Over 80% of Britons not heeding COVID-19 self-isolation rules, study finds

[473geo]

1 hour ago, plentyofnuttin said:

Because Israeli humans differ in a medically significant way from British humans?

Well there has to be some differences, be it climate, immune systems, environment, else why has there been no surge in Thailand? Schools are back a while already. Why pick Israel because it suited your agenda?

[AndrewMciver]

56 minutes ago, englishoak said:

Love you too Scott.. Ill just stick with gov facts then

 

Statistics from the ONS is out... Since February related to CV19 deaths based on only those WITHOUT other conditions deaths is as follows. 

Of those in the age group under 20 with no other known pre existing conditions deaths recorded to purely CV19... 4 those with an existing condition that died.  16 ... total 20

Of those in the age group under 40 with no other known pre existing conditions deaths recorded to purely CV19... 39 those with an existing condition that died..181 ... total 220

Of those in the age group under 60 with no other known pre existing conditions deaths recorded purely to CV19... 307

 

These arnt my figures or a guess or an interpretation, these are undisputed facts that anyone if they are bothered can read and add up for themselves.. the data is from the UK Office Of National Statistics, it is what the gov constantly uses for its data and is considered the gold standard, all related documents and numbers relating to above info and all manner of other charts can be found here. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/datalist?sortBy=release_date&query=&fromDateDay=&fromDateMonth=&fromDateYear=&toDateDay=&toDateMonth=&toDateYear=&size=50

 

Look for yourselves and decide.

 

 

 

So shall we just let the over 60s die ?

 

Idiot 

[Cryingdick]

7 hours ago, AndrewMciver said:

 

So shall we just let the over 60s die ?

 

Idiot 

No but they are the ones that need to stay isolated. Otherwise there is nobody to care for them. Let the kids have a financially viable future or everybody is screwed. 

[AndrewMciver]

2 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

No but they are the ones that need to stay isolated. Otherwise there is nobody to care for them. Let the kids have a financially viable future or everybody is screwed. 

 

That's not quite how it works. 

 

You can't ask some 30% of your population to go lock themselves in a room and never come out till their is a vaccine.  How exactly would you even enforece something like this?

 

Furthermore, it's a collective responsibility. A 16 year old may catch it, be fine - but he could pass it on, and it gets passed down the chain until someone infects a vulnerable person. That's why it's vital you stop the transmission. 

Edited September 27, 2020 by AndrewMciver

[Cryingdick]

2 minutes ago, AndrewMciver said:

 

That's not quite how it works. 

 

You can't ask some 30% of your population to go lock themselves in a room and never come out.  How exactly would you enfore this?

 

Furthermore, it's a collective responsibility. A 16 year old may catch it, be fine - but he could pass it on, and it gets passed down the chain until someone infects a vulnerable person. That's why it's vital you stop the transmission. 

You can’t enforce it which is the entire point of the article. You know what culls the weak more than COVID? Worldwide economic depression.

Edited September 27, 2020 by Cryingdick

[AndrewMciver]

Just now, Cryingdick said:

You can’t enforce it which is the entire point of the article. You know what culls the weak more than COVID? Worldwide eco No mic depression.

 

You know what else culls the weak - STUPIDITY. 

 

The idea is not to wait a lifetime, but to give it a few months so we can learn more about treatments, and the holy grail a vaccine. You're acting like you've been stuck in some form of lockdown for years - it's been 6 months. 

 

We get it - you're horny, you want to get back to Nana Plaza - but killing millions to satisfy your needs for cheap drinks and sex is not the answer. 

[Cryingdick]

2 minutes ago, AndrewMciver said:

 

You know what else culls the weak - STUPIDITY. 

 

 

Yet somehow you seem to be fine. There is no need to use such baseless insults.I am not horny and live in the USA. So you can drop your preconceived assumptions of what makes me tick. 

Edited September 27, 2020 by Cryingdick

[Scott]

Inflammatory, troll post reported and removed along with replies.   Continued stalking and trolling other members will earn a suspension.  

[englishoak]

8 hours ago, AndrewMciver said:

 

So shall we just let the over 60s die ?

 

Idiot 

 

Dont be ridiculous. Read the data properly, stop taking MSM headlines as the whole picture and do try to stop being so hyperbolic. 

 

If you are over 60 and in good health there is more chance of dying from a stroke. Even the over 60s WITH existing conditions have a 99% + survival rate...it dosnt even get above 1% until over 80 and on top of that it is other existing conditions that make it a problem. The average age of those who have died is 81 and two thirds already had multiple existing conditions, not just one which they may or may not have died of anyway. Its no different than a bad infulenza season which also takes its toll on a similar demographic..

 

Perhaps it would be better those multiple existing conditions take responsibility and self isolate while the rest of the population gets on with keeping things and society running for them. These are also the people who are most at risk from having their check ups, appointments and badly needed treatments cancelled or postponed and for them thats serious. 

 

It does no one any good if the entire country is crippled economically and socially. 

 

 

Edited September 27, 2020 by englishoak

[Yinn]

On 9/25/2020 at 6:20 PM, snoop1130 said:

Over 80% of people in Britain are not adhering to self-isolation guidelines when they have COVID-19 symptoms or had contact with someone who has tested positive, a study has found.

80% selfish people = 

 

On 9/25/2020 at 6:20 PM, snoop1130 said:

Britain had the highest death toll from COVID-19 in Europe, at 41,902.

Sure 

[Yinn]

55 minutes ago, AndrewMciver said:

Furthermore, it's a collective responsibility. A 16 year old may catch it, be fine - but he could pass it on, and it gets passed down the chain until someone infects a vulnerable person. That's why it's vital you stop the transmission. 

Unbelievable after 9 months covid, people STILL not understand.

selfish.

[geriatrickid]

There choice to die or to have chronic health issues.

The lack of concern for the elderly and infirm will come back to haunt them.

[redwood1]

On 9/26/2020 at 12:40 PM, Chivas said:

What are you babbling about chap. Scam....??

Seriously dont retort and say Bill Gates wants to chip our brains you conspiracy idiots are off the scale. Same fruitloops that claim the Americans blew up the twin towers killing 5000 of their own people.

 

Complete and utter didlows....

You forgot the Flat Earth.......Its hard to admit you have been lied to.....And by the way the earth is 100% flat...

[VBF]

9 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

No but they are the ones that need to stay isolated. Otherwise there is nobody to care for them. Let the kids have a financially viable future or everybody is screwed. 

Thank you. What was going to be my reply to @AndrewMciver would probably have seen me banned!

 

And, for the greater good, let the elderly and vulnerable make their own decisions - to go out and mix with possibly infected people or isolate. Meanwhile the world economies can start to recover. No good saving people's lives to go back to an empty planet!

 

Remember Charles Darwin..."The survival of the fittest"

Just re-read - these comments also serve as an agreement with @englishoak comment in #39.

 

And, I'm 65 with pre-existing conditions, not a "selfish yoof" - better dead than living under these stupid, needless suppressions.

Let us oldies make our own decisions - we've had a lifetime of practice, meanwhile freeing up the less vulnerable to get on with life!

Edited September 27, 2020 by VBF

[AndrewMciver]

1 hour ago, VBF said:

Thank you. What was going to be my reply to @AndrewMciver would probably have seen me banned!

 

And, for the greater good, let the elderly and vulnerable make their own decisions - to go out and mix with possibly infected people or isolate. Meanwhile the world economies can start to recover. No good saving people's lives to go back to an empty planet!

 

Remember Charles Darwin..."The survival of the fittest"

Just re-read - these comments also serve as an agreement with @englishoak comment in #39.

 

And, I'm 65 with pre-existing conditions, not a "selfish yoof" - better dead than living under these stupid, needless suppressions.

Let us oldies make our own decisions - we've had a lifetime of practice, meanwhile freeing up the less vulnerable to get on with life!

 

How exactly do you tell 30% of your population (or say 45% in Japan) to isolate and not come out - because the young ones have had enough after 6 months of chilling (most western countries were paying wages to a huge majority to chill at home).

 

1) There will be massive effects to the economy from doing that also. The over 60's contribute more to the economy than the under 18's. 

2) What provisions would you make that the elderly don't suffer - be it mental health issues, hunger, health care, etc

3) Who will pay and look after the elderly - a large amount still stay with families. Also remember a huge volume of deaths in the UK came from care homes, where it is believed one cause was of the virus spreading was the workers were coming in with the virus. 

 

It's almost as if i've been transported back to the 1940's with the rhetoric some are coming out with. It's impractical and ill thought out - and just spewing ageist rhetoric. 

 

And no, i am not over 60. 

Edited September 27, 2020 by AndrewMciver

[VBF]

3 minutes ago, AndrewMciver said:

 

How exactly do you tell 30% of your population (or say 45% in Japan) to isolate and not come out - because the young ones have had enough after 6 months of chilling (most western countries were paying wages to a huge majority to chill at home).

 

1) There will be massive effects to the economy from doing that also. The over 60's contribute more to the economy than the under 18's. 

2) What provisions would you make that the elderly don't suffer - be it mental health issues, hunger, health care, etc

3) Who will pay and look after the elderly - a large amount still stay with families. 

 

It's almost as if i've been transported back to the 1940's with the rhetoric some are coming out with. It's impractical and ill thought out - and just spewing ageist rhetoric. 

 

And no, i am not over 60. 

You don't tell them (us) - you warn about the possible dangers and let us make our own decisions.

Personally, you can warn me all you like - I'm not isolating to avoid a virus that probably won't cause me much harm even if I am exposed to it.

 

And if it does..... nice knowing you all  some of you!

I repeat..."better dead than living under these stupid, needless suppressions."

[AndrewMciver]

12 minutes ago, VBF said:

You don't tell them (us) - you warn about the possible dangers and let us make our own decisions.

Personally, you can warn me all you like - I'm not isolating to avoid a virus that probably won't cause me much harm even if I am exposed to it.

 

And if it does..... nice knowing you all  some of you!

I repeat..."better dead than living under these stupid, needless suppressions."

