Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Todd_is_God]

1 minute ago, NewBornBairn said:

"I'm alright Jack" 

Do you drive? Are you scared of driving because some people get seriously injured or die on our roads?

It's a ridiculous take, and nothing to do with "I'm alright Jack"

Edited June 15, 2020 by Todd_is_God

[Guest JTS98]

11 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Do you drive? Are you scared of driving because some people get seriously injured or die?

It's a ridiculous take, and nothing to do with "I'm alright Jack"

Yes, but you need to pass a test to be allowed to drive. You can't drive if you have medical conditions that make it dangerous for you to do so. You are banned from driving if you demonstrate that you can't be trusted to do it safely.

We can do something about road safety. We can keep people who are a risk to themselves or others away from driving to lower the risk.

If we reopen society, we can't protect the vulnerable in the same way as we protect people from the dangers of driving. It's not an analogy that stands up.

 

Edited June 15, 2020 by JTS98

[madwullie]

You can't catch car accidents 

[vikingTON]

3 hours ago, NewBornBairn said:

https://mobile.twitter.com/sheriantoinette/status/1272146291250933760

 

Don't know why this site won't embed Twitter, 

 

Viruses aren't even firmly in the category of a living thing never mind being 'highly intelligent' and the generally understood M.O. of a virus is not in fact to kill its host but rather to reproduce itself successfully, so we can safely file this nonsense hot take in the bin where it belongs. 

It would be interesting to see where they think the resources are going to keep coming from if we continue to shut down the economy that actually funds their service. It's just as well we don't let Twitter run the cost-benefit analysis on that or else we'll be back to stone tools and 70% child mortality in no time. 

 

Edited June 15, 2020 by vikingTON

[Todd_is_God]

6 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

Yes, but you need to pass a test to be allowed to drive. You can't drive if you have medical conditions that make it dangerous for you to do so. You are banned from driving if you demonstrate that you can't be trusted to do it safely.

Maybe i should have said travel in a car then.

As for not being able to catch a car accident, it's not about a literal example. It's about the relative chance of it happening.

[vikingTON]

9 minutes ago, madwullie said:

You can't catch car accidents 

If you and your cohabitants stay in your house at all times then you're about as likely to die in a car crash as Covid right now. Last time I checked nobody was actually calling for OAPs and vulnerable groups to be driven to Asda and then to the nearest pub at bayonet point.

Edited June 15, 2020 by vikingTON

[Todd_is_God]

I was diagnosed with Ulcerative Colitis when I was 20. A condition that leads to an increased risk of colon and bowel cancer and a small number of people needing to have their bowel removed and use a bag instead.

I don't live my life in fear of those things. If they happen then they happen and I'll deal with that if I need to.

You'll forgive me then for not living in fear of a relatively small number of complications from an infection that I don't have, and, on current trend, am increasingly less likely to be exposed to with every passing day.

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

I was diagnosed with Ulcerative Colitis when I was 20. A condition that leads to an increased risk of colon and bowel cancer and a small number of people needing to have their bowel removed and use a bag instead.

I don't live my life in fear of those things. If they happen then they happen and I'll deal with that if I need to.

You'll forgive me then for not living in fear of a relatively small number of complications from an infection that I don't have, and, on current trend, am increasingly less likely to be exposed to with every passing day.

Again, that's not the same thing.

Nobody is advocating public policy that will put you at more risk of what you are vulnerable to.

[The Moonster]

1 minute ago, Todd_is_God said:

I was diagnosed with Ulcerative Colitis when I was 20. A condition that leads to an increased risk of colon and bowel cancer and a small number of people needing to have their bowel removed and use a bag instead.

I don't live my life in fear of those things. If they happen then they happen and I'll deal with that if I need to.

You'll forgive me then for not living in fear of a relatively small number of complications from an infection that I don't have, and, on current trend, am increasingly less likely to be exposed to with every passing day.

I tend to agree with you that we should now see the relaxation of lockdown accelerated but just because you have an underlying condition and aren't scared doesn't mean that nobody else is.

"If it happens it happens" is a commendable attitude, but life isn't that simple for everyone.

[madwullie]

I was being facetious you touchy b*****ds.

I mentioned the possible long term effects of this a few days ago. A lot of reports coming out of America along the lines of the tweet the nurse posted: lung lesions, blood issues, liver problems.

It's something we need to remember and plan for as more becomes clear, but I dont think it can really shape current policy in terms of having to open up more slowly. The difference with flu is we have a greater understanding of the prevalence of these longer term issues / serious complications. Hence why medical professionals who are seeing these complications are more worried about it than the chance of needing a double lung transplant from the flu. 

Something else I was thinking about too, that is kind of off topic. The thing about the flu is people say they have it all the time, when really they've just got a bad cold. Here anyway, it's become synonymous with bit of a temperature, sore throat, sniffles. Most of the time this isn't actuly the flu. I mean, I've had dozens of sick days from work with "the flu", but only maybe twice in my life have I actually had proper flu - unable to get out of bed, can't even read you feel so shitty, fainting trying to get to the toilet, raging fever, put of action for 5 days etc. Not really relevant to anything, just thought it worth pointing out. 

 

Edited June 15, 2020 by madwullie

[Todd_is_God]

23 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

If we reopen society, we can't protect the vulnerable in the same way as we protect people from the dangers of driving. It's not an analogy that stands up.

We absolutely can. The whole "all in it together" mantra is what prevents us from doing so.

