Coronavirus - Part Two.

[andyofborg]

8 hours ago, Dardandec said:

Another question, if there is the amount of Asymptomatic people kicking about as people reckon, does that not make this illness nowhere near as dangerous as they make out, especially as the majority of people who catch it make a full recovery, most with mild symptoms? Mmmm something not right with all this. 

 

At the minute no one really knows one way or the other. We only have 6 months of very limited information about the virus and it's effects. The one thing no one seems to talk about is those who survive but face significant health issues after they have recovered from the primary infection. 

[tinfoilhat]

11 hours ago, onewheeldave said:

Ability to enforce isn't necessarily the main criteria for implementing it- when it comes to rules designed to slow/minimise transmission of virus it is more important that a substantial portion of the population follow it. 

 

Clearly sex with strangers is very likely to spread the virus from one person to the other. 

 

As we've seen with other lockdown measures, some of which do not make nearly as much sense, while not all people follow them, most do. 

There is a school of thought that many more people already have coronavirus than is supposed, and the majority of them are asymptomatic and, that a explanation for the rise in numbers when testing is increased, is due to the increased testing turning up these large numbers of people who are assymptomatic and have the virus. If that is the case, then increasing testing isn't necessarily such a positive thing.

Very presumptious to assume that they are all selfish. Many of these people sincerely believe, and can rationally justify, their view that more lockdown will lead, ultimately, to more death and misery than the effects of the virus. 

 

The economic effects from lockdown have not really started yet [although the US seems to be suffering, with high levels of home repossessions?] but it looks likely that many will die or suffer over the next few years.

 

You can quibble with their reasoning, but that is how they think, so IMO it is wrong and unproductive to lable them 'selfish'- in their eyes, you are the selfish one, as you seem not to care about the huge numbers who will suffer in the near future as a result of the lockdown that you want.

Some of them- as pointed out above, many don't want further lockdowns precisely because they want less people to die.

The longer people ignore social distancing, don't wear masks when they can means it will take us longer to go back to normal. 

 

And you say I'm selfish? 

[whiteowl]

10 hours ago, Dardandec said:

Conveniently missed off some of my post there. Here it is again.

 

"Aren't the minions only allowed to get tested if they have symptoms"

Anyone can get a test if they want one - routinely testing the whole population (60odd million) is unlikely.

 

Just say you've developed a cough if you want one, there is no pre-screening.

 

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/testing-and-tracing/get-a-test-to-check-if-you-have-coronavirus/

[ECCOnoob]

36 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

The longer people ignore social distancing, don't wear masks when they can means it will take us longer to go back to normal. 

 

And you say I'm selfish? 

Just want to pick up one point. 

 

"Normal" will only return until there is a proven vaccine which could be months, years or decades away.   Wearing a mask will make no difference to that timeline.  

 

Masks were about reducing speed of the outbreak and avoid swamping health services .  For all I very much support their use - I think it's important that people remember that masks don't mean immunity the virus.  

 

We all need to accept that is is our "normal" now and will be for some time. 

Edited August 5, 2020 by ECCOnoob

[RJRB]

16 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

Just want to pick up one point. 

 

"Normal" will only return until there is a proven vaccine which could be months, years or decades away.   Wearing a mask will make no difference to that timeline.  

 

Masks were about reducing speed of the outbreak and avoid swamping health services .  For all I very much support their use - I think it's important that people remember that masks don't mean immunity the virus.  

 

We all need to accept that is is our "normal" now and will be for some time. 

That’s not true is it.

At the time when reported infections were accelerating day by day in the UK we were being told by the authorities that the evidence was that masks had little benefit .

Some accepted this but others could not follow the logic.

 

[onewheeldave]

1 hour ago, tinfoilhat said:

The longer people ignore social distancing, don't wear masks when they can means it will take us longer to go back to normal. 

 

And you say I'm selfish? 

No, I said in the eyes of some of the people you are labelling as 'selfish', they will be seeing you as selfish.

 

My exact words:

"You can quibble with their reasoning, but that is how they think, so IMO it is wrong and unproductive to lable them 'selfish'- in their eyes, you are the selfish one, as you seem not to care about the huge numbers who will suffer in the near future as a result of the lockdown that you want.

Some of them- as pointed out above, many don't want further lockdowns precisely because they want less people to die."

 

 

33 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

 

 

"Normal" will only return until there is a proven vaccine which could be months, years or decades away.   Wearing a mask will make no difference to that timeline.  

 

 

I don't think a vaccine will lead to 'normal'. Especially if, as many are anticipating, the authorities make the vaccine compulsory for everyone- if you think there is an issue with those labelled as 'anti-vacc' now, I can guarantee there will be a severe escalation if the authorities try to impose a mandatory coronavirus vaccine [probably yearly] on everyone.

[onewheeldave]

10 minutes ago, enntee said:

 

 

As the main benefit of masks is to reduce the likelihood of 'you' infecting 'me', I regret to say that there should be no exceptions.

 

You think disabled people who would be damaged by masking should not be exempt?

19 hours ago, tinfoilhat said:

I think the people who don't wear masks fall into two categories - those who for medical reasons can't wear them, and belligerent arseholes. 

 

I reserve the right to silently judge them though.

Given that you generally won't be able to tell the difference between a "belligerent arsehole" and a person with a hidden disability, how do you [silently] judge them? Is there not a danger and probability that you would judge a person as a "belligerent arsehole" when in reality they are a person with a hidden disability?

[onewheeldave]

13 minutes ago, enntee said:

Yes.

They should remain isolated if they are so vulnerable.

Disabled people exempt from masking are not necessarily especially vulnerable to coronavirus, and enforced isolation in addition to being completely uneccesary for their own health, would likley cause considerable damage to their mental and/or physical health.

 

 

Edited August 5, 2020 by onewheeldave

[alchresearch]

1 hour ago, RJRB said:

At the time when reported infections were accelerating day by day in the UK we were being told by the authorities that the evidence was that masks had little benefit .

But wasn't that fabric masks?  There's a huge difference between a bit of cloth and proper protection, but they all get lumped into the "mask" category.

[tinfoilhat]

1 hour ago, ECCOnoob said:

Just want to pick up one point. 

 

"Normal" will only return until there is a proven vaccine which could be months, years or decades away.   Wearing a mask will make no difference to that timeline.  

 

Masks were about reducing speed of the outbreak and avoid swamping health services .  For all I very much support their use - I think it's important that people remember that masks don't mean immunity the virus.  

 

We all need to accept that is is our "normal" now and will be for some time. 

Years? Then entire industries will disappear in this country, and there will be millions (4m by Christmas? More?) unemployed. I'll be one. 

 

Theatres? 90% shut. Live music venues? About the same. Wedding industry (love it or loath it!) Gone. Exhibition centres ? Shut them all. Football Leagues one and two? All gone.  And I reckon that's if it goes on for less than a year.

 

If anyone thinks that just because they can get a haircut and go for a pint afterwards that we are nearly there hasn't got a clue. 

 

Option 2 - bin off all the restrictions and carry on as normal. I'll be fine, probably. Option 3 - and it's a bit conspiracy theory - say we have a vaccine even though we don't and don't release the number of deaths and infections, then carry on as normal. Honestly, I'd be fine with that at this stage.

1 hour ago, onewheeldave said:

You think disabled people who would be damaged by masking should not be exempt?

Given that you generally won't be able to tell the difference between a "belligerent arsehole" and a person with a hidden disability, how do you [silently] judge them? Is there not a danger and probability that you would judge a person as a "belligerent arsehole" when in reality they are a person with a hidden disability?

I can spot belligerent arseholes at 100 paces.