FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > So, what's the definition of safe?
So, what's the definition of safe?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
We hear it all the time right now 'when it's safe to do so' but it's what we aren't hearing that is more important.
How, exactly, are they defining safe.
From the moment we're born till the moment we die we are never completely safe. Every single thing we do has some element of risk attached to it. Everything. Most of it we never give a second thought to, yet some of the things we percieve as the most risky are, in fact, amongst the safest.
So, where on that scale are the powers that be setting the threshhold of safety for Covid-19?
Eradication?
Specific R value?
Number of new infections daily?
Number of deaths?
We DON'T KNOW, and that is a problem. How can we judge the performance of a government against such a subjective goal as 'safe'?
We can't.
And that means they can pretty much do as they please and just tell us 'it's not safe yet' and effectively shut down any debate.
If that doesn't worry you, it should. We need to start, as a population, demandimg real, honest and truthful information about the targets, triggers and actions this government intends to take to get this country back to normal.
If we don't, we have only ourselves to blame when we're all still stuck under restrictions in a years time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We hear it all the time right now 'when it's safe to do so' but it's what we aren't hearing that is more important.
How, exactly, are they defining safe.
From the moment we're born till the moment we die we are never completely safe. Every single thing we do has some element of risk attached to it. Everything. Most of it we never give a second thought to, yet some of the things we percieve as the most risky are, in fact, amongst the safest.
So, where on that scale are the powers that be setting the threshhold of safety for Covid-19?
Eradication?
Specific R value?
Number of new infections daily?
Number of deaths?
We DON'T KNOW, and that is a problem. How can we judge the performance of a government against such a subjective goal as 'safe'?
We can't.
And that means they can pretty much do as they please and just tell us 'it's not safe yet' and effectively shut down any debate.
If that doesn't worry you, it should. We need to start, as a population, demandimg real, honest and truthful information about the targets, triggers and actions this government intends to take to get this country back to normal.
If we don't, we have only ourselves to blame when we're all still stuck under restrictions in a years time."
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
That information changes 3 or 4 times a day, it's a virus that doesn't follow a set guideline of rules and like governments all over the world it's all best guess as to what is not hopefully going to screw us over the worst, too many people have and are dying and not enough people are taking responsibility for our own actions, after all we are the ones who are spreading it...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We hear it all the time right now 'when it's safe to do so' but it's what we aren't hearing that is more important.
How, exactly, are they defining safe.
From the moment we're born till the moment we die we are never completely safe. Every single thing we do has some element of risk attached to it. Everything. Most of it we never give a second thought to, yet some of the things we percieve as the most risky are, in fact, amongst the safest.
So, where on that scale are the powers that be setting the threshhold of safety for Covid-19?
Eradication?
Specific R value?
Number of new infections daily?
Number of deaths?
We DON'T KNOW, and that is a problem. How can we judge the performance of a government against such a subjective goal as 'safe'?
We can't.
And that means they can pretty much do as they please and just tell us 'it's not safe yet' and effectively shut down any debate.
If that doesn't worry you, it should. We need to start, as a population, demandimg real, honest and truthful information about the targets, triggers and actions this government intends to take to get this country back to normal.
If we don't, we have only ourselves to blame when we're all still stuck under restrictions in a years time."
It's in no ones interest to be locked down for a year , things are gradually being opened up and we are seeing where it takes us . Simple really |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"That information changes 3 or 4 times a day, it's a virus that doesn't follow a set guideline of rules and like governments all over the world it's all best guess as to what is not hopefully going to screw us over the worst, too many people have and are dying and not enough people are taking responsibility for our own actions, after all we are the ones who are spreading it...
"
The virus doesn't need to follow rules, our government need to be clear and open about what the specific triggers are for their actions.
That doesn't change 3 or 4 times a day - if we don't know what the triggers are, how can we judge the success or otherwise of our government's actions in any meaningful way? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"
It's in no ones interest to be locked down for a year , things are gradually being opened up and we are seeing where it takes us . Simple really "
You may be happy to 'wait and see' and trust that the government knows best.
I'm not.
We have a government which has assumed an unprecidented level of control over our lives, we have a duty to ensure they don't abuse it.
