Coronavirus

[Boby Brno]

Meanwhile in Germany.

https://amp.dw.com/en/germany-berlin-court-suspends-bar-and-restaurant-curfew/a-55306096

[birch-chorley]

4 minutes ago, peelyfeet said:

I'm not saying shield the vulnerable doesn't help.

I'm saying shield the vulnerable and let the young crack on, doesn't work.

Sweden are arguably at 10% seropositivity after 7 months. Cracking on would take ages, the virus would be rife in the community so vulnerables would have to be isolated from contact, the country would still have a health issue. Some vulnerables would still catch it, under 60s still get ill, some still need hospitalisation, some die. The economy would still take a battering. Taking a 3rd of the population out of circulation for a long time, and letting a virus infect millions of folk has consequences. Its why nobody has done it, and every country is trying to delay spread, bu whichever method they think works best.

UK and USA and Sweden will not be seen as shining examples of how to do it. If it happens again I bet nobody copies them.

 

I thought you said that it’s unfair to ask the vulnerable to shield? Surely if it works then it should be part of our thinking moving forward? 

I think it’s fair that the vulnerable should shield in tier 2. Its as fair as asking a business to close in tier 3 IMO 

[Guest Nordkurve]

41 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

Don't be daft, you stop people moving completely, even with a simple North / South divide and you’ve got absolute Chaos. Panic buying, Supermarket shelves running empty, millions more unable to get to work because of a road block - madness

As a rough example, I work in Tea, all major Tea manufacturing is located in the North so the South would run out in days. Plenty other examples in both directions. You can of course limit travel from one area to another though and that would be a benefit 

Likewise, you can’t fully shield the vulnerable, but you can take measures to limit the contact they have with the rest of the population, that would also be a benefit 

I’m all for a targeted approach, however we need to target based on vulnerability as much as we do geography 

I didn't think a Tier 3 lockdown stopped people from working, nor does it stop the Transportation of goods. It just stops people who are not working from going to Pubs and Restaurants etc, or am I missing something here ?

[Ani]

1 hour ago, Mr Grey said:

I'm middle aged but not fat, and that statement is crap, the young and especially the feral don't give a fuck. The streets are awash with groups of kids/youths and not all from the same household. 

It's pretty easy to blame it on pubs and the hospitality industry. A lot of us middle aged blokes go to the pub and restraunts, and from what I've seen the majority have all been on our best behaviour.

Which vulnerable group do you see not shielding ? 

[birch-chorley]

2 minutes ago, Nordkurve said:

I didn't think a Tier 3 lockdown stopped people from working, nor does it stop the Transportation of goods. It just stops people who are not working from going to Pubs and Restaurants etc, or am I missing something here ?

Peely was saying that we should have kept the North locked down in the summer and only let the South reopen 

I’m saying you can’t fully lockdown based on geography, as much as you can’t fully shield the vulnerable. However both things would work so we should target the restrictions based on both geography AND vulnerability 

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

What are we classing as vulnerable?

I get the impression peely and birch are working to different definitions.

[birch-chorley]

Just now, Ani said:

Which vulnerable group do you see not shielding ? 

We seem to have gone from ‘we can’t ask the vulnerable to follow different restrictions as it doesn’t work / isn’t fair’ 

To ‘they are shielding anyway so why bother asking them’ 

[Sweep]

47 minutes ago, Spider said:

Lockdown my codpiece

Kinky

[birch-chorley]

5 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

What are we classing as vulnerable?

I get the impression peely and birch are working to different definitions.

Think it was 2.2m people that we asked to shield in March 

Perhaps you could expand that further to perhaps 3m or 4m dependant on vulnerability 

Youd have to look at the % likelihood of death from Covid vs the quantum number of population it would be reasonable enough to ask to shield 

[Guest Nordkurve]

Just now, birch-chorley said:

Peely was saying that we should have kept the North locked down in the summer and only let the South reopen 

I’m saying you can’t fully lockdown based on geography, as much as you can’t fully shield the vulnerable. However both things would work so we should target the restrictions based on both geography AND vulnerability 

That makes sense, but we didn't lock down, at least not like they did in other Countries. Look at all the Stories of people driving to the Lakes and stuff during the "Lockdown", or driving an hour to then do their 1 hour exercise. All the UK did was basically advise people to stay at home. It would be the same now. Even if Greater Manchester went in to Tier 3 Lockdown loads would carry on as normal except the Pubs would be shut. There have been too many u-turns and conflicting stories. People are sick of it, and it does come across as a North/South thing whether it was intended or not.

[birch-chorley]

7 minutes ago, Nordkurve said:

That makes sense, but we didn't lock down, at least not like they did in other Countries. Look at all the Stories of people driving to the Lakes and stuff during the "Lockdown", or driving an hour to then do their 1 hour exercise. All the UK did was basically advise people to stay at home. It would be the same now. Even if Greater Manchester went in to Tier 3 Lockdown loads would carry on as normal except the Pubs would be shut. There have been too many u-turns and conflicting stories. People are sick of it, and it does come across as a North/South thing whether it was intended or not.

Exactly the point I’m trying to make, geographical restrictions aren’t perfect 

Peely seemed to be of the opinion that we shouldn’t be restricting based on vulnerability because you can’t do it perfectly 

I doubt you can restrict anything perfectly, so both geography and Vulnerability should be part of our approach 

Ask the vulnerable to shield in tier 2 seems fair to me 

[peelyfeet]

1 minute ago, birch-chorley said:

Exactly the point I’m trying to make, geographical restrictions aren’t perfect 

Peely seemed to be of the opinion that we shouldn’t be restricting based on vulnerability because you can’t do it perfectly 

I doubt you can restrict anything perfectly, so both geography and Vulnerability should be part of our approach 

Ask the vulnerable to shield in tier 2 seems fair to me 

Its the young crack on bit I'm against. Catastrophic error IMO if anyone tries it.

4mins

 

 

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

16 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

Think it was 2.2m people that we asked to shield in March 

Perhaps you could expand that further to perhaps 3m or 4m dependant on vulnerability 

Youd have to look at the % likelihood of death from Covid vs the quantum number of population it would be reasonable enough to ask to shield 

Those asked to shield were in the extremely vulnerable category, weren't they?

I don't think, for example, the over-70s were asked to shield.

I also read that in April the average age of those admitted to ICU with Covid was 61. That suggests to me that there are a lot of people in their 50s and 60s who are vulnerable, but either don't know it or don't want to admit it.

And again, I don't think those who are extremely vulnerable and know it are taking risks anyway. And that's before we get to the issue of the people they live with not shielding.

[Ani]

34 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

We seem to have gone from ‘we can’t ask the vulnerable to follow different restrictions as it doesn’t work / isn’t fair’ 

To ‘they are shielding anyway so why bother asking them’ 

Tbf I am responding to Mr Grey saying my comment that old fat blokes are not shielding is bollocks. 
 

I think asking vulnerable groups to look after themselves is fine as long as we continue to support with food deliveries etc. 

Edited October 17, 2020 by Ani

[birch-chorley]

11 minutes ago, peelyfeet said:

Its the young crack on bit I'm against. Catastrophic error IMO if anyone tries it.

4mins

 

 

I don’t we will get to fully ‘crack on’ for a long time. Things like masks, working from home, social distancing in restaurants etc are here to stay for some time 

However, if the vulnerable shield in tier 2 then it should help reduce the flow into hospitals and mean the non vulnerable can continue going to gyms, meeting in restaurants up-to groups of 6 etc etc - this will help the economy rather than no shielding requirements and areas move to tier 3 as hospitals fill up with the vulnerable 

[peelyfeet]

2 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

I don’t we will get to fully ‘crack on’ for a long time. Things like masks, working from home, social distancing in restaurants etc are here to stay for some time 

However, if the vulnerable shield in tier 2 then it should help reduce the flow into hospitals and mean the non vulnerable can continue going to gyms, meeting in restaurants up-to groups of 6 etc etc - this will help the economy rather than no shielding requirements and areas move to tier 3 as hospitals fill up with the vulnerable 

Agreed, now let me watch Everton get smashed 

[birch-chorley]

8 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

Those asked to shield were in the extremely vulnerable category, weren't they?

I don't think, for example, the over-70s were asked to shield.

I also read that in April the average age of those admitted to ICU with Covid was 61. That suggests to me that there are a lot of people in their 50s and 60s who are vulnerable, but either don't know it or don't want to admit it.

And again, I don't think those who are extremely vulnerable and know it are taking risks anyway. And that's before we get to the issue of the people they live with not shielding.

Clearly the extremely vulnerable should be shielding, that should never have changed IMO (although I believe the official advice moved) 

You then need to expand it by looking for the optimal trade off from risk vs quantum numbers that would be reasonable enough to shield. 

 it won’t be perfect as many in these groups rely on others, but non of the restrictions can be perfectly observed, they will help though 

[Casino]

End of yesterdays media conference

First question

Bloke from essex, split from mother of this child, child lives in kent

 

So, prime minister, am i allowed to go to see my son

 

Wiff waff spaff, wiff waff spaff, wiff waff. There are restrictions. Check on the website

 

He knows the questions coming, why the fuck is he not on top of the answers

[Farrelli]

He’s not a details man, have we ever seen a PM so inept? 

[Casino]

I dont think we have

If you chech the dictionary for inept, i bet theres a photo of him

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, Casino said:

End of yesterdays media conference

First question

Bloke from essex, split from mother of this child, child lives in kent

 

So, prime minister, am i allowed to go to see my son

 

Wiff waff spaff, wiff waff spaff, wiff waff. There are restrictions. Check on the website

 

He knows the questions coming, why the fuck is he not on top of the answers

The bloke should have looked on the website rather than call the PM; it’s all there.

 

[Guest Nordkurve]

1 hour ago, Ani said:

Tbf I am responding to Mr Grey saying my comment that old fat blokes are not shielding is bollocks. 
 

I think asking vulnerable groups to look after themselves is fine as long as we continue to support with food deliveries etc. 

The biggest problem is that a lot of those in the vulnerable groups are not Pensioners. They should isolate but at the same time many can't afford to isolate because they need to work to pay their Mortgage or Rent. It's catch 22. 

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

1 hour ago, birch-chorley said:

Clearly the extremely vulnerable should be shielding, that should never have changed IMO (although I believe the official advice moved) 

You then need to expand it by looking for the optimal trade off from risk vs quantum numbers that would be reasonable enough to shield. 

 it won’t be perfect as many in these groups rely on others, but non of the restrictions can be perfectly observed, they will help though 

I think we disagree on the practicalities and the extent to which the most vulnerable are already shielding themselves.

[jeep]

35 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

The bloke should have looked on the website rather than call the PM; it’s all there.

 

I agree. What a dick.....

[radcliffe white]

41 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

The bloke should have looked on the website rather than call the PM; it’s all there.

 

Yep you get the opportunity to ask a question and you ask that

happened a few times on them Q&A briefings mad some folk