[Misc] IF there's a Christmas lockdown - would you comply?

[Dorset Seagull]

The Govt have proved to be a disaster at handling this pandemic. I think it’s time for individuals to weigh up the pros and cons of each situation and decide what is the best and safest course of action. Apart from a few numpties most of us are capable of deciding what is the right thing to do.

 

[Steve in Japan]

Governments cannot continue to operate as if COVID is the only consideration in life. Surely it's time for them to have a grown-up conversation about living with the disease.

The national debt is spiralling and inflation is inexorably creeping up. Pensioners will be (are being) screwed. Hospitality industry is decimated. Gatwick might as well be shut for all the traffic going through there. People's health (ex Covid) is deteriorating fast. We've screwed up a whole generation of school kids and students. And for what? To do it all again?? I really don't think that's an option.

 

[The Clamp]

Governments cannot continue to operate as if COVID is the only consideration in life. Surely it's time for them to have a grown-up conversation about living with the disease.

The national debt is spiralling and inflation is inexorably creeping up. Pensioners will be (are being) screwed. Hospitality industry is decimated. Gatwick might as well be shut for all the traffic going through there. People's health (ex Covid) is deteriorating fast. We've screwed up a whole generation of school kids and students. And for what? To do it all again?? I really don't think that's an option.

100% agree.

 

[Wardy's twin]

I guess the real question is do you think the governments advice is any good - personally i think it has been weak and shambolic throughout the pandemic so I will do what I have done throughout which is to follow a 'common sense' approach.

The plan is to meet up with family , all will do tests and if individuals show positive (or indeed any signs) then they drop out and that would include heavy colds or sore throats. My wife's immune system is non existent so we play very safe but that has to strike a balance with living some 'life' so that is seeing family whilst football, pubs and most shopping is out.

 

[Bozza]

Governments cannot continue to operate as if COVID is the only consideration in life. Surely it's time for them to have a grown-up conversation about living with the disease.

What does "living with the disease" actually mean?

The fear at the moment is the growth of Omicron is such that, even if it is milder, so many people will be severely ill at the same time that hospitals will be swamped. At that point you either turn those sick with Covid away or those with all manner of other ailments, including cancer and heart attacks etc, are turned away - there's simply no resources left to treat them.

So if that is a real concern (and whether you agree or not - please play along) - do you just let that play out, cross your fingers and hope for the best / least worst?

I'm not sure people dying slow agonising deaths in large numbers at home, because there is nowhere else for them to go, is "living with the disease" is it?

I'm not sure there are any easy answers from here, but I'm bloody glad I have no responsibility for trying to find one.

 

[zefarelly]

The Govt have proved to be a disaster at handling this pandemic. I think it’s time for individuals to weigh up the pros and cons of each situation and decide what is the best and safest course of action. Apart from a few numpties most of us are capable of deciding what is the right thing to do.

There are a lot of numpties out there. The numpties are the biggest risk to us all. If thre weren't so many in office and on the streets we'd quite possibly never have needed a second lock down.

The Government are more than capable of shafting everyone and everything without Covid, in that respect its been little more than a contributory factor.

At Zef towers We have been and still are fairly cautious in socialising, largely remaining in a controlled bubble to minimise risk whilst getting on with life as best as. Football and big gigs don't seem like a worthwhile risk just yet.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

Mrs Not Andy Naylor and I pretty much are the elderly relatives this year, but we're both triple-jabbed AND have had a bout of the 'rona in the last month so we must be as protected as it's possible to be. In fact I was thinking of selling my antibodies on eBay. If jabbed younger relatives (one of whom has had it too) want to invite us round, then we'll feel pretty confident about going, especially as they have plenty of outdoor space and if it's not actually raining, we'll be able to be in the open air.

But I'd obey other rules for lockdown. There are too many people who seem unaware or uninterested in the risks.

 

[Guinness Boy]

What does "living with the disease" actually mean?

The fear at the moment is the growth of Omicron is such that, even if it is milder, so many people will be severely ill at the same time that hospitals will be swamped. At that point you either turn those sick with Covid away or those with all manner of other ailments, including cancer and heart attacks etc, are turned away - there's simply no resources left to treat them.

So if that is a real concern (and whether you agree or not - please play along) - do you just let that play out, cross your fingers and hope for the best / least worst?

I'm not sure people dying slow agonising deaths in large numbers at home, because there is nowhere else for them to go, is "living with the disease" is it?