We can't do that effectively if we don't know what the objectives are... and 'safe' isn't specific enough to be considered and objective.
They may be doing exceptionally well, the point is that when you have nothing to measure against it's impossible to measure their success or failure. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We hear it all the time right now 'when it's safe to do so' but it's what we aren't hearing that is more important.
How, exactly, are they defining safe.
From the moment we're born till the moment we die we are never completely safe. Every single thing we do has some element of risk attached to it. Everything. Most of it we never give a second thought to, yet some of the things we percieve as the most risky are, in fact, amongst the safest.
So, where on that scale are the powers that be setting the threshhold of safety for Covid-19?
Eradication?
Specific R value?
Number of new infections daily?
Number of deaths?
We DON'T KNOW, and that is a problem. How can we judge the performance of a government against such a subjective goal as 'safe'?
We can't.
And that means they can pretty much do as they please and just tell us 'it's not safe yet' and effectively shut down any debate.
If that doesn't worry you, it should. We need to start, as a population, demandimg real, honest and truthful information about the targets, triggers and actions this government intends to take to get this country back to normal.
If we don't, we have only ourselves to blame when we're all still stuck under restrictions in a years time."
Regarding your comment that we need to know the targets and actions the government intends to take to bring the country back to normal, Boris Johnson gave an address to the nation on Sunday 10th May and outlined the steps back to normality.
Step one - Weds 13th May people could exercise as much as they wanted, sit in the park, drive to locations, play sports with others from their own household. Fact - this occurred.
Step two - reception, years 1 and 6 schoolchildren to go back to school and for non essential shops to open from 1st June. Fact - those children went back to school on 1st June and shops to open from tomorrow (15th June).
Step three - possibility of hospitality venues to open from 1st July, at the earliest (depending on scientific advice and numbers). Can’t fact this as it’s in the future.
Seems to be a plan that is being followed And updates to these steps have also been announced. Perhaps you missed this broadcast  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"
Seems to be a plan that is being followed And updates to these steps have also been announced. Perhaps you missed this broadcast "
No, I didn't miss it. Nor did I miss the fact that nowhere were the actual triggers for each 'stage' set out. All we got is 'when it's safe' without any definition of what safe meant.
That's a set of aspirations, not a plan. For it to be a plan there would need to be clear goals that triggered each stage of progess... where are they?
Agian, how can we judge success when we don't know the parameters? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Seems to be a plan that is being followed And updates to these steps have also been announced. Perhaps you missed this broadcast
No, I didn't miss it. Nor did I miss the fact that nowhere were the actual triggers for each 'stage' set out. All we got is 'when it's safe' without any definition of what safe meant.
That's a set of aspirations, not a plan. For it to be a plan there would need to be clear goals that triggered each stage of progess... where are they?
Agian, how can we judge success when we don't know the parameters?"
Just as a wild guess, maybe the number of cases and deaths coming down being a sign that these measures are working even though these reopenings have been introduced. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Seems to be a plan that is being followed And updates to these steps have also been announced. Perhaps you missed this broadcast
No, I didn't miss it. Nor did I miss the fact that nowhere were the actual triggers for each 'stage' set out. All we got is 'when it's safe' without any definition of what safe meant.
That's a set of aspirations, not a plan. For it to be a plan there would need to be clear goals that triggered each stage of progess... where are they?
Agian, how can we judge success when we don't know the parameters?"
The Scottish government has laid out conditions that will enable progression through the proposed phases |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We hear it all the time right now 'when it's safe to do so' but it's what we aren't hearing that is more important.
How, exactly, are they defining safe.
From the moment we're born till the moment we die we are never completely safe. Every single thing we do has some element of risk attached to it. Everything. Most of it we never give a second thought to, yet some of the things we percieve as the most risky are, in fact, amongst the safest.
So, where on that scale are the powers that be setting the threshhold of safety for Covid-19?
Eradication?
Specific R value?
Number of new infections daily?
Number of deaths?
We DON'T KNOW, and that is a problem. How can we judge the performance of a government against such a subjective goal as 'safe'?
We can't.
And that means they can pretty much do as they please and just tell us 'it's not safe yet' and effectively shut down any debate.
