Corona Virus main thread

[Aggy 755]

7 hours ago, sonyc said:

The numbers have dropped massively yet as a scientist on the radio was saying today, think of the weekly numbers being like a plane full of passengers dying each week. It is still quite a shocking number put in those terms. I suppose he was simply giving another example of expressing numbers. The 'good' news is only relative.

 

So I presume before covid nobody ever died? 

We’ve been below the 5 year weekly average deaths since the middle of June. Is that ‘good’ news? Well it’s not perfect news, because people are still dying, but if it’s fewer than normally die, then are we supposed to be scared and miserable for the rest of our lives? The equivalent of a plane full of passengers dies every week every year. Are we going to be scared to leave the house until literally nobody in the world ever dies again? 

The BBC’s front page today says 250,000 might die in the winter - it goes on after a few paragraphs to say that figure is very unlikely because it assumes we take no action (which even now we are doing - face masks, social distancing, maybe not as strict as it was , but it’s not “nothing”).... So it’s happy to lead with a misleading worst case figure. It still doesn’t mention that there were only 11 deaths from covid yesterday anywhere on the front page of the app though. 

I’m not suggesting there should be gung ho recklessness which causes more infections and deaths. But I wish there was more balance, instead of the continual scaremongering. It’s still the case that for the large majority of the population, you’re more likely to die in a car crash every 200 miles you drive than you are from coronavirus. Yet from most of the media coverage and what you hear from people, you’d think we’re in the middle of the Black Death and sixty per cent of the whole world is going to be wiped out in the next few months. How many people have heard that even deaths in care homes have been lower than the five year average since week ending 26th June? Or that less than 7 per cent of deaths since the middle of June have been related to covid? So for every “plane of passengers” dying each week from covid, you’ve got about 18 other “planes” of people dying from something else. But we’re only worried about the one out of 18. 

 

[Aggy 755]

7 hours ago, sonyc said:

 

As for outbreaks here, they all seem to be connected with close space (factories, areas of high housing density) and for this reason alone I'm more convinced now we won't see crowds in any kind of public event well into 2021 (music, sport etc) and it will be interesting (if not ghoulish) to see if numbers go up in a couple of weeks following the relaxation and all those mass gatherings we saw a week or so ago (infections being lagged).

As mentioned before, I wouldn’t worry too much about infections. Presuming vulnerable people have been shielding as suggested and not going down the pub with their mates, I’m fairly hopeful that regardless of how many new infections we have, the deaths won’t jump too much. I’m also aware though that plenty of people in their 80s have (to quote my grandmother) “got fed up of it” (“it” being lockdown).

Edited July 14, 2020 by Aggy

[Van wink 2,994]

9 hours ago, Herman said:

 

£100 fine every time the old boy goes shopping is going make for very expensive baked beans😀.

[CANARYKING 638]

20 minutes ago, Van wink said:

£100 fine every time the old boy goes shopping is going make for very expensive baked beans😀.

Do the shop staff have to wear them, seems ridiculous you can go and sit in a pub without but not in a half empty shop

[Aggy 755]

10 minutes ago, CANARYKING said:

Do the shop staff have to wear them, seems ridiculous you can go and sit in a pub without but not in a half empty shop

Shop staff don’t seem to wear them very much currently. I was in a petrol station that had a subway sandwich shop - the servers there (picking up food etc) didn’t have masks on which I found very surprising.

Supermarket staff also seem comfortable with chatting across aisles so you have to walk between them as they’re having their conversation, spittle flying and all....

[sonyc 5,518]

1 hour ago, Aggy said:

So I presume before covid nobody ever died? 

We’ve been below the 5 year weekly average deaths since the middle of June. Is that ‘good’ news? Well it’s not perfect news, because people are still dying, but if it’s fewer than normally die, then are we supposed to be scared and miserable for the rest of our lives? The equivalent of a plane full of passengers dies every week every year. Are we going to be scared to leave the house until literally nobody in the world ever dies again? 

The BBC’s front page today says 250,000 might die in the winter - it goes on after a few paragraphs to say that figure is very unlikely because it assumes we take no action (which even now we are doing - face masks, social distancing, maybe not as strict as it was , but it’s not “nothing”).... So it’s happy to lead with a misleading worst case figure. It still doesn’t mention that there were only 11 deaths from covid yesterday anywhere on the front page of the app though. 

