coronavirus

[Dave T 15,458]

Just now, Bob8 said:

I agree.

The herd immunity is something all nations are counting on, but do not say. It is peculiar, that this Government is struggling with messaging.

This is exactly my point. I'd expect a scientist to understand this and be passionate about explaining the theory, to the general public it sounds horrendous. 

And we should never forget, the experts and their science said Cheltenham was fine and that Cas v Saints was something people were safe to attend. I'm aware that isn't exactly the case, but if it keeps being positioned that science is making every decision (it isn't), then it looks odd when we consider those events just 4 weeks ago. 

[gingerjon 11,900]

1 hour ago, Bob8 said:

I agree.

That is far too complicated a message for most people. "We should stay in because of coronavirus" is the level of sophistication we can expect to get over. In Denmark, people are pleased that the lockdown might be eased, but it is to accept an increase in the infection rate - the very same policy the British Government was pilloried for.

London is obviously going to struggle hugely, with it being tightly packed, reliance on public transport and not many people can afford to not work.

The Danish easing of lockdown might not also be the one that some people here want to see.

For example, whatever else changes, there is no organised sport to be played, behind closed doors or not, until September (I read, please correct if wrong).

[Bob8 6,151]

Just now, Dave T said:

This is exactly my point. I'd expect a scientist to understand this and be passionate about explaining the theory, to the general public it sounds horrendous. 

And we should never forget, the experts and their science said Cheltenham was fine and that Cas v Saints was something people were safe to attend. I'm aware that isn't exactly the case, but if it keeps being positioned that science is making every decision (it isn't), then it looks odd when we consider those events just 4 weeks ago. 

To be fair, I think most experts said "I don't know". The science of virology is not useful, I suspect, it is more about sociology.

[Bob8 6,151]

Just now, gingerjon said:

The Danish easing of lockdown might not also be the one that some people here want to see.

For example, whatever else changes, there is no organised sport to be played, behind closed doors or not, until September (I read, please correct if wrong).

Correct.

[Dave T 15,458]

25 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

To be fair, I think most experts said "I don't know". The science of virology is not useful, I suspect, it is more about sociology.

Absolutely, but we are being told very very clearly and explicitly that the science will tell us what to do, ultimately human decisions still need to be made on the back of any 'science' even if there was perfect science out there. 

[GUBRATS 3,562]

I think many don't understand he ' protect the NHS ' part of all this , if we hadn't locked down , or indeed unlock too early , then it wouldn't be beyond the realms that the NHS could collapse , the implications of that would be , parents and Grandparents dieing at home , no normal funerals , just a body bag being dropped off , for the family to fill and place outside , till it was collected and taken to a mass grave ( the council's were told to find sites for mass graves about 5 weeks ago ) 

It really is that simple 

Edited April 9 by GUBRATS

[ckn 13,730]

1 minute ago, GUBRATS said:

I think many don't understand he ' protect the NHS ' part of all this , if we hadn't locked down , or indeed unlock too early , then it wouldn't be beyond the realms that the NHS could collapse , the implications of that would be , parents and Grandparents during at home , no normal funerals , just a body bag being dropped off , for the family to fill and place outside , till it was collected and taken to a mass grave ( the council's were told to find sites for mass graves about 5 weeks ago ) 

It really is that simple 

It really is. The NHS has completely reorganised in a few weeks to divert virtually everything towards this and we're coping, but not by too much. A sharper peak would break it and tough decisions on who gets to survive would be needed.

[GUBRATS 3,562]

1 minute ago, ckn said:

It really is. The NHS has completely reorganised in a few weeks to divert virtually everything towards this and we're coping, but not by too much. A sharper peak would break it and tough decisions on who gets to survive would be needed.

Not forgetting the number that would also die due to ' normal ' medical conditions not being able to be treated 

 

[wilsontown 450]

44 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Absolutely, but we are being told very very clearly and explicitly that the science will tell us what to do, ultimately human decisions still need to be made on the back of any 'science' even if there was perfect science out there. 

This is really well put. It's science, not magic.

[ckn 13,730]

 

[Saintslass 3,727]

2 hours ago, Mumby Magic said:

Well I work in Tescos and there were people queuing all round the car park today.

I've just done the weekly shop to ASDA.  We were snaking around the car park and on to the road, all standing 6ft apart from each other, waiting patiently for our turn and actually, the shopping experience once inside the store was really pleasant.  Sure, there were still some penises that are deliberating ignoring the arrows and I give them a proper stare, but for the most part it is quiet, there is lots of space, time can be taken to avoid missing anything off the list, and the check out people are more relaxed.  They are behind their screens, they wear their gloves and they aren't stressed by loads of customers at once (or so said the checkout person at the end of my shop today!).

