Work sending messages pleading for help

[whenwillthemadnessend]

My work has sent out an email this morning pleading for help today. I expect it will be
Like this for a few weeks now.

It's not an essential service likely but if my Work is doing it how are the essential services going to cope

This is why I think we will
End up with some restrictions soon.

@newbietoanxiety the 'im alright jack' argument is flawed at best and makes those who use it look not only narrow minded, but quite selfish. This is because it works both ways, you can't say "those who want to put CEV at risk by not sacrificing their livelihood for others are all selfish and I'm alright jack'" without saying "all those who have CEV who expect others to give up their livelihoods so they have a couple more years of life are selfish and I'm alright jack'". Both options are selfish in their own way.

Your solution to solve covid by locking the country for just four weeks, only to contradict yourself by saying the only reason it didn't work las time is that we opened back up to soon (what was it, five months?) Is quite frankly ridiculous. Covid is here forever and I'm sorry, but I can't actually see us having a hard lockdown ever again. What gives people the right on this thread to say that their lives are so much more important than everyone else's that the whole country must sacrifice everything to protect them?

It is unfortunately the circle of life and it is very sad that covid will kill people, but it's sad that people die in car crashes and it's sad that people die from cancer. Every death is sad and yet they are not preventable. We tried the hard approach to save everyone by locking down for months and dipping in and out of restrictions for nearly two years. It does work. As soon as restrictions lift, we are back to square 1, all it takes is one person to still be contagious in the world and it will multiply rapidly again. So please, stop the immature, selfish thinking of 'lets lockdown for four weeks and then covid will disappear'.

@newbietoanxiety also - whilst I have sympathy for those who have CEV, I'm not sure why we should have a lockdown because someone who has health anxiety feels last anxious? If you genuinely feel that way and I'm presuming you are talking about yourself given your username, and you think people who you have never met should sacrifice their whole lives to make you feel better, I think you need to step away from the internet and take some time for self reflection

That last post was full of typos, I apologise. It was meant to say *are CEV and *less anxious

@walksen

"Are you suggesting that every school in the land had the same experience? The data definitely don’t show this"

I'm suggesting that is unlikely but not "vanishingly unlikely" and no consolation to that kid or other pupils who take it home to clinically vulnerable relatives etc.

That it was very unlikely was no consolation to that pupil either

We cannot make policy at the individual level.

No good law ever came of it, and that isn’t going to change now.

I’m happy to stand corrected, but unless is translates to a CFR north of 50 or so percent, then it’s still not worth the mass hysteria.

So it has to kill over 50% of people to be worth bothering about?

Basically, only a disease with the transmissibility of the present variant of Covid combined with the mortality of Ebola would be worth our concern???

@WonderfulYou

I’m unsure of the point you’re trying to make tbh.

Of course you don’t.

You don’t even believe a child of school age could have a parent or teacher die of covid.

If you struggle to understand that a virus can cause deaths to middle aged people then how would you understand other aspects of a virus and what issues it may cause.

The data don’t support this argument though, so no, I’m not giving it the time of day.

When you produce some actual, peer reviewed evidence that under 65s are dying in droves, then of course I will change my position.

As things stand, that data doesn’t exist, so no, I don’t believe your assertions to be correct.

I’m not ‘struggling to understand’ anything, I’m taking an evidence-based approach, one I genuinely wish others would adopt.

@ddl1

I’m happy to stand corrected, but unless is translates to a CFR north of 50 or so percent, then it’s still not worth the mass hysteria.

So it has to kill over 50% of people to be worth bothering about?

Basically, only a disease with the transmissibility of the present variant of Covid combined with the mortality of Ebola would be worth our concern???

Please, remind yourself of what the CFR is before posting?

"You don’t even believe a child of school age could have a parent or teacher die of covid"

Of course the data supports it. This statement suggests "is it possible?". It may be rare and unlikely but it does happen.

Other countries have introfuc d air filters etc. In the UK we have not. This has had tragic consequences for some families. The government believe the cost to reduce this risk has not been worth it. People who are cev or whose kids are cev can disagree with this. The data certainly suggests infection rates in school age children has allowed to be far higher than other ages in an attempt to promote herd immunity.

FGS how do people with this line of thinking get through the day?

This makes no sense - I get through the day absolutely fine. I have no anxiety and am generally pretty content.

How is spreading it to more people going to help with the numbers at work? One person off for 7 days, even if feeling 'ok' or 10 people off after getting it from number 1

Most people forced to isolate are otherwise well enough to work, many are asymptomatic and are only isolating because they picked up a positive by obsessively testing for the bloody thing.

It may be rare and unlikely but it does happen

I’m getting a bit tired of saying this now, but we cannot make policy based on rare and unlikely outcomes, not when the costs of implementing those policies are so high and have a detrimental outcome to literally everybody else.

Now that Covid is here, and it looks like it’s here to stay, we have to consider the unfortunate reality that CEV children can no longer be educated in the mainstream.

