Chelmsford Cancer Charity Quiz
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
More Stupid People Not Listening To The Advice.
No wonder our death toll is going up when people cant listen to simple advice.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Your first answer to this thread sums up the title of it. Health workers are more at risk from it in work because of people ignoring the advice given and ending up in hospital because they ignore it but some can't see this and some never will.
08:23 Sun 10th May 2020
//Well if a judge thinks the law should be broken...//
If that's me, I didn't say that. I said it would be increasingly broken. I didn't suggest I thought that it should.
//The vast majority do actually support a continuation of the lockdown,...//
So would I if I was being paid 80% of my wages to stay at home.
I truly do not believe too many people realise the implications of the lockdown being sustained for the lengthy periods that are being bandied about. Nobody in government has made any remarks about it. But the main issue is that even keeping people locked down does not seem to be restricting the spread of the virus. Average daily new cases are near enough 5,000 and have been for weeks. Average daily deaths are 500 and have been for weeks. Still, it could be worse (so I'm led to believe).
If that's me, I didn't say that. I said it would be increasingly broken. I didn't suggest I thought that it should.
//The vast majority do actually support a continuation of the lockdown,...//
So would I if I was being paid 80% of my wages to stay at home.
I truly do not believe too many people realise the implications of the lockdown being sustained for the lengthy periods that are being bandied about. Nobody in government has made any remarks about it. But the main issue is that even keeping people locked down does not seem to be restricting the spread of the virus. Average daily new cases are near enough 5,000 and have been for weeks. Average daily deaths are 500 and have been for weeks. Still, it could be worse (so I'm led to believe).
So we're back to the same question, Zacs: how long does the country intend to try to survive with economic activity at drastically reduced levels? How much business destruction is it prepared to endure in a futile attempt to "defeat" a virus? When will people decide that they'd prefer take their chances rather than endure a monastic existence for an indefinite period to emerge to a country that won't be worth living in anyway?
Zacs //Normally fit healthy people are not catching the virus in the park or anywhere else for that matter and ending up in hospital’ //
I realise this was badly worded ( pity there is no edit button)
What I meant was that if normal fit healthy people, who you may find sunbathing or exercising in the park, catch the virus , they are a lot less likely to end up in hospital, therefore they are not putting extra pressure on the NHS. They may catch the virus in the park -or from a co-worker or in the supermarket -who knows? But, statistically, they will get mild to moderate symptoms and not need to go to hospital.
I realise this was badly worded ( pity there is no edit button)
What I meant was that if normal fit healthy people, who you may find sunbathing or exercising in the park, catch the virus , they are a lot less likely to end up in hospital, therefore they are not putting extra pressure on the NHS. They may catch the virus in the park -or from a co-worker or in the supermarket -who knows? But, statistically, they will get mild to moderate symptoms and not need to go to hospital.
Maybe our leaders should not tease with opening garden centres and the like if they want to maintain compliance.
Give people an allowable destination and they'll either travel to it or use it as a reason to be out and about if challenged.
Far too much tinkering at the edges from the bods in suits, wanting to be everybodys pal, not the bad guys.
Give people an allowable destination and they'll either travel to it or use it as a reason to be out and about if challenged.
Far too much tinkering at the edges from the bods in suits, wanting to be everybodys pal, not the bad guys.
//What I meant was that if normal fit healthy people, who you may find sunbathing or exercising in the park, catch the virus , they are a lot less likely to end up in hospital, therefore they are not putting extra pressure on the NHS. They may catch the virus in the park -or from a co-worker or in the supermarket -who knows? But, statistically, they will get mild to moderate symptoms and not need to go to hospital.//
That would seem fine if those normal fit healthy people only mixed with other normal fit healthy people, but that is unlikely.
That would seem fine if those normal fit healthy people only mixed with other normal fit healthy people, but that is unlikely.
//If, under lockdown there are 500 deaths daily, what theory are you applying to suggest if we go back to "normal", this figure will reduce?
