Again, this is the anti-vax argument dressed in slightly different clothes.
Very different clothes.... in many ways its the reverse. In this case it's the government trying to spread the disease.
Let everyone who can die from something die... (I'm voting TB as I'm naturally immune)...
In this case it’s the government trying to spread the disease.
Let everyone who can die from something die…
Say what now?
Also, can we please just explore what is meant by 'ruining my life' here?
It will need to be good, though, there are 41,500 odd people whose lives have been ruined fairly conclusively.
As for 'banter' crack on. It wasn't me that squealed (my post was also 'disappeared'). I can do 'banter' on this level standing on my head. It is quite relaxing shooting fish in a barrel.
Looks like someone squealed about my previous reply to this…..vanished into thin air it did.
There have been hammers. Move along, nothing to see here.
My SIL is still mixing with her family - we're in Gtr Mcr, so she took no notice - let's say we've not been near them - She and us are out of restrictions next week. Bro is a dentist, and has split his practice into two teams - one of the teams has gone down as a relative of a team member has CV19.
We're avoiding areas where it's busy. Avoiding shopping other than for food.
Locally, most people in shops wearing face masks. Been in Wales for a week at our van, and noticed a group of 4 families at a restaurant (against the rules) - restaurant had to have a quiet word about the track and trace by then - couldn't really afford to lose about 14 place settings.
Currently 6 days into our 14 days quarantine having returned from Croatia last week. So I would say we are following the rules. Have been wearing masks in shops etc and generally avoiding strangers.
I would say tho that's it's quite difficult at times to follow the 'rules', as they are either vague, contradictory or change at the drop of a hat.
Currently 6 days into our 14 days quarantine having returned from Croatia last week. So I would say we are following the rules. Have been wearing masks in shops etc and generally avoiding strangers.
Sorry what? You’re in quarantine but you’ve been shopping?
Currently 6 days into our 14 days quarantine [...] Have been wearing masks in shops etc and generally avoiding strangers.
You do know that quarantine means you stay at home, right? Or have I misunderstood your meaning here?
I assumed they meant "prior to quarantine"?
Assumption is the mother of all **** ups!
Sounds like they don't get it!
Even travelling at a time like this would suggest it...
I assumed they meant “prior to quarantine”?
So did I. There is nothing in the grammar of their reply to suggest otherwise.
TBF, there is. It's really not clear either way.
There is nothing in the grammar of their reply to suggest otherwise
Yeah, there is, that's why K57 and I asked.
I also assumed they meant shopping after returning from Croatia.
Hubby and I have been taking all precautions. Yes we are following covid advice. We are doing it for ourselves as well as for others.
We're still in lockdown until Wednesday (Stockport) and a lot of people in our area are thinking 'oh we're back to normal then'. I just roll my eyes.
Family members have decided that the C19 rules have impacted their lives too much and are 'fed up' with it. Those people are the one's I will be staying away from.
Neighbours have not abided by any rules whatsoever. Which is very worrying, as they work in their parents care home.
Long weekend up in Cumbria. Been to various cafes, supermarkets, shops, tourist hotspots, motorway services and two trail centres.
The ONLY places I noticed people not wearing face coverings was the toilets at the trail centres, and as people were at least distanced and limiting numbers in the toilets, plus doors and windows open for ventilation, and all the washing hands and sanitiser, and I wasn't within a metre of someone for 15 minutes, I'm fairly comfortable with what was going on. Maybe some groups were breaching the household mixing rules, whatever they are now, but they were keeping away from groups as much as possible.
Is there some confirmation bias going on with all you posters seeing so many people not wearing masks and flouting the rules?
Sorry, that sounded harsh, was meant to be light hearted. I was expecting much worse adherence in the world outside my little local bubble, and it was fine.
I’ve done my bit. But am frustrated that those who are vulnerable through obesity or poor (self induced) health are not encouraged to see it as their civic duty to make themselves less vulnerable by sorting themselves out. Not by a gentle eat less sugar message but a huge **** off great wake up call to help their country by getting off their arses.
These measures hurt many who have done the right things for years and kept themselves well away from the NHS. I feel we need to be as harsh on many sofa based kebab eaters who are feeling little pain as their lives continue as normal.
I’m not following it, the risk is so low no so I’m not ruining my life any longer for it.
The risk for you might be low, but if you catch the virus and pass it on to me on one of my rare supermarket visits there's a risk I could take it to my place of work. Many of the people there have conditions that make them vulnerable, they probably wouldn't survive.
So yes, you'll probably be alright, but others could die because of your actions. Is it really that difficult to wear a mask and regularly wash your hands, even if it only lowers the risk by a couple of percent?
I’m not following it, the risk is so low no so I’m not ruining my life any longer for it.
What kind of joker are you?
How is your life being ruined?
I take it from your stupid post and irresponsible attitude that you don't care about anyone else and the possible consequences of your actions.
I'm confused by those complaining about supermarkets etc. I view the current restrictions as a massive overreaction but my natural dislike of other people means my life is basically back to normal now. Visiting supermarkets either early or late mean they're basically deserted and you can social distance to your hearts content and I'll tolerate having to wear a mask. My choice of pubs is the same as before and there's reasonable choice to eat out again.
I'm happily meeting up with friends etc but I actually look at the risk they individually present. Living a fairly middle class lifestyle other than working in central Bradford and being married to a police officer I'm generally far more of a risk to them than they are to me. My parents who are in their 70's are still meeting up with friends and going to their local pub, even though they live in Greater Manchester, and I entirely agree with it as the risk is so low.
i'll wear a mask when going into the petrol station or the very occasional trip into a shop(my wife does the household shopping) but thats the only thing i do do.
going back to work after 4 weeks off we tried the distancing thing for a day or so but it didn't work so we gave up on it.
i would say that most people i know are the same. life has to go on and we can't keep going as we are for much longer.
Gribs
Member
I’m confused by those complaining about supermarkets etc. I view the current restrictions as a massive overreaction
These restrictions have saved 10,000's of lives. Remember the predictions of around 250,000 dead if we went the do nothing/herd immunity route?
It seems an over reaction because it worked to a large degree. (Would have worked even better if the restrictions had come in a week or so earlier.)
i would say that most people i know are the same. life has to go on and we can’t keep going as we are for much longer.
Ah.
Natural selection.
These restrictions have saved 10,000’s of lives. Remember the predictions of around 250,000 dead if we went the do nothing/herd immunity route?
Those numbers were based on a model which had been discredited and was based on entirely on guesswork. No one has come close to those predicted figures. Our appalling death rate and economic damage is due to the incompetence of our government in clearing hospitals with minimal testing to care homes, shutting down large swaths of the economy , and terrifying large parts of the population who have no understanding of risk/maths.
shutting down large swaths of the economy
What would you have preferred the gov to do?
How good is your understanding of risk/maths?
So you are genuinely saying lockdown was not necessary?
I agree on the government's incompetence. One of its mistakes being not bringing in lockdown earlier.
However lock down was necessary, however good the government might have been/not been.
Look at the mess in America where they are still going through an extended version of the first wave in large part due to a patchy, incoherent lock down and premature exit from it.
What would you have preferred the gov to do?
How good is your understanding of risk/maths?
Degree level. Even significantly below that level it should be clear that actually dying from covid is less likely than something else is for the majority of the population. I'll accept that my tolerance for old people dying is higher than average though.
So you are genuinely saying lockdown was not necessary?
No, jut that they locked down and supported those a minimal risk rather than concentrating resources on those at a high risk. Leaving the under 50's to carry on as normal with support for those in that age range at significant risk would have seem sensible to me. My opinion might be biased as I worked through out and my risk was almost entirely due to my wife's job which I had no control over.
So you are genuinely saying lockdown was not necessary?
It's hard to understand what anyone is saying when they equate...
Our appalling death rate and economic damage is due to
... as being the same thing.
If that is indeed what Gribs is suggesting then I already answered this a page or two back, it's the Millennium Bug argument and it's fallacious.
shutting down large swaths of the economy
You still haven't answered the question - what would you have preferred the gov do?
Using your self-proclaimed knowledge of risk & maths, how would you have communicated with the public who you describe as having no understanding of risk/maths?
Degree level.
What's your degree in?
it should be clear that actually dying from covid is less likely than something else is for the majority of the population.
Whilst this may have been true when lockdown started, it misses the point.
It's a pandemic which is not symptomatic until you've been infected for a couple of weeks and cheerfully spreading it to everyone else. Unchecked, what do you think would have happened?
"It's usually not fatal" is hardly a poster-boy defence. If great swathes of the population had been hospitalised at the same time then the NHS would have keeled over. Dying of cancer? Too bad, every bed we have is full of people on artificial lungs. Even if CV19 deaths had been over-predicted, indirect (and wholly avoidable) deaths would have been huge. It is critical to the healthcare services, the country and to the world that if this thing spreads then it does so in a controlled manner.
Or you could whine because McDonald's is shut.
We’re still semi-adhering, got family members that are at risk. That being said, have been to local and have had said at risk family (bubble) over to stay. Now on self imposed self-isolation because heading Scotland in a few week on holiday and with at risk family member, so don’t want to risk anything.
Leaving the under 50’s to carry on as normal with support for those in that age range at significant risk would have seem sensible to me
which would not have worked. Under 50s get it and die from it as well and those under 50s would simply have spread it around the population to the extent that hospitals would be overwhelmed and the over 50s would get it anyway
Those numbers were based on a model which had been discredited and was based on entirely on guesswork.
I reckon we're going to get a second set of data by the end of the year with less restrictions in place, so the model may well be proved right.
I don't disagree with the argument that lockdown is and was necessary, but there are alternative views that should be heard.
This is all going a bit brexity though....agree with us or we'll all gang up and shout at you. Dismissing anyone with another view as a moron who's just happy because McDonalds is open again is not they way to persuade and convince. Whether you happen to be right or not.
I wear a mask everywhere that it has been requested to. I don't actually think masks will make a whole lot of difference in many scenarios but I wear one anyway.
I went to a garden centre yesterday, wore mask at all times which was mostly walking around outside. However, the restaurant (which I didn't go into) was full of people over 60 not wearing masks.
To me that doesn't make any sense (I know you can't wear a mask while eating!) but why would I be wearing a mask walking outside while ea load of more vulnerable people are all sat together for 30 minutes with no masks.
Kerley - its about cumulative risk. You cannot wear a mask while eating but the tables should either be separated by a screen or 2 m. Yes its a risk. But by wearing the mask in places its mandated you reduce your overall risk - and masks do work. Not 100% but they do reduce risk.
Sorry what? You’re in quarantine but you’ve been shopping?
don't be sorry!
I did indeed mean prior to quarantine. I am fully aware we are not allowed to leave our home, hence why we haven't.
We're having a local spike. Fortunately I'm laid up with a busted knee. Unfortunately that gives me time to check on my employers working out. This article seems pertinent to the mask argument (and also why our blower heating at work is not the best idea).
In short wearing a mask help reduce the risk to others and particle size of infectious aerosol may be smaller than first thought.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30323-4/fulltext
In this case it’s the government trying to spread the disease.
Let everyone who can die from something die…
grum
Say what now?
It's hard to make it any simpler... what do you think "control the virus" means?
It's a case of dribble it out and keep it below the radar.
If you think Cummings has changed from "protect the economy and if old people die so be it" that's deluded.
You're all mostly talking about death. Each of which is someone'e loved one.
What about the 'long haulers'. These are people who are around the 35 - 60 age group. Mostly fit and healthy to start with, now suffering from post viral fatigue syndrome, also loss of smell and taste and worry over the chance of having a stroke or heart attack at any time. Their lives for the time being are completely on hold.
It's very simple. Wear a mask for others. Wash your hands properly and frequently for others and stay away from people you know who are vulnerable.
In lock down abide by the rules.
It really is simple.
Edit: I forgot the all important 2 metre distancing, which is just over 6 foot for many elderly people who think 2m is 2 feet.
Kerley – its about cumulative risk. You cannot wear a mask while eating but the tables should either be separated by a screen or 2 m. Yes its a risk.
Yes, I understand that. The risk of having restaurant full of people over 60 is a risk that is not worth taking in my view. Just have some tea and cake outdoors in the garden with whoever you are in restaurant with.
shutting down large swaths of the economy
If we'd shut down much earlier, before it had spread everywhere, the shut down would have been a lot shorter and the economic damage far less. The mistake Boris made was to ignore all the ample warnings and wait till it was out of control and then shut down. Thus we got the best of both worlds, max deaths and max economic damage. World beating as he proclaimed.
The risk of having restaurant full of people over 60 is a risk that is not worth taking in my view.
Well if the over 60s are happy to go out and take the risk, that's their call - it's mainly their lives on the line.
As for opening restaurants, we're stuck between a rock and a hard place, having locked down too late and therefore for too long, we're trying to salvage the economy before that ends up killing people.