Christmas break?

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

My daughter sent me a list of where the highest rates of infection are. From memory supermarkets and schools are at the top. So anyone planning to spend Christmas with grandchildren of school age are really going to put themselves at risk.

Woodmouse

Sorry my description was obvious wrong. I actually meant "if we are allowed to meet in groups of six max". By "we" I mean myself and my husband. IF, we are allowed to meet then there would be six of us max. I appreciate that many will not agree with this. If, on the other hand, we are told we are not allowed to meet up with anyone from outside of our household then I will respect the rules. I hope that I have explained myself better.

It really matters to use words properly - bubble has a specific meaning and rule of 6 has a specific meaning. We’re still in a pandemic, hundreds still dying every day, the least we can do is use words properly and if people can’t be bothered to put that effort in, then they shouldn’t be posting on a public forum Its not that difficult, is it?

It seems obvious to me that it'll be the very worst time to 'meet up'.

There's a high probability that hospitals will be overwhelmed at the end of January.

That's assuming, on average, maybe a week or so of incubation, a week's illness, followed by a need for hospital care in the third week - and a rapid decline - all multiplied into the thousands by those who took a risk on the 25th and suffered accordingly.

Sorry my description was obvious wrong. I actually meant "if we are allowed to meet in groups of six max". By "we" I mean myself and my husband. IF, we are allowed to meet then there would be six of us max. I appreciate that many will not agree with this. If, on the other hand, we are told we are not allowed to meet up with anyone from outside of our household then I will respect the rules. I hope that I have explained myself better.

This'll cheer you up Sooziewoozie. Or maybe not ?

web.archive.org/web/20201118091934/https://twitter.com/toadmeister/status/1328936943896420354

I’m just sick of ignorant, ill informed posts on GN.

Less than 1% Woodmouse? Your risk of dying depends upon your age, sex and whether you have underlying health conditions. Therefore, the 1% only applies to (perhaps) somebody in their forties!

www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

Woodmouse

If we are allowed to meet in bubbles then we will spend Christmas with our children and at least one of their partners. I have never agreed with the lockdowns but I have obeyed the rules. Selfishness comes in many forms. Personally I think anyone who smokes and is overweight is selfish as they are much more likely to end up in hospital should they contract this virus. All of this for a virus with a fatality rate of less than 1 cent? It has never made sense to me.

When you talk of "we" I assume you're not talking about your personal circumstances. You can only be in a bubble if you live on your own and with one other group.

If you spend Christmas with your children, you are breaking the rules, unless all your children and their partners live together.

1% of the UK population is over 600,000, which is the number who would die quite quickly if the infection were allowed to run its course. They would probably die within a year. There is no medical condition which kills 1% of a population within the same year.

It makes a lot of sense to try to reduce transmission!

Woodmouse

If we are allowed to meet in bubbles then we will spend Christmas with our children and at least one of their partners. I have never agreed with the lockdowns but I have obeyed the rules. Selfishness comes in many forms. Personally I think anyone who smokes and is overweight is selfish as they are much more likely to end up in hospital should they contract this virus. All of this for a virus with a fatality rate of less than 1 cent? It has never made sense to me.

What bubbles are you in? You can only be in one bubble at the most.

My best friend has had sleepless nights over her family's Christmas expectations.

Having isolated as much as possible since February (she has asthma and diabetes), had all her shopping delivered and going out only for solo walks - all according to their warnings and directions - there's now a sudden change, a contradiction.

They expect to have the usual large Christmas get together. Three generations, those at school, at work and socialising, all cooped up in one house, sharing food, facilities - and the air they breathe!

I'm sworn to secrecy (but anonymous here) about her plans. She's decided that she simply can't refuse to join in, so her solution will be to have 'symptoms' (cough, fever, fatigue) on Christmas eve!

