May be my use of the word probable, in the mathematical sense that sets my post at odds, rather than the common vernacular use. Happy to agree to disagree though. Didn't post to start any confrontation, just to illustrate why groups are still not supposed to be together (I fully acknowledge individuals thoughts mind you). Thankfully, things are changing quickly, infections are reducing, and measures will be relaxed. We may find out more on the why's and when's on Monday.
Old duffers rebellion.
- Thread starter Rorschach
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
May be my use of the word probable, in the mathematical sense that sets my post at odds, rather than the common vernacular use. Happy to agree to disagree though. Didn't post to start any confrontation, just to illustrate why groups are still not supposed to be together (I fully acknowledge individuals thoughts mind you). Thankfully, things are changing quickly, infections are reducing, and measures will be relaxed. We may find out more on the why's and when's on Monday.
profchris
Established Member
It would be nice if, on Monday, the government explained what it was aiming at when relaxing/removing lockdown. There was an interesting discussion on Radio 4's Today programme this morning, two scientists taking opposing positions on when and how fast things could be relaxed. But they both made the point, and agreed emphatically with each other, that it's only possible to make sense of the scientific, economic etc advice if you have an end in view.
I think much of the heat in the debates I've seen here, and elsewhere, is that people have very different ideas about the end aim but don't say what their view is.
Current lockdown policy has one express aim, to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed. That seems to have succeeded, and we are probably close to the point where completely abandoning lockdown would not lead back to such an overwhelming.
But, what's the aim thereafter? Return to the previous "normal" with a focus on treatment for the large number of hospital cases which would continue? Complete eradication of the virus in the UK (with plans for dealing with the inevitable reintroduction)? Something in between?
If we're not told that expressly, and if society doesn't buy into that aim, then (a) it probably can't be achieved, and (b) we can't properly assess whether the government's plans are likely to achieve that aim.
I think much of the heat in the debates I've seen here, and elsewhere, is that people have very different ideas about the end aim but don't say what their view is.
Current lockdown policy has one express aim, to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed. That seems to have succeeded, and we are probably close to the point where completely abandoning lockdown would not lead back to such an overwhelming.
But, what's the aim thereafter? Return to the previous "normal" with a focus on treatment for the large number of hospital cases which would continue? Complete eradication of the virus in the UK (with plans for dealing with the inevitable reintroduction)? Something in between?
If we're not told that expressly, and if society doesn't buy into that aim, then (a) it probably can't be achieved, and (b) we can't properly assess whether the government's plans are likely to achieve that aim.
@profchris I think we are not told the aims for two reasons:
1. The government don't know which aim most people would accept as being the best choice.
2. If they give their aim and then fail they would face criticism from all sides.
Complete eradication is impossible for a disease that is worldwide, at least in the next say 5-10 years, so it would be foolish to go down this route, but it is politically appealing to have that aim but economically and socially very damaging.
Learning to live with the virus has social and economic benefits but is politically a bad move because it means the government must choose a number of deaths that they are willing to accept in order for normality to resume. Now of course they do this all the time, we accept many tens of thousands of flu deaths every winter with little more than a murmur but the government has made a rod for their own back by publishing daily death figures with no context given. You have large swathes of the public who see e.g. 200 deaths a day and think that sounds awful and must be stopped, not realising that 500 a day die of cancer, and another 500 of heart disease and so on.
1. The government don't know which aim most people would accept as being the best choice.
2. If they give their aim and then fail they would face criticism from all sides.
Complete eradication is impossible for a disease that is worldwide, at least in the next say 5-10 years, so it would be foolish to go down this route, but it is politically appealing to have that aim but economically and socially very damaging.
Learning to live with the virus has social and economic benefits but is politically a bad move because it means the government must choose a number of deaths that they are willing to accept in order for normality to resume. Now of course they do this all the time, we accept many tens of thousands of flu deaths every winter with little more than a murmur but the government has made a rod for their own back by publishing daily death figures with no context given. You have large swathes of the public who see e.g. 200 deaths a day and think that sounds awful and must be stopped, not realising that 500 a day die of cancer, and another 500 of heart disease and so on.
Capitalise English please
The concept of English capitalisation probably just needed a rest...
If you speak to the Scots, Welsh, Irish, Indians or Africans they'll tell you the English have been capitalising on things for centuries, that's gotta be hard work.
Cheshirechappie
Established Member
Just taking their turn, after the Normans, the Anglo-Saxons, the Romans and Lord knows who else had capitalised on them. Oh, and the Vikings - nearly forgot them!
