Jump to content

Generic Virus Thread


villakram

Recommended Posts

I got my hair cut in my lunch break today.

Whilst in the seat an older chap (late 50’s early 60’s) came in. Hairdresser asks him if he has a mask as he needs to wear it. He didn’t have one so she gave him a disposable one. 5 minutes later exactly the same thing, older guy, no mask.

Both mildly grumpy about having to wear it but put it on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Genie said:

I got my hair cut in my lunch break today.

Whilst in the seat an older chap (late 50’s early 60’s) came in. Hairdresser asks him if he has a mask as he needs to wear it. He didn’t have one so she gave him a disposable one. 5 minutes later exactly the same thing, older guy, no mask.

Both mildly grumpy about having to wear it but put it on.

Literally as I type this I am sat in a barbers. (Piss off all you people that feel I don’t need to go in one). 3 barbers in masks then of the 8 customers in here only me in a mask. 2 of us over 30. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ender4 said:

I think it’s all going to depend whether we have an effective vaccine in the next few months or not.

If a vaccine is on its way soon, then we are in a holding pattern waiting for it and that seems right to do.

If all the current research turns out to have no end product or is still years away, then we will have to go back to some sort of normality, including more deaths of older/BAME/ill-health people.  

Continuing lockdowns till say 2025 might end up causing more deaths from economic factors than Covid will 🤷‍♂️
 

Of course a fully functioning track-and-trace system would be best of both worlds, especially as we are a smallish island that could track the virus more easily than most of Europe/USA/Asia.

It is not until 2025.

We have already done massive damage. Those deaths will primarily of the drip-drap slow-roll variety and hence are easier to ignore and harder to notice/study (the order of these is simply how I typed it and not intentioned to apportion blame/guilt), but they will happen and are likely to outnumber the deaths due to the virus itself given the massive economic damage.

That this is not being seriously discussed/analyzed is rather disappointing.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, blandy said:

Yes, there are numerous examples of people being treated differently based on age. Older people are eligible for anti-flu jabs, and will certainly be prioritised for an eventual corollafungus jab - they are protected first.

I'm with @snowychap in terms of being absolutely against the idea of legally selecting one group of society for stricter conditions - "you may go out, but you've got to stay at home" or whatever - that's plain wrong. But we're already in the situation where different parts of the country and are under different legal restrictions, people with different occupations and businesses likewise, and that's realistically appropriate.

It needs the track and trace to work properly and effectively so we know where the fungus is, and then those places can adopt the right measures, including shielding those at risk,  or be left alone to crack on with a version of normality if there's little or no fungus in that area.

Ok.

Absolutely against? When does this absolute change, next spring, summer, summer 2022, never? You are ok with geographical discrimination, and hence economic btw, so I don't really understand the fundamental aversion to age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy Burnham taking a stand in terms of the financial support package or lack of coming from the government. Massive respect for him and listening to his passionate statement this is a man who cares about the people he serves. 

Edited by markavfc40
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

Andy Burnham taking a stand in terms of the financial support package or lack of coming from the government. Massive respect for him and listening to his passionate statement now this is a man who cares about the people he serves. 

The comparison between the effort he is putting in on this and that of Khan is . . . not flattering to the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

The comparison between the effort he is putting in on this and that of Khan is . . . not flattering to the latter.

No it isn't. I have always got the impression that Burnham does genuinely care and is in politics for the right reasons. Shame that him caring about the people he represents makes him stand out like a sore thumb compared to many politicians. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

No it isn't. I have always got the impression that Burnham does genuinely care and is in politics for the right reasons. Shame that him caring about the people he represents makes him stand out like a sore thumb compared to many politicians. 

 

He has his flaws, as they all do, but he's definitely better than most. More importantly though, and somewhat leaving aside my personal politics, I just think he's better at the job of being a big city mayor than Khan is.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, villakram said:

Ok.

Absolutely against? When does this absolute change, next spring, summer, summer 2022, never? You are ok with geographical discrimination, and hence economic btw, so I don't really understand the fundamental aversion to age.

On economic, the government needs to properly support people it prevents from working - in effect to replace their income from work with income to stay away from work.

On geography, that's everyone within a "hazardous zone" - everyone take shelter from the danger and stop the spread.

But on age it's different. I think it's fine to advise elderly/vulnerable people to lock down, but it's not fine to criminalise only them to do so. You Mr 64 year old bat-fastard, you can go outside for a pie and chips, but you mr 65 year old marathon runner, if you go out for a run we'll arrest you.

it's not actually necessary to potentially compel the vulnerable  - they will by a vast majority follow the advice  anyway, because of their vulnerability. But someone elderly locked down for a month and needing to get food or something essential from shop, or due to an emergency  -they should not be criminalised. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

On economic, the government needs to properly support people it prevents from working - in effect to replace their income from work with income to stay away from work.

Which they are absolutely failing to do.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, blandy said:

You Mr 64 year old bat-fastard, you can go outside for a pie and chips, but you mr 65 year old marathon runner, if you go out for a run we'll arrest you

I didn't want to make this point because it makes me sound like an arrogant clearing in the woods. But hey, if the cap fits.

I regularly run marathons, I regularly cycle 100 miles, I can run a 20 min 5k, I'm in good shape. But I'm technically obese. The government were going to force all obese people to shield. I doubt people who don't exercise, are fatter than me but with smaller glutes so slightly lighter are better candidates to be allowed outside. 🤷

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Which they are absolutely failing to do.

 

Agreed, and although it's the most pressing matter in the short term, it doesn't just come down to income.

Keeping a roof over employee's heads is great, but when businesses start shutting because they can't weather the lockdown storm, all you're doing for those employees is kicking the can down the road. 

Edited by Davkaus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Genie said:

So the other countries of the UK have turned their back on Westminster with regards to managing the pandemic, now Manchester also refuses to follow their guidelines. Amazing.

We need a colour coded map that shows the parts of the UK following Boris and Hancock’s advice and those ignoring it, and how it changes over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Genie said:

So the other countries of the UK have turned their back on Westminster with regards to managing the pandemic, now Manchester also refuses to follow their guidelines. Amazing.

No wonder we are in a mess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â