Covid-19 Discussion

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I do get the impression that people, particularly the young have become complacent about it.
 
Which is why a lockdown might not work a second time around.
 
I do get the impression that people, particularly the young have become complacent about it.
Have you not noticed the strange phenomenon of young people wearing masks en masse, more so than the middle aged where i live? The lack of rebellion by the youth of the UK is puzzling.
 
Have you not noticed the strange phenomenon of young people wearing masks en masse, more so than the middle aged where i live? The lack of rebellion by the youth of the UK is puzzling.
To be honest, I haven’t been getting out much beyond normal day to day stuff. So haven’t seen anybody en masse. Amongst the people I do see, there seems to be much more physical interaction and closer proximity between younger people than the middle aged and older.
YMMV of course, usually does.
 
To be honest, I haven’t been getting out much beyond normal day to day stuff. So haven’t seen anybody en masse. Amongst the people I do see, there seems to be much more physical interaction and closer proximity between younger people than the middle aged and older.
YMMV of course, usually does.
I suppose it is futile to generalise on this subject. Some are afraid, some are not. Personally from Day1 of this health crisis i have kept tabs on numbers in my region and have used that information as my guide.

Hope you feel able to venture out more in the sunshine soon.
 
I drive by pubs around Central London, and the younger crowds outside don't seem to practice any social distancing at all (and obviously not wearing face masks in a pub).

In March, most people were afraid of the virus, which is why the lockdown worked so well.

What we have learnt since then, is that a significant part of the population (the under 40s) are largely unaffected by SARS-Cov-2 (statistically speaking).

This created two distinct groups in our society, with conflicting interests. I am not suggesting that all under-40s don't care about COVID-19, but the younger they are, the less they are willing to compromise regarding their social life, work careers, and livelihoods, when it comes to measures for reducing the spread of COVID-19.

Also, the over 50s, are more likely to be settled financially and have the ability to absorb some financial hardships, compared to the under-30s.

(The above is obviously statistical, there are in people in either group who behave differently of course)
 
The link i posted earlier for C-19 statistics also has data on deaths according to age.

60+ years old, with the majority 80+ years old, is the age range most at risk of death. See last graph on this link..


Post the fantasy world of furlough when the majority of the 9.6 million transition from furlough to unemployed will bring a new perspective to the demographic impact of coronavirus. The majority being made unemployed will be the young.

Can we expect a major shift in attitudes at that point?
 
Last edited:
You, I or the majority are unable to avoid potential infection.
Do we always wash our hands after handling the post that dropped on the door mat?
Can we be 100% sure our hands didn't go to our faces prior to washing our hands, in many scenarios?
One partner goes shopping, can we be sure that partner doesn't contaminate the house on return?
What about the bought items, I don't imagine many people isolate from the stuff for 3 days.

People go to a pub, as do we, but not if the pub is busy. But since the bar staff are handling 'whatever' from many, aren't and can't practice distancing behind the bar and when attending tables, and pass a glass that immediately goes to the mouth, there is no chance of avoiding the virus. It must be passed.
Pretty much the same applies in most workplaces. There are too many shared facilities.

Family and friends are wishing to mix with us, it's often suggested that we can distance while doing so, nice theory but methinks practice is different. I tell of our interactions and at least they are informed of the increased risk.

I took the view a good while ago that herd immunity is the way through this. I am unqualified to decide this but my considered opinion of our experts is that neither are they, they continue to guess their way through this. We are manipulated as so many are too stupid or arrogant to adhere to educated directions (I can hear the "and you", but we have not broken any law or guidance measure).
The information from 'above' is contradictory and enormously confusing, and that's before you might wish to cross our borders to the other devolved nations. That seriously affects peoples likelihood to follow direction.

I fully appreciate the fear, I respect others views so will wear a mask 'and gloves' if it is vaguely preferred by them (as some seem embarrassed to ask).

If we haven't contracted this by now I would be amazed, but even so I accept that we increase our risk, and to others - but only if they fail to adhere to reasonable measures.

Meanwhile rather than hide for this indefinite and ever increasing period there is a life we can enjoy some, albeit in a limited fashion.

Another lockdown, imo, would be met with increased social disorder, then I would isolate again. If nowt else to protect ourselves and our belongings.
 
