The blueing is coming off of them I’ve cleaned so much
I just did some more shelving In the rafters of the shed and moved some low use items up there. Son shot his AR some, in the rain
Said he brought it too shoot it and he did 2019-nCoV (Coronavirus)
- Thread starter Jackalope
- Start date
I just did some more shelving In the rafters of the shed and moved some low use items up there. Son shot his AR some, in the rain
Said he brought it too shoot it and he did 
Iowa_Buckeye
Smartest person here
Go sharpen all your hunting and kitchen knives.
She seemed good this morning. Haven't heard any negative reports from home, so I assume she's good. I appreciate you asking.
Just got done putting up my news signs around the place to deal any potential looters.
I decided too crack beers and clean the boat. Heading too Wilmington tomorrow with a buddy too pick up some tractors and deliver them. Should take all day. Another rainy day tomorrow so that’s good.
- 39,067
- 274
Yes and no........ Hear me out.. Yes I understand that the medical profession has a greater need for these items. However, I do not agree that the population must be put at risk and unable to get the things that they need because hospitals failed to prepare.. The civilian availability should not be a hospital's plan B. Pandemic response and preparedness is not a new topic for these facilities, this pandemic isn't something that should come at a surprise to ANY of them, none of them should have been unprepared. This is the equivalent of Remington or Winchester saying that since the police are unprepared, they're stopping all civilian sales of guns and ammo and giving everything to law enforcement. The American people have just as much of a right to protect themselves as massive hospital corporations who failed to adequately plan. I see both sides, I realize these professionals are being asked to put themselves in danger, but I also realize we shouldn't hurt the individuals right to procure items of necessity to protect themselves and their families either.
In WWII the US civilians made sacrifices to fund the war effort. Copper, oil, gas, rubber, even things like chocolate were rationed. The difference is the US civilian wasn't in direct threat from the enemy. It made sense to give the boys in green everything they needed to fight the war over there so we didn't have to fight it here.. With Coronavirus the entire nation is at war, everyone is vulnerable, everyone needs supplies. The Japs are here, everyone deserves to have access to tools to protect themselves.
I find it funny how here in the US we're telling people that wearing a mask will not protect them so don't buy them, just wash your hands. Yet the CDC in China says the number one thing you can do is wear a mask, and then they say to also wash your hands.
Last edited:
Yes the small people on both sides of the coin lose again as usual
Last edited:
I agree with your premise, I also am glad to see people step up and fill in the gaps caused by the lapse of judgment of the people whom are in the position too be ready for this kind of situation we’re currently in.
Its fake news
Its a hoax
It will go away like a miracle
Practice social isolation
Were in a war
Stay home
Go back to work
Its a hoax
It will go away like a miracle
Practice social isolation
Were in a war
Stay home
Go back to work
- 39,067
- 274
The CDC, FEMA, and Hospitals will be getting billions in federal aid and supplies to include the national strategic reserve. Feel good retailers creating unavailability does not have a fall back plan for consumers though. Retailers are the only avenue we have to buy the things we need to protect ourselves. It is similar to the fallacy of "Trust the government, they'll protect you, so we at Remington will be giving all of the guns and ammo to them for your own good" but instead of government, it's an unprepared healthcare system. You're not important until you get sick, and then you have to conform to our system. Well how about I just have access to the tools to help prevent myself from getting sick in the first place.
Ohiosam
*Supporting Member*
London: In the weeks since coronavirus exploded around the globe it has become increasingly apparent that this freight train simply can't be stopped.
Lockdowns, school closures and flight bans will go some way to reducing pressure on hospitals but these measures will not halt widespread transmission. Health authorities warn hundreds of millions will probably get infected and the vast majority will survive. Some of society's most vulnerable will still bear the brunt, however, and the death toll could be very high.
On that basis, some difficult decisions must be made. Britain has made some tough calls already but their go-it-alone approach carries significant risk and is proving divisive.
In crude terms, Boris Johnson's government is mounting the argument that the outbreak is now so far gone that it is actually desirable for people to get infected. And a lot of people – potentially up to 70 per cent of the country's population, or roughly 47 million.
A risky strategy? Very. At complete odds with the rest of the globe and the World Health Organisation? Definitely. Politically unpopular? Absolutely. But sensible? Quite possibly.
Britain's approach has three core elements: enact social distancing measures much more slowly than other countries; shield at-risk groups like the elderly and sick from contact with the general population; and then let COVID-19 slowly sweep through everybody else.
The latter approach is called "herd immunity" – a phrase likely to enter the lexicon shortly in the same way as "flatten the curve". Herd immunity describes a scenario where so many people become resistant to a disease – either through vaccinations or exposure – that it becomes much harder for the virus to spread through the rest of the population. Mass immunity could effectively cause the virus to burn out over the course of one or two seasons, or buy time until a vaccine is developed and distributed.
Johnson's chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, who along with chief medical officer Chris Whitty has been entrusted by the government to manage the spread of virus, says between 60 to 70 per cent of the population would need to be infected to achieve herd immunity.
