Jump to content

Coronavirus


whelk
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hancock saying that the Government may have to ban exercise outside the home if people continue to ignore the rules.

 

You could just record sound bites from Hancock to be played back on Andrew Marr and his briefings. Seems a decent chap but there is so little new to say so getting so repetitive - would be same for anyone though.

My fault for watching it so much.

 

I went for run this morning and won’t make blind but of difference to the ICUs if they ban running just p1ss people off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could just record sound bites from Hancock to be played back on Andrew Marr and his briefings. Seems a decent chap but there is so little new to say so getting so repetitive - would be same for anyone though.

My fault for watching it so much.

 

I went for run this morning and won’t make blind but of difference to the ICUs if they ban running just p1ss people off.

 

I used to walk for an hour a day up including up and down stairs on the tube as part of my commute. Now I'm a couch potato. Blood pressure and pulse already up. I'm fine but there will be people for whom staying home will make the difference between a heart attack or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to walk for an hour a day up including up and down stairs on the tube as part of my commute. Now I'm a couch potato. Blood pressure and pulse already up. I'm fine but there will be people for whom staying home will make the difference between a heart attack or not.

 

For a couple of months?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a couple of months?

 

Absolutely. I used to have my blood analysed almost every week - simply because my office was in the clinical trial building and I was a handy calibration source. You could tell from my weekly bloods how much I'd been exercising and what my diet had been like. Just by drawing my blood the nurse could tell if I'd had a fatty breakfast or not.

 

You're a runner no? Imagine the difference in your levels of fitness if you did nothing for two months - and then extrapolate that to somebody who is already unfit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hancock saying that the Government may have to ban exercise outside the home if people continue to ignore the rules.

 

 

 

They’re in danger of making the cure worse than the disease. One of the only positives of this whole thing has been more & more people cycling, running & walking. It’s been particularly heartening seeing old people walking around my local park, there’s normally a few with dogs, but there’s loads of newbies recently. If people are staying fitter & healthier, that must be a good thing.

 

In crude terms will the number of people dying due to a few people not following the advise, be higher than people who won’t die of heart attacks etc in future (because they’re fitter).

 

There’s also the consent angle. People have by and large, accepted the restrictions, I’m not so sure they would if it became more draconian.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They’re in danger of making the cure worse than the disease. One of the only positives of this whole thing has been more & more people cycling, running & walking. It’s been particularly heartening seeing old people walking around my local park, there’s normally a few with dogs, but there’s loads of newbies recently. If people are staying fitter & healthier, that must be a good thing.

 

In crude terms will the number of people dying due to a few people not following the advise, be higher than people who won’t die of heart attacks etc in future (because they’re fitter).

 

There’s also the consent angle. People have by and large, accepted the restrictions, I’m not so sure they would if it became more draconian.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

been the case for some time in France. You venture out at the wrong time of day and/or without the right documentation and you risk a scrap with their Army.

Spain have been on a much more strict lockdown for some time and look at the state of them.

 

Sweden on the other hand, have kept everything as normal as possible.

 

Impossible to know what the right approach is, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely. I used to have my blood analysed almost every week - simply because my office was in the clinical trial building and I was a handy calibration source. You could tell from my weekly bloods how much I'd been exercising and what my diet had been like. Just by drawing my blood the nurse could tell if I'd had a fatty breakfast or not.

 

You're a runner no? Imagine the difference in your levels of fitness if you did nothing for two months - and then extrapolate that to somebody who is already unfit.

 

Given two months without exercise a normally fit person will likely put on a small amount of weight and lose some muscle mass/fitness. That's about it. You wont even get close to the thousands of morbidly obese people I see waddling around the streets of Britain. I know a guy who shattered his pelvis skiing a few years ago and couldn't even walk around his house for six months.

 

If two months without exercise could kill you, two thirds of the population would have died years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given two months without exercise a normally fit person will likely put on a small amount of weight and lose some muscle mass/fitness. That's about it. You wont even get close to the thousands of morbidly obese people I see waddling around the streets of Britain. I know a guy who shattered his pelvis skiing a few years ago and couldn't even walk around his house for six months.

 

If two months without exercise could kill you, two thirds of the population would have died years ago.

 

Meh. 7 million people in the UK live with heart disease and about 170,000 die. It's obvious what the effect of pushing those numbers up by even small percentages would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh. 7 million people in the UK live with heart disease and about 170,000 die. It's obvious what the effect of pushing those numbers up by even small percentages would be.

 

You’re not going to develop heart disease just because you don’t exercise for two months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You’re not going to develop heart disease just because you don’t exercise for two months.