Autumndays We tried the hard approach to save everyone by locking down

nope .The locking down was to "flatten the curve" so that the NHS could continue functioning .And it did .

And please stop haranguing posters to provide alternative solutions.There is no law that says you're only allowed to criticise if you are able to suggest a different approach .

There is no law that says you're only allowed to criticise if you are able to suggest a different approach

In fairness, I think most people would consider it churlish to criticise unless you have a better idea yourself.

At any rate, nobody appointed you the thread police. @Autumndays123 is perfectly entitled to post as they see fit.

*>

Please, remind yourself of what the CFR is before posting?*

I just looked up Case Fatality Rate in case I had somehow misunderstood it the first time. According to Wikipedia, 'in epidemiology, case fatality rate (CFR) – or sometimes more accurately case-fatality risk – is the proportion of people diagnosed with a certain disease, who end up dying of it.' So for it to be over 50%, over half the people who got Covid would have to die from it. I don't mean that the CFR IS anything like 50% - obviously it's not- but you were saying that it had to be over that level to warrant this degree of concern.

" @Autumndays123 is perfectly entitled to post as they see fit. " - but I'm not ? And if I object to a poster repeatedly saying something and ask them to stop ,I'm acting as the thread police ?

In fairness, I think most people would consider it churlish to criticise unless you have a better idea yourself .Well I think you're wrong there - I've often heard it said on MN " I 'm not in favour of X/Y/Z but I don't know what the answer is " or words to that effect .

There is no law that says you're only allowed to criticise if you are able to suggest a different approach .

No of course there's no law

But normally when you feel the need to criticise something it's because you feel there's a better approach or solution to the issue.

But normally when you feel the need to criticise something it's because you feel there's a better approach or solution to the issue

I agree that's often the case ,but things are a tiny bit more complicated here .Or do you think the government have just been pretending to consider all options and keeping us hanging on for fun ?

Of course one can say I think something's a really bad idea but I don't know what the answer is .

We do get it, it doesn't matter if what they are spreading is a mild illness

It does matter if 1.2 million people have it leaving 1% in hospital (12,000) at a time, Even if 20% are unwell enough to be off work, that’s 240,000 off work at the same time. And those people will primarily be in public services.

An A&E consultant tweeted yesterday that they had only 2 qualified nurses for the evening shift, all others were unwell with Covid.

@peridito

Autumndays We tried the hard approach to save everyone by locking down

nope .The locking down was to "flatten the curve" so that the NHS could continue functioning .And it did .

And please stop haranguing posters to provide alternative solutions.There is no law that says you're only allowed to criticise if you are able to suggest a different approach .

I'm not saying there is a law that you must provide a solution to criticise. What I'm saying is you can't sit there calling everyone monsters for suggesting a variety of other solutions when you sit there with your fingers in your ears insisting we must save everyone by any means necessary, with no actual plan or realistic possibility to do so.

Of course one can say I think something's a really bad idea but I don't know what the answer is

Applying logic here, no you can’t say that - how could you possibly know that something is a bad idea unless you know of a better one?

In order to carry out a comparison, you need to have at least 2 different options.

Put another way, against what comparator are you evaluating the current strategy?

"I’m getting a bit tired of saying this now, but we cannot make policy based on rare and unlikely outcomes"

Why not - other countries in Europe did. They put extra mitigations in place? People ask for cost benefit analysis of lockdowns. I'm not aware of any cost benefit analysis being done for mitigations for in schools for cev pupils/ families with cev parents in.

Of course one can say I think something's a really bad idea but I don't know what the answer is .

Maybe this means that it's the 'least bad' idea?

@walksen

"I’m getting a bit tired of saying this now, but we cannot make policy based on rare and unlikely outcomes"

Why not - other countries in Europe did. They put extra mitigations in place? People ask for cost benefit analysis of lockdowns. I'm not aware of any cost benefit analysis being done for mitigations for in schools for cev pupils/ families with cev parents in.

Centuries of jurisprudence have taught us better. That’s why not.

how could you possibly know that something is a bad idea unless you know of a better one?

perfectly easily - withdrawal from Afghanistan ,bad idea ,lots of terrible results .Don't know what the answer is .

                        small boats crossing the channel with refugees .Don't know the answer to that one .

                            Shamima Begum ,stateless,childless .Don't know what the answer is .

                            homeless on the streets .What's the answer ? 

There are many situations which I think are wrong but I ,and much better people than me ,don't know what the answer is .

Perhaps if you see things in a very one dimensional ,simplistic way it's easier to feel that you have the true knowledge which mustn't be criticised .

@Blubells

Of course one can say I think something's a really bad idea but I don't know what the answer is .

Maybe this means that it's the 'least bad' idea?

Or that we're between a rock and a hard place ?

"Centuries of jurisprudence have taught us better. That’s why not."

British exceptionalism then?

Not much prudence in track and trace PPE etc was there?

I'm getting tired of saying this but other countries could afford extra mitigations - why couldn't we?

You may not have noticed but the government have used the principle of parliamentary sovereignty to ignore jurisprudence whenever it suits them.