• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

What I am just not getting is how lifting all constraints and requirements on our behaviour in respect of minimising transmission between individuals on the 19th can be described in any way as a cautious approach. What’s left to minimise or at least constrain transmission of the virus between individuals - because I can’t see that there is anything whatsoever.

It seems to me that far from a cautious lifting of requirements what is being done will give the virus free rein to spread as it will - with the only limiting factor being nothing to do with our behaviours but on the efficacy of the vaccine. But I guess if we are told it’s cautious enough times enough of us will believe that it is. Maybe it is, but I just don’t get it.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
What I am just not getting is how lifting all constraints and requirements on our behaviour in respect of minimising transmission between individuals on the 19th can be described in any way as a cautious approach. What’s left to minimise or at least constrain transmission of the virus between individuals - because I can’t see that there is anything whatsoever.

It seems to me that far from a cautious lifting of requirements what is being done will give the virus free rein to spread as it will - with the only limiting factor being nothing to do with our behaviours but on the efficacy of the vaccine. But I guess if we are told it’s cautious enough times enough of us will believe that it is. Maybe it is, but I just don’t get it.
Click to expand...

On the flip side it could be viewed as the perfect time to get it done as the schools/colleges finish next week for all those that are left in which must help mitigate the effects of full opening. Remember last summer, we had few restrictions and the virus all but disappeared, granted we have the Delta variant now although we also have the vaccines. I think the fear is that there is always going to be an 'exit wave' and when is the best time to have it, now when the schools are closed and a lot of socialising is done outside or in September when education reopens and we're a few weeks away from cramming back indoors watching it pour down?

My major gripe is that masks are now the new Brexit, it's going to divide the country yet again as people are being told that they're not legally having to wear them however it is also 'expected' of them. Well that's not really going to help. Saw that TfL are making them mandatory on all of their public transport which at least ensures people know what they have to do and not being left to their own devices.
 
road2ruin said:
On the flip side it could be viewed as the perfect time to get it done as the schools/colleges finish next week for all those that are left in which must help mitigate the effects of full opening. Remember last summer, we had few restrictions and the virus all but disappeared, granted we have the Delta variant now although we also have the vaccines. I think the fear is that there is always going to be an 'exit wave' and when is the best time to have it, now when the schools are closed and a lot of socialising is done outside or in September when education reopens and we're a few weeks away from cramming back indoors watching it pour down?

My major gripe is that masks are now the new Brexit, it's going to divide the country yet again as people are being told that they're not legally having to wear them however it is also 'expected' of them. Well that's not really going to help. Saw that TfL are making them mandatory on all of their public transport which at least ensures people know what they have to do and not being left to their own devices.
Click to expand...
Get all that…but what is it about how we will be able to ‘behave‘ as we go about life, work and leisure that in any way counts towards a cautious approach to relaxing measures - when every measure is being lifted. We are continually being told this is cautious - but it just isn’t. Are we in a way just being subject to a bit of gaslighting?

btw I make no comment on the right or wrong of this as it is difficult, I am just asking about how it is being portrayed, as being told and coming to believe in it being a cautious approach then were things to go wrong we can only blame ourselves.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
Open everything, but with two relatively non-intrusive requirements on us - when indoor or in tight crowds wear a mask and when outside try a keep distancing. And if an indoor venue chooses to require a negative test of you then just accept that with grace given that that is their prerogative and if they then choose to allow masks to not be worn. I don’t know about you but I don’t live my life in a ‘me-bubble’.
Click to expand...

SwingsitlikeHogan said:
Get all that…but what is it about how we will be able to ‘behave‘ as we go about life, work and leisure that in any way counts towards a cautious approach to relaxing measures - when every measure is being lifted. We are continually being told this is cautious - but it just isn’t. Are we in a way just being subject to a bit of gaslighting?

btw I make no comment on the right or wrong of this as it is difficult, I am just asking about how it is being portrayed, as being told and coming to believe in it being a cautious approach then were things to go wrong we can only blame ourselves.
Click to expand...
Isn’t what the Government have done exactly what you suggested?

Time for people to take some responsibility.

Personally I’ll continue to wear a mask in shops/indoors etc as I have 2 vulnerable people at home.

I won’t be changing anything from what I do now!
 
pauldj42 said:
Isn’t what the Government have done exactly what you suggested?
Click to expand...

