Jokes1 min ago
How Many More
38 Answers
So called experts are going to come on TV and tell us that the vulnerable are at risk, there must have been thousands of them over the last nine months. Its enough to do you're ruddy head in. WE KNOW!!!!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by teacake44. 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.
sherrark - a have no idea where your Nazi jibe comes from but a was just floating an idea, thinking out loud. We'er actualy doing something like it already at are universities where loads of young adults are catching the virus and are been quarentined in student blocks. Also in are schools where its been spreading like wildfire in some schools with lot's catching corona, but we'er then sending them home to infect others.
//Nope. Its wrong for him to put others at risk by not wearing he's mask.//
Sorry, bob, but the vulnerable (and everybody else) must take care of themselves. All you have to do is not to go near him. The protection afforded by face coverings is dubious to say the least and if you are worried about passing close to a (possibly) infected person then simply steer clear. If that isn't enough to allay your fears then you need to stay in. To expect everybody to roam around masked up to assuage your irrational paranoia is completely unreasonable.
//but it stands to reason that if we stop social contact's for long enough the corona virus will dry up//
It doesn’t stand to reason at all. For the virus to “dry up” we would have to stop all contact, not just what you describe as “social” contact. That is clearly impossible because people need to work, to shop, to get medical treatment, to be educated and interact with others for all sorts of non-social reasons. Preventing all such contact is simply impossible. Moving on from that, just how long do you believe such restrictions would have to be in place for your idea to work anyway? What happens to people who need medical treatment for reasons other than Covid during that time, let alone how they are expected to obtain essential supplies? What happens to schoolchildren? Do they simply end their education for an indefinite period?
The “firebreak” in Wales will see infections reduce (they have already begun to do so in many places anyway because the spread caused by students returning to universities seems to have peaked). As soon as it is lifted infections will rise again though maybe not so quickly because the university problem will have been removed from the equation.
This virus is no different to any other that has spread across the globe in the last century or so. It has spread more quickly because people move about more but it is essentially the same – a nasty disease for the very few who will suffer serious symptoms but a minor inconvenience for everybody else. What is different is the way it has been tackled. What is needed is proper targeted protection for the vulnerable – if they want it. Those who are not in a vulnerable group should take what measures they believe appropriate the same as everybody does every day with all sorts of risks. Meanwhile life can go on. At the beginning of all this the government’s Chief Scientific Officer said that hard suppression was not the way to handle any pandemic. I think we should all be told why he’s changed his mind.
Sorry, bob, but the vulnerable (and everybody else) must take care of themselves. All you have to do is not to go near him. The protection afforded by face coverings is dubious to say the least and if you are worried about passing close to a (possibly) infected person then simply steer clear. If that isn't enough to allay your fears then you need to stay in. To expect everybody to roam around masked up to assuage your irrational paranoia is completely unreasonable.
//but it stands to reason that if we stop social contact's for long enough the corona virus will dry up//
It doesn’t stand to reason at all. For the virus to “dry up” we would have to stop all contact, not just what you describe as “social” contact. That is clearly impossible because people need to work, to shop, to get medical treatment, to be educated and interact with others for all sorts of non-social reasons. Preventing all such contact is simply impossible. Moving on from that, just how long do you believe such restrictions would have to be in place for your idea to work anyway? What happens to people who need medical treatment for reasons other than Covid during that time, let alone how they are expected to obtain essential supplies? What happens to schoolchildren? Do they simply end their education for an indefinite period?
The “firebreak” in Wales will see infections reduce (they have already begun to do so in many places anyway because the spread caused by students returning to universities seems to have peaked). As soon as it is lifted infections will rise again though maybe not so quickly because the university problem will have been removed from the equation.
This virus is no different to any other that has spread across the globe in the last century or so. It has spread more quickly because people move about more but it is essentially the same – a nasty disease for the very few who will suffer serious symptoms but a minor inconvenience for everybody else. What is different is the way it has been tackled. What is needed is proper targeted protection for the vulnerable – if they want it. Those who are not in a vulnerable group should take what measures they believe appropriate the same as everybody does every day with all sorts of risks. Meanwhile life can go on. At the beginning of all this the government’s Chief Scientific Officer said that hard suppression was not the way to handle any pandemic. I think we should all be told why he’s changed his mind.
Its all very well encouraging youngsters to get the virus in the hopes they will become immune en masse but there is a good chance they would infect their parents and grandparents which possibly is not a good idea. I thought the jury is out as to whether there is long term or indeed, any immunity to the virus.
I don't care if any of the denyers get covid 19 but they are endangering other people and not just those they contact daily in family and friends but if they need treatment of any kind how many more are in contact with them and also put at risk of infection. Totally selfish to behave in this way in public.
//I don't care if any of the denyers get covid 19...//
I don't know how you define "denyers" Lady-J. I don't believe anybody who posts on here denies that Covid can be a serious matter. Where the difference of opinion arises is concerning the strategy adopted to combat it. It is almost undisputed that for younger people the disease presents little or no threat. Over 90% of deaths have been among those aged over 65; just 1% of deaths have been among those under 45. For young people and those who are fit and healthy the risks are incredibly small. Young children stand a far greater chance of being struck by lightning than dying from Covid.
So, with that in mind, is it reasonable to subject the entire population to draconian measures, especially when those measures seriously jeopardise the economy and cause considerable harm to the health of those suffering from other conditions? You seem to be of the opinion that everybody must avoid contracting the virus whatever the cost, so that they can avoid passing it on to anybody else. I don't (and if you read some of my posts you'll learn why and also what I believe the strategy should be). But that doesn't make me a "denyer."
I don't know how you define "denyers" Lady-J. I don't believe anybody who posts on here denies that Covid can be a serious matter. Where the difference of opinion arises is concerning the strategy adopted to combat it. It is almost undisputed that for younger people the disease presents little or no threat. Over 90% of deaths have been among those aged over 65; just 1% of deaths have been among those under 45. For young people and those who are fit and healthy the risks are incredibly small. Young children stand a far greater chance of being struck by lightning than dying from Covid.
So, with that in mind, is it reasonable to subject the entire population to draconian measures, especially when those measures seriously jeopardise the economy and cause considerable harm to the health of those suffering from other conditions? You seem to be of the opinion that everybody must avoid contracting the virus whatever the cost, so that they can avoid passing it on to anybody else. I don't (and if you read some of my posts you'll learn why and also what I believe the strategy should be). But that doesn't make me a "denyer."
Latest Posts
Starmer Continues With "Grossly...
News10 mins ago
Time For A Limit On Angry Posts
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Businesses Warn Of Job Losses Threat As...
News16 mins ago
