Jump to content
IGNORED

The Coronavirus and its impact on sport/Fans Return (Merged)


Loderingo

Recommended Posts

Anyone trying to score political points here is an idiot.

In the modern world, we've NEVER faced anything like this, never. In the 2nd world war the opposition were visible, this time it isn't.

We're in survival mode aren't we? Stop the bickering FFS, we're gonna need each other.

 

BTW, from the first line of 'Ghost town' by the Specials, to the end of ' Bands don't play no more' is exactly 20 seconds for hand washing purposes.

Stay safe everyone! :thumbsup:

  • Like 6
  • Flames 1
  • Robin 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

Not the time to blame the tories?  Why on earth not?  Their handling of this situation has been a shambles from the very beginning, reminiscent of Chamberlain’s government at the start of the Second World War, which was equally shambolic.  The fact that things are tough for all of is no reason to go soft on a misfiring leadership.  Johnson’s handling of the situation has been chaotic from the outset and he deserves no praise for his attempts to repair the damage he has already done.

Pray enlighten us on how you would have handled it? you must have an alternative plan would love to hear it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Frenchay Red said:

Judging by the glowing praise on here following today's announcements, I would hazard a guess that no self employed skilled tradesmen are adding to the endorsements.

I am.

4 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

All the ones that come home with handfuls of cash each day because they don't put hardly anything through the books you mean? 

I pay UK tax. And I don't even live half the time in the UK. 

I am happy to pay my fair share... It's quite amazing some of the remarks on here. Not surprising I suppose but when you experience the levels of corruption in other parts of the world not least where I am you thank the lord you are fortunate to be born a Brit.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Frenchay Red said:

Judging by the glowing praise on here following today's announcements, I would hazard a guess that no self employed skilled tradesmen are adding to the endorsements.

I apologise. I had not realised there was still nothing being offered to self employed people. That is appalling and needs sorting out.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ScottishRed said:

The party political stuff is crazy, would anyone do any better ?  No they wouldn’t,utterly in charterted territory here, NOBODY worldwide has the answer.

All we can do is isolate and stay as safe as we can.

This whole thing is madness, BUT it’s real. 

Stay safe fellow Reds.

The honest answer is that we will find out over the coming weeks and months whether anyone would do better. Other countries such as Germany and the Czech Republic put in social isolation and distancing measures before we did and ordered shutdowns of businesses and schools and for people to stay at a home at a time our government was arguing it was not necessary. Indeed our government and their advisors tacitly admitted on Monday they had been working to the wrong science and making the wrong assumptions about the virus. Even now, our measures are somewhat softer than France or Spain.

 

I absolutely agree that we are in uncharted territory and I certainly do not envy the choices the government has had to make but there was a two week period where we were largely ignoring World Health Organisation advice and instead working from our own models, which we have now ditched, and even now we are not testing people - including frontline staff - even though the WHO believe this is essential in getting the virus under control.

 

Of course nobody has known quite what to do but there is a real possibility we will find out over the coming weeks that not isolating sooner and not tracking cases will mean our fatality rate is higher than other comparable countries. If that does happen then of course the government’s decision making has to be questioned.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, pillred said:

What do you suggest?

I have no idea, in all honesty with the amount of people on here I am interested in other peoples opinions and view points. I guess many still expect to walk into the shops and be served with no idea or understanding how the items get there and no thought to these places and staff. As mentioned it's very, very selfish out there.

Limiting the amount of people in shops at a given time would be a start, one in one out queuing system. 

LImiting payments to contactless only, or have only one cash till. 

Hand gel and wipes provided on entry and exit.

Maybe shops closing for an hour in the middle of the day to allow cleaning and restocking

Staff provided with gloves/handgel/masks

 

Just a few suggestions. Yours?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, RedM said:

I have no idea, in all honesty with the amount of people on here I am interested in other peoples opinions and view points. I guess many still expect to walk into the shops and be served with no idea or understanding how the items get there and no thought to these places and staff. As mentioned it's very, very selfish out there.

Limiting the amount of people in shops at a given time would be a start, one in one out queuing system. 

LImiting payments to contactless only, or have only one cash till. 

Hand gel and wipes provided on entry and exit.

Maybe shops closing for an hour in the middle of the day to allow cleaning and restocking

Staff provided with gloves/handgel/masks

 

Just a few suggestions. Yours?

I'd throw in encouraging people to switch to online shopping where possible.

With the caveat that from my own experience of trying to get delivery slots with Tesco, the system is already stressed to the hilt, and any extension of service would require significant additional numbers of suitable trucks and qualified drivers.

This might free up space in physical stores to those who are unable to access online and assist with creating the necessary social distancing, etc.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, One Team In Keynsham said:

I'd throw in encouraging people to switch to online shopping where possible.

With the caveat that from my own experience of trying to get delivery slots with Tesco, the system is already stressed to the hilt, and any extension of service would require significant additional numbers of suitable trucks and qualified drivers.

