• 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

Seedy Ron said:
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?
Click to expand...

Correct. I listened to two separate epidemiologists on the radio yesterday talking about the impossibility of shielding people in an open society. Older people need care; they need to access hospitals; they need food; many live in multi-generational houses. The list goes on. If the virus is running rampant through society it is simply not possible to keep it away from the vulnerable.

Then you get on to those in the vulnerable category. Many are below 65. Most have families that live with them. Attempting to cut millions of people off from society is something that we don't have the means to achieve. The bloke I listened to yesterday from Oxford University described it as "an idea that seems simple but which is in fact more far-fetched than Operation Moonshot."
 
Mikey10 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Some have not, some have, some have done less than others.

They might be wrong? its not in the realms of fantasy where most are learning more after the event than before.

Like mentioned earlier it seems London who have more exposure to the virus historically have a slower spread than the North who in some part have had more restrictions
 
Grays_1890 said:
Some have not, some have, some have done less than others.

They might be wrong? its not in the realms of fantasy where most are learning more after the event than before.

Like mentioned earlier it seems London who have more exposure to the virus historically have a slower spread than the North who in some part have had more restrictions
Click to expand...

Not according to their mayor who is saying that there will need to be serious restrictions imminently.
 
scaramanga said:
If there's one thing you can guarantee about anything he says, it's the the opposite is almost certainly true.
Click to expand...

Are we talking about Khan who single handily saw London descend into a knife pandemic and make excuses?

Ever seen his roostersure attitude in those townhall meetings when people are begging for solutions to serious problems? He is awful
 
Mikey10 said:
Correct. I listened to two separate epidemiologists on the radio yesterday talking about the impossibility of shielding people in an open society. Older people need care; they need to access hospitals; they need food; many live in multi-generational houses. The list goes on. If the virus is running rampant through society it is simply not possible to keep it away from the vulnerable.

Then you get on to those in the vulnerable category. Many are below 65. Most have families that live with them. Attempting to cut millions of people off from society is something that we don't have the means to achieve. The bloke I listened to yesterday from Oxford University described it as "an idea that seems simple but which is in fact more far-fetched than Operation Moonshot."
Click to expand...

So these people can be helped and reached in a national lockdown but not in a targeted lockdown?

Sounds warped logic to me. If the vulnerable can be assisted and cared for in a national lockdown then they can be safely cared for the same in a more targeted one as long as guidelines are followed in the same way, PPE, distances etc etc. Surely those going into carehomes or caring for the elderly are taking precautions already?

Those that live in multi generational houses had to lockdown in the main one in March, what stops them doing the same now? Going to the shops for essentials once a day max? The risk factor would remain the same now as it was then? You go to Tesco like In March, you get your supplies you go home. The risk is not in that, the risk is to having more people in your bubble etc.

We have not had a pandemic on a global scale in many a lifetime so what are these experts using as an example to judge this against? Its a theory right?

The reason we dont do it in my opinion is because no one wants to be the ar5ehole to make the call as it seems like you are cutting loose half of society.
 
Last edited:
I don’t understand how the government takes about a week to react to rising hospital admission numbers. What day last week were we discussing this on here?

With infections exponential in those areas, they are doubling daily, yet almost a week goes by with no action. Which is fine if that is the strategy. Do everything to protect the vulnerable, fund care homes etc. But if you’re going to lock an area down - do it as soon as you know there is an issue, not a week later. If we knew about it on here, why is our government so slow react?

Since the outbreak in the UK the government have probably been accepting that the virus is out of control and all they are doing is ‘managing’ it, so it doesn’t close the NHS.

But this just reaffirms how this government will say anything to look like they are doing a job, when really it’s all guff. We’ve spent millions on test and trace but its token. When the second most powerful person in government can’t even observe isolating I don’t think the rest of the nation will.

So why not just be upfront? Be honest. Have a clear pragmatic plan and get the nation to follow with you. This government wants to be all things to everyone and so doing it does nothing properly. No compromises are made and therefore no clear direction is determined.

They’ve thrown money at the problem, but without a clear plan.

The sooner we get a competent government in place the sooner the UK might recover. Remember 2014 and before when we had pragmatic people running national affairs? You don’t have confidence or belief in this lot and the consequences for people’s livelihoods and heath are profound.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
Last edited:
only take away from that is Whitty saying it won’t work and there is no real extra support

Full lock Down in about 6 weeks my guess and things will start to get interesting when unemployment starts to go up
 
Grays_1890 said:
So these people can be helped and reached in a national lockdown but not in a targeted lockdown?

Sounds warped logic to me. If the vulnerable can be assisted and cared for in a national lockdown then they can be safely cared for the same in a more targeted one as long as guidelines are followed in the same way, PPE, distances etc etc. Surely those going into carehomes or caring for the elderly are taking precautions already?

Those that live in multi generational houses had to lockdown in the main one in March, what stops them doing the same now? Going to the shops for essentials once a day max? The risk factor would remain the same now as it was then? You go to Tesco like In March, you get your supplies you go home. The risk is not in that, the risk is to having more people in your bubble etc.

We have not had a pandemic on a global scale in many a lifetime so what are these experts using as an example to judge this against? Its a theory right?

The reason we dont do it in my opinion is because no one wants to be the ar5ehole to make the call as it seems like you are cutting loose half of society.
Click to expand...

The point about the national lockdown was that it drove the R number down, thus protecting the old and vulnerable as they were much less likely to catch it from their carer, or their consultant, or their son who is in a class of 35. If it is running high through society then it will inevitably spill over into these groups.

