Hancock's Half Hour

[Lons]

My mother is 65, in good health and not fat, my step father is 88, been fighting cancer for the last 30 years but otherwise in excellent health, not fat. They have both already been exposed to C19 on a foreign holiday earlier this year, we don't know if they caught it, tests were not available then. Lockdown has turned what should have been a minor operation for him into something much more serious that might cost him his arm.
A 97 year family member died in a care home in early march from suspected C19.

That enough for you?

Sorry to hear about the death of your family member, who's to say she wouldn't have lived to be well over a hundred and pleased your parents are ok but saying they're not fat and healthy just means that even though they reduced the risk they were lucky, not so lucky was a friend of our extended family who died very suddenly 2 weeks ago, cause was corvid 19 / seriously low oxygen blood levels, she was an extremely fit 62 year old with absolutely no underlying conditions. My 93 year old MiL is in a care home, definitely not fat :roll: but has asthma and other conditions, not her fault as she's never smoked and has lived a healthy life, remember IS NOT FAT but tested positive a few days ago, we can only hope it's a false result as she has no symptoms.

Your attitude and previous posts still stink!

 

[RogerS]

LOL...are you serious ? How do you know who the 2% are?

95% of deaths have co-morbidities. Not rocket science. Hardly beyond the abilities of our genius medical professionals, you would think.

Besides, my personal preference would be to leave it to the individual - make your own choice as to whether or not to self-isolate. Of course, this means all the wealthy hide, and the working poor drop like flies because they have no choice. Perhaps it should be mandatory, if you want to not overwhelm the services. Pretending to be acting in the best interests of the individuals concerned does seem to be a bit disingenuous, when it patently isn't the motivation.

Stringing a random selection of words together does not make a coherent post. You're back on lockdown !

 

[Lons]

However, only a very limited number of people (+/- 2% of the population) are at risk - for everyone else, it's all somewhat to completely irrelevant. Why not isolate just them?

So in the UK it's widely reported that from the start of the outbreak to current there appear to have been more than 60,000 excess deaths over what would be expected based on historical averages over a number of years and although it's also unlikely these were all corvid related there is little doubt among reasonable people that this figure would have been much higher had it not been for isolation.
That's not just a number TN it's lives that were lost, many far too early, lockdown should have come earlier and been more strict, the bulk of Joe Public are like sheep and as thick as pigsh*t.

 

[doctor Bob]

That's not just a number TN it's lives that were lost, many far too early, lockdown should have come earlier and been more strict, the bulk of Joe Public are like sheep and as thick as pigsh*t.

I take it you consider yourself superior to joe public (good for you), obviously the majority of us normal folk on the forum must count as joe public or at least some of us?

Mine you theres a lot on here which think they are a bit clever (the side effect seems to be anger and the need to start arguements).

 

[doctor Bob]

You're back on lockdown !

You sure your not Jacob, you used to question why he kept unlocking people.
Either keep him on ignore or stop banging on about locking him down.

 

[Lons]

I take it you consider yourself superior to joe public (good for you), obviously the majority of us normal folk on the forum must count as joe public or at least some of us? .

Far from it Bob and I think you know better than that as you've read some of my posts going a long way back.

I'm from a working class family, brought up in a council house and we had very little, father was a miner but with 9 kids had to work damn hard and I learned from that. Everything I ever achieved was off my own back and I've had some hard times as well as good ones including my own business, not so different from yourself I would think!

 

[doctor Bob]

I take it you consider yourself superior to joe public (good for you), obviously the majority of us normal folk on the forum must count as joe public or at least some of us? .

Far from it Bob and I think you know better than that as you've read some of my posts going a long way back.

I'm from a working class family, brought up in a council house and we had very little, father was a miner but with 9 kids had to work damn hard and I learned from that. Everything I ever achieved was off my own back and I've had some hard times as well as good ones including my own business, not so different from yourself I would think!

That's what I thought, I'm not trying to be clever. I just think it's a bit of a harsh statement. I think a small minority f**k it up for the many, rather than the bulk being thick. Plus the media like to over egg the numbers flouting the lockdown, false images etc.

