Christmas break?

The virus doesn't celebrate Christmas (or any other time). I would rather be on my own this Christmas than never be alive to see another Christmas.

Asking people to keep away from each other is not intended as an inconvenience - it's a life saver.

ajdswan Friends of ours, both mid seventies, had the same cavalier attitude as you ie life is for living, it’s all a ploy by the government to keep us indoors and under control and failing to believe that the virus existed. This alone beggars belief as they are so called intelligent people and to top it all one of them was supposed to be shielding. Even though we are in a relatively low area they contracted the virus and are now both very ill. They have now admitted however that they were wrong a bit to late after infecting their DS and his family - and who knows how many others ?. Rules should definitely not be relaxed over Christmas but unfortunately there will be many who will ignore those rules whether they are implemented or not. Happy 2021 ?

Sparklefizz

I've just read this online and it could not be clearer:

There's no point in having a very merry Christmas and then having to bury your relatives in the New Year.

Actually I think that this post says it all really.

I understand that many people live on their own so Christmas Day would be a terrible time but surely they have their support bubble.
What I don’t understand is this 5 day of celebrations which means 25 more days of lockdown, what about all the small businesses that won’t be able to open after Christmas.
If this plan goes ahead ( which I don’t agree with ) then 2 days is enough which means an extra 10 days of lockdown.
Why do some people think that covid will be celebrating Christmas so will be too busy to bother with all the families. x

BUT very much an exaggeration. 0.1% of those that get Corona Virus die. The rest recover. Yes, higher percentage in older age group - but still very very long way from the 'We are all going to die' scenario that some posters seem to think.
Research has shown that there is a wide-spread belief that this virus kills up to 25% of those that get it, which is totally and completely false.
I am not saying to be complacent, but do not think that such post as the one by sparkelfizz does nothing to help either.

I haven’t read anything that says 25% of people die unless it’s referring to how many people die if they have to be put on a ventilator. Most people, imo know that the death rate is quite low but many people suffer from longcovid and no one actually knows if they will be the one that will die from the virus, even if fit, young and healthy. Are people forgetting how many care/healthcare workers have died from COVID. I don’t remember that happening during a normal flu season. And I hope the people that were out clapping for the NHS aren’t the ones that are now planning to visit friends and family over the Christmas period.

I'm think accuracy is important when we're discussion COVID so I want to put some numbers on here. In high income countries around 1% of people who get Coronavirus are likely to die of it, not 0.1%.
www.imperial.ac.uk/news/207273/covid-19-deaths-infection-fatality-ratio-about/

The 0.1% came from a Toby Young tweet which was later retracted. You're more likely to die if you are older and less likely if you are younger. But the rate is not negligible when you are younger, unless we're talking about children.

Around 1 in 20 of people who get Covid may still be suffering from Long Covid 8 weeks after infection.
covid.joinzoe.com/post/long-covid#:~:text=But%20it%20hasn%27t%20been,

I am sticking to my original plan. My OH and I will isolate completely for 2 weeks before. My DD is arranging permission for GS to do his school work from home for a few days before school breaks up so they can also isolate for the 2 weeks. Then I know they can come to me and we are as safe as possible.

Finally it will be up to my DS his OH and baby if they come to us but I am happy to take the risk if they want to. If not I have warned them we all will drive there dressed as Santa with a sack of baby toys (that will have been not touched for a month!) and we will watch them opening up through the kitchen window!!

Just imagine how many older people would have died if they hadn’t shielded at a time when medical staff still weren’t sure how to treat the virus.

Alegrias Toby Young bless him, the man who got into Oxford because his dad rang up his old tutor and pleaded his case. Maths clearly not his strong point ?

Russian roulette anyone?

suziewoozie

Alegrias Toby Young bless him, the man who got into Oxford because his dad rang up his old tutor and pleaded his case. Maths clearly not his strong point ?

Toby Young is behind the lockdownskeptics website, which a couple of posters on GN have quoted as "gospel".

MayBee70

Just imagine how many older people would have died if they hadn’t shielded at a time when medical staff still weren’t sure how to treat the virus.

If Covid-19 had been allowed to run rife, there is no reason to think that everybody wouldn't have caught it at some time.

The population of the UK is about 66,600,000 million, so 660,000 would die and goodness knows how many would be left with Long Covid. Even those with "mild" symptoms possibly wouldn't be able to work or carry out out caring roles for a couple of weeks.

Lyndylou What you're planning to do is self-isolate yourself and family. If only the government would impose the same rules and enforce them for the whole population. Oh hang on ...

growstuff

suziewoozie

Alegrias Toby Young bless him, the man who got into Oxford because his dad rang up his old tutor and pleaded his case. Maths clearly not his strong point ?

Toby Young is behind the lockdownskeptics website, which a couple of posters on GN have quoted as "gospel".

Yes - he’s such a role model for the lockdown sceptics is he not - he has a nice line in misogyny as well bless him.

I take it nobody has any suggestions for my almost 102 year old friend about seeing her one bubbled son, but not her other children, because obviously there's always next Christmas when she'll be 103!!

“Relaxing the rules” is surely a ploy by the government to encourage people into the shops to keep the economy going and boost spending on stuff we don’t need. If everyone has a scaled down Christmas and spends less on tat that’s a good thing in my book. Christmas parties with colleagues were always grim so hopefully fewer of them and less pressure on A and E with drunken accidents. I’m also sure there’s lots of people who’d love to have an excuse not to visit the in laws. To all those who think it’s a hoax I hope you are going to refuse hospital treatment if you get a bad dose of the virus.

I think a lot of people see this issue as black and white, and see the alternative to 'no mixing whatsoever' as 'wild partying'.

They make no allowance for people who have been extremely careful sharing a quiet Christmas with another person/people who have been extremely careful.
That's all that a lot of people want/feel they need to do, particularly where very elderly relatives are concerned. No partying - just a very low-risk way of providing some much-needed company to already very lonely people at a time of year when such feelings are amplified.

Yes, some idiots will party, but let's face it, they will do that anyway!

Those who need or can offer some much-needed companionship with extremely low risk either to each other or anyone else, shouldn't be lumped in with them, imo!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

https://signal-corridor.live/uploads/talk/202011/medium-46431-capture.png%3C/span%3E https://signal-corridor.live/uploads/talk/202011/medium-111972-capture2.png%3C/span%3E

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?