What could be opened on this road map

scuzzmonster said:
Yes, but other than key workers, we've been actively encouraged not to travel. Where I live, there have been pictures circulating of the Manchester Metrolink completely empty during the rush hour period. Also, what exactly is deemed to be a necessary journey? I take one return bus trip a week at the moment and, sparsely populated though the buses are, I must admit to feeling slightly uncomfortable when someone gets on - or off if they're coming from behind me. Impossible to maintain the 2m on a clipper bus. Back to necessary journeys, is it necessary to want to go and see one's elderly parents 100 miles away, for example?
Click to expand...

Playing devils advocate:-

If you do the maths, chances of you having covid and being able to infect relative x chance of infecting relative x chance of relative then dying of covid = risk (I suppose you can add risk of travel in that) is it worth it?

Imagine you have a relative who is elderly and you haven't seen them for the entire lockdown.
You would normally see this relative once a week for instance, they then trip and fall and die (happens every day). Would not seeing them to 'save' them have been worth it?


Everyone seems to think that if we carry on doing what we're doing the virus goes away.. it doesn't. What does go away is everything else.
 
Alvez_48 said:
Playing devils advocate:-

If you do the maths, chances of you having covid and being able to infect relative x chance of infecting relative x chance of relative then dying of covid = risk (I suppose you can add risk of travel in that) is it worth it?

Imagine you have a relative who is elderly and you haven't seen them for the entire lockdown.
You would normally see this relative once a week for instance, they then trip and fall and die (happens every day). Would not seeing them to 'save' them have been worth it?


Everyone seems to think that if we carry on doing what we're doing the virus goes away.. it doesn't. What does go away is everything else.
Click to expand...
Nobody is advocating a continuation of lockdown as far as I can see, but and it's a massive but of Sir Mixalot proportions, we have to be certain that we can start getting back to work safely otherwise we'll have to lock down again and probably in a more severe manner.
Just look at that video I posted about the county with the meat packing plant. Over 800 cases in one place is a recipe for disaster regardless of how many of those people would develop serious issues. Those people live in the community so the chances of those 800+ cases growing exponentially is a very grim reality.
The only weapons we have against this virus are social distancing and personal hygiene. We have to find ways to use those weapons while working, but that is only possible once we've got the number of cases down and when we've got enough testing in place to allow any virus outbreaks to be identified quickly and accurately.
This is the government's plan and it is eminently sensible regardless of your political biases and it will inevitably involve some risks.
We've applied a lot of hindsight to the way this pandemic has been handled politically, I'd rather not be applying that same hindsight to any more unnecessary deaths as a result of prioritising an economic recovery than we are already having to do with the near 28,000 people who've already lost their lives.
I've seen people letting social distancing slip this past couple of weeks so I'll guarantee that once the likes of McDonald's and KFC open up that you'll have queues of people at their stores as you will at places like the Metro and Teesside Park when they open their doors.
 
What amuses me is everybody is certain a second wave will be coming and will be worse when the facts we know about the illness are still limited.
People want lockdown to continue until a vaccine is found, what world they expect to walk out into that after is anyone's guess, if there is one at all.

I'd love to see some actual stats that compare the chances of dying from covid-19 to
Getting ran over by a car
Getting stuck by lightning
Dying from a brain aneurysm
Dying from a stroke
 
RandySavage said:
What amuses me is everybody is certain a second wave will be coming and will be worse when the facts we know about the illness are still limited.
People want lockdown to continue until a vaccine is found, what world they expect to walk out into that after is anyone's guess, if there is one at all.

I'd love to see some actual stats that compare the chances of dying from covid-19 to
Getting ran over by a car
Getting stuck by lightning
Dying from a brain aneurysm
Dying from a stroke
Click to expand...
Stats with or without social distancing?
 
Dying from covid-19 is the same death wether you social distance or not isn't it?

I mean even dying from heart attacks and strokes and organ failure is now all covid-19 related isn't it?
 
Wait so how are the doctors able to tell from which scenario you caught the virus?
 
dooderooni said:
Nobody is advocating a continuation of lockdown as far as I can see, but and it's a massive but of Sir Mixalot proportions, we have to be certain that we can start getting back to work safely otherwise we'll have to lock down again and probably in a more severe manner.
Just look at that video I posted about the county with the meat packing plant. Over 800 cases in one place is a recipe for disaster regardless of how many of those people would develop serious issues. Those people live in the community so the chances of those 800+ cases growing exponentially is a very grim reality.
The only weapons we have against this virus are social distancing and personal hygiene. We have to find ways to use those weapons while working, but that is only possible once we've got the number of cases down and when we've got enough testing in place to allow any virus outbreaks to be identified quickly and accurately.
This is the government's plan and it is eminently sensible regardless of your political biases and it will inevitably involve some risks.
We've applied a lot of hindsight to the way this pandemic has been handled politically, I'd rather not be applying that same hindsight to any more unnecessary deaths as a result of prioritising an economic recovery than we are already having to do with the near 28,000 people who've already lost their lives.
I've seen people letting social distancing slip this past couple of weeks so I'll guarantee that once the likes of McDonald's and KFC open up that you'll have queues of people at their stores as you will at places like the Metro and Teesside Park when they open their doors.
Click to expand...

Eh? None of that has anything to do with what I said.
 
RandySavage said:
Wait so how are the doctors able to tell from which scenario you caught the virus?
Click to expand...
Statistically it's a switch. If there's a lockdown you died during lockdown. If there's no lockdown you died in no lockdown.

Only those who have tested positive for Covid-19 are included in the daily announced figures.
 
And again testing positive doesn't mean they've died from it does it? Or does it?
 
I'd love to see some actual stats that compare the chances of dying from covid-19 to
Getting ran over by a car
Getting stuck by lightning
Dying from a brain aneurysm
Dying from a stroke that
Click to expand...

Stats have reference points. The stats for likelyhood of Covid-19 deaths depend on precautions taken.
 
Alvez_48 said:
Eh? None of that has anything to do with what I said.
Click to expand...
Of course it does. You're talking about taking risks and calculating them, I'm demonstrating that we have to get to a point where those risks are at a level whereby we can control them as much as possible AND get back to work.

As for Randy, he clearly feels that the virus has infected many more people than the figures we have and so there is a smaller chance of a second wave. Personally I don't think we are anywhere near to the magical 60% of the population being infected to give us possible herd immunity and therefore we need to be very careful that we don't start creating new transmission paths for this virus to get another hold.

One of us will be proven right once we get adequate testing capacity so that we can get enough statistical data to paint a better picture.

I'll put it simply (as someone who will be going to work next week and will be part of getting the economy running again), I am very worried about this virus and will be until we get a vaccine.
 
dooderooni said:
Of course it does. You're talking about taking risks and calculating them, I'm demonstrating that we have to get to a point where those risks are at a level whereby we can control them as much as possible AND get back to work.

As for Randy, he clearly feels that the virus has infected many more people than the figures we have and so there is a smaller chance of a second wave. Personally I don't think we are anywhere near to the magical 60% of the population being infected to give us possible herd immunity and therefore we need to be very careful that we don't start creating new transmission paths for this virus to get another hold.

One of us will be proven right once we get adequate testing capacity so that we can get enough statistical data to paint a better picture.

I'll put it simply (as someone who will be going to work next week and will be part of getting the economy running again), I am very worried about this virus and will be until we get a vaccine.
Click to expand...

But I wasn't saying one way or another I was just laying out the scenarios.
You then went on a huge rant. I'll be working too next week as will my partner so don't worry too much we will be right there with you.
You are in cloud cuckoo land if you think a vaccine is coming any time soon, the virus has mutated an estimated 10,000 times so far.
If you genuinely think that the number of people who have had it are the confirmed cases you're beyond help, it flies in the face of every single limited anti body testing program done to date.
 
The world has gone made and afraid to say but it seems people have started to have enough.
Protests all over America, even in New York. Parts of society working as usual, other parts out on furlough and the rest put out of work all together. I went to go to my local co-op earlier for some milk and bread, thought a Sunday would be an ideal time to go, not as busy, a queue of 20 people waiting to go into a shop, that's absolutely bonkers and I turned around and went home. Ringing the local milk man in the morning to arrange deliveries with him, I refuse to queue to get into a shop which 2 months ago I could just walk into and walk back out of again.

Yes I genuinely believe most of the population have already got the virus or have had it. If that isn't the case I struggle to believe it is a naturally occurring virus as the way the world has been turned upside down in 4 months is not natural.
 
I never said either of those things Alvez as you probably well know.

There is a big gap between the number of confirmed cases and the 60% needed for herd immunity, hence "Personally I don't think we are anywhere near to the magical 60% of the population being infected".

I also never put a timescale on when we will or won't get a vaccine - "I am very worried about this virus and will be until we get a vaccine" is very open ended.
 
Alvez_48 said:
You are in cloud cuckoo land if you think a vaccine is coming any time soon, the virus has mutated an estimated 10,000 times so far.
Click to expand...
All RNA viruses change over time because they are prone to errors in replication - it's one of their more salient features. When looked at in terms of the entire genome, there may well be as many as 10,000 mutations (some might say variations) of the genome found in different patients, though I've seen some lower numbers quoted. However whether that makes a vaccine less likely to work, depends on where these variations or mutations occur. For instance, the paper linked to below, that talks about "genome-wide variations" in the virus, mentions that "the mutation is not in the receptor binding region."

So if a vaccine is being designed to invoke an immune response to SARS-CoV-2 based on the receptor binding region (the spike protein on the outside of the virus) - and according to my reading, many of the vaccines are targeting that area, then those vaccines' chances of success would not be diminished by mutations that do not affect the spike protein.

Genome-wide variations of SARS-CoV-2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top