PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING
Hello Forumites! However well-intentioned, for the safety of other users we ask that you refrain from seeking or offering medical advice. This includes recommendations for medicines, procedures or over-the-counter remedies. Posts or threads found to be in breach of this rule will be removed.The Prepping Thread - A Newer Beginning ;)
Comments
-
House arrest? Solitary confinement?
There are quite light approaches to policing a very British lockdown in my opinion. We have guidelines here. The tone is as relaxed as it can possibly be because, surely, the British have a decent amount of common sense. If the guidance is, whatever your age or circumstance, to stay at home then a person chooses whether they follow the guidance or not. Don't forget that even now, in this the strictest of lockdown (and I say that very loosely) people whom have terminal illness are able to choose whether they want to shield themselves or go against guidance. This government haven't shown a hard hand approach to any of this in my opinion, quite the contrary, due to the initial heavy handedness of some policing strategies early on being commented on by politicians as being too much.
15 -
MoneySeeker1 said:Each person has to make their own personal decision for themselves.
I will never have any vaccines - for anything - ever anyway. So it's just the same for a Covid one (if there is such an illness and if they do get a vaccine for it) - and I won't be having it personally myself and, if I find I'm denied access to things because of not having an (apparently voluntary) vaccine - I'll publicise just how "compulsory" it had turned out to be in actual fact and still not have it and keep a careful (public) record of what I'd been forbidden to access.
Each to their own on their own personal decisions as to what to do for themselves personally. I won't tell anyone else not to have the vaccine - I'll just say "Do you know what sort of things they put in vaccines?", tell them links to look up the sort of ingredients they have in and then it's up to them. They make their decisions for themselves - same as I make my decisions for myself.But Money, I believe that you are a woman in your sixties, so I would be very surprised if you had not been vaccinated as a child. Even if you hadn't, you will have enjoyed the benefit of the herd immunity created in a population with a high vaccination rate. Free-riding on others.I have a pre-existing condition of considerable rarity (less than 10,000 cases in the entire UK population) and C-19 where ordinary flu could cause hospitalisation - the consultant's words, not mine - is a frightening thought.My employer has had me working from home for seven weeks now. I would very much like to resume normal life, including normal(ish) working life. I look forward to anti-body testing, to see if there has been an asymptomatic encounter already (my highest hope atm), and to a vaccine in due course. I am defined as a key worker, and need to be out doing my job to its fullest.But, I guess if you are retired and prepared to stay well out of society until there is enough herd immunity from Covid vaccine, you can keep your priniciples intact until you can free-ride on the rest of us again. Hopefully, your actions won't kill anyone else. Of course, if you get it wrong, YOU will die a VERY ugly and terrifying (but principled) death.
Every increased possession loads us with a new weariness.
John Ruskin
Veni, vidi, eradici
(I came, I saw, I kondo'd)
39 -
dandy-candy said:I have become aware during all this of the ridiculous amount of bread DH and DS2 eat ... He has health conditions and is very overweight (23 stone)
A positive attitude won't solve all your problems, but with luck it'll annoy enough people to make the effort worthwhile.11 -
it must be very difficult being at home on your own do hope people are faring ok xx I had a look at the iceland site yesterday out of interest and no deliveries in my area all this week not very useful if you need things.I am planning a bit of baking today I found an interesting looking cake recipe that uses oil so interested to see how that goes. Hope everyone has a lovely day xonwards and upwards11
-
I would like to put a misconception right, DD did not say we wouldn't be treated if we were unfortunate enough to contract covid-19 she said we would NOT be considered for ventilators or the more aggressive forms of treatment that are needed in many cases, we would be looked after and treated as well as is possible by the wonderful NHS staff, we would be kept pain free, as comfortable as it was possible for us to be under the circumstances but that because of age and underlying health we would NOT be likely to be considered 'best likely outcome' and there are only so many ventilators, specialist teams to tend the people on them and only so much that can be done. The NHS will try for everyone, will go the extra mile in all areas to try to save and help every single person who goes through their doors BUT they are not magicians and resources MUST be directed to and used where they will be most effective for most people, we understand that, so we'll be doing all we can to keep safe for as long as it takes.
Vaccines, Personally I feel that a vaccine is the ONLY solution to covid-19 for people like us, and I hope and pray that a vaccine is found and made as speedily as it is possible for it to be so. I will grasp with both hands the opportunity to be vaccinated as soon as it is available to me regardless of what they put into it.
17 -
littlemoney said:thriftwizard said:I do feel for the elderly living alone; it must be even worse if they don't have family to ring up & chat & check they're ok...
14 -
littlemoney said:thriftwizard said:I do feel for the elderly living alone; it must be even worse if they don't have family to ring up & chat & check they're ok...What is your suggestion then? There is no vaccine. There is no treatment that is guaranteed. Is it better to be dead than lonely for a few weeks? Everyone has the choice to go out or not go out. Everyone has the choice to take precautions or not. My next door neighbours, in their eighties, go out every day. Their children and grandchildren come round every day. That's their choice. My other next door neighbours are in their sixties. They haven't been out or had visitors at all. That's their choice.Using language as if this is something being forced on you, treating like you're being unfairly punished for something that could be avoided is a bit illogical.It can't be avoided. It's there. There is currently no vaccine. If the goverment were carrying on as normal would you be complaining about being exposed to potentially deadly virus and how much they didn't care about you?Anyway, this shulod make it clearer - all quoted...
- Wallace rejected claims there was a blanket rule saying the over-70s have to rigorously self-isolate. He said:
It’s not a blanket view of the over-70s. If you are over 70 and you have a range of conditions you are viewed as very highly clinically vulnerable and you should take extra measures.
If you are over 70 you should take extra precautions but it is not a blanket rule that if you are over 70 at the moment you are going to be treated differently from other people.
Wallace’s comment is correct, but it is striking that six weeks into the lockdown, there is still confusion about what the rules actually say. The problem was also highlighted by this tweet at the weekend from Matt Hancock, the health secretary, in response to the Sunday Times splash.
Matt Hancock (@MattHancock)
The clinically vulnerable, who are advised to stay in lockdown for 12 weeks, emphatically DO NOT include all over 70s.
May 2, 2020The confusion arises because there are three groups of people covered by social distancing rules: normal people; around 1.5m people described as “clinically extremely vulnerable”, who have been told to “shield” at home at least until the end of June; and the over-70s and other “clinically vulnerable” people.Special rules (pdf) apply to the “clinically extremely vulnerable”. But people who are just “clinically vulnerable” are told to apply the same rules as everyone else, with the proviso that they should take “particular care” to minimise contact with people outside their homes"
So maybe that clears things up a bit?
Shampoo? No thanks, I'll have real poo...17 -
Taff you say it's a choice but actually, visiting family is against the law unless they need personal care or assistance or there is an emergency or it's to prevent injury or harm.It doesn't matter if you are a glass half full or half empty sort of person. Keep it topped up! Cheers!10
-
It still is a choice though. |Robbing banks is illegal, still happens....I'm not the police, I don't care if someone else decides visiting someone is a good idea, that's their roulette wheel to play with. Just don't come near me
Shampoo? No thanks, I'll have real poo...10 -
maryb said:Taff you say it's a choice but actually, visiting family is against the law unless they need personal care or assistance or there is an emergency or it's to prevent injury or harm.
I have to say i see so many people using this to push their political agenda. Government does nothing, oh they are leaving us to die! Government brings in lockdown, oh they are against our human rights! Some people need to just grow up and realise life is a whole lot bigger than your perpetual seeking for something to moan about.18
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.9K Spending & Discounts
- 235.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.2K Life & Family
- 248.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards