• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Coronavirus

No jab, no play for NRL player John Asiata

Canterbury have parted ways with forward John Asiata by mutual consent after the 28-year-old's one-year contract was torn up by the club.
 
Is there no data on severe disease because there is no severe disease?
Too early to say. The main concern is that the absolute numbers will be so high it won't matter if it's less severe than the previous waves in % terms.
 
Yeah - it looks like omicron is both slightly milder than delta on average, but also significantly more infectious. Since it looks like it will cause so many more cases, that'll more than outweigh the "benefit" of it causing fewer serious health issues per infection.

On the plus side, early trial data is also showing that existing vaccines work great on it - after a third booster. As long as we can get those out ASAP we should (touch wood) be back to where we were in summer/autumn 2021 by late winter/early spring 2022.
 
Yeah - it looks like omicron is both slightly milder than delta on average, but also significantly more infectious. Since it looks like it will cause so many more cases, that'll more than outweigh the "benefit" of it causing fewer serious health issues per infection.

On the plus side, early trial data is also showing that existing vaccines work great on it - after a third booster. As long as we can get those out ASAP we should (touch wood) be back to where we were in summer/autumn 2021 by late winter/early spring 2022.

I think we need a few more weeks of data before we can be confident about the severity of Omicron.

Hopefully it's less severe though!
 
21 November 2021;

There’s no need yet for the U.K. to implement “Plan B” to clamp down on persistently high Covid infection levels, said U.K. Health Minister Sajid Javid.

In September Sajid Javid said there was no single metric that would trigger plan B, but he said that data on hospital admissions, ratio of cases to hospital admissions, and the trajectory of new cases would all be monitored closely.
 
Really don't know what we've become when the well-being of innocent of children is the lowest priority in our society.

"Arthur's uncle, who contacted West Midlands Police to raise the alarm, was even threatened with arrest for breaking lockdown rules if he attempted to visit his nephew."

 
There'll be thousands that have been invisibly abused and tortured during all this. It just totally disgusts me.
 
I think the problem is not lockdown per se, it's the fact that they were needed and have ultimately exposed what happens when health and social care services are underfunded
 
I think the problem is not lockdown per se, it's the fact that they were needed and have ultimately exposed what happens when health and social care services are underfunded
You obviously can't comprehend how much worse it would be to be stuck at home with your abusers with nowhere else to go
 
You obviously can't comprehend how much worse it would be to be stuck at home with your abusers with nowhere else to go

Lockdown has exposed how poor social care is, due to underfunding. No one should be in a position where they're being abused. Lockdown made it worse, but there shouldn't be that situation in the first place.

Lockdown made an existing problem much worse, I want us to fix the existing problem.
 
Lockdown has exposed how poor social care is, due to underfunding. No one should be in a position where they're being abused. Lockdown made it worse, but there shouldn't be that situation in the first place.

Lockdown made an existing problem much worse, I want us to fix the existing problem.
I'm glad you've acknowledged lockdown made the abuse of children much worse. How can anyone advocate for them again knowing that. Everybody wants the problem solved, but realistically it will take decades at least, if it ever can be. How many saved lives does there have to be for the torturing of children to be acceptable collateral?
 
I'm glad you've acknowledged lockdown made the abuse of children much worse. How can anyone advocate for them again knowing that. Everybody wants the problem solved, but realistically it will take decades at least, if it ever can be. How many saved lives does there have to be for the torturing of children to be acceptable collateral?

When does anyone's life become acceptable collateral?
 
raab and shapps in isolation it appears. and given their track record, one should also add allegedly.
 
I'm glad you've acknowledged lockdown made the abuse of children much worse. How can anyone advocate for them again knowing that. Everybody wants the problem solved, but realistically it will take decades at least, if it ever can be. How many saved lives does there have to be for the torturing of children to be acceptable collateral?
lockdown is not in any way responsible for the abhorrent death of poor Arthur. The abuse he experienced was horrible, terrifying, and unjust. It was inhumane. But it was not as a result of lockdown, and it did not continue because of lockdown. Total red herring.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-difficult-questions-we-must-address-them-all

the workload of social workers is phenomenally high, and they don't have the resources to deal with what is expected of them. It was bad enough 12 years ago, but since 2010 it has gotten immensely worse.

Numerous children and others have been significantly at risk, and let down by systems designed to protect them for decades. DECADES. Look at the death of Peter Connelly, or Victoria Climbie, or Daniel Pelka, or hundreds of others, because these are the only cases in the media remember.

The example of the police officer threatening the family member with potential recriminations rings like some arse who couldn't be arsed to do his job. But that isn't due to lockdown, it is an incompetent copper, and there are fucking loads of them. But lockdown wasn't the cause of this poor childs death.
 
the workload of social workers is phenomenally high, and they don't have the resources to deal with what is expected of them. It was bad enough 12 years ago, but since 2010 it has gotten immensely worse.
This is the problem. There is no point the PM and other ministers making empty promises about making sure these horrific incidents can't happen again while at the same time enacting cuts and policies that make it impossible for social workers to do their jobs. Yet it is social services that will get the blame every time.

My wife got out of social work about 6 years ago due to how bad it was and back then individual case loads for social workers were about 3 times as many as they were supposed to be. I dread to think how much worse it is now.
 
lockdown is not in any way responsible for the abhorrent death of poor Arthur. The abuse he experienced was horrible, terrifying, and unjust. It was inhumane. But it was not as a result of lockdown, and it did not continue because of lockdown. Total red herring.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-difficult-questions-we-must-address-them-all

the workload of social workers is phenomenally high, and they don't have the resources to deal with what is expected of them. It was bad enough 12 years ago, but since 2010 it has gotten immensely worse.

