sidcow Posted December 20, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted December 20, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, mjmooney said: I think there is still the problem that lots of people are currently not directly affected by the virus, and are therefore complacent. Back in March, TV news had regular sobering film clips of overcrowded ICUs and tearful, frazzled medics. And crying relatives of deceased victims. All quite sensationalist, perhaps, but quite effective. That all seems to have stopped. What we get instead are figures, bar charts and finger wagging. If you know no-one who's had it, it's easy to shrug it off and concentrate on the perceived unfairness and inconvenience of the tier system. I'd like to see local news bulletins (and social media) giving us a daily update of what's going on in our local hospitals. It's no good saying "The NHS is struggling to cope" - show us. Personally, I know it's grim as my neighbours are hospital doctors, but for many people, it's just some stats on the TV. And the talk of the vaccine seems to suggest it's all over bar the shouting. In fact, things are just as bad now as they were in the spring - maybe worse - but back then there was a palpable sense of dread. That seems to have disappeared. Maybe folks need to be scared again to get them to do the right thing(s). As ever MJM has hit the nail on the head. It has become a very sterile reporting format. Lots of facts, figures and graphs. They definitely need to get more under the skin. Behind the scenes of what is going on inside hospitals. And probably even more damaging than people not knowing someone who has got very ill with it is knowing a coupe of people who HAVE had it but not been very ill - that will be a much bigger demographic people will have had direct communication with. Many many people still seem to think of it as not a big problem anymore. They need some very savvy social media marketing types on this as well. Unfortunately people with those kind of talents seem to work for the dark side than for the good. Edited December 20, 2020 by sidcow 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted December 20, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted December 20, 2020 2 minutes ago, blandy said: The other explanation for that is ever changing, or over complex rules - people genuinely not knowing what is and isn't permitted. So they ask their friends or colleagues. There's never going to be absolute clarity, but the frequent U-turns, the contradictory advice and so on have led to mass confusion. No, not at all. I'm talking about people who are clear about the rules and are trying to find ways to circumvent them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkyvilla Posted December 20, 2020 Share Posted December 20, 2020 6 minutes ago, blandy said: Yes, it could. Like I said "there's no evidence available...any theory you like, really" - Yes your theory is plausible. What's needed is data to confirm or refute it - same as with all the notions and ideas. The reason, apart from the glaringly obvious one of better information leading to better diagnosis and then better actions - is that you could come up with a whole bunch of other, equally "logical" theories based around the same data set. Just for example taking the subset from 10 - 49 years old And comparing it to this one for older, but working age people We know that people over 50 are more likely to suffer more severely from the fungus, if they catch it - are they therefore taking more precautions at work and when shopping and travelling and so on? so is it a case that people are just protecting themselves (and others) better because they are more at risk and more likely to adhere to all the advice and regulations? - I mean that's "logical" too, isn't it? that the virus is pretty much everywhere, but some people take more care than others? I'm not saying that's my view - just that it's a plausible theory. Ultimately until or unless we can understand where and who from people (individuals) are catching the fungus, we can't fully understand where the risks are greater, where to lockdown, where to ease up and all the rest. If you (anyone) isolates as much as possible, masks up, maintains distancing then they are better protected. People mixing in close proximity, whether in schools, Uni halls of residence, workplaces, shops and hairdressers, or anywhere else are more likely to spread it or catch it. Schools is one of those, but obviously homes are another. "Logically" you could postulate that kids are catching it at home from their parents in the age group you mention - no one can prove that it's the other way round, and that's a (one) missing thing - the whole tracing thing - the "world beating" system we were promised, but which we have since found out to be ineffective and underwhelming. As you say it takes time to get enough data to make more certain judgments. If I have any sympathy for the government over the Christmas fiasco is the timing of discovering the new strain and how much more contagious it is. If it was just a case of the original strain(s) personally I reckon having the tier system relaxed for a few days over Christmas wasn't totally unreasonable. 5 days always sounded too much to me though. One thing I don't know about the new strain being more contagious, does it mean it will burn out quicker? The problem with covid has been is that it hides so well and is only fatal in a small number of cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 20, 2020 Moderator Share Posted December 20, 2020 Just now, sidcow said: No, not at all. I'm talking about people who are clear about the rules and are trying to find ways to circumvent them. There's that too, but that's where the contradictory comes in - like: "My sisters not allowed to visit me and I haven't seen her for ages" "If you employ her to be your cleaner, then she can come round" Perfectly legit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 20, 2020 Moderator Share Posted December 20, 2020 2 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said: As you say it takes time to get enough data to make more certain judgments. If I have any sympathy for the government over the Christmas fiasco is the timing of discovering the new strain and how much more contagious it is. If it was just a case of the original strain(s) personally I reckon having the tier system relaxed for a few days over Christmas wasn't totally unreasonable. 