If that doesn't worry you, it should. We need to start, as a population, demandimg real, honest and truthful information about the targets, triggers and actions this government intends to take to get this country back to normal.
If we don't, we have only ourselves to blame when we're all still stuck under restrictions in a years time."
We are adults... Things we know. Theres a highly infectious virus in the community, that kills people. There's no cure or vaccine.
We are responsible now for spreading it or helping to reduce it. I don't need any information from the govt right now to decide about my health. Once the R rate is low enough and the new infection count is significantly lower. I can make my choice. In the same way that nobody told me not to go to Cheltenham races in the midst of an outbreak of an unknown virus... But I decided not to go.
We need to start thinking like adults now and not relying on the govt to tell us.... They don't have a magicians wand
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We hear it all the time right now 'when it's safe to do so' but it's what we aren't hearing that is more important.
How, exactly, are they defining safe.
From the moment we're born till the moment we die we are never completely safe. Every single thing we do has some element of risk attached to it. Everything. Most of it we never give a second thought to, yet some of the things we percieve as the most risky are, in fact, amongst the safest.
So, where on that scale are the powers that be setting the threshhold of safety for Covid-19?
Eradication?
Specific R value?
Number of new infections daily?
Number of deaths?
We DON'T KNOW, and that is a problem. How can we judge the performance of a government against such a subjective goal as 'safe'?
We can't.
And that means they can pretty much do as they please and just tell us 'it's not safe yet' and effectively shut down any debate.
If that doesn't worry you, it should. We need to start, as a population, demandimg real, honest and truthful information about the targets, triggers and actions this government intends to take to get this country back to normal.
If we don't, we have only ourselves to blame when we're all still stuck under restrictions in a years time."
Ah yes the chameleon word
The now meaningless word because everyone has a different idea or belief
I dont think I can count the number who have wrote in the forums
" huh idiot, I will only meet when its safe"
That very statement illustrates safe is now a variable with little useful meaning
It was not safe before it's not safe now and it wont be safe in the future
What we need is a reasonable reasoned logical tangible assessment of danger risk assessment and mitigation
In a joined up manner
It is not safe to drive on the roads however the dangers can be controlled but death of undeserving randoms will occur
Rather than safe we should perhaps articulate the risk of
A , personal suffering
B, risk undeserving random deaths increasing
Death is going to occur it's not ever safe |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Seems to be a plan that is being followed And updates to these steps have also been announced. Perhaps you missed this broadcast
No, I didn't miss it. Nor did I miss the fact that nowhere were the actual triggers for each 'stage' set out. All we got is 'when it's safe' without any definition of what safe meant.
That's a set of aspirations, not a plan. For it to be a plan there would need to be clear goals that triggered each stage of progess... where are they?
Agian, how can we judge success when we don't know the parameters?
The Scottish government has laid out conditions that will enable progression through the proposed phases "
Absolutely nothing any more specific in Scotland. As OP said...no particular R value, no particular numbers on infections, new infections, hospital admissions or deaths. Just the same...when judged by "the science".
The only difference I've seen is Nicola SOUNDS more confident and convincing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We hear it all the time right now 'when it's safe to do so' but it's what we aren't hearing that is more important.
How, exactly, are they defining safe.
From the moment we're born till the moment we die we are never completely safe. Every single thing we do has some element of risk attached to it. Everything. Most of it we never give a second thought to, yet some of the things we percieve as the most risky are, in fact, amongst the safest.
So, where on that scale are the powers that be setting the threshhold of safety for Covid-19?
Eradication?
Specific R value?
Number of new infections daily?
Number of deaths?
We DON'T KNOW, and that is a problem. How can we judge the performance of a government against such a subjective goal as 'safe'?
We can't.
And that means they can pretty much do as they please and just tell us 'it's not safe yet' and effectively shut down any debate.
If that doesn't worry you, it should. We need to start, as a population, demandimg real, honest and truthful information about the targets, triggers and actions this government intends to take to get this country back to normal.
If we don't, we have only ourselves to blame when we're all still stuck under restrictions in a years time.
