Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Led By "The Science"?
Would you be happy to go along with this discriminatory idea?
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by diddlydo. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The purpose of the lockdown seems to be generally misunderstood. It is to flatten out the rise of infections so the NHS will always be able cope.
The virus will be with us for a very long time yet as a gradual tempering of the lockdown exposes more people, but because of the lockdown there will be enough ICUs to cope. The over-70s should then have the choice as to whether to expose themselves to higher risk or not.
The virus will be with us for a very long time yet as a gradual tempering of the lockdown exposes more people, but because of the lockdown there will be enough ICUs to cope. The over-70s should then have the choice as to whether to expose themselves to higher risk or not.
Personally, I would go with over 80, do what you like... but of course, the more people that do catch it, the more others are at risk too. So it isn't just "I don't mind". We have a family of clients who are very religious and basically believe... what will be will be... and carrying on as normal, fair enough, but we aren't willing to risk that with other clients, who may not feel the same.
My sister and I... we had to stop anyway, for a while, as my sister had symptoms. We made sure everyone was covered. We have not yet returned to this family. Hopefully we will very soon, as my sister and I both have a "vulnerable" person in our houses and go straight on to others.
Tbh, it has been quite a dilemma at times, and we are really not sure what would be right or wrong just now.
Tbh, it has been quite a dilemma at times, and we are really not sure what would be right or wrong just now.
I think so... which is why we are delaying them at the moment. On the last call I went to, one of their church "friends" visited- while I was there. She was literally on the way back from the hospital, where she volunteered, and they had sent a few home (including her) who they discovered had been working very closely with people diagnosed with covid.
For some reason, on her way home, she felt it appropriate to visit this vulnerable family....
So, we need to know they are isolating, until we can go back...
For some reason, on her way home, she felt it appropriate to visit this vulnerable family....
So, we need to know they are isolating, until we can go back...
My daughter, who also lives here, is a carer, and has been directly working with people with positive results from covid. They have PPE there. Personally, I would prefer her to stop. Particularly as my son has asthma.
We have no (and can't get any) PPE ourselves, so we just have to be as aware and careful as possible. Very difficult to know what to do, though.
We have no (and can't get any) PPE ourselves, so we just have to be as aware and careful as possible. Very difficult to know what to do, though.
//Unfortunately, NJ, the flaw in that reasoning is that asymptomatic people, or at least those with only a minimal response to the disease, could also be spreading it.//
If somebody is asymptomatic, whether they are seven or seventy they will spread it because those without symptoms (apart from health professionals) are not being tested under the current arrangements and so will not isolate. Similarly those people (whatever their age) will not report themselves as symptomatic on the NHS app so anyone coming into contact them will not be alerted. The only reason age and other vulnerabilities are of concern is because those people stand a greater chance of developing serious symptoms. But they have no more or less chance of contracting or passing on the virus. If the idea is to keep the hospitals empty then it’s a factor to be considered. If the aim is to prevent spread then it makes no difference.
If somebody is asymptomatic, whether they are seven or seventy they will spread it because those without symptoms (apart from health professionals) are not being tested under the current arrangements and so will not isolate. Similarly those people (whatever their age) will not report themselves as symptomatic on the NHS app so anyone coming into contact them will not be alerted. The only reason age and other vulnerabilities are of concern is because those people stand a greater chance of developing serious symptoms. But they have no more or less chance of contracting or passing on the virus. If the idea is to keep the hospitals empty then it’s a factor to be considered. If the aim is to prevent spread then it makes no difference.
//And not everyone symptomatic is being tested, nj. Certainly at our local care homes, they will test people on nursing units, but not residential or dementia. Symptoms or not.//
Indeed not, pixie. The idea that this can be contained by testing and tracing is fanciful. The country either has to remain locked down or deal with whatever comes. Since the lockdown does not seem to have been exactly a rip-roaring success and has killed the economy into the bargain I believe a different approach is necessary.
Indeed not, pixie. The idea that this can be contained by testing and tracing is fanciful. The country either has to remain locked down or deal with whatever comes. Since the lockdown does not seem to have been exactly a rip-roaring success and has killed the economy into the bargain I believe a different approach is necessary.
I think it is impossible to tell what effects the lockdown has had. We have nothing to compare that to. But there doesn't seem to be much rationality in who can get tested and even the advice of "isolating for 7 days" with symptoms... is often not possible, and we know, not long enough anyway. Neither, I think, is the 2m distancing. Plus the lack of PPE.
At some point, we will need to just carry on... and people are starting to, already. I hope a vaccine is found very soon.
At some point, we will need to just carry on... and people are starting to, already. I hope a vaccine is found very soon.