I’m not suggesting there should be gung ho recklessness which causes more infections and deaths. But I wish there was more balance, instead of the continual scaremongering. It’s still the case that for the large majority of the population, you’re more likely to die in a car crash every 200 miles you drive than you are from coronavirus. Yet from most of the media coverage and what you hear from people, you’d think we’re in the middle of the Black Death and sixty per cent of the whole world is going to be wiped out in the next few months. How many people have heard that even deaths in care homes have been lower than the five year average since week ending 26th June? Or that less than 7 per cent of deaths since the middle of June have been related to covid? So for every “plane of passengers” dying each week from covid, you’ve got about 18 other “planes” of people dying from something else. But we’re only worried about the one out of 18. 

 

All quite fair points and I don't disagree. My point in picking out Covid though, as an issue in itself, was about whether the extra death numbers due to it were something we might not feel as shocked about, whether such a lowering would be enough to change our behaviours, our level of complacency. The scientist was emphasising that when someone suggested it was ending when he used the plane analogy. That it's about still.  But...with all the measures now in place and associated caution, it can be controlled. Not to continue to give a focus may lead to greater complacency? 

In the US. I realise it's hardly spreading completely unfettered but the mortality rates and long term consequences (people suffering effects for years) are serious. When do we treat a pandemic as over? Or should we? That's a somewhat rhetorical question. We have to live with it after all.

Another way of looking at it is I guess is to think of it much like we do cancer, a disease that affects thousands, even  after successful treatment, there are changes to adapt to in life. Here too, research is ongoing on how we find cures, better treatments. Perhaps C19 can be considered in the same vein.

I think you have struck a note in the media coverage (the Black Death note). Perhaps, likewise, the focus will fade with the rate of the tail of C19 (with the Brexit cliff arriving soon to give an example?). Yet, there has been a diminution in coverage in the last two weeks with other issues getting far greater space. I think that's right. This thread (as ever!) is a good indicator. The number of posts has plummeted (good) though the football has taken the focus. I still don't think we will be back in stadiums soon and that makes C19 such a b**tard.

 

 

 

Edited July 14, 2020 by sonyc

[Bill 1,788]

So more nonsense about the 'fancy dress'

If it is not enforceable then what is the point - other than to show how clueless the government is.

Changing its mind on a weekly basis

Folk need clear and resolute advice, not wishy washy half measures that are aimed at avoiding responsibility further down the line

 

[Aggy 755]

1 hour ago, Bill said:

So more nonsense about the 'fancy dress'

If it is not enforceable then what is the point - other than to show how clueless the government is.

Changing its mind on a weekly basis

Folk need clear and resolute advice, not wishy washy half measures that are aimed at avoiding responsibility further down the line

 

Regardless of what anyone thinks about masks, it seems bonkers that you have to wear one in a shop but not a restaurant or pub, where people actually eat and drink. I believe the reasoning is that you can clean down tables better after use etc - yeah but you’re also sat a foot away from people on your table, looking directly at them for an hour while eating or drinking and laughing and joking, coughing, breathing on them etc etc, as opposed to brushing someone’s elbow as you grab a pint of milk and then moving on.... 

[ricardo 7,395]

A noticeable increase in mask wearing in the city today. I'd put at about 30 percent now.

[ricardo 7,395]

3 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Regardless of what anyone thinks about masks, it seems bonkers that you have to wear one in a shop but not a restaurant or pub, where people actually eat and drink. I believe the reasoning is that you can clean down tables better after use etc - yeah but you’re also sat a foot away from people on your table, looking directly at them for an hour while eating or drinking and laughing and joking, coughing, breathing on them etc etc, as opposed to brushing someone’s elbow as you grab a pint of milk and then moving on.... 

Every little helps😉

[Bill 1,788]

2 hours ago, Bill said:

So more nonsense about the 'fancy dress'

If it is not enforceable then what is the point - other than to show how clueless the government is.

Changing its mind on a weekly basis

Folk need clear and resolute advice, not wishy washy half measures that are aimed at avoiding responsibility further down the line

And as if to underline my point about this being nonsense

shop staff won't have to wear a mask 🙄

[sonyc 5,518]

The data that proves the first wave of coronavirus is far from over | WIRED UK https://www.wired.co.uk/article/coronavirus-second-wave?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Wired+Awake&utm_campaign=Wired+Awake_2020-07-14&utm_content=The+data+that+proves+the+first+wave+of+coronavirus+is+far+from+over&utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The Email (From WIRED) 140720&utm_content=The data that proves the first wave of coronavirus is far from over

 

 

[Barbe bleu 826]

1 hour ago, Aggy said:

Regardless of what anyone thinks about masks, it seems bonkers that you have to wear one in a shop but not a restaurant or pub, where people actually eat and drink. I believe the reasoning is that you can clean down tables better after use etc - yeah but you’re also sat a foot away from people on your table, looking directly at them for an hour while eating or drinking and laughing and joking, coughing, breathing on them etc etc, as opposed to brushing someone’s elbow as you grab a pint of milk and then moving on.... 

I think the general conclusion is that there is some small benefit in mass mask wearing so it should be encouraged but that there is a greater risk to the economy if the government goes so heavy handed that it puts healthier people off spending their money.

 

 

[Bill 1,788]

But far from preparing for that and ensuring that the tightest preventions are taken both nationally and personally we are told that shoppers will need some fancy dress, but not the employees,

pubs and restaurant goers do not need the buffoonery, whereas where it is stated it is needed

....................................there will be no enforcement

Edited July 14, 2020 by Bill

[sonyc 5,518]

8 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I think the general conclusion is that there is some small benefit in mass mask wearing so it should be encouraged but that there is a greater risk to the economy if the government goes so heavy handed that it puts healthier people off spending their money.

 

 

 

[Herman 9,765]

Does wearing a mask help prevent the spread of a disease that has killed thousands of your fellow citizens? 

A lot of evidence says that it does or at least helps. 

Does it hurt wearing a mask? 

No. You may look and feel a bit silly but that is all. 

Result. Wear an effing mask and stop whining. 

[Aggy 755]

22 minutes ago, Herman said:

Does wearing a mask help prevent the spread of a disease that has killed thousands of your fellow citizens? 

A lot of evidence says that it does or at least helps. 

Does it hurt wearing a mask? 

No. You may look and feel a bit silly but that is all. 

Result. Wear an effing mask and stop whining. 

But why isn’t it compulsory in restaurants and pubs? Or anywhere in public to be honest... presumably under the new rules, you can queue up outside Sainsburys without your mask, cough over as many people as you want, then put it on inside? Bill says above that shop staff don’t have to wear a mask (not seen that so don’t know if true) - but if true why don’t they? Are they getting tested every time they go into work? No - so why are they really any different to anyone else?

[Aggy 755]

51 minutes ago, sonyc said:

The data that proves the first wave of coronavirus is far from over | WIRED UK https://www.wired.co.uk/article/coronavirus-second-wave?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Wired+Awake&utm_campaign=Wired+Awake_2020-07-14&utm_content=The+data+that+proves+the+first+wave+of+coronavirus+is+far+from+over&utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The Email (From WIRED) 140720&utm_content=The data that proves the first wave of coronavirus is far from over

 

 

...in the US and Brazil and other places that haven’t got on top of it. I don’t think anyone disputes that?

[Bill 1,788]

Yep, that's it, a silly bit of cloth and all is well

So why not make it mandatory for all enclosed spaces ?

Why not make it mandatory for shop workers - why not set minimum standards, why drop the precautions of hand washing, or lowering the distance from 6ft to 3ft ?

Why not enforce the regulation where it is required - transport

Where is the protection from handling goods handled by others

This nonsense has negligible effect, other than delude the dimwitted that 'something is being done'

As long as the real causes are not being addressed this nonsense is more of a danger than any use as it allows for a convenient distraction

[Aggy 755]

2 hours ago, ricardo said:

Every little helps😉

More of a Sainsburys person myself!

59 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I think the general conclusion is that there is some small benefit in mass mask wearing so it should be encouraged but that there is a greater risk to the economy if the government goes so heavy handed that it puts healthier people off spending their money.

 

 

Not sure I follow that - would enforcing it in pubs and restaurants be any more heavy handed, or put people off going to them more, than people will be put off going to shops as a result of it? 

One (fairly obvious actually) point I’ve just thought of whilst typing this to be fair, is that I suppose you’d have to temporarily remove the mask to eat and drink anyway, so pretty pointless in restaurants and pubs.... but even so, I do think it’s a bit weird that you can be fined for not wearing a mask in a shop where you browse for a short period of time and tend not to face people too much, then go next door, and perfectly legally sit inside around other people for a prolonged period of time, have a chat over a coffee, splutter  wherever you want all without a mask.
 

For me, it should have been wear one in all indoor public spaces. Full stop. Staff as well. 

Edited July 14, 2020 by Aggy

[Bill 1,788]

There is also the knowledge that this has any measure of control either.

During the foot and mouth outbreak it was mandatory to dip your feet in a disinfectant before entering certain areas. Now there could be an argument as to how effective that action was - but was not arguable is that the disinfectant was of a certain standard and had proven to do what was claimed.