If we are allowed to meet in bubbles then we will spend Christmas with our children and at least one of their partners. I have never agreed with the lockdowns but I have obeyed the rules. Selfishness comes in many forms. Personally I think anyone who smokes and is overweight is selfish as they are much more likely to end up in hospital should they contract this virus. All of this for a virus with a fatality rate of less than 1 cent? It has never made sense to me.

What could possibly go wrong?

Looking like people will be able to travel in the over Christmas too, listening to the briefing today. Seems that they want to get the numbers down that they can cope with the uptick in January. Seems like a plan

There's no getting away from the fact that this virus spreads nicely indoors with people you know. That's why the tiers try to prevent households mixing. You could be asymptomatic and still pass it on. It will be interesting to see what impact Thanksgiving has on infection rates.

The most effective way to "get the economy moving" would be to be more proactive about protecting people's health, especially in the communities which are known to be more vulnerable.

Just over 3000 in over eighties.

ajswan

PoshPaw no not selfish, just very concerned about the economy and the tens of thousands of people that will lose their homes and businesses. I saw a graph that showed that the majority of people dying from Covid were over 80, also if for example someone had terminal lung cancer and showed positive for Covid just before they died they would count in the Covid death figures.

Many people over 80 still have years of life in them. Your post sounds as though their lives don't matter. Even people with terminal lung cancer can live for months or years.

https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202011/medium-46431-capture.png https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202011/medium-111972-capture2.png

ajswan

PoshPaw no not selfish, just very concerned about the economy and the tens of thousands of people that will lose their homes and businesses. I saw a graph that showed that the majority of people dying from Covid were over 80, also if for example someone had terminal lung cancer and showed positive for Covid just before they died they would count in the Covid death figures.

Here's a graph of coronavirus deaths in Scotland ajswan. Just under 3000 deaths are in over 80s and just under 2000 in under 80s. So technically, yes, the majority are over 80, but not overwhelmingly so. Even if it was, are the deaths of the elderly somehow less important?

And your lung cancer example. How do we know that the virus didn't hasten their death? Excess deaths in Scotland from all causes are at 5,747 so far this year. Is that just a coincidence?

Well said, ALANaV, I totally agree with you. How is it selfish, in my last job, I worked as an Occupational Health and Safety Adviser/ Trainer. So I have been looking at the research etc. I take every precaution, I always carry a Dettol wipe when I am in shops so I can wipe fridge doors etc before I open it.

PoshPaw no not selfish, just very concerned about the economy and the tens of thousands of people that will lose their homes and businesses. I saw a graph that showed that the majority of people dying from Covid were over 80, also if for example someone had terminal lung cancer and showed positive for Covid just before they died they would count in the Covid death figures.

As I have, with my bubble family.
Maybee70 - tell those killed by drunken drivers that overuse of alcohol only damages the users. Or those, seriously attacked by illegal drug users the same thing.

All this talk of burying relatives, being refused hospital treatment after Christmas etc is getting silly. MamaCaz shows most of us can be careful within our extended families with no wild parties and pub crawls. I'm with those on here who have found a way to have the family Christnas they want whilst taking precautions.

Franbern

vegansrock do think your last sentence is rather silly. Would you also suggest that the following should also refused (be refused) medical and hospital treatment -
attempted suicides, self harmers, drunks, OD recreation drug user, people injured in sporting incidents, the obese, etc. etc.? after all could be (and I know, in the past has been) seriously argued that all of these people 'brought their accidents/illnesses on themselves?

All of the actions of the people you mention only ultimately harm themselves. Anyone who catches the virus potentially harms other people, including the hospital staff that have to treat them. That’s the difference which, imo, is black and white.

It was Professor Gabriel Scally who have the warning about little point in having a Merry Christmas and burying your relatives in the New Year. He's a member of the alternative SAGE. He also points out there's a risk of losing recent gains against the virus. But some people will do what they want and most will get away with it. But not all, then it will be lockdown January. Then maybe April. There's a vaccine on the horizon.