Coronavirus - potential Black Swan?

[scepticus]

14 minutes ago, captainb said:

Maybe although your massive incorrect assumption there is that it has equal impact on all. 

Drink driving is socially unacceptable as if you are 18 or 80 getting drunk and driving has a high probability of killing someone else. 

As time goes on people in their 20s and 30s who this really is no more dangerous than many other risks they put up with may demand the right to go out and enjoy themselves as their parents did. Their risk not yours. 

Mucking up your 20s and 30s in isolation to gain an extra couple of years in the retirement home is a terrible trade. Before you add in the probabilitys of actually dying from it. 

Young people get given jobs by older people. People aged 40+ are at risk, considerably more than younger folks. Who gives out most of the jobs? Folks 35-50.

Young people go to venues for social events typically run and owned by people a lot older than they are. While pub owners want punters, most middle aged to older folks do not own a pub and have no personal financial interest in the social economy. 

I'm aged 45, not young, but also not in the older most at risk groups. I see both sides. I think social norms will level out similarly.

The older generation cannot have it all their own way and neither can the young. I think in time it will tilt in favour of the younger gens, but not yet, or any time soon.

There is no point railing against a virus. My teenage kids are missing out on what constitutes a normal teenager-hood. What can I do about that? Not much, because though I could let them do whatever they like and flout the rules the reality is many of their peers will not do that, or will not be allowed to do that by their parents. And even if they live in a social circle where that is de-rigeur, that won't help their chances in the job or education markets.

To lead them to think they can do what they would have done before, would only lead to a let down. That same goes for 20-somethings, except for them the conversation is with themselves.

So no matter what I might do, my kids world has changed, likely for at least the duration of their tender years, and quite possibly much longer than that. So it seems to me to make sense to gently prepare them for acceptance that their world will be different to what they were led to expect for the forseeable, which at their age means the rest of their lives as far as they can see. Teenagers can't see much more than a few year at most into the future. 

I find it odd that dealing with CV has become politicised, with right wing types tending to be optimistic/dismissive and left wings types pessimistic/neurotic. I think both have to do with the reaction of individuals when faced with extreme uncertainty. There is no right or wrong or left or right here, only each person needs to consider the likely future with care.

 

 

[captainb]

1 minute ago, scepticus said:

Young people get given jobs by older people. People aged 40+ are at risk, considerably more than younger folks. Who gives out most of the jobs? Folks 35-50.

Young people go to venues for social events typically run and owned by people a lot older than they are. While pub owners want punters, most middle aged to older folks do not own a pub and have no personal financial interest in the social economy. 

I'm aged 45, not young, but also not in the older most at risk groups. I see both sides. I think social norms will level out similarly.

The older generation cannot have it all their own way and neither can the young. I think in time it will tilt in favour of the younger gens, but not yet, or any time soon.

There is no point railing against a virus. My teenage kids are missing out on what constitutes a normal teenager-hood. What can I do about that? Not much, because though I could let them do whatever they like and flout the rules the reality is many of their peers will not do that, or will not be allowed to do that by their parents. And even if they live in a social circle where that is de-rigeur, that won't help their chances in the job or education markets.

To lead them to think they can do what they would have done before, would only lead to a let down. That same goes for 20-somethings, except for them the conversation is with themselves.

So no matter what I might do, my kids world has changed, likely for at least the duration of their tender years, and quite possibly much longer than that. So it seems to me to make sense to gently prepare them for acceptance that their world will be different to what they were led to expect for the forseeable, which at their age means the rest of their lives as far as they can see. Teenagers can't see much more than a few year at most into the future. 

I find it odd that dealing with CV has become politicised, with right wing types tending to be optimistic/dismissive and left wings types pessimistic/neurotic. I think both have to do with the reaction of individuals when faced with extreme uncertainty. There is no right or wrong or left or right here, only each person needs to consider the likely future with care.

 

 

Ii do get that. But what I find utterly bizarre is the notion that when older people vote or act in their own interest, see pensions triple lock nonsense that's fine. 

But the notion that young might ever vote and demand their own interests is ridiculous and selfish. 

