Coronavirus

[Simon B]

If the former, they are no more of a risk to other people than anyone else of any age. But I'm not quite sure about this point.

Please don't take this as provocation/point scoring/whatever - not the intention.

However, is it really that simple even if that is the case?

1) As I understand it, the evidence is that the more unwell you are, the more viable virus you shed. So, the more of a risk you are to others. Older people are much more likely to become very ill (all other things being equal).
2) Further, this means other older people are (all other things being equal) disproportionately likely to contract the virus from other older people.
3) As the NHS runs out of capacity, an elderly person is most likely to be denied treatment as the last resources have been used up by another elderly person.

No doubt none of this is really that simple as (all other things being equal) is a dangerous assumption. It is PhD level hard to work this out properly. As so often in complex scientific matters, "It's Obvious" could be an excellent guide to getting things wrong.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

That rare attribute, common sense, must surely be employed. If one is likely to come into close contact with other while out, don't go. I am fortunate in living just a minute's walk from a very little used woodland path. I will not be refraining from using it as the start of isolated walks.

[teamsaint]

That rare attribute, common sense, must surely be employed. If one is likely to come into close contact with other while out, don't go. I am fortunate in living just a minute's walk from a very little used woodland path. I will not be refraining from using it as the start of isolated walks.

I’m certain that your approach is the right one.

Not reflected here though.

https://patient.info/news-and-features/covid-19-coronavirus-how-to-self-isolate

It seems to me that making it easier to sensibly comply should be the aim.
I think the advice on this twitter feed re walks and the garden fails that test.

[Bryn]

I’m certain that your approach is the right one.

Not reflected here though.

https://patient.info/news-and-features/covid-19-coronavirus-how-to-self-isolate

It seems to me that making it easier to sensibly comply should be the aim.
I think the advice on this twitter feed re walks and the garden fails that test.

Ah, that link is to a site relating to those who are symptomatic. If/when I fall into that category I will indeed keep to the house. My next-door neighbour, a police constable, recently exchanged mobile numbers as a precautionary measure.

[teamsaint]

Ah, that link is to a site relating to those who are symptomatic. If/when I fall into that category I will indeed keep to the house. My next-door neighbour, a police constable, recently exchanged mobile numbers as a precautionary measure.

So it does. Thanks for clarifying.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

May I remind forum members that attacking other posters is not acceptable. Disagree by all means, but only with the argument, not the person.

There are interesting points being made, so the thread will continue to run, as long as people treat one another with respect.

[Dave2002]

1) As I understand it, the evidence is that the more unwell you are, the more viable virus you shed. So, the more of a risk you are to others. Older people are much more likely to become very ill (all other things being equal).
2) Further, this means other older people are (all other things being equal) disproportionately likely to contract the virus from other older people.

I guess that means that most meetings (clubs, societies etc.) we'd perhaps intended to go to are now off the menu. Also, concerts and opera - if still being performed/shown - are perhaps more likely to be attended by older people, so should be given a wide berth - probably.

Despite the alarmist figures, most of the elderly people who get the disease survive, though the process is I believe not always pleasant, and may require significant medical attention. People who've been very ill before before appear firstly to be at greater risk, and secondly, may really just not fancy having to go through another period of significant treatment in order to survive, even though that would most likely be preferable to the alternative. Avoidance if possible and if the risk seems high are surely reasonable first steps.

[oddoneout]

May I remind forum members that attacking other posters is not acceptable. Disagree by all means, but only with the argument, not the person.

There are interesting points being made, so the thread will continue to run, as long as people treat one another with respect.

Thank you EA. I find the forum very useful for such an issue since the members bring to it a wide range of experience/expertise and information, and between them have access to different information sources from the ones I do, which of necessity have to be non-paywall.

[Bryn]

The one I have ordered cost only a little over £50 including p&p and includes one-way video (170mm screen) + two-way audio. There is a plane glass 'window' in the front door, so two-way visual interaction is still possible.

