SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)

groovyalbert said:
So Tier 5 would include schools? You can't close schools in some areas and not others then demand all year 11s sit exams in the summer, for instance.
Click to expand...
Some stupid shit man. Just do it or don't. That's it. Just make your damn mind up and open up the fecking world or shut it ALL down. We poor twats will suffer for a bit and our poor elders will die and whoever makes it, makes it, but let's just do this shit properly and torture us once rather than doing silly fecking tiers and continous lockdowns.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
My issue with the holiday makers is about exactly what happened. Taking a new variant/strain to an area of the world it wouldn’t have reached otherwise. Without these tourists it’s possible the “UK variant” could have been confined to the Uk. Now it could potentially become the dominant strain all over Europe/the world. And all because people thought it was a good idea to take a holiday during a pandemic. Which doesn’t make sense to me at all.

I agree with you that we can’t live like complete hermits or we’ll go mad. Some travel and socialising is essential to keep us sane. But this should really all be done locally.

Obviously we’re all doing our best in a truly shit situation and none of us is perfect but I can’t get my head around unnecessary travel to another country in the current circumstances.
Click to expand...

It is possible, but probably quite unlikely. This new strain was brought to Australia by someone who wasn't a UK holidaymaker. The thousands of truckers stranded on Dover is another reminder of the interconnectedness of our economies and the inevitable risks that arise from the way we've structured our economies and societies. I would be absolutely shocked if we don't find out that the virus has been exported to Europe through people directly involved in this complex distribution network, long before we knew it existed. There are many paths for the virus beyond holidaymakers.

The WHO have had a long-held policy that even during a pandemic, closing borders is not a good solution. We should be cutting back on all unnecessary human contact and travel isn't put in a special box by many of the experts, largely because of the logistics of a global economy. It is absolutely impossible for us to function without that currently, and unfortunately that means cases will be exported. So they focus more on that track, trace and isolate program because their evidence suggests it is just more effective with the way the world works.

To me, taking more risks locally is not better than taking fewer risks internationally. Most people take more risks than me locally. I don't judge them for that nor do I reject their judgment of me. The risks are different and judging the net impact of them is difficult, so I understand why there's fundamentally different views on it.

The new variant is a different situation. Now that we know it exists and we have good reason to believe it poses additional threats, you can't say your being in the UK and your being in Switzerland brings with it an equal degree of risk to society. You are imposing additional risks on another society knowingly. Especially when you're doing something that brings significant risks already, like the ski resorts. I think that's dangerous and we should have laws preventing that. Various countries in Europe taking the decision to close their borders makes sense to me.

The reality is these countries are still playing their own balancing act. Austria said no tourists, Switzerland said you're welcome to come tourists. I think we should hold the individuals responsible for making that choice, but we should understand why they were allowed to make that choice. Presumably some Swiss small business owners were going to go bust if they missed out on this Winter. Tourism does play a huge role in livelihoods in modern society, and many tourism-reliant communities have absolutely no alternative for income, which is why almost all countries have struggled with finding that balance. If there was a viable suppression or eradication strategy the equation would be different, but European countries have never provided that. The balancing act is very complicated in mitigation because it's just bad choices on both sides.
 
My wife got her first dose of the vaccine today. Can’t tell you how proud I am of her and what she’s done this year. Hopefully this will keep her safe.
 
Wibble said:
It could just be a function of so many younger people getting infected.
Click to expand...
Hernandez - BFA said:
I think the rise is a combination of people not giving a shit anymore
Click to expand...
Basically what my wife said as well. I was just wondering what y’all thought too. She’s thinking the older population has been convinced it’s serious but a generation younger and the like are hard headed.
 
Relevated said:
Some stupid shit man. Just do it or don't. That's it. Just make your damn mind up and open up the fecking world or shut it ALL down. We poor twats will suffer for a bit and our poor elders will die and whoever makes it, makes it, but let's just do this shit properly and torture us once rather than doing silly fecking tiers and continous lockdowns.
Click to expand...

What are you saying? To lockdown or not?
 
Berbaclass said:
Wow :eek:

Click to expand...


I really do have a problem with that 71,000+ figure. We all know that it only includes those who have had a positive result and have died within 28 days.
But. And a very very big but is the fact that back in the autumn when supplies of tests, the advice of the government was not to even phone 111 and just self isolate. That must have accounted for many thousands.
And those who died from other causes and complications because the NHS was not able to treat them.
The true figure could be in excess of 100,000. But we will never find that out because it suits them to quote the smallest number possible.
 
3 South Korean's, 1 French and 1 Finnish persons have brought the new strain back to their home countries after visiting the UK. Probably many more have slipped through.

South Africa have their own more contagious strain, they can appear anywhere at anytime which is why people should be really limiting travel to absolutely essential. If we start excusing everything for one's well being there is no lockdown to speak of. You don't know what problems you'll get upon returning home, you could be careful as can be but fall ill unrelated to covid and could infect a whole hospital with a new strain brought back from London or wherever.
 
Brwned said:
It depends what you define as a holiday but I was one of the c. 5m that flew through Heathrow's airport in Q3.

The transportation can easily be defined as an unnecessary risk, but everything still points to it being relatively low risk. There have been disproportionately few incidents on planes and airports are still at such a low capacity that social distancing just isn't difficult, while mask-wearing is well-enforced. After that point, I took fewer risks than the average person in the UK on an average day, I believe.

Much more time spent outdoors in wide open spaces with a much sparser population and lower levels of community infection. If you go to a supermarket in the UK you will come across many more people, and spend longer there. That's just how the society and environment is structured. Indoors is a safe haven from the cold in these times and lots of people like to linger around these expansive indoor areas. And for most of the time I was away, I was more likely to get infected in a supermarket at home. And I was more likely to spread that to my family at home, rather than containing it to just myself in my apartment abroad. I was really uncomfortable with the idea of living in a multi-generational household and spreading it to someone at much more risk than me.

The question really hinges on what kind of lifestyle you believe the average person in the UK has lived during the pandemic. Have people avoided taking all unnecessary risks, all the time? Some in this thread have, but many of those who have chosen to live like hermits also face much more severe personal risks. I would imagine they're the minority in this thread and in the society.

There are very few people I know of all age ranges that have avoided seeing their friends and family all the time. Most of them did it in controlled scenarios, and when they didn't they tried to minimise risks, and overall they cut back massively. But the reality is they did it sometimes, and that infrequent household mixing is riskier than anything about my "holiday". Are some unnecessary risks involved in taking kids to play sports? A lot of people would say yes. How many people went out to indoor restaurants? Even just in that period of eat out to help out, 160m meals suggests a good chunk of society went at least once, and many went multiple times. How many people have went to their local to "support the local economy"? I decided to skip out on those unnecessary risks, to go for months without seeing friends and family, in exchange for some other unnecessary risks. If I was home I would have seen my friends and family. Not all the time, but enough to create additional risks. That's just the reality.

I don't think it is necessary for individuals to choose to live like hermits during a pandemic. I think it's ok that people take their kids to play sports, take their wife to a restaurant, or meet a friend at a distance on the golf course. You can clearly argue they are not necessary, and they come with some degree of risk that's difficult to determine. They do provide something valuable though, it is important to take care of the mental health of yourself and your immediate family. For some people, the fear of covid is so great that doing any of these things is so anxiety-inducing that they are taking care of their mental health by not exposing themselves to that risk. For others, the cabin fever is so great that they need some outlet to prevent some severe consequences.

It doesn't bother me at all that people judge my actions harshly. Personally I think if people applied those same set of standards - with objective data, not subjective judgments - to all of their actions, they would have some difficulty squaring up their beliefs and their actions. Judgment has its role in society but there is a good reason why we suspend judgment in many scenarios.

I would say the ski resort case was a special case. They were going into a situation that was IMO unnecessarily high risk, and they were obliged to follow the rules to manage the risks as they grew. They chose not to. To me that's reckless and dangerous and it should come with some kind of punishment. The rules I was obliged to follow was a period of extended self-isolation that was personally quite challenging. But that's the trade-off I agreed to from the outset. Choosing to take your cake and eat it is both selfish and stupid.
Click to expand...

Your contributions to this thread are consistently impressive and this one is incredibly nuanced and well-put. Bravo.
 
Vidyoyo said:
Your contributions to this thread are consistently impressive and this one is incredibly nuanced and well-put. Bravo.
Click to expand...
Sure it's nuanced but it simply amounts to a nuanced defense of unnecessary travel during a pandemic. If someone less articulate said they were off on holiday they'd be crucified by some in here.
 