Where are these jobs? The ever increasing jobless que shows how utterly unsustainable this is which will only add to pressure for change from the mostly young jobless.

Reminds me of the poll tax. Create unsustainable laws and criminalise the cohort who naturally fall foul and watch the output. Ends in tears. 

 

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

12 minutes ago, scepticus said:

Young people get given jobs by older people. People aged 40+ are at risk, considerably more than younger folks. Who gives out most of the jobs? Folks 35-50.

Young people go to venues for social events typically run and owned by people a lot older than they are. While pub owners want punters, most middle aged to older folks do not own a pub and have no personal financial interest in the social economy. 

I'm aged 45, not young, but also not in the older most at risk groups. I see both sides. I think social norms will level out similarly.

The older generation cannot have it all their own way and neither can the young. I think in time it will tilt in favour of the younger gens, but not yet, or any time soon.

There is no point railing against a virus. My teenage kids are missing out on what constitutes a normal teenager-hood. What can I do about that? Not much, because though I could let them do whatever they like and flout the rules the reality is many of their peers will not do that, or will not be allowed to do that by their parents. And even if they live in a social circle where that is de-rigeur, that won't help their chances in the job or education markets.

To lead them to think they can do what they would have done before, would only lead to a let down. That same goes for 20-somethings, except for them the conversation is with themselves.

So no matter what I might do, my kids world has changed, likely for at least the duration of their tender years, and quite possibly much longer than that. So it seems to me to make sense to gently prepare them for acceptance that their world will be different to what they were led to expect for the forseeable, which at their age means the rest of their lives as far as they can see. Teenagers can't see much more than a few year at most into the future. 

I find it odd that dealing with CV has become politicised, with right wing types tending to be optimistic/dismissive and left wings types pessimistic/neurotic. I think both have to do with the reaction of individuals when faced with extreme uncertainty. There is no right or wrong or left or right here, only each person needs to consider the likely future with care.

 

 

Eh? Everyone’s world has changed. Not just your brood. FFS. 

 

 

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

9 minutes ago, captainb said:

Ii do get that. But what I find utterly bizarre is the notion that when older people vote or act in their own interest, see pensions triple lock nonsense that's fine. 

But the notion that young might ever vote and demand their own interests is ridiculous and selfish. 

Where are these jobs? The ever increasing jobless que shows how utterly unsustainable this is which will only add to pressure for change from the mostly young jobless.

Reminds me of the poll tax. Create unsustainable laws and criminalise the cohort who naturally fall foul and watch the output. Ends in tears. 

 

Jesus wept. The laws are temporarily in an attempt to control a once in a century pandemic. Get a grip man. 

[captainb]

Just now, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

Jesus wept. The laws are temporarily in an attempt to control a once in a century pandemic. Get a grip man. 

Temporarily? 12 weeks. Then 2 lockdowns. Then 3. Then by easter. Now by summer. Oh aside from next winter.. And then? 

[Bruce Banner]

2 hours ago, moonriver said:

I think so too.

I heard on Radio Wales this morning that the "no shows" for appointments had been "substantial". No numbers given though.

Or maybe there are too many showing side effects?

Maybe somone can find it, but I did read the UK will be not be releasing this info until some time in the future?

Or maybe they are having supply problems?

A piece on Sky News, this evening, is about a care home in West London where 50% of the staff are refusing vaccination.

COVID-19: Concerns grow over number of carers turning down vaccine | UK News | Sky News

[Dr Doom]

6 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

A piece on Sky News, this evening, is about a care home in West London where 50% of the staff are refusing vaccination.

COVID-19: Concerns grow over number of carers turning down vaccine | UK News | Sky News

The care home's owner told of his frustration at the range of reasons given by staff for refusing the virus - none of which are substantiated in any way.

They include causing infertility, being part of a "medical experiment", "scaremongering" by the government and denial the virus exists.

[Confusion of VIs]

45 minutes ago, captainb said:

Maybe although your massive incorrect assumption there is that it has equal impact on all. 

Drink driving is socially unacceptable as if you are 18 or 80 getting drunk and driving has a high probability of killing someone else. 