//I think it is impossible to tell what effects the lockdown has had. We have nothing to compare that to.//
I absolutely agree. We are told it has reduced infections and I agree that common sense tells me that must be true. But I do not believe that anybody can say with even the remotest degree of certainty what the effect has been. At some point the government is going to have to decide whether to sacrifice the economy to save lives or to sacrifice lives to save the economy because eventually more lives will be lost as a result of the measures being taken than will be lost as a result of the virus itself.
I absolutely agree. We are told it has reduced infections and I agree that common sense tells me that must be true. But I do not believe that anybody can say with even the remotest degree of certainty what the effect has been. At some point the government is going to have to decide whether to sacrifice the economy to save lives or to sacrifice lives to save the economy because eventually more lives will be lost as a result of the measures being taken than will be lost as a result of the virus itself.
//How much more time do you think we could locked down for before more would die of a result of lock down than of the virus?//
Less than you think, Nick.
The main problem is that in a very short space of time, under the current arrangements, the country will run out of money. People who believe that the government will simply continue borrowing to carry on paying people's wages are in for a shock. It doesn't quite work like that. The money will run out for, among other things, funds for the NHS. When that happens anybody with a life threatening illness or injury will run an increased risk of dying and deaths will increase. The Chancellor is already making noises suggesting that the current arrangement of paying 80% of the wages of half the country will have to be cut back. The health of the population depends very much on the health of the economy.
Of course there's very much more to it than that. The first two or three weeks of the lockdown saw it very much as a novelty. Now people are concerned for their futures - not from a health point of view but from an economic one.
Thirty thousand deaths are thirty thousand tragedies. But it represents 0.04% of the population and three week's deaths at the usual rate. But the vast majority of people who contract the virus will experience minor symptoms or none at all. The government cannot protect everybody from everything and it certainly cannot protect everybody from this virus. People assess risks to their health and wellbeing all the time. Those at particular risk should be encouraged to take particular precautions. But the country needs to be released from its purdah in order to get the economy flowing again or untold damage to everybody will ensue.
Less than you think, Nick.
The main problem is that in a very short space of time, under the current arrangements, the country will run out of money. People who believe that the government will simply continue borrowing to carry on paying people's wages are in for a shock. It doesn't quite work like that. The money will run out for, among other things, funds for the NHS. When that happens anybody with a life threatening illness or injury will run an increased risk of dying and deaths will increase. The Chancellor is already making noises suggesting that the current arrangement of paying 80% of the wages of half the country will have to be cut back. The health of the population depends very much on the health of the economy.
Of course there's very much more to it than that. The first two or three weeks of the lockdown saw it very much as a novelty. Now people are concerned for their futures - not from a health point of view but from an economic one.
Thirty thousand deaths are thirty thousand tragedies. But it represents 0.04% of the population and three week's deaths at the usual rate. But the vast majority of people who contract the virus will experience minor symptoms or none at all. The government cannot protect everybody from everything and it certainly cannot protect everybody from this virus. People assess risks to their health and wellbeing all the time. Those at particular risk should be encouraged to take particular precautions. But the country needs to be released from its purdah in order to get the economy flowing again or untold damage to everybody will ensue.
I wonder if this is the standard of argument in the Cabinet Room. We are screwed if it is ..... BUT
it isnt just and Idea to Boris ( who last time I looked - was in the Cabinet Room ) who has Had It - this is called availability bias
and may skew decision making
to what I would call 'a more rational' plane
it isnt just and Idea to Boris ( who last time I looked - was in the Cabinet Room ) who has Had It - this is called availability bias
and may skew decision making
to what I would call 'a more rational' plane
You can see the effect of the lockdown in a number of ways, NJ. First the Ro value that has fallen from 3.5-4 to around 0.7 (where anything above 1 means exponential growth). Someone posted some data on here though that showed Ro had already started falling (maybe down to 2) by the time the lockdown started because of all the measures that had already been put in place in the preceding week (shielding, stopping large gatherings, schools closing, pubs closing, encouraging working from home, 2m guidance).
The other way is to look at the projected UK deaths figure of around 100,000 if no lockdown was put in place- of course we'll never know now whether that was too low or too high but Prof Ferguson's model, which reflected Ro at the time, persuaded the govt to move to the lockdown. Boris had previous been a bit laissez faire about things, dismissing things like restricting personal movement too much, but he was shocked into action by the growing evidence from scientists that the virus had taken hold and would lead to the NHS being overrun and huge numbers of deaths
The other way is to look at the projected UK deaths figure of around 100,000 if no lockdown was put in place- of course we'll never know now whether that was too low or too high but Prof Ferguson's model, which reflected Ro at the time, persuaded the govt to move to the lockdown. Boris had previous been a bit laissez faire about things, dismissing things like restricting personal movement too much, but he was shocked into action by the growing evidence from scientists that the virus had taken hold and would lead to the NHS being overrun and huge numbers of deaths
Latest Posts
ChatterBank23 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles25 mins ago
ChatterBank31 mins ago
Crosswords31 mins ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |