Staffsknot

Zug he may well turn out to be a troll, but let's at least let him state how many folk need to die or suffer harm before he / she thinks two pints in the Dog & Duck is a price too high. While that number remains elusive it can be invoked as proportionate. People get more concerned when folks are comfy with 100k casualty rate.

Just wondering how nearly quarter of the Spanish Flu UK death total as reported is a sniffle, especially given survivor reported long-term impacts. Let's not debate the veracity of numbers let's assume accurate for this hypothetical lockdown yes or no. So if say 50k UK deaths by end is that sufficient? Say same again for long-term chronic suffering / residual effects does that sway it? That worth locking down or not in your opinion? Just trying to deal in absolutes rather than generalisms at what point a pandemic is downgraded to sniffle and what level of death / serious illness is acceptible. Does age ranges or demographics have any part in forming the figures? Is it more OK if they are pensioners but less ok if they are majority teenagers? Maybe bit more pallatible if they had underlying health conditions? Just trying to establish your comfort zone on morbidity / severe illness

And tend to rely on the services and assistance first for any cuts - so their life goes from struggling to impossible while others drop down a rung to struggling. It's simplistic but if you're middle-class you can drop to poor. Poor drop off the cliff edge a lot easier and rich might only fall to what used to be middle-class at all.

So anything under 200k deaths is a no then ( Spanish flu ) would be your figure.

Care to quantify a death / infection rate you would say is worth a lockdown / these measures. Rough figures or % is fine just so we know your position

You know this is a huge myth based on a travel writer's joke from the mid 1800s, and even then applied to one prudish lady and a joke about a piano I believe.

Just on this one as I've tried to emphasise before the current broadbrush approach is probably by design. For a risk plan to be effective it needs to be simple and understandible. If we add caveats or exemptions people get confused. Loopholes get exploited, someone misunderstands and that spreads as fact. You want the man or woman on the street to be able to follow it without needing a second thought - ie not saying use your judgement or anything ambiguous. God knows the current lot have managed enough of that by changing slogans. Confusion kills, simplicity saves. It may seem unfair but it makes it workable

Just on this point and by no means a trend, mentioned to add a clarification what close to nil can be - a friend and former colleague, very fit triathlete and planning to enter Marathon des Sables ( extreme endurance race) went down with it. 30s no history and doctors cannot find underlying condition that made susceptible. Could be fitness training exertion but contracted under lockdown when gyms shut Recovered after 4 wks ventilated, dislocated shoulder and knee during turning while sedated. Has lung damage likely permanent to one, recovering damage in other. Just because you appear healthy and condition free doesn't mean you are ok. In many cases the science says lower risk, but the virus mutates by nature and also why the first confirmed secondary ( though weaker) infection has occured in a 30 something HK resident. Ironically they travelled as thought safe, were tested in airport and were asymptomatic with different strain. Not unusual in other coronavirus cases. Early days but aligns with flu style models.

I agree people have a right to a viewpoint and they tend to be shades of grey not the black & white they flows through these posts. I have also said I find your view 'disagree but comply with law' a pragmatic middleground. Where I disagree with people is in the I refuse to comply camp and where we seem to get facts batted away or ignore when they don't fit a narrative. In fact Riedquat I think the only bit of reasoning you propse I dispute is if we haven't read got any expertise in risk we don't understand it, yet when I reveal any background and justifications it is expert bias and thinking being an 'expert' ( which I don't claim to be only an insight) makes my opinion more valid. Neither are true but it makes an impossible position. But as said you generally appear to talk sense

I'm trying to ascertain Steve's position as when I stated what I thought was his position - he's against any of the measures imposed as an infringement and refuses to take those steps as such - he told me it was an obnoxious mistepresentation and adhominem attack. I'm trying to work out if when he says he's opposed to and refuses to do something he actually means breaking the law. You oppose it being law but obey the law as is - which is different to flouting it because you oppose it ( which several posts seem to imply).

Last thing and I have stated elsewhere I know a ICU nurses and that may shape my vehement defence of any measure that prevents the spread of Covid. I spoke to one last Friday and I post this here not to reinforce a view one way or other, but as a backdrop to what is being discussed. Please don't debate it or pass any comment / use in own justifications. It is purely anecdotal. El is an ICU nurse, she's been talking to me about PTSD, techniques employed to compartmentalise and move on after repeated traumatic experiences, how PTSD manifests and grief at losing her own parent recently ( lost my father nearly 18 months ago) El has a small team, they have worked long hours and at the height of the pandemic they struggled to even get a break as had to remove PPE, lengthy rekit and supply worries. She had nurses with families worrying about taking it home, that their PPE might be a bad batch due to Gov debacle and on one night a feeling they were going to lose every patient. They did lose some patients but more than died have survived and are recovering ( for some an ongoing process even after discharge). Her personal circumstance is she lost her mum in April, she had deterioated with cancer around Christmas, went into a hospice in Wales in Jan. El is in London. Due to restrictions she had her last visit with her mum in late Feb /early March. She had 2 video calls, but then none of the family could be there at the end. El found out post shift. She took 2 days of personal time then as staff already stretched she returned to work. She watched the funeral by video link. She stupidly engaged in Twitter as a distraction one night and had to uninstall after keyboard warriors told her she was part of an "NHS murder machine", "hoaxer", "project fear" and the general Twitterati pile on hoping she got covid or that it's mild flu. She uninstalled Twitter after waking up to hate messages and posts that went on as different countries woke up. Muting and blocking was ineffective. One of her nurses is British of Thai decent, at the same time clap for carers was happening she was told to F off with her Chinky Flu when she asked someone to step back while food shopping. Another team member spent her nights in the spare bedroom, avoiding her son and husband and socially distancing herself in her own home. El believes members of her team and indeed herself exhibit some signs of PTSD. They are professionals not new to trauma. They are tired, they don't see the pandemic as near over they think it is half time and they hope there isn't an opposition super sub as they don't have a lot left in the tank. In short they feel like they are pushing on a piece of string. Now this is an emotive piece and I make no apologies for that. I accept it is one team and may be atypical - but I doubt it is too far from others experience. So please these are the people we ask to pick up the pieces when things go wrong and so whatever side of the debate you sit on just have them in mind when you have a what-if moment. And again don't use this to justify, quote or attempt judgement please. I present this as an anecdote and not supporting statement

Steve first off let me state this clearly that this is not intended a personal attack and if it comes across as such that is my error and I apologise Second I am not trying to attack you but get to the bottom of your standpoint and actions. As it is your personal viewpoint and your actions are intrinsicly linked to the context of how it is viewed, that is why I have questioned you. But if you are going to state 'objection to ad-hominem attack' please refrain from posting things such as any scientists / doctors that disagree are doing so as vested interests, questioning other posters ability to read scientific data, or in other posts querying the level / quality of education as in claiming the gov agenda is to weed out the 'wrong sort of education'. If we go for a gold standard let's do that. An obnoxious misrepresentation. I do not accept your authority and I will not be attempting to answer your intrusive personal questions. I am not obliged to justify myself to you and I reject your ad-hominem attack. Now I have read this back several times and should have stated 'current measures' but, as far as your statements to date that is the impression given. So for clarity and the abscence of doubt please could you confirm if these are true statements ( I could go and get quotes but trawling back 2 or 3 days is tiresome) - You object to the current legislation as you view it as a Draconian imposition that infringes on freedoms and rights you hold sacred - yes / no - Accepting these infringements is a stepping stone to totalitarianism - yes / no - you refuse to accept mask wearing or social distancing ( noted you say you do personal space but assuming not semantics and sub 2m and on avg let's say 1m max) - yes / no Now the personal questions were not intended to antagonise nor for the sake of attack. What they were there to establish are you simply making a case of protest that affects others or not. I have no more authority to question you or decided how valid an argument may be than you yourself. But perhaps a less heavy handed and more broadbrush approach is this. For the benefit of others and myself are you - maintaining your view and avoiding any situation requiring social distance / mask - maintaining your view and actively breaking the law As you can see those are two very different animals So you do not feel you are being singled out and as others have stated their positions and actions here is mine. I wear a mask in any situation where social distancing is not possible or where asked to by the establishment ( even if 2m distancing possible so appears unnecessary) as a courtesy. I do not wear one in a wide city street with few people, though in a small market town on market day I do around stalls / built up areas. I practise 2m social distancing wherever practical. I go to an office 2 days per week on a rota and sit 3m spaced desks, with numbers in reduced from nearly 100 to 16 voluntarily returned staff. We do not wear masks at our desks but as a courtesy do in public areas and stairwells - a policy agreed between all offices in the building. The cleaners appreciate that everyone is respecting those rules as they have been anxious at how it would work in practice (would we get bored and do what we feel like). I go to a gym class twice a week as a social and health activity. These classes do not require a mask in the large hall 4m spacings, but do when transitioning in and out. No showers or changing + clean all equipment and leave a clean paper towel to identify for cleaning crew after class that used. I no longer use running machines or other daily indoor gym exercise. I do not wear a mask when hiking in the countryside but have upgraded my mountain first aid skills at personal expense for best practice in the Covid world + the online first aid at work refreshers. I hope this is complete enough and I hope Steve this post is less obtrusive and will provide clarity of your position as well as clarifies my own

There's no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole one of the chaplains once told me. This is meant humoursly as humour has abandoned us a bit here so please don't take it as an endorsement ( I'm not religious either). Therein is the schism with some of the other posters - I don't think anyone would deny you the right to be skeptical or have an open mind. Hell if you want to post reputable scientific information to the benefit of all I think we all agree that only informs us all better. Science can change, situations evolve and remain fluid. New facts emerge but on current evidence and in line with current regulations mask wearing and social distancing we should adhere to the rules as they are. What a lot of people seem to take issue with is how the counter-narrative of don't wear a mask is forming and those advocating ignoring the regs. That is where I draw the line. Be skeptical but wear a mask, great, don't want to wear a mask but avoid situations requiring one, also fine. Riedquat we can agree on that and on the whole I have found you quite pragmatic in your approach so don't feel I have taken issue with you. You are just one of the more frequent responders

Steve not trying to form a personal attack but as stated you are refusing to take the very measures you see as Draconian yet which you have not refuted or provided any evidence refuting the efficacy of said measures. So one can only assume you refuse to take them as you do because they are imposed and you don't like it. You make a stand fine, but you need to also be aware those not wanting to participate in your social stand, however well intentioned you may see it, would be having their freedoms infringed upon. Refuse to submit to mask wearing but not at the expense of thosewith no choice - otherwise you've created one hell of a paradox of logic. Do you acknowledge at least those not wearing masks, have on the whole, not sought out a letter of exemption making their case. But instead just said to wider society - deal with it

I was labouring the point you don't have to wear them everywhere. The virus funnily enough does not just rely on you breathing in someone's breath two feet away. It adhere's to surfaces, which is why all the deep cleaning. People in queues are socially distanced but human nature someone wanting an item will reach past someone to get it. Now your supermarket may not have lots of people or the odd shop, but what is needed is a clear and concise message, not one with lots of exemptions for numbers of people, size of shop or the like. Otherwise someone goes to the local co-op and finds 3 people walk in after and they now might need a mask. You're a bright person I'm sure you can see the value in a simple message in a time of extraordinary measures - confusion kills. As for being arrogant I'm not saying my opinion is more valid or because I have expertise in a field I overrule your opinion but when you infer people who support masks / social distancing don't understand risk or are conditioned to safety because don't know any better I make a point of saying in my case you're way off. I don't have a closed mind, risk planning you always start from first principals and assess every situation individually. But everyone seems to be arguing personal risk like they live in a bubble. Also this isn't nannying it is prudent measures applied for the good of the nation. Nannying would be telling everyone to buy Vitamin D tablets, demanding quota of 5 fruit & veg eaten and banning alcohol sales ( happened in S Africa) during pandemic to reduce obesity and ensure everyone in tip top condition. But as ever the scope creep of what gets called nannying increases until any gov proposal is nannying regardless of merit. Requirement to wear a mask is not nannying. Requiring someone wear a mask in their own car with members of their own household or in their back garden would be. Now that is quality tin-foil hattery

The risk background means I have an insight and when someone says nannying individuals with no idea / 'wrong education' or do anything because don't understand safety I'd like them to explain how they came to said conclusion that I'm panicking and not acting with the benefit of a shedload of experience. Including operating in remote regions where healthcare isn't an NHS walkin centre. I'm asking logical questions. If you would take those steps if it had been on a voluntary basis simply state that. Otherwise whether it is imposed or not is academic really. Your actions have consequences for others - you are not in splendid isolation. Your actions impact others, that is the point of a pandemic. I am simply determining if you considered those others when you made your choice or if that one didn't register in the personal freedoms debate.

Nobody has said wear them walking around The Lakes with your pet dog when nobody else is present. The mask wearing is where social distancing is impossible or in enclosed areas where likely to come into contact with others at close distance. So you are arguing the very thing everyone else has signed up to. Great 2m or under wear a mask - supermarket indoors not necessary in the car park. So you've just misunderstood the rules.

