Coronavirus outbreak

[tom73]

We are not even at the middle ground the right measures are still not in place. Things can open and things can get moving but not at the rate we did it and and not without a clear plan covering both public health and the economy. But even then only if everyone plays my rules get's a grip and stops thinking it all about them.
Things opening and closing due to outbreaks and a growing number of the working population being in and out of work of work due to raising cases. Won't do things any good either. Let's face much of the economy was bust or near it long before covid so opening up as before and hoping it's fixed. Won't work so why not rebuild and rebalance things now ? We've nothing to lose but with a bit of thinking and money we've a lot to gain.

 

[kingrollo]

We are not even at the middle ground the right measures are still not in place. Things can open and things can get moving but not at the rate we did it and and not without a clear plan covering both public health and the economy. But even then only if everyone plays my rules get's a grip and stops thinking it all about them.
Things opening and closing due to outbreaks and a growing number of the working population being in and out of work of work due to raising cases. Won't do things any good either. Let's face much of the economy was bust or near it long before covid so opening up as before and hoping it's fixed. Won't work so why not rebuild and rebalance things now ? We've nothing to lose but with a bit of thinking and money we've a lot to gain.

I think the rules need to be enforced - issuing woolly guidelines or just expecting pubs to to self regulate is never going to work.

 

[tom73]

I think the rules need to be enforced - issuing woolly guidelines or just expecting pubs to to self regulate is never going to work.

That would need some real local level funding and investment which would never go down well.
I do feel for shops and the like that have really put the work in and are doing all they can to open safely. Only to get stuck in local lockdowns though the actions of a shop or pub up the road who never really tried. The few places i've been in really deserved being supported. Sadly it's more than likely they'd be one who if they close again won't open.

 

[classic33]

OK, I''ll turn it on it's head; why should I, with a very low risk of serious illness from the virus, be prevented from going about my business, when the high risk people mostly actually know they are high risk and can therefore take action themselves to minimise their own contact with others?. The ones with the highest risks I would have thought would have the most incentive to keep their distance. In any case, the, high risk groups need to hide away, irrespective of whether the low risk population also minimises social contact or not. If you can't risk catching the virus, you can't mix anyway so it makes no difference whatsoever to you if I go about as normal, but it does make a difference to me. And if I'm not out consuming and spending money, it also makes a difference to those whose jobs rely on my spending.
Now, to be clear, I am not condoning anyone who knows or believes they have the virus, continuing to socialise or mix with others until their symptoms have cleared up. If you have got it, you shouldn't knowingly spread it around. In reality if you are unwell with virus symptoms, you are probably not going to want to go out anyway just as you would not go out with the Flu.. It will be mainly asymptomactic infectees who spread the virus, but you can't realistically expect everyone not to do anything remotely normal, just in case there's a tiny chance they might have it. Society and the economy both need to continue to function - virus or no virus.

Why should you have a seperate set of rules to allow you to crowd a bar. You're assuming everyone is being honest, giving their correct contact details and by doing do are stating they have been tested and results are negative.

I qualify, for high risk. on four counts, epilepsy(lifelong), cancer(past and present) and heart. The epilepsy is a disability that restricts me about 5% of the time. "Economically active" the rest of the time. The past cancer doesn't affect "economic activity". The present cancer and heart neither. The current situation has put treatment for all, on hold. The longer it continues, the longer treatment is withheld. I know I'm the only one in this situation.

What you are saying is, is that your " right" to go to a crowded bar, your only "economic activity" mentioned to date should take priority over treatment being placed on hold for 1,000's in this country! Restricted emergency treatment as well. I'm doing my own shopping, so "economically active", keeping people in work. None of the above have stopped me working. Peoples attitudes to them have though.

I've been hit by a car(something easy to relate to) and had many a seizure/fit/episode/call it what you want, and I'd prefer being hit being hit by the car for the way both left me feeling afterwards. It didn't hurt as much as the fits. There's no pain killers* allowed, so I'm left to carry on as best I can. You want to make that worse as it's "your right" to do what you see fit. What makes you so special?

*There's a small possibility that a routinely used painkiller may be responsible for the current heart problem. Last given/used eight years ago, as routine emergency treatment for the visible effects of a fit. Head split open when I hit the ground.

 

[fossyant]

There were people on the radio today with heart-breaking stories of not being able to visit elderly relatives in care-homes.

We are in this situation - wife in tears today. MIL phoning in tears most days. We've just been allowed to stand in the car pak from tomorrow - MrsF got the email, so sent it to her sisters, then was gazumped by her sister - SIL goes tomorrow, my missus can't go for at least another week - 1 family person per week. MIL's mental health is in bits. Her body is knackered but she's a tough old boot upstairs. Spending your last years in a prison charging £1000 a week and not allowing you to see your family from behind glass in a building whilst you are outside....

That's what hisses me off about the ' I'll carry on as I please'. We aren't, for the sake of a chance to visit MIL - I've not seen her for 7 months, but keep myself safe, so my wife can go. Oh and the visitors are temperature checked (in the ruddy car park where they stay). The home has been far from perfect as they have had a raft of deaths from Covid.

 

[mjr]

Coherent, comprehensive and effective track and trace is the best way forward at the moment alongside gradual easing of lockdown measures and very clear messaging. Anything else is really just doing stuff and hoping it works.

How's our track and trace doing at beating the world so far?

 

[classic33]

An elephant in the room (and it's definitely in the room not out in the beer garden) is that it is illegal for pubs to serve alcohol to drunk people (and has been in previous versions of the law).

If the government tackled that, then pubs would probably not be high infection risks - but there would be loads of bankruptcies at the low end of the licensed trade and the government would be very unpopular and either voted out for sure next time or maybe even overthrown!

It's illegal to be drunk on licensed premise's. And that includes any outdoor area belong to those premises.

 

[matticus]

An elephant in the room (and it's definitely in the room not out in the beer garden) is that it is illegal for pubs to serve alcohol to drunk people (and has been in previous versions of the law).

If the government tackled that, then pubs would probably not be high infection risks - but there would be loads of bankruptcies at the low end of the licensed trade and the government would be very unpopular and either voted out for sure next time or maybe even overthrown!

Wouldn't Britain be a nicer place if this was enforced? Might be impracticable, but worth a try - and we've had a mass of un-enforcable new COVID laws foisted on us, for people to follow/ignore as they see fit.

 

[classic33]

Let's hear it for the middle-ground! Sadly not a very popular viewpoint for internet ranters and back-slappers.

I want to return to normal, but I'm willing to accept that what will be normal after this won't be the same as before. And the longer this goes on the further apart those two "normals" will be.

So why don't we all try and reduce the time between those two "normals".

 

[classic33]

Wouldn't Britain be a nicer place if this was enforced? Might be impracticable, but worth a try - and we've had a mass of un-enforcable new COVID laws foisted on us, for people to follow/ignore as they see fit.

Often used to close a pub which has a number of calls to it in the one night.

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

UK cases are now above the level at which we impose quarantine on other countries.

The infection numbers are unimportant. So long as the number of hospitalisations for severe illness don't exceed the NHS intensive care capacity, then the situation will remain manageable no matter what. The NHS could just about cope with 5-6,000 confirmed tested cases a day in March/April before the extra Nightingale contingency capacity was added. Therefore we should be able to deal with at least 10,000 virus cases a day going forward, on a business as usual basis, with no lockdowns and the resulting economic carnage. Shutting everything down again for several weeks simply isn't an option now. No country can afford it, as India has discovered the hard way and has now reopened - despite astronomical increases in Coronavirus cases. Whatever happens over the next weeks and months the economy will have to be kept open, and the authorities will have to manage any fallout from the virus within that situation.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Therefore we should be able to deal with at least 10,000 virus cases a day going forward, on a business as usual basis, with no lockdowns and the resulting economic carnage.

As I carefully explained upthread, controlling 1000 infections a day requires less restrictions than controlling 10 000. If you believe differently, please explain why.

 

[classic33]

The infection numbers are unimportant. So long as the number of hospitalisations for severe illness don't exceed the NHS intensive care capacity, then the situation will remain manageable no matter what. The NHS could just about cope with 5-6,000 confirmed tested cases a day in March/April before the extra Nightingale contingency capacity was added. Therefore we should be able to deal with at least 10,000 virus cases a day going forward, on a business as usual basis, with no lockdowns and the resulting economic carnage. Shutting everything down again for several weeks simply isn't an option now. No country can afford it, as India has discovered the hard way and has now reopened - despite astronomical increases in Coronavirus cases. Whatever happens over the next weeks and months the economy will have to be kept open, and the authorities will have to manage any fallout from the virus within that situation.

Local ICU capicity could soon be overloaded.
On both sites each unit has the following beds:
Calderdale Royal Hospital (CRH) – four intensive care beds and two high dependency beds.

Huddersfield Royal Infirmary (HRI) - six intensive care beds and two two high dependency beds.

Where do they go when those 10 beds have been filled?

The actual beds are the easy part, the staffing of those beds is the harder part.

 

[Adam4868]

Let us do it for you ?


View: https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1303060271460741122?s=19

 

[tom73]

There were people on the radio today with heart-breaking stories of not being able to visit elderly relatives in care-homes. Made even worse when those relatives had dementia which meant they had little concept of the measures being taken. Many had gone into depression and other conditions brought on by the isolation from family. A horrible way to spend the final years of life.

It isn't even as if it would be effective.

For example, those care homes are staffed with carers. Who, presumably under this scheme would either be shielding (along with their families) or under the "no COVID rules conditions". And even if they were shielding then they would probably come into contact with the virus in their normal life such as on transport etc. And, of course, if everyone who comes into contact with the vulnerable also have to shield then that is a lot of people out of the "economic equation" in any case.

The misplaced bravado is generated from assuming "common sense" provides realistic analysis of risk and a willful disregard of how dependent on others' actions we are to keep the whole population as safe as possible.

Coherent, comprehensive and effective track and trace is the best way forward at the moment alongside gradual easing of lockdown measures and very clear messaging. Anything else is really just doing stuff and hoping it works.

Not forgetting the ones who'd be free to be normal. Will still need health care so that rules out anyone who lives with them. Which just going on NHS numbers is one hell of lot out of action. One area of care that's often forgotten is the large number of young carers so under this that means a lot young people taken out of education. If we then include all the other essential services as given in government list that the free ones will still need. It's hard to see if anyone will be left to go the pub.
So all in all it's one sure way to really screw things up.