I'm not sure there are any easy answers from here, but I'm bloody glad I have no responsibility for trying to find one.

There are no easy answers but is one of the questions "should hospitals prioritise the vaccinated"?

At what point do those of us who will wear a mask and get vaccinated say they've had enough of protecting those who won't?

 

[Poojah]

If a lockdown for all is proposed before a lockdown specifically targeted at the unvaccinated, then absolutely to hell with that. I get that Omicron poses a still not fully understood threat, but it’s ultimately the unvaccinated that risk overwhelming health systems.

I’ve happily suffered before, along with everyone else, for the greater good of our nation but I’m not prepared to suffer again for the ignorant and uneducated because they refuse to act to help themselves and, y’know, for the greater good of our nation. As others have said, fúck em. I don’t believe vaccine mandates are ethical or practical, but from here on in if you opt not to get vaccinated then you’re on your own.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

There are no easy answers but is one of the questions "should hospitals prioritise the vaccinated"?

At what point do those of us who will wear a mask and get vaccinated say they've had enough of protecting those who won't?

Should hospitals prioritise those that are not obese, which is quite a big (chortle) strain on the NHS

Vaccine passports for everything is a middle ground in my view, not mandating it and not denying medical treatment.

 

[The Wizard]

Absolutely not, imagine taking instruction for this government of sleazy, incredulous, hypocritical downright liars.

The definition of madness is repeating the same thing over and over again, previous lockdowns have led us where? Two years down the line still being threatened with another one.

The only way Lockdown would be in anyway adhered to by the general public is if the government can provide proof that this isn’t just a mild version of the original virus, which based on data from South Africa it appears to be. South Africa have less than 25% vaccinated and yet still nobody has died from Omicron, I’ve heard the ‘follow the science’ peddled endlessly by these morons in government, but it appears when it suits them science and data are ignored.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Should hospitals prioritise those that are not obese, which is quite a big (chortle) strain on the NHS

Vaccine passports for everything is a middle ground in my view, not mandating it and not denying medical treatment.

But Bozza said

so many people will be severely ill at the same time that hospitals will be swamped. At that point you either turn those sick with Covid away or those with all manner of other ailments, including cancer and heart attacks etc, are turned away - there's simply no resources left to treat them.


So who would you prioritise? The unvaccinated Covid patient or the fat guy with heart problems? You only get to pick one.

 

[LamieRobertson]

But Bozza said

so many people will be severely ill at the same time that hospitals will be swamped. At that point you either turn those sick with Covid away or those with all manner of other ailments, including cancer and heart attacks etc, are turned away - there's simply no resources left to treat them.


So who would you prioritise? The unvaccinated Covid patient or the fat guy with heart problems? You only get to pick one.

Would you describe yourself as erm…tummy challenged?

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

But Bozza said

so many people will be severely ill at the same time that hospitals will be swamped. At that point you either turn those sick with Covid away or those with all manner of other ailments, including cancer and heart attacks etc, are turned away - there's simply no resources left to treat them.


So who would you prioritise? The unvaccinated Covid patient or the fat guy with heart problems? You only get to pick one.

Why is the covid patient unvaccinated? Would the person checking them in know the reasons why?

The Anti Diet guy will be still taking a bed up that could be free for someone else via life choices - the same as not taking the vax

You have to be very careful going down that road.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Would you describe yourself as erm…tummy challenged?

Why is the covid patient unvaccinated? Would the person checking them in know the reasons why?

The Anti Diet guy will be still taking a bed up that could be free for someone else via life choices - the same as not taking the vax

You have to be very careful going down that road.

So neither of you will make the choice. Yet you expect the NHS to.

 

[usernamed]

When you cut public services to the bone, any event that increases demand will inevitably cause that service to break down.

It’s been the case across public services, and been very successful politically - because very few of us need multiple public services at the same time. We assume that things are ticking along alright when we don’t personally need to use the service. We’d rather pay less tax, thank you.

Additionally, responsibility for services has been devolved to local councils, but the funding settlement given to those councils has not increased to match the amounts previously allocated when those services were funded through central government. This leads to either loss of service (when Council Tax is frozen) or regressive taxation (Council Tax rises)

It’s only when an unexpected event (such as Covid) occurs that we:

a) need to use those public services en-masse
b) can see where we’ve cut corners and how much pressure those involved are under.

If things are already stretched on a normal day, increased demand puts the entire infrastructure at risk, the systems stop working.

I don’t believe that we should pay 80% tax and have gold standard services across the board, but I do believe we need to be closing a few tax loopholes, taking more from the multinationals that openly game our tax laws, and operate silver standard services with some slack in them for unexpected increases in demand.

Current leadership have had to rebuild the police force decimated by Osborne/Cameron, and have to keep injecting “new” amounts into the NHS without admitting that the previous administration from the same party had completely failed to fund it properly.

I’m far from a fan of Tony Blair, and I remember that Labour government being completely out of control at the end of its time in power, but I do feel that society in Britain has gone through a slow but steady decline since then.

With 12 hour waits for an ambulance, food banks, empty supermarket shelves, and operation wait times measured in years, we look now how pictures/reports of Eastern Bloc countries looked in the 1980s.

Oh Christ, I’ve written an essay. Logging off for the day, am clearly not in a glass half-full kind of a mood.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Driver8]

But Bozza said

so many people will be severely ill at the same time that hospitals will be swamped. At that point you either turn those sick with Covid away or those with all manner of other ailments, including cancer and heart attacks etc, are turned away - there's simply no resources left to treat them.


So who would you prioritise? The unvaccinated Covid patient or the fat guy with heart problems? You only get to pick one.

That would be a fair comparison if the fat guy had declined the option of a free jab that instantly made him fit and healthy.

 

[The Wizard]

If a lockdown for all is proposed before a lockdown specifically targeted at the unvaccinated, then absolutely to hell with that. I get that Omicron poses a still not fully understood threat, but it’s ultimately the unvaccinated that risk overwhelming health systems.

I’ve happily suffered before, along with everyone else, for the greater good of our nation but I’m not prepared to suffer again for the ignorant and uneducated because they refuse to act to help themselves and, y’know, for the greater good of our nation. As others have said, fúck em. I don’t believe vaccine mandates are ethical or practical, but from here on in if you opt not to get vaccinated then you’re on your own.

Can anyone who shares this opinion explain how you can be so angry towards anyone who hasn’t had the vaccine?

The vaccine reportedly does very little against Omicron, so what on earth relevance to people who chose not to have a vaccine have to do with it? Genuinely struggling to understand how this has anything to do with the people who can’t have the vaccine or chose not too.

It seems to me this kind of post sums up what’s division covid has caused within society, says it all when you see posts saying unvaccinated shouldn’t receive treatment, it’s absolutely sick quite frankly. I’ve never heard anything like that said about anyone who is overweight or smokes.

 

[Bozza]

Absolutely not, imagine taking instruction for this government of sleazy, incredulous, hypocritical downright liars.

The definition of madness is repeating the same thing over and over again, previous lockdowns have led us where? Two years down the line still being threatened with another one.

The only way Lockdown would be in anyway adhered to by the general public is if the government can provide proof that this isn’t just a mild version of the original virus, which based on data from South Africa it appears to be. South Africa have less than 25% vaccinated and yet still nobody has died from Omicron, I’ve heard the ‘follow the science’ peddled endlessly by these morons in government, but it appears when it suits them science and data are ignored.

I'm getting really concerned at these "it's milder so everything will be OK" type comments which are floating around, because it encourages people to be complacent.

Whether it's milder or not (and it's far from clear that it is), it makes little difference given three other factors...

- Transmissibility. It's spreading like wildfire.
- Immunity breakthrough. It's very good at sidestepping protection that was working against Delta
- Delta + Omicron. In the short-term at least, there is a chance we'll have a large Omicron wave on top of our existing Delta wave, because they kinda target different people. Those that Delta can't get at, Omicron can.

What all this brings about is the following which I feel like I'm repeating a lot right now: A small percentage of a very big number can still be a big number.

Putting that into the current context: A small percentage (people who get very sick) of a very big number (people who are infected) can still be a big number (people needing hospital care).

I'd encourage everyone to take a few minutes and read JB-M's excellent explainer from yesterday (open to read his thread of tweets):

[tweet]1469338725658341381[/tweet]

And on the "it's milder, what's the fuss about" thing, take time to read this thread of tweets:

[tweet]1468988174693289994[/tweet]

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

Just voted and then obviously the results come up.

Frankly, those who voted 'no' ..............staggering......

Feck whether the government are partying or not (bloody idiots that they are), this is about protecting the NHS and others........

I wont enter into a discussion on this, as working for the NHS and with elderly vulnerable parents I feel very strongly about this, and might end up being banned.