The strategy of favouring the old and the vulnerable will prove disastrous long term.

ITman88

FVP3 wrote: »

Yes there is no exist strategy. Were I to suggest one it would be that we try and flatten the curve now, by any means necessary, and once we get some control over that we need to allow non vulnerable, immune, and younger people back to work. This is similar to what Korea did, and to do it we need to ramp up testing to pretty much everybody. This does mean technology needs to improve.

I am fairly sure that any vaccine for this will be ready to go faster than the 18 months normally claimed. Thats for normal situations.

Yeah exactly, but I think we need to realise that regardless of our measures lots of older people will die in the next few months. Nothing will prevent that.

FVP3

ITman88 wrote: »

Yeah exactly, but I think we need to realise that regardless of our measures lots of older people will die in the next few months. Nothing will prevent that.

Actually Cocooning will prevent it, as annoying as it is to them. No birthdays, no meeting the grandchildren for a few weeks or months. Online shopping etc. It needs to be totally diligent.

FVP3

sea swimmer wrote: »

I read Mathew Paris' article a few days ago. The ultimate logic is that society cannot stop all work and reproduction indefinitly to preserve the frail elderly.
I lifted a box of photos while clearing a spare bedroom to sleep in and I thought... I have had a good life. Mid sixties and not frail but if I get left behind in the great Innuit seal hunt of life, aged maybe 80 yrs old, with a blanket in the snow, then.. so be it. Maybe, after 75 yrs I shall stop having a flu jab.
Hit me with your rhythm stick.

My mother said she didnt want to live to 75 when she was younger, but changed her mind when she was 74.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Xertz wrote: »

There’s no question of living life like this forever. It’s a temporary situation to try and cope with a major problem that we can’t cope with if it all comes at once.

We will have some scientific solution to this in the next few months. The entire planet’s R&D ability is focused on it right now and unlimited resources are being put into those efforts.

Also all the stops have been or are being pulled out.

We will get there and much more rapidly than in normal circumstances. Even some of the normal safety red tape is probably being cast aside. People are volunteering to try untested vaccines and all sorts of things that would normally be quite rare.

We’ll get there.

The idea that social distancing is a long term solution is not reasonable. That’s not what anyone has ever suggested. This is a stop gap. It’s sand bags against the dam until we can solve it.

At least this has happened in an era when we have a good understanding of microbiology, viruses, biotechnology and all of those things.

If this had happened even a few decades ago, we would have been in far worse circumstances.

True, but it wouldn't have been able to spread as fast without the amount of air travel being done at the moment.

Social distancing will be an on/off thing until a vaccine is passed and distributed. Or somethign else happens to stem the tide beforehand.

Personally, I'm more worried about the economy and the recession that'll follow this.

storker

ITman88 wrote: »

Exactly let’s bury our head in the sand. Eh

It's not burying one's head in the sand; it's prioritising.

Idbatterim

look, nodoby is going to die of hunger in this country over this. Mental health if it goes on and extended period, maybe. but we have inifite entertainment at our disposal. It would be great if even sport got going again, behind closed doors, to get some normality back, if we could see certain things return to normality, even if slow, it would keep things going...

golondrinas

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Lives > *

Mental health is just an industry now. People having to stay in for a while doesn’t constitute a real mental issue.

Yeah, over the hill footballers ,singers who can’t hack it any more.
You know who I mean, on the telly often. All experts now.

PyreOfHellfire

It's good to learn from this thread that anyone under 65 years old has a 0% fatality rate from coronavirus. Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go outside, stick a 20 quid note on the ground and bow down to it repeatedly while chanting "Economy health good, Human health bad"

ITman88

storker wrote: »

It's not burying one's head in the sand; it's prioritising.

And that priority is correct now.

It’s still also ok to discuss what happening families right now who have had a substantial drop in incomes and will for a number of months/years

TheCitizen

ITman88 wrote: »

The penny is dropping my good man.
It dropped months ago and I assure it will drop for you yet.
Just because someone doesn’t agree with your incredibly selfish and narrow minded view they ain’t blathering on.
Unfortunately some have to consider the economic effects, your lucky to be so privileged

:pac: penny not dropped yet obviously

TheCitizen

ITman88 wrote: »

And that priority is correct now.

It’s still also ok to discuss what happening families right now who have had a substantial drop in incomes and will for a number of months/years

Did anyone on here say anything different?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

splinter65 wrote: »

This is the real face of progressive left wing ideology AKA socialism. If we kill enough people who are surplus to requirements then we will have achieved equality throughout society.

You'd be the first to volunteer I suppose? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

i5kra

My 2 cents - nobody knows what the future holds. The economic shock here is worldwide. No country will be spared from the economic downturn. It is like the end of WW2 when you had countries and economies in ruins and millions of traumatised and bewildered survivors looking for basic food and shelter, let alone a job.

But the normal economic rules will no longer apply. In order to get a viable system going again all countries will have to come up with a way to get the world moving again.

But that is for the future. We are in the middle of a phony war at the moment with too much time on our hands to think.

Right now, the priority, the only priority is to save lives.

We have to do everything we can to stop people dying unnecessarily.

We'll figure out how to rebuild later.

LillySV

ITman88 wrote: »

Alternatively
A) Go out, go to work, feed your kids, pay your bills. Isolate when home and do not visit any elderly or vulnerable for 6 months
Don’t go to work, don’t visit any elderly for 6 months. Those elderly will be alive for an amount of time that can’t be predicted

That dichotomy is real for most working class I’m afraid

Loads of young and Middle Aged people getting this and suffering miserably and many dying a horrible death. Not just old ....

LillySV

trapp wrote: »

Even at our most basic to reproduce as a species, social distancing isn't an option.

I think some form of social distancing will be needed until a vaccine or treatment but the idea that people will just say housebound for an indefinite prolonged period of time is lunacy of the highest order.

The need for friendship and relationships will overcome the fear of death. It's the way it's always been and always will be.

That’s why China welded doors of apartment blocks shut... to stop dumb people who consider socializing more important than peoples lives ...

this could go on for two years...... having to socialize online and on the phone for up to two years seems a small ask in comparison to what could happen if we didn’t

ITman88

LillySV wrote: »

That’s why China welded doors of apartment blocks shut... to stop dumb people who consider socializing more important than peoples lives ...

this could go on for two years...... having to socialize online and on the phone for up to two years seems a small ask in comparison to what could happen if we didn’t

I can’t see that isolation would last 2 years. Only an opinion of mine of course

Xertz

ITman88 wrote: »

What’s the technical solution?

Yeah it can only be a stopgap

The technical solution is a working anti-viral and then a vaccine.

LillySV

ITman88 wrote: »

I can’t see that isolation would last 2 years. Only an opinion of mine of course

Don’t think so either but if we had to, and I had to cut back to essentials , food and water ... then I for one am willing to do that

CtevenSrowder

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

This is ludicrous.

NO AMOUNT OF SELF ISOLATION WILL PREVENT ANYONE GETTING THIS IF THE MAJORITY OF US GET IT ALL AT ONCE.

One million of us get it you think then self isolation will be possible?

Secondly ...WE ARE ALL going to get this at some point in our life time.

WE ARE DELAYING GETTING THIS. We are trying to stagger it out so we save the health service ...

Perhaps you don't know how small the health service is.

AND IF WE ALL GET IT AT ONCE ...ECONOMY BYE BYE ..ITS NOT THE FLU

LOADS OF CAPS LOCK. Why?

Regardless, I know we are delaying. And the isolation will likely last until about 3 weeks after our last confirmed case. I support the current measures. I believe they cannot go on for too long however (3 months imo) for a variety of reasons. The majority of people who get this will not be hospitalised, it's primarily those that are considered vunerable (underlying condition) that will. Hence, why the onus will eventually be on them to self isolate and the majority not too.

Blaze420

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

LOADS OF CAPS LOCK. Why?

Regardless, I know we are delaying. And the isolation will likely last until about 3 weeks after our last confirmed case. I support the current measures. I believe they cannot go on for too long however (3 months imo) for a variety of reasons. The majority of people who get this will not be hospitalised, it's primarily those that are considered vunerable (underlying condition) that will. Hence, why the onus will eventually be on them to self isolate and the majority not too.

What don’t you understand about this? You’re happy to lock your parents and elderly relatives away while you go on as normal? It’s the healthy majority that are the exact reason these measures are in place - so it can’t spread (whether you get mild or severe). Honestly I really wonder about people in this country sometimes, self absorbed assholes coming to the front now.

ITman88

Blaze420 wrote: »

What don’t you understand about this? You’re happy to lock your parents and elderly relatives away while you go on as normal? It’s the healthy majority that are the exact reason these measures are in place - so it can’t spread (whether you get mild or severe). Honestly I really wonder about people in this country sometimes, self absorbed assholes coming to the front now.

Does it not make sense to isolate the vulnerable?

Nothing self absorbed about that at all

Enter name here

I say round up anyone between the ages of 13 and 30, gas them all. One it will stop the spread much quicker as these stupid ****ers don't listen anyways. Two maybe society is better off without them and all their political correctness anyways. Lastly it would be good for society in general and the housing crisis and all the complaining daily these ****ers do.

Blaze420

ITman88 wrote: »

Does it not make sense to isolate the vulnerable?

Nothing self absorbed about that at all

No it doesn’t because the virus doesn’t give a **** about what age you are or what your status is - that’s the whole point. We’ll never defeat this if the “mild” victims go on as normal because just like you, the vulnerable can’t stay locked up forever and one of you will pass it on. Stop thinking just about yourself and look at the bigger picture

ITman88

Blaze420 wrote: »

No it doesn’t because the virus doesn’t give a **** about what age you are or what your status is - that’s the whole point. We’ll never defeat this if the “mild” victims go on as normal because just like you, the vulnerable can’t stay locked up forever and one of you will pass it on. Stop thinking just about yourself and look at the bigger picture

I’m not thinking about myself I’m looking at the bigger picture.

Take a look at what the doctor on AMA was saying, this is going to be around for years. Isolation of everyone won’t work for that length.

Stop being selfish and consider what maybe be
ahead for everyone not just your own agenda pal

CtevenSrowder

Blaze420 wrote: »

What don’t you understand about this? You’re happy to lock your parents and elderly relatives away while you go on as normal? It’s the healthy majority that are the exact reason these measures are in place - so it can’t spread (whether you get mild or severe). Honestly I really wonder about people in this country sometimes, self absorbed assholes coming to the front now.

Oh spare me the moral pontification. Yes, I think it's better that a minority have to self isolate then the majority. At least that way we won't completely ruin our economy beyond repair and have to deal with all the problems that brings.

If we end up having to self isolate for 2 years the current homeless crisis will seems like childs play to what it will become. You'll soon change tack. What about those people that rely on charity at the moment, both at home and abroad? What will these people do when the majority of that money dries up? You'll soon change tack and realise that those of us pointing out the potential long term impacts of long term self isolation are not self absorbed but engaging in the long term thinking that is consistently never applied, particularly in politics. I said in another thread that short term decisions have long term consequences. That is a mantra that should always be on a decision makers mind. The current plan is the right one, but can only go on for so long.

ITman88

LillySV wrote: »

Don’t think so either but if we had to, and I had to cut back to essentials , food and water ... then I for one am willing to do that

For how long will you live on food and water?

Blaze420

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Oh spare me the moral pontification. Yes, I think it's better that a minority have to self isolate then the majority. At least that way we won't completely ruin our economy beyond repair and have to deal with all the problems that brings.

If we end up having to self isolate for 2 years the current homeless crisis will seems like childs play to what it will become. You'll soon change tack. What about those people that rely on charity at the moment, both at home and abroad? What will these people do when the majority of that money dries up? You'll soon change tack and realise that those of us pointing out the potential long term impacts of long term self isolation are not self absorbed but engaging in the long term thinking that is consistently never applied, particularly in politics. I said in another thread that short term decisions have long term consequences. That is a mantra that should always be on a decision makers mind. The current plan is the right one, but can only go on for so long.

It’s not pontification at all, it’s called common ****ing sense. You isolate, allow a number to become infected and develop immunity - you bring things back to a semi normal level then repeat - isolate, infect, repeat. You haven’t a clue what you are talking about, nobody is getting locked down for “2 years” over this virus.

ITman88

ITman88 wrote: »

For how long will you live on food and water?

Couldn’t you live indefinitely?

growleaves

Couldn’t you live indefinitely?

Not if everyone was at it. Someone has to be out growing food and distributing it to cities.

growleaves

growleaves wrote: »

Not if everyone was at it. Someone has to be out growing food and distributing it to cities.

That wasn’t the question though.

Really they were asking how long could you live on no food and water.