I doubt there's a race or a tribe anywhere on the planet that hasn't both colonised and been colonised by others over the centuries.
However - this is a long way from the ending of Covid lockdown and older folks having some social time at last!
Cabinetman
Established Member
On the news the other night, the first people arrived in their quarantine hotel and one of the first things they said was that the Windows didn’t open, this got me thinking that this could be a recipe for disaster, as on the cruise ships one person has the virus and it spreads throughout via the air-conditioning/ ventilation system.
Or was it done deliberately like that to stop people escaping/having things handed in to them, or even to stop their bugs escaping outside the hotel through the open window. Either way I think I’d rather have a window that opened.
Or was it done deliberately like that to stop people escaping/having things handed in to them, or even to stop their bugs escaping outside the hotel through the open window. Either way I think I’d rather have a window that opened.
Ooof that would be a big problem for me. I love heating and air conditioning in a hotel but the first thing I do in the morning no matter the temperature outside is to open the window and get some fresh air. Not only to clear the stale air from the room but also to wake me up. I would not cope well with a room that didn't have an opening window.
None quite as thorough or enterprising as England has been though... Despite our lack of Roman organisation, Norman culture or Viking ferocity.
If you're just making lists on wax tablets, playing the lute, or roaring as your beard lofts majestically in the breeze all day, then you're bound to still have a bit of get up and go.
But if you're endlessly seeking the next way of best utilising any resource you can lay your hands on...
Eventually you're gonna need a break, which is exactly when @Droogs caught the nebulous concept of "English", having a nap and too tired to do any more capitalisation just then.
artie
Sawdust manufacturer.
You can't post stuff like that, the BBC mafia will be on to you, it goes against the narrative!
Deadeye
Established Member
Well, I survived several of your posts with a twitchy finger and kept it off the keys...but this one beat me.
Just think a little harder about "we cannot base our personal risk decisions on things that could happen".
See any problems in that line of argument?
Do you use a riving knife? Just curious and asking for a friend...
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
I think that comes with where we live, we're so used to wind. One of the reasons I dislike London is it's impossiblr to get fresh air there.
Yes, but kickback due to lack of a riving knife is a very real possibly, well documented and known to happen. As you will see I agree that mutations happen, but as yet we have no evidence that a "bad" mutation can happen, the only mutations we have seen so far are just easier to spread, no evidence they are more (or less) deadly at the moment. If we base our policy on the possibility of a bad mutation happening we might as well lockdown forever because every infection is a chance of a bad mutation and who knows, maybe a new virus will pop up, better lockdown, just in case. See my point?
I love London but I know what you mean, very little proper "fresh" air there.
Interesting that it shows how much Covid pushes those to death with pre-existing conditions that were otherwise alive, yeah! Also interesting in how many actually have pre-existing conditions that were otherwise benign. Interesting also for those that wish to show Covid isn't the big problem, that I (and many others, it seems) believe it is.
Oh dear.
Deadeye
Established Member
I guess you may not be familiar with how death is recorded or how serious viral infection works? Bilateral interstitial pneumonia is exactly and precisely the most common presentation of C19. It means that in both lungs the tissue becomes inflamed and fluid fills the spaces between the cells and floods the small air spaces.
So I would expect that an otherwise healthy person who succumbed to Covid to most commonly (>90%) have consequential pneumonia. The linked question asks for certificates only specifying C19. Those found are virtually certainly in error. They almost 100% should have found an associated condition, pneumonia.
The "story" (if there is one) in your link is not that C19 doesn't kill. It is that in a small percentage of cases doctors did not fully record the modality of the consequences of infection.
Those doctors made a mistake - and I'm 100% confident they'd admit it.
But they're probably pretty tired, having not had a break since the summer.
And they're probably a bit worn, having watched too many patients drown in their own fluids; some because other folk think they're above the guidance.
And they're probably a bit despairing, having to explain basic science to idiots that post nonsense on the internet to ?somehow, well, what? Why? Why do you guys insist on spouting crap in a way that, if the stakes were lower, you'd be embarassed to be so ignorant about?
And yes, I'm upset. The truth is actually very simple to understand. The virus is dangerous. No category is exempt. We may not be able to save you. You can help by getting vaccinated. Even when you are, you should follow the guidance.
And, please, stop posting **** you know nothing about on the internet.
Deadeye
Established Member
Look. I'm out. If you turn up in my A&E I'll try to help you. I'd be grateful in the meantime if you'd refrain from actively trying to make the very real problem worse.
Which you are.
Thanks for your contributions.
artie
Sawdust manufacturer.
I didn't see where it said any of that.
- Status