 

You 'warn' them ?

 

Words are all well and good - but surely you would need some form of measures to protect these over 60's too?

 

Eg, my friend lives with his parents. They are both over 60, one with a pre exisiting condition. Does he move out?  Another couple i know, look after the husbands elderly mother. Do they stuff her in a nursing home? Talking of nursing homes - who works in these? Should we just seal them off from the world and leave them be in these homes? 

 

How about we get every over 60 year old with a pre exisiting condition and dump them on a island ? Would that be to your liking?

 

Incidentally do you have any elderly family members?

 

[VBF]

1 minute ago, AndrewMciver said:

 

You 'warn' them ?

 

Words are all well and good - but surely you would need some form of measures to protect these over 60's too?

 

Eg, my friend lives with his parents. They are both over 60, one with a pre exisiting condition. Does he move out?  Another couple i know, look after the husbands elderly mother. Do they stuff her in a nursing home? Talking of nursing homes - who works in these? Should we just seal them off from the world and leave them be in these homes? 

 

How about we get every over 60 year old with a pre exisiting condition and dump them on a island ? Would that be to your liking?

 

Incidentally do you have any elderly family members?

 

What a ridiculous response!

 

When you warn an individual, you're also warning the family unit! 

They, as a family make the decision to protect the unit as they see fit!

 

In your friend's case, surely it's not beyond the wit and wisdom of the family to discuss and plan for themselves? In his case he might have to sacrifice some freedom for the parents he presumably loves....but it's a private matter for them NOT a basis for changes in law!

 

You STILL haven't read that I said that people who have pre-existing conditions should make their own choices...LIKE I'VE DONE!!!!!

 

Friends or family makes no difference because I have some dear friends who are elderly and vulnerable - I know I'm a potential risk, so I "socially distance" myself from them having discussed it with them.  My 81 year old neighbour who knows all about me and is as good as family, came in to my place for coffee last week - I invited, she CHOSE to accept.

[AndrewMciver]

11 minutes ago, VBF said:

What a ridiculous response!

 

When you warn an individual, you're also warning the family unit! 

They, as a family make the decision to protect the unit as they see fit!

 

In your friend's case, surely it's not beyond the wit and wisdom of the family to discuss and plan for themselves? In his case he might have to sacrifice some freedom for the parents he presumably loves....but it's a private matter for them NOT a basis for changes in law!

 

You STILL haven't read that I said that people who have pre-existing conditions should make their own choices...LIKE I'VE DONE!!!!!

 

Friends or family makes no difference because I have some dear friends who are elderly and vulnerable - I know I'm a potential risk, so I "socially distance" myself from them having discussed it with them.  My 81 year old neighbour who knows all about me and is as good as family, came in to my place for coffee last week - I invited, she CHOSE to accept.

 

No it's YOU who isn't understand how the transmissions works. 

 

My friend goes to work. Is cutting back on her social life. However if the virus is out of control and going through the population it will eventually catch her (at work, or a supermarket, etc) and she will then infect her elderly parents. 

 

The key is to cut the transmission down in the population, in the short term, as we search for treatments and a vaccine. 

 

What is about 'VECTORS' you don't understand? You are looking at this as a singular simple case - "Elderly person stays home. Young people get on with life". THAT IS NOT HOW TRANSMISSIONS WORK. 

Edited September 27, 2020 by AndrewMciver

[86Tiger]

12 hours ago, AndrewMciver said:

 

 

 

"............You can't ask some 30% of your population to go lock themselves in a room and never come out till their is a vaccine.  How exactly would you even enforece something like this?........."

 

 

But 100% is OK.  And enforceable. 

 

Got it.

[AndrewMciver]

1 hour ago, 86Tiger said:

But 100% is OK.  And enforceable. 

 

Got it.

 

No is telling 100% to stay at home. 

 

What we are doing is mitigating the risk of transmissions. It's impossible to elimate it - but you can implement measures to reduce transmissions. 

[VBF]

4 hours ago, AndrewMciver said:

 

No it's YOU who isn't understand how the transmissions works. 

 

My friend goes to work. Is cutting back on her social life. However if the virus is out of control and going through the population it will eventually catch her (at work, or a supermarket, etc) and she will then infect her elderly parents. 

 

The key is to cut the transmission down in the population, in the short term, as we search for treatments and a vaccine. 

 

What is about 'VECTORS' you don't understand? You are looking at this as a singular simple case - "Elderly person stays home. Young people get on with life". THAT IS NOT HOW TRANSMISSIONS WORK. 

Re-read what I said - I'll update it to show plurals

 

"In any of your friend's cases, surely it's not beyond the wit and wisdom of the families to discuss and plan for themselves? In their cases they might have to sacrifice some freedom for the parents they presumably love....but it's a private matter for them NOT a basis for changes in law!"

 

So your friend works from home, shops online etc. thus negating the vectors.

In other words, any family who is in the situation that you describe acts accordingly

 

There's almost NO zero-risk option but my suggestion works for a greater number of the population. As you yourself said "It's impossible to eliminate it (the risk)"

Edited September 27, 2020 by VBF