5 days always sounded too much to me though. One thing I don't know about the new strain being more contagious, does it mean it will burn out quicker? The problem with covid has been is that it hides so well and is only fatal in a small number of cases. They've known about this new strain since (apparently) September. And (I may be wrong, here, I can't keep up) there's speculation it is more contagious and/or more nasty and is/isn't protected against by the vaccine. Being extremely cynical about the Government, I suspect it's being used as a convenient cover for another of their **** ups. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted December 20, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted December 20, 2020 5 minutes ago, blandy said: There's that too, but that's where the contradictory comes in - like: "My sisters not allowed to visit me and I haven't seen her for ages" "If you employ her to be your cleaner, then she can come round" Perfectly legit. Exactly. But the fact is you are not supposed to be seeing your sister. That's the absolute intention and people know that. And that is there to protect you and her and the spread. But there is also a need to keep people in a job to stop the economy from being destroyed. We're already going to be paying for this for decades. There is going to be a lot of pain for the rest of my days and a lot of my kids days. Rather like we've been paying for the war over many decades. So just because there MAY be a way around it, doesn't mean you should. But (many) people are always doing so 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seat68 Posted December 20, 2020 Share Posted December 20, 2020 There is a difference between reason and excuse. People using excuses to see loved ones are part of the problem. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 20, 2020 Moderator Share Posted December 20, 2020 7 minutes ago, sidcow said: you are not supposed to be seeing your sister. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmygreaves Posted December 20, 2020 Share Posted December 20, 2020 (edited) 16 minutes ago, sidcow said: But the fact is you are not supposed to be seeing your sister. You're weren't supposed to drive from London to Durham during the first lockdown. Cummings did and there were a catalogue of comments from cabinet ministers and the PM saying he was justified to do so.... I wonder why others try to circumvent the rules? ..... It's because the "leadership" said it's ok. Edited December 20, 2020 by jimmygreaves 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 20, 2020 Moderator Share Posted December 20, 2020 6 minutes ago, Seat68 said: There is a difference between reason and excuse. People using excuses to see loved ones are part of the problem. Yeah. Dominic Cummins started that trend. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted December 20, 2020 Share Posted December 20, 2020 The exact same scenes as in Sweden. And as always the people who are there making those films are in fact also there being part of the problem so not sure what they are moaning about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted December 20, 2020 Share Posted December 20, 2020 28 minutes ago, sidcow said: No, not at all. I'm talking about people who are clear about the rules and are trying to find ways to circumvent them. These people trying to game the system and get around the rules, do you think they’d be more socially responsible if there were less rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 20, 2020 Share Posted December 20, 2020 10 minutes ago, Seat68 said: There is a difference between reason and excuse. There is but I think the relevance for this discussion isn't the point you are attempting to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted December 20, 2020 Share Posted December 20, 2020 39 minutes ago, sidcow said: They definitely need to get more under the skin. Behind the scenes of what is going on inside hospitals. I agree with the message but its hard to show the hospitals struggling when they are not (yet). Earlier in the year it was the scenes in Italy and Spain that terrified us into being compliant. Until we get to that point the NHS will probably look under control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seat68 Posted December 20, 2020 Share Posted December 20, 2020 5 minutes ago, snowychap said: There is but I think the relevance for this discussion isn't the point you are attempting to make. Yeah I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 20, 2020 Share Posted December 20, 2020 1 minute ago, Seat68 said: Yeah I am. Not sure that makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted December 20, 2020 Share Posted December 20, 2020 Re the new strain, is there any details about how it’s more transmissible? Is it a smaller particle and penetrating masks for example? Lives longer on surfaces? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted December 20, 2020 Share Posted December 20, 2020 2 minutes ago, Genie said: I agree with the message but its hard to show the hospitals struggling when they are not (yet). Earlier in the year it was the scenes in Italy and Spain that terrified us into being compliant. Until we get to that point the NHS will probably look under control. I think the fact that the average age of covid deaths in the UK is (or was in October) 82 years old. Which is higher than the average UK life expectancy of 81. People will look at that and just think 'it doesn't really affect me' without thinking that they could be the ones passing it on to the more vulnerable elderly population by their selfish actions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seat68 Posted December 20, 2020 Share Posted December 20, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, snowychap said: Not sure that makes sense. In all fairness I struggled with your question so answered in the affirmative. Let me check again. Yeah stand by it. You might be thinking I was responding to something you posted, thats working off the premise that I read posts bigger than a paragraph. I was responding in general. Edited December 20, 2020 by Seat68 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 20, 2020 Share Posted December 20, 2020 1 minute ago, Seat68 said: In all fairness I struggled with your question so answered in the affirmative. Let me check again. Yeah stand by it Ha ha. Fair enough. I'm trying to watch the NFL, eat, drink and get ready for the Villa game so it's quite possible that I didn't make any sense myself. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts