Coronavirus Thread

[Legend_in_blue]

52 minutes ago, Costock_Fox said:

In simple terms it’s just completely ****ing mental isn’t it.

It is.  Absolutely.  Even more so when you look at this graph...

 

[theessexfox]

20 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

It is.  Absolutely.  Even more so when you look at this graph...

 

Great scale for evaluating deaths isn’t it, really brings out the trend very visually.

 

I had a woman of Eastern European descent literally shouting at me non stop on the tube last night for wearing a mask, was going on non stop about how the government is trying to kill more people and how if you wear it for too long you stop breathing and die. Fortunately haven’t had that issue yet, but it was quite incredible how animated and persistent she was about telling me I was an idiot.

[Nalis]

We should have a national Tier 3 for November on the basis that we go back to Tier 1 for the month of December with the acceptance that we'll probably need to go back to Tier 2 or 3 in January thereafter.

 

Think it would gain a degree of buy in from the general public which would enhance compliance before and after December, particularly as the alternative will be this no mans land we are currently in until spring.

 

Lets face it, regardless of restrictions people are going to break them around the Xmas period. 

[MonmoreStef]

16 minutes ago, theessexfox said:

Great scale for evaluating deaths isn’t it, really brings out the trend very visually.

 

I had a woman of Eastern European descent literally shouting at me non stop on the tube last night for wearing a mask, was going on non stop about how the government is trying to kill more people and how if you wear it for too long you stop breathing and die. Fortunately haven’t had that issue yet, but it was quite incredible how animated and persistent she was about telling me I was an idiot.

The old mask game is something I can see staying when all this Covid stuff is over.  I’ve never enjoyed sitting on a packed bus in the winter just listening to the sniffers and coughers wheezing away. Same on planes. It’s odds on that I’ve the constant cougher sat behind me.  Going forward I think I’ll be a mask wearer when in these environments just to hopefully reduce my chances of picking up some annoying cold. 

[Rain King]

Watching the AFL Grand Final on BT from Brisbane. Crowd of 30,000. Sitting together, no masks. Jealous.

Edited 24 October 2020 by Rain King

[Costock_Fox]

1 hour ago, Legend_in_blue said:

It is.  Absolutely.  Even more so when you look at this graph...

 

Which bit shows the impact of people buying duvets though?

[Paninistickers]

17 minutes ago, Rain King said:

Watching the AFL Grand Final on BT from Brisbane. Crowd of 30,000. Sitting together, no masks. Jealous.

It's sickening. 

 

The risk of a 20% or even 30% capacity at outdoor sports grounds is incredibly low. Furthermore, perhaps seating punters in bubbles of 100 so that track and trace can do its stuff should someone come in riddled with it. 

 

The ban on sports crowds is spiteful.

[Lionator]

1 hour ago, Legend_in_blue said:

It is.  Absolutely.  Even more so when you look at this graph...

 

If we tested for other coronaviruses which cause colds, it would look very similar to this. Sadly it's not going to clearly improve until march.

[Parafox]

50 minutes ago, MonmoreStef said:

The old mask game is something I can see staying when all this Covid stuff is over.  I’ve never enjoyed sitting on a packed bus in the winter just listening to the sniffers and coughers wheezing away. Same on planes. It’s odds on that I’ve the constant cougher sat behind me.  Going forward I think I’ll be a mask wearer when in these environments just to hopefully reduce my chances of picking up some annoying cold. 

You do realise that the purpose of wearing a mask is largely to prevent you spreading the virus if you happen to be infected but are asymptomatic?

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

Chancing my arm here for a little advice.

Ive been put on the job support scheme working 2 days a week, my workplace have told me I have to use 3 days of my holiday to bump my pay up to 100% per week, is this correct? Legal? As I’ve assumed if they are claiming government support I shouldn’t have to use my holiday as well....

Be grateful for any advice from anyone more clued up than myself.

[Legend_in_blue]

21 minutes ago, Lionator said:

If we tested for other coronaviruses which cause colds, it would look very similar to this. Sadly it's not going to clearly improve until march.

 

The problem I have looking at that graph are not the deaths, but the number of "cases".

 

At what point does someone turn around and question the data that these "cases" show?  The problem, along with ICL projections (which is another subject entirely), stems from these figures and noone is questioning the accuracy of the results.

[fuchsntf]

2 hours ago, theessexfox said:

Great scale for evaluating deaths isn’t it, really brings out the trend very visually.