This might free up space in physical stores to those who are unable to access online and assist with creating the necessary social distancing, etc.

Yes, of course. I just assumed that was a given. More online slots should be made available and processed quickly. I think people are finding though that there are no slots, or a long wait for one and having to physically shop anyway, and many online orders are missing the vital things people need

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Redpool said:

Fair play to Boris this week. He’s done a fantastic job so far each day in his conference. Full credit to the man.

Just wish he'd raise tax that directly targets those who can afford it. It's now we need their wealth. 

I'm willing to pay more.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

Another warning for anyone who thinks this is only affecting elderly and vulnerable people and that, if that does not apply to you, you'll be fine.

This woman is in her 30s, a regular gym goer and has no underlying health conditions:

 

Would be good knowing the percentage of fit and healthy 20/30 year olds that have been affected as badly as this woman has..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Maesknoll Red said:

So who would have got everything 100% right- although there seems to be plenty of experts on here.  Doubt anyone would want to step up and do his job at the moment.

Nobody would have got everything 100%, that’s true.

But Johnson has not done a great job so far. 

Experts have been saying for a long time that schools/pubs should be closed. He reacted way too late.

It’s great that he’s guaranteeing workers wages up to 80%. But it’s also damn clear that the self employed are going to need help. That’s a clear own goal, especially from a political party that usually champions small businesses.

Criticising (or indeed praising) the government doesn’t have to be party political or a left/right issue. They currently seem to be on the right path, but there is a lot more they need to do.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

Another warning for anyone who thinks this is only affecting elderly and vulnerable people and that, if that does not apply to you, you'll be fine.

This woman is in her 30s, a regular gym goer and has no underlying health conditions:

 

There seems to have been a greater focus on deaths and from this it seems clear that by far the greater number dying are over 80 and suffering from one or more serious underlying health issues - I think Ive read that 99% of deaths are from this group.

Does this lead some younger people to mistakenly believe that 99% of people catching the virus are also from the same age group and that they are therefore unlikely to catch it?  My take is that younger people are just as likely to catch the virus, but much more likely to recover than would be a much older person.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bris red said:

Would be good knowing the percentage of fit and healthy 20/30 year olds that have been affected as badly as this woman has..

It would. I discussed this earlier up the thread but stats suggest the fatality rate for people with no underlying conditions is 0.9 out of every 100 cases (which is about 9 times more deaths than flu causes for all patients). This will include some people over 70, although a large number of people over 70 do have an underlying condition. I'd guess it could therefore be only 0.5 (so five times more deaths than flu causes for all patients) but that still would mean 1 out of every 200 cases for fit and healthy people ended in death. 

I can only find statistics for comparison in America but flu - which is thought to be less transmissable than Coronavirus - affects between 9.3 million and 45 million people in the US each year according to the CDC. If we assumed two thirds of those people were fit healthy and the 1 in 200 death rate was accurate, that would mean the same level of infection from coronavirus would cause 31, 000 to 150, 000 deaths in America amongst fit and healthy patients.

Clearly this does not include hospitalisations. Stats are hard to find but 40% of US hospital admissions for coronavirus have been between 20 and 55. There is no data on whether they had underlying health conditions. Anecdotally, these seem to be plenty of doctors in Italy saying that there are a number of serious cases involving young people with no underlying health conditions but there is no data available on what that number is. Something like 20% of coronavirus cases in total require hospitalisation but again we don't know how many of these were under 70 and had no underlying conditions.

There was one study reported this week which did put the fatality rate for people with no underlying conditions in Italy much lower - 0.05% - but this is not so far consistent with data across the rest of the world and is yet to be peer-reviewed so we do not know how sound the methodology is. It is also very unclear whether that includes people who did not know they had an underlying health condition before contracting the virus. The reality is that at least three of the underlying conditions that present a risk - heart conditions, high blood pressure and diabetes - are conditions where people with them can go a considerable amount of time before knowing there is a problem and seeking diagnosis.

I definitely agree a lot more information is needed but I think it is a massive risk for anyone to assume the virus will not affected them badly because they are young and not in a vulnerable group because, whilst the majority of young and non-vulnerable people are having minimal symptoms, there is enough evidence to suggest a large minority are experiencing more serious effects.

Incidentally there is another warning from a less serious case here, who still got hit a lot harder than he expected:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/mar/20/dont-take-it-lightly-charlie-austin-says-he-has-acute-coronavirus-symptoms

On a final note, I had a Skype chat with a friend of mine who is self-isolating a couple of days ago. He would be considered a minor case but he was coughing so much that he was in agony, repeating things he'd told me two minutes earlier and, even as a minor case, not in a good shape. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, downendcity said:

There seems to have been a greater focus on deaths and from this it seems clear that by far the greater number dying are over 80 and suffering from one or more serious underlying health issues - I think Ive read that 99% of deaths are from this group.

Does this lead some younger people to mistakenly believe that 99% of people catching the virus are also from the same age group and that they are therefore unlikely to catch it?  My take is that younger people are just as likely to catch the virus, but much more likely to recover than would be a much older person.

 

See my post above - the 99% figure is drawn from one study in Italy and is yet to be checked in terms of its methodology. It puts the risk to younger people and without health conditions as much lower than some other studies - it gives a fatality rate of 0.05 deaths per 100 people who are young and healthy where as the fatality rate is estimated to be between 0.5 and 0.9 deaths per 100 people in other studies - but, in any case, I definitely agree that people are ignoring the fact that the are unlikely to die does not mean that:

a) they won't contract the disease

b) there is not a real risk of hospitalistion

c) there is not a real risk of scarring on the lungs or other permanent damage

d) things will get a lot more serious if you need hospitalisation and so many people are hospitalised there are not adequate beds.

You are definitely right that the evidence seems to be that younger people, including children, do catch and transmit the virus but have a lower mortality rate and hospitalisation rate than older people, people with underlying health conditions or young babies. They are more likely to recover but how likely to recover with minimal symptoms, is still up for debate. As I mention in my post above, 40% of US hospital admissions are younger patients for example.

It's quite right that people over 70 or with underlying health conditions have been warned they are more at risk and to take additional precautions to avoid the risk of catching the infection BUT I think this has led to a mistaken belief it does not matter if younger people get it.

The reality is that, up until the end of last week the government was pursuing a herd immunity strategy where older and more vulnerable people were effectively cut off from society to prevent infection and the virus was left free to circulate amongst everyone else so that enough people would gain immunity, and there was a willingness to allow 60% of the UK population to get it.

The reason why that strategy was abandoned seems to have been that data which emerged on Monday showed that, even if you took older and more vulnerable people out of the equation, the number of young or healthy people hospitalised or dying would overwhelm the NHS and still be a disaster. I think it is a major worry that a lot of younger people without underlying health conditions don't appreciate how serious this might get. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

Last time I had one of those calls I went quiet for a moment and then softly said "it wasn't an accident". They got a bit confused and scared and rang off. 

I had one a few months ago. I let them get to "when did the accident take place?" and replied with "next Tuesday, I know that's when she goes to collect her pension."

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

Last time I had one of those calls I went quiet for a moment and then softly said "it wasn't an accident". They got a bit confused and scared and rang off. 

Had one a couple of months back, I said... Wow! Unbelievable, how on earth did you know? It only happened 2 weeks ago! Course I lost a leg, so just as well you rang because I need money, when can you send a cheque?

 

"click".....

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have an issue with the phased approach of the move towards lockdown. But I have felt all along the government were too slow to get started and would have protected more people had they looked at what was going on and acted quickly. There was that pointless business as usual phase.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

Last time I had one of those calls I went quiet for a moment and then softly said "it wasn't an accident". They got a bit confused and scared and rang off. 

Last one I had, I played along for about 5 minutes, even getting passed onto the "higher power". You could virtually hear him rubbing his hands and counting the money as I laid it on really thick, saying about the emotional and physical anguish I was under. How it had caused me to lose my job, house, wife and family. Then he asked what the longterm effects would be....

"Well I lost both my arms, legs, broke my neck, back and was taken away from the scene in a few body bags."

He then had the cheek to say that I was wasting his time, to which I replied "good, less time for you to scam a vulnerable elderly person then you *horrible person you*"

Haven't had a phone call since. Shame really.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Mezze @ Downend did a great “delivery” tonight.

Feel for local businesses, but some are changing their business models to try to get through this.  Will try and support as many as possible over the coming 12 weeks.

That’s good to know. I like the Mezze and have been trying to find out which restaurants are doing takeaways. Local pubs are, but I’m not the biggest fan of pub food so will mostly try to support them by buying their take out beer. 

On another note, one consolation of this situation is you’ll have time to study the HMHB back catalogue so you can enjoy their next concert even more than the recent one.  Was that really only a fortnight ago???

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Taz said:

Last one I had, I played along for about 5 minutes, even getting passed onto the "higher power". You could virtually hear him rubbing his hands and counting the money as I laid it on really thick, saying about the emotional and physical anguish I was under. How it had caused me to lose my job, house, wife and family. Then he asked what the longterm effects would be....

"Well I lost both my arms, legs, broke my neck, back and was taken away from the scene in a few body bags."

He then had the cheek to say that I was wasting his time, to which I replied "good, less time for you to scam a vulnerable elderly person then you *horrible person you*"

Haven't had a phone call since. Shame really.

Another good one is to interrupt them and say `Before we get on to the accident, can I speak to you about how Jesus brings hope to the world?`

They usually hang up.

  • Haha 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I

1 hour ago, LondonBristolian said:

Last time I had one of those calls I went quiet for a moment and then softly said "it wasn't an accident". They got a bit confused and scared and rang off. 

I had a spate of those calls a few months back, I confused one woman when I said, yes it was terrible, I died on the way to hospital, there was nothing they could do, she still tried to go through her script and then finally realised what I'd said......

  • Haha 3
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...