Corona virus threat to birding (1 Viewer)

[Xenospiza]

Study window list didn't get past 5. I feel I'm not going to win any what have you seen from your window competitions! Maybe I'll start a what have you seen from your run list.

I know what you mean. Annoyingly, I appear to spend quite a bit of time actually working...

 

[Steve Babbs]

I know what you mean. Annoyingly, I appear to spend quite a bit of time actually working...

I wanted to spend more time working: it takes your mind off things. But there was rather a limited amount to do. The on-line learning for children proved to be considerable less time consuming than anticipated. I aiming for double figures by the weekend.

Moth trap out but it's cold and my garden isn't particularly good for them either and its position means I can only use an actinic without disturbing the neighbours.

 

[Deb Burhinus]

This is fanciful nonsense. There's so much less traffic (and pollution) now that getting out into nature away from others is safer than it ever was.

...so emissions generated by road vehicles and car ownership in the last 20 yrs have decreased? You not ‘getting out into nature away from others’ if crowds of others have the same idea. It’s only ‘safe’ if you don’t call out any emergency services miles to a remote location if you have an accident or breakdown when they could be saving the lives of those who are seriously ill.

It's absurd that anyone shouldn't be allowed to do that.

Well you may think so but it’s now binding Government advice in this Country NOT to leave home now for non-essential reasons

Fortunately we still are here. The only place we can't go birding (or exercise etc) is Rocky Mountain National Park, which has sadly been closed to the public because seniors in the town of Estes don't want strangers touching their gas pumps. (The same strangers the entire livelihood of their town depends on, and they'll want back in the future.) There seems to be some sort of denial of the whole concept of mortality at work here.

Wow!

The only ‘denial’ at work here is yours apparently - people are dying, mostly, but not exclusively, the elderly. Your comments give the impression that restrictions in place in the Rocky Mountain NP, is nothing but an inconvenience for you and your desire to go birding. You even seem to be harbouring animosity or some kind of resentment towards those elderly folk who quite rightly want to protect themselves :eek!:? Are these people under some kind of moral debt to you because you buy your gas in their town?

Is this supposed to be some kind of bad joke: why should anyone have fun that you can't?

I might turn to John Locke to answer that one if this were a political seminar ...’liberty’ comes with a proviso don’t you know ...

human beings have “perfect freedom” to act and use their property “as they think fit”; that this right to freedom is equal for all “without subordination or subjection”; and that “all men” should be restrained from violating the rights of others and that every person has the right to defend their life and property from such invasion

I'm not even sure I want to understand what's passing for logic here.

I’m not even sure I can

 

[Stonefaction]

I'm deemed to be 'essential' staff so I have to go to work still (though most likely to do something other than my usual job, which may well also be way more risky too). Can't say I'm comfortable with it but I don't really get much say in it....

Anyway to try to reduce my chances of catching the coronavirus I've been walking to and from work (3.25 miles or so each way) since early March. I'm sort of birding along the way (though rarely stopping for more than a few seconds anywhere and not using bins - except for 1 very high flying Buzzard) and have so far managed to see 40 species of bird in what is pretty much bog-standard urban habitat with one wooded hill/cemetery on the usual route and a couple of football pitches. I'm hoping to add to that total though it will now need either the Spring migrants arrival or some unusual overflights I suspect to add more than 1 or 2 more. I'll keep trying while I'm able to....

A few blog posts about the birds seen this month on the walk.....

https://stonefactionbirding2014.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-road-and-miles-through-dundee.html

https://stonefactionbirding2014.blogspot.com/2020/03/on-march.html

https://stonefactionbirding2014.blogspot.com/2020/03/mad-march-meandering.html

And 2 stints of very local birding with camera this last week that are likely to be the last 'actual birding' for the foreseeable future (including a VERY big surprise).

https://stonefactionbirding2014.blogspot.com/2020/03/sunday-surprises-22320.html

https://stonefactionbirding2014.blogspot.com/2020/03/birding-baxters-18320.html

 

[Andy Adcock]

It's interesting to see that the ethics of a socio economic approach to the pandemic which sees the protection of the most vulnerable, mainly the oldest, in society, is now being tentatively broached in tv debate in the UK.