[Todd_is_God]

6 minutes ago, madwullie said:

Something else I was thinking about too, that is kind of off topic. The thing about the flu is people say they have it all the time, when really they've just got a bad cold. Here anyway, it's become synonymous with bit of a temperature, sore throat, sniffles. Most of the time this isn't actuly the flu. I mean, I've had dozens of sick days from work with "the flu", but only maybe twice in my life have I actually had proper flu - unable to get out of bed, can't even read you feel so shitty, fainting trying to get to the toilet, raging fever etc. Not really relevant to anything, just thought it worth pointing out. 

That's true.

On the subject of flu, it will be interesting to see the daily updates on flu cases, deaths and "excess deaths" this winter.

This won't happen, of course, despite flu season being roughly similar in terms of hospital admissions and deaths as the covid situation is now, and people have think these numbers are "a discrace" (sic).

Edited June 15, 2020 by Todd_is_God

[Guest JTS98]

8 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

We absolutely can. The whole "all in it together" mantra is what prevents us from doing so.

No, we can't. Not all vulnerable people are aware that they are vulnerable.

Diabetes UK estimate that there are one million people in Britain with diabetes who don't know they have it. The same will be true for all kinds of other factors that make people more vulnerable. We know covid-19 puts strain on the heart and we also know plenty of people are going around with undiagnosed heart conditions.

We cannot defend the vulnerable.

There are arguments in favour of opening up to a greater degree, but none of your points around the vulnerable can really be backed up.

It's not the same as driving. It's not the same as your condition. It's not something we can identify the risk group for and protect them from.

Edited June 15, 2020 by JTS98

[bendan]

35 minutes ago, NewBornBairn said:

"I'm alright Jack" 

That accusation can be thrown at any position in this issue. 

[madwullie]

Devi Sridhar (wid) wrote this article about the difficulties of cocooning the vulnerable while everyone else just goes about their normal business. 

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/29/shielding-impossible-coronavirus-testing-and-tracing?__twitter_impression=true

Would be verging on impossible in my case. Two kids (p1 and p4) who need to go to school, wife works (key worker) in a hospital. House isn't big enough to distance properly, don't have resources for either me or them to move out, and anyway, someone needs to look after the boys while my wife is at work. I don't think our case is particularly unusual. So yeah, It's not as simple as saying that those who are vulnerable should just shut themselves away. 

[Pocketman]

Mr Rees-Mogg also insisted that metric measurements - such as metres and centimetres - are not allowed.

Instead imperial measurements must be followed at all times.

Just occurred to me when watching him defend the opening of Parliament, Jacob Rees Mogg must be be in perpetual agony every day of the lockdown in seeing the Government quote and use images to reinforce the 2 metre social distancing requirement. 

 

[madwullie]

14 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

That's true.

On the subject of flu, it will be interesting to see the daily updates on flu cases, deaths and "excess deaths" this winter.

This won't happen, of course, despite flu season being roughly similar in terms of hospital admissions and deaths as the covid situation is now, and people have think these numbers are "a discrace" (sic).

Also flu numbers will be a lot smaller anyway as lockdown will have so restricted its ability to spread. 

Also, although no certain, I think I read that flu deaths are usually worked out on an excess deaths basis. The majority of flu deaths (also) don't have a diagnostic test that decalres they had flu. Might be wrong about this

[WhiteRoseKillie]

1 hour ago, EdinburghPar1975 said:

My wife's work have 55% of the office at home and unable to work and they can't get them back in any time soon...and they're a Scottish Govt department. The 'expectation' is that my wife and her colleagues will just need to pick up the work that can't be done by others, while we also home teaching our kids. Whilst preaching flexibility they are anything but when it comes to workload.

In terms of the laptop from work then in my case your assumption is wrong (and the resources are there)...my work have been excellent in flexibility but they are not providing any hardware to help out despite it being a requirement - if you had your own laptop/ phone etc. then their expectation is that you can just use that. We're now having to really fight to get them to provide us with stuff we can use as we've been told we're now at home until 'at least' January 2021 and likely until March....i was fine using my own stuff when it was a few weeks/ a month or two but not based on that timeline...

 

My Governement dept - HMPPS - have a fair number of staff currently wfh. Most of them are managerial grades, though, leaving a massive shortfall in the number of reports, etc., being produced. A bigger issue is that our IT (currently based on a Windows 7 platform) is struggling to cope with the amount of remote access suddenly required - leading to problems elsewhere in the system.

Much of our stuff, by its very nature, is seriously confidential, but I don't see the ability to modernise, let alone the willingness to invest, that our system needs to facilitate a more flexible approach. Probably fair enough, tbh, as the security implications could be catastrophic, but htere's no way they can cram as many workers into the currently available ofice space. One thing I found when I started the H&S gig was that most of our offices on site are overcrowded under normal H&S guidance. Covid-secure? One in four, maybe one in three can be in the area at once. Somebody somewhere is going to have to earn their "massive CS salary" by squaring the circle pretty damn' sharpish. Based on experience, I'm not holding my breath.

Edited June 15, 2020 by WhiteRoseKillie

[WhiteRoseKillie]

1 hour ago, Todd_is_God said:

Well, no.

You've answered that question with that second statement.

Life changing things happen to people fairly regularly. It doesn't mean everyone else should fear it happening to them. f**k me, what a life you'd have if that was the case.

Do yourself a favour - quote me or don't, that's fine. Just don't cherry-pick. It really doesn't help what credibility you have when you have to leave out ninety percent of a post to try and make a point with the other ten. Especially when the original poster calls you out for it.

..and believe me, I will.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

1 hour ago, Todd_is_God said:

Do you drive? Are you scared of driving because some people get seriously injured or die on our roads?

It's a ridiculous take, and nothing to do with "I'm alright Jack"

You don't have to drive to die in a RTA.