Logic alone suggests it would increase.//
I've never suggested we simply "go back to normal". My argument is that the government cannot protect everybody from everything and it certainly cannot protect everybody from Covid. Its strategy at present is to try to prevent the virus spreading to anybody. And it patently can't - not unless everybody remained in their own homes 24/7/365 and we'd all eventually die of starvation. What's happening now is a slower version of that. The virus is still spreading, people are still dying and the economy is being destroyed. There needs to be a more targeted approach to protect those recognised as vulnerable (many of whom do not directly contribute to the economy) whilst allowing the majority of the country as a whole to get back to work.
Logic alone suggests it would increase.//
I've never suggested we simply "go back to normal". My argument is that the government cannot protect everybody from everything and it certainly cannot protect everybody from Covid. Its strategy at present is to try to prevent the virus spreading to anybody. And it patently can't - not unless everybody remained in their own homes 24/7/365 and we'd all eventually die of starvation. What's happening now is a slower version of that. The virus is still spreading, people are still dying and the economy is being destroyed. There needs to be a more targeted approach to protect those recognised as vulnerable (many of whom do not directly contribute to the economy) whilst allowing the majority of the country as a whole to get back to work.
>futile attempt to "defeat" a virus
I don't think anyone believes the lockdown is an attempt to defeat the virus if 'defeat' is taken to mean 'eliminate'.
The intention is to MANAGE the levels so that the NHS can cope and, as the lockdown is relaxed, to ensure NHS is not overrun and the disease spikes such that people are too afraid to go to work/shops. It could make the economic situation worse.
No other major country is scrapping the lockdowns all in one go - why would our government want to try such an experiment?
I don't think anyone believes the lockdown is an attempt to defeat the virus if 'defeat' is taken to mean 'eliminate'.
The intention is to MANAGE the levels so that the NHS can cope and, as the lockdown is relaxed, to ensure NHS is not overrun and the disease spikes such that people are too afraid to go to work/shops. It could make the economic situation worse.
No other major country is scrapping the lockdowns all in one go - why would our government want to try such an experiment?
‘ There needs to be a more targeted approach to protect those recognised as vulnerable (many of whom do not directly contribute to the economy) whilst allowing the majority of the country as a whole to get back to work.’
Forgive me, NJ, but that’s a bit airy-fairy. How do you protect the more vulnerable if we go back to most of us working? There will be more visits to hospitals, more deliveries to care homes, more people coming into contact with NHS staff (husbands, wives, extended family). Neither you not I know what effect that could lead to, i.e. it’s an experiment. Would you, honestly, as a government official sanction that?
Forgive me, NJ, but that’s a bit airy-fairy. How do you protect the more vulnerable if we go back to most of us working? There will be more visits to hospitals, more deliveries to care homes, more people coming into contact with NHS staff (husbands, wives, extended family). Neither you not I know what effect that could lead to, i.e. it’s an experiment. Would you, honestly, as a government official sanction that?
It's not even an experiment, because it would be unclear how you control it. Never mind the flaw in the reasoning that we still don't really know who is and isn't vulnerable. Yes, the trends are that people who are older, or those with other conditions, are more at risk, but there are still some who can be apparently perfectly healthy who succumb, and in any case you don't have to die to suffer from Covid-19. There's mounting evidence to suggest that the damage it can wreak is pretty severe and long-lasting even amongst survivors.
European countries like Italy, Spain and France are easing lockdowns due to much lower infection rates over the last week or so. We are not there yet but some people are acting like we are. Nearly 4k new infections identified yesterday and they're only the ones who've been tested. Probably 1000's more who haven't been tested, are asymptomatic or mild cases and are still spreading it.
I am not at all sure what you are suggesting, New Judge. I am aware you don't agree with the Government's approach, but not what yours would be. Take London, which I believe you are very familiar with, how would you see that returning to work? How many do you think have already had the virus, and how many do you think might be taken down at any one time as a result of returning to work and socialising?
