COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[Ban-jani]

it is the opposite,the old and vulnerable are being sacrificed

No they are not and to say so is to make the situation worse.

Johnson literally said when we initiate lock downs the elderly will be focused upon first.

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

So....

Do fuck all.

Be complicit in the deaths of the elderly and vulnerable.


We are run by wankers.

Well done for voting them in.

I don't think you know how it works. Nobody knows exactly how this virus will play out, but what do you think is best ...

1) Everyone lock themselves away and only a few get immunity through contracting COVID-19, therefore few deaths, but if there's no vaccine later on, the population faces an ever increasing threat because the virus can travel like it does now, and some scientists are suggesting a deadlier second wave of this.
2) Expose some of the population now (but advise the vulnerable to do everything they can to avoid the virus, i.e the same as point 1) so that when the second wave comes it moves through the population more slowly.

Here's some reading, https://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/news/herd-immunity-how-does-it-work.

Personally I think it's a plan. Even if a vaccine comes along, how quickly can it be made and given to everyone?

 

[blueeeee]

Behave ffs.

It’s hyperbole like this that just makes the whole debate ridiculous.

Go into lockdown now, within 4 weeks when it peaks people will be disobeying the lock down and things will get worse.

Herd immunity is needed and it’s the elderly and vulnerable who will be locked down first, to protect them.

you can’t just shut elderly and vulnerable people away though, many use food banks, need regular hospital visits, carers etc and don’t have family or friends to help them, so have to use public transport.

 

[urban genie]

it is the opposite,the old and vulnerable are being sacrificed

Just rename the country Dignitas UK
;-)

 

[Claytop]

I have to say I agree. We seem to be wanting to follow a path which is certain to result in millions infected and tens of thousands of deaths if not 100,000+. But we can see in other countries such as South Korea, which started from a much worse base, they seem to have got it much more under control and would seem to be heading for an outcome - at least this year - much, much better than that.

Our approach would seem to be "well it's going to happen so how can we best deal with it" rather than "how can we stop this from happening". The latter might have seemed impossible but China have managed it. On the course we're on, if we only end up with as many deaths as China, it will be a fucking miracle. And yet they have 20x the population we do.

How do we actually know China have managed it though? Surely there’s still a pretty reasonable chance that whenever they come out of lock down it starts up again.

Only in retrospect will it be obvious which countries chose the most appropriate strategies.

 

[Indaparkside]

I’m employing mad max anyway

 

[SebastianBlue]

Personally I think it's a plan. Even if a virus comes along, how quickly can it be made and given to everyone?

Shouldn’t be posting conspiracy theories, mate.

 

[Ban-jani]

you can’t just shut elderly and vulnerable people away though, many use food banks, need regular hospital visits, carers etc and don’t have family or friends to help them, so have to use public transport.

Again, Johnson literally said that.

Can people watch the press conference before commenting?

 

[kaz7]

No they are not and to say so is to make the situation worse.

Johnson literally said when we initiate lock downs the elderly will be focused upon first.

but they are not initiating lockdown,they want people to catch it in stages to encourage immunity,the old and vulnerable will catch it and die so long as the rest are allowed to be put in uneccessary situations to get it,if they are trying to protect the vulnerable they have a weird way of showing it,the vulnerable cant be cured of it so they are clogging up the nhs as it is,stop it as much as you can for everyone

there is zero reason to let large scale gatherings continue,people going to work and shopping etc will spread it enough

 

[mexico1970]

Behave ffs.

It’s hyperbole like this that just makes the whole debate ridiculous.

Go into lockdown now, within 4 weeks when it peaks people will be disobeying the lock down and things will get worse.

Herd immunity is needed and it’s the elderly and vulnerable who will be locked down first, to protect them.

I like everyone else don't have the answers but this idea seems plausible (Caveat that I know next to nothing about communicable diseases) In a caring society we care for the weak and we should 100% focus primarily not exclusively look after those that are at risk including the elderly, if this means locking down as best we can those at risk whilst allowing the not at risk population to ride it out in the wild, it could just work couldn't it?