Already explained I have a background in risk planning for diving, expeds, etc... not sure of your relevant qualifications. You see nannying in name of 'safety' please define which proven measures are nannying. Again as explained at great length many times personal risk is fine if only impacts personal risk. This is not the case. Saying 'nannying safety' is the new 'political correctness gone mad' to push out nonsense. Dive example a buddy check - 2 sets of eyes on what done before you get in the water - seems nannying as my risk - but a f$$k up may kill you both. How does this relate? Well if you catch the virus you aren't in splendid isolation as you go about your day. Steve is ignoring social distancing and any measure imposed. However if it is asked not imposed we're probably getting the same outcome. He can confirm this I've asked. He opposes Draconian lockdown but won't take mitigating steps that might prevent one. He is the man who causes a law then shouts 'state oppression', 'I told you so'

Again you've skipped past all the bits you have trouble arguing such as circular things as 'allowing authoritarian regimes and creating anxieties in the future' while glazing over the fact your very actions are more likely to cause those very anxieties now and be the very reason government doesn't ask it has to mandate through extraordinary use of powers. Now I repeat you state you don't want to sacrifice anyone, but you refuse to have any measures reduce risks that impinge on your freedoms. What about all the illegal raves, the pub outbreak - they were exrrcising their freedoms. Their took a view on their risk and then infected 3rd parties. Your rights 'freedom' to do whatever seems to be greater than the right to life of a stranger. We have smoking bans in public places - they infringe on smokers rights to smoke openly, but that is because the non-smoker inhaling it and dying through someone else's life choice 'freedom' might be a bit peed off at their lot. Society and gov legislation decided that 'Draconian' step might save a few lives. Now Steve you can rail all you want but answer me these - Do you access public services - Would or Do you distance and wear a mask in a shop - Are you currently employed / furloughed - If so have you expressed these views to your employer / work colleagues so you can be maintained on work from home / furlough - If the gov had asked politely and not passed legislation would you social distance / wear a mask or is it another dead end pointless statement as the outcome would be the same

Several provided you clear evidence of the masks efficacy with real world examples. You do not dispute these with any measure of counterstudies or evidence to the contrary. Yet said you would wear one if the facts backed it up. Batting away things as pseudo science then claiming unscientific 'personal space' is a lot of double think. Now if it is your position that the virus itself / risk posed does not justify the 'imposition' of protective measures. As stated 41000 people (or whatever you believe the figure to be so let's not dive off into a rabbit hole) prove otherwise. So you are not prepared to add to that total but also not prepared to take any steps that restrict your freedoms - explain how those can co-exist. You are deciding your freedoms vs other people's lives in favour of the former. That is a hypothetical to the extreme and whatabouttery you would call out. It is akin to hiding all the life rings on a boat because they might cause anxiety of drowning - I'm sorry your husband died today madam but think of the panic attacks we'll save in the next 12 months. More importantly imagine the mental health worries and anxiety you personally cause walking up to a shopkeeper or employee serving you as they wear their provided PPE, if they refuse your custom if you refuse a mask do you go quietly or tell them it is due to infringement of your personal freedoms? Do you think they get a warm glow or a panic having no idea where you've been or what other measures you've ignored as imposition? Might you be the anxiety causing these deaths - you can't know with any degree of accuracy. Is prelonging the virus by not taking every available and practical countermeasure not increasing the anxieties and pressures? Or should we open up and limit those anxieties and traumas to the families of those who catch it. I take it you would have a different view on things if you were watching someone you cared about slip away possibly after a visit. Now final point - you cherry pick and ignore quite a lot of people's information like you are trying to find something you can dispute in a sea of indisputable fact. Often picking up tiny fragments of post while ignoring general theme. No rebuttals of evidence except by pithy comment, no counter argument to the public toilet analogy, road closure situation or realworld pub event. So let me be clear. You treasure your freedoms - fine - but if your actions help contribute to a local lockdown ( and others have shown they increase risk of spreading the virus) aren't you removing the very freedoms you claim to be defending and more besides, not just for you but for others. Aren't you spreading the anxiety you say will cause untold deaths and mental trauma ( lockdown anxiety) and in your distopian vision aren't you providing the path for so called authoritian regime because 'look people were asked and they can't be trusted to do it voluntarily...'

Steve you asked for verifiable scientific facts - people provide them and you bat them away as if irrelevant, or with a pithy dismissive. That isn't a reasoned mind and being as you appear to be intelligent enough you should know agar petri dishes are standard practice. You also dodge quite a lot of people's answers / ignore realworld scenarios presented to you. I don't understand how an intelligent person who embraces science can dogmatically cling to a conclusion of there's no proof in the face of proof. If you are of the notion of that inspite of that evidence, you believe your personal freedoms should override any measure even if proven to work then simply state and debate that. Don't make out the evidence of efficacy of protections is your standpoint by contradicting it. And also take the time to read the reply I gave earlier to your 'is one life worth it' view because I really do think if you're advocating sacrificing a few others so you don't have to social distance or wear a mask you really have lost the argument and become that you say you hold in contempt / would take a lot to make you wear the uniform of

A noble effort to get us back on track - I tip my hat. Inflation may happen, does it push BoE to act or they bat it away as per the last few times above target

To paraphrase Henry Pryor who I find a good level head - The logic of saving a couple of grand upfront to see it and more go up in smoke is well underway and baffling

Steve defining people as good or bad is very narrow for someone as evidently well read. Good and bad depends on perspective - in PNG have seen a missionary say those who come to church get the benefits of medicine & education. Charitable act but only if you sign up. Bad people can do good things ( Mafioso give to charities) and otherwise good people are capable of things that may be 'bad' given sufficient motivation / mitigating circumstance. It is not binary and the judgement of good and bad depends on perspective, society and evolves with time ( historical figures lionised at the time often less praiseworthy under modern scrutiny). Personal space is also subjective, ill defined and I'm guessing within 1m of someone. Your idea of personal space is by definition personal and unless you have a sign saying 'keep x ft pls' is unlikely to be known to those around you. Better to adopt a standard based on empirical data than a whatever I feel approach. Now your position is any imposition of rules that infringe on your personal liberties is wrong. But you are part of a society and taking part in that often means being part of a social bargain - if you're picking a hill to die on over personal choice I don't suggest this is the best place, where your choice impacts others you either sign up or excluded. There is freedom of speech but walking around town exerting your right to swear all passers by is likely to see your right to access town is likely to be curtailed. You've ignored the pub realworld case where social distancing ( other pubs have been fine) and masks would have possibly preventing or restricted the outbreak + the fact those not attending were adversely affected. You've ignored the public toilet analogy where one persons choice to not wash hands creates an impact to others. You also bat away any science presented as fabrications by vested interests, so it begs the question how can it be possible to demonstrate the modelled facts ( based on ebola and similar Sars infections but modified specifically for Covid) that social distancing and mask wearing are protective measures. If you are not willing to sign up to lesser protective measures you are likely to see the precious freedoms further curtailed - ironically your actions leading to a local lockdown / banning from establishments. Another example for you - a lane in the village suffered a spate of accidents as narrow and accessed via a bend. The parish council had it closed. People in the 12 cottages complained. It became a 1 way system and though people moaned it was better than the closure. After 3 years 0 accidents there were 4, caused by people ignoring the one way. It was due to new homeowners and delivery drivers with no memory of previous accidents ( no proof it isn't ok) and thinking they'd got away with it before, besides the 1 way added 5 mins onto journey. Road closure threatened again, but compromise was a passing place, reduced speed limit on main road and note that if happens again it will be closed... Full lockdown is the road closure, one way is the social distancing & mask compromise that prevents full lockdown, the accidents are the virus, those flouting the one-way are folks thinking it won't happen to me + what's the harm. Above quote from Steve not Satsuma but cannot edit. Also quote by Steve 'saving just one life' missed but can't add. And on this - the measures are to protect you and others. Given you are acting as arbiter of whether your personal freedoms and lifestyle is worth someone else's protection and life - doesn't that bring us neatly back to your Gestapo officer, your lifestyle is worth someone else's life. You'll dispute the figures I'm sure but 41,000 or at least more than 1 would tend to disagree if they could. As someone who has had to make life and death decisions and balance the safety of others vs the potential safety of one or two I can tell you that it is something not to be taken lightly and which from the other side of a keyboard is a lot easier than being a few metres away watching it unfold. I do not believe you are in any way equipped to make that call and tbh I actually think a little less of you for having expressed it in that simplistic form.

Cica not sure if you are misreading that or being deliberately obtuse - I never said seatbelts were introduced solely for those reasons, I listed them as additional benefits besides your own personal safety - that is why they are still imposed not introduced, in the era or improved impact safety. Novel thing there are no seatbelts on many pre-60s Lannies and this is an exeption allowed last time checked. As for breathalyser vs seatbelt protection - the testing of safety measures is done using sensors in crash test dummies. To my knowledge we have yet to get a crash test dummy drunk. However drunkeness has been shown to reduce impact injuries in falls as instead of bracing you don't react. Not volunteering for the practical exam in the Renault Twingo after 6 Glennfiddich anytime soon.