• 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

monkeybarry said:
Two weeks to get the rest of the jabs in makes sense.
This is just the next phase - we'll probably have a few more new variants over the next year or two with the need for quick roll outs and maybe a very short lockdown.
In theory the severity of the virus should settle down as it mutates and as the world gets vaxxed - we have to remember we are far ahead of most of the world, but don't get the western world privilege as much as we used to because covid doesn't care about borders.
But it's definitely getting a lot better.
Click to expand...

On Friday they reluctantly said there's 10 people hospitalised with Omicron in the whole country.
I don't doubt there's actual flu and covid risks to vulnerable people, but the hype they are intentionally spinning is absurd.

I personally think we should protect the vulnerable more (with whatever they want), everyone else crack on.
 
elyid said:
On Friday they reluctantly said there's 10 people hospitalised with Omicron in the whole country.
I don't doubt there's actual flu and covid risks to vulnerable people, but the hype they are intentionally spinning is absurd.

I personally think we should protect the vulnerable more (with whatever they want), everyone else crack on.
Click to expand...

Exactly this, and like I said before I have seen it work first hand with my job, people are tested to come to work and do, those that have it dont come in, those that dont work and its been managed very well, its saved blanket shut downs.
 
elyid said:
On Friday they reluctantly said there's 10 people hospitalised with Omicron in the whole country.
I don't doubt there's actual flu and covid risks to vulnerable people, but the hype they are intentionally spinning is absurd.

I personally think we should protect the vulnerable more (with whatever they want), everyone else crack on.
Click to expand...

That's the wrong risk management approach. It's not current levels, Its projected levels.
It's unknown if Omicron will create large-scale hospitalisations, so the assumption has to be it will.
A couple of weeks lockdown to reduce spread whilst millions of more jabs get delivered.
Once those are delivered the likelihood of severe infection reduces, thus reducing the likelihood of a large-scale short notice influx of hospital admissions.
Better to do it and be wrong than to not do it and become overwhelmed.
This is different to before because it's now about pace of spread - we have pace of vaccination as a counter measure, but that isn't immediate and by its very nature has to be reactivate.

Re; vulnerability. Early data shows limited protection pre-booster.

Whilst uncomfortable, a small lockdown/restrictions would be the right choice. And would be good governance.
 
monkeybarry said:
That's the wrong risk management approach. It's not current levels, Its projected levels.
It's unknown if Omicron will create large-scale hospitalisations, so the assumption has to be it will.
A couple of weeks lockdown to reduce spread whilst millions of more jabs get delivered.
Once those are delivered the likelihood of severe infection reduces, thus reducing the likelihood of a large-scale short notice influx of hospital admissions.
Better to do it and be wrong than to not do it and become overwhelmed.
This is different to before because it's now about pace of spread - we have pace of vaccination as a counter measure, but that isn't immediate and by its very nature has to be reactivate.

Re; vulnerability. Early data shows limited protection pre-booster.

Whilst uncomfortable, a small lockdown/restrictions would be the right choice. And would be good governance.
Click to expand...

Based on worse case scenario I get this however based on current infection levels versus hospitalisation and deaths we are clearly seeing a variant that is alot more milder. Comparable numbers previously on the infection numbers would have seen deaths in the 1000s which we are just not seeing. Its early says yeh I agree but there isnt anything to say this is going south anytime soon
 
elyid said:
On Friday they reluctantly said there's 10 people hospitalised with Omicron in the whole country.
I don't doubt there's actual flu and covid risks to vulnerable people, but the hype they are intentionally spinning is absurd.

I personally think we should protect the vulnerable more (with whatever they want), everyone else crack on.
Click to expand...

And 10 with, not 10 for, omicron too.

So that's 3 for DIY and sports injuries, 2 in maternity, 2 for cancer, 2 for heart attacks, 1 for alzheimer's and a road traffic accident; but happened to test positive on routine admission tests.
 
monkeybarry said:
That's the wrong risk management approach. It's not current levels, Its projected levels.
It's unknown if Omicron will create large-scale hospitalisations, so the assumption has to be it will.
A couple of weeks lockdown to reduce spread whilst millions of more jabs get delivered.
Once those are delivered the likelihood of severe infection reduces, thus reducing the likelihood of a large-scale short notice influx of hospital admissions.
Better to do it and be wrong than to not do it and become overwhelmed.
This is different to before because it's now about pace of spread - we have pace of vaccination as a counter measure, but that isn't immediate and by its very nature has to be reactivate.

Re; vulnerability. Early data shows limited protection pre-booster.

Whilst uncomfortable, a small lockdown/restrictions would be the right choice. And would be good governance.
Click to expand...

The boy has cried wolf too many times already for a population suffering widespread mental trauma.

I'd certainly take my chances with covid again over going back to that prison for the rest of the winter.
 
Gutter Boy said:
The boy has cried wolf too many times already for a population suffering widespread mental trauma.

I'd certainly take my chances with covid again over going back to that prison for the rest of the winter.
Click to expand...

That's completely my pov as well.

monkeybarry's suggestions are sensible *IF* you assume the government have good intentions, all data is accurate and there's a real risk to everyone. However, when they lie for the 10th, 20th, 100th time you can't assume the starting criteria is accurate. I personally think *all* the hype is absolute flimflam, there's a risk to some people but it's not what they allude to.
 
monkeybarry said:
That's the wrong risk management approach. It's not current levels, Its projected levels.
It's unknown if Omicron will create large-scale hospitalisations, so the assumption has to be it will.
A couple of weeks lockdown to reduce spread whilst millions of more jabs get delivered.
Once those are delivered the likelihood of severe infection reduces, thus reducing the likelihood of a large-scale short notice influx of hospital admissions.
Better to do it and be wrong than to not do it and become overwhelmed.
This is different to before because it's now about pace of spread - we have pace of vaccination as a counter measure, but that isn't immediate and by its very nature has to be reactivate.

Re; vulnerability. Early data shows limited protection pre-booster.

Whilst uncomfortable, a small lockdown/restrictions would be the right choice. And would be good governance.
Click to expand...

Immunity (at least anti bodies) wanes. So if you slow it down the vulnerable become more vulnerable as they've had their boosters. We're onto under 30's now.
 
markysimmo said:
There has been immeasurable damage done to people's mental health in the last 22 months or so
and I include lots of children in that too
Click to expand...

Difficult to say for sure. Suicide rates, for example, fell during the lockdowns; plenty of evidence that anxiety and depression rose.

Anecdotal, but many people I know felt there were aspects of their lives which improved during lockdown - no commuting, more time with family - and it’s encouraged two to take the plunge and jack in the jobs they hated and start up new careers. Both are immeasurably happier.

With children, my experience as a teacher suggests things are also mixed. The vast majority of pupils have dealt with the situation very well and will have learned a lot they can take forward through the rest of their lives. Our experience is that those who struggled were those who were already struggling.

As with the pandemic as a whole, probably too early to tell what the eventual outcomes will be.
 
Mikey10 said:
Really?
Click to expand...

30% of under 40s are currently suffering from severe depression, compared to 10% in 2019.

I've seen so many really damaged people start to re-emerge into the world these past 6 months, absolute shells of them former selves. The worse is the one in an abusive relationship who has had to spend two years even more tightly caged in that situation, whereas work and sport used to give her 'permitted' respites.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back