Forum menu
Which it has. I imagine all thats are in school now are looked after kids, ones with a protection order on, or key workers. Even today gov said any key workers who can do their job from home (ie phycologist) their kids should be home too.
I'm classed as a key worker, ha e a letter & everything
I'm not tho, my kids are homeschooling
Our primary have just now emailed to say they have an outbreak among key worker kids
My colleagues also just tested +ve
So I'm isolating now😩 Managed to get the last home delivery slot on tesco just now!
I doubt it’s exercise outside thats contributing to transmission
Not the point (and I agree), we need a very simple message that's easy to enforce, the population as a whole cant risk assess effectively.
Some us are are weak and not as strong as you and have gone to the pub with friends
Exactly why we need a tough, simple, time limited lockdown. Relying on people to do the right thing, follow guidance and exercise common sense clearly hasn't worked. Thanks for validating my point by sharing your own inability to control your own actions and protect others so you could indulge yourself.
Exactly why we need a tough, simple, time limited lockdown. Relying on people to do the right thing, follow guidance and exercise common sense clearly hasn’t worked. Thanks for validating my point by sharing your own inability to control your own actions and protect others so you could indulge yourself.
You really didn't read what i said so i will bold it so further people don't feel the need to jump to the wrong conclusions or you... again.
Some us are are weak and not as strong as you (that was sarcasm, maybe i should have said hardheaded/capa tosta) and have gone to the pub with friends, (when allowed) or driven for exercise (when allowed),
If i am ALLOWED to go to the pub under GUIDANCE and LAW your opinion on those matters doesn't matter. One minute people moan rules are not being followed then the rules are followed and people still moan! You can't have it both ways. Your version of the rules / guidance imposed upon yourself are for you do not bemoan others if they don't follow your rules.
Exactly why we need a tough, simple, time limited lockdown. Relying on people to do the right thing, follow guidance and exercise common sense clearly hasn’t worked.
Well, it hasn't worked as well as it needs to, so I can't see an alternative unless people really want this to drag on even longer, with all the additional deaths, mental health crises and economic damage that entails
Hancock floating tougher restrictions today was testing the media reaction.
middle of the week for an announcement I reckon.
It's definitely coming. I work in construction and I'd say 90%+ of the people on sites don't give a shit about restrictions
TL;DR -- What will the tougher restrictions be?
TL;DR — What we the tougher restrictions be?
Unless its everyone gets chained to their sofa with a time activated lock to allow us an hours exercise a day (although some will argue thats still too much time) a few people here will not be happy.
Takeaways.
Click and Collect.
Some manufacturing.
Construction.
No meeting up with anyone while outside.
Professional sport
Some of these were more restricted last March/April
a few people here will not be happy
Any chance you could stop this Joe? For the good of us all, including yourself. You’re angry with people for things they haven’t said. It must get tiring.
Any chance you could stop
Happy to you if you can explain to me why its acceptable for other to make comments like below, but not me?
your own inability to control your own actions and protect others so you could indulge yourself.
As you quoted someone, they can speak for themselves. Where as you are shouting at clouds. Discussion doesn’t work when you are claiming that “some people” won’t be happy unless we’re physically restrained in our homes. Who? What did they say that led you to jump to this?
As you quoted someone, they can speak for themselves. Where as you are shouting at clouds. Discussion doesn’t work when you are claiming that “some people” won’t be happy unless we’re physically restrained in our homes. Who? What did they say that led you to jump to this?
I dont actively participate in this thread much but I do read it, and although nobody has said word for word what Joe said, you can feel the sentiment is there.
I agree with that.
I posted that in direct response to
Some us are are weak and not as strong as you and have gone to the pub with friends
So by your own admission you are unable to control your own actions. Tryinģ to come back in a later post claiming sarcasm is a pretty pathetic attemt to back pedal.
Extra restrictions are not going to help at this stage. Apart from on here i see no appetite for the general public to restrict themselves any further.
you can feel the sentiment is there
The sentiment that people should be physically restrained in their homes? Interesting what some people read into stuff.
