mr wilks said:
Shame I won't be around for the 50 or 100 year rule to release government papers - I bet the discussions around this and Brexit are going to make very interesting reading!
Virus worries
- Thread starter ronk
- Start date
Shame I won't be around for the 50 or 100 year rule to release government papers - I bet the discussions around this and Brexit are going to make very interesting reading!
mr wilks said:The number of deaths in Drs & nurses is alarming & must be worrying for anyone like yourself in that area of workBMWZ4MC said:it does seem common sense to isolate therefore reduce further spreading of the virus but unfortunately as we have seen way too many times around the world there is a level of idiocy that means the liberty of free movement has to be removed & enforced by law whether we like it or not .
Mr Hitchens would disagree with you and let those idiots contaminate one another liberally!
BMWZ4MC said:mr wilks said:The number of deaths in Drs & nurses is alarming & must be worrying for anyone like yourself in that area of workBMWZ4MC said:
Mr Hitchens would disagree with you and let those idiots contaminate one another liberally!
& i would happily sit back & watch that happen , no finer way of seeing the population thin itself out
however its the part where the idiots then expect assistance from others that the plan goes awry 
mr wilks said:
Of course Hitchens is entitled to his opinions and I certainly wouldn’t deny him his right to have them. It doesn’t mean I have to agree with him.
Now who knows on the final numbers? I guess they were possibly hyped to persuade us that it was better to do as we were told and stay indoors. if the numbers are lower, as I expect they will be, will we ever know if it was the measures now being taken. I doubt it.BMWZ4MC said:
Richard, the writing of Henry Marsh is an excellent assessment and understanding of the dilemma faced by the medical profession, health care workers and support required from the population under the direction of government and its advisers.
mr wilks said:
I think that Peter Hitchens is always worth listening to and it seems that the argument that he proposes is that we should essentially let nature take its course, but I disagree that would be the best way and would appear to many as morally irresponsible.
The economic impact of lockdown will be massive on us all and will change all of our lives in many ways that we don't yet realise. Is it best that we should let nature's Lottery take its course and scythe us down at random or should we attempt to save as many of ourselves as possible to face the uncertain future together? Personally, I think the policy being pursued in the UK is actually a combination of 1 and 3 in Richard's posting, where we've permitted the virus to spread around the UK in, as yet, relatively low numbers, so that the the entire country is infected and followed by the voluntary lockdown measures to slow down the spread which eventually creates herd immunity, whilst at the same time allowing the NHS to cope with the most serious cases of infection. This buys us time whilst we await the necessary vaccine to become available for us all.
If this thing were to be left to run its course without any attempts to take preventive action to protect ourselves, as a society, it would take out many millions of people, and not just the over 70s. What we are presently seeing in a small region of Italy would happen everywhere, even in your small part of the World. I think you might change your tune then, if you were still around...mr wilks said:
Unfortunately John, I suspect that the UK government is attempting to follow strategy one, but three will come to pass as it has in Northern Italy. Australia won’t fare differently for the same reasons - early inaction and too soft a response once things started to go downhill. Large swathes of the population will be infected and whilst most will experience only a moderate illness, many will be hospitalised and a significant proportion of those will die.
Draconian measures strictly enforced will slow that process, make it more manageable and lower the mortality rate, but won’t greatly reduce the final number of people infected.
Draconian measures strictly enforced will slow that process, make it more manageable and lower the mortality rate, but won’t greatly reduce the final number of people infected.
SARS was more lethal but less easily transmitted. For both reasons it was more easily contained and a vaccine proved unnecessary.
This Corona virus is less lethal and highly contagious in the pre-symptomatic phase of the illness (unlike SARS). As such it can spread like wildfire without becoming self limiting until the majority of the population have become immune. That will prolong the course of COVID-19 for a great many months to come (unless we opt out of self isolation and other protective measures, accepting that it will ravage society but be over with before the year is out).
This Corona virus is less lethal and highly contagious in the pre-symptomatic phase of the illness (unlike SARS). As such it can spread like wildfire without becoming self limiting until the majority of the population have become immune. That will prolong the course of COVID-19 for a great many months to come (unless we opt out of self isolation and other protective measures, accepting that it will ravage society but be over with before the year is out).
That is possible, or even likely, dependant upon the rate of spread.mr wilks said:
It seems to me that the government's strategy is to prevent the rapid spread of the infection so that the hospitals can try to cope with the huge numbers of people requiring hospitalisation and ventilators, and the safe disposal of large numbers of deceased at the same time. This is essentially an emergency logistics problem to be solved which places the frontline services at great risk. The creation of huge emergency hospitals in London, Cardiff, Manchester and Birmingham shows the scale of the problem with relatively limited manpower and resources whilst the majority of us are required to watch idly behind our closed doors.
The end result maybe the same whichever path we take, but at least attempting to slow the rate of progress gives those whom have to deal with the practicality of handling patients and the deceased a chance to spread the load.
And something to think about: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52074862
Interesting that Ron, we went to Oz november 1st week in dec i came down with some virus ,fluey type symptoms, felt mi breathing getting worse couldnt get outa bed,,laid out for a week .mi back and chest felt really hot ,off mi food for weeks too,got sum intibiotics of the local docs which sorted me out after another week, so my son in Oz reckons ive had it back then , certainly makes me wonder if it was around then ,but as i have a history of chest probs ,pneumonia etc i aint taking chances and we are isolating ourselves ,ronk said:
Stay safe .
M
If I read it right, it does mean that a second wave of health care people who have had the virus can then approach the sick without specific protective gear then as they are now immune for it?
The same with law and order, the police who have had it, can get in proximity of the people they need to deal with?
The same with law and order, the police who have had it, can get in proximity of the people they need to deal with?