The new "rule of six" -- and the absence of an SI
Discussion
unident said:
So your suggestion is lock up those who are at risk. That would include all those requiring surgery or treatment for other serious illnesses. Yet you all use them to make your point that they treating. They can’t be locked up and treated at the same time.
It’s not about letting people go about their business aware of the risks to them. It’s the risk to others. Most people are currently doing what you want anyway and it’s not going great is it?
People aren’t following the rules because they’re tired of the whole thing and I understand that. People saw lockdown as something new and exciting (as in different not getting the heart racing) initially, but tired of it quickly. The fact the nutters, conspiracy theorists got a voice meant that grew quickly.
It's fairly simple if somebody is at serious risk of dying from this bug, take precautions to protect them, it's not hard.It’s not about letting people go about their business aware of the risks to them. It’s the risk to others. Most people are currently doing what you want anyway and it’s not going great is it?
People aren’t following the rules because they’re tired of the whole thing and I understand that. People saw lockdown as something new and exciting (as in different not getting the heart racing) initially, but tired of it quickly. The fact the nutters, conspiracy theorists got a voice meant that grew quickly.
If somebody needs surgery, then isolate them for 2 weeks before surgery, not hard.
The risk to others is minimised if you protect the vulnerable.
It's not going great, but there is no great way out of this. No magic bullett. Shutting down more kicks the problem down the road assuming people follow strictly which they won't.
Society requires us to protect people as far as is reasonably possible, not at all costs.
Graveworm said:
... pubs closing at 10pm is not going to do a lot of damage to the economy...
That is not a well considered assertion. The night time economy is significant, especially in large cities. Places like Soho are usually just getting going at 10pm - the enforced closure is disastrous to many businesses, from pubs and clubs, to musicians, taxi drivers and cleaners. Breadvan72 said:
That is not a well considered assertion. The night time economy is significant, especially in large cities. Places like Soho are usually just getting going at 10pm - the enforced closure is disastrous to many businesses, from pubs and clubs, to musicians, taxi drivers and cleaners.
I agree it is awful but that's a limited impact on a small part, of a minority sector in terms of the overall economy. I personally don't understand the rationale for the 10pm. There were a lot of options that could have been explored before trying something so arbitrary. If the problem is supposedly drunk people, then let licencees & the industry know this along with the consequences that might follow, if they don't, rather than just introducing the consequences.
GT03ROB said:
It's fairly simple if somebody is at serious risk of dying from this bug, take precautions to protect them, it's not hard.
If somebody needs surgery, then isolate them for 2 weeks before surgery, not hard.
The risk to others is minimised if you protect the vulnerable.
It's not going great, but there is no great way out of this. No magic bullett. Shutting down more kicks the problem down the road assuming people follow strictly which they won't.
Society requires us to protect people as far as is reasonably possible, not at all costs.
But it isn’t that simple. They’re already shielding in many cases, do they remove themselves from contact with their whole family as spouse may be going to work, going shopping etc and child going to school. If somebody needs surgery, then isolate them for 2 weeks before surgery, not hard.
The risk to others is minimised if you protect the vulnerable.
It's not going great, but there is no great way out of this. No magic bullett. Shutting down more kicks the problem down the road assuming people follow strictly which they won't.
Society requires us to protect people as far as is reasonably possible, not at all costs.
Then after two weeks they go into the same hospital that has a load of Covid patients there and it’s fingers crossed they don’t catch it. Who says the op will go ahead. Many get routinely cancelled as another case that requires more urgent treatment takes precedence. Shield again for two more weeks?
I’m just showing that nothing is as simple as you’d like it to be. There is simple or easy solution. The only simple and easy thing here is to criticise the actions taken and say they should “do something else” without really saying what they are or considering the viability of it.
Graveworm said:
I agree it is awful but that's a limited impact on a small part, of a minority sector in terms of the overall economy. ...
That comes across, perhaps unintentionally, as "I am not a consumer within the night time economy, so f
k them, they don't matter". This crisis seems to make us all very callous in different ways. Breadvan72 said:
That comes across, perhaps unintentionally, as "I am not a consumer within the night time economy, so fk them, they don't matter". This crisis seems to make us all very callous in different ways.