"We think this virus is likely to be one that comes year on year ... like a seasonal virus," Sir Patrick said on Saturday. "Communities will become immune to it and that's going to be an important part of controlling this longer term."
Officially, the government won't say that herd immunity is actual strategy: "Herd immunity is not our goal or policy. It is a scientific concept," Health Secretary Matt Hancock said on Sunday.
Ian Donald, an emeritus professor from the University of Liverpool, suspects the government wants younger, healthier people to get infected right up until the point hospitals begin to reach capacity. At that point, authorities will try to slow – but not stop – infection rates. This could be achieved by closing schools, restaurants and maybe even large offices.
Still confused? Imagine a bucket of water and a plastic jug with a hole penetrating about half-way up its side. The bucket represents the general population, the jug represents the health system and the hole in the side is for people to leave hospital after they recover. The government wants to tip the bucket into the jug at a rate that brings the water near its capacity but never over it. As people leave hospital or recover at home, immunity builds.
While this is happening, the government would try to isolate the elderly and other vulnerable groups from the rest of the population. There are reports Downing Street is considering a ban on visitors to nursing homes and hospitals for many months.
"After a while, most of the population is immune, the seriously ill have all received treatment and the country is resistant," Professor Donald outlined in a long Twitter thread. "The more vulnerable are then less at risk. This is the end state the government is aiming for and could achieve."
However, Professor Donald and other experts warn there are big risks. For starters, the jury is still out on whether people infected by COVID-19 will never contract it again.Data on infection rates also needs to be highly accurate and the social distancing measures to slow the rate of infection need to be timed perfectly. The public needs to trust the strategy and be prepared to follow the advice over many months. And the "cocooning" of at-risk groups needs to be highly effective.In an open letter to the government, British Society for Immunology president Arne Akbar raised "significant concerns" about the strategy and its "severe" consequences if vulnerable people aren't properly protected.
Professor Akbar also warned the virus was so new that there were many unanswered questions about how it interacts with the immune system.
"For example, we don’t yet know if this novel virus will induce long-term immunity in those affected as other related viruses do not. Therefore, it would be prudent to prevent infection in the first place."
Johnson has been critical of blunt measures designed to stop the virus from spreading, accusing some leaders of bowing to political pressure instead of following the science. Italy and Spain have virtually shut down, while Norway, Denmark and Poland have closed their borders. Unlike Britain and Australia, most countries have also closed schools and universities.
The government says these measures may well be enacted in Britain but warns their impact on reducing spread will be limited. It argues asking people with symptoms to stay home for seven days could have a much bigger impact on reducing the size of the peak, possibly by as much as 25 per cent.
Professor Donald says the Italian lockdowns aimed at trying to stop as much infection as possible are appealing, "but then what?" He warns such restrictions are not sustainable for months and will have to be relaxed, leading to a new surge in infections.
"So they will have to reintroduce the restrictions each time infection rates rise," he says. "That is not a sustainable model and takes much longer to achieve the goal of a largely immune population with low risk of infection of the vulnerable."
Researchers from Imperial College and Oxford University seem to agree. They recently released a chart using red, blue and green lines to show three possible options for the next six months.
The red line shows a huge spike in cases if the outbreak is not controlled or managed. The blue line shows a rise in infections early in the pandemic, but a major reduction as harsh social distancing measures are enacted. But that blue line rises sharply to form a 'second wave' as soon as the measures are lifted. The green line – which the UK has gambled on – shows more people infected in the short term than the blue line, but in a way that eventually peters out.
In six months we will know whether that was a monumental and deadly mistake or a brave and effective decision to swim against the global tide.
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe...mAw7Dj8guo2zSHTtUYTz0LJZ7Gcfmp7CKgqHvvY1bXjos
Lockdowns, school closures and flight bans will go some way to reducing pressure on hospitals but these measures will not halt widespread transmission. Health authorities warn hundreds of millions will probably get infected and the vast majority will survive. Some of society's most vulnerable will still bear the brunt, however, and the death toll could be very high.
On that basis, some difficult decisions must be made. Britain has made some tough calls already but their go-it-alone approach carries significant risk and is proving divisive.
In crude terms, Boris Johnson's government is mounting the argument that the outbreak is now so far gone that it is actually desirable for people to get infected. And a lot of people – potentially up to 70 per cent of the country's population, or roughly 47 million.
A risky strategy? Very. At complete odds with the rest of the globe and the World Health Organisation? Definitely. Politically unpopular? Absolutely. But sensible? Quite possibly.
Britain's approach has three core elements: enact social distancing measures much more slowly than other countries; shield at-risk groups like the elderly and sick from contact with the general population; and then let COVID-19 slowly sweep through everybody else.
The latter approach is called "herd immunity" – a phrase likely to enter the lexicon shortly in the same way as "flatten the curve". Herd immunity describes a scenario where so many people become resistant to a disease – either through vaccinations or exposure – that it becomes much harder for the virus to spread through the rest of the population. Mass immunity could effectively cause the virus to burn out over the course of one or two seasons, or buy time until a vaccine is developed and distributed.
