Coronavirus Thread

[Guest Harrydc]

It would be nice to put on the news one day, and if just be normal. For the last 10 months, all that has been drummed into us is Covid-19. It's constantly on our minds, where ever we go there is absolutely no escape. Eventually, it starts to bring you down...  

 

 

[Leicester_Loyal]

 

[Nalis]

All of this talk of urging the government to cancel the easing of restrictions between 23rd and 27th of December is completely missing the point that people will break the rules over Christmas regardless. By giving some sensible guidelines, people are more likely to adhere to them and therefore reduce rate of increase in cases. 

 

It's also fair as the restrictions have hit those who have been compliant with them the most and the christmas break rewards them accordingly, whereas the rule breakers have unfairly enjoyed more freedoms regardless of any rules in place during the last 9 months.

Edited 15 December 2020 by Nalis

[Footballwipe]

2 minutes ago, Nalis said:

All of this talk of urging the government to cancel the easing of restrictions between 23rd and 27th of December is completely missing the point that people will break the rules over Christmas regardless. By giving some sensible guidelines, people are more likely to adhere to them and therefore reduce the increase in cases. 

 

It's also fair but the restrictions have hit those who have been compliant with them the most and the christmas break rewards them accordingly, whereas the rule breakers have unfairly enjoyed more freedoms regardless of any rules in place during the last 9 months.

Absolutely. Wasn't the whole point of the Xmas rules so that people were given an inch, knowing that loads of people were going to take a mile anyway?

 

You know that on a typical street, for everyone one household will be alone this Xmas, staying away from family or having the bare minimum round, someone else will have 12 cars and their entire family round. (exaggeration to make a point.) It's inevitable. We're 9 months into this pandemic and unless you've been closely, personally affected by it, you'll largely be dictated by your conscience.

 

That's not to say anyone should rat on those who have had the biggest Xmas piss up gathering in their house with more than the restrictions dictate, but they should definitely keep their moans to themselves if we're back in tighter restrictions come mid-January.

[Leeds Fox]

11 hours ago, Dunge said:

Sorry, but what more evidence do you need? The exact thing you’re asking for (scientific proof) has been provided, peer-reviewed by world-leading experts as being not just moderately effective but highly effective. But you’re saying that’s not only not enough, but that there’s “no evidence”. Does God himself need to speak to you from a burning bush to confirm it?

 

Sorry I sound exasperated, but that comment is exasperating.

I think that’s a completely different type of infection that you’re talking about there @Dunge 

[yorkie1999]

17 minutes ago, Nalis said:

All of this talk of urging the government to cancel the easing of restrictions between 23rd and 27th of December is completely missing the point that people will break the rules over Christmas regardless. By giving some sensible guidelines, people are more likely to adhere to them and therefore reduce rate of increase in cases. 

 

It's also fair as the restrictions have hit those who have been compliant with them the most and the christmas break rewards them accordingly, whereas the rule breakers have unfairly enjoyed more freedoms regardless of any rules in place during the last 9 months.

The problem has come from dropping London into a tier 2 which consequently has caused cases to rise down south. It would have been far better to have kept the whole country in tier 3, then have a short period over christmas without lockdown. Now what's going to happen is people will travel from an area that's seeing rising cases into areas which were showing signs of stability.

[Dahnsouff]

2 hours ago, simFox said:

It's easy to belittle any source of information on the internet by announcing that its all written by Linda on Facebook.

 

Not Nobel prize winning scientists or a bunch of other experts. Nope, just "Linda on Facebook".

 

The sheer hypocrisy of revealing this by writing it on the internet is completely lost.

No, no, no. You remove in its entirety the concept of trust and that is a gargantuan problem. 

[UniFox21]

2 hours ago, Harrydc said:

It would be nice to put on the news one day, and if just be normal. For the last 10 months, all that has been drummed into us is Covid-19. It's constantly on our minds, where ever we go there is absolutely no escape. Eventually, it starts to bring you down...  

 

 

And before that all we had was Brexit on repeat. 

[Costock_Fox]

1 hour ago, UniFox21 said:

And before that all we had was Brexit on repeat. 

Bring Brexit back IMO

[RowlattsFox]

I'm sure they will bow to media pressure and reduce the number of households allowed to mix at Christmas. Probably to one other household. Lots of people getting their "I told you so" opinions out in the media  before January. I keep seeing comments about Germany/Netherlands having Christmas lockdowns yet both are allowing minimal mixing from what I can see. 

