COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[Stoned Rose]

Cool story, bro.

Not as cool as the one you told a few pages back to demonstrate your understanding and common sense, in which you show absolutely none of either.

 

[Stoned Rose]

It's called statistical modeling where you throw in all the standard behaviours and the risk of each where the goal is to reduce R below, say, 0.75. And you draw the line where the combined distribution's upper quartile of R is at 0.75.
Work back from there and you get 14 minutes is OK but 15 isn't.

So, complete bollocks then.

 

[doobyedoobye]

Hotels starting to open up in Dubai now

 

[i8rags]

For those who keep saying lockdown is over, I disagree.
Roads are nothing like they were.
Children are still off school.
Many many trades are not at work.
Still not seen my family outside of this house.
Hardly a plane in the sky.
No sport.
2 meter at every shop.
No routine operations.
Grandparents not seeing grandchildren.
Children not playing with friends.
Government paying wages.
Cinemas theatres closed.
Pubs and restaurants closed.
Hair down our backs.
Can’t drive outside of England unless it’s work.
No summer holidays.
No exams in school,

tbh the list is endless, to me it feels very much like I’m still trapped in a pandemic and the odd relaxation in rules has little effect on me.

 

[shemnel]

"people can also now spend time outdoors subject to: not meeting up with any more than one person from outside your household; continued compliance with social distancing guidelines to remain two metres (6ft) away from people outside your household"

that's the official text. For me that is not that confusing: My wife and I can meet my mum, then my dad in the afternoon, and then just me alone can go and see my cousin and his wife. All of this must be outside so i'll probably sit or stand in their gardens or perhaps the driveway for the latter. I'll do this at 2m (or more) and i might even delay the cousin to the next day not to overdo it, using common sense.

BUT. Hancock says on TV that it "should only happen in public spaces" so is that the garden off? B'cos to me, as i can get to it externally, that seems safer than 10 random families around my poor mam. And what am I reading about 1 person (i.e. just me) meeting only other one person - the official text says nothing of the sort?

What i'm driving at is why do we have a relatively clear document (it still has problems but it's ok) which is being elaborated on by politicians, seemingly ad-hoc?

 

[MillionMilesAway]

A couple or three questions:

- how are they deciding who gets the test?
Presumably as a lot seem to be posted out, these are ad hoc applications for a test
What could be done better to make the testing more useful/directed?

- is there a daily count of the number of people in or released from hospital?
This seems more useful than the number of people who are infected.

- what is causing the continuing increase in numbers?
General asymptomatic spread, with some direct infection in places like hospitals?
It seems this continuing increase won't actually stop?

 

[Mon Autre]

"people can also now spend time outdoors subject to: not meeting up with any more than one person from outside your household; continued compliance with social distancing guidelines to remain two metres (6ft) away from people outside your household"

that's the official text. For me that is not that confusing: My wife and I can meet my mum, then my dad in the afternoon, and then just me alone can go and see my cousin and his wife. All of this must be outside so i'll probably sit or stand in their gardens or perhaps the driveway for the latter. I'll do this at 2m (or more) and i might even delay the cousin to the next day not to overdo it, using common sense.

BUT. Hancock says on TV that it "should only happen in public spaces" so is that the garden off? B'cos to me, as i can get to it externally, that seems safer than 10 random families around my poor mam. And what am I reading about 1 person (i.e. just me) meeting only other one person - the official text says nothing of the sort?

What i'm driving at is why do we have a relatively clear document (it still has problems but it's ok) which is being elaborated on by politicians, seemingly ad-hoc?

But what you're describing there means your mum is meeting more than one person from outside of her household at the same time. And then when meet your cousin and his wife you are meeting more than one person from outside of yours? Not trying to challenge you or anything, just trying to make sense of it. Am I misunderstanding it?

 

[Man_City_Loyal]

693 Last Tuesday which is usually the highest day after the lower weekend figures.Compared to todays 627.
The under 400 you mention may be just the hospital number think that was down in the 300 s today karen usually knows that figure

thanks BP

 

[shemnel]

But what you're describing there means your mum is meeting more than one person from outside of her household at the same time. And then when meet your cousin and his wife you are meeting more than one person from outside of yours? Not trying to challenge you or anything, just trying to make sense of it. Am I misunderstanding it?

exactly what my second point is about - the guidance doc does not say whether it is you and you alone that meets one other person (and vice versa) or if it is your household that gets to meet one other person. If it's the former, that's actually pretty clear (but sadly quite restrictive, but there we are) but if it's the latter then you can get the permutations i'm talking about. Just a few more words in that extracted para would have helped.

 

[Rammy Blue]

Common sense is open to interpretation. A lot of what you described, to me lacks common sense.

I’m assuming your parents are elderly and you/they quite rightly don’t want them going to the supermarket and that they can’t order online. The common sense thing here would be for you to organise delivery to cut back on needless travel.

There’s plenty of questions I could pose around this and find further flaws in your ‘common sense’ approach but the main one I’ll highlight is bringing a child along with you. This could be seen as negligent let alone a lack of common sense. Having them along for shopping trips raises the chance of you both becoming infected, also should you be involved in a serious road incident that’s an additional person taking up NHS resources, just to help you carry a few bags.

