Jump to content
BANGKOK
Jingthing

Are you really ready for two years of this?

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, drbeach said:

67 sqm is a coffin as far as I'm concerned. Far too small to be comfortable.

Sucks for you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jacob29 said:

2 years is unworkable, no way borders are closed for 2 years. At the very least you would have strict 14 day quarantine on arrival as the new normal, to allow movement. 

 

That said, if there's countless trillions of dollars at stake, who knows what can be achieved medically. Not specifically in terms of vaccines either, I mean production of effective personal quarantine devices (like cost effective powered respirators that provide practically 100% protection). So you could achieve near 100% quarantine effectiveness, without bringing everything to a standstill.

Plus IMHO a sizable % of the greedy and ruthless billionaires and multi-millionaires of the world will soon start to demand that business resume now and at full speed so they can fill another aircraft hanger with money and share value etc. And these folks do have power, and they would have no hesitation to quickly remove CEO's who don't achieve the big bucks and remove politicians who don't push for active business now. In sure the Pharma companies are under massive pressure from shareholders to be the first to create a vaccine now, aiming at massive income, rather than any morals reasons.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, VBF said:

I get that but the trouble is that the 85 year old may or may not have the virus, and if he does he may have no symptoms. He is then a carrier and in a tennis club he would soon become a super carrier.

Well, that would apply to all of the players, not just the 85 year old.

 

I suppose I’m envisaging a reduced lockdown, where sporting events with spectators, music festivals and so on would still be banned, but gatherings of small groups allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tennis players stand 10 to 20m apart. Golfers stand 3m to 250m apart.

 

Politicans need a measuring tape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CygnusX1 said:

Well, that would apply to all of the players, not just the 85 year old.

 

I suppose I’m envisaging a reduced lockdown, where sporting events with spectators, music festivals and so on would still be banned, but gatherings of small groups allowed.

But then the small groups might have to consist of people who knew and trusted their own and other members' status. OR.......none of them would then be able to mix with anyone outside the group for 14 days.

Sadly, there's no simple solution until testing becomes as easy as say, checking your blood pressure. At that point, IMO, the game changes in our favour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, CygnusX1 said:

You could give at least the elderly and sick a choice to live a more normal life, or strictly self isolate, in which case they’d be given every assistance, free delivery of food and essentials.

I’m thinking about the 85 year old who comes to my social tennis each Sunday (pre lockdown in Australia). Ask him - do you want to remain in total self isolation, or continue to play the tennis you love so much, and accept a 20% chance of death should you catch the virus? I’m pretty sure that I know what his answer would be.

It works for one or two - but what happens when everyone makes the same choice to take the 20% risk? this virus then spreads further without control and far more ‘could’ die (the risks become greater, no?).

The response has to be an ‘all or nothing’ so the health care systems are not overwhelmed. 

 

The risk is not just dieing, but becoming critically ill and taking up valuable resources away from those who are working in essential industries and placing themselves at risk.

 

The doctors, the Police, the bin men, the supermarket delivery staff etc etc those who are essential to keeping the world a place we can continue to live in in comfort in our own homes - why should their place in a hospital bed (if they were to ever need it) be taken by someone selfish enough to unnecessarily risk themselves?

 

All we’re being asked to do is stay at home and watch more telly !!!!! Yes there is a financial burden the cost some will not be able to meet and thus suffer, but others are dying.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, drbeach said:

67 sqm is a coffin as far as I'm concerned. Far too small to be comfortable.

When I bought my 48 sq m (including balcony) condo in Thailand I was delighted to have so much more space than the miserable flat that’s all I can afford in Australia, and in which I’m now under house arrest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, VBF said:

I get that but the trouble is that the 85 year old may or may not have the virus, and if he does he may have no symptoms. He is then a carrier and in a tennis club he would soon become a super carrier.

and if the other players do not have underlying health problems the chances they would die are extremely small, based on present knowledge. If they have good immune systems most would probably not get worse than ordinary flue symptoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CygnusX1 said:

When I bought my 48 sq m (including balcony) condo in Thailand I was delighted to have so much more space than the miserable flat that’s all I can afford in Australia, and in which I’m now under house arrest.

Arrest, really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

All we’re being asked to do is stay at home and watch more telly !!!!!

Not so. Many marriages and partnerships will end because of people cooped up together, and much domestic violence will happen ( it's already happening in NZ and it's only been a week- I hate to think how bad it will be after a month ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, VBF said:

Something of a red herring don't you think? We were comparing viruses with fast food not other ailments. Plus Cancer is usually not contagious so it's you who suffers - you don't run the risk of infecting many others.

It's a different kind of contagion...not from people to people, but from the environment at large (air, food and so on) created by people, to people.

One could say that people transmit the virus by their social behavior, while they transmit cancer by their economical (industrial...) behavior.

 

Cancer, of which there are far more new cases than people testing positive for the viruses, doesn't offer an 80% chance of suffering mild or no symptoms, and the average death rate is far above that of the virus.

 

If you remove the people over 75, what is the death rate of the virus?

 

Now compare that with cancer...and yet the world keeps on going despite this "plague"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

and if the other players do not have underlying health problems the chances they would die are extremely small, based on present knowledge. If they have good immune systems most would probably not get worse than ordinary flue symptoms.

But you missed my point..... if the 85 year old became a super carrier, and infected one of these healthy people, than THEY in turn might not suffer but THEIR contacts could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, scorecard said:

Arrest, really?

As good as house arrest. If the internet goes down or the power goes off it's all going to turn into a real disaster.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, scorecard said:

Arrest, really?

Can leave flat for only 16 reasons- mainly including shopping for food, attending medical appointment, limited exercise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Brunolem said:

It's a different kind of contagion...not from people to people, but from the environment at large (air, food and so on) created by people, to people.

One could say that people transmit the virus by their social behavior, while they transmit cancer by their economical (industrial...) behavior.

 

Cancer, of which there are far more new cases than people testing positive for the viruses, doesn't offer an 80% chance of suffering mild or no symptoms, and the average death rate is far above that of the virus.

 

If you remove the people over 75, what is the death rate of the virus?

 

Now compare that with cancer...and yet the world keeps on going despite this "plague"...

So far, yes but.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...