Corona Virus main thread

[Aggy 755]

14 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Aggy, I don't know else to read this post from T. It doesn't make any sense unless it is a reply to someone having supposedly argued for shuttering the economy by way of tougher restrictions:

Tough restrictions make people unemployed and struggling and anxious and depressed. It’s a lot easier if you have funds or a secure income but that is not the case for a lot of people. These people also need to be considered. Just shutting down the economy may make sense for some but not the majority. 

I won’t put words in his mouth, but I read it on the basis T was answering posts about mental health implications. It was directly after a number of posts about mental health and wider issues than just the physical implications of coronavirus.
 

As T’s post says, the current lockdown is a tough restriction making people unemployed and is effectively shutting down large sections of the economy. That has mental health and economic ramifications which need to be considered (not just the physical effects).
 

 

[Essjayess 307]

When this pandemic runs its course and who knows when that will be, then it will be time for investigations, enquiries and the like, in each nation on the planet. We all need to look at this globally, its clear to see the world was totally unprepared for Coronavirus, indeed the virus is so agressive due to its make up that it  begs the question was it even possible to prepare for something that came from nowhere so very quickly to engulf every nation  on the globe (North Korea excluded of course).

Most of us seem to have more time on  our hands lately for obvious reasons, but i for one will not even opinionate on how well or bad our  government is doing until this thing actually runs its course. In times like this i like to look at the positives of human endeavour  rather than negatives. To the 20k retired  medical staff who have jumped in to the cause, to the 750k volunteers to aid the relief of  the vital task of helping the ones who need services, when 250k were needed, to the very practical and sensible things like grounded aviation staff who could swell the numbers of those building the temporary hospitals.

Yes and in a few short months 90,000 temporary farm pickers will be needed to get the fruit and veg crops in..they will be found within our workforce, the call for them will be shouted louder as and when, but more than 10,000 have already volunteered. Absoultely true that in normal times we are an individualistic peoples in general, but in times such as these, the absolute good in humans in this nation comes to the fore...and its especially hard of course...the desire to socially help...in a time when we are socially distancing..is a paradox.

[Essjayess 307]

Just noticed the change in reporting of deaths and new confirmed cases in the UK issued by the DHSC and PHE.

New cases are now from 9am the previous day up to 9am the current day  while deaths are from 5pm  2 days beforehand up to 5pm the previous day, so..the 180 deaths reported today are those that passed away between 5pm Saturday until 5pm Sunday.

[Aggy 755]

Out of interest, how did/will changing the clocks affect the method of reporting death rates? Presumably we’re just reporting 23 hours for Saturday to Sunday?

[Ramrod 258]

15 hours ago, Bill said:

That really is as absurd as it is ignorant

Have you read ANYTHING by Marx.... clearly not

You are just bandying words about without the slightest idea of their meaning

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/china_politics/government/html/1.stm

Here's the BBC bandying it about too. 

Keep your replies civil. 

[Essjayess 307]

Quite a big jump in confirmed cases in Norfolk..up +26 to 133, Suffolk  +13 to 100. 11 Deaths in Norfolk in total.

 

[Bill 1,788]

1 hour ago, Ramrod said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/china_politics/government/html/1.stm

Here's the BBC bandying it about too.

Thank you for proving my point. You clearly haven't the remotest idea about any of this have you ?

Otherwise you might have posted up something that could refute my statement that China is a capitalist state

...................... instead you post up an outdated comment by the BBC on how that state organises it's heirarchy 😖

[Essjayess 307]

14 minutes ago, Bill said:

Thank you for proving my point. You clearly haven't the remotest idea about any of this have you ?

Otherwise you might have posted up something that could refute my statement that China is a capitalist state

...................... instead you post up an outdated comment by the BBC on how that state organises it's heirarchy 😖

China is neither solely Communistic or Capitalist..theyre are a Communistic Capitalist  nation..may be a contradiction in terms  decades ago but thats what they are.

[Bill 1,788]

it is a contradiction

China is merely an authortarian capitalist state-  just as North Korea is not a democratic state despite it calling itself democratic

Production is carried out with a view to a profit, capital exists and is used to invest...for the same purpose.

It might suit the ruling group to refer to itself as 'communist' but it is in the above actions that defines it.

Unfortunately some still mistake buying annd selling as capitalism..........it is not.

Nor is this a pedantic point, as it shows how misunderstandings are widespread. The absurdity of talking of a 'marxist government demonstrates that. What next ? An aetheists pope ?

 

[ricardo 7,395]

7 minutes ago, Bill said:

 What next ? An aetheists pope ?

 

I think we may have already had one.

[Bill 1,788]

A very interesting read, which rather backs my thought that the lock down will be gradually eased as more is known and so a better strategy can be rolled out.

This will be combined with a lower infection rate as testing numbers increase along with the facilities to treat those infected

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/30/immunity-passports-could-speed-up-return-to-work-after-covid-19

[Van wink 2,994]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/29/uk-wildlife-enjoys-humans-lockdown-but-concerns-raised-over-conservation

Have a read of this, interesting reference to Holkham and the absence of oystercatchers nesting there last year, if they come back this year lets hope they can be protected from dogs and irresponsible dog owners if the lockdown gets lifted.

[Van wink 2,994]

55 minutes ago, Bill said:

A very interesting read, which rather backs my thought that the lock down will be gradually eased as more is known and so a better strategy can be rolled out.

This will be combined with a lower infection rate as testing numbers increase along with the facilities to treat those infected

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/30/immunity-passports-could-speed-up-return-to-work-after-covid-19

Has to be the way to start getting back to some form of normal, this is being given original thought in Germany, we have to vastly expand our testing facilities and program.

[Aggy 755]

1 hour ago, Bill said:

A very interesting read, which rather backs my thought that the lock down will be gradually eased as more is known and so a better strategy can be rolled out.

This will be combined with a lower infection rate as testing numbers increase along with the facilities to treat those infected

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/30/immunity-passports-could-speed-up-return-to-work-after-covid-19

Possibly this is what will happen. But I’m not entirely comfortable with it. If you’re a ‘low risk’ 25-40 year old with no underlying health problems, why should you not be allowed to return to work and instead be liable for a fine if you even step foot outside your house more than once a day while others are able to do what they want just because they had a virus a few weeks before?
 

It all just becomes a bit arbitrary, which I don’t like. Why don’t we start testing everyone and forcing people with normal flu to stay indoors? If you go out of the house with “ordinary” flu you could kill my grandma. 
 

Who chooses what is ‘risky’ enough to make it acceptable to lock people up in their own homes for months at a time even if they haven’t had it?

Edited March 30, 2020 by Aggy

[Van wink 2,994]

3 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Possibly this is what will happen. But I’m not entirely comfortable with it. If you’re a ‘low risk’ 25-40 year old with no underlying health problems, why should you not be allowed to return to work and instead be liable for a fine if you even step foot outside your house more than once a day while others are able to do what they want just because they had a virus a few weeks before?
 

It all just becomes a bit arbitrary, which I don’t like. Why don’t we start testing everyone and forcing people with normal flu to stay indoors? If you go out of the house with “ordinary” flu you could kill my grandma. 
 

Who chooses what is ‘risky’ enough to make it acceptable to lock people up in their own homes for months at a time even if they haven’t had it?

Its all about the testing. There was a concern expressed at the end of the article about fit young individuals trying to get themselves infected so they could become economically active again. The whole thing is has so many problems but unfortunately there are no easy solutions.

[Aggy 755]

16 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Its all about the testing. There was a concern expressed at the end of the article about fit young individuals trying to get themselves infected so they could become economically active again. The whole thing is has so many problems but unfortunately there are no easy solutions.

Presumably any ‘reintroduction’ measures would be voted on in parliament first? 

Edit: that’s not a hypothetical question - anyone know what the recent ‘emergency’ legislation says?

Edited March 30, 2020 by Aggy

[T 190]

As we discussed before it is a logical conclusion from anti body testing. And a possible desperately needed partial way out. What was scary today was that only 2.7pc of UK population estimated to have coronavirus which suggests this has a long way to go yet. Only 0.7pc in Germany Despite the closer proximity and interaction with hotspots which highlights the benefits of testing and tracing to control this. 