 

Whether you like it or not if you divided the UK population into two equal halves and one group stopped their normal exercise for two months and the other half carried on, there would be more deaths in the non exercising group. Not just a few, probably thousands. Its not just heart disease anyway. Same is true of diabetes, asthma, COPD and many others,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether you like it or not if you divided the UK population into two equal halves and one group stopped their normal exercise for two months and the other half carried on, there would be more deaths in the non exercising group. Not just a few, probably thousands. Its not just heart disease anyway. Same is true of diabetes, asthma, COPD and many others,

 

For two months?

 

Nope. I disagree entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30812439

 

I’m not doubting the science, merely the time period.

 

I know skinny and overweight guys in their twenties who don’t exercise and eat/drink sh*te. I doubt they will have any noticeable health problems until they’re in their thirties, probably even longer.

 

Health problems due to lack of exercise are long term, chronic issues, built up by years, sometimes decades of poor lifestyle. If you were told to stay inside for two months and ate healthily, I doubt the effect on your body would be much worse than a pretty good Christmas.

 

I doubt most women do any running in the last two months of a pregnancy, which they then follow with the mother of all cardio work outs. If they can survive that, we can survive this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not doubting the science, merely the time period.

 

I know skinny and overweight guys in their twenties who don’t exercise and eat/drink sh*te. I don’t they will have any noticeable health problems until they’re in their thirties, probably even longer.

 

Health problems due to lack of exercise are long term, chronic issues, built up by years, sometimes decades of poor lifestyle. If you were told to stay inside for two months and ate healthily, I doubt the effect on your body would be much worse than a pretty good Christmas.

 

I doubt most women do any running in the last two months of a pregnancy, which they then follow with the mother of all cardio work outs. If they can survive that, we can survive this.

 

You're missing the point. The people you are talking about, mates in their 20s and 30s and women of child bearing age are highly unlikely to die from lack of exercise for 2 months. However, just as with COVID-19 those who are older and or with pre-existing health conditions are much more at risk. For a small percentage it will be the straw that breaks the camel's back. A small percentage of a huge number is still a huge number.

Edited by buctootim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You’re not going to develop heart disease just because you don’t exercise for two months.

 

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

 

A fitter healthier population, will ease the strain on the NHS long term. Around here, there is definitely an increase in people walking, running and cycling, particularly in the older age range. If this becomes a habit & people enjoy it so much they continue after the lockdown, is that not a good thing?

 

If only 25% of 50-70’s lose weight & continue to exercise post lockdown, that’ll save a lot of money in the future. Nobody knows, but I’d hazard a guess it’ll be more than locking everyone in their homes will save.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

 

A fitter healthier population, will ease the strain on the NHS long term. Around here, there is definitely an increase in people walking, running and cycling, particularly in the older age range. If this becomes a habit & people enjoy it so much they continue after the lockdown, is that not a good thing?

 

If only 25% of 50-70’s lose weight & continue to exercise post lockdown, that’ll save a lot of money in the future. Nobody knows, but I’d hazard a guess it’ll be more than locking everyone in their homes will save.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Of course there’s an increase. They can’t go to the gym, the swimming pool or literally engage in any other sport.

 

We’re not talking about long term fitness here. Two months is really not a long time in this context. Unless you’re Jason Statham in the film Crank, or you have a unique medical situation which will kill you if you don’t go for a jog for a few weeks, you are going to be fine. If that genuinely is the case I’m sure a note from a doctor can be arranged. I don’t mean diabetes or high cholesterol, I mean you’re weeks away from death if you don’t go for a run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if you have already developed heart disease exercise is essential to some sort of recovery.

 

unsure why people need to go to Richmond park to sunbathe or play the guitar, given the current climate.

Which I have no doubt is replicated around the country.

 

each to their own but scenes like this will mean 'you and me' will be properly locked down!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if you have already developed heart disease exercise is essential to some sort of recovery.

 

Edit:

 

Actually, thinking about it, heart disease is fair enough. I'd let anyone who has been diagnosed as such out to exercise on the premise that they've got a doctors note confirming it. Only for those who have actually been diagnosed though, not just any Tom, Richard or Harry saying, 'oh well I might get it if I don't go out.'

Edited by Lighthouse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

unsure why people need to go to Richmond park to sunbathe or play the guitar, given the current climate.

Which I have no doubt is replicated around the country.

 

each to their own but scenes like this will mean 'you and me' will be properly locked down!

 

Exercising is all well and good and desirable. Sunbathing and playing guitars is obviously not but I don’t see much of that going on near me.

 

But you’re right, the actions of a few will queer the pitch for the rest of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

unsure why people need to go to Richmond park to sunbathe or play the guitar, given the current climate.

Which I have no doubt is replicated around the country.

