Pimlico_Claret wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:04 am

They already have - grouse shooting!

And football, and cricket, did you forget those?

Granny WeatherWax wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:32 am

Looks like we are possibly heading towards some form of national measures again, so not only are the selfish people who won’t follow the rules risking spreading the virus they also now risking our liberties again.

Trouble is the dine out scheme and getting people back to work are as much to blame. It's simply impossible not to spread the virus in an office or pub regardless of guidelines put in place.

Granny WeatherWax wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:32 am

Looks like we are possibly heading towards some form of national measures again, so not only are the selfish people who won’t follow the rules risking spreading the virus they also now risking our liberties again.

Its overly simplistic to blame people 'not following the rules'. The virus is gonna virus, very little you can do to prevent it in the modern world and the way it works.

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/n ... ry-school/


There are some though that don't help themselves

dushanbe wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:50 am

Its overly simplistic to blame people 'not following the rules'. The virus is gonna virus, very little you can do to prevent it in the modern world and the way it works.

People breaking the rules is not going to help though.

Spijed wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:46 am

Trouble is the dine out scheme and getting people back to work are as much to blame. It's simply impossible not to spread the virus in an office or pub regardless of guidelines put in place.

Breaking the rules outside of 'Covid Secure' establishments though will likely spread the virus more.

Some people just dont care.

andyh wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:23 am

For me masks-good lockdown-bad.

It's a vast, constantly changing subject.. but I'd largely agree with that.

Granny WeatherWax wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:54 am

People breaking the rules is not going to help though.

It depends if the rules are arbitrary.

The logic to tackling this has been wrong from the outset IMO.
It's been all about "beating" the virus, but I don't think there's any scientific or historic evidence to suggest that you can "beat" a virus.
The policy needs to be all about management. Hence the initial lockdown to take pressure off the NHS was fine, but since then, the government should have been encouraging us to get back to normal so far as possible, but with a much better track and trace, and many control measures in place.
So far as I see it, we can keep locking down for the next few years, but every time there is a relaxation, (like children returning to school) then numbers will rise, so how long do people want to continue in this cycle?
Basically if we continue in this pattern for another two or three years, then there'll be virtually nothing left to come back to. As one example, how many football clubs will survive even this season if they've no gate receipts? ....and that's mirrored across the hospitality, leisure, travel and arts industry.

What's the point of reintroducing lockdown? So we can spend another six months in a fantasy land of borrowing money which we can't repay to pay people who can't do their jobs, so we can continue to leave children without education, so old people can continue to die alone, and all so that in 6 motnhs time we can still be where we are now?

One thing is clear. Lockdown hasn't worked. We're no better off now, they tell us, from where we were 6 months ago. And no doubt if we have another lockdown, in 6 months time we will be still there.

What is the government's plan? For that matter, what is the government's ambition? Are they trying to eradicate the virus? Are they saying hide in our burrows until the vaccine arrives, however long it takes? Are they saying learn to live with it? What are we hoping for?

nil_desperandum wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:01 am

Basically if we continue in this pattern for another two or three years, then there'll be virtually nothing left to come back to.

Aye. Unfortunately if you raise this, you'll get swamped with wails of 'what about that one person who died yesterday?.. what about his family?'. As if that trumps everything. People's quality of life, their mental health, their overall health, their kid's futures and just the simple day-to-day joys of living all count for a lot. We make calculations every day on risk and benefits which ultimately cost lives but overall we believe are worth it.

Stop the NHS from being overwhelmed is right. Try and stop anyone from dying from one particular virus has become a bit of a cult.

dushanbe wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:55 am

It depends if the rules are arbitrary.

Go on then, I'll bite.....
If the rules ARE arbitrary - how does disobeying them help the health of the nation?

Dougall wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 11:05 am

Go on then, I'll bite.....
If the rules ARE arbitrary - how does disobeying them help the health of the nation?

No no no. The assertion was that the virus is being spread because of people ‘breaking the rules’, I said it’s more complex than that. If the virus is going to spread in-spite if the rules then following them or not makes no difference - what if we’ve got the wrong rules, for example?

conyoviejo wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 17, 2020 7:57 pm

Anybody had their Flu Jab yet ?

Getting ours next Wednesday

dushanbe wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 11:45 am

No no no. The assertion was that the virus is being spread because of people ‘breaking the rules’, I said it’s more complex than that. If the virus is going to spread in-spite if the rules then following them or not makes no difference - what if we’ve got the wrong rules, for example?

People also have the assumption that if they follow the rules they can’t get it or pass it on. I believe that’s how the vast majority of people think.

Dyched wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 12:10 pm

People also have the assumption that if they follow the rules they can’t get it or pass it on. I believe that’s how the vast majority of people think.

I don't think people are as stupid as you think. Perhaps more likely is the scenario of someone who actually knows that he isn't allowed to visit his elederly mother who lives alone but he is allowed to spend all night in the pub, and thinks that the rule isn't going to stop the spread so why should be follow it.

NottsClaret wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:08 am

Aye. Unfortunately if you raise this, you'll get swamped with wails of 'what about that one person who died yesterday?.. what about his family?'. As if that trumps everything. People's quality of life, their mental health, their overall health, their kid's futures and just the simple day-to-day joys of living all count for a lot. We make calculations every day on risk and benefits which ultimately cost lives but overall we believe are worth it.

Stop the NHS from being overwhelmed is right. Try and stop anyone from dying from one particular virus has become a bit of a cult.

Notts has nailed it. This is the biggest issue and the one the Government simply cannot get away from. The first time Boris said "family members will die" he got absolutely pilloried by the media. Any mention of any form of herd immunity had Dominic Cummings depicted as Pol Pot.

In the early days the obsession with care homes, deaths in hospices needing to be counted etc showed that any death, regardless of the circumstances was deemed to be unacceptable.

Now, whilst the Govt may want to crack on and encourage the risk they simply can't because the knives will be out at the first sign of any increased death rate.

The focus now simply needs to shift away from where it is or the future is very bleak indeed.

so the new guidance - Lancashire, cant mix with people outside of your households in private home or garden, pubs closing at 10pm.

greater Manchester, where i live, guidance unchanged which is we cant mix with people outside of our households full stop, but pubs don't have to close early.

no wonder people aren't taking it seriously when there is so much differing guidance.

dsr wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 12:46 pm

I don't think people are as stupid as you think. Perhaps more likely is the scenario of someone who actually knows that he isn't allowed to visit his elederly mother who lives alone but he is allowed to spend all night in the pub, and thinks that the rule isn't going to stop the spread so why should be follow it.

It’ll certainly stop it spreading to his elderly mother!

Granny WeatherWax wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 12:49 pm

so the new guidance - Lancashire, cant mix with people outside of your households in private home or garden, pubs closing at 10pm.

greater Manchester, where i live, guidance unchanged which is we cant mix with people outside of our households full stop, but pubs don't have to close early.

no wonder people aren't taking it seriously when there is so much differing guidance.

And it looks like the Golden Mile has been protected by its high number of cash tills.

NottsClaret wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:08 am

Aye. Unfortunately if you raise this, you'll get swamped with wails of 'what about that one person who died yesterday?.. what about his family?'. As if that trumps everything. People's quality of life, their mental health, their overall health, their kid's futures and just the simple day-to-day joys of living all count for a lot. We make calculations every day on risk and benefits which ultimately cost lives but overall we believe are worth it.

Stop the NHS from being overwhelmed is right. Try and stop anyone from dying from one particular virus has become a bit of a cult.

But hospital admissions are doubling on a weekly basis. If we do nothing the NHS will soon be overwhelmed!

Another thing, what are people so surprised that certain industries get protected?

I have seen multiple comments like "my mum's house doesn't have a till"......well yes! The economy can't take all the heat and the government have said multiple times it is about balancing the risk so allowing certain things to protect the economy may be at the expense of other areas etc.

We are just cogs in the capitalist machine. We are all expendable, none of us are special.

dsr wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:04 am

What's the point of reintroducing lockdown? So we can spend another six months in a fantasy land of borrowing money which we can't repay to pay people who can't do their jobs, so we can continue to leave children without education, so old people can continue to die alone, and all so that in 6 motnhs time we can still be where we are now?

One thing is clear. Lockdown hasn't worked. We're no better off now, they tell us, from where we were 6 months ago. And no doubt if we have another lockdown, in 6 months time we will be still there.

What is the government's plan? For that matter, what is the government's ambition? Are they trying to eradicate the virus? Are they saying hide in our burrows until the vaccine arrives, however long it takes? Are they saying learn to live with it? What are we hoping for?

Not read the rest of the thread but this will be the best post. Absolutely true that we need to know what the Government’s strategy is, what it’s hoping to achieve, and by when? What we have at the moment is a farce.

If the vaccine is on the way, and we have a date in mind, I’m fine with a “suppression” tactic until then. I am told that the chance of an effective vaccine is pretty slim though. In which case, we really need to start considering the other options.

ClaretAndJew wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 1:13 pm

We are just cogs in the capitalist machine. We are all expendable, none of us are special.

I’d argue there’s a few special folk on here.

Dyched wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 12:10 pm

People also have the assumption that if they follow the rules they can’t get it or pass it on. I believe that’s how the vast majority of people think.

Pretty much the point I'm making. The virus doesn't know the rules

little point imposing new rules when most aren't bothering listening anyway. buses , shops, hardly anyone wearing masks.
People are dim beyond belief. most have chosen to disregard ALL the advice on social distancing. government cant legislate for idiots

Wile E Coyote wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 1:29 pm

little point imposing new rules when most aren't bothering listening anyway. buses , shops, hardly anyone wearing masks.
People are dim beyond belief. most have chosen to disregard ALL the advice on social distancing. government cant legislate for idiots

I think 'most' are complying to be fair. In my experience anyway.

Wile E Coyote wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 1:29 pm

little point imposing new rules when most aren't bothering listening anyway. buses , shops, hardly anyone wearing masks.
People are dim beyond belief. most have chosen to disregard ALL the advice on social distancing. government cant legislate for idiots

Since the mask thing came in, people have ignored social distancing because they think the mask is the alternative. I’ve noticed a huge difference when in tesco once a week over the past 4/5/6 weeks. Especially since the arrows on the floor and queuing for the checkouts stopped.

I really don’t understand it. Even the term “social distancing”, okay I get it if your at the pub with friends etc. But even in normal circumstances, there is no reason whatsoever for strangers to be within 1 metre of another person. To even have to repeat that over and over to people shows how *thick people are.

*I’ll let you replace that word with your elegant ranting vocabulary Wile.

The virus must have mutated in London. No sign of local lockdown there. Or is it that Londoners have sussed out that they can avoid lockdown by avoiding having tests done. How very dare they!

So last time we had these restrictions schools were closed.
What happens now about me picking up the grandchildren from school and looking after them for a couple (or three) hours?
Can I take them to my home? Can I take them to theirs? Do we simply drive around for all that time if it's raining? Do we sit in a pub car park and have their parents pick them up from our car from there?
Do their parents finish work early to pick them up?

dsr wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 12:46 pm

I don't think people are as stupid as you think. Perhaps more likely is the scenario of someone who actually knows that he isn't allowed to visit his elederly mother who lives alone but he is allowed to spend all night in the pub, and thinks that the rule isn't going to stop the spread so why should be follow it.

I understand that point.

If people follow the rules correctly they’ll sanitise before entering the pub, keep apart from people, sanitise every so often, wash hands entering and exiting the toilets and then sanitise leaving the pub. Now I know that won’t and hasn’t happened. Staff should also be regularly cleaning, wiping the tables and surfaces people touch.

The difference then with going to someones house is they won’t sanitise entering, surfaces won’t be cleaned as often as social venues, people won’t sanitise leaving and then there’s the issue of social distancing from your loved one which is far more difficult to do.

nil_desperandum wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 1:38 pm

So last time we had these restrictions schools were closed.
What happens now about me picking up the grandchildren from school and looking after them for a couple (or three) hours?
Can I take them to my home? Can I take them to theirs? Do we simply drive around for all that time if it's raining? Do we sit in a pub car park and have their parents pick them up from our car from there?
Do their parents finish work early to pick them up?

Go t’pub and get rat arsed.

Dyched wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 1:39 pm

Go t’pub and get rat arsed.

Children not allowed in pubs a present I don't think.

Can't see us going back on the football anytime this season.

Mala591 wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 1:35 pm

The virus must have mutated in London. No sign of local lockdown there.

It might all change in a week or two but maybe it's down to the virus running wild there for longer first time round. Similar to Sweden now, the second wave can't be as high in places where it was most severe first time. Appreciate it's best not to mention h**d i******y, but even at 18% antibody prevalence in London, it must have an effect on spread this time.

nil_desperandum wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 1:41 pm

Children not allowed in pubs a present I don't think.

Lambrini and the park it is then

Dyched wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 1:45 pm

Lambrini and the park it is then

My Lambrini's off the road I'm afraid.

I am due to fly to Poland tomorrow but there seems to be little information available regarding where I stand.

Any advice or suggestions would be much appreciated.

Regarding the testing. When the testing site near Tesco was introduced weeks ago the people you saw using it were on the whole older people. Not a young person in sight.This period of testing led to restrictions being lifted in Burnley after a few weeks.
Then something dramatic happened. The older people were suddenly a minority and the people you saw using it were younger people and other types. As a result restrictions are now back in force in Burnley.
This tells the story for me

Look at the areas in Burnley where most of the cases are that tells the story.

There’s always got to be someone to blame hasn’t there. Does it make people feel better to pin the blame of this situation on a certain section of society that is different to them?

Elizabeth wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 10:04 pm

Regarding the testing. When the testing site near Tesco was introduced weeks ago the people you saw using it were on the whole older people. Not a young person in sight.This period of testing led to restrictions being lifted in Burnley after a few weeks.
Then something dramatic happened. The older people were suddenly a minority and the people you saw using it were younger people and other types. As a result restrictions are now back in force in Burnley.
This tells the story for me

But it's by no means clear what the story is.
Virtually no young people were tested in the spring when the virus was at its peak.
Most of the young are asymptomatic (or have extremely mild symptoms), so, for all we know there could have been more young people with Covid back in April / May than there are now. Unless you presented with serious symptoms back then there was no testing.

My comparison has no relationship with the spring so I'm sorry I don't know why you connected it to that time.
Happy to read why you have connected two completely different periods in time.
I'm also sorry you cannot see my point, others will

Elizabeth wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 10:57 pm

My comparison has no relationship with the spring so I'm sorry I don't know why you connected it to that time.
Happy to read why you have connected two completely different periods in time.
I'm also sorry you cannot see my point, others will

What kind of age range are you classing as young, out of interest?

And there's always got to be some people blind to the truth

Your question has no relevance to my quote. Please be clearer what it is you want from me

Elizabeth wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 10:04 pm

Regarding the testing. When the testing site near Tesco was introduced weeks ago the people you saw using it were on the whole older people. Not a young person in sight.This period of testing led to restrictions being lifted in Burnley after a few weeks.
Then something dramatic happened. The older people were suddenly a minority and the people you saw using it were younger people and other types. As a result restrictions are now back in force in Burnley.
This tells the story for me

What are “other types”?

Do you have access to the data or is your theory based on your observations?

Elizabeth wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 10:04 pm

Regarding the testing. When the testing site near Tesco was introduced weeks ago the people you saw using it were on the whole older people. Not a young person in sight.This period of testing led to restrictions being lifted in Burnley after a few weeks.
Then something dramatic happened. The older people were suddenly a minority and the people you saw using it were younger people and other types. As a result restrictions are now back in force in Burnley.
This tells the story for me

What kind of age range are you classing as young, out of interest?

Burnley Ace wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 11:04 pm

What are “other types”?

That was my next question...