Slow news day? The real deal? End of the world? 
 

They’re saying it probably came from an animal, has Somebody been shagging monkeys again? 

1 minute ago, peelyfeet said:

Mounts, in Lombardy they've compared the infection and death growth rates in Lodi (lockdown 24th Feb) with Bergamo (8th March)

figures show Lodi has flattened the curve - Bergamo is growing.

what do you think has caused this? 

Could social distancing and isolation for those at risk have a similar outcome? I don’t see why not. 

Weirdly I can see on the cameras that we've just had a big delivery from Italy at work, I'd have to check the dates but even coming the slow way that they sometimes use it must have been shipped after their lockdown. 

5 minutes ago, Rudy’s Message said:

Wasn’t there a chart to say we’re on the same figures as Italy were two weeks ago or have I got that wrong?

we're 281

Italy were 366 at this stage

Mounts is clearly on a wind up.

 

1 minute ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Could social distancing and isolation for those at risk have a similar outcome? I don’t see why not. 

Possibly.

Personally I think that we haven't gone on lockdown yet because there is no way of enforcing it - I think they want to be able to crackdown on it immediately if it gets out of control.

It's the same reason why Boris was saying please don't go to pubs - instead of ordering it - there is no enforcement available at the moment - there will be tomorrow - on the spot fines and imprisonment.

It may have to be virtaul golf and cycling for us all for a few months- might buy a VR headset, getting bored with the inside of my house big time at the moment.

7 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Yes been watching all morning what’s happened here in the UK that means we should lockdown now? 

Lockdowns are to PREVENT more serious consequences. You wouldn't wait until your house is on fire before fitting a smoke alarm.

Edited March 23, 20206 yr by Cheese

1 minute ago, Cheese said:

Lockdowns are to PREVENT more serious consequences. You wouldn't wait until your house is on fire before fitting a smoke alarm.

What is the evidence that it definitely PREVENTS more serious consequences?

1 minute ago, boltondiver said:

What is the evidence that it definitely PREVENTS more serious consequences?

it's just some anecdotal stuff coming out of Italy's A&E wards

They say you should learn from history.

History is unfolding before our very eyes in Italy and Spain yet still Mounts won’t look.

Some people are selfish. We have to accept that unfortunately. Society is made up of all types.

The lockdown will (seek to) force them to do what their conscience won’t.

Edited March 23, 20206 yr by Jol_BWFC

For the obtuse or hard of thinking:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/21/world/europe/italy-coronavirus-center-lessons.html

Italy, Pandemic’s New Epicenter, Has Lessons for the World

The country’s experience shows that steps to isolate the coronavirus and limit people’s movement need to be put in place early, with absolute clarity, then strictly enforced.

As Italy’s coronavirus infections ticked above 400 cases and deaths hit the double digits, the leader of the governing Democratic Party posted a picture of himself clinking glasses for “an aperitivo in Milan,” urging people “not to change our habits.”

That was on Feb. 27. Not 10 days later, as the toll hit 5,883 infections and 233 dead, the party boss, Nicola Zingaretti, posted a new video, this time informing Italy that he, too, had the virus.

Edited March 23, 20206 yr by ZicoKelly

13 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

What is the evidence that it definitely PREVENTS more serious consequences?

Lodi and Bergamo, and China all show that it flattens the curve, which reduces short term stress on NHS, which is what everyone wants. No-one knows what will definitely happen long term, but logic suggests the ideal scenario would be for 0% of the population to be infected until a vaccine is available - if that isn't possible then dragging it out for as long we can until then is the best scenario.

The argument that the govmt have put forward for no lockdown is they think we will get bored and go out during the peak of infection, and that it will have a negative effect on our physical and mental health. The price we have to pay for that is deaths.

If everyone in the world could lock themselves in a room for a month with 0 contact - the virus would be gone, but  we cant do that because the economy would be gone, and we'd have no water, electricity, food , medicine. so its a balancing act.

a lot of experts think that in the UK we have balanced too much on the side of the economy. 

Edited March 23, 20206 yr by peelyfeet

20 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Lockdowns are to PREVENT more serious consequences. You wouldn't wait until your house is on fire before fitting a smoke alarm.

Bad analogy but crack on. 

The queue for McDonalds in Chorley is currently about 60 cars deep and blocking the A6.

One day, we'll look back on all this and cry all over again.

A few things to bear in mind when comparing our death rate with those of other countries:

1.Germany has 28,000 ICU beds. We have 4,000. At the outbreak of the crisis, Germany had 29.2 intensive care beds per 100,000 people. Italy had 12.5. We had just 6.6.

2. We have more than double the amount of asthmatics than Itsly, and already the worst preventable desth rstes for asthma in Europe.

Just now, Mounts Kipper said:

Bad analogy but crack on. 

I'll try.

My dishwasher leaked recently. The water started spreading all over the kitchen floor. 