The question is definitely being asked now, can we justify throwing such resouces at people who are nearing the end of their natural lives anyway and in doing so, risking the future prosperity of the generations below them?

 

[Andy Adcock]

Charlie boy (Prince Charles) has reportedly tested positive, I'll bet he got it whilst out birding.............

 

[Farnboro John]

Charlie boy (Prince Charles) has reportedly tested positive, I'll bet he got it whilst out birding.............

You don't think one of his children, who goes on visits to people and places and shares with Charles a favourite song from The Lion King, might have cunningly visited Dad?

John

 

[Andy Adcock]

You don't think one of his children, who goes on visits to people and places and shares with Charles a favourite song from The Lion King, might have cunningly visited Dad?

John

You mean, slipped in and licked him as he slept?

It would simplify the succession................

Prince Albert of Monaco also has it and Charlie was with him on the 10th

I'll bet Republicans are eyeing the situation eagerly, the whole Monarchy could be wiped out. Charlie saw QEII on 12th so with 2-3 incubation period, the old girl could have it too.

 

[Deb Burhinus]

I'll bet Republicans are eyeing the situation eagerly, the whole Monarchy could be wiped out. Charlie saw QEII on 12th so with 2-3 incubation period, the old girl could have it too.

Will this mean less raptor shootings on the royal estates?

(Trying to see a positive here )

 

[Andy Adcock]

Will this mean less raptor shootings on the royal estates?

(Trying to see a positive here )

A very good point!

We can only hope that Charlie has been more than usually gregarious, we cold get shot of the entire shooting fraternity B

 

[DMW]

It's interesting to see that the ethics of a socio economic approach to the pandemic which sees the protection of the most vulnerable, mainly the oldest, in society, is now being tentatively broached in tv debate in the UK.

The question is definitely being asked now, can we justify throwing such resouces at people who are nearing the end of their natural lives anyway and in doing so, risking the future prosperity of the generations below them?

Something I've been pondering is this: instead of universal lock down, identify every person who is known to be in a vulnerable class. Invite them to self-isolate, and provide as many resources to them as possible (shopping deliveries etc) to keep them safe and sound, but otherwise let everybody else get on with their lives as normal and let the virus run its course.

Perhaps this is a foolish idea, but it seems that every day the statement in the UK about the number of deaths refers to all the deceased having underlying health conditions.

 

[Helsinki Birder]

Something I've been pondering is this: instead of universal lock down, identify every person who is known to be in a vulnerable class. Invite them to self-isolate, and provide as many resources to them as possible (shopping deliveries etc) to keep them safe and sound, but otherwise let everybody else get on with their lives as normal and let the virus run its course.

Perhaps this is a foolish idea, but it seems that every day the statement in the UK about the number of deaths refers to all the deceased having underlying health conditions.

Apart from the fact that there are fatalities, even among frontline health care staff, who had no underlying health conditions, what about the multitude of people who will have previously undetected conditions who don't know they should isolate?

Early stage cancers. Heart defects. Autoimmune diseases. Etc etc.

... Maybe leave the decisions to the experts in the field?

Owen

 

[Steve Babbs]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-year-old-uk-nurse-intensive-care-coronavirus

fit and healthy 36 year-old nurse

 

[dantheman]

Something I've been pondering is this: instead of universal lock down, identify every person who is known to be in a vulnerable class. Invite them to self-isolate, and provide as many resources to them as possible (shopping deliveries etc) to keep them safe and sound, but otherwise let everybody else get on with their lives as normal and let the virus run its course.

Perhaps this is a foolish idea, but it seems that every day the statement in the UK about the number of deaths refers to all the deceased having underlying health conditions.

Not a foolish idea at all imo - I suggested as much about two weeks ago upthread (but didn't go into details) It may not work for all, but would for many and with money and effort I'm sure solutions could be found for all (eg a nice extended holiday in the country for elderly/vulnerable folk who it would be hard to care for adequately otherwise.)

Trump is probably thinking of something vaguely similar, but it will be essentially not coming from the same place at all I suspect.

 

[MJB]

I'm deemed to be 'essential' staff so I have to go to work still (though most likely to do something other than my usual job, which may well also be way more risky too). Can't say I'm comfortable with it but I don't really get much say in it....

