Social distancing......

stapler said:
The first is the implied premise that it is somehow possible to isolate effectively those at risk from those not at risk. It isn't possible. Even if you could identify everyone risk, at the facilities aren't available to isolate them all. Even if they were, there would be sufficient inevitable mixing (at risk parents with no alternatives, people caring for older relatives/people, etc) to make it futile.
Click to expand...

with a bit of thought it is possible.

If those to self isolate, stay in their homes or stay within their boundaries.

shopping / medication can be delivered.

deliveries are placed on the step, with the deliverer being more than 2 metres away.

nursing homes do not allow visitors

assisted living accommodation do not allow visitors

a lot of people were self isolating and if they do it properly and if others attending do it properly then it can be done.

It is not easy or comfortable for those isolating but it can be done for the vast majority of people and a lot of people have been doing just that for the past 4 months

big problem you have is trying to get people to self isolate
 
Last edited:


soapster said:
with a bit of thought it is possible.

If those to self isolate, stay in their homes or stay within their boundaries.

shopping / medication can be delivered.

deliveries are placed on the step, with the deliverer being more than 2 metres away.

nursing homes do not allow visitors

assisted living accommodation do not allow visitors

a lot of people were self isolating and if they do it properly and if others attending do it properly then it can be done.

It is not easy or comfortable for those isolating but it can be done for the vast majority of people and a lot of people have been doing just that for the past 4 months
Click to expand...
It's exactly what everyone did throughout lockdown. And totally unnecessary.

I cannot stress enough the damage this has caused to the economy and particularly the care in the NHS that has been diverted away from things like cancer treatment and diagnosis of other illnesses. As for the economy. That's fucked. Get ready for nose bleed taxes.
 
monkeytassle said:
It's exactly what everyone did throughout lockdown. And totally unnecessary.

I cannot stress enough the damage this has caused to the economy and particularly the care in the NHS that has been diverted away from things like cancer treatment and diagnosis of other illnesses. As for the economy. That's fucked. Get ready for nose bleed taxes.
Click to expand...

I was replying to a poster who said it wasnt possible to protect not as to whether it was a better idea to be more selective.

To be fair you speaking with hindsight, so I do hope that if there is a next wave it be be dealt with more efficiently.

it was initially stated over 70 or over or those with specific health issues

the guidance then changed because of world happenings

are you ignoring the scenes we saw from Italy where hospitals were completely over run. those with covid were not getting proper treatment that was thought best at the time. It was thought we had to get another 70,000 ventilators for example

little did we know that China was already buying up PPE. Every country was after PPE and ventilators

The idea was to stop that over run from happening. Nightingale Hospitals were created in fear of being over run, but thankfully never needed. that cost money.

The virus was thought to be be that deadly hospitals had to create specific areas for covid patients.

a good number of routine appointments were cancelled but a good number were done on consultations over phone or video link.

Of course there is going to be a backlash re other diseases people are suffering, but what was the options available to the NHS

as you are aware, this was brand new, nobody had any real inkling about the best way to deal

anybody with a bit of sense can see the economy is damaged. It has to be with all the schemes put into place to try and protect the people

There was also a lot of panic about, which did not help.

I appreciate taxes will have to go up. My point is I never got one penny from the government.

I worked all the way through the crisis.

Yet I will be expected to pay the extra taxes. In the words of the wise old owl, that tough.

We just have to get on with it.

as I said earlier, hindsight is a great gift
 
monkeytassle said:
Point 1. Everyone over the age of 65 or with conditions known to be at risk stays indoors. Everyone else crack on. Make available delivery slots and testing to those in contact with said vulnerable groups.

Point 2. It wouldn t have taken 20% out of the economy.
Click to expand...

Point 1: And when those 65 year olds meet up with their younger relatives? Or have to venture out for exercise or whatever? Or when they have to go shopping because there are over 20 million of them and there is no realistic prospect of even a small fracting getting all of their needs satisfied by delivery alone? It works in a pithy message post and in your head. It doesn't in the real world.

Point 2: Really? The FTSE 100 fell by 8% - the worst daily fall since the global financial crisis - on 8 March (Daily cases: 65, Total cases: 271, Daily deaths: 0, Total deaths: 2). It fell by 10% - the worst daily fall since Black Monday - on 10 March (Daily cases: 52, Total cases: 373, Daily deaths: 4, Total deaths: 7). It has been reported (https://www.itv.com/news/2020-04-20/retail-footfall-saw-worst-ever-decline-in-march) that retail footfall fell by 17.7% in the first 3 weeks of March - i.e. before the lockdown. Data for 21 March - (Daily cases: 1035, Total cases: 5018, Daily deaths: 56, Total deaths: 250).

I think it is far-fetched at best to suggest that our consumption and investment driven economy would have resurrected itself if lockdown hadn't happened. The daily death figure exceeded the 21 March total deaths only 6 days later. It is just not realistic to suggest that the swaggering under-65 year old would have been out driving the economy if only the pensioners had been locked up safe. People don't think like that. Consumption would have continued tumbling, and with it all the jobs it creates.

I haven't even mentined the political realities. There was and there remains no effective political force advocating your position. Even if you are right, and I don't think you are right, there was zero chance of your position being adopted.
 

Back
Top