 

[Rorschach]

That's what I thought, I'm not trying to be clever. I just think it's a bit of a harsh statement. I think a small minority f**k it up for the many, rather than the bulk being thick. Plus the media like to over egg the numbers flouting the lockdown, false images etc.

Absolutely bang on, the vast majority of people are good people, reasonably intelligent, kind, hard working and just want to live a comfortable life with happy friends and family. All we hear though are the vocal minority or the exceptions pointed out by the media in order to enrage us or manipulate us.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

Ok, so no one wants to go against the concept of compete lockdown, "for the public good". No problem.

Stringing a random selection of words together does not make a coherent post. You're back on lockdown

Perhaps (addressed mainly to those who can actually see this), you might care to have a go at my second question: what's going to happen over the next two years? I've put my money (quite literally) on a deflationary shock, followed by print-to-infinity government currency expansion madness. I think we are in for a ten year depression. I would love someone to explain why I am wrong, and that the world is going to be a better, happier place. Especially where countries remain locked up for the next two years or so.

Anyone?

 

[Chris152]

Perhaps (addressed mainly to those who can actually see this), you might care to have a go at my second question: what's going to happen over the next two years?

I guess it depends what the boffs in white coats can come up with? Deep recession or serious depression depending on whether they're successful or not?

 

[worn thumbs]

I think the official hints from the Bank of England are sufficient to tell us what might be ahead.Its also pretty clear that much of the retail world is built on pretty frothy foundations.We clearly need supermarkets,do we need vape shops and nail salons?Will we continue to flock to car showrooms for three year personal lease deals?I agree with TN that inflating our way through this is almost inevitable.

 

[Rorschach]

Ok, so no one wants to go against the concept of compete lockdown, "for the public good". No problem.

You have seen my posts right? That's one of things I have got the most flak for.

 

[Chris152]

I don't think anyone's suggesting we don't come out of lockdown, it's a question of how, when and with what resources in place?

'Prof Edmunds, from the London School of Tropical Hygiene and Medicine and a member of Sage, said the levels of the coronavirus were still "very high" and many scientists would rather the number of cases declined before measures were relaxed.
Sir Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust and a member of Sage, said on Twitter that Covid-19 is "spreading too fast to lift lockdown in England" and NHS test and trace "has to be fully working and infection rates have to be lower" [...]
The documents also showed only half of people isolate for seven days when they become sick.'
This morning - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52858392

Getting it wrong will lead to increased loss of life and more damage to the economy as we lock down again.

 

[Rorschach]

Do you think another lockdown would be accepted? I don't, especially as more and more people are starting to realise the damage it has caused for a rather debatable purpose. I think a second attempt at lockdown would be roundly ignored. The weather is perfect for rioting.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

I think a second full lockdown would be most unlikely to work.

The government will be withdrawing many of the key support schemes - eg: furlough, self employed. Others will cause major stress if not extended - mortgage holidays, bounce back loans, eviction bans, etc etc.

I do not believe they will want to (or could) afford to restart them. Schemes probably benefit well over 10m people - 8.4m are furloughed at the moment.

So if there is a second peak - possible as the lockdown has been relaxed before test track and trace is proven - they will rely upon the elderly and vulnerable to isolate themselves, and everyone else to take their chances. Some measures may be implemented as they have more limited economic impacts and and are easier - eg: reinforce distancing messages, close large events (sports, cinemas, theatres) etc.

As the health impacts are so skewed by age, the NHS may be able to cope with the spread of the virus amongst the mostly younger economically active anyway.

 

[Rorschach]

I agree Terry and personally I am in favour of large gatherings being cancelled for quite some time yet, things like football matches or concerts are way down the list in terms of essential activities either in terms of economics or social cohesion.

Regarding a second peak, I think this term is bandied around far too much with no context, same as second wave. Can't stand either of them. What defines a wave and what defines a peak? If we had 10 deaths a day every day for the next months and then one day we had 12 deaths that is a second peak and an increase of 20%, but it's totally meaningless. The previous peak was somewhere in the region of 1200 deaths per day (incidentally almost exactly the same as the daily death average for any given year), I think it impossible that we will see that many deaths per day again, so at what point do we qualify a second peak, any increase at all?
The regions are bound to get an increase in deaths now that lockdown is lifting, the epidemic was primarily focused on London, as one would expect, now it is going to spread out across the country a bit more evenly. Do we then shutdown again because of this second peak? In theory those areas never had a first peak/wave, the South West has seen only a handful of cases that can barely be described as a wave.
As an aside, the south west has the oldest population demographic (I am pretty certain of that anyway). If those elderly wish to protect themselves, as they probably should, then there is going to be an unofficial lockdown here for quite some time yet, at least for a large portion of the population.
There has been much made of getting people to stay away from the SW, who is promoting that message I wonder? Surely the people working in the tourism industries are the younger who have little to fear and should be encouraging tourism while the elderly protect themselves.

 

[Andy Kev.]

How about this for a scenario?

Lockdown ends but we maintain the use of face masks and distancing is maintained especially in restaurants, cafes etc. Subsequently wherever outbreaks start again, the smallest feasible area is subject to a renewed lockdown i.e. the disease is targeted locally. It would be a case of playing chase until a vaccine is developed but I can't see a sensible alternative.

And would it not be the case that if the disease kicked off nationally again, it could not gain such a hold precisely because by still using masks and keeping distance, it will be a bit harder for it to spread?

As TN implies above, we simply cannot afford to create an economic wasteland. At the same time we have to do what we can to contain the disease.

 

[Rorschach]

The problem with that Andy is that for some businesses social distancing is impossible if they want to continue to function.

My solution would be basically the same as I offered at the beginning of this almost 3 months ago.

Elderly and Vulnerable to shield at home (voluntarily of course).
Vulnerable who still work to be assessed by their GP and remain furloughed if not able to work from home.
Schools to re-open with mandatory sanitation before and after the school day, no items to be rough in from home or taken home such as books etc. All food to be in a disposable container.
No large gatherings, sports events, concerts etc.
Shops to maintain 1 metre social distancing where possible.
Workplaces to maintain social distancing where possible.
Work from home if you can.
Hospitals to re-open fully with wards set aside for C19 patients isolated from the rest of the building.

 

[RogerS]

You're back on lockdown !

You sure your not Jacob, you used to question why he kept unlocking people.
Either keep him on ignore or stop banging on about locking him down.

Whatever.

 

[Andy Kev.]

The problem with that Andy is that for some businesses social distancing is impossible if they want to continue to function.

My solution would be basically the same as I offered at the beginning of this almost 3 months ago.

Elderly and Vulnerable to shield at home (voluntarily of course).
Vulnerable who still work to be assessed by their GP and remain furloughed if not able to work from home.
Schools to re-open with mandatory sanitation before and after the school day, no items to be rough in from home or taken home such as books etc. All food to be in a disposable container.
No large gatherings, sports events, concerts etc.
Shops to maintain 1 metre social distancing where possible.
Workplaces to maintain social distancing where possible.
Work from home if you can.
Hospitals to re-open fully with wards set aside for C19 patients isolated from the rest of the building.

I can see the thinking behind what you propose but measures would need to be closely looked at.

For instance, there might be a danger of "filing and forgetting" the elderly, voluntarily isolated. Efforts would IMO have to be made at local level for activities, day trips etc. specifically aimed at them, as well as opening hours in shops reserved for them. One would have to remember that they wouldn't be just doing themselves a favour but also the whole of society.

Secondly, while I can't see any justification for full sized crowds at recreational events e.g. football matches, perhaps a sensible kind of spacing could be maintained there to the effect of stadiums being e.g. 20% full.

Thirdly, people who can be shown to have had the disease should be identified so that if e.g. firms want to send people to conferences/meetings etc. then they send those who have had it.