Those idiots going to ski resorts to help spread the new variant around the world and then running away to escape quarantine and then having the gall to demand their money back from hotel .... disgusting. You really couldn't make this shit up.
It's especially bad when it is already well known that ski resorts are known super spreader venues.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-helped-speed-up-spread-of-covid-19-in-europe

An independent commission has found that Austrian national and local authorities made “momentous miscalculations” by first hesitating and then rushing to evacuate an Alpine ski resort that has been described as the “ground zero” of the coronavirus first wave in Europe.

Ischgl, a town of 1,600 inhabitants in the Tirolean Paznaun valley and one of Europe’s premium skiing destinations, has been in the spotlight since the middle of March, after thousands of tourists, including at least 180 Britons, caught the virus there during the spring holidays and carried it back to their home countries.
Click to expand...

Buster15 said:
I really do have a problem with that 71,000+ figure. We all know that it only includes those who have had a positive result and have died within 28 days.
But. And a very very big but is the fact that back in the autumn when supplies of tests, the advice of the government was not to even phone 111 and just self isolate. That must have accounted for many thousands.
And those who died from other causes and complications because the NHS was not able to treat them.
The true figure could be in excess of 100,000. But we will never find that out because it suits them to quote the smallest number possible.
Click to expand...
Excess deaths in the UK already exceeded 70K in mid nov.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54976362
_115529582_deaths_three_ways_17nov-nc.png



For England and Wales alone, data shows excess deaths until 4 Dec is 71K.
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/press/press-releases/excess-deaths-ons-data-kings-fund-response

With more than 71,000 excess deaths in England and Wales since the Covid-19 pandemic began, the death statistics for this year are truly sobering. If current trends continue, the total excess death toll for 2020 could exceed 80,000, very likely leading to a significant fall in life expectancy in 2020.
Click to expand...

So you are probably right, they are under counting it, which is consistent with the rest of the world.
 
Last edited:
lynchie said:
Good news is she'll likely have some protection after a week or so. Need the booster for the longer term immunity.
Click to expand...
Yep. Fingers crossed. I just want her to have some peace of mind. I know it’ll have to be a massive weight off her shoulders because I almost caught some dust in my eye this morning when she sent me the pic of her about to get the injection.
 
Carolina Red said:
Yep. Fingers crossed. I just want her to have some peace of mind. I know it’ll have to be a massive weight off her shoulders because I almost caught some dust in my eye this morning when she sent me the pic of her about to get the injection.
Click to expand...
I'm so glad for you both. I know it's been a massive worry for you.x
 
tombombadil said:
Those idiots going to ski resorts to help spread the new variant around the world and then running away to escape quarantine and then having the gall to demand their money back from hotel .... disgusting. You really couldn't make this shit up.
It's especially bad when it is already well known that ski resorts are known super spreader venues.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-helped-speed-up-spread-of-covid-19-in-europe




Excess deaths in the UK already exceeded 70K in mid nov.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54976362
_115529582_deaths_three_ways_17nov-nc.png



For England and Wales alone, data shows excess deaths until 4 Dec is 71K.
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/press/press-releases/excess-deaths-ons-data-kings-fund-response



So you are probably right, they are under counting it, which is consistent with the rest of the world.
Click to expand...
No chance you can say excess deaths and use that. The figure won't be the same each year, so that's not a good stat. Its fear mongering.
 
neverdie said:
Sure it's nuanced but it simply amounts to a nuanced defense of unnecessary travel during a pandemic. If someone less articulate said they were off on holiday they'd be crucified by some in here.
Click to expand...

Agree with you there generally. Like I said I don't expect people to agree with my view, but the question was asked so I thought I'd share an alternative perspective. Essentially, I think almost everyone has travelled unnecessarily during the pandemic, and the distinction between going across the city and going across the continent is relatively small. It's worse, but if it's compensated by "safer" behaviour on the other side, it is a defensible choice. Taking unnecessary risks that contribute to spreading the virus to another part of the city is generally accepted, even though that's the main driver of community spread. It's not the odd house party, crowded pubs, busy restaurants, it's just meeting friends and family even in controlled circumstances.

Most people in this thread said the person they knew got covid despite being very conscientious, very safe, because it's those inconsequential moments that build up to allow the spread to happen. I chose to drop out of that. But rather than become a hermit - which I think is the morally righteous thing to do, but a very dangerous choice to make personally - I chose to take different risks, with the broad goal of creating the best conditions to live healthily and safely for a sustainable period. This new strain raises extra questions but the reality is this new strain could only spread from the South East to every other part of the UK because people were involved in unnecessary travel, and drawing a distinction between this piece of land or that one seems a little contrived.

So I think the people who have chosen to live like a hermit can afford themselves the moral superiority to say "this is the way to live", but for people who have decided that some level of "unnecessary risks" is justifiable, it seems a little disingenuous to point the finger at this one choice. And it is worth clarifying that I didn't go on holiday, as per the normal description. I was working from another country. I was originally working in London but the office closed, and there was no point paying London rent to work from a smaller London apartment, so I went to work somewhere else where I was less likely to run into an infected person on the street, less likely to spend time indoors during the winter, and less likely to see friends and family. It may have been the wrong choice but it wasn't a frivolous one, as per the usual characterisation. Whether those nuances matter are up to you really.
 
Last edited:
Carolina Red said:
Basically what my wife said as well. I was just wondering what y’all thought too. She’s thinking the older population has been convinced it’s serious but a generation younger and the like are hard headed.
Click to expand...
Young girl on the news a day or two ago wasnt wearing a mask out shopping, the reporter asked if was concerned about catching covid.

'Not really, I'm young so it won't really affect me'

How i hope she gets it and suffers badly.
 
Stanley Road said:
Young girl on the news a day or two ago wasnt wearing a mask out shopping, the reporter asked if was concerned about catching covid.

'Not really, I'm young so it won't really affect me'

How i hope she gets it and suffers badly.
Click to expand...
I hope you get it and suffer badly too.
 
Brwned said:
Agree with you there generally. Like I said I don't expect people to agree with my view, but the question was asked so I thought I'd share an alternative perspective. Essentially, I think almost everyone has travelled unnecessarily during the pandemic, and the distinction between going across the city and going across the continent is relatively small. It's worse, but if it's compensated by "safer" behaviour on the other side, it is a defensible choice. Taking unnecessary risks that contribute to spreading the virus to another part of the city is generally accepted, even though that's the main driver of community spread. It's not the odd house party, crowded pubs, busy restaurants, it's just meeting friends and family even in controlled circumstances.

Most people in this thread said the person they knew got covid despite being very conscientious, very safe, because it's those inconsequential moments that build up to allow the spread to happen. I chose to drop out of that. But rather than become a hermit - which I think is the morally righteous thing to do, but a very dangerous choice to make personally - I chose to take different risks, with the broad goal of creating the best conditions to live healthily and safely for a sustainable period. This new strain raises extra questions but the reality is this new strain could only spread from the South East to every other part of the UK because people were involved in unnecessary travel, and drawing a distinction between this piece of land or that one seems a little contrived.

So I think the people who have chosen to live like a hermit can afford themselves the moral superiority to say "this is the way to live", but for people who have decided that some level of "unnecessary risks" is justifiable, it seems a little disingenuous to point the finger at this one choice. And it is worth clarifying that I didn't go on holiday, as per the normal description. I was working from another country. I was originally working in London but the office closed, and there was no point paying London rent to work from a smaller London apartment, so I went to work somewhere else where I was less likely to run into an infected person on the street, less likely to spend time indoors during the winter, and less likely to see friends and family. It may have been the wrong choice but it wasn't a frivolous one, as per the usual characterisation. Whether those nuances matter are up to you really.
Click to expand...
Depends where you’re going on vacation. I’d imagine packed ski resorts (certainly judging by some of the pictures we’ve seen) are a bigger risk than socially distanced on a beach. I really can’t defend the ski resort types
 
golden_blunder said:
Depends where you’re going on vacation. I’d imagine packed ski resorts (certainly judging by some of the pictures we’ve seen) are a bigger risk than socially distanced on a beach. I really can’t defend the ski resort types
Click to expand...

100%. A ski trip really puzzles me but opening the ski resorts also really puzzles me. What were they thinking? We know what happened just 9 months ago and we know how they operate...how could that ever be an ok thing to do? The thing about the ski trips last year was that people left in a mad scramble last time and those clusters exploded. It's absolutely mad to me that exactly the same thing happened this time, and it was exclusively UK folks. The only distinction so far is that we know there were some cases in the Austrian slopes last time, this time we just have to hope that we got lucky with the Swiss slopes. Otherwise it could be carnage. And if that happens, they should be held accountable in a serious way IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.