New face covering measures

[Deleted User]

For what it's worth, there ARE experts arguing that total elimination of Covid-19 should be the strategy.  Watch this!:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9D8qmGjki8&ab_channel=UnHerd

Seems like you would need to close down immigration/travel, to stop it from being re-introduced to the country.
Just when you thought Brexit was enough to make us isolated from the rest of the world!!

bradders1983

Pharmacies would need to be open as well.

More holes in this plan than a Swiss cheese.

MoneySeeker1

jimi_man said:

sweetgirl2015 said:

Thrugelmir said:

Covid was never going to disappear as if by magic. Community suppression is the only real weapon available currently. Remember to get your flu jabs. 

Very true. Do you think the first lockdown was handled well though? 

Not particularly. It didn't really achieve a lot. It was also massively disproportionate to wreck the country's economy when there was no end game or strategy planned for. It's obviously terribly sad that people die, but it's a fact of life and you only have to go back a few years to find that a bad flu year had nearly as many deaths in England as Covid, with no closing of the economy. 

Very true.

I can't recall whether it would have been 4 or 5 times "They" would have wrecked my life with a Lockdown by now if they'd been allowed to get away with panicking everyone when similar previous things came along. There was one in the 1950's (before I got to primary school age - so I probably wouldnt have realised), one in 1968 (I was 15 - so...yep...that would have meant them having a lifelong wrecking effect on my life), think it's been 2 or 3 to date this century before Covid came along?

Thank goodness they at least waited to run round in circles like a headless chicken shouting "Panic panic - aren't you panicked enough yet?" with a Lockdown...fear...more fear....yet more fear until most of us had computers....or were they waiting for "computer critical mass" and wouldn't have dared try a Lockdown until we had that?

- What about people chucked out of jobs?
- What about people having their education messed with?
- What about people in care homes not getting proper (if any) visits?
- What about people needing health care?
- What about our poor battered economy generally?

and so on and so on....but...hang on....that must mean I'm practical enough to ignore the "Be Afraid...be VERY Afraid" message they keep pumping at us.....hmm...

MoneySeeker1

sweetgirl2015 said:

JamoLew said:

sweetgirl2015 said:

I think this virus hasent gone away from the fact of sketchy rules which we have had to endure since March. 
How can it be right I can't see my nearest and dearest which is of course my boyfriend of 4 years. Yet he can go to a factory and work with over 20 other colleagues, all sharing the same building and canteen.
At this rate its never going away because the government don't live in a real world. 

They do live in the real world though, that's the problem.
They have to balance the economy and the welfare of the population (and the lack of respect for guidance and the law)
How would you suggest we get rid of it ?

Well since you asked heres my theory. And I know this will sound drastic, unmanagable, even a pipe dream, but ifwe stocked up for a months worth of food, which isn't outragious as I know lots of people who do a monthly shop, then we all hibernate for 3 weeks obviously with government instructions, and in theory it will kill off all transmission of the virus as it only stays alive on an infected person for 11 days apparently.
Compare that to the disruption and death we have encountered this year already my theory doesnt seem too much of a sacrifice. 

...and I'm now wondering just how many people have homes that are too small and/or incomes that are too small to be able to manage that.

Pity the poor NMW worker with just one room to call their own in a shared house and not enough space in that room for their own stuff - never mind "panic food".

pjcox2005

It also ignores say a family of five with one person having it without symptoms just as the 3 week lockdown happens. They have it, next family member catches it 10 days later, third 10 days after that. You’d still therefore wouldn’t have eradicated it at the point you stepped out of lockdown even if you did find a way to shut down everything else as mentioned above,

The plans in March weren’t to eradicate it but to slow the spread by breaking connections. Work remained essential (either what was being done/made but also income to live), your relationship whilst important can be paused in terms of contact especially modern technology. Evidenced by the fact you don’t live together and potentially don’t have to see each other every day.

So rather than 50 contacts your close too (e.g 20 coworkers, family, friends, strangers in community), the march lockdown meant he may be in contact with 25 people (and I expect lower as not all work colleagues) therefore reducing the spread.

sweetgirl2015

JamoLew said:

well thats what the 1st national lockdown almost covered -- 

I hear you, but I dont necessary agree, because like I was saying earlier, the first lockdown was a shambles. My boyfriend couldn't work from home as his job requires him to be physically there, but not just him all his colleagues too, all sharing the same building and facilities. And I'm pretty sure his situation wasen't rare. So how could we contain a virus like that? Its been profit over life. 
Whereas we been together for four years, yet had to stop seeing each other or move in together, the later being impossible.
Just so many things this year has been so not making sense like that which is why we will just have to live with it as someone rightly said.

JamoLew

This is maybe the crux of the problem faced by the country and the politicians and the advisors
Do we save a life at ANY cost -- absolutely not (we can't afford that), but what cost do we assign
Many of the people advising with their "doom and gloom" predictions are medical people and their primary focus and ethos is to try and save a life at any cost - they have no concerns over the ecomomy etc etc - they are just concentrating on saving people.
They do however "forget" about the people that are suffering from lack of access to "proper" medical care at this time AND the deaths associated with this
This creates a bit of a problem in finding and striking a balance that in all honesty no one will be 100% happy with
My opinion - we cannot make 99.94% of the population suffer to save 0.06% - it doesn't stack up
40,000 dead seems like a huge number because that's how its "sold" to us - but as a proportion of our population, it's tiny.
Let people make their own informed and sensible decisions and crack on regardless I say

RyanHello

There was a scientist on the tv saying that the virus has "mutated" to get through face masks    .. They're way too arrogant to say they got it wrong. They're all boxed in with their own lies.

bradders1983

RyanHello said:

There was a scientist on the tv saying that the virus has "mutated" to get through face masks    .. They're way too arrogant to say they got it wrong. They're all boxed in with their own lies.

Have you now seen the Scottish farce where they have ordered students not to go to pubs?

Absolutely nothing wrong with Granny going down the bingo, you know, the people more at risk from dying from this thing, but students...no no, keep them locked up in a 12x12ft room in a hall! The same cohort of people they already messed around in August with exam results, no less.

Dymphna60

Is not being able to wear a face mask a protected characteristic? Sometimes? 

Wouldn’t that be the test ? 

If not any shop , cafe etc can say they don’t want you as a customer can’t they ? 

@JamLew are more than 99% of the population really really really suffering terrible terrible things that some people’s lives should be thrown away without a thought ? 

Is I can’t take a steam of selfies with my mates on drunken pub crawls a terrible suffering? More so than someone with a poor immune system, who has to be in that position probably had a rotten roll of the dice already staying isolated for goodness only knows how long ? 

And what is your solution to giving care to those that get really sick ? Because they are in addition to all the other people that need hospital care 

Do you start treating folk that could have another respiratory illness but once they test positive for Covid stop their treatment and leave them outside on a special dying area of the car park? 

Is there an easy answer?