age to do the same. I am of the opinion that you would literally do ANYTHING as long as you could could get your own life back to normal. Boris talking of telling millions over 50 to stay at home, lunacy !

You've lost the plot

[Detournement]

8 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

22 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

You've missed the point.
Blanket shielding over 65s is unfair but, if we were determined to avoid people dying, necessary, as this is the demographic that, almost exclusively, has been dying.
Shielding them for 4½ months, however, was outrageous, and by shutting pretty much everyone else away too, was done in a way that there is a chance they might have to do it again.
It was possible to protect them without completely shutting society down, and doing so would have allowed them to rejoin society much sooner, whilst also not destroying people's livelihoods
On your second point, It is pretty much harmless to under 40s. That doesn't mean I don't understand why some parents might be scared for being fed nothing but fear for the last 5 months.

BAME 20% more likely to die of C19 than indigenous northern Europeans. Are we going to tell all ethnic minorities to shield just so the local white kids can keep on raving or packing the beaches. No, as that would rightly be seen as discrimination exactly as telling everyone over a certain age to do the same. I am of the opinion that you would literally do ANYTHING as long as you could could get your own life back to normal. Boris talking of telling millions over 50 to stay at home, lunacy !

So it's fair to tell everyone to stay in for months but not fair to just tell vulnerable people. 

That's idiotic.

[Thereisalight..]

2 hours ago, Steven W said:

But your level of risk will be greatly diminished if we're all taking the vaccine.

You're going to let everyone else take vaccine , but still enjoy the benefits yourself of a mass vaccination programme, despite having played no part.

However, I'd add you're perfectly entitled to your own viewpoint

I'm not "going to let everyone else take the vaccine". Folk can do as they please. I'm sure I'm not the only one on here who wont take the vaccine, just the only one admitting it right now

[Detournement]

1 minute ago, Thereisalight.. said:

I'm not "going to let everyone else take the vaccine". Folk can do as they please. I'm sure I'm not the only one on here who wont take the vaccine, just the only one admitting it right now

There is no chance I'm taking it. 

[Marshmallo]

1 minute ago, Thereisalight.. said:

I'm not "going to let everyone else take the vaccine". Folk can do as they please. I'm sure I'm not the only one on here who wont take the vaccine, just the only one admitting it right now

Why wouldn't you get vaccinated?

[Cosmic Joe]

6 minutes ago, Marshmallo said:

Why wouldn't you get vaccinated?

Because he's not bothered about catching the virus as he's unlikely to die from it. He's equally not bothered about passing it on to a vulnerable person who could quite well die from it. 

[Todd_is_God]

8 minutes ago, Detournement said:

So it's fair to tell everyone to stay in for months but not fair to just tell vulnerable people. 

That's idiotic.

I'm all for trying to find a fair solution to a problem, but, when it becomes clear that that isn't possible or feasible, then the solution which better suits the majority is the one which should be chosen.

See the absolute shambles of the Hearts & Partick Thistle stuff.

The world is not fair.

[Gaz]

Love this thought that the Tories are going to tell over-65s to stay in the hoose while everyone else is out having fun.

Not going to happen.

[Billy Jean King]

Love this thought that the Tories are going to tell over-65s to stay in the hoose while everyone else is out having fun.
Not going to happen.

It's over 50s if the rumours today are to be believed. Utter lunacy.

[Billy Jean King]

You've lost the plot

In what way, you advocate shielding the vulnerable, the BAME community come under that banner as much as over 50s. Where do you draw the line. Shielding the elderly didn't seem overly effective 1st time around going by the demographic of the dead you constantly quote to us.

[Todd_is_God]

1 minute ago, Gaz said:

Love this thought that the Tories are going to tell over-65s to stay in the hoose while everyone else is out having fun.

Not going to happen.

They should give them all the information about relative risk specific to their demographic.

They should give them information on how they can best protect themselves.

They should strongly advise them to avoid certain places and situations, and to remain at home as much as possible.

That is an adult conversation which allows those within that group to know that they are at a much higher risk should they choose to ignore it.

Those not in that group should be able to continue as now with 1m distancing in place, but an otherwise functioning economy.

[D.A.F.C]

The way I see this is that until we get widespread testing, treatments or a vaccine life before covid isn't going to happen.
No more pubs, clubs, theatres, large crowd gatherings and enforced local lockdowns.
How else can you manage it?

Schools being an exception as it lets adults return to work.

Might as well accept this reality than argue over it.

[Detournement]

If we have another lockdown it will have to be on the Swedish model rather than closing everything again. 

They are down to zero deaths and few cases despite all the predictions of the apocalypse a few months ago.

[Detournement]

Looking at Swedish stats they have only had 231 deaths in u60s with no lockdown.

 

[Todd_is_God]

2 minutes ago, Detournement said:

Looking at Swedish stats they have only had 231 deaths in u60s with no lockdown.

 

bUt iTs uNfAiR

[Todd_is_God]

17 minutes ago, Detournement said:

If we have another lockdown it will have to be on the Swedish model rather than closing everything again. 

They are down to zero deaths and few cases despite all the predictions of the apocalypse a few months ago.

Even in Belarus which did absolutely nothing cases are way down.

Football crowds were tiny a few months ago, but are creeping back up as well which is a good indication that people there recognise the relative risk is now very low.

We, meanwhile, are losing our minds chasing and identifying asymptomatic contacts of asymptomatic contacts and panicking about it.

Edited August 2, 2020 by Todd_is_God

[Melanius Mullarkey]

1 hour ago, Todd_is_God said:

Of course it has influenced key decisions.

The Dominic Cummings press conference and SG complete U-turn within days on their plan for opening of schools are two further examples of things that would not have happened without the widespread nature of social media.

Unmitigated pish. Governments “u-turn” all the time. Do you think this hasn’t happened pre 2000?
 

Edited August 2, 2020 by Melanius Mullarkey

[madwullie]

55 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

1 hour ago, Todd_is_God said:

You've missed the point.
Blanket shielding over 65s is unfair but, if we were determined to avoid people dying, necessary, as this is the demographic that, almost exclusively, has been dying.
Shielding them for 4½ months, however, was outrageous, and by shutting pretty much everyone else away too, was done in a way that there is a chance they might have to do it again.
It was possible to protect them without completely shutting society down, and doing so would have allowed them to rejoin society much sooner, whilst also not destroying people's livelihoods
On your second point, It is pretty much harmless to under 40s. That doesn't mean I don't understand why some parents might be scared for being fed nothing but fear for the last 5 months.

BAME 20% more likely to die of C19 than indigenous northern Europeans. Are we going to tell all ethnic minorities to shield just so the local white kids can keep on raving or packing the beaches. No, as that would rightly be seen as discrimination exactly as telling everyone over a certain age to do the same. I am of the opinion that you would literally do ANYTHING as long as you could could get your own life back to normal. Boris talking of telling millions over 50 to stay at home, lunacy !

Any plan like this completely fails to understand the reality that, especially in poor areas, people who need to shield / are more vulnerable, simply don't have the house-space or resources to do so fully away from the younger generation, be it multi-generational households, grandparents being sole carer of school age kids, older family members living alone needing younger family to help care for them, staff who work as carers (usually lower percentile of wages) also having school age kids at home, or whatever. 

@Todd_is_God said it was possible for us to have shielded them without being so draconian about it, but didn't outline how this was to be done. 

[Todd_is_God]

1 minute ago, madwullie said:

Any plan like this completely fails to understand the reality that, especially in poor areas, people who need to shield / are more vulnerable, simply don't have the house-space or resources to do so fully away from the younger generation, be it multi-generational households, grandparents being sole carer of school age kids, older family members living alone needing younger family to help care for them, staff who work as carers (usually lower percentile of wages) also having school age kids at home, or whatever. 

@Todd_is_God said it was possible for us to have shielded them without being so draconian about it, but didn't outline how this was to be done. 

Fucking hell, how many times do I need to say it? The Swedish model was a balanced, sensible approach, and it appears to have worked.

For a multi generational household it's obviously harder, as you'd need to be very anal about distancing as much as possible as often as possible, but them existing is not a sound reason for a blanket policy on absolutely everyone.