Legohamster
Cecil Poynton
What is Melbournes plan to get out of lockdown?
Lockdowns didn’t work in Peru/Argentina/Spain/France - two toughest lockdowns in Europe - had to show ID to leave house - Spain has worst numbers in EU
Japan - no lockdown.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Coronavirus
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
What is Melbournes plan to get out of lockdown?
Lockdowns didn’t work in Peru/Argentina/Spain/France - two toughest lockdowns in Europe - had to show ID to leave house - Spain has worst numbers in EU
Japan - no lockdown.
tommysvr
Simon Davies
You said
But then ignored all of the examples I gave you of it working.
You really care about Melbourne’s plan for coming out? Google will help. It’s already been announced in stages - the next milestone is Monday, with an announcement happening Sunday night on just how far they will go. Next round is November 23.
(Oh and by the way, the first lockdown in Melbourne worked. The problem was some poor management with returned travellers that fudged us this time.)
Grays_1890
Colin Calderwood
You need to give that stat context, 2 doubled is 4 so what are the actual stats?
Grays_1890
Colin Calderwood
Exactly, but that seems a taboo suggestion. Despite the facts still maintaining that if you are under 65 and healthy you are not going to die from this. So if you can direct the billions of wasted aid you gave 25 year olds to stay home from work at over 65s and people with underlining health conditions the world could get on with some level of normality. I really is no level of rocket science, its like any other condition or welfare issue, you support those that need it.
The biggest issue with that, and I have seen it on here, despite the elderly being the most vulnerable people selfishly want the who country to lockdown so they can go and see the granny one in a blue moon, when it was suggested on here previously that opening carehomes to family who could infect them people were all for it because it was a right.
Dr Waqar Rashid I would suggest people read his articles on the mental impact of what we are doing
People have lost the ability to proportionally weigh up risks and consider the value of something basic but fundamental: our quality of life. And I fear that when this pandemic eventually recedes, we’ll be left with a dreadful psychological toll for many years to come.
Last edited:
Grays_1890
Colin Calderwood
And people see success in all the wrong places now. 81 people dying a day as awful but it is on the path of paling in comparison to whats happening in homes up and down the country ro peoples health, mentally, physically and welfare.
But no lets lockdown fit and healthy people because no one has the gonads to ask set parts of society to restrict their movements because its deemed selfish, rather in this together ey....que Vera Lynn
Last edited:
Grays_1890
Colin Calderwood
The false cycle of restrictions:
Yet even the scientists advising the government appear to so do. This explains why once a region is targeted for testing, it is almost impossible for local restrictions to end. As Keir Starmer observed this week in Prime Minister’s Questions, 19 out of 20 areas of England under restrictions for two months had actually seen infection rates rise.
Here comes the irony. Cities such as Manchester and Liverpool, where there has been most talk of hospital ITUs close to capacity from rising Covid cases, have been under measures for some time already. The problem in these cities seems to have increased, but the response is not to question the measures and the whole paradigm of whether attempting to artificially suppress a virus is possible. Instead the government and the scientists advising them are pushing for more restrictions as they attempt just one more bet to win back their money *on the cost to track and trace. They are addicted to lockdown and when eventually we have traffic lights to symbolise Covid-risk, red will almost certainly spell the end for many bars and restaurants across large parts of England permanently.
The big problem is this. We have a metric which is just not accurate. Testing is skewed to areas with previous positive tests and does not give us a true reflection of infectivity. The resultant climb in cases feeds anxiety that something must be done. Increased mixing in society which in previous years would be normal is now deemed a public health hazard and the resultant normal rise in respiratory infectious admissions, coupled with an increase in Covid-19, is now leading us further down a path of closure and lockdown until there is nowhere to go. We are following unreliable data with measures which cause serious harm to our overall health and have no proven benefit in reducing overall death. Indeed, some recent modelling, not least from Professor Graeme Ackland at the University of Edinburgh, suggested that lockdowns may actually cause an increase in loss of life.
Yet even the scientists advising the government appear to so do. This explains why once a region is targeted for testing, it is almost impossible for local restrictions to end. As Keir Starmer observed this week in Prime Minister’s Questions, 19 out of 20 areas of England under restrictions for two months had actually seen infection rates rise.
Here comes the irony. Cities such as Manchester and Liverpool, where there has been most talk of hospital ITUs close to capacity from rising Covid cases, have been under measures for some time already. The problem in these cities seems to have increased, but the response is not to question the measures and the whole paradigm of whether attempting to artificially suppress a virus is possible. Instead the government and the scientists advising them are pushing for more restrictions as they attempt just one more bet to win back their money *on the cost to track and trace. They are addicted to lockdown and when eventually we have traffic lights to symbolise Covid-risk, red will almost certainly spell the end for many bars and restaurants across large parts of England permanently.
The big problem is this. We have a metric which is just not accurate. Testing is skewed to areas with previous positive tests and does not give us a true reflection of infectivity. The resultant climb in cases feeds anxiety that something must be done. Increased mixing in society which in previous years would be normal is now deemed a public health hazard and the resultant normal rise in respiratory infectious admissions, coupled with an increase in Covid-19, is now leading us further down a path of closure and lockdown until there is nowhere to go. We are following unreliable data with measures which cause serious harm to our overall health and have no proven benefit in reducing overall death. Indeed, some recent modelling, not least from Professor Graeme Ackland at the University of Edinburgh, suggested that lockdowns may actually cause an increase in loss of life.
Dicko
Michael Carrick
Can anyone these 2 questions?...
