Are we better off getting it now and out of the way?

GreeBo

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'm not blaming the Chinese or wet markets for the outbreak, what I mean is that people will realise what goods and services are really important, and also what jobs are needed to sustain an economy. Our economy is too unbalanced towards consumerism, financial services etc. We need more locally made goods, and we will have to pay more for them.

When this is all over, hopefully that will be the mindset people find themselves in.

I'm blaming the wet markets since thats where this originated.
The Chinese government fecked up by effectively encouraging mass production of these esoteric animals,. Covid19 originates basically from the same mistakes as BSE.

The Food chain is complicated and has evolved over millions of years. We are trying to bypass that and suffering the consequences.

No better than the lads fiddling around with black holes in CERN.

threeball

briany wrote: »

The world won't, and cannot, stop relying on cheap Chinese goods overnight. Getting that new supply chain in place would obviously take time, but you'd have a serious job just convincing people to accept higher prices on goods, and getting employers to pay higher wages, and turning away from consumerism that makes people want many of these cheap goods in the first place.

I think what would be more likely to happen is that the Chinese government simply pays lip service to the idea of banning wet markets.

China is on the way out as the main supplier of cheap goods. They have started to transition towards higher quality products and wages are rising. Cheap goods are now moving to other countries such as Thailand, India and others but people as you say don't care where its from or how much damage it did on its journey as long as its cheap.

Realt Dearg Sec

GreeBo wrote: »

No better than the lads fiddling around with black holes in CERN.

And you were doing so well...

Jim Bob Scratcher

I know I do, youngish person speaking here, I understand vulnerable people wanting to shelter which is perfectly understandable in which everyone would agree. But does anyone else think we should just let it rip among our younger population to get out off this situation asap and return to normal ?

Jim_Hodge

No, I've heard too much from family working in hospitals about the serious repercussions of this on people of all ages.
Plus, how do you get it with no guarantee you don't pass it on to a healthcare worker or a vulnerable person?

KildareP

Jim Bob Scratcher wrote: »

I know I do, youngish person speaking here, I understand vulnerable people wanting to shelter which is perfectly understandable in which everyone would agree. But does anyone else think we should just let it rip among our younger population to get out off this situation asap and return to normal ?

No because there is no guarantee that getting it once means you will not get it again.

Jim Bob Scratcher

Jim_Hodge wrote: »

No, I've heard too much from family working in hospitals about the serious repercussions of this on people of all ages.
Plus, how do you get it with no guarantee you don't pass it on to a healthcare worker or a vulnerable person?

Obviously if I had symptoms I would gladly self isolate, like I'm sure many more would.

Jim Bob Scratcher

KildareP wrote: »

No because there is no guarantee that getting it once means you will not get it again.

Highly unlikely you will catch it again after being exposed to it.

Jim_Hodge

Jim Bob Scratcher wrote: »

Obviously if I had symptoms I would gladly self isolate, like I'm sure many more would.

And while you're spreading it before symptoms show?

Jim Bob Scratcher

Jim_Hodge wrote: »

And while you're spreading it before symptoms show?

So what's your solution ? keep everything locked down until the scary boogeyman is completely gone ?

CramCycle

Jim Bob Scratcher wrote: »

So what's your solution ? keep everything locked down until the scary boogeyman is completely gone ?

Its not a boogeyman though, it is a genuine threat to life, including the young. We don't need a full lockdown if people keep up social distancing, good hygiene and stop taking the mick. Regrettably, the last few days, and I hope I am wrong, would indicate a spike is coming in a fortnight as people go out in groups of 10, my local town looks like its mid summer at peak tourist season. You don't know what damage it will do to you (although being young it is probably unlikely to kill you). It is less likely to be fatal than those who are elderly or have inflammatory conditions, and less likely to put you in hospital. This said, the best way to phrase it was one I seen on a talk the other day. You have two choices, you can take a severe paycut or someone you know dies (far earlier than they should have, maybe weeks, years, or a lifetime too early) and you keep full pay. Regrettably, many have chosen the latter and may have taken the choice away from the rest of us, I hope Im wrong.

Del Griffith

I'd be first in line. I'm betting like 99.5% of people it would be either totally fine (nothing/mild) or just a bad dose that passes.

This current situation is ludicrous and can't be allowed to carry on.

Mods - any chance of a poll? If you could take Covid19 now and fully recover in 3 weeks (test negative) - would you do it if all restrictions were lifted, included social distancing
a - yes
b - no

?