 

I had a woman of Eastern European descent literally shouting at me non stop on the tube last night for wearing a mask, was going on non stop about how the government is trying to kill more people and how if you wear it for too long you stop breathing and die. Fortunately haven’t had that issue yet, but it was quite incredible how animated and persistent she was about telling me I was an idiot.

Ahh...A Star from the East honestly confirms what "Middle Earth ,Leicester-branch". was already assuming..

  

[Corky]

1 hour ago, Paninistickers said:

It's sickening. 

 

The risk of a 20% or even 30% capacity at outdoor sports grounds is incredibly low. Furthermore, perhaps seating punters in bubbles of 100 so that track and trace can do its stuff should someone come in riddled with it. 

 

The ban on sports crowds is spiteful.

And now we have the absolute nonsense of fans being able to attend grounds to watch the match being played on TV with the curtains drawn to stop people looking at the pitch.

 

What the hell is going on?

[bovril]

Just now, Corky said:

And now we have the absolute nonsense of fans being able to attend grounds to watch the match being played on TV with the curtains drawn to stop people looking at the pitch.

 

What the hell is going on?

My local non league team can't open their quite spacious ground (av. crowd about 1200) but they showed their season opener at the local theatre  

[Corky]

1 minute ago, bovril said:

My local non league team can't open their quite spacious ground (av. crowd about 1200) but they showed their season opener at the local theatre  

There is no logic to any of this at all.

 

This is the problem when people who aren't interested, or don't know the ins and outs, are making the decisions.

[bovril]

Just now, Corky said:

There is no logic to any of this at all.

 

This is the problem when people who aren't interested, or don't know the ins and outs, are making the decisions.

It's also a problem of living in one of the most-centralized country in the developed world, which people are starting to wake up to.

[WigstonWanderer]

10 hours ago, Costock_Fox said:

I’m looking at all of this and think Wales really have nailed it. You can imagine how the conversation went as well...

 

”I’m really worried about the rapid rise in cases, what can we do?”

”Don’t know, have we tried wrapping duvets in clingfiim yet?”

 

Ok, I’ll risk a good slagging by venturing the reasoning behind this.

 

What is the point of a firebreak, lockdown, whatever....?

 

Basically to stop people coming into contact with other people, by asking or forcing them to stay at home. Of course people still need to go out to get stuff they can’t do without such as food, so that’s still allowed. You don’t want people going out to buy something that they can do without, at least in the short term, so to reduce movement and mixing to a minimum you ban sales of stuff you can do without.

 

Now some shops sell both food and stuff that you can do without, at least in the short term. It would be pretty unfair on people who only sell stuff like duvets if people who sell both food and duvets can carry on as normal.

 

So food shops are allowed to stay open. Shops selling food and other stuff are allowed to stay open to sell food only. Shops that sell other stuff are closed.

[WigstonWanderer]

3 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

It's sickening. 

 

The risk of a 20% or even 30% capacity at outdoor sports grounds is incredibly low. Furthermore, perhaps seating punters in bubbles of 100 so that track and trace can do its stuff should someone come in riddled with it. 

 

The ban on sports crowds is spiteful.

Errrr.... I think Brisbane is in a somewhat different situation to you guys.

[Paninistickers]

29 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Errrr.... I think Brisbane is in a somewhat different situation to you guys.

Wgaf about Brisbane? 

 

The situation is that you can go to Carrow road and watch the Norwich match on a TV but not peep through the curtains to look at the pitch. 

 

You can sit in a cinema at Stratford shopping centre watching West Ham but not nip across the road Inside the stadium to watch. 

 

Or, finally, watching BT just now, 600 punters are safe to watch an fa cup match in Stafford but if they were promoted a division, it's deemed unsafe and would have to be behind closed doors. 

[MonmoreStef]

Just seen the Stafford ground on BT. It’s crazy really that if they were a league above their current standing they’d be allowed nobody into the same ground They are allowed to use today with 600 fans. 

[Costock_Fox]

2 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Ok, I’ll risk a good slagging by venturing the reasoning behind this.

 

What is the point of a firebreak, lockdown, whatever....?

 

Basically to stop people coming into contact with other people, by asking or forcing them to stay at home. Of course people still need to go out to get stuff they can’t do without such as food, so that’s still allowed. You don’t want people going out to buy something that they can do without, at least in the short term, so to reduce movement and mixing to a minimum you ban sales of stuff you can do without.

 

Now some shops sell both food and stuff that you can do without, at least in the short term. It would be pretty unfair on people who only sell stuff like duvets if people who sell both food and duvets can carry on as normal.