 

each to their own but scenes like this will mean 'you and me' will be properly locked down!

 

Because they're selfish, morally bankrupt d1ckheads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

unsure why people need to go to Richmond park to sunbathe or play the guitar, given the current climate.

Which I have no doubt is replicated around the country.

 

each to their own but scenes like this will mean 'you and me' will be properly locked down!

 

To be fair, the busker is properly taking the ****. Everyone else appears to be keeping a safe distance apart. Yes, there was a bloke drinking beer (Corona?), but how can we judge their situations? They may live in a flat with no access to a garden and this is the only way they can get out and escape the confines of their home... At the moment, that is still allowed (although not sure about the sunbathing!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely. I used to have my blood analysed almost every week - simply because my office was in the clinical trial building and I was a handy calibration source. You could tell from my weekly bloods how much I'd been exercising and what my diet had been like. Just by drawing my blood the nurse could tell if I'd had a fatty breakfast or not.

 

You're a runner no? Imagine the difference in your levels of fitness if you did nothing for two months - and then extrapolate that to somebody who is already unfit.

 

Don't do nothing then. Do exercise in the house. You don't need a park to keep fit, there are loads of workouts you can do with body weight and no equipment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, the busker is properly taking the ****. Everyone else appears to be keeping a safe distance apart. Yes, there was a bloke drinking beer (Corona?), but how can we judge their situations? They may live in a flat with no access to a garden and this is the only way they can get out and escape the confines of their home... At the moment, that is still allowed (although not sure about the sunbathing!).

What if... the busker is at his regular place of work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“In the UK every year, almost 6,000 people die in home accidents and 2.7million visit their local accident and emergency departments seeking help.“

 

https://www.rospa.com/Home-Safety/UK/Scotland/Research/Statistics

 

Not relevant. None of those people were killed because they weren't allowed to leave the house. It's usually people thinking, "I don't need a qualified gas engineer to do that," etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fresh air is equally important.

 

The discussion was specifically about deteriorating health through lack of exercise. Obviously there are a number of reasons why it’s desirable to be able to go outside but not being allowed to go outside does not mean one cannot exercise strenuously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The discussion was specifically about deteriorating health through lack of exercise. Obviously there are a number of reasons why it’s desirable to be able to go outside but not being allowed to go outside does not mean one cannot exercise strenuously.

 

My point wasn’t about deteriorating health, it was about older people who haven’t previously exercised starting to do so recently, and then being stopped from doing so. There’s also the issue of consent. Pretty much everyone, save a few numpties, have stuck to the advice. Whether they’ll continue to do so if there’s a total lockdown is open to debate.

 

The Government allow the sale of cigarettes, which we know kill people & stretch NHS resources, but aren’t going to let my 77 year old mum go for a daily walk in case she catches Covid.

 

It’s just not sustainable.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not relevant. None of those people were killed because they weren't allowed to leave the house. It's usually people thinking, "I don't need a qualified gas engineer to do that," etc.

 

Why not? If people are spending longer at home you would expect there to be proportionately more accidents and indeed deaths.

 

If these 6000 who died at home had been forced to stay away from it they wouldn’t have died at home ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not? If people are spending longer at home you would expect there to be proportionately more accidents and indeed deaths.

 

If these 6000 who died at home had been forced to stay away from it they wouldn’t have died at home ;)

 

I see your point but the actual act of being in your home isn’t going to kill or even harm you. If you chose to do something dangerous whilst you’re there, that’s on you really.

 

It sucks and I’m not saying this is what I want but if it saves lives, so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It sucks and I’m not saying this is what I want but if it saves lives, so be it.

 

But is it proportionate

 

NICE make decisions year after year on whether drugs are affordable. The upshot is that some drugs are considered too expensive and as a result of that decision, people die. Put basically, there’s an equation made between cost & life. Nobody seems to be asking whether trashing the economy & the pain, misery & hardship is worth it to save X number of deaths. Thousands die on our roads every year, if we banned cars, people would be alive that would otherwise be dead. However, the economic & cultural cost of banning cars makes doing that disproportionate.

 

Nobody is asking important questions of the Government. How many deaths do they think a total lockdown is saving compared to a partial one (old and vulnerable only), and what is the economic cost of one, against the other. How many people do they think will die, that wouldn’t do in a normal flu year. There’s also questions around whether the advice needs to be country wide. If there’s hardly any cases in a county, Cornwall maybe, should the total lockdown be the same as in London. They’re also not particularly clear whether the lockdown is purely to keep the death rate within NHS tolerance or whether the lockdown means less of us will catch it. I’m not saying their approach is wrong, it might well be right. But far too many people are just accepting their narrative . Journalists & opposition that should be holding them to account are just reducing themselves to Gotcha moments around PPE, tests etc, instead of asking fundamental questions of the policy.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But is it proportionate

 

NICE make decisions year after year on whether drugs are affordable. The upshot is that some drugs are considered too expensive and as a result of that decision, people die. Put basically, there’s an equation made between cost & life. Nobody seems to be asking whether trashing the economy & the pain, misery & hardship is worth it to save X number of deaths. Thousands die on our roads every year, if we banned cars, people would be alive that would otherwise be dead. However, the economic & cultural cost of banning cars makes doing that disproportionate.