Say who has this “sentiment” and then they can reply, and say if they meant that, or want it, or would accept it. I one have not, do not, and would not.
So by your own admission you are unable to control your own actions. Tryinģ to come back in a later post claiming sarcasm is a pretty pathetic attemt to back pedal.
Going to the pub with friends, when allowed, or travelling for exercise when allowed is hardly lacking self control is it? Gov guidelines said it's was allowed. Saying unable to control my actions doesn't even make sense. I was in full control of my actions when I legally went to the pub.
If that is classed as a lack of self control then God help us all. I'm done.
Maybe im too soft but all this stuff sounds pretty extreme. And not a world I want to live in. The idea that people need papers to leave their house and furloughed workers are “trained up” to work for free sounds mad.
Well I don't want to live in the current world but I have no choice. We are in an extreme situation right now and that calls for extreme measures, measures that have been done in other countries already. It's far easier (and probably easier for the general public to stomach) to go to full lockdown them ease restrictions back as we can than the current mess of tiers that change every week and just confuse the crap out of everyone leading to the current apathy we have now.
Judging by the rumours coming out in the press (as usual) we're about to have tougher restrictions announced. Be far better to jump ahead a few steps now than have further restrictions announced at the end of January when the figures start to show we didn't go far enough.
Kelvin.
This winter is going to be very grim, that is already unavoidable. But it could still be far worse, most people understand that, and are doing the right thing already. More would, if they could be persuaded that their own actions really matter right now, rather than pointing at what others are doing.
I agree, we are now testing what a functioning, caring society means to most of us right now. Most people are genuinely trying to do their best as awful as all this is.
To be honest, further restrictions will make the decisions for themselves. In a worst case, current lockdown fails to limit contagion, admissions continue to rise, and healthcare takes a downward trend. At that point further restrictions will come into place naturally.
As it happens, there is some crumb of comfort that the ONS survey data and ZOE app symptoms suggest London cases may be close to peak. If admissions peak in the south east this week, that would be very encouraging.
Like speeding, people’s behaviour is most modified by likelihood of being caught. If the perceived likelihood of being infected leads to a bad outcome, people will bah be differently. Sad but true.
Extra restrictions are not going to help at this stage. Apart from on here i see no appetite for the general public to restrict themselves any further.
If extra restrictions won't help, then we really are in for a terrible time.
I know of no one actually wanting more restrictions, I know an awful lot who are resigned to it being necessary.
I know of no one actually wanting more restrictions
I know of no one actually wanting ANY restrictions. They’re shit. We hate them. We rage against them. They depress us. They limit us. They are needed, for now.
I know of no one actually wanting more restrictions, I know an awful lot who are resigned to it being necessary.
Plenty on here seem to want people to follow the guidance rather than the law. I'd say that's a lot more restrictive.
I know of no one actually wanting ANY restrictions
It's quite clear you want extra restrictions. If you truly believe they are needed then that is the same thing as 'wanting' then but dtressed up in a different way. Saying you need it but dont want it - well the outcome is the same so...
With the whole guidance/law thing, what's the legality of the covid fines? I read somewhere about Derbyshire Police up to their old trigger-happy habits and fining a couple of women for drinking coffee or something. What's the best practice with defending these? If I get slapped with one in the morning whilst putting the bin out, is it best to not provide details? Or accept it and take it to court?
Take it to court, there is absolutely zero chance of it being upheld (if it's like the two Derbyshire women that is, because they didnt break any laws).
Of course if you actually do break the law, not the guidance, then you should expect to pay the fine.
If I get slapped with one in the morning whilst putting the bin out, is it best to not provide details? Or accept it and take it to court?
putting the bins out somewhere other than outside your house is generally considered fly tipping... 😉
One in five people in England may have had coronavirus, new modelling suggests, equivalent to 12.4 million people, rising to almost one in two in some areas.
”modelling suggests”
Im sure a few on here have some comment on this.
modelling suggests”
I’ve said it many times. Infection rate is driven by the product of contact rate and probability of being susceptible. Hence tweezing apart the effects of contacts from those of immunity has been problematic and subject to dogma. Some want to believe that lockdowns have done what was anticipated (contacts), others that there was preexisting and acquired immunity (fewer susceptibles) that led to the epidemic being largely over (in October, apparently).
Well it is not over, and a new strain has amplified just how “not over”. And past immunity seems to be well-correlated with serology. So that 20% is probably a reasonable upper bound. Lower in many parts of the country, higher in parts of London and the South East. We are a long way from hers immunity.
If the new infections are mainly within the younger working population and the vaccinations are being given to the older population. Is there a chance that these two together could see cases suddenly drop and an end to this sooner than we think.
Probably just being hopeful
Another day of delivering food around the Greater Manchester area....Oldham and Rochdale were both so busy on the roads....was in City Centre to finish the evening....dead by comparison.....how the hell most of the businesses there are going to survive I'll never know.
In store lots of staff absence....and without wanting to sound like too much of a ****....a small but significant proportion of people working there don't have the intelligence to understand and adhere to the'Covid secure' guidelines.
Oh well....a day off tomorrow, then 3 days of teaching guitar remotely, at least my house is fairly 'Covid secure'!
Saying you need it but dont want it – well the outcome is the same so…
What I want doesn’t set policy, or guidance, I have no say over the outcome whatsoever.
I also don’t personally need the protection that policy and guidance seeks to provide.
I don’t want any restrictions, I can see that they are obviously required, for the sake of others.
Plenty on here seem to want people to follow the guidance rather than the law. I’d say that’s a lot more restrictive.
The thing I find most ironic, is that it is the people who think that the epidemic guidance isn’t for them that are pushing our politicians into a position where the law may need to be tightened, because of their behaviour… and they will be the people complaining loudest if that has to happen. I hope it does not come to that, it shouldn’t be necessary… the law can be a blunt tool… laws made in haste in the face of an emergency even more so.
So that 20% is probably a reasonable upper bound. Lower in many parts of the country, higher in parts of London and the South East. We are a long way from hers immunity.
Don't we know that by back calc, not needing major modelling? I'm sure I have read on here somewhere that IFR is between 0.5 and 1%
We are REPORTING 3.1M cases and 81K deaths = 2.7%
But 81K deaths means between 8.1-16.2M cases for those two rates, against a 67M population = 12-24%
the sentiment is there.
agree. it might not be how you mean to come across...
= 12-24%
12%… 20%… 24%… it doesn’t matter… new cases, hospitalisations and deaths are higher than ever. Past cases are not resulting in low enough transmission and few enough occurrences of serious disease, at this point… and proceeding, for the next few weeks, if not months, as if they won’t do soon (if ever) is required.
it might not be how you mean to come across…
There is no “sentiment” from me about physically locking people in their homes. I know they did this is China, but I never want to see it here. I haven’t seen any other poster say they want this to happen either. I am being clear enough now?
The two women in Derbyshire is all a bit fishy. The photos are copyright of one of them. Did they have a 3rd person or was it a staged photo on a timer so they could be 2m apart and looking sad?
Something doesn't quite add up and I don't mean overzealous police
At a guess, went back to get shots once they realised there was press interest in the story.
Yes I thought exactly the same about the photo.
The thing I find most ironic, is that it is the people who think that the epidemic guidance isn’t for them that are pushing our politicians into a position where the law may need to be tightened, because of their behaviour… and they will be the people complaining loudest if that has to happen. I hope it does not come to that, it shouldn’t be necessary… the law can be a blunt tool… laws made in haste in the face of an emergency even more so.
I don't think there should be restrictions, but understand that society won't accept the level of deaths I will. If further restrictions become law I'll unwillingly follow them but the public usually look to guidance to indicate what the law allows rather than reading the legislation. This governments general disregard for the law is again shown in how far away the guidance is from the actual law. If they actually wanted to pass laws through parliament (rather than use statutory instruments) they'd have no problem with the help of Labour putting the restrictions that the guidance suggests into law.
Don’t we know that by back calc, not needing major modelling? I’m sure I have read on here somewhere that IFR is between 0.5 and 1%
We are REPORTING 3.1M cases and 81K deaths = 2.7%
But 81K deaths means between 8.1-16.2M cases for those two rates, against a 67M population = 12-24%
The IFR is likely even lower. The high death rate is in part due to the release of infected patients back to care homes and lack of appropriate PPE. This will also skew the average age of death.
So you are one of those basically saying that unless it’s law, you won’t help as regards the medical emergency? That is exactly the attitude that could result in us getting rushed stupid laws to have to adhere to, rather than civilly just trying our best to follow the guidance.
The IFR is likely even lower. The high death rate is in part due to the release of infected patients back to care homes and lack of appropriate PPE. This will also skew the average age of death.
Our mistakes as regards care homes and PPE early on, as serious as they were, would only effect the IFR in this country… we can look to other countries to see that we’re not a statistical outlier.
What exactly is a “proper lockdown”
As I've said before - Melbourne/Victoria is a great example of what a "full lockdown" is - and it worked very well indeed. Can't be bothered to explain it again - it's well documented, as are lockdowns in other countries which were successful. The Melbourne one is much more interesting than NZ etc, as the virus had spread pretty widely before they instigated it, and managed to drag the city/state back from already being over the edge of the precipice.
The situation in the UK is much, much worse (obviously) - but, trying not to sound too trite about it, no further restriction is going to work unless the UK leadership can unite everybody in pursuit of the same goal. THAT is the major obstacle - the continuing failure of the UK government to engage people sufficiently towards this common goal
My Mum's neighbor (Farnham) caught it just before Christmas at a spinning class. A SPINNING CLASS! Never has an activity been better suited to spreading covid than a ****ing spinning class! Now I have no doubt that the gym was operating within the letter of the law - but even if the law allows for a spinning class to take place, why in the name of bloody hell would a gym actually run one?!? And even if your gym was running a spinning class.... why would you bloody go to it?
Having said that - I have spoken to friends who, like some on here: despite being classified as essential workers, have elected to keep their kids at home, because its the right thing to do.
If ever there was a super spreading event it’s a spinning class. Forty infections in one class in Canada!
As for guidance and law. Well Cummings hasn’t helped, but I still believe that clear instruction with reasonable communication of likely consequences will see people do the right thing. Certainly 4/5ths maybe more. People are too detached from the consequences at this point. I’ve said before, if this was Ebola, we would be locking the doors from the inside!
Anyway, a few seeds of hope in the south regarding cases and ONS prevalence. Give it a week for admissions and two for deaths to flatten and turn down. Provided we don’t go too silly. Lockdowns work. But they are not like slamming the disc brakes on your mountain bike. Think more steel rims, rubber blocks. rod connectors and raining.
If ever there was a super spreading event it’s a spinning class. Forty infections in one class in Canada!
I know - I couldn't believe it. Yes, all twenty people in the room have tested positive. It caused me to swear in front of my mother.
Well Cummings hasn’t helped, but I still believe that clear instruction with reasonable communication of likely consequences will see people do the right thing
I agree. Much like what happened at the US capitol last week was the inevitable consequence of Trump's rhetoric, I feel like the UKs current Covid situation (clinging-on by it's fingernails whist the vaccine desperately gets rolled-out) is the inevitable outcome of such poor leadership, and amongst the worst examples I can think of in terms of communication with the public. I don't have any time for people claiming "well Dominic went to Barnard Castle, so why shouldn't I do XYZ?" but that debacle was indicative of the Government's unwillingness to do something that would be even mildly inconvenient to it's own self-interest. It's now been replaced in peoples minds with the situation regarding schools - even on here you hear "what's the point while the schools are still open...?"
Agreed, if covid caused you to bleed to death through your arsehole, people wouldn't be complaining about having to forgo pilates with Janet on a Tuesday, or not being able to go to bluewater for the boxing day sales. It's the mundane ("It's just a bad flu!"), slow-rolling nature of this crisis that has lulled people into acting like it's not a full-blown emergency.