Should I have:

A. Put towels all over the water and block off the source of the leak

B. Just let it keep leaking until it was all over the floor and spreading into other rooms?

 

I did A. It definitley worked. But maybe I should have tried B.

12 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

What is the evidence that it definitely PREVENTS more serious consequences?

You can not really have evidence of something in the future. But .....
 

But if there are less contacts the virus will not spread as quickly (agree or disagree) 

If the rate of infection slows less people will have virus in the near future (agree or disagree)

if less people have the virus we can focus treatment on a higher % of those infected (agree or disagree) 

Better treatment will mean less people die (agree or disagree) 

As a result of the above there will be less dead and more as a % recovered (agree or disagree) 

The NHS has a finite capacity (agree or disagree) 

The more we spread the more the better we can use the capacity to treat people. (Agree or disagree) 

 

if you agree with most of the above you will support any of the announced measures to suppress the impact of the virus if not maybe you won’t. 
 

I was out driving earlier, the car in front of me brakes so I did the same. I could have carried on because I have driven on that road before and never had an issue. Good job unlike the virus the car was not invisible. 

3 minutes ago, Ani said:

You can not really have evidence of something in the future. But .....
 

But if there are less contacts the virus will not spread as quickly (agree or disagree) 

If the rate of infection slows less people will have virus in the near future (agree or disagree)

if less people have the virus we can focus treatment on a higher % of those infected (agree or disagree) 

Better treatment will mean less people die (agree or disagree) 

As a result of the above there will be less dead and more as a % recovered (agree or disagree) 

The NHS has a finite capacity (agree or disagree) 

The more we spread the more the better we can use the capacity to treat people. (Agree or disagree) 

 

if you agree with most of the above you will support any of the announced measures to suppress the impact of the virus if not maybe you won’t. 
 

I was out driving earlier, the car in front of me brakes so I did the same. I could have carried on because I have driven on that road before and never had an issue. Good job unlike the virus the car was not invisible. 

All common sense and correct.

But you’re wasting your time. It’s sunny and Mounts wants to play golf.

15 minutes ago, peelyfeet said:

Lodi and Bergamo, and China all show that it flattens the curve, which reduces short term stress on NHS, which is what everyone wants. No-one knows what will definitely happen long term, but logic suggests the ideal scenario would be for 0% of the population to be infected until a vaccine is available - if that isn't possible then dragging it out for as long we can until then is the best scenario.

The argument that the govmt have put forward for no lockdown is they think we will get bored and go out during the peak of infection, and that it will have a negative effect on our physical and mental health. The price we have to pay for that is deaths.

If everyone in the world could lock themselves in a room for a month with 0 contact - the virus would be gone, but  we cant do that because the economy would be gone, and we'd have no water, electricity, food , medicine. so its a balancing act.

a lot of experts think that in the UK we have balanced too much on the side of the economy. 

We’re about to kill our economy without giving social distancing and self isolation for the vulnerable a chance to see if it works, that’s a big reason for the government to put off lockdown until it’s the last resort, we are not in a Bergamo situation yet. 

2 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

We’re about to kill our economy without giving social distancing and self isolation for the vulnerable a chance to see if it works, that’s a big reason for the government to put off lockdown until it’s the last resort, we are not in a Bergamo situation yet. 

So you want us to wait until it’s in the thousands.

Actually, grab your clubs.

Just now, Mounts Kipper said:

We’re about to kill our economy without giving social distancing and self isolation for the vulnerable a chance to see if it works, that’s a big reason for the government to put off lockdown until it’s the last resort, we are not in a Bergamo situation yet. 

do you not think the general public are forcing the Government into a lockdown situation  -  i presume you think all these stories of people not social distancing are not actually happening?

If the general public refuse to socially distance, as they seem to have done this past weekend, then what can they or should they do? - just pretend that everybody is playing by the rules and carry on until we get to 1000 deaths (I know you think we won't get there, but I honestly think that we will)

1 hour ago, Sweep said:

I have a feeling it'll happen either tomorrow or Wednesday  -  looked out of my front window earlier, as the postie had arrived, across the road a group of about 4 women all "power walking" together - that's the sort of idiocy we're dealing with here, people like that have to be forced into lock down, as they really don't understand what's happening at all

I take it you shouted at them to spread the fuck out?

Just now, Gonk said:

I take it you shouted at them to spread the fuck out?

I didn't have to, the Postie shouted something to them, and they spread out. Personally I wouldn't have, Id rather people like that caught it and died

1 minute ago, Sweep said:

I didn't have to, the Postie shouted something to them, and they spread out. Personally I wouldn't have, Id rather people like that caught it and died

Royal White dislikes this.

Just now, Spider said:

Royal White dislikes this.

He could dislike it as much as he wants, they clearly don't give a single fuck about themselves, their families or anybody else in the community they live in, do they.