Coronavirus

[Spy Bee]

2 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Hold on, I thought we were playing the ball. 
 

 

By playing the ball, I mean attacking the content of an article, not the source. 

[cloggypop]

Just now, Spy Bee said:

By playing the ball, I mean attacking the content of an article, not the source. 

You need to check the pitch out first. 

[Rico1304]

3 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

By playing the ball, I mean attacking the content of an article, not the source. 

So answer the question and don’t chuck in an insult. 

[Bjornebye]

7 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

By playing the ball, I mean attacking the content of an article, not the source. 

Alright Terry Hurlock. 

[Spy Bee]

I can't believe people are so willing to do this to the older generation.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/22/covid-restrictions-could-mean-elderly-care-homes-have-no-visitors/?fbclid=IwAR2oenRIDvHgCLdDyDhUC_5i82jL6B91bKafqAV34saHpCGYOPL-Xj9wnxs

 

Covid restrictions 'could mean elderly in care homes have no visitors for a year'

Charity warns of 'enormous risks' posed to older people's mental and physical health by cutting them off from loved ones

[Bjornebye]

The alternative is risking fucking killing them!!!!!

[Spy Bee]

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

The alternative is risking fucking killing them!!!!!

The average life expectancy in a care home is estimated to be as low as 11 months, although some say as high as two years. So fifty percent of the people in care homes in March are now likely to die without ever seeing a family member again.

 

My sister runs a care agency and day centre, and she believes that at the age her clients are (most over 80) it's not longevity they want, it's to enjoy the days that they do have.

[Bjornebye]

4 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

The average life expectancy in a care home is estimated to be as low as 11 months, although some say as high as two years. So fifty percent of the people in care homes in March are now likely to die without ever seeing a family member again.

 

My sister runs a care agency and day centre, and she believes that at the age her clients are (most over 80) it's not longevity they want, it's to enjoy the days that they do have.

Its a shitty situation for all. Care Homes need to find a way to allow visitors in a safe environment. 

[Mudface]

17 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

I can't believe people are so willing to do this to the older generation.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/22/covid-restrictions-could-mean-elderly-care-homes-have-no-visitors/?fbclid=IwAR2oenRIDvHgCLdDyDhUC_5i82jL6B91bKafqAV34saHpCGYOPL-Xj9wnxs

 

Covid restrictions 'could mean elderly in care homes have no visitors for a year'

Charity warns of 'enormous risks' posed to older people's mental and physical health by cutting them off from loved ones

But... that's pretty much what would happen if you decided to isolate vulnerable groups and let everyone get on with stuff, only on a much bigger scale.

[Spy Bee]

8 minutes ago, Mudface said:

But... that's pretty much what would happen if you decided to isolate vulnerable groups and let everyone get on with stuff, only on a much bigger scale.

But with an end goal in sight. 

 

I agree with Kurtz wholeheartedly. 

[Rico1304]

6 minutes ago, Mudface said:

But... that's pretty much what would happen if you decided to isolate vulnerable groups and let everyone get on with stuff, only on a much bigger scale.

I’m yet to see a definition of vulnerable too. I’m assuming it’s everyone with asthma, COPD, heart problems, old people, young people, pregnant women, new born babies, anyone with an immunodeficiency condition, anyone on chemotherapy. Maybe we should put them on an island.  

[Rico1304]

11 minutes ago, Colonel Kurtz said:

Of course it can be done. Perspex screens and phones like in prison. We need to be stepping up to the plate as a country not constantly saying nothing can be done. 

This has to be a joke right? Maybe we could go the whole hog and send them to Rikers Island. 

[Mudface]

2 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

But with an end goal in sight. 

 

I agree with Kurtz wholeheartedly. 

 

What end goal? You'd be trying to keep something like 20 million potentially vulnerable people 'safe' while the virus runs rampant through everyone else.

1 minute ago, Rico1304 said:

I’m yet to see a definition of vulnerable too. I’m assuming it’s everyone with asthma, COPD, heart problems, old people, young people, pregnant women, new born babies, anyone with an immunodeficiency condition, anyone on chemotherapy. Maybe we should put them on an island.  

Exactly, get the definition wrong and it'd be a disaster. Plus you'd have to consider all the people someone 'vulnerable' lived with- either they'd have to be separated, or kept isolated too.

[Spy Bee]

1 minute ago, Mudface said:

 

What end goal? You'd be trying to keep something like 20 million potentially vulnerable people 'safe' while the virus runs rampant through everyone else.

Exactly, get the definition wrong and it'd be a disaster. Plus you'd have to consider all the people someone 'vulnerable' lived with- either they'd have to be separated, or kept isolated too.

Come off it!

 

3 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

This has to be a joke right? Maybe we could go the whole hog and send them to Rikers Island. 

Surely seeing people face to face is better than the current situation, of not seeing anybody at all?

[Mudface]

2 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

Come off it!

 

Surely seeing people face to face is better than the current situation, of not seeing anybody at all?

Come off what? There are 12 million people over the age of 65 alone in the UK. That's before you start counting other potentially vulnerable groups as outlined in Rico's list, then add in the people they live with or care for them. 20 million is probably an underestimate.

[Rico1304]

4 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

Come off it!

 

Surely seeing people face to face is better than the current situation, of not seeing anybody at all?

Some people in care homes don’t see anyone. 

[Bjornebye]

4 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

Come off it!

 

Surely seeing people face to face is better than the current situation, of not seeing anybody at all?

Do you live in a different country? These 'draconian' measures you colander heads are all shouting about are nowhere near as extreme as you are making out. 

[Spy Bee]

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

Do you live in a different country? These 'draconian' measures you colander heads are all shouting about are nowhere near as extreme as you are making out. 

You are not allowed to visit care homes as far as I am aware. Some places allow outdoor visits, but many people can't get outside, and certainly won't be able to in the winter.

[M_B]

1 hour ago, Spy Bee said:

Tiresome. Try playing the ball. The maths works out. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/22/health/cdc-coronavirus-estimates-symptoms-deaths/index.html

 

At >0.3% this makes Covid marginally worse than a bad flu season. That's a fact.

 

Quote

The CDC also says its "best estimate" is that 0.4% of people who show symptoms and have Covid-19 will die.

 

For people age 65 and older, the CDC puts that number at 1.3%

 

One expert quickly pushed back on the CDC's estimates. "While most of these numbers are reasonable, the mortality rates shade far too low," biologist Carl Bergstrom of the University of Washington told CNN.

 

Bergstrom, an expert in modeling and computer simulations, said the numbers seemed inconsistent with real-world findings. "Estimates of the numbers infected in places like NYC are way out of line with these estimates. Let us remember that the number of deaths in NYC right now are far more than we would expect if every adult and child in the city had been infected with a flu-like virus. This is not the flu. It is COVID," Bergstrom said.

 

"As I see it, the 'best estimate' is extremely optimistic, and the 'worst case' scenario is fairly optimistic even as a best estimate. One certainly wants to consider worse scenarios," Bergstrom said of CDC's numbers.

 

"By introducing these as the official parameter sets for modeling efforts, CDC is influencing the models produced by federal agencies, but also the broader scientific discourse because there will be some pressure to use the CDC standard parameter sets in modeling papers going forward," he said.

 

"Given that these parameter sets underestimate fatality by a substantial margin compared to current scientific consensus, this is deeply problematic."

 

[Bjornebye]

2 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

You are not allowed to visit care homes as far as I am aware. Some places allow outdoor visits, but many people can't get outside, and certainly won't be able to in the winter.

We are talking about the vulnerable not just care homes aren't we? 

[Spy Bee]

2 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

We are talking about the vulnerable not just care homes aren't we? 

I'm talking about care homes at the moment.

 

There's no point engaging regarding the wider idea of protecting the most vulnerable, when you think a third of the UK population classes as high risk.

[Bjornebye]

1 minute ago, Spy Bee said:

I'm talking about care homes at the moment.

 

There's no point engaging regarding the wider idea of protecting the most vulnerable, when you think a third of the UK population classes as high risk.

What? 

[Barrington Womble]

A relatively modest daily Zoe increase today, it's still 1000 extra per day, but better than the rate of the last couple of days. Overall number of people with symptoms is staggeringly high. 

 

 

[Spy Bee]

1 minute ago, Barrington Womble said:

 Overall number of people with symptoms is staggeringly high. 

Colds appearing in late September shocker!

[Mudface]

Just now, Spy Bee said:

Colds appearing in late September shocker!

It. Is. Not. Colds.

 

Even the guy who runs the project was on TV last week explaining that if you have a runny nose and are sneezing, you don't have Covid.