British Expats

British Expats (https://britishexpats.com/forum/)
-   The Maple Leaf (https://britishexpats.com/forum/maple-leaf-98/)
-   -   Coronavirus (https://britishexpats.com/forum/maple-leaf-98/coronavirus-930602/)

Stumpylegs Nov 1st 2020 1:36 am

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Partially discharged (Post 12928612)
Hmm...I can see the pictures from Thursday's Daily Fail now showing people on Wednesday night in provincial city centres and Soho in a fetal position in a puddle from too many lagers and cocktails to get that last night of drinking in before lockdown.

Personally I always think of that as part of their plan - to me if that's what we need to do to stop the spread (not convinced it will work myself, education settings are clearly are clearly a huge area of transmission), we start now, for me its little difference, Maybe one meal out less per month currently and a bit less socialisation (but that changed at at midnight as we move into tier 2 in our area). We don't abuse the hell out of the system till Thursday.

But suddenly when this 4 week lockdown turns into 6 weeks, 12 weeks etc. The blame can be sat not with the government, but with those that didn't follow rules, those that abused the freedom prior to lockdown etc.

I hate to say it, but they need to start enforcing it more or just forget about it, and issue advice only - people are getting weary of the rules, and flouting them. But its then creating division between the rule followers and the rule breakers.

Jsmth321 Nov 1st 2020 5:46 am

Re: Coronavirus
 
Pandemic, no pandemic here.

Wonder how many cases will be linked to Halloween?

Vancouver downtown tonight, of course those making the videos are not helping by being there.

https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/c...ight_now_pt_2/

https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/c...eet_right_now/

Shard Nov 1st 2020 11:01 am

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Stumpylegs (Post 12928614)
Personally I always think of that as part of their plan - to me if that's what we need to do to stop the spread (not convinced it will work myself, education settings are clearly are clearly a huge area of transmission), we start now, for me its little difference, Maybe one meal out less per month currently and a bit less socialisation (but that changed at at midnight as we move into tier 2 in our area). We don't abuse the hell out of the system till Thursday.

But suddenly when this 4 week lockdown turns into 6 weeks, 12 weeks etc. The blame can be sat not with the government, but with those that didn't follow rules, those that abused the freedom prior to lockdown etc.

I hate to say it, but they need to start enforcing it more or just forget about it, and issue advice only - people are getting weary of the rules, and flouting them. But its then creating division between the rule followers and the rule breakers.

Enforcement. It's not about the division between the followers and non-followers, it's about protecting society as a whole. One segment is too stupid to protect not only themselves, but others, so enforcement is the necessary outcome.

Stumpylegs Nov 1st 2020 11:11 am

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 12928725)
Enforcement. It's not about the division between the followers and non-followers, it's about protecting society as a whole. One segment is too stupid to protect not only themselves, but others, so enforcement is the necessary outcome.

And I'd tend to agree, enforcement would be the better option for all - however current enforcement seems to have targeted the wrong rule breakers (it should target everyone ideally) and have been handing out fines to 2 households mixing sensibly, but only issuing warnings and forcing large parties to disband.

I think the balance between enforcing the rules properly and not causing riots/civil war could be a hard line to police - especially if Trump gets back in, and mass protests/violence end up happening in the US.

Shard Nov 1st 2020 11:34 am

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Stumpylegs (Post 12928729)
And I'd tend to agree, enforcement would be the better option for all - however current enforcement seems to have targeted the wrong rule breakers (it should target everyone ideally) and have been handing out fines to 2 households mixing sensibly, but only issuing warnings and forcing large parties to disband.

I think the balance between enforcing the rules properly and not causing riots/civil war could be a hard line to police - especially if Trump gets back in, and mass protests/violence end up happening in the US.

Enforcement in the USA would be a different kettle of fish ! My comments were in relation to the UK, as we have fewer crazies here - as you know ! Actually, I'm not for heavy handed enforcement in the UK either, just very clear messaging and the occasional sanction to back it up.