We are adults... Things we know. Theres a highly infectious virus in the community, that kills people. There's no cure or vaccine.
We are responsible now for spreading it or helping to reduce it. I don't need any information from the govt right now to decide about my health. Once the R rate is low enough and the new infection count is significantly lower. I can make my choice. In the same way that nobody told me not to go to Cheltenham races in the midst of an outbreak of an unknown virus... But I decided not to go.
We need to start thinking like adults now and not relying on the govt to tell us.... They don't have a magicians wand
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Initially the members and attendees of the SAGE committee was kept secret, then it was revealed that Dominic Cummings had been in the meetings. The SAGE discussions and agreements were kept secret from the public too. It was wrong to do so, when these people are our servants, as Johnson is too.
The public should be informed honestly.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Initially the members and attendees of the SAGE committee was kept secret, then it was revealed that Dominic Cummings had been in the meetings. The SAGE discussions and agreements were kept secret from the public too. It was wrong to do so, when these people are our servants, as Johnson is too.
The public should be informed honestly.
"
What alchemy is it that you think we are missing out on.? None of the scientists or politicians have a cure, so take responsibility for what we do for ourselves. We ve done OK with that approach for thousands of years. It's only recently we somehow feel entitled to have access to everything. To what end.? Why do I care what cummings does unless he finds a cure or a vaccine. He isn't protecting me, that's my job. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The rules in scotland are much clearer than uk govt attempt to manipulate the population with waffle.
When you read the actual document set out by scotgov more details are given. The daily briefings are summaries. It's up to us to help ourselves by reading more and educating ourselves. Then we can make a more informed assessment of the risk/safety of own actions. Whilst following recommendations set out by experts. For a population of free thinkers there are many people wishing to be spoon fed firm answers that no one has yet.
Oh and to the guys on here. What makes you think your chances of a sexual encounter will be any better if lockdown is lifted than it was before covid. If it wasnt great before it ain't going to change after. Stop blaming lockdown for your lack of sex  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The rules in scotland are much clearer than uk govt attempt to manipulate the population with waffle.
When you read the actual document set out by scotgov more details are given. The daily briefings are summaries. It's up to us to help ourselves by reading more and educating ourselves. Then we can make a more informed assessment of the risk/safety of own actions. Whilst following recommendations set out by experts. For a population of free thinkers there are many people wishing to be spoon fed firm answers that no one has yet.
Oh and to the guys on here. What makes you think your chances of a sexual encounter will be any better if lockdown is lifted than it was before covid. If it wasnt great before it ain't going to change after. Stop blaming lockdown for your lack of sex "
Harsh but very true.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It is all a great big load of old cobblers. I'm far more likely to get injured and die from any other activity I do than I am from this load of tosh and nonsense. We have ruined our economy for nothing. It's obvious Covid 19 will extract it's number of death's whether we like it or not.
Life is going to be so much more miserable and harsh after this that it is probably not going to be worth living anyway.
We have been sold a pup. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It is all a great big load of old cobblers. I'm far more likely to get injured and die from any other activity I do than I am from this load of tosh and nonsense. We have ruined our economy for nothing. It's obvious Covid 19 will extract it's number of death's whether we like it or not.
Life is going to be so much more miserable and harsh after this that it is probably not going to be worth living anyway.
We have been sold a pup."
lockdown was not to stop you catching the virus but to slow up the numbers catching it, everyone will catch it eventually . People who think it will go away are living in dream world. Time to move on now |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It is all a great big load of old cobblers. I'm far more likely to get injured and die from any other activity I do than I am from this load of tosh and nonsense. We have ruined our economy for nothing. It's obvious Covid 19 will extract it's number of death's whether we like it or not.
Life is going to be so much more miserable and harsh after this that it is probably not going to be worth living anyway.
We have been sold a pup.lockdown was not to stop you catching the virus but to slow up the numbers catching it, everyone will catch it eventually . People who think it will go away are living in dream world. Time to move on now "
Agreed. There is no road map for this. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. It is time to move on and I get the feeling that is what is happening whether we like it or not. I think it's a question of TBF (tried but failed). The virus will win. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"
Seems to be a plan that is being followed And updates to these steps have also been announced. Perhaps you missed this broadcast
No, I didn't miss it. Nor did I miss the fact that nowhere were the actual triggers for each 'stage' set out. All we got is 'when it's safe' without any definition of what safe meant.