When you get Coronovirus, For how many days would you expect to give a positive result to a test? I mean, If you had symptoms and went for a test which was positive, How many days on average would you still be positive? Is it just a small window or would you remain positive way after you recovered/No longer had symptoms.
Secondly, Is Covid like a cold/flu in that you are most contagious before you actually show symptoms? Or is contagious for a long period?
When you get Coronovirus, For how many days would you expect to give a positive result to a test? I mean, If you had symptoms and went for a test which was positive, How many days on average would you still be positive? Is it just a small window or would you remain positive way after you recovered/No longer had symptoms.
Secondly, Is Covid like a cold/flu in that you are most contagious before you actually show symptoms? Or is contagious for a long period?
I believe it's thought to be around 10 days - so people are saying two weeks to be safe.
It doesn't appear so. Whilst the cough and breathing symptoms that people initially were relying on come later, a temperature and a lack of smell/taste appear to be at the start of the infection. There also appears to be some kind of link between how ill one becomes and how likely they are to spread. That could be confused by a number of factors though - people who are more ill will cough more and will probably go to hospitals which appear to be little more than pits of infection.
Seedy Ron
Frederic Kanoute
Not the way you describe it, but as has been said often, not just on here, isolating the vulnerable from the rest of society would be almost impossible, so quite a lot like rocket science.
I thought you'd like that bit when I read it
Grays_1890
Colin Calderwood
You might be right in same cases because I was in Wallington yesterday and went past two cafes, went in one bookies and a pint in the Wetherspoons with a mate and all were dominated by OAPs
But that aside if the risk is on you aka if you are over 65 or you have a health condition tat puts you at risk its on you to protect yourself as much as anyone else, its the equivalent of taking any tablets you need to stay alive, take them live, dont and risk the consequences. I dont see the logic is locking down a whole society because it might be a little painful to deal with real problem with a targeted solution
You are not asking these people to do anything they should not have been doing in March anyway you are just saying those that are not vulnerable should not have to.
What seems to be coming out with the wash now is Londons spread now is slower because we were over exposed at the start and the spreads actually worse in areas that have had more restrictions on them since March.....https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-covid-testing-trap
Last edited:
Legohamster
Cecil Poynton
Not the way you describe it, but as has been said often, not just on here, isolating the vulnerable from the rest of society would be almost impossible, so quite a lot like rocket science.
I thought you'd like that bit when I read it
with the amount of money spent on this not only could we have created many a rocket, we could have shielded the at risk and over come most issues
prob could have even given them a butler each as well.
Legohamster
Cecil Poynton
Well if there was poor management the lockdown didn’t work, if it did there wouldn’t be a second.
Also it’s completely ignoring the damage it does in other areas - jobs etc
so as long as you don’t care about anything else other than covid, they sometimes work.
And I’ve shown examples were lockdowns haven’t worked - so to claim they 100 percent work is rubbish.
Grays_1890
Colin Calderwood
Yep instead of asking everyone to stay home and pay them to do so when they did not need to all the while their industry suffers and the likelihood is their long term prospects go to brick
glasgowspur
Nayim
Not the way you describe it, but as has been said often, not just on here, isolating the vulnerable from the rest of society would be almost impossible, so quite a lot like rocket science.
I thought you'd like that bit when I read it
I don't understand how isolating the vulnerable is impossible.
Surely a lock down is asking everyone to isolate, which is even more impossible.
There will be some that it will be very difficult for, but it can't be something we can't overcome. It g as to be easier than what's trying to be done just now.
Seedy Ron
Frederic Kanoute
If the virus is allowed to run its course in the rest of the population, they'd have to isolate themselves almost totally from it, potentially for months/years. You've never explained how that is possible. How does a care home resident isolate from the staff, or the doctor? How does a grandparent who lives with their child/grandchildren isolate from them?
Grays_1890
Colin Calderwood
What were these same people doing in March - May when in the original lockdown?
As for year years? Or till a vaccine?
Or we continue the course where everyone has to do it?
If you concentrated track and trace and testing to those working with the vulnerable aka Drs then it could work, also you would not have the issue you have now in terms of availability.
If you live with an elderly grandparent you isolate as a family too, thats alot better than the millions that dont but being asked to not work or go to work and stay home, thats not so far fetched to understand.
Ultimately if you drill down on the vulnerable and those in contact due to necessity financially etc thats alot better and more viable financially than asking the whole country to and paying a huge number of fit and healthy 18-55 year olds to stay home.
Like I said we are currently using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Last edited:
glasgowspur
Nayim
It doesn't matter what happens people n care homes will always need support.
What's different to them being in isolation only, and every one else being in isolation with them?
glasgowspur
Nayim
Some doc on radio four saying its killing 15%, and in March was killing 30%.
% of who, total scaremongering using figures like that. What a disgrace.
% of who, total scaremongering using figures like that. What a disgrace.
Grays_1890
Colin Calderwood
And logically like the case of my parents who live in an over 55s complex they are shielding as are the sensible people with health conditions.
Ultimately if you are 75 and living the vida loco during a pandemic where you are most at risk then thats more fool you, like I said before I dont see any difference in regarding it as a part of your health as much as taking your needed medication, you do what you do to survive.
Mikey10
John Lacy
Well, we are being told that some hosiptals in the north are heading towards being overwhelmed. And that's with some restrictions already in place.
I'd imagine if governements all over the world thought there wasn't anything to worry about they wouldn't be closing things down, and spending billions and billions of pounds.