Coronavirus Thread

[Heathrow fox]

4 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

It does if there is no counter plan, but things can be changed to mitigate the problem, cancel future summer holidays, half term, apply home schooling for children with a parent that doesnt work, and for children with both parents working adapt libraries etc to classrooms so children are all travelling to the same place in their 100s.   A year of teaching is extremely easy to recover.  We could also delay first year of teaching by a year, which would supply the staff to extend school leave date from 16 to 17.  In this country we unusually have early start school age.

Where would you get the extra teachers from? Where are these libraries?

[Chrysalis]

9 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

I really disagree here. Schools struggle with numbers normally, another full school year on top would be horrendous in many establishments.

 

You just have to look at some posters here who realised home schooling was bloody tough. Education and our system in particular is very tough to just alter quickly 

By home schooling I dont mean the parent themselves doing it all by themselves, I more meant the teacher been in contact either over phone or video conference, with the parent more in a supervising role than teaching.  It isnt ideal as normal, but its better than no schooling, and better than sendking kids home every few weeks because of a an infection in the bubble, make no mistake we dont have a normal education right now, teachers are shaking scared, and people are been sent home in their droves, so they spending lots of time at home anyway.  My local school sent home 120 children for two weeks for "one" infection.

 

You can recover a year without adding another on top, the adding on top would support recovering two years.

Edited 24 September 2020 by Chrysalis

[Chrysalis]

18 minutes ago, Heathrow fox said:

Where would you get the extra teachers from? Where are these libraries?

I already said.  The extra year comes from the later starting year, the teachers for the new locations come from the old location, its basically just moving a classroom, like at my primary school our classrooms often got moved to temporary huts.

 

Instead of looking for reasons to avoid change we should be looking for ways to support that change and make it work in my opinion.  Sending kids back all at once has caused chaos sadly. Not just in the classrooms but also on transport.

 

My counter question is if you think this is not workable, and you was told think of an alternative plan or we have no schooling (so basically gun put to your head) what would your idea be? or do you genuinely think there is no adaption possible the system has to be rigid?

Edited 24 September 2020 by Chrysalis

[Heathrow fox]

6 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

I already said.  The extra year comes from the later starting year, the teachers for the new locations come from the old location, its basically just moving a classroom, like at my primary school our classrooms often got moved to temporary huts.

 

Instead of looking for reasons to avoid change we should be looking for ways to support that change and make it work in my opinion.  To think sending kids back is working seems balmy.  

You seem to expecting primary school trained teachers to suddenly become senior school trained teachers.Almost overnight.I’m sure with decent notice this could be achievable,but overnight?Also what becomes of the years void in further education intake?University's would go bankrupt.

 

 

[Kopfkino]

5 hours ago, String fellow said:

Reading the fairly long message above, are we to assume that Professor John Edmunds (one of the SAGE group) is an 'incognisant person regurgitating drivel' in advocating much stricter lock-down measures? 

 

Literally no idea how you've come to that

[Chrysalis]

1 hour ago, Heathrow fox said:

You seem to expecting primary school trained teachers to suddenly become senior school trained teachers.Almost overnight.I’m sure with decent notice this could be achievable,but overnight?Also what becomes of the years void in further education intake?University's would go bankrupt.

 

 

 

I am just posting an opinion, I am not expecting teachers to shift through different grades of school no, I dont think I recall posting that.

 

But to ask you, what ideas have you got, or do you think just sending everyone back with many having to keep re-isolating again and again is the way to go?

[Leicester_Loyal]

Like the majority of people are going to listen to this

[st albans fox]

4 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Like the majority of people are going to listen to this

Depends how much they care about their parent’s health 

 

I think it makes sense but especially in the case of freshers it’s v difficult on an emotional level. 
 

the closing of bars and restaurants at 10pm - it’s just stupid to say that it will make absolutely no difference. In the modelling it will absolutely make a difference re the possibility of transmissions - it’s just going it be v small!  I would have thought a system whereby you can only visit one bar or restaurant in an evening would be more sensible. that keeps any possible spread limited to one place and would surely be way more effective in reducing the R on the model than the 1 hour cut off to 10pm.

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

9 hours ago, Heathrow fox said:

Where would you get the extra teachers from? Where are these libraries?

Lots of libraries have been closed due to government/council cutbacks unfortunately.

[twoleftfeet]

11 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

Funnily enough, I can clearly recall a general attitude shift pre Covid with a colleague last January hauling himself in with a heavy cold,.playing the martyr....'look how dedicated I am'. 

 

He was roundly complained at and about and his boss have him a lecture about coming in unwell, underperforming and potentially  bringing the rest of the office down with him....I remember a the time commenting what a cultural shift from, say, 10 years prior when taking time off for a cold was seen as weak and skiving

It may depend on your company policy on sick pay not every one can afford to take time off of work ill, has your employer used ill health as a reason to issue a warning to an employee in the past? 

[fuchsntf]

59 minutes ago, Mark 'expert' Lawrenson said:

Lots of libraries have been closed due to government/council cutbacks unfortunately.

Yup modern life is shit...

No School Libraries for the normal schools,no Working estate libraries...

Even diffiult to find Town libraries...in the UK..

[String fellow]

9 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Literally no idea how you've come to that

I'm puzzled as to why you don't understand my point. You appear to be advocating less restrictions, whilst John Edmunds, who is an expert, is advocating precisely the opposite.

 

[RowlattsFox]

I nipped into my local yesterday on the way home for a "quick" pint and the biggest problem I can see for pubs like this where table service isn't the norm, is people just thinking it's a ball ache and not bothering. Particularly people like me who nip in sparingly for short periods. It was the first day and obviously they will get more organised but in the half hour I was there they were consistently having to challenge behaviour of regulars, rightly of course as that's the rules. 

[Jon the Hat]

11 hours ago, Chrysalis said:

Gov have long stopped listening to the science, its very doubtful the science advised the government to start opening up every industry.

It's almost like the scientists know **** all about economics and don't have to worry about the country not being completely ****ed, and are only answering medical and epidemology based questions with no political lens whatsoever.  On this basis you would ban ****ing everything. Smoking; drinking; driving; meeting other people at all.

[Jon the Hat]

11 hours ago, Chrysalis said:

Perhaps there should be enforcement officers patrolling stores?  Those who fight it, should have severe punishment which then serves as a deterrent to others.

Feel free to move to China if you want to live in a police state!  FFS the death rate is miniscule and you want to hand over your freedoms.  Un ****ing believable.

Edited 25 September 2020 by Jon the Hat

[filbertway]

26 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

It's almost like the scientists know **** all about economics and don't have to worry about the country not being completely ****ed, and are only answering medical and epidemology based questions with no political lens whatsoever.  On this basis you would ban ****ing everything. Smoking; drinking; driving; meeting other people at all.

That's exactly what it is. If you ask a doctor or a scientist for an opinion anything, they're going to give one that is solely geared at being risk averse and most likely to benefit physical health.

 

If they asked for the top doctors/scientists opinions on people eating fast food or drinking, they would probably suggest bringing in limits on what people can purchase in shops or pubs/restaurants. You could easily create a terrifying agenda and have the same people in here whipped up into a frenzy.

[Kopfkino]

1 hour ago, String fellow said:

I'm puzzled as to why you don't understand my point. You appear to be advocating less restrictions, whilst John Edmunds, who is an expert, is advocating precisely the opposite.

 

I'm not really advocating anything because I have no idea, I have a personal preference for not having further restrictions, but a bigger preference for robust debate in the public sphere. So I was having a go at armchair-experts, advocating lifting restrictions without a cogent argument, who hang their hat on finding a way to pretend that problems don't exist. Their drivel drowns out people that offer good insight into a less risk-averse strategy. 

 

 

 

 

[String fellow]

Thank you for the clarification of your position. Personally, I'm no expert either, but common sense appears to show that a less risk-averse (more risky) strategy could see the UK's daily death toll increase dramatically in the coming weeks. I for one would be quite happy to do my personal bit in helping to stop that happening, but it seems that an increasing number of other people (mainly those unlikely to die from COVID-19) take a different view.

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

Panic buyers are such simpletons and selfish beyond belief, there’s enough for everyone if everyone shops in the same way as they always do.

[Nalis]

Testing are rising as we need a little more caution but context is everything.

 

The recent case numbers skew things a little since testing is a lot better than it was in April not to mention more face covering, social distance measures and better treatment for those in hospital.

 

For example, yesterday we had the most cases recorded to date for a single day.

 

On the previous peak in terms of case in April, 1,148 people died on the same day. Yesterday there were 40.

[Jon the Hat]

18 minutes ago, Nalis said:

Testing are rising as we need a little more caution but context is everything.

 

The recent case numbers skew things a little since testing is a lot better than it was in April not to mention more face covering, social distance measures and better treatment for those in hospital.

 

For example, yesterday we had the most cases recorded to date for a single day.

 

On the previous peak in terms of case in April, 1,148 people died on the same day. Yesterday there were 40.

there are timing differences in there, but it is hard to see that this looks much like April.  How many cases did we have then?  No idea, but I would guess millions.

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

It's almost like the scientists know **** all about economics and don't have to worry about the country not being completely ****ed, and are only answering medical and epidemology based questions with no political lens whatsoever.  On this basis you would ban ****ing everything. Smoking; drinking; driving; meeting other people at all.

Is the daft "academic that doesn't live in the real world" (whatever "real world" means) stereotype still so widespread that folks think that scientists aren't taking societal consequences into account? To say nothing of the fact that they're probably as dependent on the next pay slip as anyone else?

 

A more likely and less prejudiced explanation is that the scientists have had to adapt their advice based on rapidly changing knowledge of this virus and, at the present time, consider that the more risk averse course is the best one for the time being, having taken everything, including societal consequences, into amount.

 

It may be that they're wrong about that in the long run, but that won't be because they didn't consider something as patently obvious as the damage remaining "closed" would do.

 

2 hours ago, filbertway said:

That's exactly what it is. If you ask a doctor or a scientist for an opinion anything, they're going to give one that is solely geared at being risk averse and most likely to benefit physical health.

 

If they asked for the top doctors/scientists opinions on people eating fast food or drinking, they would probably suggest bringing in limits on what people can purchase in shops or pubs/restaurants. You could easily create a terrifying agenda and have the same people in here whipped up into a frenzy.

I'd like to know on what widespread context that a more risk averse recommendation is somehow "wrong". 

 

And there's a world of difference between recommendations to legislate consumption of food and drink products (a personal choice that mostly only affects the consumer) and recommendations to legislate measures against transmitting a virus (which is a personal choice that can and will affect far more people than only the person making it).

Edited 25 September 2020 by leicsmac

[Leicester_Loyal]

 

[Guest Fktf]

Idea x is devised to help limit covid risk.

 

Some people: ah, but if you apply idea x to limit risk whilst driving, smoking, drinking too much, look how stupid it looks.

 

Yes, stupid indeed. 

[RowlattsFox]

Got our first scan appointment through for our second child and I'm not allowed in. Not sure if this has been brought in as a result of the new guidance or has been the case throughout. 

 

I understand the need to limit people in hospitals but it's bit shit when you consider the things you are allowed to do. If they run on time, I'd likely be in there for 5 minutes.