 

So food shops are allowed to stay open. Shops selling food and other stuff are allowed to stay open to sell food only. Shops that sell other stuff are closed.

I get all of that but what % of people going out to buy duvets and kettles are likely to put the country in the mud?

[Sampson]

2 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Ok, I’ll risk a good slagging by venturing the reasoning behind this.

 

What is the point of a firebreak, lockdown, whatever....?

 

Basically to stop people coming into contact with other people, by asking or forcing them to stay at home. Of course people still need to go out to get stuff they can’t do without such as food, so that’s still allowed. You don’t want people going out to buy something that they can do without, at least in the short term, so to reduce movement and mixing to a minimum you ban sales of stuff you can do without.

 

Now some shops sell both food and stuff that you can do without, at least in the short term. It would be pretty unfair on people who only sell stuff like duvets if people who sell both food and duvets can carry on as normal.

 

So food shops are allowed to stay open. Shops selling food and other stuff are allowed to stay open to sell food only. Shops that sell other stuff are closed.

Got to say, I was pro-first lockdown and have generally been for the measures that have come in, but I'm not convinced by the firebreak lockdown either.

 

To me, local lockdowns right now in places like Liverpool where NHS capacity is genuinely on the verge of being breached, with the potential for a nationwide lockdown if the NHS looks like it will definitely breach capacity over the winter makes the most sense. But to me, a firebreak lockdown is just kicking the can down the road a month or so while putting people's livelihoods at risk. I don't  see the logic in how it will save many lives from the NHS  capacity being breached as the numbers will just grow back to that level in a month's time, but you're risking lives from the economic impact of the lockdown.

 

I understand the logic if you do the firebreak lockdown early on when cases start to rise to get them down to a point where it can't rise rapidly again, but when we're at this point, I can't see how we can suppress the virus enough in only 2-3 weeks to stop it not just exploding again once we open up? If there is to be a lockdown with the cases rising like they are, surely it needs to be longer than 2-3 weeks to suppress the virus? It just feels like a bit of an arbitrary time frame which does nothing but just kick the can down the road.

 

Happy to be proven wrong on this though.

Edited 24 October 2020 by Sampson

[fuchsntf]

We are fukked, 

 

We are dead.....Close thread..!!

Theres more life & intelligence in the Darien gap, and the space in between...!!!

 

[WigstonWanderer]

58 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Got to say, I was pro-first lockdown and have generally been for the measures that have come in, but I'm not convinced by the firebreak lockdown either.

 

To me, local lockdowns right now in places like Liverpool where NHS capacity is genuinely on the verge of being breached, with the potential for a nationwide lockdown if the NHS looks like it will definitely breach capacity over the winter makes the most sense. But to me, a firebreak lockdown is just kicking the can down the road a month or so while putting people's livelihoods at risk. I don't  see the logic in how it will save many lives from the NHS  capacity being breached as the numbers will just grow back to that level in a month's time, but you're risking lives from the economic impact of the lockdown.

 

I understand the logic if you do the firebreak lockdown early on when cases start to rise to get them down to a point where it can't rise rapidly again, but when we're at this point, I can't see how we can suppress the virus enough in only 2-3 weeks to stop it not just exploding again once we open up? If there is to be a lockdown with the cases rising like they are, surely it needs to be longer than 2-3 weeks to suppress the virus? It just feels like a bit of an arbitrary time frame which does nothing but just kick the can down the road.

 

Happy to be proven wrong on this though.

My post wasn’t pro or anti firebreak. I was just trying to explain why (if you are to impose a firebreak) they might want to seal off non essential purchases in stores offering both them and essentials. The measures are self consistent.

Edited 24 October 2020 by WigstonWanderer

[WigstonWanderer]

3 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

Wgaf about Brisbane? 

 

The situation is that you can go to Carrow road and watch the Norwich match on a TV but not peep through the curtains to look at the pitch. 

 

You can sit in a cinema at Stratford shopping centre watching West Ham but not nip across the road Inside the stadium to watch. 

 

Or, finally, watching BT just now, 600 punters are safe to watch an fa cup match in Stafford but if they were promoted a division, it's deemed unsafe and would have to be behind closed doors. 

Something’s got lost here. This is the post you quoted.

7 hours ago, Rain King said:

Watching the AFL Grand Final on BT from Brisbane. Crowd of 30,000. Sitting together, no masks. Jealous.

You seemed to be complaining about not being able to do the same, and I was saying that Brisbane are in a complete different situation, with pretty much no virus circulating  that’s why they can afford to have large crowds gathering.

Edited 24 October 2020 by WigstonWanderer