Out for delivery this morning. The price on Saturday, when I ordered and paid for it was £50.99 including p&p. Today, I note, it has gone up to £63.59. The 1 litre (4 x 250 ml) of hand sanitizer that was delivered yesterday cost me just £8. It is no longer available from the vendor I used but just try and find some at that sort of price today. As usual, during a crisis, profiteering is rife.

[LMcD]

Speaking for self, as a 74-year old with underlying high risk factors, I am prepared to avoid mass events placing people in close proximity, likewise public transport, as I can (hopefully in the light of panic buying) obtain all my regular needs within walking or cycling distance. If lock-down imposes staying in for other than shopping essentials for 3 months, what frankly I am not prepared to do is forego my mostly daily walks and cycling journeys, which keep me as healthy as possible in body and mind, as the doctor ordered following my heart op 7 years ago.

My thoughts precisely!
We plan to keep an eye on a lady in a nearby road about whom we're concerned and offer what practical help we can - groceries, prescriptions etc. We don't have any symptoms and are still fit and mobile. So ... as long as we stay 2 metres away from her, we can go and see her. Oh dear, I've just remembered, we're both over 70 and have type 2 diabetes. Never mind, eh, she'll probably be alright.
The New Wolsey theatre has invited us to book for this year's panto - but that's a dilemma for another day.

[LMcD]

What alternative do they favour?

The main alternative (and the one being adopted in most comparable countries) appears to be that everyone stays at home for a lengthy period to the greatest extent possible.

That is also what is being suggested by a lot of the scientific community (e.g. the Harvard Professor of Epidemiology who wrote the Guardian article cited earlier in the thread).


For clarity, I have no idea which is better and am not advocating anything. As a cold-dead-hand-of-rationality type by training and profession I'm trying to weigh up the arguments and the weight that should be attached to their proponents opinions.

From what I've read and heard, the scientific community seems to be as divided as everybody else. We're prepared to 'stay at home for a lengthy period to the greatest extent possible', but I THINK (it's so hard to tell) Matt Hancock has something more restrictive in mind.
We shall quite understand if/when plays, concerts and holidays which we've booked are cancelled, and I would miss my charity work and weekly social at the Community Centre (I'm one of the few strong enough to put away tables and chairs). But we DO like to eat and, gardening apart (is gardening allowed?), walking is our main form of exercise. Perhaps I could join a gym ... oh, hang on .....

[cloughie]

From what I've read and heard, the scientific community seems to be as divided as everybody else. We're prepared to 'stay at home for a lengthy period to the greatest extent possible', but I THINK (it's so hard to tell) Matt Hancock has something more restrictive in mind.
We shall quite understand if/when plays, concerts and holidays which we've booked are cancelled, and I would miss my charity work and weekly social at the Community Centre (I'm one of the few strong enough to put away tables and chairs). But we DO like to eat and, gardening apart (is gardening allowed?), walking is our main form of exercise. Perhaps I could join a gym ... oh, hang on .....

No doubt there will be forthcoming tips on how to keep fit when you are on house arrest for an indefinite long period of time in a small garret!

[Bryn]

No doubt there will be forthcoming tips on how to keep fit when you are on house arrest for an indefinite long period of time in a small garret!

Try the closing minutes of today's Today programmme on Radio 4.

[Pulcinella]

No doubt there will be forthcoming tips on how to keep fit when you are on house arrest for an indefinite long period of time in a small garret!

I wonder if sales of exercise bikes will go through the roof (or should that be reach the garret?).
We are in a large three-storey house here, so at least can get some easy exercise going up and down the stairs.
The top-floor front window slides open (there is a small railing, not really a balcony) so we can give Duke of Urbino-style addresses or papal-style blessings to passers by beneath, or send cheery waves to the dog-walkers on the meadow in front of the house.
Busy with choir business, contemplating cancelling the concert due to take place on 28 March: the contract makes us liable for full hire costs, but we can take the financial hit. Anyone know if we could at least claim the VAT back?

[Bryn]

For those on FB:

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1419072208265885&set=a.1060700227436420