If you're not ordering everything from Amazon, you're literally killing
Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion
- Thread starter Sasaferrato
- Start date
If you're not ordering everything from Amazon, you're literally killing
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Doesn't help with necessaries like golf clubs or tennis racquetsJust play with your own balls.
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
Think about the mechanics of either - I don't play them - and ask yourself about the chances of transmission.
Closing stuff that has little impact on transmission rates firstly serves no purpose, and secondly undermines compliance in the stuff that matters.
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
Funny enough, most people that play golf or tennis have their own clubs & racquets.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
But those who want to play and don't want to make bezos richer are a bit fucked ATM.
Cid
Proper break this time
Other online sporting outlets are available.
Sarcasm aside, I've been buying most stuff I need from Gumtree or similar trade sites. Then again I try to do that anyway, second hand = better for the environment.
Not sure how 'covid-secure' that is compared to being in a shop. Better to be on someone's doorstep, worse in terms of travel, I reckon, usually have to go further for the same thing.
Not sure how 'covid-secure' that is compared to being in a shop. Better to be on someone's doorstep, worse in terms of travel, I reckon, usually have to go further for the same thing.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
This is a whole other debate and one that I'd have to disagree with you on, though I know that seems to be the prevailing attitude on here for many. What alternative is there to the capitalist system that would offer a genuine, new, fresh approach that could somehow magically protect people's well being in a whole different way, though? I'd imagine changing the entire world to some alternative economic and social system would cause far, far more widespread upheaval, poverty and death than Covid has.
The entire system doesn't need to be changed in order for us to build decent policy, though.
As I posted above - basically all of the support in lockdown has been focused on propping up landowners and ensuring that big business makes it through. Basically, maintaining the system for the top end elite (0.01% or less) whilst failing to ask them to even contribute.
The working classes are told 'suck it up, die so i don't have to go outside' because they have no power. The labouring middle classes are pacified with furlough and WFH and various trinkets so that they passively accept destructive economic policy, temporarily comfortable whilst their negotiation power dwindles. The entrepreneurial middle classes (the competition, and a smaller group than the labourers) are ground into dust so that the winners can buy everything up in the ashes.
The uppers are just lolling about, their jobs and living conditions essentially exempting them from the vast majority of the rules anyway.
In normal times, progressive policies are less important (though still important) because you don't see ten or twenty years of impacts compressed into one. We didn't need to make everywhere besides Tesco and Amazon illegal in order to beat the virus, and even if we did, we could have easily ensured that landlords shared the pain equally.
Last edited:
And if the vaccines don't work and the alternative is social distancing, masks, everything closed forever- would you be happy with 50% unemployment and mass poverty hitherto considered impossible in a western nation because nobody has any income, to say nothing of the collapse of the NHS anyway because there is no tax revenue to fund it any longer? Because that's the logical conclusion of the pro-lockdown arguments. There has to be some kind of middle ground. I think that's what everyone here wants, no matter if your slant is more pro- or anti-lockdown. At some point we have to accept a certain level of deaths from Covid, vaccines or otherwise, just as we have to accept a certain level of restrictions at some points if the health system is going to be overrun. Nobody is seriously claiming they want to just "let it rip," to use the hackneyed phrase.
elbows
Well-Known Member
No, that is in no way, shape or form the logical conclusion of the pro-lockdown arguments. Governments only do lockdowns that are considered viable, so trying to make pro-lockdown stances seem absurd by stretching things off to some ridiculous timescale that is never going to happen is bullshit. We are only a little over a year into a nasty pandemic, and those who are ready to start throwing around the concept of forever at this stage have shit agendas in my view, there is no call for such framing at this stage, we are a long way away from any of these catastrophic endpoints.
Or to put it another way, we are a long way off scenarios where we have to consider pandering to scum who want us to change out attitude to the sorts of levels of death seen so far. Those levels of death also go hand in hand with unmanageable levels of hospitalisation, ie not an option.
When people like me envisage that a point will come where society learns to live with the level of death from this virus, its because we envisage the level of death being quite different to that seen in the first waves. The numbers will change, and when they fall into a range where hospitalisations can be managed and the amount of death is similar or lower than that seen during bad flu seasons, then the game has changed and the measures society will have to take to cope with the virus will be different, much less dramatic than what we've had to live with in recent times.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
So, see you all for lockdown 4 in approx 2 months time.
elbows
Well-Known Member
And it very much sounds like we will see the first signs of this change in tomorrows roadmap. Earlier I was talking about how it will be an awkward moment if case numbers continue to get stuck at current levels, or go up a bit again. Well, it seems like the government are going to cope with this by not judging things based on case numbers alone, but rather a vaguer concept of whether infection rates are expected to risk a surge in hospital admissions.
I have partially mixed feelings about this but it does have some merits and it does feature the changing circumstances that vaccines are expected to bring. And one of the reasons I would expect to be fairly criticised by people who think I represent some sort of 'too pro-lockdown' stance that is doing more harm than good, would be if I stuck too rigidly to the equations used in pre-vaccine times. I'm not going to do that, I'm going to move with the times. I will voice concerns about things that could go wrong, but I am not going to go red in the face demanding that authorities take an extreme approach to viral suppression, when we now have the vaccination weapon available. I will be nervous about mutation risks, but I wont demand that everyone stays at the highest level of restrictions just to satisfy my every concern.
In some ways I am fine with the basic principal of using those as the four conditions. My concerns will be more along the lines of how this government treat such calculations in practice, we already know they cannot be trusted to do the right things at the right time. But so long as the vaccines do all we hope they will, we stand a better chance of not needing to worry too much about this, we should get to a stage where if even the government are somewhat slippery with these calculations, the consequences are at least less deadly, and less likely to require another full lockdown to correct later.
Covid-19: Boris Johnson to unveil 'cautious' plan to lift England's lockdown
All schools are expected to reopen on 8 March, with some outdoor socialising allowed from 29 March.
www.bbc.co.uk
I have partially mixed feelings about this but it does have some merits and it does feature the changing circumstances that vaccines are expected to bring. And one of the reasons I would expect to be fairly criticised by people who think I represent some sort of 'too pro-lockdown' stance that is doing more harm than good, would be if I stuck too rigidly to the equations used in pre-vaccine times. I'm not going to do that, I'm going to move with the times. I will voice concerns about things that could go wrong, but I am not going to go red in the face demanding that authorities take an extreme approach to viral suppression, when we now have the vaccination weapon available. I will be nervous about mutation risks, but I wont demand that everyone stays at the highest level of restrictions just to satisfy my every concern.
In some ways I am fine with the basic principal of using those as the four conditions. My concerns will be more along the lines of how this government treat such calculations in practice, we already know they cannot be trusted to do the right things at the right time. But so long as the vaccines do all we hope they will, we stand a better chance of not needing to worry too much about this, we should get to a stage where if even the government are somewhat slippery with these calculations, the consequences are at least less deadly, and less likely to require another full lockdown to correct later.
Last edited:
elbows
Well-Known Member
Or to put it another way, I suppose I am entirely unsurprised that the vaccine era means the government will simply keep gradually easing restrictions unless they actually end up faced with a situation where hospitalisation rates are climbing in a way that they had expected vaccines to prevent.
And it very much sounds like we will see the first signs of this change in tomorrows roadmap. Earlier I was talking about how it will be an awkward moment if case numbers continue to get stuck at current levels, or go up a bit again. Well, it seems like the government are going to cope with this by not judging things based on case numbers alone, but rather a vaguer concept of whether infection rates are expected to risk a surge in hospital admissions.
Covid-19: Boris Johnson to unveil 'cautious' plan to lift England's lockdown
All schools are expected to reopen on 8 March, with some outdoor socialising allowed from 29 March.www.bbc.co.uk
I have partially mixed feelings about this but it does have some merits and it does feature the changing circumstances that vaccines are expected to bring. And one of the reasons I would expect to be fairly criticised by people who think I represent some sort of 'too pro-lockdown' stance that is doing more harm than good, would be if I stuck too rigidly to the equations used in pre-vaccine times. I'm not going to do that, I'm going to move with the times. I will voice concerns about things that could go wrong, but I am not going to go red in the face demanding that authorities take an extreme approach to viral suppression, when we now have the vaccination weapon available. I will be nervous about mutation risks, but I wont demand that everyone stays at the highest level of restrictions just to satisfy my every concern.