[Bill 1,788]

7 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Presumably any ‘reintroduction’ measures would be voted on in parliament first? 

Edit: that’s not a hypothetical question - anyone know what the recent ‘emergency’ legislation says?

There is no 'legislation' therefore nothing needs to be passed, or removed.  It is not solely about protecting those whose health would suggest they are at more risk from dying.

It is about understanding that anyone can contract this virus and so infect many others - without that 'spreader' knowing they have the virus. So the aim is to slow down the spread of the virus so medical facilities can cope.

No one is getting fined for stepping out of their door. I had a pleasant chat with two PC's earlier. There numerous others out and about going about their business.

It is about slowing the spread, that's all. So contact is being kept to the minimum, not forbidden. So take a deep breath, pause and recognise that this will pass, it will probably reduce sooner than what most think, so why not put this time to some use.

Shouting down the railway line won't make the train get there quicker - it will just wind yourself up.

[Aggy 755]

5 minutes ago, Bill said:

There is no 'legislation'

What about The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 or The Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020?

[dylanisabaddog 4,921]

13 hours ago, Bill said:

What next ? An atheist pope ?

 

Blimey Bill, you don't think they actually believe do you! 

[Aggy 755]

9 hours ago, Bill said:

No one is getting fined for stepping out of their door. I had a pleasant chat with two PC's earlier. There numerous others out and about going about their business.

It is about slowing the spread, that's all. So contact is being kept to the minimum, not forbidden.

Would suggest reading regulation 6 then regulation 10 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020. You’re liable for a fixed penalty if you are out of the house without reasonable cause. Whether or not your local police are enforcing that is neither here nor there. 

My point is merely this - we currently have legislation which says you are committing an offence and are liable for a fine if you go outside for anything other than a few proscribed ‘exceptions’. You don’t need to have any malicious intent. You don’t even need to have coronavirus. Fully fit people with no underlying health conditions are currently unable to legally leave the house just because they fancy a second walk of the day or want to see some friends.

 If the plan is to start letting certain people back into public but not others, that needs to be voted through parliament. We can’t have a situation where Boris (or any other individual or body other than the elected parliament) of his own volition can pick and choose which people have to comply with laws and which don’t. 

 

Edited March 31, 2020 by Aggy

[Van wink 2,994]

43 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Would suggest reading regulation 6 then regulation 10 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020. You’re liable for a fixed penalty if you are out of the house without reasonable cause. Whether or not your local police are enforcing that is neither here nor there. 

My point is merely this - we currently have legislation which says you are committing an offence and are liable for a fine if you go outside for anything other than a few proscribed ‘exceptions’. You don’t need to have any malicious intent. You don’t even need to have coronavirus. Fully fit people with no underlying health conditions are currently unable to legally leave the house just because they fancy a second walk of the day or want to see some friends.

 If the plan is to start letting certain people back into public but not others, that needs to be voted through parliament. We can’t have a situation where Boris (or any other individual or body other than the elected parliament) of his own volition can pick and choose which people have to comply with laws and which don’t. 

 

They are Regulations which can be revoked by the Secretary of State Aggy

[Aggy 755]

17 minutes ago, Van wink said:

They are Regulations which can be revoked by the Secretary of State Aggy

Which isn’t what you’re talking about. You’ve said some people will (may ) be allowed back out (those who have already had the virus and recovered) while others won’t. That isn’t catered for in the current regs. 

Edited March 31, 2020 by Aggy

[Van wink 2,994]

You have obviously had a good look at the Regs Aggy, are not the category of persons to whom they apply to be defined?

[Aggy 755]

22 minutes ago, Van wink said:

You have obviously had a good look at the Regs Aggy, are not the category of persons to whom they apply to be defined?

6(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse. 
 

10(1)

An authorised person may issue a fixed penalty notice to anyone that the authorised person reasonably believes—

(a)has committed an offence under these Regulations;

(b)is over the age of 18.

Edited March 31, 2020 by Aggy

[Aggy 755]

I’m not trying to cause an argument  - merely pointing out that it’s not as simple as rolling out some testing kits and letting people out if they’ve already had it. There needs to be scrutiny at parliament level before the government is able to start picking and choosing who can leave the house and who can’t. Most likely there will be new regulations, which need to be approved by parliament, confirming in more detail when you can leave your house.
 

At the moment, it’s a blanket regulation applying to everyone - everyone has to stay indoors unless you meet one of the few fairly limited exceptions. But if you’re going to start creating different categories of people who are and are not allowed out of their own homes, that needs massive parliamentary scrutiny. 

Edited March 31, 2020 by Aggy

[Yellow Fever 3,785]

10 minutes ago, Aggy said:

I’m not trying to cause an argument  - merely pointing out that it’s not as simple as rolling out some testing kits and letting people out if they’ve already had it. There needs to be scrutiny at parliament level before the government is able to start picking and choosing who can leave the house and who can’t. Most likely there will be new regulations, which need to be approved by parliament, confirming in more detail when you can leave your house.
 

At the moment, it’s a blanket regulation applying to everyone - everyone has to stay indoors unless you meet one of the few fairly limited exceptions. But if you’re going to start creating different categories of people who are and are not allowed out of their own homes, that needs massive parliamentary scrutiny. 

I would guess that if I understand the chat between you and VW the idea is that some people may eventually be issued with  a 'Certificate of covid-19 Immunity' - that would then need then to go hand hand with some form of identity card (or have it's own photographic imprint) to be workable.

[Aggy 755]

10 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I would guess that if I understand the chat between you and VW the idea is that some people may eventually be issued with  a 'Certificate of covid-19 Immunity' - that would then need then to go hand hand with some form of identity card (or have it's own photographic imprint) to be workable.

How do you get the certificate? If it needs to be signed off by a medical professional, how does the government guarantee that medical professional will turn up at your house (presumably) to carry out the test, or how does it govern who can go to the doctors at any one time to have the test done? You can’t have one person’s liberty being taken away for longer than another just because the doctor doesn’t turn up to sign you off.

If we haven’t got enough tests to test everyone all at the same time, how do you decide who gets the tests first? How do you make sure there isn’t going to be any discrimination when handing these tests out? 

And why should healthy 25 year old Joe Bloggs with no underlying health problems not be allowed to go and earn a living whilst his mate down the road can earn a living and support his family just because he was “lucky” enough to have caught it a fortnight before?

Edited March 31, 2020 by Aggy

[ricardo 7,395]

11 minutes ago, Aggy said:

How do you get the certificate? If it needs to be signed off by a medical professional, how does the government guarantee that medical professional will turn up at your house (presumably) to carry out the test, or how does it govern who can go to the doctors at any one time to have the test done? You can’t have one person’s liberty being taken away for longer than another just because the doctor doesn’t turn up to sign you off.

If we haven’t got enough tests to test everyone all at the same time, how do you decide who gets the tests first? How do you make sure there isn’t going to be any discrimination when handing these tests out? 

And why should healthy 25 year old Joe Bloggs with no underlying health problems not be allowed to go and earn a living whilst his mate down the road can earn a living and support his family just because he was “lucky” enough to have caught it a fortnight before?

The logistics of all this are indeed a nightmare, systems will have to be built from scratch and that takes time. Inevitably some will get registered before others and I don't see how it could be otherwise.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

And why should healthy 25 year old Joe Bloggs with no underlying health problems not be allowed to go and earn a living whilst his mate down the road can earn a living and support his family just because he was “lucky” enough to have caught it a fortnight before?

Because there is nothing fair or equal about this virus or the effects of it. We have to try and seek as much uniformity as we can. Social living is based mainly on conformity, patterns and reliability. We have to listen and heed advice even though we don't agree of see the point of it.

For instance, a two minute drive and I am in the middle of nowhere and could walk my dog for miles without any contact. But we have been advised to exercise our pets and stay at home. So I just walk her around the block until she she has done her business and come home. And I am not doing that because it isn't fair on Londoners stuck in flats, I am doing it because I have been told to do it and it is the best way to hep the country.