Social distancing Megathread

Panthro

Threads distancing itself from the original topic.
(see what I did there)

SuperRabbit

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

This is what I've been saying since day one: it's prioritising one at-risk group at the expense of another at-risk group. Now that may be right or wrong, but that's what it is.

Depression, for example, is as much an "underlying health condition" as something like astmath or heart disease, in that it can be mild or chronic and result in death if untreated.

You realize depressed people can still die of covid-19, right?

And you realize there is a proven and undisputed link between stress and depression? You think maybe everyone staying home might relieve a bit of stress?

gormdubhgorm

Bob24 wrote: »

I think to have a productive discussion things would have to be more specific. I.e. what specific problem does one have with regards to confinement measures related to mental health and what would they do differently. Then we can judge the merits of the argument (and whether it strikes a balance between taking care of people with mental health issues and taking care of the overall interest of society as well as other at-risk groups). Keeping it high level and raising concerns with no proposed solutions is what I think gets people to throw the "pushing agenda" thing at each other, as it is just a theoretical discussion with no practical recommendations to have an opinion on.

Just my 2 cents anyway.

Any people with a developmental disorder like Asperger's for example - will be driven demented as many need routine.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

SuperRabbit wrote: »

You realize depressed people can still die of covid-19, right?

And you realize there is a proven and undisputed link between stress and depression? You think maybe everyone staying home might relieve a bit of stress?

Strawman arguement -I'm not talking abotu stress.

Bob24 wrote: »

Yeah but the question is what specifically should be done differently if someone is saying people with mental health conditions are too low on the priority list, what are the consequences on the rest of society, and does it strike the right balance?

I think just saying that a specific group should be better catered for without being specific on what needs to be changed doesn’t lead anywhere. As any change needs to be evaluated not only based on the good it does to that group but also on the potential bad it does to others - and that can only be evaluated based on specific recommendations.

So to be clear I am not saying nothing should be done; I am rather saying the only points worth discussion are specific ones so that their potential positive and negative effects can be considered (and if the positive outweighs the negative I am all for it).

This doesn't really counter anything I posted - I specifcially said that I didn't say the policy was right or wrong; I was just calling it what it is.

celticWario

Don't know what it's like where you all are but if anything this crisis seems to have made the situation with gangs of feral kids out late even worse, large group of kids from about 10 to 15 congregates on our avenue the past couple of days, I dunno if their parents can't grasp what is going on or simply don't care.

Bob24

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

This doesn't really counter anything I posted - I specifcially said that I didn't say the policy was right or wrong; I was just calling it what it is.

Yeah I don’t mean to counter anything - just saying all posts I have seen on the topic are rather pointless as no poster is going into the details of what they would do differently.

jmayo

celticWario wrote: »

Don't know what it's like where you all are but if anything this crisis seems to have made the situation with gangs of feral kids out late even worse, large group of kids from about 10 to 15 congregates on our avenue the past couple of days, I dunno if their parents can't grasp what is going on or simply don't care.

I'd say the latter.

Of course the parents of the usually feral kids have probably noticed that there is no Premier league soccer on the telly, the pubs have shut and there is shag all to bet on at the bookies.

BTW are some people seriously trying to use mental health as a reason not to have a lock down ???

FFS it's as bad as the poster earlier creating a thread about the effects of corona on the LGBT+++ community.

Personally I would think the effects are much the same as those experienced by the rest of the human race. :rolleyes:

Lavinia

Deleted User wrote: »

so I would imagine the spread of the virus is greater than reported.

exactly. its all in your head.


in the age of internet and social media it would be almost impossible to fake anything like that to that extent.


but sure we are free to believe whatever we like, who can forbid you.

SuperRabbit

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Strawman arguement -I'm not talking abotu stress.


.

Oh Christ....

Ok, number one, that's not what a strawman argument is.
Number two, if you are talking about depression you are talking about stress. Check out this free university mini-course on the relationship between stress, anxiety and depression: https://www.open.edu/openlearn/health-sports-psychology/health/understanding-depression-and-anxiety/content-section-0

People with diabetes and elderly people and people with cancer and people with compromised immune systems belong to every walk of life. They are the most vulnerable, but they are not the only ones dying. Plenty of people in their 30s with no underlying health conditions at all have died of this. I'm glad you care so much about depressed people but if we don't treat this as seriously as possible thousands upon thousands of people from every walk of life with every level of vulnerability will die. The high survival rate depends 20% of people being able to access the hospital with this, 20% of people need the hospital with this. 20%. 20% of something that spreads exponentially and something we will all get, guaranteed, if we don't take it extremely seriously. That includes depressed people and it includes people who were in Youghal in 1993 on a Tuesday and every other random group you think of apart from children.

Lavinia

Lavinia wrote: »

in the age of internet and social media it would be almost impossible to fake anything like that to that extent.

I live most of the time in China.. quite a lot of what happens there, never ends up in any kind of media.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

SuperRabbit wrote: »

Oh Christ....

Ok, number one, that's not what a strawman argument is.
Number two, if you are talking about depression you are talking about stress. Check out this free university mini-course on the relationship between stress, anxiety and depression: https://www.open.edu/openlearn/health-sports-psychology/health/understanding-depression-and-anxiety/content-section-0

People with diabetes and elderly people and people with cancer and people with compromised immune systems belong to every walk of life. They are the most vulnerable, but they are not the only ones dying. Plenty of people in their 30s with no underlying health conditions at all have died of this. I'm glad you care so much about depressed people but if we don't treat this as seriously as possible thousands upon thousands of people from every walk of life with every level of vulnerability will die. The high survival rate depends 20% of people being able to access the hospital with this, 20% of people need the hospital with this. 20%. 20% of something that spreads exponentially and something we will all get, guaranteed, if we don't take it extremely seriously. That includes depressed people and it includes people who were in Youghal in 1993 on a Tuesday and every other random group you think of apart from children.

It is a strawman argument.
My argument - Depression is a mental illess.
Your take - stress is a mental illness.

You are responding to an argument I never made.

Also, while we're talking logcial fallacies - coreelation =/= causation. Depression correaltes to but is not nessecarily casued by stress.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Perhaps leave the moderating to the moderators?

Firing off a few short posts that lead nowhere isn't derailing a thread.

Anyone is allowed comment when a couple of posters start to take over a thread to bat an argument back and forth that has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

That's not moderating. It's requesting a couple of posters to stop dragging a thread off the topic the rest of us are interested in discussing.

Start your own thread if there's something else you want to discuss instead of rudely hijacking a conversation other people are engaging in.

Whatever. Nothing to do with you.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Whatever. Nothing to do with you.

Yes it is. You're hijacking a thread so posters are allowed to comment.

Erin Prickly Fudge

Erin Prickly Fudge wrote: »

Yes it is. You're hijacking a thread so posters are allowed to comment.

Seems you're the one hijacking... you could just let this go. People post unrelated stuff all the time on threads... Although since we were talking about Russia's numbers of infected, and whether it was accurate... it was relevant..

And so, back to your moderating.If you're particularly bothered, notify a mod, and I'll bow to their superior wisdom.. not yours.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

celticWario wrote: »

Don't know what it's like where you all are but if anything this crisis seems to have made the situation with gangs of feral kids out late even worse, large group of kids from about 10 to 15 congregates on our avenue the past couple of days, I dunno if their parents can't grasp what is going on or simply don't care.

Reports of kids in some parts of Dublin deliberately spitting at older people. Some pretty sickening behaviour going on.

lainey_d_123

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Any people with a developmental disorder like Asperger's for example - will be driven demented as many need routine.

Yep, I have Asperger's myself (and related anxiety and depression) and it's awful. I got through life by having very strict routines which include a good amount of interaction and exercise.

I think it's true that some groups (underlying conditions/asthma etc.) are being prioritised above others, especially those with mental illnesses and developmental conditions. I'm not saying it isn't the right way to do it, but let's be honest here. I'm seeing a lot of shaming posts and posts implying that staying at home for a few weeks or months isn't a big deal, and anyone who can't hack it is spoiled and pampered. Staying at home for months is devastating for a lot of people, not only autistic people and those with depression, but also those living in bad home situations with violent or abusive relatives and/or those living in severely overcrowded conditions.

Imagine a teenager living in a house with abusive alcoholic parents, who could previously have escaped out to play football in the park or to do a hobby or just hang out with friends. Now they're trapped.

So many of the people I see here in London shaming others about not staying in are living in lovely houses with lovely partners, with a kitchen brimming with Ocado groceries and wine picked up from the local independent organic wine shop, nice back garden with a table for eating/drinking outside/exercising and a living room full of plants, books and board games. Who wouldn't be happy staying in if they had all that? They don't seem to understand that a lot of their fellow Londoners, and especially the ones with serious mental health problems, are stuck on the 15th floor of a tower block, no outside space, no room to exercise even if they wanted to and no space to stock up on food. Of course they need to get outside.

YFlyer

I noticed a number of Indian, Pakistan and African people in my general area are not social distancing themselves. Probably not listening and watching Irish and British news programs.

Limerick city near the university.

tom_tarbucket

tom_tarbucket wrote: »

I live in a cul de sac of 8 houses on a private road. For the last 3 years, I have always brought the children (2 x under 6) out the front to cycle, scoot, football etc. I.e. It’s not just a thing I am starting to do now in the last week or so. me and the kids being out there is a normal thing.

Most of the time it’s only us there and no issue. Only 2 other children play in the cul de sac sometimes.

Lately I am very careful when I go out. I check to see if any other children outside first. If yes, I stay inside. If not we venture out. If other children do come out, we go inside again. Or stay really far away. And if anyone happens to pass by etc we move away

Is this considered ok?

I am out for last few days and wonder if the neighbours are frowning on me being out.

any thoughts on this?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

tom_tarbucket wrote: »

any thoughts on this?

Be fine if you're obserivng the social distancing rules. What are they going to complain about? Especially if there's another family who do the same thing.

IAMAMORON

Erin Prickly Fudge wrote: »

Reports of kids in some parts of Dublin deliberately spitting at older people. Some pretty sickening behaviour going on.

Where ? Even if you could reference the "reports" it would be great.

IAMAMORON

tom_tarbucket wrote: »

any thoughts on this?

If other families are using the Cul De Sac then you are not adhering to social distancing guidelines. Your kids and their neighbours will be all over each other and you are basically waving the virus in front of your entire neighbourhood. If there are elderly people living in your Cul De Sac you are being reckless.

Your own kids should play in your back garden for the time being.

I respect that you are not bringing your kids out if anyone else is there, but you are also intimidating your neighbours insofar as you are indicating to them that the Cul De Sac is in bounds for your family only. It is disrespectful to the rest of your neighbourhood. What gives you the right to stretch your neighbourhood guidelines for your own families benefit?

Quin_Dub

tom_tarbucket wrote: »

any thoughts on this?

You are allowed out as a family group as long as you maintain the distances.. So you going out with your kids to an empty Cul de Sac and kicking a ball around for a bit is perfectly fine.

tom_tarbucket

Quin_Dub wrote: »

You are allowed out as a family group as long as you maintain the distances.. So you going out with your kids to an empty Cul de Sac and kicking a ball around for a bit is perfectly fine.

thanks, user IAMAMORON seems to differ

tom_tarbucket

IAMAMORON wrote: »

If other families are using the Cul De Sac then you are not adhering to social distancing guidelines. Your kids and their neighbours will be all over each other and you are basically waving the virus in front of your entire neighbourhood. If there are elderly people living in your Cul De Sac you are being reckless.

Your own kids should play in your back garden for the time being.

I respect that you are not bringing your kids out if anyone else is there, but you are also intimidating your neighbours insofar as you are indicating to them that the Cul De Sac is in bounds for your family only. It is disrespectful to the rest of your neighbourhood. What gives you the right to stretch your neighbourhood guidelines for your own families benefit?

but how would they be all over each other if I only go out if its free, if anybody else comes out, I go inside.

im not really going against any of the guidelines all the same.

Rikand

I'm currently the only person sitting in the staff canteen

Quin_Dub

IAMAMORON wrote: »

If other families are using the Cul De Sac then you are not adhering to social distancing guidelines. Your kids and their neighbours will be all over each other and you are basically waving the virus in front of your entire neighbourhood. If there are elderly people living in your Cul De Sac you are being reckless.

Your own kids should play in your back garden for the time being.

I respect that you are not bringing your kids out if anyone else is there, but you are also intimidating your neighbours insofar as you are indicating to them that the Cul De Sac is in bounds for your family only. It is disrespectful to the rest of your neighbourhood. What gives you the right to stretch your neighbourhood guidelines for your own families benefit?

tom_tarbucket wrote: »

thanks, user IAMAMORON seems to differ

It's an open space - It's there to be used...I don't know about where you live , you may not have a garden space big enough to be usable.

If you are concerned about the neighbours , then I'm sure you could pull together the contacts for the other houses - You might already have their numbers and the people you do have numbers for might have the ones you are missing.

Bang out a text , maybe you can set up roster for the various families to use the space individually if that's something that's needed..

All this stuff is about common sense and communication..

IAMAMORON

tom_tarbucket wrote: »

but how would they be all over each other if I only go out if its free, if anybody else comes out, I go inside.

im not really going against any of the guidelines all the same.

The kids will be looking out at their neighbours and will want to be playing with them as well. You are basically tormenting them. If you keep them to the back garden it will have less chance of crossing their mind.

If you are living in flats you have a different issue, but I am assuming from your initial post you are in a secluded Cul De Sac with limited access? As I said when your kids are out playing their pals will be staring out the window wanting to play as well. Nip it in the bud and in 4 weeks or so they can cut loose altogether, it is only a few weeks away and shows a healthy respect for your neighbours.

Don't make the mistake of compromising your neighbours wishes by texting them or ringing them. Just because you tell them you are doing something does not mean they are permitting you to do so. Think of how they feel about it before you ask, they should not be under any pressure to agree with you all things considered. Consideration being the operative word.

It is only a few weeks. Your kids need to learn boundaries as well, use this as an opportunity.

Rows Grower

IAMAMORON wrote: »

The kids will be looking out at their neighbours and will want to be playing with them as well. You are basically tormenting them. If you keep them to the back garden it will have less chance of crossing their mind.

If you are living in flats you have a different issue, but I am assuming from your initial post you are in a secluded Cul De Sac with limited access? As I said when your kids are out playing their pals will be staring out the window wanting to play as well. Nip it in the bud and in 4 weeks or so they can cut loose altogether, it is only a few weeks away and shows a healthy respect for your neighbours.

Don't make the mistake of compromising your neighbours wishes by texting them or ringing them. Just because you tell them you are doing something does not mean they are permitting you to do so. Think of how they feel about it before you ask, they should not be under any pressure to agree with you all things considered. Consideration being the operative word.

It is only a few weeks. Your kids need to learn boundaries as well, use this as an opportunity.

Talk about living up to a name, way to go.

tom_tarbucket

IAMAMORON wrote: »

The kids will be looking out at their neighbours and will want to be playing with them as well. You are basically tormenting them. If you keep them to the back garden it will have less chance of crossing their mind.

If you are living in flats you have a different issue, but I am assuming from your initial post you are in a secluded Cul De Sac with limited access? As I said when your kids are out playing their pals will be staring out the window wanting to play as well. Nip it in the bud and in 4 weeks or so they can cut loose altogether, it is only a few weeks away and shows a healthy respect for your neighbours.

Don't make the mistake of compromising your neighbours wishes by texting them or ringing them. Just because you tell them you are doing something does not mean they are permitting you to do so. Think of how they feel about it before you ask, they should not be under any pressure to agree with you all things considered. Consideration being the operative word.

It is only a few weeks. Your kids need to learn boundaries as well, use this as an opportunity.

i dont live in flats. quiet cul de sac. only 1 other family go out and play really.

as for your last paragraph - ah jaysus, too much emotions going on there with feelings and all this, im not coughing in peoples faces or anything. lets not get carried away.