I want a shutdown NOW!

thecomedian

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Assuming you are on your own and are adhering to the 2km from home rule, going for a cycle in the countryside isn't a problem.

It’s not but some people love talking about something they don’t understand.
They just want to be all high and mighty.

El_Duderino 09

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Assuming you are on your own and are adhering to the 2km from home rule, going for a cycle in the countryside isn't a problem.

Ok. And shortly they’ll tighten the restrictions. So I wouldn’t get used to the idea of going for long cycles in a 2km radius.

Have you thought about what the restrictions are going to be next? And the time after that and the time after that?

These are relatively mild restrictions for now and they’ll get more severe because some people think situation is serious and is getting more serious.

El_Duderino 09

NIMAN wrote: »

In a manufacturing facility there will always be those who are directly involved in making whatever the company sells, and those who provide admin, engineering or r&d support to the product.

The former tend to be required to be physically in the factory, all the latter folk don't, as they aren't loading machines etc.

I get you. That’s the point I was hoping the poster i replied to, would get. Floor staff can’t work from home.

Pete_Cavan

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok. And shortly they’ll tighten the restrictions. So I wouldn’t get used to the idea of going for long cycles in a 2km radius.

Have you thought about what the restrictions are going to be next? And the time after that and the time after that?

These are relatively mild restrictions for now and they’ll get more severe because some people think situation is serious and is getting more serious.

Unlikely we will get more severe restrictions. The social and mental health damage from prolonged restrictions will not would be significant, compliance will fall over time and the economic fallout will only limit our ability to fight the virus going forward. Ever tightening restrictions is not a realistic strategy.

El_Duderino 09

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Unlikely we will get more severe restrictions. The social and mental health damage from prolonged restrictions will not would be significant, compliance will fall over time and the economic fallout will only limit our ability to fight the virus going forward. Ever tightening restrictions is not a realistic strategy.

Tell that to France and Spain.

The social and mental health damage and economic damage are arguments against further restrictions but the spread of the disease will ultimately make the decision.

You might not like the idea of further restriction but it would be naive to think they wont happen. They're coming weekly. The UK is getting people used to further restrictions in a letter from BJ this morning. It's almost certainly going to happen.

Alf Veedersane

There is a psychological component to how its presented and it would be foolish to disregard it. I think they're doing well with how they're framing it because people can process and accept measures for relatively short periods. That's not at odds with managing expectations either.

They will likely want to assess the impact of these measures and maybe shorten the list of 'essential' services but I dont think they will necessarily make a big difference to day-to-day life for most.

punisher5112

Signs are being fitted to bus seats to keep people apart, where do people sit? Yes you are right in the seats to be kept empty.....

Alf Veedersane

punisher5112 wrote: »

Signs are being fitted to bus seats to keep people apart, where do people sit? Yes you are right in the seats to be kept empty.....

And all down the back

El_Duderino 09

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

There is a psychological component to how its presented and it would be foolish to disregard it. I think they're doing well with how they're framing it because people can process and accept measures for relatively short periods. That's not at odds with managing expectations either.

They will likely want to assess the impact of these measures and maybe shorten the list of 'essential' services but I dont think they will necessarily make a big difference to day-to-day life for most.

Yes absolutely. If they went straight from normal life to full lockdown, there could be a complete collapse of society and anarchy - looting breakdown in social order etc. So instead they tighten the restrictions about once a week or 10 days to give people time to get used to each set of tightened rules.

There’s absolutely no doubt it will continue and restrictions will be tightened. Todays restrictions isn’t the end. To think so would be foolish.

mensa

Sweden has not restricted movements, schools are open etc. Regarding Covid they are not doing too badly overall. Maybe they are the clever ones?

Alf Veedersane

mensa wrote: »

Sweden has not restricted movements, schools are open etc. Regarding Covid they are not doing too badly overall. Maybe they are the clever ones?

They're still trying to control it so that they can manage it. If the rate of cases needing hospitalisation or ICU, the current level of restriction will change. Ireland changed because the rate of growth of ICU cases increased and a need to reduce cases grew urgently.

easypazz

mensa wrote: »

Sweden has not restricted movements, schools are open etc. Regarding Covid they are not doing too badly overall. Maybe they are the clever ones?

Interesting to watch. See how they get on.

Seve OB

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The quickest way to get it over with would be to get everyone to be infected right now and forget medical treatment because the medical system would be completely overrun. Those who survive, survive, those who don’t, don’t. The slowest way to deal with it would be to keep the infection rate to a level where the health system can cope with demands.

What a self centred ridiculous statement to make

El_Duderino 09

Seve OB wrote: »

What a self centred ridiculous statement to make

I didn't suggest it was a good or bad thing to do and I didn't suggest we do it. I said it would be the quickest was through it (which was in direct response to the post I quotes). It's not ridiculous. It's actually true.

So wind you neck in. Cheers.

easypazz

Seve OB wrote: »

What a self centred ridiculous statement to make

How is it self centred? We all have elderly and vulnerable friends and family.

It will kill at random.

It may come to this yet, after a few months airlines will grind to a halt, there will be little money to pay for anything.

Trumps "the cure may be worse" approach may need to be considered.

El_Duderino 09

easypazz wrote: »

How is it self centred? We all have elderly and vulnerable friends and family.

It will kill at random.

It may come to this yet, after a few months airlines will grind to a halt, there will be little money to pay for anything.

Trumps "the cure may be worse" approach may need to be considered.

Just to be clear, I didn't advocate for either approach. I simply pointed them out as extreme ends of the spectrum of time to get over the pandemic.

I really think we need to talk about how we want to deal with this kind of scenario in the future, shut down or power through. I can see it becoming a right/left issue in leadership debates. With the shutdown option being the tree hugger lefty option and the "open American for business and save the economy", being the right wing approach. There's a great chance we'll see it in the US election later this year.

Collie D

Shutdown is the “tree hugger lefty” option now?

El_Duderino 09

Collie D wrote: »

Shutdown is the “tree hugger lefty” option now?

Nope. Christ that's couple of posters in a row who have completely misrepresented what I've said.

I said I can see it becoming a right/left issue in leadership elections in the future.

Collie D

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Nope. Christ that's couple of posters in a row who have completely misrepresented what I've said.

I said I can see it becoming a right/left issue in leadership elections in the future.

I was referring to the tree hugger bit.

El_Duderino 09

Collie D wrote: »

I was referring to the tree hugger bit.

Trump has taken the approach that getting the economy back open is the right wing side. Fox news has backed him so I'd see that as the right wing, pro business side in the election later this year. And the other side would be in favour of health of people. So i could see is as health of the economy Vs health of the people.

Yeah, I'd imagine the right will paint the lockdown approach as a tree hugger approach.

Note this is all future tense. I haven't said this is the case now. I said i think it will happen in the near future.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Shutting EVERYTHING down is like burning the house to the ground to kill a spider. We're treating this virus like a cancer, kill everything to kill it. I'm not so sure about shutting down entirely, factories HAVE to stay open, food production, airlines, freight etc. This thing will destroy countries for years to come... It's all about protecting the elderly really, the vulnerable groups. Everyone being locked up at home for the next couple of weeks means nothing when thousands will flock into factories in the morning. I think the key to this thing is protecting the elderly, if you're one of the people with existing conditions that means corona could be deadly for you also stay away.

Plumbthedepths

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Shutting EVERYTHING down is like burning the house to the ground to kill a spider. We're treating this virus like a cancer, kill everything to kill it. I'm not so sure about shutting down entirely, factories HAVE to stay open, food production, airlines, freight etc. This thing will destroy countries for years to come... It's all about protecting the elderly really, the vulnerable groups. Everyone being locked up at home for the next couple of weeks means nothing when thousands will flock into factories in the morning. I think the key to this thing is protecting the elderly, if you're one of the people with existing conditions that means corona could be deadly for you also stay away.

I'm looking forward to going to work tomorrow. Couldn't handle being confined to the house . I think ultimately when the damage to the country becomes to serious to ignore, the vulnerable and elderly will be cocooned and the rest carry on as normal. There is no vaccine coming for at least 12 to 18 months. The present situation is not tenable for a protracted period.

El_Duderino 09

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I'm looking forward to going to work tomorrow. Couldn't handle being confined to the house . I think ultimately when the damage to the country becomes to serious to ignore, the vulnerable and elderly will be cocooned and the rest carry on as normal. There is no vaccine coming for at least 12 to 18 months. The present situation is not tenable for a protracted period.

Yeah they reckon it’s going to be an annual disease so we all need immunity to it through contracting it or a vaccine. So we might be back here again this time next year (or maybe around the time of the more traditions flu season).

I think it’s interesting that we didn’t have time for a discussion about how to handle it and what the consequences would be. I wouldn’t take it for granted that we will deal with it the same if we find ourselves in the same situation next year.

We didn’t have a discussion about what we actually plan to do or how long we plan to do it for. We’re doing it for the old and vulnerable and I think imagine with that. But I really resent the way old people vote against the young at every election. It would be great if we had the discussion and the old folk appreciated what the young are doing for them and they voted for young people at the next election.

Without the discussion I think the old people I’ll be more likely to live until the next election to vote against the interests of the young people that kept them alive.

Something along the lines of how the UK created the NHS and set about a massive scheme of building houses, would be a great result of the sacrifices that everyone is making for the sake of old people mostly. Unlikely to happen without the discussion of what we plan to do and for whom.

jmayo

begbysback wrote: »

The stench of virtue signaling off that, and you couldn’t be any more wrong, I have to self isolate, but that’s none of your business anyway.

The amount of virtue signaling around these times is shameful, on here and on Twitter where that guy Padraig the photographer has taken to publicly chastising homeless people for the sake of his own virtue signaling.

People all of a sudden have taken this opportunity to impede on the lives of others for their own gratitude - sickening.

virtue signalling my ar**.
I am tired of all the Americanisms now in use in this country.

States and their societies can only function if we sometimes think of the greater good.
It is not all about fooking personal freedoms as where do you ultimately draw the line?
This is equivalent to wartime and in wartime you make sacrifices for the greater good.

Balf wrote: »

And what about the rest of what I said? What problems do you think we'll be facing as a society when we wake up with your post Covid hangover in a few months?

Anyone?

Seriously lads what the fook do you suggest ?
Just go on as normal and let it blow itself out ?

If we let it go unchecked then it aint just old people that will be dying in droves.

If we let it go unchecked the health service and every hospital will collapse under the strain.
What happens if you have an accident ?
What happens if someone who is healthy and doesn't have covid has a heart attack ?

Lets use rough figures here, but if we forecast 60% of the population (4.76 million) gets this, that is about 2.856 million infected people.

Going on China's numbers 15% of those infected required hospitalisation and 5% in critical care.

Even if we had halved that number due to isolation of elderly and compromised, that would be 214,000 and 71,000.
Does anyone seriously fooking think we could cope with those kind of numbers over 6 months ?

Now if we conservatively reckon that the death rate is about 1%, as we have somehow protected the elderly by isolating only them, and it only affects younger healthy people.

But that 1% will quickly jump because the number of ventilators and ICU beds will be quickly dwarfed by the numbers of even younger people in hospitals.

Lets say now the death rate jumps to 2% because we can't handle the thousands needing hospitalisation and especially critical care.

That comes out at about 57,000 people.

What the fook do you people suggest we do when we have death toll of such size over such a short timeframe ?
Perhaps a return to the famine type mass graves or mass crematoriums ala Auschwitz.

Now all of these are just back of the envelop calculations done based on our population and what has transpired elsewhere, and I have been conservative based on what some people want with regards cocooning the elderly and compromised.
But they are still scary numbers.

BTW We have an average death rate of about 6.5/1000.
That works out at about 31,000 dead a year.

The social distancing, the lockdowns is to slow it down so that health system can maybe, just maybe, cope with the sick.

It is the equivalent of a scorched earth policy employed in wartime to slow down the enemy.

It is not pretty, it does have huge consequences, but the alternative is usually far worse.

DeVore

There are some facts you might want to consider in this discussion.

Source: https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus#case-fatality-rate-of-covid-19-by-age

1: WITH ventilator treatment the mortality risk per age range varies between countries but is roughly
60-70: 3%
70-80: 8%
80+ : 14%

2. But for those people WITHOUT ventilators, the mortality rockets. To the point that those 70 and over without ventilators have very low odds of survival *at all*.

If you look at my link, you will see Italy is hugely above everyone else, for each category. This ISNT because they have an aged population, (that wouldnt matter because we are already only talking about the elderly)... those numbers are survival rate for any given single person of that age having gotten the virus.

The reason Italy is so high is because they have exhausted their total ventilator beds. Once that happens, the chances for survival plummet at the beds are (and have been) taken from the elderly and given to the young.


So, yes, the idea of getting everyone to contract the virus quickly will kill many many more people, compared with the total who die from a more controlled protracted and managed infection rate.

So, its not the same number of deaths "just faster"... its a far higher death total than needs be for the "sake of the economy".

Alf Veedersane

easypazz wrote: »

Interesting to watch. See how they get on.

I'm not sure what level of testing they're at but 3,700 cases and 110 deaths with 255 in ICU/classified as 'serious or critical'. They're starting to tighten some restrictions bringing down gatherings to 50 or less from 500.

DeVore

ps: Its not just the elderly.

Here are the mortality rates for people with various conditions:

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus#case-fatality-rate-of-covid-19-by-preexisting-health-conditions

Remember thats mortality rates WITH ventilators. Without vents, its multiples of that.

DeVore

Those underlying conditions are:

Diabetes
Asthma
High blood pressure
Cancer
Heart Disease


Know anyone with them, of any age? If you blow through the ventilator beds in order to get back to work, those people are all in seriously danger.

citysights

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok. And shortly they’ll tighten the restrictions. So I wouldn’t get used to the idea of going for long cycles in a 2km radius.

Have you thought about what the restrictions are going to be next? And the time after that and the time after that?

These are relatively mild restrictions for now and they’ll get more severe because some people think situation is serious and is getting more serious.

Do you know what the further restrictions would be? I thought we’d pretty much shut down everything, there isn’t that much left they could do as it is we are told to stay at home only our for groceries or pharmacy or work or walk near home.

Nermal

jmayo wrote: »

Lets use rough figures here, but if we forecast 60% of the population (4.76 million) gets this, that is about 2.856 million infected people.

Going on China's numbers 15% of those infected required hospitalisation and 5% in critical care.

Show your source for 15%/5%. Does the sample reflect low risk groups, or more likely, reflect people sick enough to be tested? (I think I can guess).

At least half the people who currently have it (per Iceland) show literally no symptoms at all, and some fraction of the population has already had it (antibody testing yet to determine).

DeVore wrote: »

2. But for those people WITHOUT ventilators, the mortality rockets. To the point that those 70 and over without ventilators have very low odds of survival *at all*.

Study from Wuhan:
https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2820%2930566-3
If you need a mask, let alone ventilation, you're almost certainly going to die anyway. Availability of ventilators will make little difference to the death rate.