Jim Bob Scratcher

CramCycle wrote: »

Its not a boogeyman though, it is a genuine threat to life, including the young. We don't need a full lockdown if people keep up social distancing, good hygiene and stop taking the mick. Regrettably, the last few days, and I hope I am wrong, would indicate a spike is coming in a fortnight as people go out in groups of 10, my local town looks like its mid summer at peak tourist season. You don't know what damage it will do to you (although being young it is probably unlikely to kill you). It is less likely to be fatal than those who are elderly or have inflammatory conditions, and less likely to put you in hospital. This said, the best way to phrase it was one I seen on a talk the other day. You have two choices, you can take a severe paycut or someone you know dies (far earlier than they should have, maybe weeks, years, or a lifetime too early) and you keep full pay. Regrettably, many have chosen the latter and may have taken the choice away from the rest of us, I hope Im wrong.

I'm sorry but we need to get on with it. The virus isn't going away anytime soon unfortunately, life must go on otherwise the fall out from this will be a lot worse for everybody, we've played our part, the general public, that is, time to get it under control in nursing homes/residential care homes.

Del Griffith

KildareP wrote: »

No because there is no guarantee that getting it once means you will not get it again.

There's also no guarantee I won't get a hit by a bus tomorrow.. better cocoon?

Jim_Hodge

Del Griffith wrote: »

I'd be first in line. I'm betting like 99.5% of people it would be either totally fine (nothing/mild) or just a bad dose that passes.

This current situation is ludicrous and can't be allowed to carry on.

Mods - any chance of a poll? If you could take Covid19 now and fully recover in 3 weeks (test negative) - would you do it if all restrictions were lifted, included social distancing
a - yes
b - no

?

So you just want the dose that leaves you better in only three weeks. What about the young people still finding it difficult to take a short walk 5 weeks after? Will you take a couple of weeks in ICU as part of the package?

Del Griffith

Jim_Hodge wrote: »

So you just want the dose that leaves you better in only three weeks. What about the young people still finding it difficult to take a short walk 5 weeks after? Will you take a couple of weeks in ICU as part of the package?

Why in the world would I end up in ICU from covid19?

Jim_Hodge

Del Griffith wrote: »

Why in the world would I end up in ICU from covid19?

You can't be guaranteed you won't. I have a daughter and a sister in law both working in two hospitals and they have had very ill covid19 patients in their 30s with no underlying illnesses. This virus affects many people differently. What make you so sure you'd sail through it.

Del Griffith

Jim_Hodge wrote: »

You can't be guaranteed you won't. I have a daughter and a sister in law both working in two hospitals and they have had very ill covid19 patients in their 30s with no underlying illnesses. This virus affects many people differently. What make you so sure you'd sail through it.

"Can't guarantee you won't" is the most ridiculous strategy imaginable, are you serious, as per a couple of posts above what if I get hit by a bus tomorrow, what if I get food poisoning, what if I get cancer, what if a shark attacks me in brittas bay or a polar bear bites me in the shopping centre?

None of these things are likely, but I can't guarantee that these things won't happen, should I just spend the rest of my life cocooned in my house, just in case?

nc6000

Here's an account of Coronavirus from a fit and healthy 33 year-old in New York. She still hasn't recovered fully a month later.

"I want Americans to understand that this virus is making otherwise young, healthy people very, very sick. I want them to know, this is no flu."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/14/opinion/coronavirus-young-people.html?smid=tw-share

Danno

KildareP wrote: »

No because there is no guarantee that getting it once means you will not get it again.

Debunked: https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-reinfections-were-false-positives.html

fehenry

RiseAbove4 wrote: »

As long as you’re under 55 with no major medical issues of course.

If we get it now it’s before the wheels fall off the HSE in a month in a system that wasn’t great to begin with. We’re 18 months away from a vaccine by which time I don’t even want to think about how high the numbers are.

Take the hit on it now and hope it builds immunity?

I’m not saying to go out of your way to get it of course. I just don’t think this is going away in a few months.

I was unlucky to contract the virus and spent a number of days in hospital as a result. On leaving, I was told by the consultant physician who discharged me that I could be confident that I was immune for at least two months but there wasn't enough research data yet to predict with any degree of certainty what my chances of continuing immunity would be after that period.

Danno

Jim_Hodge wrote: »

You can't be guaranteed you won't. I have a daughter and a sister in law both working in two hospitals and they have had very ill covid19 patients in their 30s with no underlying illnesses. This virus affects many people differently. What make you so sure you'd sail through it.