I was a consumer in the night time economy, though less than some. I don't like having next to no spontaneity in going out anymore. I don't know if it's a price worth paying. Others are paying far more dearly. It's hard to really know what the relative impacts are. k them, they don't matter". This crisis seems to make us all very callous in different ways. Graveworm said:
relative impacts
That's the nub of it. The balance between protecting society from a virus and the harm this causes.We seem to developed an unhealthy nonacceptance of death, despite it being an inevitable symptom of life.
Around a 100 years ago we sent 700,000 of our working aged men to Europe, to their deaths, with the express intention of them killing other working aged men. This was on the basis of a political disagreement and the perceived need to promote our own ways of life.
Here we are now, seemingly unwilling to accept any deaths to protect our ways of life.
I feel we've lost all sense of perspective.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
Here we are now, seemingly unwilling to accept any deaths to protect our ways of life.
I feel we've lost all sense of perspective.
That's another unforeseen consequence?I feel we've lost all sense of perspective.
It grates that the conditions and factors that saw the virus get into 'care' homes for the elderly and vulnerable will be repeated this time around, reiterating that 'lessons will be learned' is a hackneyed cliche routinely peddled by apologetic incompetents after the event.
So we need all these measures but just don't look over there at the 'care' homes warehousing the elderly as the virus will be taken into those 'facilities' and spread around again just like in the spring.
It's contradictory and inconsistent. It all seems a bit phoney, a bit made up.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
Graveworm said:
relative impacts
That's the nub of it. The balance between protecting society from a virus and the harm this causes.We seem to developed an unhealthy nonacceptance of death, despite it being an inevitable symptom of life.
Around a 100 years ago we sent 700,000 of our working aged men to Europe, to their deaths, with the express intention of them killing other working aged men. This was on the basis of a political disagreement and the perceived need to promote our own ways of life.
Here we are now, seemingly unwilling to accept any deaths to protect our ways of life.
I feel we've lost all sense of perspective.
Another issue is that deaths are not the only cost. The impact on people's behaviour from the risk of infection and the indirect impact of having lots of additional sick people is hard to quantify. Some pretty smart economists are unsure which is worse but it probably lies in the middle.
It certainly isn't sufficiently clear to me, that let it rip is so much better than mitigation that we should accept the resulting deaths, illness and other consequences, without a good deal more study.
otolith said:
GT03ROB said:
It's fairly simple if somebody is at serious risk of dying from this bug, take precautions to protect them, it's not hard.
I think the problem is that the more you dig into the detail of implementing such a thing, the clearer it is that it is hard. ...as I said society has a responsibility to take all reasonable steps to protect the vulnerable... but not at all costs....some would have us go down the all costs route....
Breadvan72 said:
Poverty kills. Look at 1929 and 2008. That factor is not getting sufficient attention.
It definitely does. But that assumes that option B is significantly better for poverty/the economy. It absolutely should feed into the equation. The economic impact of a global Pandemic within the UK. that killed 50,000 and affected many times that, despite the most draconian measures, would still have been financially devastating if allowed to run its course.Sweden needs looking at, they have an order of magnitude more deaths than other nordic countries, far more than any other in Northern Europe but still took a slightly worse hit on their GDP.
GT03ROB said:
otolith said:
GT03ROB said:
It's fairly simple if somebody is at serious risk of dying from this bug, take precautions to protect them, it's not hard.
I think the problem is that the more you dig into the detail of implementing such a thing, the clearer it is that it is hard. ...as I said society has a responsibility to take all reasonable steps to protect the vulnerable... but not at all costs....some would have us go down the all costs route....
Graveworm said:
Sweden needs looking at, they have an order of magnitude more deaths than other nordic countries, far more than any other in Northern Europe but still took a slightly worse hit on their GDP.
In one of his video analyses, Ivor Cummins shows that the other nordic countries had a higher number of deaths in the previous Winter flu season, so had fewer susceptible people when Covid arrived. WHO currently recommends against countries using lockdown as a tool for limiting deaths from Covid and this scientist argues that the number of our seasonal deaths will be higher because of it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xLjSMuROgk&t=...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff