Forum menu
This is my ethical issue. Informed consent is based on information available. Sometimes that changes with new information or toxicology findings. But this decision is not based on information. If the UK conducted a trial I would be satisfied. But this is no-evidence based medicine.
+1000. And is a gift to anti-vax propagandists who are looking to exploit perceived weaknesses in the testing/approval/licensing process.
I see Boris is doubling down on Marr. Get back to school. Very little risk to children. Which isn't the point. If it is more transmissible between younger children, and delivers a higher viral load, younger parents will in turn be more likely to become seriously ill. We shall see if the anecdotal reports of increasing numbers of 40-50s hospitalised back this up. The Christmas delivery of infected grandparents should be arriving imminently, too.
The question of whether schools should close or not is interesting. The benefits of closing them need to be weighed against the sheer number of people blatantly ignoring the tier 4 rules in our area.
My youngest son is in secondary school where a lot of restrictions have been in place, with use of bubbles, social distancing, mask etc and he’s had minimal interruption to his education since September. Over the past 2 weeks, I’ve been out walking every day, and seen countless large groups out and about and not keeping a safe distance. Yes, I know it’s safer outdoors but we’re still trying to understand how transmissible the new variant is. Being out in a group of 10 when there’s not a breath of wind and no one’s keeping their distance could be as risky as being in a controlled environment in a school.
Being out in a group of 10 when there’s not a breath of wind and no one’s keeping their distance could be as risky as being in a controlled environment in a school.
‘could be’ = is not
People should not be mixing… but a small group outside is not the same transmission risk as 30+ in one room for a long period of time.
30+ in one room for a long period of time.
+maskless in a school environment. Plus this kind of shit every now and again, regardless of the best intentions and efforts of school leaders.
Looked after kids are much more likely to under achieve at school and so schools are prioritising there education.
Can you explain the science behind this for adoption?
Why are we lumping together broad categories not treating people as people?
Lets say little Johhny lives in a single parent family as he father died before he was born and is living with his surviving parent plus a partner but isn't adopted but little Jane's who's parent also dies before she's born surviving parent meets someone and she gets adopted. (It could equally be Janes' parents adopted her at birth after failed IVF or are gay or any other reason)
The EXACT Q I'm asking is why Jane is "expected" at school, first day of term and Johnny isn't. These two PEOPLE as individuals not as numbers.
Before killing people I'd want to see some irrefutable evidence that the act of adoption itself has a negative effect on achievement at school.
Looked after kids are much more likely to under achieve at school
Are you suggesting neglected children do better at school? How are you measuring "better"
I assume you don't actually mean that literally and it's vague or "special use" language?
Again, this doesn't make any sense, it's a pure blanket statement that takes no account of Johnny or Jane and their families. It's all types of wrong in general ... if they really do underachieve in school (which seems unlikely on a individual level) then school may be the wrong place for them?
But that aside ... we are in the middle (or somewhere very bad) in a pandemic that is killing PEOPLE and spreading at an increasing rate.
And that is the point PEOPLE are dying.
You/I/We can either treat these PEOPLE as numbers or as people.
Despite whatever averages you choose Janes' parents have the same right to life as Johnny's
Even assuming you personally don't care what happens to Janes parents because for some reason you disagree with adoption (perhaps due to inheritance?) then how do you justify the effect on Jane of loosing a parent or parents as less important than Johnny?
@kelvin
Ok then, ‘could be’ = ‘is not’ but my point is that the benefit of closing schools is not going to outweigh the detriment if so many people are ignoring the rules anyway.
I know that sitting indoors for several hours is riskier than being out, but I stand by my point that a group of 10 hanging around for hours together, shouting and not keeping any distance when there isn’t a breath of wind isn’t exactly sensible.
Looked after kids are much more likely to under achieve at school and so schools are prioritising there education.
Can you explain the science behind this for adoption?
Is not science its statistics.
Even assuming you personally don’t care what happens to Janes parents
I'm done responding to your rubbish you are sick little excuse for a human being who also appears to lack a basic grasp on reality, you keep throwing insults like a child hiding behind a computer screen, I bet you are a snivviling little runt in real life who lacks the stones to back your opinion.
I've gone from nazi, to killer to uncaring about the effects of the pandemic on peoples lives, all this and (luckily for you) we have never met.
vickypea
The question of whether schools should close or not is interesting. The benefits of closing them need to be weighed against the sheer number of people blatantly ignoring the tier 4 rules in our area.
Taking that ALONE at face value ... one drives the other.
If your kid is in school then little or nothing else you do within reason will make a REAL difference.
Yes, I know it’s safer outdoors but we’re still trying to understand how transmissible the new variant is. Being out in a group of 10 when there’s not a breath of wind and no one’s keeping their distance could be as risky as being in a controlled environment in a school.
We can't say for certain but it's pretty unlikely.
We can't visit gran now anyway but if we could the acid test for me would be how safe or not I felt that to be.
My perspective (note my and my mothers) is that careful outdoors activities such as riding a bike are orders of magnitude lower than sitting in a classroom.
I might be wrong ...that's just my best guess.
If he goes back Wednesday then we will also go on rides until he is told to self isolate again.
It's a bit more complicated in reality as "in school" is a binary case. Either complete self isolation or in school.
Perhaps PHE are simply using school as a way to control a large number and put them into forced isolation ? I can see how that would be beneficial but if they are they aren't sharing this and people's behaviours will reflect what they are told.
the benefit of closing schools is not going to outweigh the detriment if so many people are ignoring the rules anyway
Unfortunately, there is greater need to keep classmates apart, and away from staff, if community transmission is made worse by people ignoring rules.
I see the Xmas truce is over
stevextc, I work in children's social services. You seem quite confused, I have read your post a few times, and despite the bold bits, I have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps go and learn what defines a child in care (looked after child in increasingly old money) then consider why you think that a child that has moved Foster placements 6 times in 2 years - which means starting new schools, dealing with new Foster siblings etc etc...may need more support.
I honestly don't think you know what you're talking about.
Edit. You do know that 'adopted' doesn't mean 'looked after child' don't you?
@stevextc
So what is the basis for the rule that you should only meet outdoors with one other person? Why does Tier 4 not allow the “rule of 6” outdoors? Is that based on scientific advice or something random that the government have made up? I’m interested to know.
And it’s pretty obvious that I’m not comparing “going on a bike ride” with sitting in a classroom of 25 kids. I am talking about big groups from multiple households standing around together, shouting and laughing while not keeping a distance, in the current weather conditions of cold, still air.
So why not clamp down on the community rather than schools?
So why not clamp down on the community rather than schools?
Schools are much easier to police, lots of people in one place!!! I guess thats why they want us testing the kids too.
What people seem to forget is that not everybody is furloughed or working from home. My wife and I are both 'key workers' and have had to go out to work as normal since March. Our local authority grade key workers by their job description/industry and only allow children from NHS to attend school.
What this means is that my 80 year old parents have to look after (and teach) our children when my wife and my shifts coincide.
In our situation we are puting my parents in real danger as we have no other alternative (our friends wont help as they say if school is shut, they wont take our kids for the day).
It is easy to say 'keep the schools shut' if you don't have children, they are teenagers or you are furloughed/working from home. For many others, this is a really bad idea - there are NO childcare options currently available to us.
To make matters worse, every time I go out for a cycle or walk, I see many groups of cyclists and walkers not socially distancing/giving a **** about the rules and New Year around here seemed to be fair game for people to mix...
But yeah, keep the schools shut and screw over the working families who can't stay home.
Well, I don’t agree that teachers should have to shoulder the responsibility of testing pupils.
It’s a very difficult situation and I can totally see how the virus can be easily transmitted in schools but the general public are getting sick of restrictions and are now ignoring them. Right when we have a new variant that is considerably more transmissible.
So why not clamp down on the community rather than schools?
Go on… how do you propose stopping people meeting up outdoors? As it happens, around here, we’ve only seen very small groups… and normally this place is packed with large groups of walkers and bikers. It’s really not a big enough issue to start getting all police heavy about, is it? I realise it may be very different where you are.
As an aside… I would hope that if fewer kids were physically in the classroom, as per the spring “lock down”, parents and the wider public would realise just how bad things have got, and do more to stop the spread. Perhaps I’m an optimist.
“If schools are safe, so is my office… group walk…” etc. Take stronger measures in schools… after the government have made it clear that they are last places they want to “close” and hopefully people will get a better feeling for just how bad this winter could get if we don’t act to reduce transmission.
I see Boris is still insisting on schools opening?
That's pretty much a guaranteed u turn for sure isn't it? I just can't see how it's even remotely viable with this new strain running through the population.
AA
Is not science its statistics.
Jane and her parents aren't statistics to me they are people.
That is the fundamental disconnect.
You seem to think that I think you are a bad person or something when what I am trying to do is avoid people being misled by statistics and question them and the science (and blindly following orders).
Ultimately this comes back to judging people vs statistics.
Let me TRY and put that in a different context...
Let's say I am looking for van insurance (This is actually true)... and I fill in the questions.
When I get to "Do you have any children under 18 living at home" the next question is "are any of these children adopted"
Now they may or may not have statistics ... but regardless I think that question is out of order and they should NOT be collecting those statistics.
Part II - following orders ...
So whoever wrote that question was following an order and not questioning it or did and got told "write the questions or find another job".
you are sick little excuse for a human being who also appears to lack a basic grasp on reality, you keep throwing insults like a child hiding behind a computer screen, I bet you are a snivviling little runt in real life who lacks the stones to back your opinion.
Pot and kettle?
The thing is I don't mind really.
It's an emotive subject especially for those who have lost loved ones, businesses or livelyhood.
That pretty much makes it crap for everyone!
In the bigger picture if you are swallowing statistics whole that doesn't make you a bad person indeed my actual opinion is you are someone who's heart is in the right place.
However, I'm not the sort of person that is happy to just have "the statistics say so" witho9ut questioning the statistics and what they actually mean.
But yeah, keep the schools shut and screw over the working families who can’t stay home.
Or keep schools open with a new variant that spreads much more easily amongst young people and leave those who work without any form of social distancing in schools to become ill and potentially die.
Schools will be open. How many pupils will be on site, and sharing a room, will have to change. This should have been addressed from September. It can’t be ignored any longer. Parents are not immune. Teaching staff are not immune. Other school staff are not immune.
I see Boris is still insisting on schools opening?
That’s pretty much a guaranteed u turn for sure isn’t it? I just can’t see how it’s even remotely viable with this new strain running through the population.
When you are accelerating down a hill and you aren’t sure if the brakes are strong enough to slow you down the first thing any rational person would do is hit the brakes as hard as possible. You can always take your foot off the pedal a bit but you can’t go back in time and retrospectively apply them.
Unfortunately we have a bunch of clowns in charge so don’t expect a rational response.
Sobering stuff.
I see the Xmas truce is over
Yep, either that or he's finished the mince pies and port.
Can you explain the science behind this for adoption?
Why are we lumping together broad categories not treating people as people?
Yet again you are leaping to incorrect conclusions from a too literal reading of information. Being adopted by a step parent is totally different to being adopted by completely an unconnected person(s). It doesn't (usually) involve social services, for one thing.
I understand the problems of your childhood have left you with a deep distrust of authority, but it seems to be really damaging your perspective of how things are actually handled nowadays.
When you are accelerating down a hill and you aren’t sure if the brakes are strong enough to slow you down the first thing any rational person would do is hit the brakes as hard as possible. You can always take your foot off the pedal a bit but you can’t go back in time and retrospectively apply them.
Especially when you've seen your brakes fail a couple of times already
AA obvious answer is to vaccinate all school staff as a priority (assuming it is safe for the individuals), they are nearly as frontline as the NHS. But no we are vaccinating people who can and should be isolating, short termism and populism runs riot again.
It does amaze me that we are not vaccinating all front line staff, nurses, police, teachers etc.
I agree that care homes and their staff need it too, but then surely those who are most likely to come into contact should get it
Exactly this. Vaccinate ALL key workers / people who HAVE to leave their house, not just NHS staff. My wife and I don't get to socially distance at work but we have to be there. No ifs, no buts, but we wont be vaccinated until the same time as others in my age group (who work from home).
Bonkers.
My son is in the final year of his medical degree and did a 4-week placement on a Covid ward just before Christmas. No vaccination and not even a single test!
It does amaze me that we are not vaccinating all front line staff, nurses, police, teachers etc.
Bus drivers, train guards… the list goes on. Vaccination is building towards a more open society later this year… NOT NOW. It will take months for vaccinations to make a real difference, we should be treating this winter stage of the pandemic for what it is… a bigger risk to life and quality of life for many than the spring stage was.
Tradesmen should be vaccinated as well. Mr Pea is a plumbing and heating engineer and has to go into private houses every day fixing leaks and broken boilers. It’s bonkers that people in those jobs aren’t a priority for receiving the vaccine.
It all takes time. Sort out care homes and NHS staff first, everyone else needs to reduce contacts and take as many precautions as they can, for now.
Let me TRY and put that in a different context…
Let’s say I am looking for van insurance (This is actually true)… and I fill in the questions.
When I get to “Do you have any children under 18 living at home” the next question is “are any of these children adopted”Now they may or may not have statistics … but regardless I think that question is out of order and they should NOT be collecting those statistics.
Eh?
Again, the children classified as vulnerable or 'looked after' are not adopted. Your example above is entirely irrelevant.
I work with the statistics you refer to, and - like it or not - the children that sit behind each of those numbers. I can guarantee that if you are a child in care, your educational attainment is poorer. And, I can tell you (in my Borough) the reasons why each of the 900+ children experience this more difficult start to life.
I feel like you are deliberately misreading this situation, or are looking for a position on something you simply don't understand, either way it's offensive.
Problem is with "essential workers" and vaccine priority, where do you draw the line?
My postal delivery depot has ~125 staff in it during the course of each morning and there are frequent times where you simply cannot always stay >1m from colleagues. Some staff deliver to the same ~600+ homes and shops each day, while others deliver different duties each day/week.
At least now deliveries include some test kits, some real essential postal parcels, but by and large it has been record amounts of "essential online shopping tat," which has then sometimes taken priority over delivering letters because there simply is far too great a daily workload.
Schools are much easier to police,
Until they’re let out. Where my daughter goes to, they have staggered exits and starts, but they congregate round the only entrance/exit waiting for friends/ siblings. This is right next to a public footpath/bridleway so there is plenty of passing traffic.
A fair number come by bus and mix with other schools in town whilst waiting.
“Fortunately” it’s just a 2 minute walk home for her but she has to push through the scrum.
We probably caught our Covid via her.
It does amaze me that we are not vaccinating all front line staff, nurses, police, teachers etc.
I agree that care homes and their staff need it too, but then surely those who are most likely to come into contact should get it
They've clearly grouped it to prioritise those people most at risk of serious illness or death. Looks pretty logical to me - including why front line NHS and care workers need it now. I suspect prioritising inside groups depending on job role would be a logistical nightmare and a political hot potato.