 

Nobody is asking important questions of the Government. How many deaths do they think a total lockdown is saving compared to a partial one (old and vulnerable only), and what is the economic cost of one, against the other. How many people do they think will die, that wouldn’t do in a normal flu year. There’s also questions around whether the advice needs to be country wide. If there’s hardly any cases in a county, Cornwall maybe, should the total lockdown be the same as in London. They’re also not particularly clear whether the lockdown is purely to keep the death rate within NHS tolerance or whether the lockdown means less of us will catch it. I’m not saying their approach is wrong, it might well be right. But far too many people are just accepting their narrative . Journalists & opposition that should be holding them to account are just reducing themselves to Gotcha moments around PPE, tests etc, instead of asking fundamental questions of the policy.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I read a piece by Toby Young last week on the questioning of the risk/reward to this lockdown with the direction of travel towards an even greater one. Throw in the demands at the Government to have locked us down much earlier. Will it be worth destroying the economy for, which will probably cost even more lives than COVID19 etc.

 

He was absolutely torn to shreds for daring to suggest such a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But is it proportionate

 

NICE make decisions year after year on whether drugs are affordable. The upshot is that some drugs are considered too expensive and as a result of that decision, people die. Put basically, there’s an equation made between cost & life. Nobody seems to be asking whether trashing the economy & the pain, misery & hardship is worth it to save X number of deaths. Thousands die on our roads every year, if we banned cars, people would be alive that would otherwise be dead. However, the economic & cultural cost of banning cars makes doing that disproportionate.

 

Nobody is asking important questions of the Government. How many deaths do they think a total lockdown is saving compared to a partial one (old and vulnerable only), and what is the economic cost of one, against the other. How many people do they think will die, that wouldn’t do in a normal flu year. There’s also questions around whether the advice needs to be country wide. If there’s hardly any cases in a county, Cornwall maybe, should the total lockdown be the same as in London. They’re also not particularly clear whether the lockdown is purely to keep the death rate within NHS tolerance or whether the lockdown means less of us will catch it. I’m not saying their approach is wrong, it might well be right. But far too many people are just accepting their narrative . Journalists & opposition that should be holding them to account are just reducing themselves to Gotcha moments around PPE, tests etc, instead of asking fundamental questions of the policy.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Everything we’ve seen so far suggests we can’t afford to relax measures yet and that we need the same if not tighter restrictions to help keep deaths down. The problem with lifting restrictions in certain places is that people, some with the virus, will flock there in large crowds in order to enjoy the freedom and then we’ll just have large, regional outbreaks.

 

Yes it’s a trade off but I don’t think not exercising outdoors for 2 months (as an example) is really much of a sacrifice in the short term. Long term, of course none of this is sustainable and we need to use the time we’ve bought to come up with an effective exit strategy. The cost of drugs is a different issue as that will effect the NHS budget and yes, a trade off has to be met. We can’t afford to pay for all drugs we’d like but we can put our park run best times on hold for a few weeks.

Edited by Lighthouse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything we’ve seen so far suggests we can’t afford to relax measures yet and that we need the same if not tighter restrictions to help keep deaths down. The problem with lifting restrictions in certain places is that people, some with the virus, will flock there in large crowds in order to enjoy the freedom and then we’ll just have large, regional outbreaks.

 

Yes it’s a trade off but I don’t think not exercising outdoors for 2 months (as an example) is really much of a sacrifice in the short term. Long term, of course none of this is sustainable and we need to use the time we’ve bought to come up with an effective exit strategy. The cost of drugs is a different issue as that will effect the NHS budget and yes, a trade off has to be met. We can’t afford to pay for all drugs we’d like but we can put our park run best times on hold for a few weeks.

 

Let's be honest, exercising outside or not is not going to make any difference to the overall number of infections. We can reduce ur opportunities for infection as low as possible but going on like thios for two months is going to leave a country that won't be worth living in.

 

Edit: I'm all for giving it a go for three or four weeks but I think there has to be some sign of its effectiveness before the end of the month.

Edited by Whitey Grandad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lighthouse changed the title to Coronavirus

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})