Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

MERS Coronavirus warning

1601062101748.png
 
I think that the discussion in this thread has become a little polarised, at least on the face of it.
True but the couple of posters who were getting personal have knocked it on the head. Robust polite discussion and disagreement is (almost) always a good thing.

Whilst I cannot speak for others, the flattening of the curve really did work and it is likely that there will be a second tranche of deaths if the virus is not controlled. However, I am not one to support overly strict state control and would not imply that more stringent controls would necessarily work ( they wouldn't. Part human nature. Part the way in which viruses spread).
Agreed. However the lockdown was initiated when we knew relatively little about COVID-19 and its effects. Now that we know the relatively young are essentially fine the approach seems to have morphed from "protect the ability of the NHS to treat anyone who requires treatment" to "prevent anyone from dying from COVID". The harsh reality is that people have to die of something and, for people aged 90+, if COVID doesn't get them chances are flu or other causes of pneumonia will at some point.

For the benefit of the thread retard I am not suggesting euthanasia of anyone over 65. I think we should take reasonable precautions to protect the elderly and vulnerable. However, if you told me there was a virus that only kills ginger people and has a 0.0something chance of killing brown/black/blonde haired people I wouldn't give it a second thought as I have a soul. The gingers would be self-isolating until incidences of that virus dropped.

All I would ask is that the current levels of restriction be obeyed. Sadly, I do not think they will be.
You and me both.

The reason would be that under 50's, including the vulnerables within that category would unknowingly spread it to others, including the elderly.
See metaphor about gingers above. I suppose I come down on the side of those who are vulnerable and this virus poses a real risk of death should take responsibility for protecting themselves rather than ******* over the whole of society to achieve the same thing.

Admittedly I am in the younger healthy group so part of that is selfishness at my job being made much more difficult when working with little horrors who are at more risk of death from choking on food / brain injury from falling off playground benches / drinking hand sanitiser / allergic anaphylaxis than COVID.
 

GDog

Old-Salt
Where are these 3-5 days turn around times?

My wife and I have both been tested twice (negative both times) and each time we got the results at around 0500 the next day, so not even a 24 hour turn around.

The same is true for every one else I know who has been tested, test results have been returned within 24 hours.

Now, we don't live in a hotspot area, so it is possible that there are less people getting tests, so the lab/s for our area aren't as busy as else where.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

This was East Midlands about 1 month ago at two different drive through sites. The first unclear test took 36 hours and the second one I then took over 3 days.

Postal tests taken by some of my friends were turned around faster.
 
This was East Midlands about 1 month ago at two different drive through sites. The first unclear test took 36 hours and the second one I then took over 3 days.

Postal tests taken by some of my friends were turned around faster.

I think there is a big variance across areas. As has been said, probably due tom lab. workload.

Where I am near Liverpool, the turn around is 24 hours or a touch longer if swabbed on Friday.
 
True but the couple of posters who were getting personal have knocked it on the head. Robust polite discussion and disagreement is (almost) always a good thing.


Agreed. However the lockdown was initiated when we knew relatively little about COVID-19 and its effects. Now that we know the relatively young are essentially fine the approach seems to have morphed from "protect the ability of the NHS to treat anyone who requires treatment" to "prevent anyone from dying from COVID". The harsh reality is that people have to die of something and, for people aged 90+, if COVID doesn't get them chances are flu or other causes of pneumonia will at some point.

For the benefit of the thread retard I am not suggesting euthanasia of anyone over 65. I think we should take reasonable precautions to protect the elderly and vulnerable. However, if you told me there was a virus that only kills ginger people and has a 0.0something chance of killing brown/black/blonde haired people I wouldn't give it a second thought as I have a soul. The gingers would be self-isolating until incidences of that virus dropped.


You and me both.


See metaphor about gingers above. I suppose I come down on the side of those who are vulnerable and this virus poses a real risk of death should take responsibility for protecting themselves rather than ******* over the whole of society to achieve the same thing.

Admittedly I am in the younger healthy group so part of that is selfishness at my job being made much more difficult when working with little horrors who are at more risk of death from choking on food / brain injury from falling off playground benches / drinking hand sanitiser / allergic anaphylaxis than COVID.
Those who are vulnerable have largely always taken responsibility for protecting themselves.
I’m getting a bit bored of repeating myself now, but the lockdown wasn’t just about protecting the vulnerable, it was about protecting everyone. Not just from Covid-19 induced MERS, not only from the Health Service being overwhelmed but also the real possibility that other basic services would break down as well if large numbers of people were sick at the same time.
******* over the economy? How well do you think the economy would have fared if the virus had been allowed to run unchecked?

Ah, but look at Sweden, eh, what about Sweden? Well, actually, Sweden had restrictions too, just not as extensive as ours, and the last I had they were actually talking about introducing restrictions similar to ours to dampen down local spikes.
 
Well, actually, Sweden had restrictions too, just not as extensive as ours, and the last I had they were actually talking about introducing restrictions similar to ours to dampen down local spikes.

The lockdowns that Sweden are considering are tiny in comparison to most other countries.

Single workplaces or a district of a city.

Sounds much more balanced than our sledgehammer approach.

Half of the Welsh population is now in lockdown:

 
The lockdowns that Sweden are considering are tiny in comparison to most other countries.

Single workplaces or a district of a city.

Sounds much more balanced than our sledgehammer approach.

Half of the Welsh population is now in lockdown:

I have never agreed with the blanket approach adopted in any of the UK nations, but the mere fact the Swedes are considering any lockdowns is hard evidence that those that claim that Sweden is completely open are talking through their hoops, again.
 
I’m getting a bit bored of repeating myself now, but the lockdown wasn’t just about protecting the vulnerable, it was about protecting everyone. Not just from Covid-19 induced MERS, not only from the Health Service being overwhelmed but also the real possibility that other basic services would break down as well if large numbers of people were sick at the same time.
******* over the economy? How well do you think the economy would have fared if the virus had been allowed to run unchecked?
Do you have a source for that? I genuinely can't remember that being used as a justification.

All the justification I remember at the time the lockdown was being proposed was around NHS critical care, numbers of ICU beds, numbers of ventilators etc.

******* over the economy? How well do you think the economy would have fared if the virus had been allowed to run unchecked?
Pretty well with the benefit of hindsight.
 
I have never agreed with the blanket approach adopted in any of the UK nations, but the mere fact the Swedes are considering any lockdowns is hard evidence that those that claim that Sweden is completely open are talking through their hoops, again.

No-one's claiming that Sweden is 'completely open'.

No-one is saying we ought to let Covid rip through the population unchecked.
 
" No one is advocating “letting the infection rip”, a phrase only heard from the lips of people who do not want this discussed. "


hth
Who used the term “letting the infection rip”? Please quote.

if you disagree with restrictive measures, and you disagree with have having no restrictions, what exactly are you suggesting should have been done?

My post was in response to someone who stated that the vulnerable shouldn’t be allowed to **** up the economy just to protect them. Any restrictions will have an effect on the economy.
 
Do you have a source for that? I genuinely can't remember that being used as a justification.

All the justification I remember at the time the lockdown was being proposed was around NHS critical care, numbers of ICU beds, numbers of ventilators etc.


Pretty well with the benefit of hindsight.
Really? You don’t recall ”flattening the curve”, “key workers” being everyone from tattie howkers to the bin men? You don’t recall the panic buying of bog roll and pasta at the prospect of the supply chain breaking down? You don’t recall posts on here about generators, storm lamps etc.?
 
if you disagree with restrictive measures, and you disagree with have having no restrictions, what exactly are you suggesting should have been done?

The Swedish model. It was the right one.

We're going to end up there too once the UK can't take any more financial destruction.

I also think there's a growing desire for it in the UK.

As Prof Bhopal says, the vaccine isn't going to be a panacea.
 
Really? You don’t recall ”flattening the curve”, “key workers” being everyone from tattie howkers to the bin men? You don’t recall the panic buying of bog roll and pasta at the prospect of the supply chain breaking down? You don’t recall posts on here about generators, storm lamps etc.?
You're going to need to be a bit more specific. I understood 'flattening the curve' to mean slowing the rate of infection so that the NHS was not overwhelmed and able to treat anyone needing treatment, as I said here. You apparently disagree with that so what did 'flattening the curve' actually mean?

As to the rest of your post, mongs panicked. The supply chain didn't fall over and if ********* hadn't been panic-buying then there wouldn't have been shortages.

Can you show where the lockdown was imposed to protect the economy rather than the NHS's ability to cope?
 
See metaphor about gingers above. I suppose I come down on the side of those who are vulnerable and this virus poses a real risk of death should take responsibility for protecting themselves rather than ******* over the whole of society to achieve the same thing.

I see where you and others are coming from with much of this. The problem is that if the virus were to run through the under 50's group, it would spread amongst the vulnerable anyway. This is because a significant proportion of the under 50's are themselves vulnerable* and because pathogens find a way around human restrictions.

To effectively contain a virus and stop its spread, you need trained and highly motivated individuals. Human nature , eg forgetfulness and laziness goes against this. To give an example, if you airlocked a care home and applied positive pressure, you would always get someone who dropped entry protocols due to sheer accident.

*I always quote the category C vulnerable type 2 diabetics. with a HbA1c haemoglobin bound sugar at or above 76. This would reasonably be expected of a diabetic who liked pies and still liked a drink every other night. So, half of arrse really.

At the moment, we must try to achieve a balance between the needs of people and the needs of the economy. The two are not seperate as per @lastwalt comments.

The thing that both amuses and annoys me is the scientists having their 15 minutes of fame and squabbling about how to deal with these issues when no one has the complete answer. This is because, whilst the mathematics of epidemiology is not too hard, the actions of individuals make chaos of the results, eg the lad chatting up a girl pretending he was an Inspector of Covid. It's funny.
 

Latest Threads

Top