Coronavirus

[Tonge moor green jacket]

5 minutes ago, Spider said:

I can see the oxymoron potential of a passport with UNITED Kingdom on it.

Our monarch is going to end up owning a few allotments and a couple of parks.

I'm fairly sure there will have been a few anti UK tribesmen, continually rattling sabres since its creation. 

Cottage burners came and went, now the oat munchers.

[gonzo]

They had their chance for independence and bottled it the shit cunts.

[royal white]

12 minutes ago, gonzo said:

They had their chance for independence and bottled it the shit cunts.

Say what you see

[Zico]

in no way conclusive, but potential for long term lung damage, regardless of age/vunerability

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55017301

no thanks

[Sweep]

1 hour ago, ZicoKelly said:

in no way conclusive, but potential for long term lung damage, regardless of age/vunerability

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55017301

no thanks

stop being so soft, crack on!

[Rudy]

Meanwhile tobacco is legal 

[birch-chorley]

1 hour ago, ZicoKelly said:

in no way conclusive, but potential for long term lung damage, regardless of age/vunerability

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55017301

no thanks

As you say, no way conclusive 

They studied 10 people, 8 of which were suffering from long Covid / shortness of great, all of which showed signs of lung damage, which you would imagine is a given with someone suffering from being out of breath all the time 

The question will be, what % of cases develop long Covid, then you can work out the relative risk 

As a comparison the fact we use Diesel as a fuel means that thousands of people each year develop lung problems, it kills plenty along the way. But the % of cases relative to the population means we carry on regardless.

The government could use tax payers money to buy up all the Diesel cars and vans so they get replaced by Petrol AND / OR electric vehicles, saving tens of thousands of lives over the coming years. But they don’t because it’s seen as a reasonable level of risk that’s part of day to day life. 

[Farrelli]

21 hours ago, Sweep said:

seen that, so they're going to try another one I think 😀

No one said the firebreak lockdown in Wales on it's own was going to stop infections but it was a decisive action that helped slowdown rates around half term. 

On Friday, Mr Drakeford said: "We've had 10 consecutive days of numbers coming down in Wales, positivity rates coming down in Wales, we're beginning to see that feed into a slowdown in the number of people being admitted to hospital with coronavirus.

Meanwhile Boris dithered about arguing about money with mayors around the country. 

Drakeford has now outlined further restrictions and, whilst I don't agree with alcohol ban in pubs, you cannot acuse him of lacking leadership in this pandemic.  Instructions have been far clearer than the complicated tier structure from Westminster.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

5 minutes ago, Farrelli said:

No one said the firebreak lockdown in Wales on it's own was going to stop infections but it was a decisive action that helped slowdown rates around half term. 

On Friday, Mr Drakeford said: "We've had 10 consecutive days of numbers coming down in Wales, positivity rates coming down in Wales, we're beginning to see that feed into a slowdown in the number of people being admitted to hospital with coronavirus.

Meanwhile Boris dithered about arguing about money with mayors around the country. 

Drakeford has now outlined further restrictions and, whilst I don't agree with alcohol ban in pubs, you cannot acuse him of lacking leadership in this pandemic.  Instructions have been far clearer than the complicated tier structure from Westminster.

The discussions with mayors etc were about tier 3 money.

Nothing to do with the more stringent lockdown.

When Wales went into their's, the levels of infection there were dramatically lower than England at the time. Not surprising that England's has seen a bigger impact, however, the idea that Wales' system is in someway better doesn't stand up to scrutiny, as they're still having strong restrictions imposed.

They've had the very same arguments thrown at them from businesses as the governments of every nation in the UK. They're still persisting with a nationwide approach however, which is causing even more consternation. 

Just another method, which they're entitled to do, but with no obvious superiority to any other.

[Zico]

42 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

As you say, no way conclusive 

They studied 10 people, 8 of which were suffering from long Covid / shortness of great, all of which showed signs of lung damage, which you would imagine is a given with someone suffering from being out of breath all the time 

The question will be, what % of cases develop long Covid, then you can work out the relative risk 

As a comparison the fact we use Diesel as a fuel means that thousands of people each year develop lung problems, it kills plenty along the way. But the % of cases relative to the population means we carry on regardless.

The government could use tax payers money to buy up all the Diesel cars and vans so they get replaced by Petrol AND / OR electric vehicles, saving tens of thousands of lives over the coming years. But they don’t because it’s seen as a reasonable level of risk that’s part of day to day life. 

aye, I'll lay low though till vaccine none the less regardless of what is and isn't open - we're still only just about a year into covid from when it started it China, early days, so whilst there's still so much uncertainty, governments are right to protect their people to some degree

as for cars - read the other day we're "banning" sales of new diesel and petrol cars by 2030, so that's good news

[Zico]

57 minutes ago, Sweep said:

stop being so soft, crack on!

I am, don't go out much anyway

[Farrelli]

The Wales firebreak lockdown saw infection rates drop (see below) and therefore was justified.  Rates have now levelled off or started to rise, hence, further restrictions are coming into force later this week.  

[Farrelli]

7 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

The discussions with mayors etc were about tier 3 money.

Nothing to do with the more stringent lockdown.

When Wales went into their's, the levels of infection there were dramatically lower than England at the time. Not surprising that England's has seen a bigger impact, however, the idea that Wales' system is in someway better doesn't stand up to scrutiny, as they're still having strong restrictions imposed.

They've had the very same arguments thrown at them from businesses as the governments of every nation in the UK. They're still persisting with a nationwide approach however, which is causing even more consternation. 

Just another method, which they're entitled to do, but with no obvious superiority to any other.

I said the leadership regarding the pandemic has been more decisive in Wales.  I'm responding to comments from BD and others saying the firebreak lockdown in Wales was ineffective when it clearly wasn't.  

[Boby Brno]

A lot of spin going on regarding Wales and comparisons with England.

 

[Spider]

Just look at Merthyr Tydfil, their numbers dived during the firebreak and have started to climb again when it ended.

says it all

[Tonge moor green jacket]

2 hours ago, Farrelli said:

I said the leadership regarding the pandemic has been more decisive in Wales.  I'm responding to comments from BD and others saying the firebreak lockdown in Wales was ineffective when it clearly wasn't.  

They made some decisions earlier, but that in itself doesn't make them better or worse.

We could have all stayed in the first lockdown and not come out. Cases and deaths would have been much lower- does that mean it would have been the best thing to do?

[Sweep]

1 hour ago, Spider said:

Just look at Merthyr Tydfil, their numbers dived during the firebreak and have started to climb again when it ended.

says it all

I don't think there is anybody (of sane mind) who doesn't acknowledge that firebreaks and lockdowns work in reducing the numbers. I suppose the main sticking point is the severity of the lockdown. If we lockdown harder, can we do it for a shorter period of time, or should we be looking to lockdown for longer periods of time?!?

[Tonge moor green jacket]

3 minutes ago, Sweep said:

I don't think there is anybody (of sane mind) who doesn't acknowledge that firebreaks and lockdowns work in reducing the numbers. I suppose the main sticking point is the severity of the lockdown. If we lockdown harder, can we do it for a shorter period of time, or should we be looking to lockdown for longer periods of time?!?

It seems that there may be a minimum length to be effective to allow those cases (irrespective of numbers) to play out with subsequent household infections, until they've stopped.

[Zico]

sounds like another load of inconsistent tier regulations incoming

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55138507

saw one MP just now in the HOC saying "if people won't adhere to ridiculous restrictions, they're probably won't adhere to sensible ones"

[Boby Brno]

49 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

It seems that there may be a minimum length to be effective to allow those cases (irrespective of numbers) to play out with subsequent household infections, until they've stopped.

Because of the time lag, 2 weeks was never going to be enough. The first wave showed that and the second has confirmed it.

[Farrelli]

1 hour ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

They made some decisions earlier, but that in itself doesn't make them better or worse.

We could have all stayed in the first lockdown and not come out. Cases and deaths would have been much lower- does that mean it would have been the best thing to do?

I'm not sure what you mean, I've never said the first lockdown should have been extended indefinitely.  My point is fairly straight forward, BD implied the Wales firebreak lockdown was ineffective and that is clearly not the case.  You could argue that it should have been longer but the infection rates were coming down for about ten days during this period.  

[Tonge moor green jacket]

The Welsh firebreak clearly did have a positive effect. However you also continue to suggest that they and seemingly Scotland are doing things better (more decisive) than here in England. 

We're all in a similar place, despite differing approaches, so this lauding of others and criticism of our government isn't founded on evidence. 

[Boby Brno]

54 minutes ago, Farrelli said:

I'm not sure what you mean, I've never said the first lockdown should have been extended indefinitely.  My point is fairly straight forward, BD implied the Wales firebreak lockdown was ineffective and that is clearly not the case.  You could argue that it should have been longer but the infection rates were coming down for about ten days during this period.  

This was the situation as of 2nd November. 10 days after their ‘firebreak’ started. Not sure where you get your info from.

 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

6 minutes ago, Boby Brno said:

This was the situation as of 2nd November. 10 days after their ‘firebreak’ started. Not sure where you get your info from.

 

I suppose you have to look beyond that time to see the effect because of any lag.

That said, I'm not sure two weeks is all that effective- still going to end up with strong restrictions. 

[Rudy]