If isolating these groups was workable - and thought to have a chance of working - I struggle to understand why at least one nation on the planet hasn’t given it a crack
 
Mikey10 said:
The point about the national lockdown was that it drove the R number down, thus protecting the old and vulnerable as they were much less likely to catch it from their carer, or their consultant, or their son who is in a class of 35. If it is running high through society then it will inevitably spill over into these groups.

If isolating these groups was workable - and thought to have a chance of working - I struggle to understand why at least one nation on the planet hasn’t given it a crack
Click to expand...


Something I found out today is that the R rate isn’t connected to just infections

you whack certain things into a computer and it generates it

such as schools open etc
 
Mikey10 said:
The point about the national lockdown was that it drove the R number down, thus protecting the old and vulnerable as they were much less likely to catch it from their carer, or their consultant, or their son who is in a class of 35. If it is running high through society then it will inevitably spill over into these groups.

If isolating these groups was workable - and thought to have a chance of working - I struggle to understand why at least one nation on the planet hasn’t given it a crack
Click to expand...

Some have not locked down?

Some have hard hard lockdown

Some had partial

Some have had restrictions

There are around 2/3 success stories globally in all this and some of that could be attributed to their unique geographic locations etc, so I would say maybe we are not getting it right or looking in the right areas.

On the highlighted you could do that with a concentrated testing system for those in care of hospitals.

And at the end of the day I dont see any way being definitively perfect but I see other options working better than restricting people that have no reason to be.
 
SpurMeUp said:
Could we see some local lockdowns happening soon? Probably.

Might have gone unnoticed, but there were 200 a day hospital admissions due to covid in the northwest. That is back towards April/May figures. London is far more under control. The government must act decisively and quickly. Because we don't want the NHS to be the national covid service. Which is what happened when this virus hit. That impacts excess deaths etc.

What is the likely solution? We need to lock down affected cities. Close everything. Test people door to door. It's the only way I can see of gaining some effective control.

Maybe the 200 a day was a blip. But if there is another day or two of hospitalizations at similar rates, that is not a good sign and this government has to act fast.
Click to expand...

This post above was from last Tuesday.

The hospital data would have been available to our government last Monday. So exactly a week ago. Its the same as first lockdown - left until hospitals couldn't take any more, rather than locking down to contain the virus. So you have to conclude that managing hospitals is the government's strategy. All this world-class test and trace stuff - just nonsense. A red herring to look good; and a waste of money.
 
Has anyone heard of the Minister for Resilience? https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/minister-for-government-resilience-and-efficiency

No me neither. Despite being a dedicated person who's job it is to manage and contain national risk, the UK currently doesn't have a Minister for Resilience in post.

Check out page 34 of this: https://assets.publishing.service.g...ile/644968/UK_National_Risk_Register_2017.pdf It was put together by the last Minister for Resilience Peter Lilly in 2017.

In the middle of a global pandemic, wouldn't you go and find Peter Lilly, a Conservative, in the House of Lords and ask him to join the government for a year? Take up his old job, and bolster the UKs Covid response?

Its bemusing and I suppose fitting that we don't have anyone in post really. As we are neither efficient nor resilient as things stand.
 
SpurMeUp said:
Very much a government apologist then.

You can't see that government planning, communication, and speed of response are crucial during a pandemic?

Outlining that the army can help to implement testing rapidly (setting up test sites, moving samples to labs etc), or that the army could help to enforce a lockdown are "vague" statements?
Click to expand...

I'm no government apologist, have criticised them on here many times including in this thread - I'm just not driven by ideology like some people are.

To be clear when I talk about how hard a lockdown is I'm talking about the severity of it and what ordinary people are allowed to do, which businesses can remain open etc. You said it wasn't hard enough so I'm asking what further restrictions you would have put in place.

By vague statements I mean the below, what does that even mean. Are you wanting the army patrolling the streets?

4. Get the army involved. Ensure people are observing.
Click to expand...

The army have already been involved for a long time in distributing PPE, running cargo flights to bring in PPE and other necessary materials and equipment, mobile testing units etc.
 
Sages latest minutes is quite interesting.

no proof curfews work
Wanted circuit breaker 3 weeks ago


SAGE also asked the government to consider:

  • Advice to work from home for all those who can;
  • Banning all contact within the home with members of other households (except members of a support bubble)
  • Closure of all bars, restaurants, cafes, indoor gyms, and personal services (e.g. hairdressers)
  • All university and college teaching to be online unless absolutely essential.
 
P.D. said:
I'm no government apologist, have criticised them on here many times including in this thread - I'm just not driven by ideology like some people are.

To be clear when I talk about how hard a lockdown is I'm talking about the severity of it and what ordinary people are allowed to do, which businesses can remain open etc. You said it wasn't hard enough so I'm asking what further restrictions you would have put in place.

By vague statements I mean the below, what does that even mean. Are you wanting the army patrolling the streets?



The army have already been involved for a long time in distributing PPE, running cargo flights to bring in PPE and other necessary materials and equipment, mobile testing units etc.
Click to expand...

I answered all of this about a week ago - just look back at when we were discussing it. Personally, I believe a lot more could have been done, and the things that have been done, could have been done better. If you are defending this government's performance, what does that make you, if not a government apologist?
 
Legohamster said:
Sages latest minutes is quite interesting.

no proof curfews work
Wanted circuit breaker 3 weeks ago


SAGE also asked the government to consider:

  • Advice to work from home for all those who can;
  • Banning all contact within the home with members of other households (except members of a support bubble)
  • Closure of all bars, restaurants, cafes, indoor gyms, and personal services (e.g. hairdressers)
  • All university and college teaching to be online unless absolutely essential.
Click to expand...

In some warped logic you take one death out the Covid column and stick it in suicide or cancer because of delayed treatment and its better, because all that matters are Covid figures. So let's lock everyone back down
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back