Since you seem clued up on this, I'll ask; do you have any information on the effect of immunity on the rate of mutation of the virus?
Consider - the natural R number of coronavirus is sufficiently high that even if vaccines cut transmission by 75%, in a fully immunised population, the existing strains could still spread to reach 100% of the population because R0 is bigger than 4. It'd be super slow, and it would result in very limited direct illness, but it could still happen in a Feb 2020-esque world.
This seems to imply to me that there's still a large mutation risk even once everyone is immunised. But am I right in thinking that the opportunity for the virus to mutate in an immunised individual is probably many orders of magnitude lower because it's killed off before it replicates much?
Artaxerxes
Look out, he's got a gnu!
And it very much sounds like we will see the first signs of this change in tomorrows roadmap. Earlier I was talking about how it will be an awkward moment if case numbers continue to get stuck at current levels, or go up a bit again. Well, it seems like the government are going to cope with this by not judging things based on case numbers alone, but rather a vaguer concept of whether infection rates are expected to risk a surge in hospital admissions.
Covid-19: Boris Johnson to unveil 'cautious' plan to lift England's lockdown
All schools are expected to reopen on 8 March, with some outdoor socialising allowed from 29 March.www.bbc.co.uk
I have partially mixed feelings about this but it does have some merits and it does feature the changing circumstances that vaccines are expected to bring. And one of the reasons I would expect to be fairly criticised by people who think I represent some sort of 'too pro-lockdown' stance that is doing more harm than good, would be if I stuck too rigidly to the equations used in pre-vaccine times. I'm not going to do that, I'm going to move with the times. I will voice concerns about things that could go wrong, but I am not going to go red in the face demanding that authorities take an extreme approach to viral suppression, when we now have the vaccination weapon available. I will be nervous about mutation risks, but I wont demand that everyone stays at the highest level of restrictions just to satisfy my every concern.
In some ways I am fine with the basic principal of using those as the four conditions. My concerns will be more along the lines of how this government treat such calculations in practice, we already know they cannot be trusted to do the right things at the right time. But so long as the vaccines do all we hope they will, we stand a better chance of not needing to worry too much about this, we should get to a stage where if even the government are somewhat slippery with these calculations, the consequences are at least less deadly, and less likely to require another full lockdown to correct later.
Witnessing the bun fight between pro and anti lockdown camps at the moment has me having to take action to avoid some people for my own sanity. Some of the anti lockdown end it now types are quite vehment and dismissive of any concerns raised.
Your post pretty sums up my feelings in the matter, I'm scared and cautious while not advocating full lockdown forever.
I'm probably going to spend tomorrow and tonight examining my mental health, I'm sure this year's not done it any good and I think what I and many people have is a siege mentality going on. Very careful, very scared and somewhat traumatised by the last year and isolation. Not to mention scarred by the inaction of the government and wilful fuckery of the press.
Best of luck. We don't fully share the same opinions, but I feel very much the same about the 'siege mentality'. It's really really difficult to approach a subject charitably when it's literally life or death.
This is just a horrendously difficult time for everyone, the media really have a lot to answer for. They've consistently been putting out articles that are almost carefully crafted to push buttons regardless of where you sit on the fence.
As I posted earlier, before I took some time out of work, I was really close to just exploding entirely. I feel a lot better now, and talking through things helps, but equally I can literally see a single word and just flip my shit.
Prior to this year I was zen to the point of borderline nihilism.
It's fucked. Hang in there. One way or another, the only way is through.
Right, masks in one place and not another make no sense. They either work or they don't. It's not like there's a special school variant of coronavirus.
