Jump to content

Coronavirus


faraway saint

Recommended Posts

If this is the message they are taking then they need to be corrected. There have been multiple comments on social media like "guess the virus is taking Christmas off" this isn't the message at all. Christmas is a rock and a hard place for the government because no matter the output, many will likely meet extended family on Christmas day. The guidance IMO is the most sensible we'll get. Ultimately acknowledging the risks and cautions but not criminalising the actions millions will take. 
It's lose lose, can you imagine they came out saying "restrictions will be exactly the same and we will be enforcing them" People would still be meeting up, it would just mean big fines and action from the government. 
I get all the rock and a hard place stuff and generally agree however it seems the risks are being downplayed. Multi generational indoor gathering is dangerous especially with the asymptomatic rates in schools. I don't think this is being stressed enough.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


12 minutes ago, insaintee said:

No it's not. If you want to be asinine (and from past experience I'm guessing you do) then I should have said a sustained and clear increase or trend upwards in the test positive rate indicates an increase in the prevalence of the disease in a population, Which is what we have seen. 

 

And while there is no guarantee that the false positive percentage should remain constant, it should only vary around a constant mean value. An upward trend or a sustained increase is only really explicable in terms of an increase in the prevalence. 

But of course you know this being a Phd and all that. 

You are still wrong on both counts.

Repeating the same thing and chucking in a personal insult isn't going to change that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ayrshire Saints said:
1 hour ago, oaksoft said:
Think  about it this way. If the danger was really that severe, there is no way they'd have allowed this 5 day window.
As for all these at risk Grannies, has anyone stopped to ask them what they think about all this or are the rest of us making decisions on their behalf?

She has been asked of course she has, she is reluctant but by the same token does not want to be alone. The risk in this scenario is real and unnecessary. She is very vulnerable to C19. There us added pressure from another branch of the family who are putting it like if they don't want you, come here. It's ludicrous.

Why not trust her to make her own decision regarding the risk?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, antrin said:

All of this focus on Grannies is simply sexist patronising.

Why not mention Grandpas?

More importantly, why this excessive concern for selfish Boomer Grannies and Grandpas who, at great detriment to the planet, fornicated profligately and gave birth and opportunity to the whinging generations of  Generation X, Xennials, Millenials, Gen Z and now Alpha?

What about the very good older people who stayed pure and virginal, turning away from the sins of the flesh and the "joys of parenthood" and simply partied, quietly?

 

I They probably think that there should be special provision for them to go out and enjoy theatres, movies, restaurants and galleries instead of buying daft Xmas presents for ungrateful, virus-ridden bairns, that they didn't personally breed.

 

Just a thought.  :)

 

^^^^^^ Has no balls. 😂

Edited by faraway saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not trust her to make her own decision regarding the risk?

I'm far from convinced she recognises the risk mixing with school and university age people presents. She's 94 and doesn't want to be alone at Christmas. She has heard on the TV news that we are "allowed" to have Christmas dinner as a family but I don't think she full understands the possible ramifications and the guilt amongst the kids and students (and the rest of us with reservations) if she did catch Covid (she would be very unlikely to survive it) would be huge. It's a shit storm that really won't be a factor for for a lot of families without very elderly or vulnerable members.

 

ETA important to note none of this was an issue until this broke in the media. We had made a decision that we would not be having the usual family Christmas day just my own household and the MiL had accepted that. She is a carer for the wife's gran and they form an extended household. She will see her on Christmas day as she does every day and everyone whilst maybe not ecstatic, had accepted it in the circumstances. This change in policy has 100% created this situation and I'm sure it is being repeated up and down the UK.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ayrshire Saints said:
11 minutes ago, oaksoft said:
Why not trust her to make her own decision regarding the risk?

I'm far from convinced she recognises the risk mixing with school and university age people presents. She's 94 and doesn't want to be alone at Christmas. She has heard on the TV news that we are "allowed" to have Christmas dinner as a family but I don't think she full understands the possible ramifications and the guilt amongst the kids and students (and the rest of us with reservations) if she did catch Covid (she would be very unlikely to survive it) would be huge. It's a shit storm that really won't be a factor for for a lot of families without very elderly or vulnerable members.

I get this dilemma 100%. 

Oakys point is ludicrous, obviously she, and many others, will be yearning for a normal Christmas, especially after the year we've had. 

We're unsure what to as my wife already picks up our granddaughter 2days a week and has her in the house for an hour before my daughter picks her up. 

Do we see that as an acceptable risk on Christmas day as we've already had contact with her and, therefore, my daughter and son in law? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, insaintee said:

so this is about case definition, and it is true that a positive case in an asymptomatic positive would not have been picked up previously. But asymptomatic cases can still spread the virus and the purpose of testing is to identify these cases and stop the spread.  There for yes, the number of cases reported under the improved testing regime is not indicating the same prevalence as the testing level under the previous test system.  But the that is more about the inadequacy of the previous testing done. 

Also we don't really know the extent to which that is making a difference, it may be quite minimal.  Both hospitalizations and deaths are rising these are not false positives in any sense of the world. Sounds to me  like the professor is spouting a crock of shit. 

But where is the usual/annual  slew of deaths by flu?  There seem to be few deaths and hospital admissions from that cause.

I'm not saying the Prof is The Messiah, but I also don't think his words are a crock of shite.

 

Also "asymptomatic cases MAY still spread the virus".  I think the Jury is still out on people who have had the virus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

I get this dilemma 100%. 

Oakys point is ludicrous, obviously she, and many others, will be yearning for a normal Christmas, especially after the year we've had. 

We're unsure what to as my wife already picks up our granddaughter 2days a week and has her in the house for an hour before my daughter picks her up. 

Do we see that as an acceptable risk on Christmas day as we've already had contact with her and, therefore, my daughter and son in law? 

Similar boat here FS......our oldest daughter works for me and I see her (socially distanced of course) everyday, my other half looks after the grandchildren who are dropped off at our door (our daughter never enters the house). All of a sudden because it's Christmas all of us can be in the same space at the same time.

That's not how we will interpret the situation and we'll only have Christmas Day with the two of us and our youngest of four daughters who still stays at home. The bit I don't understand is that, as a business and to keep people in work and earning, I have spent an absolute fortune on keeping my workplace and employees safe and we now have a situation where all of them, if they so wish, can get together with another two households and risk getting sick. They then come to work and potentially put the rest of the workforce, and our business, at risk by transmitting the virus amongst their colleagues.

The flip of that is that I do truly want everyone to be able to see loved ones and enjoy everyday never mind Christmas but I think this may be a recipe for chaos....I hope I'm wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ayrshire Saints said:
3 hours ago, bazil85 said:
If this is the message they are taking then they need to be corrected. There have been multiple comments on social media like "guess the virus is taking Christmas off" this isn't the message at all. Christmas is a rock and a hard place for the government because no matter the output, many will likely meet extended family on Christmas day. The guidance IMO is the most sensible we'll get. Ultimately acknowledging the risks and cautions but not criminalising the actions millions will take. 
It's lose lose, can you imagine they came out saying "restrictions will be exactly the same and we will be enforcing them" People would still be meeting up, it would just mean big fines and action from the government. 

I get all the rock and a hard place stuff and generally agree however it seems the risks are being downplayed. Multi generational indoor gathering is dangerous especially with the asymptomatic rates in schools. I don't think this is being stressed enough.

Yeah I think that is a fair point, I don't think you can ever stress the extent of that enough.

For me (in part) there is a responsibility for all on this at Christmas. That Christmas hug with your granny could be the last in the current environment, is it worth it? The sad reality for possibly a lot of the older people may be yes and for the younger no. 😢

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ayrshire Saints said:
4 hours ago, oaksoft said:
Think  about it this way. If the danger was really that severe, there is no way they'd have allowed this 5 day window.
As for all these at risk Grannies, has anyone stopped to ask them what they think about all this or are the rest of us making decisions on their behalf?

She has been asked of course she has, she is reluctant but by the same token does not want to be alone. The risk in this scenario is real and unnecessary. She is very vulnerable to C19. There us added pressure from another branch of the family who are putting it like if they don't want you, come here. It's ludicrous.

She is 94, it might be her last Xmas ? She might not even make Xmas ? Hopefully that's not the case but ....

I get your point and in the main totally agree but there is a balance to be struck when someone is that old ?

My old man is 81 and takes about 50 pills a day. Advised him not to go near Xmas day but not 100% sure he will take heed and ultimately who am I to judge him if he doesn't ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ayrshire Saints said:

I'm far from convinced she recognises the risk mixing with school and university age people presents. She's 94 and doesn't want to be alone at Christmas. She has heard on the TV news that we are "allowed" to have Christmas dinner as a family but I don't think she full understands the possible ramifications and the guilt amongst the kids and students (and the rest of us with reservations) if she did catch Covid (she would be very unlikely to survive it) would be huge. It's a shit storm that really won't be a factor for for a lot of families without very elderly or vulnerable members.

 

ETA important to note none of this was an issue until this broke in the media. We had made a decision that we would not be having the usual family Christmas day just my own household and the MiL had accepted that. She is a carer for the wife's gran and they form an extended household. She will see her on Christmas day as she does every day and everyone whilst maybe not ecstatic, had accepted it in the circumstances. This change in policy has 100% created this situation and I'm sure it is being repeated up and down the UK.

 

On the positive side, you can go back to her and tell her that Sturgeon is allowing meetups at Christmas but also is strongly recommending people don't take up the offer.

Maybe that'll persuade her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Think  about it this way. If the danger was really that severe, there is no way they'd have allowed this 5 day window.

As for all these at risk Grannies, has anyone stopped to ask them what they think about all this or are the rest of us making decisions on their behalf?

And yet... the same government of the same feckless Buffoon decided it was perfectly safe to send covid-infected old people back to Care Homes that were understaffed, stretched and without any PPE and that caused thousands of deaths..

I'd be terrified if - on Xmas day - a rotund old chap with a long white beard arrived on my doorstep/hearth with a big bag of virus.

Edited by antrin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She is 94, it might be her last Xmas ? She might not even make Xmas ? Hopefully that's not the case but ....
I get your point and in the main totally agree but there is a balance to be struck when someone is that old ?
My old man is 81 and takes about 50 pills a day. Advised him not to go near Xmas day but not 100% sure he will take heed and ultimately who am I to judge him if he doesn't ?
We have the "last Christmas" spiel from her every year have done for 20 years - It's a standing family joke ! Yes she's 94 but she is reasonably independent. She can get out and about with supervision and for her age is remarkable. But the fact remains I suspect very few 94yo survive Covid. There is no obvious reason bar the very obvious one of her age (if you get my drift) that it's likely to be her last and imo not having her mixing with us can only enhance that prospect but I suspect I may be fighting a losing battle on the home front. Ultimately she's not my direct family and I suppose it's their decision I can only put my opinion over and go with whatever they wish. I don't envy the thousands if not millions now in the same boat, very difficult situation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should be said not E VERY person who is "older" dies from this.

There was a 73 year old on ITV, way back in March/April who had mild flu like symptoms for 3-4 days but, other than that, was as fit as a fiddle.

The current outbreak in my Dad's care home has currently 47 cases with 1 death, to date.

It certainly is worth thinking about but it's NOT the certain death sentence some would have us believe. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

It should be said not E VERY person who is "older" dies from this.

There was a 73 year old on ITV, way back in March/April who had mild flu like symptoms for 3-4 days but, other than that, was as fit as a fiddle.

The current outbreak in my Dad's care home has currently 47 cases with 1 death, to date.

It certainly is worth thinking about but it's NOT the certain death sentence some would have us believe. 

 

Anyone that believes that or pushes that for others to believe is ignorant of the available data/ lying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should be said not E VERY person who is "older" dies from this.
There was a 73 year old on ITV, way back in March/April who had mild flu like symptoms for 3-4 days but, other than that, was as fit as a fiddle.
The current outbreak in my Dad's care home has currently 47 cases with 1 death, to date.
It certainly is worth thinking about but it's NOT the certain death sentence some would have us believe. 
 
 
Quite possibly but at 94 it must be fairly negative.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, antrin said:

But where is the usual/annual  slew of deaths by flu?  There seem to be few deaths and hospital admissions from that cause.

I'm not saying the Prof is The Messiah, but I also don't think his words are a crock of shite.

 

Also "asymptomatic cases MAY still spread the virus".  I think the Jury is still out on people who have had the virus.

Deaths are compared to the 5 year average. Deaths involving coronavirus (COVID-19) in Scotland | National Records of Scotland (nrscotland.gov.uk) Clearly there is an increase in deaths. 

I really don't think the jury is out on asymptomatic spread. How do think it spread in the first place 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Anyone that believes that or pushes that for others to believe is ignorant of the available data/ lying. 

Are you saying EVERYBODY who is "older" dies?

Can you prove this?

You are, indeed, a fecking ghoul and should be ashamed, although that's impossible for a brass necked cnut like you, spreading gloom and doom. 

PS Are you honestly saying that the care home in Paisley that has 47 cases will result in 47 deaths? 

Edited by faraway saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lenziebud said:

She is 94, it might be her last Xmas ? She might not even make Xmas ? Hopefully that's not the case but ....

I get your point and in the main totally agree but there is a balance to be struck when someone is that old ?

My old man is 81 and takes about 50 pills a day. Advised him not to go near Xmas day but not 100% sure he will take heed and ultimately who am I to judge him if he doesn't ?

There was one of these "experts" on the radio last week saying the average stay in a care home was 16 months before people died, yet we've now spent nine months preventing contact with family, some old folk thinking they've been abandoned. He made the point we've got the balance wrong between protecting physical health and quality of life. Basically, old people will die anyway, but a lot of them this year have had a very lonely and distressing end.

Edited by Hendo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hendo said:

There was one of these "experts" on the radio last week saying the average stay in a care home was 16 months before people died, yet we've now spent nine months preventing contact with family, some old folk thinking they've been abandoned. He made the point we've got the balance wrong between protecting physical health and quality of life. Basically, old people will die anyway, but a lot of them this year have had a very lonely and distressing end.

I'm not convinced it's as short as that, but that's not critical.

The "they're going to die anyway" could be said for everybody, I'm not keen on popping off before my "normal" time, where covid can shorten anybody's/the elderly's lifespan. 

It's tragic all round, for the residents and families with no easy answer IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Are you saying EVERYBODY who is "older" dies?

Can you prove this?

You are, indeed, a fecking ghoul and should be ashamed, although that's impossible for a brass necked cnut like you, spreading gloom and doom. 

PS Are you honestly saying that the care home in Paisley that has 47 cases will result in 47 deaths? 

No, I'm agreeing with you that everyone doesn't die and that people that believe otherwise are either ignorant of the information available to them or have bought into someone's lies. 

Notice how you interpret my post to the negative though then go absolutely tonto. 🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

No, I'm agreeing with you that everyone doesn't die and that people that believe otherwise are either ignorant of the information available to them or have bought into someone's lies. 

Notice how you interpret my post to the negative though then go absolutely tonto. 🤣

My apologies, misunderstood your reply.

As for going "tonto" I have reason so best we leave it at that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...