Johnson's chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, who along with chief medical officer Chris Whitty has been entrusted by the government to manage the spread of virus, says between 60 to 70 per cent of the population would need to be infected to achieve herd immunity.
"We think this virus is likely to be one that comes year on year ... like a seasonal virus," Sir Patrick said on Saturday. "Communities will become immune to it and that's going to be an important part of controlling this longer term."
Officially, the government won't say that herd immunity is actual strategy: "Herd immunity is not our goal or policy. It is a scientific concept," Health Secretary Matt Hancock said on Sunday.
Ian Donald, an emeritus professor from the University of Liverpool, suspects the government wants younger, healthier people to get infected right up until the point hospitals begin to reach capacity. At that point, authorities will try to slow – but not stop – infection rates. This could be achieved by closing schools, restaurants and maybe even large offices.
Still confused? Imagine a bucket of water and a plastic jug with a hole penetrating about half-way up its side. The bucket represents the general population, the jug represents the health system and the hole in the side is for people to leave hospital after they recover. The government wants to tip the bucket into the jug at a rate that brings the water near its capacity but never over it. As people leave hospital or recover at home, immunity builds.
While this is happening, the government would try to isolate the elderly and other vulnerable groups from the rest of the population. There are reports Downing Street is considering a ban on visitors to nursing homes and hospitals for many months.
"After a while, most of the population is immune, the seriously ill have all received treatment and the country is resistant," Professor Donald outlined in a long Twitter thread. "The more vulnerable are then less at risk. This is the end state the government is aiming for and could achieve."
However, Professor Donald and other experts warn there are big risks. For starters, the jury is still out on whether people infected by COVID-19 will never contract it again.Data on infection rates also needs to be highly accurate and the social distancing measures to slow the rate of infection need to be timed perfectly. The public needs to trust the strategy and be prepared to follow the advice over many months. And the "cocooning" of at-risk groups needs to be highly effective.In an open letter to the government, British Society for Immunology president Arne Akbar raised "significant concerns" about the strategy and its "severe" consequences if vulnerable people aren't properly protected.
Professor Akbar also warned the virus was so new that there were many unanswered questions about how it interacts with the immune system.
"For example, we don’t yet know if this novel virus will induce long-term immunity in those affected as other related viruses do not. Therefore, it would be prudent to prevent infection in the first place."
Johnson has been critical of blunt measures designed to stop the virus from spreading, accusing some leaders of bowing to political pressure instead of following the science. Italy and Spain have virtually shut down, while Norway, Denmark and Poland have closed their borders. Unlike Britain and Australia, most countries have also closed schools and universities.
The government says these measures may well be enacted in Britain but warns their impact on reducing spread will be limited. It argues asking people with symptoms to stay home for seven days could have a much bigger impact on reducing the size of the peak, possibly by as much as 25 per cent.
Professor Donald says the Italian lockdowns aimed at trying to stop as much infection as possible are appealing, "but then what?" He warns such restrictions are not sustainable for months and will have to be relaxed, leading to a new surge in infections.
"So they will have to reintroduce the restrictions each time infection rates rise," he says. "That is not a sustainable model and takes much longer to achieve the goal of a largely immune population with low risk of infection of the vulnerable."
Researchers from Imperial College and Oxford University seem to agree. They recently released a chart using red, blue and green lines to show three possible options for the next six months.
The red line shows a huge spike in cases if the outbreak is not controlled or managed. The blue line shows a rise in infections early in the pandemic, but a major reduction as harsh social distancing measures are enacted. But that blue line rises sharply to form a 'second wave' as soon as the measures are lifted. The green line – which the UK has gambled on – shows more people infected in the short term than the blue line, but in a way that eventually peters out.
In six months we will know whether that was a monumental and deadly mistake or a brave and effective decision to swim against the global tide.
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe...mAw7Dj8guo2zSHTtUYTz0LJZ7Gcfmp7CKgqHvvY1bXjos
I see what they’re trying too do, and too a point I agree with it. Hopefully it works out for them....
Ohiosam
*Supporting Member*
- 39,067
- 274
Yeah. Totally viable option when you have no other options due to being unprepared. They call it "herd immunity". It's more like a "cut your losses and write people off to protect your economy" strategy. Luckily this SARS-2 virus isn't SARS-1 that has a 35% fatality rate.
We will likely reach that point here in the US also. This widespread shutdown is unsustainable for longer than a month. The longer it goes on the longer we will have a widespread economic impact, and the deeper that impact will be. Eventually, I think there going to say if you're 50 or above stay at home, if you're under 50 get your ass back to work. Hopefully, before that happens they have the hospital capacity to deal with that decision and some sort of prophylactic to reduce how susceptible people are to it.
Imagine if a nation-state creates a rogue virus and vaccine and secretly vaccinated their population before releasing it on the world. They just won a world war without firing a single shot.
- 6,206
- 136
Boy that last paragraph definately needs alot of consideration... I've been thinking that all along... It's just to massive and fast moving...
Ohiosam
*Supporting Member*
