We've done this 1 before, it's absolutely impossible for any opinion to be right or wrong even if 99% agree or disagree, 1% will agree or disagree, you will never ever get people agreeing 100% on anything that's a fact, regarding the crawl if ESSENTIAL items couldn't be sourced from 1 store I was well within my rights to source ESSENTIAL items from another store, you are clearly struggling here, to help you out please refer below.
That's an unhelpful attitude. As you accurately imply, there must be hundreds and thousands of different interpretations of government advice. In some aspects the government advice appears too strict, in other aspects it appears too lax. You, like so many other people, have made decisions of aspects of advice that can be ignored because they are too strict and other aspects where it is too lax and ought to be ignored by others.Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 1:52 pmYes, but will people will decide by priority that's the crux, no doubt familycat will be along shortly to berate me for my trips to the ESSENTIAL hardware stores, people who aren't showing any understanding of how the virus spread will be dimly viewed, it's my opinion that people choosing to fly at this moment in time are imbeciles that's my opinion whether you agree/disagree everybody's allowed 1.
Wasn’t it paint for a garden fence? I don’t really care that you went to a hardware store but you weren’t shopping for essential items. I just find it highly amusing that you refer to people as imbeciles for doing something far less imbecilic than you did.Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 2:19 pmWe've done this 1 before, it's absolutely impossible for any opinion to be right or wrong even if 99% agree or disagree, 1% will agree or disagree, you will never ever get people agreeing 100% on anything that's a fact, regarding the crawl if ESSENTIAL items couldn't be sourced from 1 store I was well within my rights to source ESSENTIAL items from another store, you are clearly struggling here, to help you out please refer below.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... /essential
Well 2 days to go and no air bridge yet. Annual insurance covers everything other than covid.UnderSeige wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 11:00 amA few points:
- Cases and fatalities in Portugal are much lower than the UK 3261 and 142 respectively. In the UK they are 4124 and 585.
- Have you considered travel insurance? Most policies exclude coronavirus. https://www.comparethemarket.com/travel ... ona-virus/
- If you end up in hospital in Portugal, as a result of coronavirus, you are likely to end up with an enormous bill if travel insurance doesn't cover you. Make sure you have a EHIC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44850972
- The gamble does not just affect you it is a gamble that involves the people/family travelling with you and also any person that you encounter during your holiday.
- Will the 'airport/plane risk' be lower than supermarket/work? Probably. It all depends on how good the safety factors are at your work. I think that supermarkets are one of the highest risk places to go. It only needs someone with the virus to cough and virus particles will remain in the air for around 3 hours. I listened to an interview with the CEO of Ryan Air the other day. He made the point that studies have shown that mask wearing by everyone in a building/plane reduces the spread of the virus by 90%
- Will the government lift the quarantine? It all depends on the whether the daily virus cases numbers continue to fall over the next month. There is currently a lot of reckless activity (protest marches, beaches, people acting like it's all over etc.) that should cause the virus to spread rapidly throughout the UK by the end of this month. If this doesn't happen it could indicate that something has happened to make the virus less contagious at least for now. Then the government are likely to lift a lot more restrictions - including quarantine of flight travellers. On the other hand, if the virus takes off again we are likely to be back in lockdown by August.
- You will be both helping and exploiting the holiday/airline companies and their employees. If you are getting the holiday at a third of the cost I hope you tip heavily. A lot of those employees will be very grateful
All these tests show that if someone sneezes right in your face (within inches) then a mask would stop the droplets and aerosols reaching you. What they don't look at is whether they are any protection if you are 1 metre (WHO guideline) or 2 metres away from the sneezer/cougher when it happens. That is why social distancing was implemented instead of masks. Masks were only designated for shopping when the government advisors tried to look for ways to reduce the economic impact on shops from the grumps who said they wouldn't go anywhere unless everyone was wearing masks. This government seems to be almost entirely run according to twitter and facebook trending issuesUnderSeige wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:39 amThere is no distinction between shops/supermarkets and any other indoor location. The main principle is that the virus will spread more easily in any indoor area. The more enclosed or cold the indoor area is the greater the transmissibility. This will be compounded in winter when people are coming in from the cold and wiping their runny noses and coughing more. The more ventilation and higher the ceiling the less transmissibility.
The time to implement wearing face masks is as soon as you realise they work. Better late than never. The evidence is that COVID-19 is still around and will quickly form clusters if given the right environment and not quickly dealt with. The seven day moving average for UK daily case rates has risen for the last five days. It has been around the 600 mark since July 6th. The government track and trace are dealing with over 100 local clusters per week. Without measures these would soon break out into communities (e.g. Leicester).
For the first time since the beginning of the pandemic the government has arrived at a reasonable 'containment policy'. Face masks, social distancing and track and trace are the bedrock of such a policy. The government app when/if it is available should make the policy even more effective.
We can't afford to go into a second lockdown and borrow money to pay people to do nothing for another three months.
I don't know of any particular evidence on supermarket/shops mask wearing. The evidence of general mask wearing is good enough. Masks will help stop virus particles in all locations - supermarket, shops, take away food joints, and any other location. There is no reason to suggest that they will work in a clothing retailer and not in a supermarket. That is illogical.
The Evidence
"Seven types of face masks were put to the test by the University of Edinburgh, including surgical masks, respirators, lightweight and heavy-duty face shields, and handmade masks.
Aside from those with a valve, all of the face coverings were found to reduce the forward distance travelled by an exhaled breath by at least 90%.
A study by Cambridge University says even basic homemade masks can reduce transmission - and could even help to prevent a second wave. It said population-wide use of masks would keep the COVID-19 reproduction number (R rate) below one.
An international report published in The Lancet, which analysed data from 172 studies in 16 countries, found that by wearing a face mask there is just a 3% chance of catching COVID-19.https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus- ... s-11931121
The UK government, the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the USA, have all shifted their position on wearing masks during the pandemic...Numerous studies have shown that wearing any type of face covering (not surgical grade, which should be left to medical staff) over the nose and mouth, can help in reducing spread of viral droplets when a person coughs or sneezes.
On 8 July, Oxford University's Leverhulme Centre for Demographic Science, published a study, with the message: "Cloth face coverings, even homemade masks made of the correct material, are effective in reducing the spread of COVID-19 - for the wearer and those around them" and warned "face masks and coverings work - act now". https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 17666.html
"Face coverings made compulsory after Oxford COVID-19 study inspires debate
OXFORD SCIENCE BLOG
14 Jul 2020
Face coverings in shops will be made compulsory from 24 July, and the prohibition may be extended to other indoor spaces. The move follows last week’s COVID-19 face coverings study from Oxford’s Leverhulme Centre for Demographic Science on behalf of the Royal Society and British Academy" https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/science-blog/ ... es-debate.
Countries that have used face masks from the beginning of the pandemic have had a small fraction of the cases and fatalities of those countries who have resisted face masks. They continue to use face masks even though their case rates are now almost zero (the fence at the top of the cliff rather than the ambulance down below).
Countries that have resisted face masks have been the worst affected by the pandemic. Even president Trump has now started to wear a mask in partial settings.
Those tests also don't test what happens if you lift your mask to sneeze.bfcmik wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 2:36 pmAll these tests show that if someone sneezes right in your face (within inches) then a mask would stop the droplets and aerosols reaching you. What they don't look at is whether they are any protection if you are 1 metre (WHO guideline) or 2 metres away from the sneezer/cougher when it happens. That is why social distancing was implemented instead of masks. Masks were only designated for shopping when the government advisors tried to look for ways to reduce the economic impact on shops from the grumps who said they wouldn't go anywhere unless everyone was wearing masks. This government seems to be almost entirely run according to twitter and facebook trending issues
I've already explained my reasoning why I've reached that conclusion, I don't have to & I don't wish to explain any further, there will be some issues we agree on & some issues we don't agree on, I don't have a problem with that that's life, opinions aren't right or wrong & like I've already said you will not get everybody agreeing all the time, only in rileybobs world opinions are right & wrong, it's absolutely impossible in every shape & form when people think & feel differently & clash for any definitive right or wrong to take place.dsr wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 2:24 pmThat's an unhelpful attitude. As you accurately imply, there must be hundreds and thousands of different interpretations of government advice. In some aspects the government advice appears too strict, in other aspects it appears too lax. You, like so many other people, have made decisions of aspects of advice that can be ignored because they are too strict and other aspects where it is too lax and ought to be ignored by others.
My problem with your attitude is that, having assessed the advice and decided where the government advice could be improved on, you then assess everyone that doesn't agree with you as "imbeciles". You see yourself as the all-knowing expert and everyone else as beneath contempt. What makes you so special?
It's my opinion that opinions can be right or wrong.Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 5:09 pmI've already explained my reasoning why I've reached that conclusion, I don't have to & I don't wish to explain any further, there will be some issues we agree on & some issues we don't agree on, I don't have a problem with that that's life, opinions aren't right or wrong & like I've already said you will not get everybody agreeing all the time, only in rileybobs world opinions are right & wrong, it's absolutely impossible in every shape & form when people think & feel differently & clash for any definitive right or wrong to take place.
Read up on the tests. You are wrong.bfcmik wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 2:36 pmAll these tests show that if someone sneezes right in your face (within inches) then a mask would stop the droplets and aerosols reaching you. What they don't look at is whether they are any protection if you are 1 metre (WHO guideline) or 2 metres away from the sneezer/cougher when it happens. That is why social distancing was implemented instead of masks. Masks were only designated for shopping when the government advisors tried to look for ways to reduce the economic impact on shops from the grumps who said they wouldn't go anywhere unless everyone was wearing masks. This government seems to be almost entirely run according to twitter and facebook trending issues
'Halt the inbound infection' + 'Everybody wears a mask + Track and trace = CONTAINMENT PLAN = Low case rates = low fatalities = No Lockdown.dsr wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 2:48 pmThose tests also don't test what happens if you lift your mask to sneeze.
Imagine people with hay fever or other non-coronavirus reasons to sneeze. Government advice, essentially, is to sneeze into a handkerchief wrapped tightly round your face and then leave it there after sneezing. Do people really do that? Or do they lift the mask and sneeze into a handkerchief and/or hand, as before?
It's very easy to go round in circles with this 1 as it's impossible to determine if your opinion is right or wrong, I'm saying there's no such thing as opinions being right or wrong, ok then we'll run with your idea that opinions "can be right or wrong" so on that basis who decides what's right & what's wrong? Somebody needs to to establish whether the opinion is right or wrong, do you see where I'm coming from now
If an opinion is a fact then it is not an opinion any longer. Just saying, like.
A balance has to be struck between the economic suicide caused by lockdown, when we are already in the early stages of the economic suicide voted for back in 2016, and the health needs of the nation. Who is paying for the lockdown? Eventually some people have to go out and earn the UK some cash to keep buying the things we need to function as a developed economy.UnderSeige wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 6:23 pm'Halt the inbound infection' + 'Everybody wears a mask + Track and trace = CONTAINMENT PLAN = Low case rates = low fatalities = No Lockdown.
Add vaccine when available = SUCCESS
Let virus run it's course + No masks = NO CONTAINMENT PLAN =High case rates = High fatalities =Lockdown = Economic Suicide
Add vaccine when available = Why didn't we use a containment policy until vaccine? =FAILURE
This is why taking your family abroad this summer was not a good idea. Have to say, it is no surprise whatsoever. If someone does not self isolate on return and infects someone else, then they deserve to be sued imo.
And if an opinion is proved to be wrong, it is still an opinion.
I agree.summitclaret wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 7:21 pmThis is why taking your family abroad this summer was not a good idea. Have to say, it is no surprise whatsoever. If someone does not self isolate on return and infects someone else, then they deserve to be sued imo.
True. Idiots.
Right or wrong isn’t always a matter of fact though. Things can be morally right or wrong.
Okay, but if they don't self isolate for14 days when told to on return you agree that they are idiots?Rileybobs wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 7:40 pmRight or wrong isn’t always a matter of fact though. Things can be morally right or wrong.
So if I hold the opinion that women and men and should have equal rights, for example, then that would be right. But that isn’t a fact and some people will be of the opinion that men and women shouldn’t have equal rights.
By the same logic, someone who holds the opinion that everyone who chooses to travel on a plane is an idiot or a chav is wrong.
If they’re flying back from a country that requires them to self isolate, and they don’t, then there’s a case to make that they’re an idiot. But there may be factors preventing someone from being able to self isolate so I wouldn’t throw a blanket statement at everyone who doesn’t. But this is all irrelevant as I am discussing people being labelled idiots and chavs for going on holiday.summitclaret wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 7:43 pmOkay, but if they don't self isolate for14 days when told to on return you agree that they are idiots?
My ex is taking our daughter to Spain at the end of August, along with her parents.
It's not an opinion if it's proved to be wrong.TheFamilyCat wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 7:31 pmAnd if an opinion is proved to be wrong, it is still an opinion.
So it's possible for an opinion to be right or wrong.
Lockdown was stupid. True it was economic suicide. What caused the lockdown? Answer lack of a 'containment plan'. What was the real 'stupid'? Lack of a 'containment plan'.bfcmik wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 7:21 pmA balance has to be struck between the economic suicide caused by lockdown, when we are already in the early stages of the economic suicide voted for back in 2016, and the health needs of the nation. Who is paying for the lockdown? Eventually some people have to go out and earn the UK some cash to keep buying the things we need to function as a developed economy.
That's a good point. How are they going to police it? Will 'Track and Trace' officials carry out random visits to their homes?
When someone changes an opinion in the light of new information they have integrity.TheFamilyCat wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 7:31 pmAnd if an opinion is proved to be wrong, it is still an opinion.
So it's possible for an opinion to be right or wrong.
Or possibly something to hide is probably more accurate, you often change tact to avoid embarrassment & further yourself away from what was originally wrong!UnderSeige wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 8:42 pmWhen someone changes an opinion in the light of new information they have integrity.
Could be. Especially if the person denies having the wrong opinion in the first place. Or more likely spins the original opinion to be something different than it was.Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 10:31 pmOr possibly something to hide is probably more accurate, you often change tact to avoid embarrassment & further yourself away from what was originally wrong!
Agreed. Does seem strange you would let people fly out to a place with a spike in cases and hope they quarantine on their return!!GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 7:54 pmMy ex is taking our daughter to Spain at the end of August, along with her parents.
I can't see them self isolating for 2weeks upon their return
If the government is concerned enough to remove Spain from the safe list then they'd be better off putting a no fly thing in place to enable people to get their money back for holidays etc.
TUI and Easyjet are cancelling all flights to mainland Spain AND all the islands including the Canary Islands which are nowhere near Spain.
Agree in the main, regarding starting playing football behind closed doors & making a mistake, I wouldn't say you have, the resumption hasn't been a success or a disaster it just simply recontinued I wouldn't exactly describe it as a overwhelming success nor a failure, & underestimating the viruses potency I don't think you was alone with that 1, when you've got a Chinese doctor whistleblowing & then suddenly dying, alarm bells start ringing for some switched on people.UnderSeige wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 10:56 pmCould be. Especially if the person denies having the wrong opinion in the first place. Or more likely spins the original opinion to be something different than it was.
The integrity one is where someone admits they were wrong and then, in the light of the new information, changes their mind. E.g. at the start of the pandemic I thought the virus was no more than the flue and only affected a small part of the population. I totally disregarded the exponential growth aspect until I started listening to Chris Martensons then daily talks.
I also thought it was a mistake to start football behind closed doors. Again completely wrong.
Another recent example was Borris Johnson admitting that, back in March, they hadn't realised the severity of the problem. I guess he was busy sorting out the 'floods crises' at the time but at least he now admits it.
Maybe if Johnson had bothered to attended the Cobra meetings he might have grasped the severity of the problem,just a thoughtUnderSeige wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 10:56 pmCould be. Especially if the person denies having the wrong opinion in the first place. Or more likely spins the original opinion to be something different than it was.
The integrity one is where someone admits they were wrong and then, in the light of the new information, changes their mind. E.g. at the start of the pandemic I thought the virus was no more than the flue and only affected a small part of the population. I totally disregarded the exponential growth aspect until I started listening to Chris Martensons then daily talks.
I also thought it was a mistake to start football behind closed doors. Again completely wrong.
Another recent example was Borris Johnson admitting that, back in March, they hadn't realised the severity of the problem. I guess he was busy sorting out the 'floods crises' at the time but at least he now admits it.
That’s not an example of integrity it’s an example of arrogance and rank stupidity. A brief look to Europe and specifically Italy and Spain showed how severe this was and that’s assuming you’ve ignored China because ‘they’ll eat anything that moves over there’.UnderSeige wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 10:56 pmAnother recent example was Borris Johnson admitting that, back in March, they hadn't realised the severity of the problem. I guess he was busy sorting out the 'floods crises' at the time but at least he now admits it.
It was a bad misjudgement at the time (very bad) and if you look at some of my posts I have been extremely critical of the government. The 'integrity' is that he now admits he was wrong and has changed policy accordingly. We now have a containment plan of sorts.martin_p wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 12:10 amThat’s not an example of integrity it’s an example of arrogance and rank stupidity. A brief look to Europe and specifically Italy and Spain showed how severe this was and that’s assuming you’ve ignored China because ‘they’ll eat anything that moves over there’.
Arguably the government should have used its own pandemic plan that was adopted by those countries who dealt with it best instead of ignoring it. I don’t have the link, but those countries who experienced pandemics recently relied upon British expertise in pandemic planning, but our government ignored them.UnderSeige wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 8:36 pm
Was it all the governments fault?
Not entirely. It was probably due to lack of 'pandemic experience' and bad guidance from the WHO as much as the governments fault. The UK had not seen the likes of this pandemic for a hundred years.
What did governments do who had recent 'pandemic experience'? Put their pre-prepared containment plan's into immediate effect with lightening speed and strong force. What did these containment plans consist of?
'Halt the inbound infection' + 'Everybody wears a mask + Track and trace.
Did it work? Yes. Some of the countries didn't even need to go into lockdown.