Whereas with this nonsense you can wrap whatever you like around your face and that is ok. Something that suggests adhering to a regulation, rather abiding by a necessary precaution.

All this does is then to engender a sense that 'precautions' are an imposition to be observed at the minimum rather than being part of a wider set of preventative actions

The glaringly obvious contradictions merely compound how ludicrous is this latest buffoonery.

[Van wink 2,994]

More irresponsible buffoonery. 

[Bill 1,788]

yes, how right BB

none of those contradictions exist, do they ?

shame you are not in the UK to see for yourself, isn't it ?

[Herman 9,765]

I think you are asking me to explain government policy which is nigh on impossible. 

That was in response to Aggy. 

Edited July 14, 2020 by Herman

[Aggy 755]

53 minutes ago, Bill said:

There is also the knowledge that this has any measure of control either.

During the foot and mouth outbreak it was mandatory to dip your feet in a disinfectant before entering certain areas. Now there could be an argument as to how effective that action was - but was not arguable is that the disinfectant was of a certain standard and had proven to do what was claimed.

Whereas with this nonsense you can wrap whatever you like around your face and that is ok. Something that suggests adhering to a regulation, rather abiding by a necessary precaution.

All this does is then to engender a sense that 'precautions' are an imposition to be observed at the minimum rather than being part of a wider set of preventative actions

The glaringly obvious contradictions merely compound how ludicrous is this latest buffoonery.

We’ve all just happily agreed to the government enforcing legislation without parliamentary approval which bans us from leaving our own homes unless we can meet the government’s own prescribed list of things you’re allowed to do. On the basis nobody seems to have a problem with that, I can’t see that many people are going to kick up a fuss about a bit of fabric over their mouths.

[Bill 1,788]

eh ?

The point being made is not what folk do, or what shops require before you enter - that is a matter of choice for both.

It is the projection that this is somehow some great 'cure all' when there is some much failure elsewhere. alongside so much confusing and contradictory advice being put out

If it was about wearing a crash helmet or seat belt I could understand, as both of those have to meet safety standards and are mandatory on every road.

The piece of cloth will not be enforced, nor be of any agreed standard nor be universal in its use.

But it is being offered up when so much else is now being ignored

Never mind washing your hands, keeping a safe distance, or shielding .... as a football scarf knitted by your granny 30 years ago will ward of all 'ye nastinesses'

[Van wink 2,994]

28 minutes ago, Bill said:

 

It is the projection that this is somehow some great 'cure all' 

That has never been argued, you are the only one that makes this point to create a straw man argument. You have been wrong on this from the start! It’s not in you to acknowledge you were wrong, much better in your eyes to build a case that has never been made then try and ridicule it. I really wonder sometimes why you bother to post at all, particularly as you seem to spend most of the day and night on here!

Edited July 14, 2020 by Van wink

[Bill 1,788]

So neither the police nor the shops will be enforcing this buffoonery - so what is the point ?

The government can claim that it is 'doing something'. A distraction that the gormless are all to willing to participate in

""I think it's our intention to offer a face mask to those people who are not wearing one. Of course, if they refuse to wear one I think the actual enforcement is not for the store colleagues," said Peter Cowgill, chairman of national clothing chain JD sports.

I think it's a very difficult situation and I'm surprised by the inconsistencies of the messaging. I'm not sure that it applies to bars or restaurants."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/face-masks-england-shops-compulsory-police-force-a9617441.html

And if this is so important, then why the 10 day delay. Why was Gove saying on Sunday night ' emphatically that masks would not be made mandatory' ?

Is there no awareness among the numpties that constantly sending out mixed messages, having Cummings and Johnson Snr flouting the rules with not an apology has lead to the wider population disregarding what is necessary action.

No, Instead keep quiet and cover your mouth in a piece of cloth of doubtful use.

 

 

[Bill 1,788]

4 minutes ago, Van wink said:

That has never been argued, you are the only one that makes this point to create a straw man argument. You have been wrong on this from the start! It’s not in you to acknowledge you were wrong, much better in your eyes to build a case that has never been made then try and ridicule it. I really wonder sometimes why you bother to post at all, particularly as you seem to spend most of the day and night on here!

another lie from hand crank - and as to the time I spend on here it is under this name alone, nor do I claim to be living in a country I am not in

As to who else points out the contradictions and changing message being put out by your government then there is almost universal agreement on that .... in the UK that is

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/face-masks-england-shops-compulsory-police-force-a9617441.html

[Van wink 2,994]

Poor Old Bill