I feel far safer shopping now than I did a couple of weeks back.  But sadly, the consequences of those times of mayhem a couple of weeks back will now be showing in all the dismal figures.

Edited April 9 by Saintslass

[Saintslass 3,727]

49 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Absolutely, but we are being told very very clearly and explicitly that the science will tell us what to do, ultimately human decisions still need to be made on the back of any 'science' even if there was perfect science out there. 

What we are being told is that the science is advising the politicians.  I don't remember anyone saying the science was telling them what to do like they weren't engaging their own brains and perspectives.  They are being guided by the science at all times, which to me seems completely reasonable and utterly correct.  I don't understand what the problem is here. 

[Futtocks 13,100]

Just now, Saintslass said:

I've just done the weekly shop to ASDA.  We were snaking around the car park and on to the road, all standing 6ft apart from each other, waiting patiently for our turn and actually, the shopping experience once inside the store was really pleasant.  Sure, there are still some penises that are deliberating ignoring the arrows and I give them a proper stare, but for the most part it is quiet, there is lots of space, time can be taken to avoid missing anything off the list, and the check out people are more relaxed.  They are behind their screens, they ware their gloves and they aren't stressed by loads of customers at once (or so said the checkout person at the end of my shop today!).

I feel far safer shopping now than I did a couple of weeks back.  But sadly, the consequences of those times of mayhem a couple of weeks back will now be showing in all the dismal figures.

Agreed; once you get let in through the doors, it is so much nicer than a non-crisis shopping trip. And, with the nice weather, being in a queue is fine, if you have a good book to read or something else to make the time pass. 

[wilsontown 450]

2 minutes ago, Saintslass said:

What we are being told is that the science is advising the politicians.  I don't remember anyone saying the science was telling them what to do like they weren't engaging their own brains and perspectives.  They are being guided by the science at all times, which to me seems completely reasonable and utterly correct.  I don't understand what the problem is here. 

I don't think it's that there's a problem, just making the point that if people think that science goes in one end and decisions come out the other, they'll be disappointed to find that it's a bit more complicated than that.

[Damien 8,877]

When you see programmes in the schedule like at 7:30pm tonight on ITV Lockdown, How long can it last?, allied to some of the media this week and reporters questions in the briefing, its hard not to think that some of the media are trying to push an agenda. There has been a big change in emphasis this week that isn't reflected in anyone I know.

[gingerjon 11,900]

9 minutes ago, Damien said:

When you see programmes in the schedule like at 7:30pm tonight on ITV Lockdown, How long can it last?, allied to some of the media this week and reporters questions in the briefing, its hard not to think that some of the media are trying to push an agenda. There has been a big change in emphasis this week that isn't reflected in anyone I know.

Surveying shows 90%+ of the population support the lockdown or want more lockdown. So if you see any “balance” in the media calling for easing then it’s on a par with the sort of balance you see them doing in climate science debates.

They can’t help themselves.

[Damien 8,877]

Boris moved out of intensive care, which is great news, but still in hospital.

[gingerjon 11,900]

 

[GUBRATS 3,562]

1 hour ago, ckn said:

 

Go Ada

[Bob8 6,151]

35 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

 

FFS

[Saintslass 3,727]

46 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

 

That depends on what he was visiting his parents for:

 

[Bearman 3,976]

20 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

FFS

I am not defending him BUT,

In the article he said he went to take supplies to his elderly parents and did not enter their house. IF that is the case, is it not unreasonable to do that?

Edited April 9 by Bearman

[Bedford Roughyed 6,796]

5 minutes ago, Bearman said:

I am not defending him BUT,

In the article he said he went to take supplies to his elderly parents and did not enter their house. IF that is the case, is it not unreasonable to do that?

It's not unreasonable.

Unless you criticised the Kinnocks that is.  

[Les Tonks Sidestep 2,054]

3 hours ago, gingerjon said:

The Danish easing of lockdown might not also be the one that some people here want to see.

For example, whatever else changes, there is no organised sport to be played, behind closed doors or not, until September (I read, please correct if wrong).

The plan is for teachers and pupils to spend considerably more time outside with increased distancing inside, so re-opening schools isn't exactly going back to how they were either. Also it would appear that not everyone believes the Government's scientific advisors have got it right.

Allan Randrup Thomsen, Professor in the Department of Immunology at Copenhagen University, said that the decision to reopen was risky. "We do not know how big the infection pressure is among smaller children," he told Danish state broadcaster DR. "They are holding the binoculars to their blind eye. It may be that the epidemic starts to take off again." 

 

 

[Bob8 6,151]

18 minutes ago, Bearman said:

I am not defending him BUT,

In the article he said he went to take supplies to his elderly parents and did not enter their house. IF that is the case, is it not unreasonable to do that?

True. 

Again, driving your car is not an infection risk, but is a bad look.