Generic Virus Thread

[bannedfromHandV]

It seems there is no right solution for dealing with the situation.

Perhaps it’s time to just accept that it exists, do what you can as an individual to avoid catching/spreading it but to get on with life again as ‘normal’, accepting that sadly some people will die because of it (as we do for a range of other illnesses and ailments).

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, bielesibub said:

Shutting pubs at 10? Not harsh or severe.

On that one:

 

[snowychap]

17 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

do what you can as an individual to avoid catching/spreading it

The difficulty is that a certain proportion of people have not and will not do the latter thus not allowing people control themselves over the former (and thus not enough control over the risks).

This may appear contrary to my post on the previous page about the draconian nature of some of the measures and punishments introduced but it isn't. There are many issues with the measures introduced, including what they are, the punishments, the way in which they are introduced (e.g. bypassing Parliament, government by diktat and public pronouncement), &c. but acceding to the notion of bringing in some measures to address a public health problem (and debating them, their effects - short and long term, the longevity, &c.) is a different matter.

The comparison to 'a range of other illnesses and ailments' hasn't changed since it was last brought up or brought up the time before that or brought up in March and April and so the framing of this particular area of debate is little changed by circumstance other than it being a slightly farther along the timeline.

In all of this there is a balance and there is a huge middle ground between the two extremes of the argument on offer - neither of which is any sort of decent solution.

17 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

It seems there is no right solution for dealing with the situation.

That is, I think, correct. I'd also say that there are certain solutions for dealing with the situation that are very, very wrong.

Edited September 23, 2020 by snowychap

[ml1dch]

9 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

It seems there is no right solution for dealing with the situation.

Perhaps it’s time to just accept that it exists, do what you can as an individual to avoid catching/spreading it but to get on with life again as ‘normal’, accepting that sadly some people will die because of it (as we do for a range of other illnesses and ailments).

It depends what you mean by a solution. Something that completely fixes it and makes life go completely back to normal? No, obviously not.

Coherent policies and guidance to make accepting that it exists easier for everybody? Yes please, and that's not what we have now, or have had up to now.

The Dortmund - Monchengladbach game took place in front of 10,000 supporters the other day. Loads of other places are "accepting it exists" much more competently than our shambles.

[Mark Albrighton]

40 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

It seems there is no right solution for dealing with the situation.

Perhaps it’s time to just accept that it exists, do what you can as an individual to avoid catching/spreading it but to get on with life again as ‘normal’, accepting that sadly some people will die because of it (as we do for a range of other illnesses and ailments).

I suspect we might ultimately find ourselves in a position where we have to do that. But then if that does prove to be the case, I think we go back to the question of what’s an “acceptable” number of deaths to occur in order to return to how things were. 

[bannedfromHandV]

10 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

I suspect we might ultimately find ourselves in a position where we have to do that. But then if that does prove to be the case, I think we go back to the question of what’s an “acceptable” number of deaths to occur in order to return to how things were. 

I don’t know if it can be measured in that alone, I think it has to be measured on hospital capacity.

i.e. If we hit 80% of capacity then measures need to be reintroduced, or something like that. 

[Mark Albrighton]

1 minute ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I don’t know if it can be measured in that alone, I think it has to be measured on hospital capacity.

i.e. If we hit 80% of capacity then measures need to be reintroduced, or something like that. 

Oh yeah it’s not just going to be dependent on the number of deaths, it’s as you say how overwhelmed hospitals are, how many people are unable to work because of the virus, etc etc. 

I was just commenting on your original point that of getting to a point where we’re accepting that Covid isn’t going away and X amount of people will catch it and die, like other illnesses. 

[LondonLax]

34 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

It depends what you mean by a solution. Something that completely fixes it and makes life go completely back to normal? No, obviously not.

Coherent policies and guidance to make accepting that it exists easier for everybody? Yes please, and that's not what we have now, or have had up to now.

The Dortmund - Monchengladbach game took place in front of 10,000 supporters the other day. Loads of other places are "accepting it exists" much more competently than our shambles.

This is the crux of it. Countries have to find a ‘new normal’ and accept that there will be some people catching the virus but if the rules are clear and easy to follow it will not be a catastrophe for society. 

Even when you consider the likely ‘best case’ timeline we are still not even half way through this thing.

The UK’s response is a bizarre swing back and forth from one extreme to the other, with new rules coming out of nowhere before being dropped again at a moment’s notice. It is bewildering to watch from abroad let alone what it must be like to live there and make sense of it all. 

[HanoiVillan]

23 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I don’t know if it can be measured in that alone, I think it has to be measured on hospital capacity.

i.e. If we hit 80% of capacity then measures need to be reintroduced, or something like that. 

Something that I'm finding quite frustrating is that the first lot of restrictions were very much sold on the basis of hospital capacity - 'protect the NHS', 'flatten the curve' etc - but this lot of restrictions don't seem to have a particular goal in mind, or at least not one that they're being clear about.

[Mark Albrighton]

5 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Something that I'm finding quite frustrating is that the first lot of restrictions were very much sold on the basis of hospital capacity - 'protect the NHS', 'flatten the curve' etc - but this lot of restrictions don't seem to have a particular goal in mind, or at least not one that they're being clear about.

It’s so they can end the restrictions in December and triumphantly declare that Boris has saved Christmas.

I am joking.

Mostly.

[snowychap]

8 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Something that I'm finding quite frustrating is that the first lot of restrictions were very much sold on the basis of hospital capacity - 'protect the NHS', 'flatten the curve' etc - but this lot of restrictions don't seem to have a particular goal in mind, or at least not one that they're being clear about.

It's something that may have been able to be teased out during some sort of parliamentary debate.

I know that governments aren't always very willing to be honest about reasons behind something (and this one is a standout about not willing to be honest about virtually everything) and that the Tories have a big majority and so on but at least there would be some sort of national debate about the measures and, given that there were rumblings of unease about the regulations amongst some backbenchers (Graham Brady et al.), the government might have had to at least proffer some sort of reasoning in order to stave off a bit of a rebellion (of the form of an amendment rather than a vote against as there'd be no worry on that score given that Starmer has committed Labour to supporting all measures brought in).

Edited September 23, 2020 by snowychap

[HanoiVillan]

Just now, Mark Albrighton said:

It’s so they can end the restrictions in December and triumphantly declare that Boris has saved Christmas.

I am joking.

Mostly.

Your cynicism is probably well-warranted. Interesting to compare the hand-wringing over Christmas that they're going through months in advance on the one hand, with announcing people couldn't celebrate Eid *the next day* a few weeks ago, on the other.

[chrisp65]

I’m waiting for the next rounds of School and Uni exams to come as a complete shock to them.

[mikeyp102]

1 hour ago, Genie said:

 sticking parts of their bodies into parts of other people.

 

Well kids normally do, just not the same as the students 

[HanoiVillan]

THIS **** GUY, HONESTLY

 

[snowychap]

On the potential Tory rebellion:

 

[Davkaus]

[snowychap]

 

[Chindie]

38 minutes ago, snowychap said:

On the potential Tory rebellion:

 

"Lol".

As if. These are Tories.. They'll fall nicely into line.

[bannedfromHandV]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Something that I'm finding quite frustrating is that the first lot of restrictions were very much sold on the basis of hospital capacity - 'protect the NHS', 'flatten the curve' etc - but this lot of restrictions don't seem to have a particular goal in mind, or at least not one that they're being clear about.

Yep, I mean it’s all well and good freaking out about the number of positive tests being returned but if 90% (for example) of those positive tests are asymptomatic then how much of a problem actually is it - I understand the need to still control the spread but what is the actual risk to life?