Coronavirus - is enough being done to contain it?

(18-05-2020 06:46 )Goodfella3041 Wrote:  All of which poses an ethical conundrum: are we willing to gamble with the lives of our parents and grandparents for the sake of securing our own livelihoods and prosperity?

I think that our forebears would say we should.

I remain of the opinion that too much has been made of the flu and would point to the number dying from old age, smoking, wars and in 1918 and the desire shown by many to disobey the lockdown. I'm also cynical about the desire of the media to sex the thing up.

I've written before that in the light of experience I wouldn't expect Covid 20 to result in the world being brought to a standstill.

^Jesus Chrisst

(18-05-2020 06:46 )Goodfella3041 Wrote:  All of which poses an ethical conundrum: are we willing to gamble with the lives of our parents and grandparents for the sake of securing our own livelihoods and prosperity?

I think that our forebears would say we should.

Which poses another question - how would our forebears coped with this?

A very good question LB. I'd been wondering how this might have been perceived in the 1970's, a decade I remember so well.
I think that communication is key: We'd have followed it through TV and the newspapers so on the one hand would have remained in ignorance more but then again we'd have not fretted about what we didn't know about.
There'd have been fewer deaths because there'd have been fewer people and less international travel. Any action by the authorities might have been more effective not least because of a greater respect then for the rule of law.
Overall the sense of paranoia would have been the same.

(18-05-2020 15:16 )Chrisst Wrote:  A very good question LB. I'd been wondering how this might have been perceived in the 1970's, a decade I remember so well.
I think that communication is key: We'd have followed it through TV and the newspapers so on the one hand would have remained in ignorance more but then again we'd have not fretted about what we didn't know about.

I'm not so sure about this.

Back in the day, there was no rolling, 24-hour news and no Internet or Twitter to force-feed us information every minute of every day. But the news was also far more neutral and fact-based, with less editorialising, less ideology, less opinion. It was more measured and journalistic and generally less 'shouty' and sensationalistic.

I kinda miss it, to be honest. We have a lot more 'noise' now, but the 'signal' is weaker than ever. A 'Boris Johnson' would not have been tenable as a politician -- much less a prime minister -- without the oxygen of a frenetic media that won't stay on one story long enough to go more than an inch deep.

If this had happened then, I think government would have been much quicker to defer to the science, swifter in its response, and more unified in its messaging. We would have fallen into line and followed the rules. For those reasons, I think far fewer people would have died.

Returning to the original question, I don't think that as a people we are any more or less obedient, no more or less altruistic or avaricious. We are, after all, just products of our parents. But I do think that all generations -- as citizens, voters and consumers -- have a conjured a world that is much more poorly served by its media and its government. And things are much worse as a consequence.

I would agree there was a far less frenetic media, and was fairly neutral and agree there was little chance that a 'Boris Johnson' type politician being prime minister then, probably had Jeremy Thorpe won the election in '74 that would have been the closest comparison to a BJ style election win. In any case, I think Thatcher changed the face of Politics let alone the idea of a woman being prime minster - the minute she won the Tory leadership.

---

I seem to remember there were a few epidemics around at the time I'm sure Measles or Polio was one. I know there were vigorous vaccinations programmes for both diseases and one for German Measles sat the time, but I don't think there was one that spread through the adult community as rapidly COVID has until AIDS reared it's head.

I see that a Hong Kong team have shown that wearing masks reduces transmission up to 75%.

The same face masks that the government said weren't of any use in keeping down the R rate.

If that is the case I hope BJ will now reconsider their position on the masks

(18-05-2020 09:37 )Chrisst Wrote:  

(18-05-2020 06:46 )Goodfella3041 Wrote:  All of which poses an ethical conundrum: are we willing to gamble with the lives of our parents and grandparents for the sake of securing our own livelihoods and prosperity?

I think that our forebears would say we should.

I remain of the opinion that too much has been made of the flu and would point to the number dying from old age, smoking, wars and in 1918 and the desire shown by many to disobey the lockdown. I'm also cynical about the desire of the media to sex the thing up.

I've written before that in the light of experience I wouldn't expect Covid 20 to result in the world being brought to a standstill.

There were several callers on five live yesterday who had said they flouted (& some who said they were considering flouting) the lockdown rules

(18-05-2020 17:35 )Charlemagne Wrote:  I see that a Hong Kong team have shown that wearing masks reduces transmission up to 75%.

The same face masks that the government said weren't of any use in keeping down the R rate.

If masks didn't work, why would NHS staff want them ? The Government say they don't work because they know there isn't enough to go around.