Numerous children and others have been significantly at risk, and let down by systems designed to protect them for decades. DECADES. Look at the death of Peter Connelly, or Victoria Climbie, or Daniel Pelka, or hundreds of others, because these are the only cases in the media remember.

The example of the police officer threatening the family member with potential recriminations rings like some arse who couldn't be arsed to do his job. But that isn't due to lockdown, it is an incompetent copper, and there are fucking loads of them. But lockdown wasn't the cause of this poor childs death.

Sorry - simply don't agree with most of that.

Not sure if you've actually read the article you linked to?

"Lockdown made it possible for Arthur’s parents to legitimately keep him off school and torture him at will"



"Surge in domestic child abuse during pandemic, reports specialist UK children’s hospital

Rise of 1493% in 1 month compared with same period in previous three years"


"The number of reported incidents of children dying or being seriously harmed after suspected abuse or neglect rose by a quarter after England's first lockdown last year, figures indicate."

  • There are indications that the conditions caused by the coronavirus pandemic have heightened the vulnerability of children and young people to certain types of abuse, for example online abuse, abuse within the home, criminal exploitation and child sexual exploitation.

In Liverpool, the number of children entering the care system last year because of parental neglect or alcohol misuse almost doubled


Several studies conducted around the world have raised the alarm about a dramatic increase in family violence and child maltreatment during the COVID-19 lockdown


Reports of physical abuse against children to the NSPCC increased by 53% during the coronavirus lockdown, the charity has said.


Initial statistics suggest that during the lockdown period there was a huge rise in online abuse, familial abuse, county lines exploitation and child sexual exploitation.


Could go on and on and on, the evidence is overwhelming.

Everyone knows social services in this country are a mess and have been for years, the tragic examples highlighted above show that. So with that in mind, I find it incomprehensible how someone can't grasp that being stuck inside with an abusive adult is inherently more dangerous for vulnerable children.
 
Sorry - simply don't agree with most of that.

Not sure if you've actually read the article you linked to?

"Lockdown made it possible for Arthur’s parents to legitimately keep him off school and torture him at will"



"Surge in domestic child abuse during pandemic, reports specialist UK children’s hospital

Rise of 1493% in 1 month compared with same period in previous three years"


"The number of reported incidents of children dying or being seriously harmed after suspected abuse or neglect rose by a quarter after England's first lockdown last year, figures indicate."

  • There are indications that the conditions caused by the coronavirus pandemic have heightened the vulnerability of children and young people to certain types of abuse, for example online abuse, abuse within the home, criminal exploitation and child sexual exploitation.

In Liverpool, the number of children entering the care system last year because of parental neglect or alcohol misuse almost doubled


Several studies conducted around the world have raised the alarm about a dramatic increase in family violence and child maltreatment during the COVID-19 lockdown


Reports of physical abuse against children to the NSPCC increased by 53% during the coronavirus lockdown, the charity has said.


Initial statistics suggest that during the lockdown period there was a huge rise in online abuse, familial abuse, county lines exploitation and child sexual exploitation.


Could go on and on and on, the evidence is overwhelming.

Everyone knows social services in this country are a mess and have been for years, the tragic examples highlighted above show that. So with that in mind, I find it incomprehensible how someone can't grasp that being stuck inside with an abusive adult is inherently more dangerous for vulnerable children.
No one is saying that it isn't more dangerous for children, please grasp that.

What people are saying is that lockdown isn't the cause, it's a big contributing factor for sure but it's an event rather than the cause. The cause is huge amounts of underfunding.

Spin forward about 25-50 years and assume the same amount of underinvestment, if climate change causes a similar set of circumstances to arise then it won't be climate change that causes the increase in child abuse, it'll be the same issues we see in the "system" today.
 
No one is saying that it isn't more dangerous for children, please grasp that.

What people are saying is that lockdown isn't the cause, it's a big contributing factor for sure but it's an event rather than the cause. The cause is huge amounts of underfunding.

Spin forward about 25-50 years and assume the same amount of underinvestment, if climate change causes a similar set of circumstances to arise then it won't be climate change that causes the increase in child abuse, it'll be the same issues we see in the "system" today.
Yes I know what you mean - but what I'm saying is that until you are confident social services etc is properly funded and the causes of child abuse have been eradicated, you have to accept that lockdowns will lead to more child abuse.

Your climate change example, let's say it gets scorching hot everyday in 25 years time due to climate change. The cause of climate change is years of burning fossil fuels. Does that mean going out and sunbathing for 12 hours without sun cream is wise? If you told someone I'm burned because I didn't put suncream on, would it be reasonable for them to say, "ahhhhh, it's not the failure to put suncream on that's caused the sunburn, it's the years of burning fossil fuels. Here's an article on climate change to prove it. Carry on going on outside without suncream as that's not the cause of your problem" If anyone followed that advice, they'd be sunburned to fuck.

You've got make decisions based on the reality of the circumstances at the time, not how you want things to be. And we all know the circumstances for millions of children right now. If at some mythical point we eliminate child abuse and establish a perfect social services system - I could accept you saying lockdowns don't cause suffering for children, but the fact is they do. All I'm saying is it's not a simple choice of lockdowns = no harm/good, no lockdowns = deaths/bad. There's losers in each scenario and the lockdown path disproportionately puts the burden on vulnerable children.
 
Back
Top