I think what SWLH is saying is politicians have said ''lifting all restrictions in 5 days is a cautious approach''. I guess he thinks that the politicians are wrong and it's not cautious.
Btw, I'm only repeating what I think Hogie said so not political :whistle:
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
Get all that…but what is it about how we will be able to ‘behave‘ as we go about life, work and leisure that in any way counts towards a cautious approach to relaxing measures - when every measure is being lifted. We are continually being told this is cautious - but it just isn’t. Are we in a way just being subject to a bit of gaslighting?

btw I make no comment on the right or wrong of this as it is difficult, I am just asking about how it is being portrayed, as being told and coming to believe in it being a cautious approach then were things to go wrong we can only blame ourselves.
Click to expand...

Glad to see you're not getting political in you last few posts- or perhaps you are!
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
Get all that…but what is it about how we will be able to ‘behave‘ as we go about life, work and leisure that in any way counts towards a cautious approach to relaxing measures - when every measure is being lifted. We are continually being told this is cautious - but it just isn’t. Are we in a way just being subject to a bit of gaslighting?

btw I make no comment on the right or wrong of this as it is difficult, I am just asking about how it is being portrayed, as being told and coming to believe in it being a cautious approach then were things to go wrong we can only blame ourselves.
Click to expand...

Which way do you want it? Do you want the economy to open up? Do you want the entertainment business to get back to normal?
You have said you do previously -your son having good reason for this!
If so, do you reject the reasoning that it will be impractical and unfair on Law enforcement authorities to try to enforce a law which will be broken en masse. Which will be impossible to enforce.
Cinemas, theatres and nightclubs would be full of people most of whom would not wear masks. They would be subject to prosecution etc by the police.
The venues would be trying to operate, with Police going in and dealing with the unlawful. ? Can you imagine that - ridiculous!
Or,if they don't go in , the farcical situation of the media and others demanding (for whatever reason) that the Police do go in and "do their duty"
But it won't be like that, you say.
Oh, yes it will.
Ironically you yourself posted about your son's gig having the majority of its participants not wearing masks, and the worries you had for your son.

Because the opening up is now wanted to go ahead, it cannot do so if it is a dead cert that mass lawbreaking will ensue. That sounds dramatic. But it would be the case.
Hence , whilst still wanting people to be cautious and to wear masks , the government has removed the requirement in law to do so.
No doubt you, as will I, will continue to wear masks when appropriate, as will many of us.
Some will not. Some will not now just because they now don't have to?,

But the changing of the law seems reasonable to me in the light of the opening up of the remainder of the economy.
 
In my view, and other views are available, whether you think masks are needed (as I do) or not, leaving that decision to people is crazy. We have sene plenty of picture on the news on the past couple of days that show you can't trust people to make reasonable decisions especially when they affect others.

It is not just a question of personal freedom, there is a question of effects on others. If masks help, they should be mandated. If they do not, there should be no expectation that people will wear them and you shouldn't have the Tube mandating them but overground rail not. We have seen politicians and people here saying they won't wear them unless required, so they clearly plan to exercise no discretion or consider social responsibility.

The halfway house position failed us before, when in the first week of "lockdown", it was based on advice rather than mandate. Didn't work then, won't work now.
 
On the subject of whether young people really get sick or go to hospital, this was posted on a doctors social media site this morning:

Hospitals are seeing rising numbers of seriously ill COVID-19 patients who are young adults, one intensive care specialist said today.
Yesterday the UK reported 50 deaths from the virus and rising hospital admissions, reflecting levels of disease not seen since early April.
Although millions of young adults have sought vaccination, vaccination rates have slowed down significantly this month, official data shows.
On Monday England reported fewer than 100,000 second doses being given. In June daily numbers of second doses ranged between 150,000 and 200,000. According to the latest data, English hospitals had 2,970 COVID-19 patients yesterday, the largest number since 1 April.

The Times quotes the case of Matthew Keenan, aged 34, a vaccine sceptic, who is critically ill in Bradford.

The vice-dean of the Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine, Dr Daniele Bryden, told the paper: “Seeing people on intensive care who’ve not got round to getting their vaccine sorted or only had one dose and not followed up the second one and then end up in intensive care, that’s really disheartening because there was something you could do about it, potentially.”

Dr Nick Scriven, of the Society for Acute Medicine, told the paper: “We are seeing poorly COVID patients who are almost entirely aged under 45 and unvaccinated.”
 
pauldj42 said:
Isn’t what the Government have done exactly what you suggested?

Time for people to take some responsibility.

Personally I’ll continue to wear a mask in shops/indoors etc as I have 2 vulnerable people at home.

I won’t be changing anything from what I do now!
Click to expand...
Indeed. Me also. And so it seems to me that the governments cautious approach is actually nothing more than to ask, but not require, us to be cautious. I and very many others will be, but we already know from posts on here that that doesn’t guarantee anything.
 
