Coronavirus - a real season spoiling threat?

[BushBlade]

All valid points, but do you trust the government to act in good faith, purely on scientific, medical expertise. I don’t., because politicians are always agenda driven.

Do you trust the public to act in good faith based purely on the advice of ‘experts’ because I’d suggest the majority will only listen to the bits that suit them.

 

[davidblade]

All valid points, but do you trust the government to act in good faith, purely on scientific, medical expertise. I don’t., because politicians are always agenda driven.

That is another question

 

[guancheblade]

All valid points, but do you trust the government to act in good faith, purely on scientific, medical expertise. I don’t., because politicians are always agenda driven.

I don't imagine any government would want to see drastic protectionist action taken. Because if it were it could see us potentially face financial collapse.

 

[Charlieblade]

I don't imagine any government would want to see drastic protectionist action taken. Because if it were it could see us potentially face financial collapse.

...... along with hundreds of other clubs. I realise that any individual who dies because of this strain of virus will still be someone’s mother, or father, and I am not unsympathetic about that. In developing nations, the fatalities will be much higher.
In all cases it depends on high standards of reporting, and consistent and honest responses. It is global issue, but opening that can of worms risks going off thread.
I think I have made my position clear and I understand it will not be universally accepted or supported.
It’s just my opinion.

 

[BornOnShorehamStreet]

.

 

[Paulus]

Thank you LB. I am aware of the at risk groups and the attached criteria.
I’m sure you apply common sense and take precautions due to your susceptibility. The only reason for deploying draconian measures, is because we are not trusted to be sensible about it.
In my view, there is a risk, but it can be managed sensibly. I’m not expecting medical advice or governments to allow such risks.

You must have a much higher opinion of the capabilities of the great unwashed than I do. I would barely trust the majority of people to tie their shoelaces let alone understand the requirements of virus control and have the discipline and rigour to carry them out.

 

[davidblade]

Do you trust the public to act in good faith based purely on the advice of ‘experts’ because I’d suggest the majority will only listen to the bits that suit them.

a bit like Brexit

 

[ChrisBlade]

I have to say if I felt a sore throat and not a runny nose at present, I'd probably skip work a little more readily than normally. If I do not develop fever (and I basically only roll my eyes up to see if I feel strange pressure to determine whether to even get the thermometer out), I'd certainly not call any official busy body on account of all the hassle that potentially comes next.

Even if I had a mild unrelated complaint, I'd currently probably not seek out any doctor for routine stuff on account of a feeling that their practice will be choka-bloc full of borderline hypochondriacs and if I haven't got anything yet, the "system" is where I have the best chance of catching it.

I am fairly certain that most people in Italy or returning from there would run a similar program. Cross fingers and listen to your body, while trying to be a little more cautious with those closest to you.

As to old people dying? They die every day of a multitude of things. We just lost a step father to leukemia a month ago. He'd been fearing a virus like this one for the past 14 months. Then died of the cancer.

The other night, one of my boys turned to me and said "what if there's a plot twist now? What if grand dad died of corona virus after all?"

Made me laugh. Live life to the full until something or other claims you.

 

[Working Class Hero]

Understandable suggestion and, as a sufferer of acute asthma, I would gladly absent myself in order to let the majority enjoy themselves. Problem is that the more of you healthy young guns out there happily spreading what, for you, is an inconvenience, the greater the risks of folks like us catching a potentially life threatening illness.

I understand what you're saying, but surely if the vulnerable are isolated properly then the increased risk wouldn't really matter? Unless you're saying that the isolation won't work effectively, in which case what's the point of even talking about a full scale one?

 

[Mumbo]

Not really clear what you saying here

Are you saying it's cleaner to not wash your hands after going to the toilet?
1)Wipe your arse.
2)Turn the tap on.
3)wash your hands.
4)Turn the tap off.The same shit infested tap that possibly hundreds of other well meaning people have used depending on the establishments hygiene.
Now.....I know 100% where my cock has been,who’s touched it and what with,there’s no shit on there
and nobody has sneezed into their hands and grabbed it.It also had a good Wesh that very morning in factIt’s so clean I would encourage certain individuals to eat their dinner off it,Not a speck of urine has sullied it’s outer layer,(the bit I hold) and even if It got covered in piss it’s quite safe to lick it off or even bottle the piss and save it for a half time swig.
So if it’s just a piss I need (I’ve never had a shit at a football ground) then I am happy not to cover my
hand in pathogens of every flora and fauna from the dirty taps.
I hope that’s a bit clearer.

 

[Paulus]

I understand what you're saying, but surely if the vulnerable are isolated properly then the increased risk wouldn't really matter? Unless you're saying that the isolation won't work effectively, in which case what's the point of even talking about a full scale one?

It's very difficult to get a one rule fits all scenarios in a case like this. My wife has essential medical treatment that effectively wipes out her immune system yet with the treatment her condition is controlled sufficiently to allow her to work. It's the same with a lot of people with diabetes, hypertension, COPD, asthma, etc. which all seem to be quite markedly, adversely linked with this virus. Modern medicine allows these conditions to be controlled far more than was the case even 20 years ago and in many cases it allows patients to lead pretty much fully functioning lives. The problem for my wife and many others is that at the moment the advice from the government is to carry on going into work unless there is a specific case that brings in the requirement for self-isolation. What this policy doesn't fully recognise is that the degree of risk employees are taking by continuing as normal is not equal. From what we know so far it is not an exaggeration to believe that a worker who's say 60+ and has relevant pre-existing medical conditions are, in all likelihood, maybe 100 times more likely to die than a fit healthy 25-year-old yet the current advice does not address this in a way that alleviates the natural concerns of those in a vulnerable state. I don't actually see how this can be satisfactorily addressed because, as others have mentioned up thread the government is going to take a view on this in terms of what steps are necessary to control the outbreak and how damaging these measures might be for the economy, the smooth working of society, etc. against how many people are going to die. It would be a relatively painless decision to ban crowds at sporting or cultural events like Glastonbury but much more difficult decision to, for example, close down the London Tube network.

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

Well said, HodgysBrokenThumb

Signed BornOnShorehamStreet
69 and three quarters

Enjoy the last 3 months of middle age. You don't become elderly til you reach 70. You'll find next season you go to the Lane with a packet of Werthers in your pocket (2 if it's a replay with extra-time possible), and a travel rug to help you keep warm. You'll also hate the pre-match light show.

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

What is the major issue here that you're more likely to die from:

a) a stampede on the Moor when someone announces that Primark are selling face masks (country of origin: China) at only 2000% mark up
b) a terrorist attack that'd normally run as headline news but isn't noticed as all media are running cover to cover coronavirus hysteria

Than you are from the actual virus itself. For once Trump's right

Trump said yesterday that he was happy for people with mild Coronavirus illness to carry on going to work. I wonder if that will include his staff at the White House?

 

[Oldun]

I understand what you're saying, but surely if the vulnerable are isolated properly then the increased risk wouldn't really matter? Unless you're saying that the isolation won't work effectively, in which case what's the point of even talking about a full scale one?

How would you propose ‘isolating the vulnerable’ from now until Coronavirus has gone away?

 

[Working Class Hero]

It's very difficult to get a one rule fits all scenarios in a case like this. My wife has essential medical treatment that effectively wipes out her immune system yet with the treatment her condition is controlled sufficiently to allow her to work. It's the same with a lot of people with diabetes, hypertension, COPD, asthma, etc. which all seem to be quite markedly, adversely linked with this virus. Modern medicine allows these conditions to be controlled far more than was the case even 20 years ago and in many cases it allows patients to lead pretty much fully functioning lives. The problem for my wife and many others is that at the moment the advice from the government is to carry on going into work unless there is a specific case that brings in the requirement for self-isolation. What this policy doesn't fully recognise is that the degree of risk employees are taking by continuing as normal is not equal. From what we know so far it is not an exaggeration to believe that a worker who's say 60+ and has relevant pre-existing medical conditions are, in all likelihood, maybe 100 times more likely to die than a fit healthy 25-year-old yet the current advice does not address this in a way that alleviates the natural concerns of those in a vulnerable state. I don't actually see how this can be satisfactorily addressed because, as others have mentioned up thread the government is going to take a view on this in terms of what steps are necessary to control the outbreak and how damaging these measures might be for the economy, the smooth working of society, etc. against how many people are going to die. It would be a relatively painless decision to ban crowds at sporting or cultural events like Glastonbury but much more difficult decision to, for example, close down the London Tube network.

