deandean wrote: » I heard from a person 'in the know': the lockdown may continue for up to eight weeks total.
Ulysses Gaze wrote: » 400,000 people in the country have asthma as well. We're also seeing evidence that Covid-19 is impacting healthy young people as well who have no underlying health issues. Do we really want to play Russian Roulette with people's lives?
Beasty wrote: » Interesting commentary from Spain this morning where they seem to be suggesting allowing more "freedom" based on age - allowing the younger generation a bit more flexibility, and gradually increasing the age, presumably in something like 10 year bands. Hope if we do anything like that it's not dragging on to October:eek: Alas there does seem some sense in such an approach
easypazz wrote: » The harsh reality is older people and vulnerable groups need to be locked down for their welfare and thus enable the rest of us can get on with things so we can provide for them.
KiKi III wrote: » Have you seen any government or health official suggest it will go on for months? That’s highly unlikely. The fact is the better people adhere to these measures, the shorter the period we’ll have to deal with them will be. People who are already calling for easing of restrictions don’t seem to understand that will mean a flare up in the numbers and potentially much more severe restrictions after that.
ITman88 wrote: » It’s arguments like this that have desensitised a lot of people to the current measures in place. Those people are at risk every day of every year of a seasonal illness. Are we going to lockdown every Winter and Spring from now on to prevent those groups you mentioned coming to any harm?
KiKi III wrote: » People who are already calling for easing of restrictions don’t seem to understand that will mean a flare up in the numbers and potentially much more severe restrictions after that.
odyssey06 wrote: » But also, there is only so longer you can lock such groups down for without it having appreciable effects on their welfare - physical and mental health. They need exercise, social interactions, routine medical and other care etc etc Otherwise we'll be finding people dead in their homes not because of coronavirus but because of their restrictions.
ITman88 wrote: » It’s arguments like this that have desensitised a lot of people to the current measures in place.Those people are at risk every day of every year of a seasonal illness. Are we going to lockdown every Winter and Spring from now on to prevent those groups you mentioned coming to any harm?
MadYaker wrote: » Simon Harris’ comments suggest the current restrictions won’t last very long. I still expect the current measures to be extended on the 12th though. If we are going to slowly begin resuming some type of normalcy we have to really bulk up our testing and contact tracing abilities so we can keep on top of the virus and keep the number of cases within health system capacity while also allowing more people back to work.
Ethereal Cereal wrote: » And without divulging the safety and identity of your source, how are they 'in the know'. Or is it, as I suspect, just BS?
Ethereal Cereal wrote: » And without divulging the safety and identity of your source, how are they 'in the know'.
Ulysses Gaze wrote: » Problem is Timmy, we don't know the impact on the health system if we relax all restrictions since a significant number of people will require hospitalisation if they catch this thing. We could overwhelm it easily if we go too far.
Beasty wrote: » Interesting commentary from Spain this morning where they seem to be suggesting allowing more "freedom" based on age - allowing the younger generation a bit more flexibility, and gradually increasing the age, presumably in something like 10 year bands.
timmy_mallet wrote: » I think the continued lockdown isnt pragmatic.
AdamD wrote: » A week for some perhaps. The old restrictions and the new haven't really been much different for me (and I don't mean that as a positive). Working from home all day, then out for a walk and go to the supermarket. I'm nearing the end of week 4 of that and its not enjoyable.
ITman88 wrote: » You don’t seem to understand what the restrictions are for. It’s a temporary measure to prevent overwhelming the health service. Covid is here to stay, we will need to adapt to life as usual with this disease part of it
easypazz wrote: » Lots of people are going to die here no matter how its done. If the economic situation is allowed to persist there may be no money for cancer treatment, heart operations, smear tests etc. so in the long run loads of extra people will die anyway.
yourdeadwright wrote: » Why not just keep as we are for another 2 weeks, Then see where the lands lie,
easypazz wrote: » People scoff at that notion around here. The harsh reality is older people and vulnerable groups need to be locked down for their welfare and thus enable the rest of us can get on with things so we can provide for them.
KiKi III wrote: » Fake news.
MOH wrote: » This. All the people going "it's only been a week" are part of the reason we needed official restrictions. Most people I know have been effectively following the current rules for weeks now out of common sense. I don't think I've been more than 1k from home for the past 3 weeks, only time I'm out are for shopping and trying to force myself to get out for some exercise at least every couple of days so I don't end up a heart attack risk. Feels like a lot longer though, and a lot of people seem to have a very blase attitude towards the effects of long term restrictions on physical and mental health.
ITman88 wrote: » Most are ignoring this. It is exactly the elephant! Officials in the UK did a study last week on the effects of the restrictions and determined a shrink in the economy of 6% is the equilibrium where the economic contraction will cause more deaths. It’s forbidden however from being mentioned by many posters, you will be accused of immaturity/lack of empathy/not understanding the effects of the virus etc.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » Don't forget selfish, self-absorbed, an economic fetishist etc. etc. for even merely dare think of any long term impacts to the economy and its affects. We can only think of now problems, no longer term thinking allowed.
