Christmas break?

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.

Just over 3000 in over eighties.

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.

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.

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

What could possibly go wrong?

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.

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!

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.

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!

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/

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

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

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

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 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.

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?

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.

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

If only 50% of cases are “real”, isn’t that enough to take precautions? What if that number was 65%? At some point rational thought is required. I’m also perplexed...at what age does a human become disposable? Personally I will use my judgment and stay home.

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

Message deleted by Gransnet. Quotes a deleted post.

I'll be spending Christmas totally on my own and I expect I'll have a little cry at some point. I've spent most of the time since March totally on my own and I've had many little cries, but my solution has been to get my head round it and make the best of it. I despair that people can't give up a few pleasures and have contributed to making lockdowns more severe. I despair even more at the messaging from the government, which can't come up with a consistent strategy. Dangling Christmas in front of people, for whatever reason, is treating people like children.

janipat I read your post about your friend, but I don't know what the answer is. I'm probably a "purist" in your eyes, but the fact is that I don't know the answer. I might be imagining it but I'm sure I read in the original guidelines that there should be special consideration for people in your friend's position. I don't know whether there was any further consideration or whether it was all forgotten.

I haven't forgotten about the elderly and vulnerable - quite the opposite. That's why I've spoken out when people have supported the so-called Barrington approach and have written that it's "only" the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions who are dying. There is no "only" about any life.

I can understand why the care home management would want to be ultra-cautious, given what happened during the first wave. The virus itself isn't going to take a few days off for compassionate visits.

It would be too much to accept on trust that everybody wanting to visit your friend had totally self-isolated for two weeks before the visit, which is the only way that your friend and all the other residents would be safe. That's why some scientists (and others) have been calling for a total lockdown, which would result in almost zero community transmission and dealing with isolated flare-ups (which is what New Zealand has done).

We are where we are. The only way your friend could see a number of people safely would be for the visitors to totally self-isolate for two weeks and then for your friend to totally self-isolate for a further two weeks after the visit. Any essential carers would have to wear full "riot gear" to ensure that if she is infected that nothing is passed on to other residents.

I'm not responsible for deciding any strategy and I dare say nobody else on GN is either, but I don't think wishing people "payback" is very helpful. Maybe lobbying of MPs with a practical solution would be the way to go.

Woodmouse people or overweight and smoke are selfish. According to you. I have never smoked and a couple of stone above the BMI chart. So an I selfish because I am not the weight I should be? I have obeyed all the rules. I have a bubble with my daughter and family. I number of health problems but look after myself and don't take risks. I am 62 widowed almost 17 years. My late husband was 47 when he died. I have always in quality of life not quantity. If someone has a good quality of life it doesn't matter how old they are . I know quite at few 80+ who lead an active life. And help anyone who needs it.

Are you the perfect weight for your height? Do you drink? Do you help people when you can? I don't mean doing anything outstanding but by simply being nice to someone. I treat people the way I want to be treated. Even when I need to complain about something. I don't shout or swear at them.

The people who are selfish are those who don't follow the rules . I know several people who because of health reasons don't have to wear a mask but do. To protect themselves and others. The selfish people are these who go on marches putting themselves and others at risk. Putting the police force and other emergency services at risk.

Are you so blind that you think only certain types and ages of people have value. And the rest of us can go hang .

Spot on, growstuff! We're not babies, are we? We don't need the government giving us a Christmas holiday - with full permission to mingle (get sick and die) do we?

I can't help thinking that there's pressure for the vulnerable and elderly to get out there and catch it!

janipat

*la la la la * I'm fucking invisible as is my almost 102 year old friend! So good to know the fabulous folk of `GN actually care about real people as opposed to the imaginary kind. I'll be sure to tell her the pure souls of GN say fuck you just get on with being totally isolated, depressed and sad, you've had your life............. I totally despair. I'm now hoping many of you don't
make it until next Christmas, payback is a bitch!

Wow. This from someone claiming to be a Christian.