9News Sydney on Twitter: "CHAOS: Lines at a 24-hour #COVID19 testing hub in Fairfield are stretching for kilometres due to the new health order for essential workers. Since about 2am, a sea of brake lights has been growing continuously at the location. READ MORE: https://t.co/hRH3yMyNo3 #9News https://t.co/vIRgcUcCs5" / Twitter

:eek: Think they need to get tested every 3 days, yeek, thats some big resources and time.

Where do zero covid countries go moving forward, they have big problems, as we do. They are going to have to have cases/hospitalisations/deaths from this virus or stay shut forever.:unsure:

Will they become like 'tribes' are now and in the past (ie. no great immunity to current worldwide circulating viruses), if a new 'variant of any virus' gets into their countries as immunity to the most recent kind of variant of say flu or even say the common cold wont be there/wane as time ticks on.

So many sides to this virus and no easy answers.
 
bobmac said:
I think what SWLH is saying is politicians have said ''lifting all restrictions in 5 days is a cautious approach''. I guess he thinks that the politicians are wrong and it's not cautious.
Btw, I'm only repeating what I think Hogie said so not political :whistle:
Click to expand...
Not so much wrong as perhaps mis-represented as cautious - as it isn’t - it’s ‘big bang‘ lifting as far as constraints on us as individuals is concerned - unless I am missing something that I must keep doing.
 
Swinglowandslow said:
Which way do you want it? Do you want the economy to open up? Do you want the entertainment business to get back to normal?
You have said you do previously -your son having good reason for this!
If so, do you reject the reasoning that it will be impractical and unfair on Law enforcement authorities to try to enforce a law which will be broken en masse. Which will be impossible to enforce.
Cinemas, theatres and nightclubs would be full of people most of whom would not wear masks. They would be subject to prosecution etc by the police.
The venues would be trying to operate, with Police going in and dealing with the unlawful. ? Can you imagine that - ridiculous!
Or,if they don't go in , the farcical situation of the media and others demanding (for whatever reason) that the Police do go in and "do their duty"
But it won't be like that, you say.
Oh, yes it will.
Ironically you yourself posted about your son's gig having the majority of its participants not wearing masks, and the worries you had for your son.

Because the opening up is now wanted to go ahead, it cannot do so if it is a dead cert that mass lawbreaking will ensue. That sounds dramatic. But it would be the case.
Hence , whilst still wanting people to be cautious and to wear masks , the government has removed the requirement in law to do so.
No doubt you, as will I, will continue to wear masks when appropriate, as will many of us.
Some will not. Some will not now just because they now don't have to?,

But the changing of the law seems reasonable to me in the light of the opening up of the remainder of the economy.
Click to expand...
All good and reasonable - and it is difficult I get - but I ask again - what is it about the approach the government is defining for the 19th that makes for a cautious approach. Because I don’t know. I can be cautious but that is me and not anything the government is requiring me to do. And if we are not cautious…well whatever next…
 
Ethan said:
It is not just a question of personal freedom, there is a question of effects on others. If masks help, they should be mandated. If they do not, there should be no expectation that people will wear them and you shouldn't have the Tube mandating them but overground rail not. We have seen politicians and people here saying they won't wear them unless required, so they clearly plan to exercise no discretion or consider social responsibility.
Click to expand...

I see similarities between mask laws and the smoking ban. The ban on smoking was introduced to protect others from the effects of second hand smoke. The law requiring mask wearing indoors was also to protect others. The was no suggestion that we should use "common sense" or "personal responsibility" when it came to smoking indoors so the government has no problem legislating to protect the public in some cases but it would seem not in the case of mask wearing.
 
ColchesterFC said:
I see similarities between mask laws and the smoking ban. The ban on smoking was introduced to protect others from the effects of second hand smoke. The law requiring mask wearing indoors was also to protect others. The was no suggestion that we should use "common sense" or "personal responsibility" when it came to smoking indoors so the government has no problem legislating to protect the public in some cases but it would seem not in the case of mask wearing.
Click to expand...
Different government, wasn’t that popular and not re-elected.
That’s probably as much politics as I want to get into.
 
ColchesterFC said:
I see similarities between mask laws and the smoking ban. The ban on smoking was introduced to protect others from the effects of second hand smoke. The law requiring mask wearing indoors was also to protect others. The was no suggestion that we should use "common sense" or "personal responsibility" when it came to smoking indoors so the government has no problem legislating to protect the public in some cases but it would seem not in the case of mask wearing.
Click to expand...

Nor on drink-driving or speeding, with of which can harm self and others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top