As time goes on people in their 20s and 30s who this really is no more dangerous than many other risks they put up with may demand the right to go out and enjoy themselves as their parents did. Their risk not yours. 

Mucking up your 20s and 30s in isolation to gain an extra couple of years in the retirement home is a terrible trade. Before you add in the probabilitys of actually dying from it. 

We have to open up well before the end of this year.

Once the vaccine has been offered to everyone over say 50 or otherwise vulnerable  we should begin opening up (the risk to a healthy unvaccinated under 50 is less than to a vaccinated 50+) and fully open up month later. 

The government needs to quickly set a target date for this and be clear that the residual risks are just something we will need to get used to living with.     

[Confusion of VIs]

14 minutes ago, captainb said:

Temporarily? 12 weeks. Then 2 lockdowns. Then 3. Then by easter. Now by summer. Oh aside from next winter.. And then? 

There have been no lockdowns. In tonight's "lockdown" I was in nose to tail traffic for an hour driving 10 miles home from London tonight. 

[Bruce Banner]

2 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

We have to open up well before the end of this year.

Once the vaccine has been offered to everyone over say 50 or otherwise vulnerable  we should begin opening up (the risk to a healthy unvaccinated under 50 is less than to a vaccinated 50+) and fully open up month later. 

The government needs to quickly set a target date for this and be clear that the residual risks are just something we will need to get used to living with.     

I hope so, we want to get away to France before the end of May.

[captainb]

Just now, Confusion of VIs said:

There have been no lockdowns. In tonight's "lockdown" I was in nose to tail traffic for an hour driving 10 miles home from London tonight. 

Right. Okay fair. No lockdowns. Just almost a year of incredibly damaging restrictions with questionable positive impact when measured against those that didn't bother, and incredible collateral damage. Better phrased? 

Ultimately pretending this is somehow sustainable is fast becoming more absurd. Listen to the SAGE gang in their detached homes, gold plated pensions and secure employment and you would think everyone is loving this and the only risk is covid. Real world impact is building up fast. 

[GeneCernan]

1 hour ago, scepticus said:

I don't see that happening. CV is going to be with us forever, like the flu. It will take 10-20 years to beat it down to flu level with vaccines and herd immunity.

Sure, one may want to live a normal life, but one cannot when none of the social institutions that constitute a "normal" life are operating normally like clubs, bars, public transport, non essential medical procedures etc. 

Everyone needs a job, and over time it will become less socially acceptable (than it already is) to flout societal norms wrt social distancing. As social norms change based on the pandemic, everyone will have to change with them to fit in. There is no point being angry and protesting about it, because the target of such ire is an uncaring bit of RNA.

Things have changed, there will be (arguably already is)  a new normal, and we all have to get used to it. Those who can't will have a more torrid time than those who can. That applies to all age groups 5 - 100 years old, and all social classes. How you cope will be more about personality than class or wealth or age, IMO. 

 

 

 

If there is no prospect of simple pleasures like going to a pub or restaurant for the rest of my life then I will indeed have a torrid time. I won't cope with that and will certainly have mental health problems.

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

47 minutes ago, captainb said:

Temporarily? 12 weeks. Then 2 lockdowns. Then 3. Then by easter. Now by summer. Oh aside from next winter.. And then? 

There was no real lockdown FFS. It was a 'ask the UK populous nicely if they would mind staying at home for a bit but if they didn't bother then not to worry about it' lockdown.

 

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

49 minutes ago, captainb said:

Temporarily? 12 weeks. Then 2 lockdowns. Then 3. Then by easter. Now by summer. Oh aside from next winter.. And then? 

Oh dear, can't live through just 10 months of temorarily restircitions and still moaning to strangers on a random website about how poor your life is. Let's just imagine if your sort had to live through a war. You'd be the traitors turning on your lights.

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

36 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

I hope so, we want to get away to France before the end of May.

You'll be back in plague island within 3 months.

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

32 minutes ago, captainb said:

Right. Okay fair. No lockdowns. Just almost a year of incredibly damaging restrictions with questionable positive impact when measured against those that didn't bother, and incredible collateral damage. Better phrased? 