Well, our local authority has declared primary schools will have all kids and staff in tomorrow. So it’s down to parents and teachers to work our what the next move is. I predict near full attendance for a few weeks, followed by a longer spell of limited onsite attendance than would otherwise have been the case (be that via “closures” or just responding to new cases).
I agree about prioritising those at most risk to a point.
care homes absolutely.
The elderly though if they can isolate them surely we should be helping front line services to stay functional. Ultimately those who can isolate are more protected than if they have the vaccine.
So let's say you vacinate all the teachers
Sure they wont get ill, however the kids will still get it, and transmit it to their families and eventually to the elderly and vunerable. Vaccinating teachers (and indeed all other workwrs mentioned so far) may make the teachers happy, but it'll do bugger all to reduce the transmission rate, the death toll and burden on the nhs.
As for vaccinating tradespeople, if you are doing it by likelihood of exposure I'm afraid they'd be right down the list. They are no more at risk than anyone that has to leave the house to go to work. The priority groups the government has released make sense, based on susceptibility to severe desease, not likelihood of getting it.
On the schools front however, madness they aren't closing. Lets be brutally honest, what is the point of not allowing families to mix when every single day one of them goes to school and mixes with 30 other kids from different households
Tradesmen should be vaccinated as well. Mr Pea is a plumbing and heating engineer and has to go into private houses every day fixing leaks and broken boilers. It’s bonkers that people in those jobs aren’t a priority for receiving the vaccine.
Posted 38 minutes ago
NHS engineers going into ICUs, theatres and wards repairing ventilators and other medical devices haven't received the vaccine yet.
sc-xc
Edit. You do know that ‘adopted’ doesn’t mean ‘looked after child’ don’t you?
That wasn't my choice of term....
I'm asking WHY the blanket term "Adopted" makers a difference in COVID becase that is what tyhe government website defines as a vulnerable child.
Yet again you are leaping to incorrect conclusions from a too literal reading of information.
It's GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE being pushed down... there quite simply shouldn't be a "too literal" reading or for that matter any alternative readings such as "expected".
Being adopted by a step parent is totally different to being adopted by completely an unconnected person(s). It doesn’t (usually) involve social services, for one thing.
No argument from me ... that's EXACLY what I have been trying to point out.
I understand the problems of your childhood have left you with a deep distrust of authority, but it seems to be really damaging your perspective of how things are actually handled nowadays.
^^^
How are things "handled nowadays"?
My perspective is summarised...
Edit. You do know that ‘adopted’ doesn’t mean ‘looked after child’ don’t you?
Yep... I do realise I'm not the one trying to justify the government guidance by bringing up populist/emotive but meaningless terms.
This is how I perceive how stuff is "handled nowadays"
1) Someone asks why ALL adopted children are "expected" on day 1
2) answer is because they are vulnerable
3) How is Jane more vulnerable than Johhny?
4) You "sick little excuse for a human being "... (sic) how dare you question the statistics I was shown and believe
I stress (again) nothing against AA.... this is how I perceive things are generally handled by this government and passed down to be defended.
and here's the rub... we both have teachers going into school in the household... the rhetoric and hijacked narrative from the government has created this divide.
Under normal circumstances I'm certainly no fan of indoctrination then blaming the ones who swallowed it when something doesn't work as they inferred.
In the midst of a pandemic I find that frightening.
@kelvin
I’m not proposing that we police the outdoors. However, given the situation where I live, it wouldn’t surprise me if a lot of those school kids and non-working parents will be flocking together outside of school anyway.
I live in a village where a lot of houses, including mine, have their front door opening straight into the street. I’m not overly happy about hundreds of people passing within a metre or 2 of my front door all day long because they lack the imagination to exercise away from other people. Would you welcome strangers using your front doorstep as a spot to stop and chat with each other? Or am I being overly sensitive?
Not arguing that those at greatest risk shouldn't be vaccinated. Personally I think we should be in fully supported lockdown to minimise transmission as much as possible and vaccinate as much as we can both those at risk but also support those whose services we depend on. Doctors, nurses etc.
Nhs workers Should absolutely be vaccinated as a priority. As far as I was aware they will be as part of the 9 priority groups.
Mrs Inbred is classed as frontline and has been told to arrange an appointment to get vaccinated. So it appears they are prioritising NHS staff as well as care homes and the elderly.
vickypea
So what is the basis for the rule that you should only meet outdoors with one other person? Why does Tier 4 not allow the “rule of 6” outdoors? Is that based on scientific advice or something random that the government have made up? I’m interested to know.
"based on scientific advice" is not the same as "following scientific advice" is not the same as "manipulating scientific advice"
You might as well ask why 2m not 6' or 1m98cm....
Perhaps you imagine the scientists and clinicians are asked "tell us what would be safe" rather than "if we do this can we sorta get away with it scientifically".
So if I meet my mate that's OK, I think his son OR my son can also be present (I'd need to check) but not both or perhaps only one of his sons? (just an example)
What's the difference in risk?
If one of us has it in the household then likely we are all carrying it... theoretically 2x people sort of have 2x the viral load but in the context of a bike ride** it's more to do with how we behave.
And it’s pretty obvious that I’m not comparing “going on a bike ride**” with sitting in a classroom of 25 kids. I am talking about big groups from multiple households standing around together, shouting and laughing while not keeping a distance, in the current weather conditions of cold, still air.
It's inside and out... I'm not convinced a bike ride is intrinsically that safe done poorly.
If we line up 10' apart at 10mph for an hour.. vs big groups from multiple households standing around together, shouting and laughing while not keeping a distance
But my point REALLY is if one or more members of your household is doing a HIGH RISK activity every day... (sitting in a classroom of 25 kids) my motivation to avoid getting <10m away from someone else has gone.
In Lockdown-Part 1 our rides were VERY VERY socially distanced... routes specifically chosen without gates or things to touch and a huge distance to see others on the same path/trail and turn around/pull off/turn off etc.
Last week before XMAS he was 7/30 left in his class... it was either catch the virus or self isolate or make it against the odds to the end of term.
At this point I start thinking what's the point? PHE don't care, why should I?
Please don't think that means I/we were deliberately trying to get the virus... I just mean trying really hard not to seemed pointless under those conditions. So say we were cycling the same place and saw someone coming the other way we might pull over and let them pass rather than turn around.
In lockdown 1 we waited 20 mins at one point to cross a bridge some selfish people were on but refused to move. Now I'd just cycle over.
edits
[blockquote]I’m not proposing that we police the outdoors. However, given the situation where I live, it wouldn’t surprise me if a lot of those school kids and non-working parents will be flocking together outside of school anyway.[/blockquote]
What they do outside makes little difference ... to all intents and purposes if the kids are in the same class then the kids/ parents will either have it or not.
[blockquote]
I live in a village where a lot of houses, including mine, have their front door opening straight into the street. I’m not overly happy about hundreds of people passing within a metre or 2 of my front door all day long because they lack the imagination to exercise away from other people. Would you welcome strangers using your front doorstep as a spot to stop and chat with each other? Or am I being overly sensitive?[/blockquote]
I don't know....what is your reason for not wanting to get the virus?
I don't want to get it because I don't want to give it to someone who could very likely be very ill or die...or spread it generally.
When I'm confronted with someone in a high risk group who doesn't care enough to wear a mask properly or try and keep 2m away I feel absolved on responsibility to some extent.
In other words ... If I'm standing as far towards the canal as possible and an elderly person makes no effort to put on their mask (or have one) or take the space I left them I'm not jumping in the canal.
Not arguing that those at greatest risk shouldn’t be vaccinated. Personally I think we should be in fully supported lockdown to minimise transmission as much as possible and vaccinate as much as we can both those at risk but also support those whose services we depend on. Doctors, nurses etc.
Good link here on Phase 1 grouping - and also some detail on potential for Phase 2.
"The order of priority for each group in the population corresponds with data on the number of individuals who would need to be vaccinated to prevent one death, estimated from UK data obtained from March to June 2020"
IMO, seems fair that if we're aiming for proper relaxation of restrictions after this phase, then the only real option is to minimise the risk of death first. In phase 2, they're talking about risk of hospitalisation - so wouldn't that still be more age bound than anything else?
I suspect you are right yes, that it would be an age correlation.
I guess I am just a bit cynical at the moment over this that I don't trust the government to do anything right
You might as well ask why 2m not 6′ or 1m98cm….
Perhaps you imagine the scientists and clinicians are asked “tell us what would be safe” rather than “if we do this can we sorta get away with it scientifically”
I AM a scientist and I’m obviously aware that the closer you get to people the more likely you are to transmit the virus. I don’t ask why 2m and not 1m 98cm because 2m was chosen as a reasonable distance that the general public can understand and estimate.
Anyway, the 2m distancing applies in ALL tiers. I am asking specifically about Tier 4. For example, why is there a “rule of 6” for the outdoors in Tier 3, but 2 people only in Tier 4? Is that based on evidence or not? Is it reasonable and helpful given that hardly anyone is following it anyway?
I guess I am just a bit cynical at the moment over this that I don’t trust the government to do anything right
"Right" means "can sell to the electorate".
I subscribe to "correct" being better to test the brakes than wait but the inverse seems to be the case of not testing the brakes until the front wheel is over the cliff.
I live in a village where a lot of houses, including mine, have their front door opening straight into the street. I’m not overly happy about hundreds of people passing within a metre or 2 of my front door all day long because they lack the imagination to exercise away from other people. Would you welcome strangers using your front doorstep as a spot to stop and chat with each other? Or am I being overly sensitive?
AFAIK, outdoor transmission is pretty low risk and it doesn't sound like prolonged exposure to individuals. I still don't think I'd be happy with people parking themselves outside my front door for a long time. As for overly sensitive, 2020 has been enormously stressful for everyone. So it's entirely normal to be on edge. I guess the best option is to recognise you can't do much about that scenario and focus on the stuff you can affect. Alternatively, you could launch frozen sausages at them from an upstairs window, using a trebuchet built from your expired xmas tree.
I don’t know….what is your reason for not wanting to get the virus?
I don’t want to get it because I don’t want to give it to someone who could very likely be very ill or die…or spread it generally.
I don’t want to get the virus because I am a 52-year-old woman! Women over 50 are the highest risk group for long Covid, likely because of our natural decline in oestrogen at that age. I have a school age child, a full time job, and I am the main breadwinner in our household. Apart from that, I enjoy being very active, particularly mountain biking. It’s important to maintaining my mental health.
So, I don’t want my life ruined by long bloody Covid because other people can’t have their conversations away from my doorstep!
Or am I being overly sensitive?
As long as you aren’t thinking that people outside your front door are posing anything like the same transmission risk as 30+ people working together in a small room, then no, mindful rather than over sensitive. Maybe a bit NIMBY, but we are all are to some degree… it’s totally understandable.
Anyway, the 2m distancing applies in ALL tiers. I am asking specifically about Tier 4. For example, why is there a “rule of 6” for the outdoors in Tier 3, but 2 people only in Tier 4?
Is that based on evidence or not? Is it reasonable and helpful given that hardly anyone is following it anyway?
As a scientist (or engineer) surely you appreciate that "based on evidence" depends on what evidence is given, what questions are asked and which questions are forbidden and how the evidence is presented.
Back in the distance past (depending on your age) scientific evidence was written and presented as papers/documents. Management were expected to be qualified to understand the documents.
This is no longer the case and scientists and engineers are expected to dumb down the science to present as viewgraphs and infographics and simple traffic lights for the consumer.
Sorry the example is engineering but read the CAIB report (Columbia Shuttle 'Accident') or the shorter "Engineering by Viewgraphs" by Tufte. (One of the CAIB team)
https://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0001OB
So, I don’t want my life ruined by long bloody Covid because other people can’t have their conversations away from my doorstep!
Entirely reasonable. My fear (and you alluded to this yourself I think) is that as soon as the 9 priority groups are vaccinated it's 'job done' as far as Hancock and the government is concerned. He even said as much when saying 'we'll be back to normal after spring'.
Come April no-one will give toss about social distancing because people are no longer dying in huge numbers, and it's back to normal, as the government has pretty much told us it would be
Meanwhile many thousands of folks are still having severe illness (That may not require hospital treatment in short term), long covid will cause massive issues for high numbers of folks, and people will still die, albeit not in the same numbers as previously.
For me personally, as an asthma sufferer I've been told I'm at higher risk. Whether I get offered the vaccine or not remains to be seen.
So, I don’t want my life ruined by long bloody Covid because other people can’t have their conversations away from my doorstep!
I politely invited some people to bugger off when they decided to use my porch to shelter from the rain and drink their coffee.
To be fair they did scarper pretty quickly when I told them I was self-isolating, and no, I didn't see why I should wear a mask on my own property.
Vickypea
I don’t want to get the virus because I am a 52-year-old woman! Women over 50 are the highest risk group for long Covid, likely because of our natural decline in oestrogen at that age. I have a school age child, a full time job, and I am the main breadwinner in our household. Apart from that, I enjoy being very active, particularly mountain biking. It’s important to maintaining my mental health.
So, I don’t want my life ruined by long bloody Covid because other people can’t have their conversations away from my doorstep!
Ignore the age question then ... (youngster) 😉
I'm simply asking why to answer your question. You may have been 22 or even older than me..,.
However after the additional information I'd suggest you read what TiReD has written very carefully whilst respecting what they can and cannot say (fact vs opinion).
I'd suggest you read but my opinion for all that's worth is that your decision to send the kid to school or not is magnitudes bigger in risk than what happens on your doorstep.
My situation is different being 53 and male with auto immune issues in that my risk of worse case scenario is much lower.
I could be asymptomatic (seems reasonable as I don't develop most viral infections)
Or I could die from a cytokine response and should that happen soon I have life insurance plus death in service bonus for the next 3mo so it would work out very well.
Obviously I'd prefer to live but not with long tail and unable to ride the years I have left.
edit:
Sounds more morbid than I mean.
In context I mean I'm not going to change my riding just because I may have an accident and die.
OH's younger sister is in hospital at the moment smashed hips, knees, ribs from an avalanche.
She's been told (as far as OH can tell through asking questions on what seems to be a lot of pain medication) the best case is not walking unaided for a year.
OH is upset (naturally) but I keep explaining it's her sisters lifestyle choice.
It comes with risk and you accept the risk.
Much as she is "big sister" it's her sisters choice to do extreme sports and accept the risk and referring to them/her as crazy/mad is not supportive.
OH is complaining she can't jump on a plane and visit.(due to Covid)..I'm saying maybe she maybe wouldn't want you to. I know I wouldn't.
Some people have very odd ideas about how science works and what it's capable of.
Some people have very odd ideas about how science works and what it’s capable of.
True but not usually scientists of our generation.
I'm from the immediate post Vine and Hess into Kusnir and Park and Gibbs...generation
or if you prefer the generation of "I would bet my silk pyjama that their ain't no 3 L LLLAMA"
<deleted, can't be arsed arguing with a wall>
I’m not proposing that we police the outdoors
If we'd been able to adequately enforce the restrictions, they might have worked quicker/better. But we're at least 20,000 Police officers too short.....
kelvin
Our political correspondent @KateEMcCann says Our political correspondent
@KateEMcCann
says she believes it is unlikely the Prime Minister "would go that far that quickly".
Not watched the link, simply picking up on the text.
I think the text sums it up....
Our political correspondent
Not scientific correspondent, not medical but political ...
says she believes it is unlikely the Prime Minister "would go that far that quickly".
I'd reword and apply to the entire epidemic...
it is unlikely the Prime Minister would go anywhere near far enough until it's too late and the decision is taken out of his hands
A bit shaped by listening to Phil Moorehouse on a completely different subject.
I'd erred towards thinking that the dithering was deliberate to get a specific result... it's totally possible and even probable the dithering is simply to avoid making a decision and the overriding factor is not actually making a decision so it can be blamed on anyone else.
I'm not actually sure which is scarier though.
Nhs workers Should absolutely be vaccinated as a priority. As far as I was aware they will be as part of the 9 priority groups
NHS lab worker here, looking at Jan 22 apparently according to the calc/priority points list my Trust has issued. i'm not patient facing but do 1000's of tests for those patients a year so not every NHS worker is a priority. The lab is already 4 members of staff short due to natural wastage, then there's 3 staff self isolating until the middle of Jan & the "mega lab" opening in the local area in Feb has already attracted at least 2 members of staff with the higher wages than the NHS is offering so a little out brake of the virus in the lab, which thankfully hasn't happened yet will seriously disrupt cancer and other disease diagnosis
see Starmers called for an English lockdown, so nothing for a least 2 weeks then as the government can't look like it's kowtowing to the liberal left.
I’d suggest you read but my opinion for all that’s worth is that your decision to send the kid to school or not is magnitudes bigger in risk than what happens on your doorstep.
But I choose to take that risk because of the benefits to my son of being in school. No one benefits from standing around chatting on other people’s doorsteps, it’s a risk that has no upside.
MoreCash
If we’d been able to adequately enforce the restrictions, they might have worked quicker/better. But we’re at least 20,000 Police officers too short…..
I was going to say this earlier but ...
I'm reminded of 2 companies I worked for with very different HSSE approaches.
Company A was very open and encouraged challenges. Their policy was buy-in and people asking SHOULD I do this .. is it safe in the first instance...
Company B set rules, was unwilling to explain or discuss reasons and relied on policing....and people asking CAN I do this, if its allowed it's OK.
Not only was company A subjectively better but they were objectively better.
Most people at Company A thought HSSE were there to keep them safe as opposed to Company B where people thought they were there to make and enforce rules. [I'm over simplifying] The funny thing they are in the same industry and the actual rules were very similar it was the WAY they were implemented that differed.
This is I see one of the bigger challenges in the UK with Covid... huge amounts of people see the rules as rules. Many people (including a large number of those that voted for them don't trust them). A glib example... try and find someone in Barnard Castle...I'm not just being sarcastic it matters unless you are a dictatorship with a huge secret police force.
People also tend to be sheep.... to extend that if the goats are not following the rules then the sheep surely won't.
On a small scale that means the post office... if everyone is already queued "safely" more people will... if most people are not and refusing to wear a mask then those joining the queue won't in general either.
On a big scale... Dominic Cummings... Boris's father....
I think it's obvious we can't police it... not that I think that is the best solution anyway so that means getting peoples trust and confidence. Sorry if I'm pessimistically waiting for the "Get Covid Done" soundbite 🙁 and all shit to break loose once more vaccinations are underway more pervasively.
Aimed at TiRed and anyone at the research sharp end.
Ivermectin and the research done at Liverpool university?
No idea if it’s shonky or legit info.
Slightly pedantic but...
it’s a risk that has no upside
The upside is arguably the mental health of the two people chatting on your doorstep. Not saying it outweighs the downsides, including your own mental health.
Nhs workers Should absolutely be vaccinated as a priority. As far as I was aware they will be as part of the 9 priority groups
in scotland its
Vaccination workers then
Frontline healthcare staff
Care home staff and residents
over 80s
I am going to investigate getting mine ASAP when I return to work
Wife had hers 2 weeks ago tj, all of her team that volunteered to vaccinate were prioritised over those who didn't.
The upside is arguably the mental health of the two people chatting on your doorstep. Not saying it outweighs the downsides, including your own mental health.
But they don’t have to chat on my effing doorstep, there’s tons of open space to do have a conversation and maintain their mental health!
I’m beginning to think some of you are deliberately nitpicking my comments and wilfully missing the points I’m trying to make
I’m beginning to think some of you are deliberately nitpicking my comments and wilfully missing the points I’m trying to make
It's an unofficial symptom of the pandemic I think, not just on here
NHS engineers going into ICUs, theatres and wards repairing ventilators and other medical devices haven’t received the vaccine yet
Yes, I’m aware that barely anyone has been vaccinated yet and I didn’t say that tradesmen should be in the highest priority groups. I DO think they should be a higher priority than people who are working at home/not working. Given that they are in and out of private houses all the time.
I’m beginning to think some of you are deliberately nitpicking my comments and wilfully missing the points I’m trying to make
As MoreCash say's that is a side effect/symptom of the epidemic.
I'm certainly not.... I'm being a bit pedantic/nit picky because well... you need to make the decisions like everyone else but not directed at YOU.
But I choose to take that risk because of the benefits to my son of being in school. No one benefits from standing around chatting on other people’s doorsteps, it’s a risk that has no upside.
Again .. not personal you need to weigh up that risk/benefit. (Like everyone else) but do that based on a risk matrix.
If you put this on a risk matrix of likelyhood vs consequences your consequences are the same, if anything lower on the doorstep (if viral load is as significant as some believe and/or they are adults drinking coffee but lets make it the same) but the likelyhood for school is sky high depending what tier you are in/incidence rate but increases exponentially.
One of these means sending a child into a closed place with known virus every day until they are told to self isolate with a high probability they won't even know if they have the virus and then being shut inside with them. OR Deciding when to pull the plug ...
Based on experience once it starts it grows faster than you can say "until this weekend"
From the first "we had a case" to "75% in self isolation was 2 weeks".
2 weeks before the end of term Jnr was in school... by the Tuesday we got an email about some kids being sent home (not specifying which ones) so I went back to the car and rushed home after being unable to contact him. (turned out his phone had died but it also turned out - I'm told that some/many of the kids told had no parents to pick them up and weren't allowed to leave until they did )
So for the next week and a bit till the end of term the numbers went from 30 in his class to 7.
We all (myself, him, his mother) fully expected him to be sent home to self isolate during which time his mother would still be teaching in her school.
The huge difference is I no longer care if I get the virus so long as I don't give it to someone else.
Objectively consequences are no different to riding... death or being unable to ride. Those are present every time I do drop, gap or jump.
Subjectively the risk likelyhood is probably much lower. (Maybe? )
Part of your risk assessment should include the point at which you pre-define the risk as too great. At which point will you plan to take them out of school (or not).
This is not being condescending but the way the virus spreads in schools won't leave you time to do this on the fly so some smart KPI's are a good idea (IMHO). Just as an example these could be as simple as 25% of the class/school are self isolating or over 50% or you can choose everything else permitting to send them into school if they are the only child in their year. Just decide BEFORE is my advice that you may take or not.
But they don’t have to chat on my effing doorstep, there’s tons of open space to do have a conversation and maintain their mental health!
Though that is true the difference in the risk is massive.
Unless/until you have done the "when we pull the plug" for school exercise then you have nothing to compare that to.
That may feel like it's something you can control but I very honestly think the risk is tiny if you sanitise the area and exercise care. I assume the postman is touching your letter box and the binmen touching your bins etc. In a similar way cars drive past and planes fly over but you aren't feeling anxious about them crashing into the house or a earthquake or meteor strike, a super volcano erupting or probably the most likely some accident going to/from school or maybe electrical fire in the home etc etc.
(Unless as a scientist you work for the near earth large body tracking in which case you may well lose many hours of sleep - that's only half humour)
So are you over worried about people outside ? Probably... is that perfectly normal at the moment Absolutely.
Just like when I was his age Jnr is worried about the human race when the sun starts to expand, and failing that when the universe stops expanding or we hit a giant black hole... he doesn't seem to worry too much about "what if I screw up this gap jump" or "what's the chance of being in a traffic accident driving to somewhere" or getting hit by a car on the way to school.
So sure, eventually the sun will begin to transform but everything we understand tells me Yellowstone or another supervolcano will blow first or we will be hit by a large meteorite and unless we cope with that the human race won't be here to worry.
I didn’t say that tradesmen should be in the highest priority groups. I DO think they should be a higher priority than people who are working at home/not working. Given that they are in and out of private houses all the time.
For them or for the people in the houses?
Sorry.. I'm nit-picking... but the two are quite different.
Along with the unofficial symptom of the pandemic of nit-picking there seems to be a pandemic of "emergencies" or at least people declaring something an emergency.
We had no heating and leaking heating and I could have said it was an emergency for the heating/boiler insurance.
It wasn't an emergency though and I've hamfistedly removed the kitchen radiator loop until such time as it's safe for a tradesperson to come and fix it as I don't think it's fair for a tradesperson to be sent to our home with 2 people in very high risk schools.
I suppose I should have taken the opportunity to try and get it done over XMAS after we had 2 weeks quarantined?
I’m beginning to think some of you are deliberately nitpicking my comments and wilfully missing the points I’m trying to make
It was a point I responded to as I can relate to it. No intent to annoy.
The front of my house is directly onto a public footpath (no road) and is on top of a hill in a small town overlooking the Firth of Forth. So we’ve had people all through the pandemic stop outside our front door to look at the view and chat including multiple family groups at once and so on.
It is a nice view tbf, could do with them taking their litter away.