Last edited:
You, I or the majority are unable to avoid potential infection.
Do we always wash our hands after handling the post that dropped on the door mat?
Can we be 100% sure our hands didn't go to our faces prior to washing our hands, in many scenarios?
One partner goes shopping, can we be sure that partner doesn't contaminate the house on return?
What about the bought items, I don't imagine many people isolate from the stuff 3 days.

People go to a pub, as do we, but not if the pub is busy. But since the bar staff are handling 'whatever' from many, aren't and can't practice distancing behind the bar and when attending tables, and pass a glass that immediately goes to the mouth, there is no chance of avoiding the virus. It must be passed.
Pretty much the same applies in most workplaces. There are too many shared facilities.

Family and friends are wishing to mix with us, it's often suggested that we can distance while doing so, nice theory but methinks practice is different. I tell of our interactions and at least they are informed of the increased risk.

I took the view a good while ago that herd immunity is the way through this. I am unqualified to decide this but my considered opinion of our experts is that neither are they, they continue to guess their way through this. We are manipulated as so many are too stupid or arrogant to adhere to educated directions (I can hear the "and you", but we have not broken and law or guidance measure).
The information from 'above' is contradictory and enormously confusing, and that's before you might wish to cross our borders to the other devolved nations. That seriously affects peoples likelihood to follow direction.

I fully appreciate the fear, I respect others views so will wear a mask 'and gloves' if it is vaguely preferred by them (as some seem embarrassed to ask).

If we haven't contracted this by now I would be amazed, but even so I accept that we increase our risk, and to others - but only if they fail to adhere to reasonable measures.

Meanwhile rather than hide for this indefinite and ever increasing period there is a life we can enjoy some, albeit in a limited fashion.

Another lockdown, imo, would be met with increased social disorder, then I would isolate again. If nowt else to protect ourselves and our belongings.
With regards to people avoiding the risk of potential infection it reminds me of when i was a kid watching television with my parents.

"Ice Station Zebra" would come on and invariably the story of Howard Hughes the madman recluse who locked himself away in the penthouse of a hotel for years on end to avoid any germs would be told.

He was insane. Maybe now some think he was just "staying safe".

I favour the former conclusion. Off his nut.
 
With regards to people avoiding the risk of potential infection it reminds me of when i was a kid watching television with my parents.

"Ice Station Zebra" would come on and invariably the story of Howard Hughes the madman recluse who locked himself away in the penthouse of a hotel for years on end to avoid any germs would be told.

He was insane. Maybe now some think he was just "staying safe".

I favour the former conclusion. Off his nut.

One major difference of him and the majority is that he could afford to separate himself from the rest of life, in the main. He would still need some interaction or there is no life worth having, imo.

If the forecast winds aren't too high, so if Mrs Me allows for it, we're off sailing this w/e around Anglesey.
That'll mean use of the pubs at Almych and Moelfre (staying north looks favourite with the expected winds).
I'll need fuel for the trip, I will handle a receipt as minimum
Mrs Me will need to shop for provisions, all sorts of cross contamination there, and I handle it into boxes.

If I do get ill from this thing the last place I would want to be is hospital. Dangerous places to be while they experiment on my treatments. Mind if I have to go it seems it might well be the last place I would be, so leave at home and don't mess with me as I peg out.
 
the restrictions and hysterical reporting about number of cases are as if the virus is super infectious and deadly ...

totally OTT

I, for one, am pleased to see younger folks trying to return to normal, accepting there is no risk free life
 
One major difference of him and the majority is that he could afford to separate himself from the rest of life, in the main. He would still need some interaction or there is no life worth having, imo.

If the forecast winds aren't too high, so if Mrs Me allows for it, we're off sailing this w/e around Anglesey.
That'll mean use of the pubs at Almych and Moelfre (staying north looks favourite with the expected winds).
I'll need fuel for the trip, I will handle a receipt as minimum
Mrs Me will need to shop for provisions, all sorts of cross contamination there, and I handle it into boxes.

If I do get ill from this thing the last place I would want to be is hospital. Dangerous places to be while they experiment on my treatments. Mind if I have to go it seems it might well be the last place I would be, so leave at home and don't mess with me as I peg out.
Have a great sailing trip.

If you look at the stats there are only 67 people (3rd August 2020) in the whole of the UK in hospitals in a critical care ward with/ from Covid-19.
 
the restrictions and hysterical reporting about number of cases are as if the virus is super infectious and deadly ...

totally OTT

I, for one, am pleased to see younger folks trying to return to normal, accepting there is no risk free life
I don't think there's any doubt that this virus is super infectious.

