93%

[Mice!]

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

People have been fed non stop fear since March and the results (blind ignorance and deep seated panic) are quite amazing. Don’t get me wrong, I’m washing my hands, keeping a distance, wearing a mask and can’t wait to get the vaccine but I don’t need the police / government to tell me to do any of this because I’m minding my business to protect me and if others don’t want to follow suit I fully respect their right to do so.

So your doing exactly the same as me, but how can you respect others not following suit? What if there are 50 people down the street having a party? We had to have another lockdown because people couldn't follow the rules.

47 minutes ago, Mungler said:

No we’re not. The evidence is transmission within care homes, hospitals and the home. 

Demonising anyone under 30 who wants to go down the pub or otherwise live what was commonly accepted to be a ‘free’ life is a very very slippery slope and notwithstanding the total lack of supporting medical evidence.

What about all the students, it was always going to happen when the students are all in halls of residence. 

Now there are lots of teachers across the Northwest getting the virus, I think they are getting it from kids in their classes.

 

[Mungler]

3 minutes ago, Mice! said:

So your doing exactly the same as me, but how can you respect others not following suit? What if there are 50 people down the street having a party? We had to have another lockdown because people couldn't follow the rules.

What about all the students, it was always going to happen when the students are all in halls of residence. 

Now there are lots of teachers across the Northwest getting the virus, I think they are getting it from kids in their classes.

 

1. if others don’t want to follow suit, that’s up to them. I don’t agree with a lockdown at all nor do I agree with furlough. History will prove both to be unnecessary.

2. You’re factually wrong. My eldest is at Uni. In his halls there’s 10 of them, 8 tested positive to Covid and were totally unaffected. All their lectures are on line and this is common across all Unis - indeed I’m paying the thick end of £10k pa for Uni by Zoom / YouTube. However, they have now all had it and are helping us all to herd immunity. We should have encouraged everyone under 30 to get it. Teachers across the Northwest getting it? (A) what are the stats please? (B) getting it isn’t the issue, dying from it is - and broadly, there’s no teachers over 80 years of age is there?

 

[Mice!]

7 minutes ago, Mungler said:

You’re factually wrong. My eldest is at Uni. In his halls there’s 10 of them, 8 tested positive to Covid and were totally unaffected. All their lectures are on line and this is common across all Unis - indeed I’m paying the thick end of £10k pa for Uni by Zoom / YouTube. However, they have now all had it and are helping us all to herd immunity. We should have encouraged everyone under 30 to get it. Teachers across the Northwest getting it? (A) what are the stats please? (B) getting it isn’t the issue, dying from it is - and broadly, there’s no teachers over 80 years of age is there?

How am I factually wrong? Manchester uni was on the news every night as they locked the students in their accommodation to stop them passing covid onto others, yes I'm sure they were unaffected and I'm glad but had they not been confined how many more would have got it, I'm sure this situation will have been similar across the country at other Universities. 

I've no idea about stats, but I know the schools in my area, my daughter's school didn't have any cases but its its slowly been the case that a teacher or TA in each year or a couple at a time have tested positive then that year has had to isolate. The same with my wifes school.

This has also happened at the schools my friends and relatives kids go to, and work colleagues.

It was being posted on Lancs Live about which local schools had cases but I've not looked recently. 

[Mungler]

You said all the teachers were getting it, I was asking for evidence. And the point about the Unis was they did lock all the kids down, so how did they then pass Covid onto the teaching staff they didn’t have access to?

The follow up was so what? Getting Covid is not the problem unless you’re over 80 or on a wobbly wicket. 3 people in my office have had Covid one didn’t know, two had a mild headache for a day.

This Segways into the stats - we should be locking down the over 80’s only. They’re locked down in the current scenario and we’re neither saving them nor are we saving the economy. My way, we get to save both.

[clangerman]

6 minutes ago, Mungler said:

the point about the Unis was they did lock all the kids down, so how did they then pass Covid onto the teaching staff they didn’t have access to?

 

didn’t need to infect the staff here bristol had one of the lowest rates soon as unis opened infection exploded now in teir three they are so irresponsible it made the news party’s ignoring advice posters asking for beer in their windows now the town is stuffed thanks to them 

[Mungler]

20 minutes ago, clangerman said:

didn’t need to infect the staff here bristol had one of the lowest rates soon as unis opened infection exploded now in teir three they are so irresponsible it made the news party’s ignoring advice posters asking for beer in their windows now the town is stuffed thanks to them 

Don’t conflate recorded infection with deaths. Detected infection rises with increased testing and screening. Three people in my offices have been infected with Covid - no one died and their recorded ‘infection’ is meaningless in isolation and without the news that that they’re absolutely fine.

There have been 293 Covid deaths in Bristol since March. I will see if I can find the age ranges for those deaths but I bet it’s 90% over 80 years of age etc.

Would I lock down a city with a population of 700,000 for that? No

Let me try this another way and add perspective -  did you know 288 people in Bristol have died from pollution in the same period? 

Edited December 4, 2020 by Mungler

[Mice!]

51 minutes ago, Mungler said:

You said all the teachers were getting it

 

1 hour ago, Mice! said:

Now there are lots of teachers across the Northwest

I said lots not all, I keep losing stuff do I'm doing this in bits.

https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/lancashire-schools-hit-fresh-coronavirus-19344109

But the three primary schools in my area aren't included for some reason?

https://www.lep.co.uk/education/these-are-15-lancashire-schools-which-have-been-affected-coronavirus-week-2979740

September,  it seems it isn't being reported now.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-54233775

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-55059135

This trust wanted to close early for xmas but has been told they can't. 

Overall the rates in Lancashire are coming down, but East Lancashire is still among the highest in the country,  so schools there are probably still affected as well.

[Mungler]

Population of Lancashire is 1,500,000.

Total Covid deaths in Lancashire since March = 1,216 (0.08% of population of Lancashire).

14th October to 27th November there were 289 deaths in the following age bands and as follows:

0-19 : 0

20-39 : 2

40-59 : 22

60-79 : 112

80+ : 153

Would I shut down a county based on that? No.

On those stats over a 6 week period 92% of deaths were people over 60.

So, what about a proper lock down for the over 60’s (no mortgage, no child care commitments, no career aspirations) and don’t forget they’re already in lockdown with everybody else right now, but everyone else back to work?

Edited December 4, 2020 by Mungler

[Mice!]

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

There have been 293 Covid deaths in Bristol since March. I will see if I can find the age ranges for those deaths but I bet it’s 90% over 80 years of age etc.

 

10 minutes ago, Mungler said:

On those stats over a 6 week period 92% of deaths were people over 60.

So, what about a proper lock down for the over 60’s (no mortgage, no child care commitments, no career aspirations) and don’t forget they’re already in lockdown with everybody else right now, but everyone else back to work?

Now it's a lockdown for the over 60s and in this area it's not 90% of deaths in the over 80 years age group.

Imagine saying to everyone on PW over 60 you can't leave the house so the younger generations can carry on with their lives, not a chance. 

Not a lot of deaths in the scheme of things most will say, but how many are ill in hospital still or sick at home.

Yes many who have died had other health issues but they were still functioning family members no doubt working and enjoying life.

16 minutes ago, Mungler said:

no mortgage

Surprisingly I've worked with a few blokes in there 60s who still had mortgages and I was stunned.

[Mungler]

13 minutes ago, Mice! said:

 

Imagine saying to everyone on PW over 60 you can't leave the house so the younger generations can carry on with their lives, not a chance. 

 

And we arrive at the conclusion and that is ‘misery enjoys company’.

Rather than the vulnerable be locked down on their own they want to be locked down with everyone and such that everyone then has to suffer lockdown together and with the consequential economic ruination. The over 60’s then complain that the under 30’s by their actions refuse to be locked down, but that of course is in exactly the same way that the over 60’s refuse to be locked down on their own. Brilliant. Who is being selfish here?

.

Edited December 4, 2020 by Mungler

[Mice!]

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

And we arrive at the conclusion and that is ‘misery enjoys company’.

I don't think it's that, just asking the over 80s to isolate for their own benefit may be possible,  I don't know anyone in that age bracket,  my grandad made it and did little more than pop the shops, tend his garden and look after himself. 

Asking the over 60s to isolate would be political suicide,  and I just don't think they would do it, the government or the over 60s

We are all in this together,  or at least we should be. 

[Mungler]

6 hours ago, Mice! said:

I don't think it's that, just asking the over 80s to isolate for their own benefit may be possible,  I don't know anyone in that age bracket,  my grandad made it and did little more than pop the shops, tend his garden and look after himself. 

Asking the over 60s to isolate would be political suicide,  and I just don't think they would do it, the government or the over 60s

We are all in this together,  or at least we should be. 

This 6 week data set for the whole of Lancashire (and of 1.5 m people) tells us all we need to know about the virus;

0-19 : 0

20-39 : 2

40-59 : 22

60-79 : 112

80+ : 153

If you’re under 20, you’re bullet proof - this virus just isn’t going to touch you.

20-40 you have very little to worry about and the very few cases that pop up in this age range almost certainly have serious underlying health issues.

So, drawing a line for the under 40’s, we could let everyone under 40 crack on and lead a normal life and go to work.

We then look at drawing lines for the over 40s - if you’re 40-60 and on a wobbly wicket, isolate. 

Over 60 or more likely over 65 (t’s only because the data set is presented as 60-80 and not 65-80) then it’s definite isolation time but the key is this - there would be some much more money available through not shutting the economy down or paying healthy people to sit at home on their backsides, that this narrow group containing the most vulnerable to the virus could enjoy the Rolls Royce of all lockdowns. This approach could have also freed up NHS emergency bed space and allowed all other aspects of the NHS to remain open.

Last week a 48 year old with diabetes phoned in LBC to speak to one of the SAGE professors to find out when he was going to get the vaccine. The answer was number 6 on the list - the 48 year old diabetic couldn’t believe it, after all he had diabetes the most serious (we are told) of underlying health issues. The SAGE quack was candid and said ‘this is a disease of age, even with your diabetes we have to vaccinate the over 80’s first because they are the ones dying in droves’. And that also tells us everything we need to know (but refuse to accept). 

.

Edited December 5, 2020 by Mungler

[Mice!]

4 hours ago, Mungler said:

This 6 week data set for the whole of Lancashire (and of 1.5 m people) tells us all we need to know about the virus;

0-19 : 0

20-39 : 2

40-59 : 22

60-79 : 112

80+ : 153

If you’re under 20, you’re bullet proof - this virus just isn’t going to touch you.

20-40 you have very little to worry about and the very few cases that pop up in this age range almost certainly have serious underlying health issues.

So, drawing a line for the under 40’s, we could let everyone under 40 crack on and lead a normal life and go to work.

We then look at drawing lines for the over 40s - if you’re 40-60 and on a wobbly wicket, isolate. 

Over 60 or more likely over 65 (t’s only because the data set is presented as 60-80 and not 65-80) then it’s definite isolation time but the key is this - there would be some much more money available through not shutting the economy down or paying healthy people to sit at home on their backsides, that this narrow group containing the most vulnerable to the virus could enjoy the Rolls Royce of all lockdowns. This approach could have also freed up NHS emergency bed space and allowed all other aspects of the NHS to remain open.

Last week a 48 year old with diabetes phoned in LBC to speak to one of the SAGE professors to find out when he was going to get the vaccine. The answer was number 6 on the list - the 48 year old diabetic couldn’t believe it, after all he had diabetes the most serious (we are told) of underlying health issues. The SAGE quack was candid and said ‘this is a disease of age, even with your diabetes we have to vaccinate the over 80’s first because they are the ones dying in droves’. And that also tells us everything we need to know (but refuse to accept). 

.

I understand all that, which is why being mid 40s and taking what I feel is necessary precautions I feel quite safe, I know the lads in work young and old will have been in the pubs all weekend so they will be told to stay away, and they will think I'm being soft.

But I just don't think the over 60/65 will listen to being told to stay home, some with other conditions probably are doing but the majority won't,  which is why the government hasn't suggested it. 

[Yellow Bear]

25 minutes ago, Mice! said:

But I just don't think the over 60/65 will listen to being told to stay home, some with other conditions probably are doing but the majority won't,  which is why the government hasn't suggested it

What we first need to establish is this a "lockdown" as now or a "shielding" as was?

In both cases people will need to eat which means shop etc. (don't say this can all be done online because it can't) so contact, usually with the worst spreading age group, is unavoidable.

 "shielding" as it was is not leaving the house for any reason whatsoever, and if the house is shared with any not, it means not even leaving your room except for the bathroom.  No physical contact with anyone in  many cases, and some have the audacity to cite the effect on the mental and physical health of the younger by not being able to "socialise" .

[Mice!]

28 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

In both cases people will need to eat which means shop etc. (don't say this can all be done online because it can't) so contact, usually with the worst spreading age group, is unavoidable.

Click and collect works well to reduce your time in the shops, but I doubt it would suit everyone. 

30 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

shielding" as it was is not leaving the house for any reason whatsoever, and if the house is shared with any not, it means not even leaving your room except for the bathroom.  No physical contact with anyone in  many cases, and some have the audacity to cite the effect on the mental and physical health of the younger by not being able to "socialise" .

That's why I don't think it will happen,  just asking the older generation to stay at home be it lockdown or shielding would seem unfair. 

[Mungler]

13 minutes ago, Mice! said:

‘Unfair’? Just like locking down fit youngsters who themselves are not as risk of the virus and then spending every living moment moaning about them trying to get out and about and live their lives? Or unfair just like ruining the futures of probably two generations to come. Or, locking down everyone (where we are now) and neither saving the old nor the economy.

There’s no easy answers and there’s no easy solution - my way, instead of everyone taking one for the team and whole team still getting royally shafted anyway, we just get the elderly (being those most likely to die) to shield and yes they take one for the team (or rather take one just for themselves given that it is really just them at risk of the virus). 
.

Edited December 5, 2020 by Mungler

[amateur]

48 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

......In both cases people will need to eat which means shop etc. (don't say this can all be done online because it can't) ........

Strange! We have shopped exclusively on-line since the first lockdown, sharing our orders between 2 supermarkets and a farm shop. 

As my wife and I both have medical issues and are over 70, we have kept other contact to the absolute minimum

Edited December 5, 2020 by amateur

[Raja Clavata]

It's not really even taking one for the team, the smart elderly and vulnerable folk should be doing it as a matter of course anyway. Sit it out until they've had the vaccine.

[Mice!]

1 minute ago, Mungler said:

‘Unfair’? Just like locking down fit youngsters and then spending every living moment moaning about them being out and about? Or just like ruining the futures for probably two generations to come. Or, locking down everyone (where we are now) and neither saving the old nor the economy.

There’s no easy answers and there’s no easy solution - my way, instead of everyone taking one for the team and whole team getting shafted anyway, we get the elderly (being those most likely to die) to shield and take one for the team. 

It's not been a year yet, if the country can't manage being restricted for that amount of time then it really is in a bad state, god help us if there was ever another war.

Most people on here weren't happy being told they couldn't shoot pigeons,  so telling the older generation to take one for the team will never happen in my opinion. 

[amateur]

1 minute ago, Raja Clavata said:

It's not really even taking one for the team, the smart elderly and vulnerable folk should be doing it as a matter of course anyway. Sit it out until they've had the vaccine.

Exactly

[Mungler]

8 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

It's not really even taking one for the team, the smart elderly and vulnerable folk should be doing it as a matter of course anyway. Sit it out until they've had the vaccine.

Spot on.

 

8 minutes ago, Mice! said:

It's not been a year yet, if the country can't manage being restricted for that amount of time then it really is in a bad state, god help us if there was ever another war.

Most people on here weren't happy being told they couldn't shoot pigeons,  so telling the older generation to take one for the team will never happen in my opinion. 

It’s not a mere matter of physical restriction - it’s the economic ruination of shutting an entire economy - not slowing but shutting, something never seen or done before in the whole of history AND based on the stats outlined above.

Besides, who are we to tell fit and healthy youngsters not to go out and live their lives? Why should they? Serious question.

You will say ‘it’s to protect the elderly’ to which the answer is the elderly should protect themselves and neither rely on others nor seek to disrupt the lives of others together with the whole of the country’s economy just to protect them and when they have the power to protect themselves via self isolation. 

Edited December 5, 2020 by Mungler

[Yellow Bear]

21 minutes ago, Mungler said:

we just get the elderly (being those most likely to die) to shield and yes they take one for the team

It is not the risk of death that is the main problem as you keep pushing, it is the risk of long and, I believe unpleasant, illness which seems to be the situation in many cases.   This is as yet to be quantified, but would seem to happen in about 5% of cases.

I suggest that those of you proposing sheilding try it . Not for a couple of hours but several days and then say it is fair to further restrict those over 65 who mostly, in my experience, have not come out of sheilding/lockdown at the least since March, so that the "young" can spend 3/4 nights a week getting off their face   socialising.   I have no problem with folks getting back to work etc. and in most cases are sensible and considerate and would cause minor problems to infection.

To penalise with "house arrest" a large proportion of the populace so another can "have fun" is not acceptable.

 

42 minutes ago, amateur said:

Strange! We have shopped exclusively on-line since the first lockdown, sharing our orders between 2 supermarkets and a farm shop. 

As my wife and I both have medical issues and are over 70, we have kept other contact to the absolute minimum

We are in a similar position but it took us nearly 2 months to get a supermarket spot and even then we need to be 2 weeks or more in front of ourselves.

[amateur]

34 minutes ago, Mungler said:

....... You will say ‘it’s to protect the elderly’ to which the answer is the elderly should protect themselves and neither rely on others nor seek to disrupt the lives of others together with the whole of the country’s economy just to protect them and when they have the power to protect themselves via self isolation. 

Yes, but you are forgetting that the elderly have an economic impact.

My wife and I would normally be involved in grandchild caring duties, which have allowed our daughters and sons-in-law to work more effectively. They have been juggling shifts and contracts to cover school runs and after school which we did routinely.

[amateur]

9 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

We are in a similar position but it took us nearly 2 months to get a supermarket spot and even then we need to be 2 weeks or more in front of ourselves.

It did help that we have had home deliveries for years, but yes, my wife plans ahead and stacks up orders and delivery slots, editing them as necessary nearer the time.

[Mungler]

I’ve seen the debate go round - anyone over 60 at one end of the spectrum and  anyone under 60 at the other. Now, it’s all academic because we are where we are. I do wonder what the history books will make of it all.

The wider economic impact is going to be off the charts and please don’t think we’re anywhere near seeing the start. The fact there are other countries are in the same boat will not lessen the impact.

No one who advocated lockdown (etc) dare moan about the lack of employment opportunities for them / their children / their grand children, how under resourced the police are, how the NHS needs more money, why their pensions aren’t what they should be etc etc. Oh hang on, of course they will because people are in the main clueless idiots.

.