• Thank you all very much for sharing your time with us in 2025. We hope you all have a safe and happy 2026!

Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

bluewolf said:
I take great offence at being compared to the milk snatcher ?

I politely disagree with the point of your post. The debate is about what’s best for Society as a whole. Not what’s best for a section of it.
Click to expand...
But I am afraid that you did state that your preference might be based upon being of working age with children at school/college.

I am 71 with two sons in their thirties and grandchildren of school age so I think I take a pretty broad view of this.

Anyway aside from the economic issues I tend to agree with the SAGE and Government that protection of the NHS is paramount and this can best be achieved by the speedy roll out of the vaccine programme to the more vulnerable.

Segregation will not prevent the spread of the virus within that group as even locked down there would remain too many opportunities for transmission.
 
MetalMickie said:
Maybe they won't be working from home in view of the stats questioning the efficiency of that practice.
Click to expand...

same argument either way - busy before virus, busy during. Working from home, working in office...They will miss the silver dollar for sure but will be viable businesses, employing people and generating tax
 
PNWokingham said:
same argument either way - busy before virus, busy during. Working from home, working in office...They will miss the silver dollar for sure but will be viable businesses, employing people and generating tax
Click to expand...
Many will not be viable.
 
bluewolf said:
I fully agree that the burden of debt will disproportionately fall on those at the bottom of the ladder. ‘Twas ever thus. But that’s a different fight (that I’m right by your side in the trenches on).

The debate I’m interested in is the one that decides at which point the restrictions start to be lifted. Do we wait for 70-80% of the population to be vaccinated? Is it 20-30% plus shielding the vulnerable?
I’m genuinely interested in hearing people’s views ?
Click to expand...

I think we have to start opening up when we hit 25% - hopefully end Feb
 
MetalMickie said:
Anyway aside from the economic issues I tend to agree with the SAGE and Government that protection of the NHS is paramount and this can best be achieved by the speedy roll out of the vaccine programme to the more vulnerable.

Segregation will not prevent the spread of the virus within that group as even locked down there would remain too many opportunities for transmission.
Click to expand...

I think you've hit on 2 key points there:


As it stands, segregation would not prevent that group catching it. However if you prioritised support and aid to those most at risk, it could be possible.

And protecting the NHS: BBC was reporting this morning that hospital admission for under 50's have gone up to almost 20% of the total admissions. Scary stuff!

Actually 80% of a much larger section of society are not taking hospital beds. I haven't run the numbers, but I would assume cases in the under 50's are dramatically higher than the over 50's. So it's even more misleading. So to protect the NHS, those most at risk, taking the majority of beds need to have stronger restrictions, because it currently isn't working.
 
How about fully opening up sectors of the economy such as manufacturing, construction and finance; retail on a limited basis.

Schools to be reopened.

But no opening of leisure and hospitality as larger social gatherings appear to disproportionately account for the spread.
 
PNWokingham said:
?? So we would have seen the econmy contract 12% this year if we had left the economy open for the 75% to continue operating and put massive resources areound shileding and looking after the vulnerable?
Click to expand...

The 75% would not have accepted the economy being fully open.

Just look at the fuss that was made when schools first reopened.
 
People seem to bemusing the term 'elderly' and 'care home residents' as synonyms. They really aren't. The clinical and societal cases for vaccinating the average fit active 72 year old man and Doris in the nursing home who thinks Harold Wilson is Prime Minister are really very different. Risk to the person is one consideration certainly, but framed in terms of quality of life, and taking into account transmission risk as well. Doris is never going on a ventilator even if acutely ill.

I always reckoned the best clinical and societal to start was with the oldest tranche in the workforce, focussing on men, BAME and those with risk factors, and working upwards and downwards thereafter.
 
MetalMickie said:
The 75% would not have accepted the economy being fully open.

Just look at the fuss that was made when schools first reopened.
Click to expand...

how do you know. I think they would. Sharp and quick at the start, which we all know was not done and a disaster. I don't know many people who are non vulnerable that would have an issue with it. I also think the 75% should have had strong covid-prevenataion guidance but that the ecomomy could have been functioninhg much more normally - sure some changes like big crowds, events etc to contain things but a lot more like it was after the first lockdown
 
Our method has been flawed for months

Poorly managed

We are shutting down air travel from Monday with isolation for people.. sorry but that should have been day 1

I've said it before Australia were using our model but it didn't work so changed to another model..they have under 1000 deaths .. that's our daily.

Yes we can talk about second wave , mutations.. but with proper controls from day one we could have kept on top of it

Eat out to help out or eat out to spread was badly thought out to give the economy a shot but we paid for it again

Even now our measures aren't strong enough. In Australia if you arrive to the control you have to stay in a government run hotel for 2 weeks at a cost to you. No get out early for a test. Do your 2 weeks then you can't infect anyone

We have been obessed with money. Football is a prime example. By all means domestic football is fine the way it was run by why are we letting European, international football happen? Money. stay in your safe bubble every week but hey all the English , Spanish etc meet up in your squads .. spread it around then take home to your team's

It's the obession with money and getting back to "normal" rather than changing things to adapt for a while that's cost us

That and poor planning. Whitty did a speach in 2018 was it about pandemics and what we have to do to prepare and have these plans in place . Completely ignored

We are told repeatedly we are following the science .. no we have ignored the science for months and now might listen as it's come to the rescue
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top