Ultimately pretending this is somehow sustainable is fast becoming more absurd. Listen to the SAGE gang in their detached homes, gold plated pensions and secure employment and you would think everyone is loving this and the only risk is covid. Real world impact is building up fast. 

Precisely. We should have had a proper lockdown last March for 3 months solid with 'boots on the streets'. Glad you agree.

[captainb]

8 minutes ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

Oh dear, can't live through just 10 months of temorarily restircitions and still moaning to strangers on a random website about how poor your life is. Let's just imagine if your sort had to live through a war. You'd be the traitors turning on your lights.

Yawn. Those in ww2 didn't know how bad it was on napoleons retreat from Moscow, and those on that disaster didn't know how bad it was when Rome was sacked... 

Is that the sum of your argument now? It could be worse? 

Its not 10 months. As it isn't over. Ain't it wont be over any time soon. That's the inherent point. 12 weeks has turned to 10 months, 10 months is turning to? Summer? Next summer? Next decade? Never? 

And what's the alternative. Ww2 was fascism. Its not like we are living in a utpoia and those that didn't lockdown are in a sodding mass morgue. 

Edited January 23, 2021 by captainb

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

1 minute ago, captainb said:

Yawn. Those in ww2 didn't know how bad it was on napoleons retreat from Moscow, and those on that disaster didn't know how bad it was when Rome was sacked... 

Is that the sum of your argument now? It could be worse? 

Its not 10 months. As it isn't over. Ain't it wont be over any time soon. That's the inherent point. 12 weeks has turned to 10 months, 10 months is turning to? Summer? Next summer? 

Did I say it was over? Did I say it could not get worse? NO. I am simply astounded at your inability to cope with 10 months of lockdown-lite. As if your life depended on it. Jesus christ man have some sympathy for the hard working doctors and nurses facing death each and every single day while you sit back in your living room behind your keyboard moaning about your lost  'rights'. Pathetic. UTTERLY PATHETIC!

[MARTINX9]

44 minutes ago, Dr Doom said:

The care home's owner told of his frustration at the range of reasons given by staff for refusing the virus - none of which are substantiated in any way.

They include causing infertility, being part of a "medical experiment", "scaremongering" by the government and denial the virus exists.

Is there any clear evidence of course that the vaccines actually stop you giving it to others? Jury is out on this.

Perfectly right therefore to vaccinate the elderly residents who are at high risk of serious outcomes and dying. But less clear how vaccinating a 25 year old care assistant helps the residents - if they can still infect the residents if they catch the virus?

Same with the vaccine passport idea - not much help to the country you are going to if you can still infect the locals on arrival.

[captainb]

Just now, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

Did I say it was over? Did I say it could not get worse? NO. I am simply astounded at your inability to cope with 10 months of lockdown-lite. As if your life depended on it. Jesus christ man have some sympathy for the hard working doctors and nurses facing death each and every single day while you sit back in your living room behind your keyboard moaning about your lost  'rights'. Pathetic. UTTERLY PATHETIC!

Oh to be like you. Campaigning for what exactly? Saving the world through control forever. Immortal without covid. Which is lucky as the impact of these restrictions you love so much is building up.. Don't worry though... You can stay in your bedroom forever. Its cold out there and accidents can happen on ice. 

[skinnylattej]

1 hour ago, captainb said:

Temporarily? 12 weeks. Then 2 lockdowns. Then 3. Then by easter. Now by summer. Oh aside from next winter.. And then? 

And suspension of local elections, trashing of children's education and by flattening the curve we have flattened the economy and much of the future.

By Easter we will have had almost 12 months of these restrictions that result in a significant chunk of the population being too scared to seek medical treatment for heart problems or cancer.  In the next village is a gentleman who I estimate is around 80 years, who hasn't left his house since the begining of March 2020.

The Coronavirus control act was a panicky response for a frightened government.  OK, for the first lockdown we did not have a clear understanding of the risks, but for lockdown 2 and 3 we knew, and BJ knew what would happen.  I haven't got a refetence, but I remember BJ saying a second lockdown would be a disaster for this country.

We need to learn from other countries so that we can junk the lockdown before everything is wrecked, lives, relationships, economy and the future.

The thought of six months lockdown from November 2021 is making my blood run cold.

[Dr Doom]

4 minutes ago, MARTINX9 said:

Is there any clear evidence of course that the vaccines actually stop you giving it to others? Jury is out on this.

Perfectly right therefore to vaccinate the elderly residents who are at high risk of serious outcomes and dying. But less clear how vaccinating a 25 year old care assistant helps the residents - if they can still infect the residents if they catch the virus?

Same with the vaccine passport idea - not much help to the country you are going to if you can still infect the locals on arrival.

Doesn't stop you getting it or giving it to others.

But everyone must take it or you are a very selfish granny killer.

[CityLAD88888]

4 hours ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

As I said prior, Godwins law says you lose. 

Lose what? It's not a game, it's not part of your petty salty-tears toys out the pram culture war over Brexit etc. there's a global pandemic going on and a lot at stake on all fronts (public health, economics, civil liberty) this is why people have nuanced views.

Godwin's Law is specifically about Hitler which is perhaps a lazy analogy, fair enough, but the definition/ideal of fascism is that the group is stronger than the individual, one stick is weak many sticks bundled together is strong in unity, authoritarianism is just the corrolary implementation detail. I'm with you that we need a stronger lockdown and pragmatically authoritarianism works in this instance, but clearly your ramblings about boots on the streets in the interest of unity means it's not a misnomer for someone who disagrees to call that a fascist tract, it's a statement of fact

5 hours ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

No need for cheap insults. I have not read this thread to completion (I dip in and out as I please) and certainly not followed your inane ramblings. 

Borders should have been closed and boots on the streets. What was your solution? Asking the bed-wetters nicely to behave themselves?

I really would re-read stuff like this before posting if I were you. Poor at best, utter garbage at worst.

[captainb]

4 minutes ago, skinnylattej said:

And suspension of local elections, trashing of children's education and by flattening the curve we have flattened the economy and much of the future.

By Easter we will have had almost 12 months of these restrictions that result in a significant chunk of the population being too scared to seek medical treatment for heart problems or cancer.  In the next village is a gentleman who I estimate is around 80 years, who hasn't left his house since the begining of March 2020.

The Coronavirus control act was a panicky response for a frightened government.  OK, for the first lockdown we did not have a clear understanding of the risks, but for lockdown 2 and 3 we knew, and BJ knew what would happen.  I haven't got a refetence, but I remember BJ saying a second lockdown would be a disaster for this country.

We need to learn from other countries so that we can junk the lockdown before everything is wrecked, lives, relationships, economy and the future.

The thought of six months lockdown from November 2021 is making my blood run cold.

Oh don't point out there are other risks to monisor covid. Blow his mind. This it it for him. With other risks he will never leave his house until they are smashed under the fictional boot of a dictator for risk. 

Personally know two people both involved in hospitality who have taken their own lives in the last 12 months. Both in their 40s with kids. Obviously irrelevant as not covid so who cares. 

 

[Confusion of VIs]

1 hour ago, captainb said:

Right. Okay fair. No lockdowns. Just almost a year of incredibly damaging restrictions with questionable positive impact when measured against those that didn't bother, and incredible collateral damage. Better phrased? 

Ultimately pretending this is somehow sustainable is fast becoming more absurd. Listen to the SAGE gang in their detached homes, gold plated pensions and secure employment and you would think everyone is loving this and the only risk is covid. Real world impact is building up fast. 

Yes,  the strategy of too little too late has achieved the worst of all worlds. 

Maximum economic damage, the highest number of deaths in Europe and damage to the NHS that will take many years to recover from.

30 minutes ago, Dr Doom said:

Doesn't stop you getting it or giving it to others.

But everyone must take it or you are a very selfish granny killer.

The effect on transmission is unknown, chances are that like most vaccines it will reduce or stop it. We will know if it does in around 6 months.

In the meantime it is probably wise to minimise contact between the vulnerable and the unvaccinated. the major cruise lines have already said they will be requiring all staff to be vaccinated, why would care homes etc. not do the same?