With no *known* underlying conditions. Up to 25% of people with diabetes are undiagnosed. https://www.diabetes.org/resources/statistics/statistics-about-diabetes

People with diabetes dying are vastly over represented in UK hospitals with one in four deaths attributed to sufferers: https://www.businessinsider.com/one-in-four-people-died-of-coronavirus-diabetes-nhs-2020-5?r=US&IR=T

Realt Dearg Sec

Del Griffith wrote: »

"Can't guarantee you won't" is the most ridiculous strategy imaginable, are you serious, as per a couple of posts above what if I get hit by a bus tomorrow, what if I get food poisoning, what if I get cancer, what if a shark attacks me in brittas bay or a polar bear bites me in the shopping centre?

Do you stop at pedestrian crossings? Maybe look up and down the road for oncoming buses, or do you just step out and hope for the best? Do you give the chicken a quick sniff when you take it out of the fridge? Maybe check the best before date? If there's a news article that there's a polar bear in the local shopping centre, do you maybe give it skip until they've got the polar bear problem under control?

plodder

nc6000 wrote: »

Here's an account of Coronavirus from a fit and healthy 33 year-old in New York. She still hasn't recovered fully a month later.

"I want Americans to understand that this virus is making otherwise young, healthy people very, very sick. I want them to know, this is no flu."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/14/opinion/coronavirus-young-people.html?smid=tw-share

This really needs to be driven by statistical evidence across large numbers of people, rather than individual anecdotes. The overwhelming evidence is that only a tiny percentage of young people are affected badly.

CramCycle

Jim Bob Scratcher wrote: »

I'm sorry but we need to get on with it. The virus isn't going away anytime soon unfortunately, life must go on otherwise the fall out from this will be a lot worse for everybody, we've played our part, the general public, that is, time to get it under control in nursing homes/residential care homes.

And that's your opinion. There are ways to get on with it without ****ing it up for people but the thing is, I don't think some people want to put in that level of effort. Letting it run through the population is not one of those ways. I know my view on it, I'll do what I can to minimise risks to those around me. I'll take the pay cuts, I won't actively aid the premature deaths of others. That's my choice, others can make their own. Don't get me wrong, I think there have been horrendous mistakes made at government level, the nursing homes were obvious to everyone in the traceback call centres two weeks before they were announced.

Whether I like it or not though, you will get your wish based on the lack of social distancing going on and the gangs of people out together over the last few days

Del Griffith

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Do you stop at pedestrian crossings? Maybe look up and down the road for oncoming buses, or do you just step out and hope for the best? Do you give the chicken a quick sniff when you take it out of the fridge? Maybe check the best before date? If there's a news article that there's a polar bear in the local shopping centre, do you maybe give it skip until they've got the polar bear problem under control?

Yea, these are all instances of measuring risk. We take calculated risks every day (well most of us do, some in this forum would rather hide under their mattress for the next 10 years).

Covid doesn't even have an IFR of 0.5% .
Those left with chronic problems is a tiny %.

Immunity will be thankfully building in the population, despite the curtain twitchers.

Everything we know about Covid19 indicates it is extremely low risk for 99.5% of the population.

Time to go outside.

KildareP

Del Griffith wrote: »

There's also no guarantee I won't get a hit by a bus tomorrow.. better cocoon?

I don't blindly walk out on the road.
I don't go dancing in the streets.
I don't drive while drunk.
I don't hop off the bus while in motion.

I can't go out and spot Covid-19 lurking about to avoid that though.

KildareP

Danno wrote: »

Debunked: https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-reinfections-were-false-positives.html

No-one knows enough about Covid-19 to debunk anything at this stage.

KildareP

Del Griffith wrote: »

Yea, these are all instances of measuring risk. We take calculated risks every day (well most of us do, some in this forum would rather hide under their mattress for the next 10 years).

Covid doesn't even have an IFR of 0.5% .
Those left with chronic problems is a tiny %.

Immunity will be thankfully building in the population, despite the curtain twitchers.

Everything we know about Covid19 indicates it is extremely low risk for 99.5% of the population.

Time to go outside.

Off you go.

Would you sign a declaration that someone with a more genuine need for ICU care that comes about through no fault of their own gets ahead of you though?

Del Griffith

plodder wrote: »

This really needs to be driven by statistical evidence across large numbers of people, rather than individual anecdotes. The overwhelming evidence is that only a tiny percentage of young people are affected badly.

For under 65's it's 0.06%.

Statistically if you're under 65 you are more likely to die in a car crash.