Stumpylegs Nov 1st 2020 11:37 am

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 12928734)
Enforcement in the USA would be a different kettle of fish ! My comments were in relation to the UK, as we have fewer crazies here - as you know ! Actually, I'm not for heavy handed enforcement in the UK either, just very clear messaging and the occasional sanction to back it up.

Apologies - I was still referring to the UK, I honestly think if they have civil unrest in the US it will spill over to here pretty sharpish.

I'm completely with you on how it should look - just think currently a large portion of the country are going to flout the rules as they know they can get away with it - how you tackle that and keep the peace is awkward.

BristolUK Nov 1st 2020 8:22 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 12928725)
Enforcement. It's not about the division between the followers and non-followers, it's about protecting society as a whole. One segment is too stupid to protect not only themselves, but others, so enforcement is the necessary outcome.

Then, of course, there was that missed opportunity for the government to set the same example everyone else was setting with sackings and resignations. But not only did they not do so, they praised the individual concerned for his actions.

That just made it so easy for people to do what they regarded as reasonable.

printer Nov 2nd 2020 12:20 am

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Stumpylegs (Post 12928737)
Apologies - I was still referring to the UK, I honestly think if they have civil unrest in the US it will spill over to here pretty sharpish.

I'm completely with you on how it should look - just think currently a large portion of the country are going to flout the rules as they know they can get away with it - how you tackle that and keep the peace is awkward.

You have to wonder where it will all end, i mean this is the only way the UK government can see of reducing infections, deaths and hospital admissions because nothing else is working BUT what is their exit strategy? They don't have one as far as i can see. So this whole scenario will repeat itself once things open again but with a few less businesses still operating. There is no "light at the end of the tunnel" for joe public and therefore its harder to get people on side to do what's necessary because there is no game plan, its even been suggested that this lock down could go beyond beginning December! Busiest time for all retail in run up to Christmas and nobody can shop or go out and party so what's going to happen when everything opens? Mad rush, huge crowds, panic buying, pubs overflowing and so it all starts again

BristolUK Nov 2nd 2020 12:40 am

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by printer (Post 12929055)
You have to wonder where it will all end, i mean this is the only way the UK government can see of reducing infections, deaths and hospital admissions because nothing else is working BUT what is their exit strategy?

Hard to have an exit strategy for that very reason.
Also hard because of the covidiots who won't play by the rules, thus preventing a reasonable assessment of how effective an action is because too many people just say something didn't work when it's entirely possible that "it" didn't work because of the covidiots.

Over the next two weeks we'll be hearing reports of little change in the numbers of new cases and that will be down to those attending the Raves and other maskless events plus all those who are going to make the most of the next few days, even if they stay in from Thursday.

So we'll be halfway through the month for any behavioural change to make a difference. And then Covidiots will be whining that it hasn't worked.

That will build up a head of steam so that when the figures do start to fall, because there have been sone people behaving reasonably, the covidiots will rebel and say it's not enough.

printer Nov 2nd 2020 1:43 am

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 12929060)
Hard to have an exit strategy for that very reason.
Also hard because of the covidiots who won't play by the rules, thus preventing a reasonable assessment of how effective an action is because too many people just say something didn't work when it's entirely possible that "it" didn't work because of the covidiots.

Over the next two weeks we'll be hearing reports of little change in the numbers of new cases and that will be down to those attending the Raves and other maskless events plus all those who are going to make the most of the next few days, even if they stay in from Thursday.

So we'll be halfway through the month for any behavioural change to make a difference. And then Covidiots will be whining that it hasn't worked.

That will build up a head of steam so that when the figures do start to fall, because there have been sone people behaving reasonably, the covidiots will rebel and say it's not enough.

Exactly so round we go again, it's not going to work. Chinese style enforcement and containment is never going to wash in UK so where does that leave them? As you say some will adhere and some won't but as i said without a clear and precise strategy from the powers that be its hard to get the majority on side. They need something to work towards. If you want your kids to tidy their room or do their homework you could lock them in their room but they may still not do it. Offer them an incentive and there is more chance of them towing the line. There doesn't seem to be much incentive for people, even Christmas is looking shaky and so many doom and gloom projections that some are not even sure if next year will be any different

Teaandtoday5 Nov 2nd 2020 2:12 am

Re: Coronavirus
 
Wouldn’t it be good if they were just incompetent...
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/british...661025172.jpeg

Jingsamichty Nov 2nd 2020 11:31 am

Re: Coronavirus
 
All gone a bit quiet on the £100bn Operation Moonshot to test 10 million people a day, hasn't it? It's been quietly abandoned and will just be part of the Test & Trace scheme.


BristolUK Nov 2nd 2020 12:48 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by printer (Post 12929076)
Exactly so round we go again, it's not going to work.

Because covidiots won't play.


Chinese style enforcement and containment is never going to wash in UK...They need something to work towards
If we have no lockdowns it seems the virus will slowly work its way through, killing the most vulnerable and affecting others to varying degrees. So then the survivors can live happily ever after.

Except that we know there's this thing called long-covid which means some of those that recovered will now have medical conditions that put them newly at risk. Plus, over what ever time this takes place we have a 'newly' elderly part of the population; a new group of people with naturally developing medical conditions that put them at risk, as well as whatever portion of the population was not able to get medical treatment for manageable conditions because the hospitals have been dealing with all those covid patients and they, too, are newly at risk people.

So once one vulnerable group has been bumped off, there's a new one to replace them. And the cycle continues.

Lockdowns or at least circuit breakers will slow it down.

Maybe there's some benevolent race on a distant planet that sees what's happening and sends us a test tube of something so powerful that once the stopper is pulled the virus the world over vanishes.

It seems sensible to slow it down as long as we can until there's a vaccine.

Pulaski Nov 2nd 2020 3:04 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 12929308)
.... It seems sensible to slow it down as long as we can until there's a vaccine.

Maybe but the countries of the industrialized world are heading into uncharted economic territory with unprecedented levels of debt. I am not sure if it was in this thread, but someone recently pointed out on BE that the level of government debt in the UK is now already equivalent to the debt at the end of WWII, which took until, IIRC the early years of this century to pay off. We are already in a situation that will cast an economic shadow over the entire life of those who are only children today.

IMO There is not much point in "slowing" the spread of the virus if the consequence is to collapse the economy, condemning many to long term poverty, and in poor countries to starvation. I am not sure where the balance point is, but I am fairly sure that shutting down the entire economy to try to merely "slow" the infection rate, is not a good decision. :unsure: Now if we could have managed, back in the spring, what China did, i.e. a true lock-down for a month or so, which largely eliminated the virus, then it might be different, but as already discussed above, that ain't gonna happen, and the genie is already out of the bottle. :(

And what if there isn't a vaccine? The common cold is a coronavirus, and the search for a vaccine in the UK was abandoned with little progress after about 50 years of searching IIRC.

Danny B Nov 2nd 2020 4:37 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Pulaski (Post 12929373)
Maybe but the countries of the industrialized world are heading into uncharted economic territory with unprecedented levels of debt. I am not sure if it was in this thread, but someone recently pointed out on BE that the level of government debt in the UK is now already equivalent to the debt at the end of WWII, which took until, IIRC the early years of this century to pay off. We are already in a situation that will cast an economic shadow over the entire life of those who are only children today.

IMO There is not much point in "slowing" the spread of the virus if the consequence is to collapse the economy, condemning many to long term poverty, and in poor countries to starvation. I am not sure where the balance point is, but I am fairly sure that shutting down the entire economy to try to merely "slow" the infection rate, is not a good decision. :unsure: Now if we could have managed, back in the spring, what China did, i.e. a true lock-down for a month or so, which largely eliminated the virus, then it might be different, but as already discussed above, that ain't gonna happen, and the genie is already out of the bottle. :(

And what if there isn't a vaccine? The common cold is a coronavirus, and the search for a vaccine in the UK was abandoned with little progress after about 50 years of searching IIRC.

You make some excellent (and depressing) points, neither of which I have any response to.

If I was in charge of the UK, I'd open up the economy and let the virus run its course. You can only tell people so many times to wear a mask and social distance. It felt a bit weird at first for me, but now it's part of everyday life.


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:21 pm.

Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.