How harmful that infection is, is up for grabs. For some, it also can have quite devastating effect on health. For others, becoming infected seems to be less damaging.

At some point we do need to get back to a normality that is more widely acceptable than the current situation. I'm not convinced that using infection rates is the right tool to judge when that will be and instead believe that hospital admissions is the key indicator. But that's just my view.
 
While at the top of the homepage on the BBC News site today they can't resist giving prominence to the latest wisdom through hindsight pronouncements from the committee of MP's chaired by the famously non-partisan Yvette Cooper, entitled "Coronavirus: UK made serious mistake over border policy, say MPs", further down the page is an uncharacteristically informative and reasoned article by Nick Triggle, their Health Correspondent:


Perhaps it ought to be compulsory reading for the rest of their editorial team?
 
I'm not convinced that using infection rates is the right tool to judge when that will be and instead believe that hospital admissions is the key indicator.
Your view and mine on that topic largely coincide, however I would make the point that hospital admissions is a lagging indicator and it would be a brave scientist or government minister that left themselves open to charges by our rabid media of "acting too late and causing untold numbers of avoidable deaths". What I suspect will happen over the coming weeks is that there will be greater emphasis placed on hospital admission rates as an indicator once confidence is established that they are remaining very low with respect to infection rates.
 
At some point we do need to get back to a normality that is more widely acceptable than the current situation. I'm not convinced that using infection rates is the right tool to judge when that will be and instead believe that hospital admissions is the key indicator. But that's just my view.

I've no argument around the highly contagious bit,
or that the personal effect can vary from didn't know to life changing result including a very unpleasant death.

But for the likes of us to find reliable data / figures to base our personal strategy on is near impossible, imho.
We are given information from many sources and much if not most is creation rather than reporting. We only have to watch Trump on the rostrum or in interview to see how leaders corrupt for their agenda. Even where that might be for the benefit of the masses they lose credibility from when it's not.

Not long ago hospitals were discharging the infected vulnerable back to their habitats. Imo the intent was for them to pass the infection, as it was going to happen. As far as I'm aware those that then became infected didn't see hospital.
Now we say that the hospital admissions are well down, working with what are perceived as reliable figures. But are referrals to hospital down due to policy? Additionally how many take my view that it's better they keep their bl**dy hands off?

For me the better indicator is the increase in the death rate as compared to previous years, not ideal and still dependant on reliable information.

I think we need assume that the gov't are getting better information than we, and see earlier indicators that enable revised strategy. Not that we have any choice.
 
"Ice Station Zebra" would come on and invariably the story of Howard Hughes the madman recluse who locked himself away in the penthouse of a hotel for years on end to avoid any germs would be told.
He was insane. Maybe now some think he was just "staying safe".
I favour the former conclusion. Off his nut.

You might be disappointed to hear that one of your heros, Trump, has always had an aversion to touching people and has carried sanitiser for many years for use when he cannot avoid shaking hands. Off his nut!
 
I wonder what the correct "tool" is to guage the development of herd/ community immunity?

High numbers of positive test results nationwide not being mirrored by hospital admissions and in the longer term deaths.
 
You, I or the majority are unable to avoid potential infection.
Do we always wash our hands after handling the post that dropped on the door mat?
Can we be 100% sure our hands didn't go to our faces prior to washing our hands, in many scenarios?
One partner goes shopping, can we be sure that partner doesn't contaminate the house on return?
What about the bought items, I don't imagine many people isolate from the stuff for 3 days.

So you say "You, I or the majority are unable to avoid potential infection.". Well it's not that absolute. "Can we be 100% sure our hands didn't go to our faces prior to washing our hands, in many scenarios?" Well even if you do touch your face it's not 100% chance that you'll infect yourself -and also if you do not touch your face taht's not a guarantee taht you won't be infected.

You could stand face to face with somebody coughing and spluttering with the disease and its not guaranteed that you will be infected. Equally every *practical* measure you take to avoid infection in principle reduces your chance of picking up infection but it's about reduction to a low probability rather than zero probability.

The reality seems to be that people are not being infected en-masse by going to supermarkets and receiving mail. The risks are low.

Hygeine offers two way protection. It means spread by contact is less likely from infected people to objects they touch - and less likely from objects to uninfected people. And it's not about eliminating the virus to 0 - just below thresholds at which it is likely to infect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom