Businessess as usual in Britain despite virus

well at least they have finally cancelled Parkrun UK. Bit of a shame as I'd just been limbering up for my first of the year.

https://twitter.com/parkrunUK/status/1240198073944547328

I'd say "at least the end of March" is a tad optimistic.

Well...... wrote:

3 months later, people walk out of their doors and start getting it. End result is the same, apart from you took 6 months to do it, instead of 3.

What was the point of that ?

So in your estimation that are 3 months in which vaccines (including so called passive vaccines) are developed, drugs get tested, we learn more about distribution and properties of the virus, in these three months mortality rate is lower because ICUs are less overwhelmed and so on.

And to make that clear, I don't think we have a vaccine in a few months. Even with exemptions from the current rules, it will take at least a year. But it's not only getting infected in 6 months vs 3, but also in 12 vs 6 and so on, so my point still stands.

Plus: Do you really think you can infect 70% of the population within a few months, while avoiding leaking to the older generation? Healthcare workers are getting infected, although taking extreme precautions (masks, suits, training), but quarantining the old for months (they must bei supplied, taken care of and so on) can't go wrong?

From a medical point of view, the answer to the question if we should distance from each other is clear. If it's still worth it, when you weigh it against economical consequences is another question and I'm not a person who can answer this. But I think our political leaders here in Europe and especially those in China value economic effects when making this decisions.

It could be that you value lives against economy completely different, but then you should consequently just let die all those old people (and some young) without making much fuss about it and trying to rescue them, because otherwise your economy will still take a big hit.

I personally think the reason for your arguments is that many of you are still in the phase of denial.

(Sorry for errors because of my English skills and German auto correction of my smartphone.)

There are only 4200 critical care beds in the UK for 70 Million people. So let's spend tens of bi££ions on social distancing instead.

Both Tory and Labour are to blame for this self created crisis.

I'm not in denial, but you haven't explain what your solution is...the point is, which you seem to miss, is that without people becoming immune, you aren't resolving the problem.

You can't lock everyone away forever. In a few months, 80% here won't be innoculated, but as that percentage rises, the amount of vulnerable people having a chance of being infected goes down.

You are after that line...trying to get enough people immune, whilst balancing enough medical support to cope for those that get ill.

You don't want it too high (no one gets immune, you are no better off) OR too low (not enough services to cope with the amount of ill).

Just to clarify, the risk obviously goes up at first like we're seeing now, but then there's the balance of enough immune people not to spread it.

bartholomew_maxwell wrote:

the gambler wrote:

They've chosen a different approach. Time will tell.

Their approach is common sense. If the disease is going to kill everyone, it will kill everyone regardless of precautions taken because there are too many vectors for transmission. The Brits realize this. It will kill some and many will become immune over time.

The Spanish Flu did not end because of quarantines or any of that crap. Cases were just super high and then suddenly they just dropped. Mother Nature is a bigger factor in the overall progression of a virus. Also, hygiene and nutrition improved. Many of the symptoms were worsened by malnutrition by today's standards.

Brits are tough. They experienced the Blitzkrieg. They're resilient.

This aged well.