It would

How would you propose ‘isolating the vulnerable’ from now until Coronavirus has gone away?

I don't. But it would be much easier to apply the measures to that small section of society, rather than everyone.

 

[Oldun]

It would


I don't. But it would be much easier to apply the measures to that small section of society, rather than everyone.

Not really. Isolating people with symptoms for two weeks, versus isolating people at risk indefinitely? Are you going to isolate them from their families? If so who is going to look after them?

1 in 12 people in the UK has asthma. Are you going to isolate all of them until Coronavirus has gone away? The country would collapse!

 

[BushBlade]

How would you propose ‘isolating the vulnerable’ from now until Coronavirus has gone away?

I’ve locked my mum in a cupboard. She complains sporadically but then nods off again when I make her a cup of tea.

 

[Oldun]

I’ve locked my mum in a cupboard. She complains sporadically but then nods off again when I make her a cup of tea.

This method is only going to work if you isolate yourself in there with her. Not sure who is going to make the tea then though.

 

[Working Class Hero]

Not really. Isolating people with symptoms for two weeks, versus isolating people at risk indefinitely? Are you going to isolate them from their families? If so who is going to look after them?

1 in 12 people in the UK has asthma. Are you going to isolate all of them until Coronavirus has gone away? The country would collapse!

I'm not going to isolate anyone from anywhere. I'm talking about them isolating themselves from work/large gatherings, rather than preventing everyone from attending when there is no risk to 90% of the population. As I said in my original comment.

 

[BushBlade]

This method is only going to work if you isolate yourself in there with her. Not sure who is going to make the tea then though.

It’s OK, I wear gloves and a mask and tbh, it’s the same cup of tea, I just tell her I’m putting the kettle on then stick it in the microwave again.

 

[Oldun]

I'm not going to isolate anyone from anywhere. I'm talking about them isolating themselves from work/large gatherings, rather than preventing everyone from attending when there is no risk to 90% of the population. As I said in my original comment.

5.4 million people in the UK have asthma. If they all isolate from work what will happen? And that’s just asthma, not any other groups of vulnerable people. And how long do they stay off work for? There wouldn’t be any football or school or shops open..... or hospitals!!

 

[Oldun]

It’s OK, I wear gloves and a mask and tbh, it’s the same cup of tea, I just tell her I’m putting the kettle on then stick it in the microwave again.

Sorry for questioning you - sounds like you have it all worked out. We could do with you giving Boris some tips.

 

[davidblade]

It would


I don't. But it would be much easier to apply the measures to that small section of society, rather than everyone.

how do you select the vulnerable, it won’t work

 

[BushBlade]

Sorry for questioning you - sounds like you have it all worked out. We could do with you giving Boris some tips.

Already have. Get ready for 7’ condoms with arms.

 

[Working Class Hero]

5.4 million people in the UK have asthma. If they all isolate from work what will happen? And that’s just asthma, not any other groups of vulnerable people. And how long do they stay off work for? There wouldn’t be any football or school or shops open..... or hospitals!!

Why are you shouting at me? I'm saying we should be isolating FEWER people than what the government have suggested (and others have done)! I don't want anyone isolated, I couldn't give a shit.

 

[Oldun]

Why are you shouting at me? I'm saying we should be isolating FEWER people than what the government have suggested (and others have done)! I don't want anyone isolated, I couldn't give a shit.

When did I shout at you? Cool attitude mate. Presume you’ve got no family or friends who fall into the vulnerable category then?

 

[Oldun]

Already have. Get ready for 7’ condoms with arms.

I’m always ready for that!!!

 

[Working Class Hero]

When did I shout at you? Cool attitude mate. Presume you’ve got no family or friends who fall into the vulnerable category then?

You were arguing with me by making the exact point I'm trying to make.

 

[Oldun]

You were arguing with me by making the exact point I'm trying to make.

Nope. You are saying we should isolate people at risk. I’m saying that’s completely unworkable.

 

[Working Class Hero]

Nope. You are saying we should isolate people at risk. I’m saying that’s completely unworkable.

I agree. But isolating everyone is far more unworkable.