Are you adhering to the Households rule?

AdamD

frozenfrozen wrote: »

we only have extra strong restrictions because people weren't respecting the earlier levels.


people aren't being called gemma o doherty for questioning, they're being called selfish.

If everyone followed the rules perfectly it would be over by now

The biggest myth being peddled of course. If everyone followed the rules people would still get infected and this still wouldn't be over.

VonLuck

AdamD wrote: »

The biggest myth being peddled of course. If everyone followed the rules people would still get infected and this still wouldn't be over.

You wouldn't eliminate it entirely, but you would severely reduce the number of infections.

frozenfrozen

AdamD wrote: »

The biggest myth being peddled of course. If everyone followed the rules people would still get infected and this still wouldn't be over.

If everyone followed all guidance the transmission rate would be so low we wouldn't have to have anything like the current restrictions.

How's that version? If you want to be a pedant

bladespin

VonLuck wrote: »

It certainly can affect you. If you or a loved one have a serious accident and need to be admitted to ICU I think you'd be very concerned about it being over capacity due to Covid patients.

They're nowhere near capacity though, have never been, that's also an incredibly big 'if'.

frozenfrozen

they were at capacity 2 years ago when I was in icu after a bike crash... had to be moved out early and there were 3 people who needed the 1 bed I was leaving

freshpopcorn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But at least we didn’t spread Covid to them... Right?

Now this is not always the case and I didn’t want to quote your whole post.
Some people are delighted with having an excuse not to visit their relatives. They’d much rather be at home watching TV.

robbiezero

VonLuck wrote: »

You wouldn't eliminate it entirely, but you would severely reduce the number of infections.

And then we would open up again and cases would go up.

Its a cycle.

frozenfrozen

frozenfrozen wrote: »

we only have extra strong restrictions because people weren't respecting the earlier levels.


people aren't being called gemma o doherty for questioning, they're being called selfish.

If everyone followed the rules perfectly it would be over by now

Hahaha brilliant!!!

So all the big pharma companies are wasting their time working on vaccines? You should contact them and let them know.

If only every country in the world would follow a few rules this would magically disappear...

frozenfrozen

Deleted User wrote: »

Hahaha brilliant!!!

So all the big pharma companies are wasting their time working on vaccines? You should contact them and let them know.

If only every country in the world would follow a few rules this would magically disappear...

I already rephrased it for the super pedants like yourself

frozenfrozen wrote: »

If everyone followed all guidance the transmission rate would be so low we wouldn't have to have anything like the current restrictions.

VonLuck

robbiezero wrote: »

And then we would open up again and cases would go up.

Its a cycle.

Yes.

Herb Powell

I have, actually, but I'm definitely in the minority of anyone I know.

THAT SAID, no one I know is being reckless with it. If they're going to other households, it's literally the same one or two the whole time. No one I know is bouncing around to parties, as far as I'm aware.

This'll make people's heads explode, I'm sure but tbh it's sensible enough. It's still a huge reduction of normal activity, but not a complete stopping of life. Literally just people checking in on family/

Jim_Hodge

bladespin wrote: »

They're nowhere near capacity though, have never been, that's also an incredibly big 'if'.

Your idea of "no where near" differs from mine.

Six hospitals currently have zero critical care beds available and 6 more have a singe unit free. Hopefully if you need one you'll end up in a hospital that still has capacity.

bladespin

Jim_Hodge wrote: »

Your idea of "no where near" differs from mine.

Six hospitals currently have zero critical care beds available and 6 more have a singe unit free. Hopefully if you need one you'll end up in a hospital that still has capacity.

With 239 beds spread around the country (brought up to 278) our ICU capacity was never overwhelming either, that said, I've never heard of a hospital denying ICU care, I'm sure it could happen but doubt in the case of an accident etc that you would be brought o a hospital that was unable to care for you.

Hooked

Deleted User wrote: »

Covid is statistically no threat to the vast majority of you. So..

THIS. Times a thousand...

I'm not reckless around my folks or those in high risk groups... But I played soccer with the lads on Sunday morning and watched the game with mates Sunday evening. MM and Leaky Leo can go f'in jump! Clowns.

Life is short enough as it is.

frozenfrozen

bladespin wrote: »

With 239 beds spread around the country (brought up to 278) our ICU capacity was never overwhelming either, that said, I've never heard of a hospital denying ICU care, I'm sure it could happen but doubt in the case of an accident etc that you would be brought o a hospital that was unable to care for you.

I had to be brought to a far away hospital because the closer one didn't have room and I had to be moved out of ICU soon and there were 3 people who needed the 1 bed I was freeing up.

without covid taking up any room at the time...

why say our icu was never overwhelmed. without covid it was unacceptable. Now if covid had been left to run its course without restrictions there would have been havoc with covid people taking beds on top of normal accidents and illnesses

how can you doubt you'd be brought to a hospital that couldn't care for you when if the icu beds were full that's what would happen. Might be like red to a bull in a thread like this but did did you see the pictures from italy where the virus was at the point they were doing lots of triage with ventilators?

whatever your opinion on restrictions being too much or whatever, it's just not correct to say icu beds capacity isn't an issue. it was before covid

bladespin

frozenfrozen wrote: »

whatever your opinion on restrictions being too much or whatever, it's just not correct to say icu beds capacity isn't an issue. it was before covid

So we should have locked everything down before Covid??? Yes, of course they have always been an issue, we seem to have forgotten our own images of people on hospital trolleys in hallways too. Hospital here is not a place you'd want to be regardless of C-19 but using that as an excuse to justify the restrictions is stupid, it's always been that bad, and yes our ambulance service will transport accident victims to the hospital that can provide them with the best immediate care, they juggle what they have, not ideal but that hasn't and won't change.

frozenfrozen

bladespin wrote: »

So we should have locked everything down before Covid??? Yes, of course they have always been an issue, we seem to have forgotten our own images of people on hospital trolleys in hallways too. Hospital here is not a place you'd want to be regardless of C-19 but using that as an excuse to justify the restrictions is stupid, it's always been that bad, and yes our ambulance service will transport accident victims to the hospital that can provide them with the best immediate care, they juggle what they have, not ideal but that hasn't and won't change.

all I was interested in was correcting you saying icu was never at capacity... with personal experience of being in at full capacity ICU it had to be said

jrosen

A friend of mine who is a nurse and who works predominantly with patients post surgery told me that the reason ICU is such a concern isn't necessarily for covid patients its for those patients who need other surgeries. She explained that in order for people to have a whole host of surgeries there needs to be ICU beds available in case that patient needs it post surgery. If they are all taken up with covid patients then it results in surgeries, often really critical surgeries being postponed as the doctors cant take the risk of a patient needing an ICU bed with none available.

So really people acting the maggot and not adhering to the advice impacts us all. You can dress it up any way you want, we are all fed up, pissed off, missing family, routine, actually generally missing life but doing all we can to reduce the risk of spread and reduce the impact on our already stretched services helps us all.

thegetawaycar

I'm following the rules and I think most are but I do find it weird when people say to me they are being careful around older people while living a close to normal social life.

I'm not sure if they don't get that their normal social life will be what gets them infected and possibly infecting their elder relatives. The ones I know tend to think only visiting their relatives a few times or for less time seems to mean they won't get infected or that it massively reduces the risk.

I've pretty much given up all social activities over the last number of months to prioritise seeing my elderly relatives and now in level 5 have been only out a few times to shop quickly so we can be the social bubble for my relatives while wearing a mask on visits to put them at as little risk as possible.

It's not ideal but if the alternative is even a tiny percentage chance of passing a virus that could be the catalyst to them being extremely sick or worse it's the least I can do.

SusieBlue

VonLuck wrote: »

It becomes everyone's business if people get admitted to ICU as a result of a family who "assessed the risk together".

It shouldn't just be a personal decision whether you care or not if you get infected. It affects everyone.

I hope you take the same holier than thou attitude when other people’s personal decisions, such as smoking and being obese, causes them to develop diseases and illnesses that require them to take up an ICU bed.
Do you still think it’s your business to interfere in those circumstances too? Or is it only ok to do that when it’s coronavirus related?

ShineOn7

Deleted User wrote: »

The poll speaks for itself.

I wouldn't exactly say that

Since yesterday the main two option (options 1 and 4) have been split almost equally

VonLuck

SusieBlue wrote: »

I hope you take the same holier than thou attitude when other people’s personal decisions, such as smoking and being obese, causes them to develop diseases and illnesses that require them to take up an ICU bed.
Do you still think it’s your business to interfere in those circumstances too? Or is it only ok to do that when it’s coronavirus related?

Yes. It's all of our business. That's why the government tries to encourage people to stop smoking and maintain a healthy diet.

Spanish Eyes

Just do your best, and prevent spread outside your limited circle and wait for the vaccine.

There is some light now, hopefully, so observance now might pay off in the long run. For all of us.

ChikiChiki

robbiezero wrote: »

So thats a no?

By the guidelines its a no, but the 3 of us are all wfh, all live alone and only in contact with each other, so guaging the risk level on that basis - it is extremely low.

jackboy

<Snip>

It is well known that a lot of the restrictions are ineffective. This was said after the last lockdown and we were told that a future lockdown would be more targeted. Yet here we are with copy paste restrictions. Basically, Covid is mostly spread by a pile of people going into a room together without masks.

There are so many people i know who were extremely careful and conservative in the first lockdown who are far more relaxed this time. I know 4 who have travelled to other parts of the country (3/4 hour drives) to see family members in the last week ......something they would have never contemplated before. These are not young people either, all in their 50's and 60's. There is far less fear now and far more recognition that life has to go on and Covid is not as bad as it was made out to be...........for the majority of people.

jackboy

jackboy wrote: »

It is well known that a lot of the restrictions are ineffective. This was said after the last lockdown and we were told that a future lockdown would be more targeted. Yet here we are with copy paste restrictions. Basically, Covid is mostly spread by a pile of people going into a room together without masks.

Yeah the numbers just coincidentally plummeted.

Feisar

Not following at all. SF funerals and golf outings put paid to that. Childish, but meh.

jackboy

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Yeah the numbers just coincidentally plummeted.

They plummeted with level 3. The extra level 5 restrictions were not necessary.

Jim2007

SusieBlue wrote: »

I hope you take the same holier than thou attitude when other people’s personal decisions, such as smoking and being obese, causes them to develop diseases and illnesses that require them to take up an ICU bed.
Do you still think it’s your business to interfere in those circumstances too? Or is it only ok to do that when it’s coronavirus related?

There is one very big difference though, this virus moves so bloody fast and realistically we can never built sufficient capacity into the system to handle it.

Under normal conditions the worst that can happen is that you might need to be moved to a different hospital.