COVID-19 — Coronavirus

Status
Not open for further replies.
artfuldodger said:
Whether you think Lancs should be in Tier 3 or not, I think this sounds like bullying

Lancashire council leaders 'bullied' into going into tier 3​

Lancashire was "bullied" by the government into going into the highest Covid alert level, three council leaders from the county have claimed.
In a joint statement, Matthew Brown and Mohammad Iqbal, leaders of Preston City Council and Pendle Council respectively, said the prime minister's officials, led by Sir Ed Lister, were "unwilling to listen to any evidence" and did not present a plan on how the government's proposals would control the virus.
They said schools, retail, the workplace and a minority of non-compliant individuals were behind the majority of coronavirus transmission, but officials told them these and other areas were "off-limits" and "non-negotiable".
"Throughout the negotiations, government officials were only interested in the politics and threatened any district leader who did not fall into line with 10 Downing Street's threats to accept tier three would suffer an imposition of tier three and that their borough 'would become an island' that would receive much less in funding and resource."
Paul Foster, leader of South Ribble Council, echoed the views, describing the discussions as a "complete shambles".
Click to expand...

Well whatever people’s views of Burnham are he won’t put up with this shit.
 
worsleyweb said:
The methods are keeping it stable / keeping some semblance of normality in the economy until hopefully a vaccine arrives hopefully within 3 months. In spite of all the bluster the impossible balancing act is being managed well.
Click to expand...
I agree.

If there was no hope of a vaccine in sight, or ever, then the "let it rip" proposals would have to be considered more seriously, because as pretty much everyone agrees, we cannot stay in semi or permanent lockdown forever.

But we are not in that place. A viable vaccine is very likely not that far off, and with it, a hope of a return to something vaguely normal. So no need for drastic and highly risks changes of course IMO.

Yes, many businesses will have gone bust by then and that is a tragedy for all concerned. But things WILL bounce back quite quickly. People will still want to go to the cinema even if Cineworld don't own it any more and some new start up does. Ditto bars, restaurants etc. The jobs will return.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Yeah but how many? If through our actions we end up with pervasive infection across the (say) under 55's, I cannot see how we could possibly keep it out of the older age groups with people relying on Tesco's deliveries, care worker visits, family visits etc. And if we get pervasive infections in the older age groups we could see 10's of thousands dying, maybe 100,000. It could be truly horrific.

In short, it would be a reckless experiment with no guarantee of success. And incidentally, you don't factor in how the people over say 55 would react and how many suicides etc it would lead to amongst those effectively isolated for months on end.

I just don't see you proposal as being viable myself mate, but like you say there are no easy answers.
Click to expand...
All fair comment,i just cant see the way out that will be the best for everyone,or even the vast majority......and i have lost total faith in this Govt knowing what that scenario is too.

I'm going to bow out now,but i am fairly sure,one way or another,things will get worse before they get better.
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
You just need to give people the facts and let them decide what they’re going to do. Biggest risk of death is age, then it’s age plus being poorer, then it’s age, being poorer and having co-morbidities.
Some of the worse conditions to have are: cancer, chronic kidney disease, COPD, being a solid organ transplant recipient, diabetes, being fat and smoking fags. Dementia is often listed on the death certificates as a contributory cause.

People need to consider how many of the above apply to them and work out their level of risk before deciding on going out.
If you’re under 70, aren’t enormous, don’t smoke and don’t have any of the conditions I’ve listed, you’ll probably be ok going out.

Of course, if you’re 85 and got lots of those things you were at enormous risk before coronavirus but your death wouldn’t have made the news..
Click to expand...
I see some of that, but what about say a 55 year old, overweight, maybe diabetic maybe an at risk ethnicity with a mortgage and family to keep. Unless we pay these people and say their job is safe they aren’t going to stay at home. Even if we do that how many of these people are working as health workers or carers, teachers, other essential workers, can we afford them to all stay at home? What about the self employed with business bills to pay?
Who decides who is vulnerable who isn’t to qualify for support ?
Saying protect the vulnerable or the vulnerable protect themselves is way easier said than done.
.
 
The Manchester Evening News has published a list for all the schools with cases in Greater Manchester and listed the extent of any closures or isolation, whether the school is closed or it is just one case reported.

I'm not at all sure I agree with this. What's the point in highlighting potentially single cases, a child potentially as young as 4, for the world to see? Going to make those children and their families feel pretty awful I would have thought?

I showed my 9 year old daughter as her school is listed, and she said she knew who it was in another year and she'd heard other children in that year had been spoken to as that child was getting singled out in the playground for bringing the virus into school, albiet of course unknowingly.
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
In September, Scotland had 33 Covid deaths out of 4552 deaths. Meanwhile, that 4552 was an increase of 7% on their September 5 year average. So, they had 320 deaths more than usual in September and 10% were due to Covid. This data is why governments and scientists need to be a bit more balanced in their assesments of risk and it starts to shine a light on unintended consequences of focussing on a single aspect of public health.
Click to expand...

That's pretty damning, why are no politicians mentioning this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.