I think the argument for kids wearing masks or not is more along the lines of whether it affects their education/socialization, rather than pure viral spread? I don't really have an opinion either way to be honest.
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
I don't understand that first statement at all:
“In situations when windows and doors are closed for a longer period of time a large reduction in the inhaled dose of particles containing virus RNA is achieved and therefore the risk of aerosol infection is likely to be lowered”
it seems to directly contradict the second
“In situations when windows and doors are closed for a longer period of time a large reduction in the inhaled dose of particles containing virus RNA is achieved and therefore the risk of aerosol infection is likely to be lowered”
it seems to directly contradict the second
MrSki
Who am I to say you're wrong
Well shut the fuck up then.
MrSki
Who am I to say you're wrong
I expect they meant when open. It is the only thing that makes sense.I don't understand that first statement at all:
“In situations when windows and doors are closed for a longer period of time a large reduction in the inhaled dose of particles containing virus RNA is achieved and therefore the risk of aerosol infection is likely to be lowered”
it seems to directly contradict the second
That rather depends how long they go on for, doesn't it?
I was responding to a previous poster who was talking about "the logical conclusion of anti-lockdown arguments" being "thousands dying at home with no care." Maybe if you literally did nothing at all to contain Covid, but that's not what most people who think lockdown should be ended soonish actually call for, is it? If you read my post I said that we all, surely want a middle ground. Maybe some posters here don't but most of us certainly do. We understand that some restrictions are needed, but we also understand that lockdowns do horrendous harm. To pretend otherwise is deeply disingenuous and it doesn't help either side of the argument to do so. Nor does saying that anyone who wants the lockdown to end is a murderer or wants to kill granny or any of that other rhetoric nonsense that floats around all too easily.
The other posters were talking about a theoretical world (hopefully) where the vaccines don't work- in that kind of scenario, which was what my post was responding to, then what I said absolutely IS the logical conclusion of a continued lockdown that never ends or goes on for year after year. Businesses cannot stay afloat with no income, people cannot remain solvent or feed their families with no income, public services cannot survive without tax revenue. Money does not grow on trees, regardless of what Rishi might want us to believe. The longer these restrictions go on for, the more damage they will do. That is not bullshit, that is a fact, like it or not.
Like I said, that was a theoretical world they were talking about. Nobody is saying we have to accept levels of death beyond those of the peak, because hopefully we'll never find ourselves in a situation like that with this pandemic thanks to workable vaccines. It's just a thought exercise for now. Let's hope it remains that way.
Last edited:
The uppers just carry on as normal- twas ever thus! Regardless of what economic and social system you operate under, that is one of the universal truisms of mankind. The common folk toil through the muck and the fancy pants types drink wine and smoke cigars. It's the case in capitalism, in communism, feudalism, absolute monarchies. See Kim Jong Un and his wife out at the opera the other day with no masks or distancing or any other measure, while the peasants labour in the fields. That's not a capitalist problem, it's a human one.
One of the different approaches that could have been taken was to close the borders early and then provide support for targeted industries like travel, aviation etc. Much cheaper, but obviously we missed the boat on that one. Having failed that, they still need to do the same thing because from the roadmap outline, there will be countless businesses that simply will not survive months more of closure with the current levels of support. The trouble with opening sectors up is that you get the usual arguments about "life is more important than business," "businesses can be rebuilt," etc. That's true, of course, but it also forgets that life IS business for thousands upon thousands of owners and proprietors. We're throwing them to the wolves to protect the NHS, which from a societal standpoint might well be the right thing to do, but that means nothing if you're one of the ones affected. Then there's all the petty restrictions. Stuff like opening pubs but not allowing beer sales (or allowing a substantial Scotch egg)- what's the point? It's idiocy. Might as well open the brothels but not allow sex, or open the shops but not allow anyone to buy anything. Pointless and just designed so they can say, "Sorry, you're allowed to open. Nothing we can do about it." If you're going to crush the economy and shut everything down for a year, you need to provide proper support for that entire year. If you're going to allow a business to open, you need to allow it to open properly and fully.
Similar threads