That's a set of aspirations, not a plan. For it to be a plan there would need to be clear goals that triggered each stage of progess... where are they?
Agian, how can we judge success when we don't know the parameters?
The Scottish government has laid out conditions that will enable progression through the proposed phases "
Seems they dont see the need for face masks on public transport though.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
People interested in trying put some specific definition to the word “safe” may wish to do an internet search for “reducing risks, protecting people” - it’s an HSE document that attempts to gauge the public’s tolerance of risk.
It covers some of the broad topics discussed here, but nothing Covid-19 related as it’s quite old.
The only point I’d make is that attempts to understand this sort of concern have been made, so scientific advisors (e.g SAGE) aren’t necessarily being as bad with words as their advice may seem. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Initially the members and attendees of the SAGE committee was kept secret, then it was revealed that Dominic Cummings had been in the meetings. The SAGE discussions and agreements were kept secret from the public too. It was wrong to do so, when these people are our servants, as Johnson is too.
The public should be informed honestly.
What alchemy is it that you think we are missing out on.? None of the scientists or politicians have a cure, so take responsibility for what we do for ourselves. We ve done OK with that approach for thousands of years. It's only recently we somehow feel entitled to have access to everything. To what end.? Why do I care what cummings does unless he finds a cure or a vaccine. He isn't protecting me, that's my job. "
No alchemy but public servants are there to serve us. That should include a full disclosure of the scientific evidence and advice as well as their reasons for making the conclusions to manage the country with the actions that they take. Alchemy and magic wrre the styles of olde, with deception, misdirection and harm caused to others, whilst some were fed poison to cure dissent. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"People interested in trying put some specific definition to the word “safe” may wish to do an internet search for “reducing risks, protecting people” - it’s an HSE document that attempts to gauge the public’s tolerance of risk.
It covers some of the broad topics discussed here, but nothing Covid-19 related as it’s quite old.
The only point I’d make is that attempts to understand this sort of concern have been made, so scientific advisors (e.g SAGE) aren’t necessarily being as bad with words as their advice may seem."
I'm not criticizing the scientists, nor the medial professionals - I'm criticizing the politicians who, after receiving all that advice seem to be utterly unwilling to actually commit to any sort of clear, measurable set of evidence-based actions.
For example, saying 'We will allow hair salons to reopen when the R rate has been stable at less than 0.6 for three weeks' is a clear, measurable goal with an associated action. We know what needs to happen before an action can be taken and if we feel their policies aren't achieving that then we can hold them to account.
On the other hand, saying 'We will allow hair salons to reopen when it's safe to do so' is clear but isn't measurable since there's no actual definition of safe against which to measure it. Therefor we can't hold them to account if it's not met because we don't know what the trigger is that needs to be met.
A deliberate lack of measurable goals is in their interest - do a poor job and they can always just say 'oh, it's not safe yet', even if the R0 rate is far less than 0.5.
I'm reminded of O'Brian in Orwell's 1984 - "We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end". Confusion, endlessly shifting 'advice' with no explanations and impossible to measure definitions ('safe') aren't filling me with confidence that they really do want to relinquish these powers anytime soon. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *aimeDWoman
over a year ago
Shaftesbury, Dorset |
Sorry, original deleted for massive typos, let’s try again lol
Its simple, as I’ve said in another thread, right now the government definition of whether it’s safe to do something is wholly based on a risk assessment that determines whether doing something will allow the economy to recover whilst not increasing the duration of the pandemic, nothing more.
It DOES NOT mean that you are safe from any chance of being infected should you do it, just that the risk has become acceptable to them in order to increase the economy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sorry, original deleted for massive typos, let’s try again lol
Its simple, as I’ve said in another thread, right now the government definition of whether it’s safe to do something is wholly based on a risk assessment that determines whether doing something will allow the economy to recover whilst not increasing the duration of the pandemic, nothing more.
It DOES NOT mean that you are safe from any chance of being infected should you do it, just that the risk has become acceptable to them in order to increase the economy."
Saf-ER not safe |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sorry, original deleted for massive typos, let’s try again lol
Its simple, as I’ve said in another thread, right now the government definition of whether it’s safe to do something is wholly based on a risk assessment that determines whether doing something will allow the economy to recover whilst not increasing the duration of the pandemic, nothing more.
It DOES NOT mean that you are safe from any chance of being infected should you do it, just that the risk has become acceptable to them in order to increase the economy."
That statement is not entirely correct, there a numerous factors along with the economy to be taken into consideration, such as impact on wider well being, education and also the fact the he huge restrictions on our civil liberties. To put it down to pure economics is incredibly nieve. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *aimeDWoman
over a year ago
Shaftesbury, Dorset |
With respect I don’t believe that I said it was down to pure economics, at least if that’s what you took away from it then I didn’t explain myself very well and I apologise.
What I meant was that economics are a driving factor in whether to reopen or not. I don’t mean that in a cynical way but as statement of understanding how capitalism functions. Without income a country will eventually fail.
Ideally to eradicate this horrible disease we would all be on lockdown until such time as an effective treatment/vaccine was developed. Of course in our modern world that is not possible and a decision has to be taken at some point when to reopen businesses and this happens when the risks to the country of staying shut outweigh the risks of re-opening.
It does not mean that there is no risk of opening, just that on balance, the country is better off to open than not.
I’m just afraid from listening to some people that they believe it is perfectly to safe to go out again without appreciating that there is some risk still there. If you know the risk and are prepared to accept that then fair play to you but to believe the risk has gone is a fallacy.
I hope that makes my position clearer ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"With respect I don’t believe that I said it was down to pure economics, at least if that’s what you took away from it then I didn’t explain myself very well and I apologise.
What I meant was that economics are a driving factor in whether to reopen or not. I don’t mean that in a cynical way but as statement of understanding how capitalism functions. Without income a country will eventually fail.
Ideally to eradicate this horrible disease we would all be on lockdown until such time as an effective treatment/vaccine was developed. Of course in our modern world that is not possible and a decision has to be taken at some point when to reopen businesses and this happens when the risks to the country of staying shut outweigh the risks of re-opening.
It does not mean that there is no risk of opening, just that on balance, the country is better off to open than not.
I’m just afraid from listening to some people that they believe it is perfectly to safe to go out again without appreciating that there is some risk still there. If you know the risk and are prepared to accept that then fair play to you but to believe the risk has gone is a fallacy.
I hope that makes my position clearer ?"
There's a risk in everything we do, and the risk of Covid to a healthy person is similar to that of an 80 mile daily commute which people would do without battering an eyelid. Frankly I have a greater risk of being ran over going to the shop than dying from covid.
As regards to lock down till a vacine well that's bonkers! For one they may never find a effective one just like that haven't for other coronavirus, secondly they need infection in the population to better understand the disease and develop a vaccine or cure, and finally like all other novel coronavirus such as SARS and MERS they eventually mutate to become less infectious eventually burning themselves out.
The media have created such histeria that people are so afraid, and while yes there will be deaths which is regrettable we cannot just wait for the thing to blow over we have to get on with out lives
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"
Ideally to eradicate this horrible disease we would all be on lockdown until such time as an effective treatment/vaccine was developed. Of course in our modern world that is not possible and a decision has to be taken at some point when to reopen businesses and this happens when the risks to the country of staying shut outweigh the risks of re-opening.
It does not mean that there is no risk of opening, just that on balance, the country is better off to open than not.
I’m just afraid from listening to some people that they believe it is perfectly to safe to go out again without appreciating that there is some risk still there. If you know the risk and are prepared to accept that then fair play to you but to believe the risk has gone is a fallacy.
I hope that makes my position clearer ?"
If you have no serious health conditions there is around a 1% chance of death IF you contract Covid-19.
Up to 80% of Covid infections may be completely asympomatic.
Around 80% with symptoms need no more than OTC medication & rest.
20% need hospial care.
Of that 20%, only around 4% need intensive care.
The vast majority of covid deaths are in people over 70
Basically, unless you are in an at risk group or elderly the science and statistics suggest you have a very low risk of death from Covid-19
The level of media induced fear is out of all proportion to the actual risk from the disease. It's as much a pandemic of fear as it is a pandemic of illness. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Ideally to eradicate this horrible disease we would all be on lockdown until such time as an effective treatment/vaccine was developed. Of course in our modern world that is not possible and a decision has to be taken at some point when to reopen businesses and this happens when the risks to the country of staying shut outweigh the risks of re-opening.
It does not mean that there is no risk of opening, just that on balance, the country is better off to open than not.
I’m just afraid from listening to some people that they believe it is perfectly to safe to go out again without appreciating that there is some risk still there. If you know the risk and are prepared to accept that then fair play to you but to believe the risk has gone is a fallacy.
I hope that makes my position clearer ?
If you have no serious health conditions there is around a 1% chance of death IF you contract Covid-19.
Up to 80% of Covid infections may be completely asympomatic.
Around 80% with symptoms need no more than OTC medication & rest.
20% need hospial care.
Of that 20%, only around 4% need intensive care.
The vast majority of covid deaths are in people over 70
Basically, unless you are in an at risk group or elderly the science and statistics suggest you have a very low risk of death from Covid-19
The level of media induced fear is out of all proportion to the actual risk from the disease. It's as much a pandemic of fear as it is a pandemic of illness."
I think the actual death rate is lower than that reported, its more likely that the chance of dying is 0.01% if your heatlhy especially considering that most people are asymptomatic and unlikley to have been tested. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"
I think the actual death rate is lower than that reported, its more likely that the chance of dying is 0.01% if your heatlhy especially considering that most people are asymptomatic and unlikley to have been tested. "
I'm inclined to agree, although most information I've seen suggests 0.1% is the best estimate for under 65's with no preexisting conditions. That said, based solely on published uk data, 1% appears to be the most widely accepted estimate given how little we know about asymptomatic infection levels in the uk. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
I think the actual death rate is lower than that reported, its more likely that the chance of dying is 0.01% if your heatlhy especially considering that most people are asymptomatic and unlikley to have been tested.
I'm inclined to agree, although most information I've seen suggests 0.1% is the best estimate for under 65's with no preexisting conditions. That said, based solely on published uk data, 1% appears to be the most widely accepted estimate given how little we know about asymptomatic infection levels in the uk."
It's interesting certainly I've seen reports of 25% or some 19 million of the population are likely to have had covid 19. Considering the 45,000 deaths that's a rate of roughly 0.2% factor in that most of those deaths are in the over 70s and for a heatlhy younger person that would suggest the risk is of death if very low. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"
It's interesting certainly I've seen reports of 25% or some 19 million of the population are likely to have had covid 19. Considering the 45,000 deaths that's a rate of roughly 0.2% factor in that most of those deaths are in the over 70s and for a heatlhy younger person that would suggest the risk is of death if very low. "
Yes, the risk for a healthy younger person does appear to be very low.
There's also a growing body of evidence suggesting Covid has been circulating far longer than first thought, with far more people having been exposed than the official figures suggest. That's in line with the apparently high number of asymptomatic infections and the low severity of the illness for most. It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that a fit, otherwise healthy person co tacting covid late last year would dismiss it as no more than a cold/mild flu, while doctors who weren't expecting a new respiratory virus would class covid illness in the vulnerable as just viral pneumonia - an illness not all that uncommon in the vulnerable during cold & flu season.
Perhaps that's the real reason why the govt. are trying to delay widespread access to antibody testing.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Seems to be a plan that is being followed And updates to these steps have also been announced. Perhaps you missed this broadcast
No, I didn't miss it. Nor did I miss the fact that nowhere were the actual triggers for each 'stage' set out. All we got is 'when it's safe' without any definition of what safe meant.
That's a set of aspirations, not a plan. For it to be a plan there would need to be clear goals that triggered each stage of progess... where are they?
Agian, how can we judge success when we don't know the parameters?
The Scottish government has laid out conditions that will enable progression through the proposed phases Seems they dont see the need for face masks on public transport though. "
No they just dont have to make it a law to make people comply. There is a very high adherence to the guidelines up here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
