Just Seen the Covid 2nd Wave Projections

The spacing distance is the next battleground with some high rankings tories want it reduced from 2 m to 1m despite...

Sage reported that being exposed for six seconds at 1m is comparable to a one-minute exposure at 2m.
 
zorro_mfc said:
The spacing distance is the next battleground with some high rankings tories want it reduced from 2 m to 1m despite...

Sage reported that being exposed for six seconds at 1m is comparable to a one-minute exposure at 2m.
Click to expand...
But there are also models that say a cough or a sneeze that isn't caught can spread 8 metres indoors, possibly 20 metres outdoors with a breeze so why is it 2m and not 10 metres for example?
 
Alvez, you are on a right crusade at the minute. I am not sure I agree with you, nor does the maths.

1 in 20 covid deaths are 44 or under. Not really no risk or minimal risk. We don't really understand how the virus will effect people later in life, it certainly attacks a lot of soft tissue in the body, leaving lungs scarred, is there any other long term problems with the virus? I don't know, you don't know and neither do the scientists.

What impact will it have on those over 65, if the younger folks are allowed to go back to work with no restrictions? Will it spread the disease far and wide enough to create another spike? I don't know, neither do you.

What will the social impacts be of we treat different generations differently?

You see where I am going.

You seem to be very cavalier with the older generations lives.
 
Laughing said:
Alvez, you are on a right crusade at the minute. I am not sure I agree with you, nor does the maths.

1 in 20 covid deaths are 44 or under. Not really no risk or minimal risk. We don't really understand how the virus will effect people later in life, it certainly attacks a lot of soft tissue in the body, leaving lungs scarred, is there any other long term problems with the virus? I don't know, you don't know and neither do the scientists.

What impact will it have on those over 65, if the younger folks are allowed to go back to work with no restrictions? Will it spread the disease far and wide enough to create another spike? I don't know, neither do you.

What will the social impacts be of we treat different generations differently?

You see where I am going.

You seem to be very cavalier with the older generations lives.
Click to expand...
What will the social impact be should the world stay locked down until the virus disappears?

Nothing what alvez has said is cavalier at all, it's all been backed up with links and quotes from scientists and experts. But because the stuff he posts and links to doesn't agree with the stuff that those who want to stay as we are for the long term they are automatically declared either, a conspiracy theorist, not caring about the elderly, selfish, clueless or all of the above.

Scientists disagree with each other all the time, why are the ones on the SAGE committee 100% right?

Answer me this, take the politics and the science out of this and focus on been a human. What decent human would say it was ok for children to go back to school if they were at a higher risk of dying than say walking to school or driving to school?
 
Randy, you miss the point on child safety. It is not the children that I am concerned about wholly. It is who they may go on and infect. The right thing to do is get track and trace working, then open the economy back up, so you can quickly identify hotspots and react quickly to those hotspots. If your government makes a **** up of the underlying infrastructure to allow a more normal life, you put that on hold.

Yes scientists do disagree, all the time. However, when lives are at stake, you take the cautious approach, this is not a bet on red or black situation where the outcomes are equal. Get it wrong, lots of people may die. That aside, seems like most scientists agree on lockdown, as that has been the general concensus around the globe. Without track and trace you are hoping for an outcome with no way to control or influence that outcome.

That is why Alvez' attitude is cavalier.
 
RandySavage said:
What will the social impact be should the world stay locked down until the virus disappears?

Scientists disagree with each other all the time, why are the ones on the SAGE committee 100% right?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is saying lock down until the virus disappears. Just until it's not as prevalent. 300 people a day are dying and deaths in places like London are creeping back up.

As to the SAGE point. The clue is in the word "committee"
 
Laughing said:
Randy, you miss the point on child safety. It is not the children that I am concerned about wholly. It is who they may go on and infect. The right thing to do is get track and trace working, then open the economy back up, so you can quickly identify hotspots and react quickly to those hotspots. If your government makes a **** up of the underlying infrastructure to allow a more normal life, you put that on hold.

Yes scientists do disagree, all the time. However, when lives are at stake, you take the cautious approach, this is not a bet on red or black situation where the outcomes are equal. Get it wrong, lots of people may die. That aside, seems like most scientists agree on lockdown, as that has been the general concensus around the globe. Without track and trace you are hoping for an outcome with no way to control or influence that outcome.

That is why Alvez' attitude is cavalier.
Click to expand...

Just so much nonsense in this post where do I start first could I ask @borolad259 to tell you off for suggesting I don't care about old people. 😉

There is no scientific consensus, there is however a definitive campaign to not hear out the many scientists on the other side of the argument. Why?

Also being cautious can cost just as many lives as the alternative you just don't value those lives because they won't be splashed over the papers every day with a counter (see what I did there right back at you so to speak).
Care home chiefs are the latest to say that lockdown is killing the people in care homes so who's being uncaring?

I'm not saying have Glastonbury but I am saying this is a mild disease for well over 95% of the population and that the fatality rate (even when you include the over 80s) is between 0.2-0.6%.
You can't say 'this COULD do damage to people in 30 years' as even if it does the lockdown will have been over for 29.9 of those years and not knowing doesn't prove a positive.

As the Swedes would say it's not them doing an experiment it's us. So maybe they are being cautious and we aren't.
 
SmallTown said:
I don't think anyone is saying lock down until the virus disappears. Just until it's not as prevalent. 300 people a day are dying and deaths in places like London are creeping back up.

As to the SAGE point. The clue is in the word "committee"
Click to expand...
I've not been saying that either, I would have hoped a further 2 weeks, tight lockdown, woukd have been agreed
 
I'm not missing the point at all.
You are saying it's not safe because science says so basically yeah?

Others are also saying it IS safe because science says so.

This is fundamentally why people should be able to choose for themselves after seeing the facts, figures, projections, hypothesis from ALL parties not just the ones the media for example deem fit enough.

Want to hear something really depressing that I've had to deal with today, my wife's 8 year old niece was given a journal to fill out at the start of the lockdown to keep track of her feelings etc. You know what she wrote one day last week?

"I want to die"

This is a little girl who hasn't seen her friends in 2 months. How many more kids of that age are feeling like that right now. It's angered me beyond belief.
 
The Gov have handled much of this badly, not all of it though they've been wrong too many times - especially about stopping mass gatherings & testing. However it was always & still will be us that are responsible for reducing the risk of infection & spreading the virus - better hygiene practices & more giving personal space.

We can't stay locked down forever & not only for the economy, but for mental health too.

I fully expect the 2nd spike to be worse than the first - the track & trace does not seem to be ready & you have idiots like this lot - https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/n...s-fury-hordes-flock-richmond-north-yorkshire/
 
RandySavage said:
I'm not missing the point at all.
You are saying it's not safe because science says so basically yeah?

Others are also saying it IS safe because science says so.

This is fundamentally why people should be able to choose for themselves after seeing the facts, figures, projections, hypothesis from ALL parties not just the ones the media for example deem fit enough.

Want to hear something really depressing that I've had to deal with today, my wife's 8 year old niece was given a journal to fill out at the start of the lockdown to keep track of her feelings etc. You know what she wrote one day last week?

"I want to die"

This is a little girl who hasn't seen her friends in 2 months. How many more kids of that age are feeling like that right now. It's angered me beyond belief.
Click to expand...

I'm really sorry to hear that.
 
SmallTown said:
I don't think anyone is saying lock down until the virus disappears. Just until it's not as prevalent. 300 people a day are dying and deaths in places like London are creeping back up.

As to the SAGE point. The clue is in the word "committee"
Click to expand...
Have a look further than this forum. There are hundreds if not thousands saying that exact thing and it's mind boggling.
 
Alvez_48 said:
I'm really sorry to hear that.
Click to expand...
It's an entire generation of children who if this continues for much longer could quite possibly become a lost generation in 5, 10, 20 years time.

Who was it talking about the long term damage covid-19 can cause and we don't know what it can do/cause?

Well explain to me then why smoking is still allowed when the entire world knows it causes cancer?
Why are people still allowed to use cars, buses, trains, planes etc when we know the emissions cause cancer? They aren't banned are they? We don't mooch everywhere on foot or horseback. Yet we know the dangers.
Processed foods are still for sale yet they are the number one cause of obesity in children which leads to a multitude of illnesses yet they are still widely promoted and available for sale.
 
If the lockdown was imposed earlier and stricter then I can see logic in whats being said regarding full removal of lockdown for low risk groups. As in other country's the above worked on bringing the number of transmissions down and with that the number of deaths.

We did not do that and are now easing lockdown on a knife-edge with people gathering in large crowds and ignoring advice for the past few weeks.

All the hardship and suffering caused by locking down will be for nothing if it causes a second spike. How can *this* government tell everyone to go into a second lockdown so soon if it all goes wrong?

They are not following the science or even their own measures, their credibility is shot and by their woeful management of this crisis, may cause further untold deaths and economic ruin.

Just for the sake of a few weeks.
 
RandySavage said:
Have a look further than this forum. There are hundreds if not thousands saying that exact thing and it's mind boggling.
Click to expand...
I agree. I've never seen anyone say that myself but I'll take your word that there are "hundreds, if not thousands" saying the same thing.

The point is the virus is still too rife in our society
As for as all "being able to make our own decisions" you may be an epidemiologist but I'm not. That's why I'd rather listen to a scientific committee rather than think "oh it must be ok"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top