Anyway to try to reduce my chances of catching the coronavirus I've been walking to and from work (3.25 miles or so each way) since early March. I'm sort of birding along the way (though rarely stopping for more than a few seconds anywhere and not using bins - except for 1 very high flying Buzzard) and have so far managed to see 40 species of bird in what is pretty much bog-standard urban habitat with one wooded hill/cemetery on the usual route and a couple of football pitches.

Nice White-tailed Eagle!

Were the pitches Dens & Tannadice or those beside Dundee International Sports Centre?

My football-watching in Dundee was in the days of Doug Cowie, Ian Ure, Alan Gilzean, Alan Cousin (who was a teacher at my good lady's school) and Bill Brown (uncle of a schoolmate).
MJB

 

[opisska]

I just wonder whether this "solution" would actually cause less suicides than the coronavirus would otherwise have killed in that group.

 

[DMW]

Apart from the fact that there are fatalities, even among frontline health care staff, who had no underlying health conditions, what about the multitude of people who will have previously undetected conditions who don't know they should isolate?

Early stage cancers. Heart defects. Autoimmune diseases. Etc etc.

... Maybe leave the decisions to the experts in the field?

Owen

My wife is a nurse and I'm very much aware of the fatalities among medical professionals. Doctors and nurses treating infected patients are being repeatedly exposed to the virus and must have viral loads far higher than ordinary people in the community.

Yes, you are right about undiagnosed people. I'm not suggesting the course of action I described is perfect, but the models I have seen that inform the current policy do not reduce the overall incidence of infection over the long term, but seek to stagger it. I don't see how this will prevent people with underlying conditions from becoming infected.

Maybe leave the passive aggressive barbs to the experts? I'm not in a position to make any decisions here, just talking bollocks on an Internet forum, same as you.

 

[jenks86]

Not a foolish idea at all imo - I suggested as much about two weeks ago upthread (but didn't go into details) It may not work for all, but would for many and with money and effort I'm sure solutions could be found for all (eg a nice extended holiday in the country for elderly/vulnerable folk who it would be hard to care for adequately otherwise.)

Trump is probably thinking of something vaguely similar, but it will be essentially not coming from the same place at all I suspect.

I read somewhere, that the problem with any plan like this is the sheer numbers of people involved. Something like 5.4 million people in the UK are currently receiving treatment for asthma: 1.1 million children (1 in 11) and 4.3 million adults (1 in 12). Even more will have had it in the past and for a lot of these people it will flare up in the future but aren't currently receiving treatment. Some get in it in the spring for example - linked to pollen alleges but don't need treatment all year round. All those people are more vulnerable to the virus to varying degrees.

And that's just the one condition.

Most people would argue that a conservative government will have thought of all possible solutions to ensure the damage to the economy is kept to a minimum. That this (or more stringent measures) is the solution the experts and governments have come up with, all over the world, is possibly the most worrying indicator as to the impact this virus could have on the entire population of various countries, not just the elderly.

 

[jenks86]

My wife is a nurse and I'm very much aware of the fatalities among medical professionals. Doctors and nurses treating infected patients are being repeatedly exposed to the virus and must have viral loads far higher than ordinary people in the community.

Yes, you are right about undiagnosed people. I'm not suggesting the course of action I described is perfect, but the models I have seen that inform the current policy do not reduce the overall incidence of infection over the long term, but seek to stagger it. I don't see how this will prevent people with underlying conditions from becoming infected.

Maybe leave the passive aggressive barbs to the experts? I'm not in a position to make any decisions here, just talking bollocks on an Internet forum, same as you.

The thinking behind the staggering isn't to stop people getting it, it's to prevent a huge surge of patients all at the same time, overwhelming the facilities to help those in need. It also, in theory at least, allows time to increase the capacity of facilities to help those people who will be most affected.

 

[DMW]

The thinking behind the staggering isn't to stop people getting it, it's to prevent a huge surge of patients all at the same time, overwhelming the facilities to help those in need. It also, in theory at least, allows time to increase the capacity of facilities to help those people who will be most affected.

Understood. However, if all the known at-risk population is effectively self-isolating, that presumably removes a high proportion of those likely to require intensive care from the equation. I guess the key question is what proportion of the population not considered at risk will require critical care when infected, and how does that compare to capacity.