This is not meant as a slight on you at all, just highlighting how people see ‘common sense’ differently. Therefore nothing should be left to interpretation of what common sense is and clear direct guidance/rules are required.

I broke no rules. You’re also making assumptions that you don’t have complete knowledge about.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

 

[Rammy Blue]

That was enjoyable watching Piers get shot down and to look like a prick by David Davies and John Caudwell. So now he changes tact to just create a load of straw man arguments once they are off screen.

 

[inchy14]

If a handful of posters on this forum are arguing over the interpretation of the rules then by definition the rules are not clear and that lack of clarity extrapolated over a nation of 60 odd million people will not end well.

Although given we have the highest death total in Europe I think the possibility of this situation ‘ending well’ is pretty much fucked.

It’s not a handful though, it’s one of the usual suspects being utterly obtuse regarding it, what @Rammy Blue is doing is perfectly acceptable and there’s no ambiguity at all.

 

[inchy14]

Read what hancock said,at least he was clear on those two bits,it is no skin off my nose but dont call me thick and stupid if you can't do what he has told him to do

Then stop acting thick or stupid.
He’s taken necessary items to a vulnerable relative, he’s not been in the same household, he’s dropped goods off.

 

[meltonblue]

Just to be clear, as I’ve seen a few people refer to it as guidance, the reason people are calling for more clarity on certain aspects is it’s as much a legal document. It isn’t just about making sure people are following guidance, it’s that they aren’t breaking any laws.

I don’t envy the police at all right now.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

The Labour spokespeople whom were caught off guard by Rishi Sinai extending the 80 percent furlough scheme until October, really need to change their script. The likes of Annaliese Dodds rattling on about when the scheme will end etc (as if it is inadequate) is just amateur hour, especially when the package of support is likely to see our Country £300bn in debt.

Rather then pretending they weren’t caught off guard. Just change the record.

 

[Nightmare Walking]

Is there any news on those vulnerable/aged/shielded self isolating for 12 weeks?
We are currently looking after two people, doing the shopping prescriptions etc.
What was the original end date?
I'm not saying at the end that's it, they can come out. I just haven't heard any plans/instructions for them etc.

It is currently due to end on the 30th June mate. I have had a txt off the government. If I can get down off these seroids and get myself well, then I will be going back to work on that date. I am only shielded due to my medication. Once I can get it down and If I manage to come out of this flare, then I should be ok. For other people I expect it will run into next year.
No news provided as of yet but the first phase of shielding is definitely due to end on 30th June.

 

[Chippy_boy]

To be honest every country has dealt with it in the exact same way, we've all been blindsided by it but that's because the virus and its spread was so poorly understood. Back in March we were all sat in our houses thinking this wasn't a threat, I was one of them. Yet meanwhile it was spreading around us like wildfire, far beyond predictions.

I can remember watching a massive military operation of planes landing at Brize Norton only a couple of months ago with people led off by folk in Hazmat suits! Little did they know that in all likeliness the greater threat was sat on the tube in London where it was being passed around person to person with ease.

They reckon 10% have had it in London, 10%!!! That's 6000 infected in a capacity Etihad.

Basically the lockdown was imposed too slowly however that is the nature of this virus. The Asian countries are ahead of us on this because they've done it before, they're used to outbreaks, wearing masks in public and abiding by rules which includes the use of apps etc for state tracking. Here the first response to a COVID-19 tracking app is an army of lawyers preventing it's use because of privacy laws!

I just don't think there was anything anyone could of done without the gift of foresight. Obviously the politically entwined are more than happy to point out how a Labour government or whatever would have this all nipped in the bud by now.... Yes that's a Labour government that would be advised to do the same thing by the same scientific community advising this government.

There's lots I agree with here but some of the observations / judgements we can make now are not hindsight. Many, many people saw this coming ages back. Even in early March, what was about to unfold in the UK was obvious and yet nothing was done, no actions taken until much later. And the wearing of masks in public is so obviously a necessity and yet we belligerently refused to accept it. These two mistakes alone have probably resulted in thousands of unnecessary deaths - perhaps tens of thousands. Our having more deaths than Italy, considering the advance warning we had, is really shameful.

How brilliant do you have to be to see that our late and weak lockdown measures compared to France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Denmark, Australia, New Zealand etc etc etc are the reasons we've fared worse? I mean it's obvious isn't it. And now we are coming out of lockdown too soon as well. This is also obvious.

 

[shemnel]

Just to be clear, as I’ve seen a few people refer to it as guidance, the reason people are calling for more clarity on certain aspects is it’s as much a legal document. It isn’t just about making sure people are following guidance, it’s that they aren’t breaking any laws.

I don’t envy the police at all right now.

true enough, guidance backed up by legal consequences is an odd mixture

 

[Mon Autre]

exactly what my second point is about - the guidance doc does not say whether it is you and you alone that meets one other person (and vice versa) or if it is your household that gets to meet one other person. If it's the former, that's actually pretty clear (but sadly quite restrictive, but there we are) but if it's the latter then you can get the permutations i'm talking about. Just a few more words in that extracted para would have helped.

It's definitely the former. If somebody can't meet more than one person from outside of their household then any meet up that involves your mum meeting you AND your wife, is in breach of the guidance.