Edited 15 December 2020 by RowlattsFox

[Kasey Keller]

4 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

 

Ive seen the evidence and cant discuss it 😆🤦🏻‍♂️Whatever 

[Strokes]

Christmas plans are made, if they change the rules I’m not changing my plans.

**** it.

[MonmoreStef]

4 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Christmas plans are made, if they change the rules I’m not changing my plans.

**** it.

Was sold to us so they got away with the lockdown in November without to much opposition. The lockdown they promised would end on 2nd December, no matter what, but actually became another lockdown with the promise Xmas will be able to be enjoyed with family. Now they are on the verge of withdrawing that promise. Quite funny really. 

[Costock_Fox]

23 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Christmas plans are made, if they change the rules I’m not changing my plans.

**** it.

And this is the reason there really will be no back tracking, nobody will listen to this.

 

Not passing judgement either way, it’s unlikely I’ll change my plans. Barely seen my dad, sister, niece and nephew all year.

Edited 15 December 2020 by Costock_Fox

[Corky]

The Christmas stuff is just a contradiction of everything we've been told. The vast majority of the country cannot meet indoors and haven't been able to for six weeks, rising cases and yet for five days you can have two other households, possibly from other parts of the country, stay over?

 

I don't blame people if they meet up over Christmas, it was allowed and a very late change if it happens, but is this virus serious enough that we can't meet throughout or we can meet?

[yorkie1999]

1 hour ago, RowlattsFox said:

I'm sure they will bow to media pressure and reduce the number of households allowed to mix at Christmas. Probably to one other household. Lots of people getting their "I told you so" opinions out in the media  before January. I keep seeing comments about Germany/Netherlands having Christmas lockdowns yet both are allowing minimal mixing from what I can see. 

More households staying at home means more tv sets on which means more people watching sky news. Some ones making a sh*tload of money out of all this.

Edited 15 December 2020 by yorkie1999

[Paninistickers]

32 minutes ago, Corky said:

The Christmas stuff is just a contradiction of everything we've been told. The vast majority of the country cannot meet indoors and haven't been able to for six weeks, rising cases and yet for five days you can have two other households, possibly from other parts of the country, stay over?

 

I don't blame people if they meet up over Christmas, it was allowed and a very late change if it happens, but is this virus serious enough that we can't meet throughout or we can meet?

Work it out for yourself. Why do you need Gove, Hancock, Johnson et al to tell you when, and how, to wipe your arse? 

[Costock_Fox]

5 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Work it out for yourself. Why do you need Gove, Hancock, Johnson et al to tell you when, and how, to wipe your arse? 

I hope he doesn’t as they will **** that up as well.

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

4 minutes ago, Costock_Fox said:

I hope he doesn’t as they will **** that up as well.

Definitely be putting fingers through the toilet paper if they did 

[Legend_in_blue]

Can't the BBC lead off with the 58% accuracy figure for the lateral flow test from the BMJ as it's main headline instead?  No, because it's against the narrative.

 

 

[Dahnsouff]

Since when did self-determination become a point of shame?  

[Charl91]

On 14/12/2020 at 08:39, LVocey said:

@Charl91 Interested to know your thoughts on whether you think schools should have been re-opened they way they have been? To me, it seems obvious they would just be a "spread-fest" for the virus, but I also don't think kids should be going without school, the impact that could have on them is huge. Curious as to what the views are of people on the ground as it were!

Late reply.

 

I would've liked to see a half on / half off approach (so a week on / week off) - or at least until the numbers had died down significantly. Certainly with the older ones that don't need childcare, but possibly even with the younger ones too - I know parents would have to take extra time off work, or find alternate arrangements, but given how many people have had their classes closed for 2 weeks (sometimes multiple times) because of the high prevalence of this disease, it might not be too different. This would allow schools to actually distance children much better (still couldn't manage 2m, but would be much closer). I certainly don't think schools should be closed, but the way we're currently going is a recipe for disaster.

 

I'm sure there'd be a lot of logistical problems that need ironing out, but all these other "tier 3" measures are pointless without tackling schools. 

 

 

[UniFox21]

30 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

Can't the BBC lead off with the 58% accuracy figure for the lateral flow test from the BMJ as it's main headline instead?  No, because it's against the narrative.

 

 

You've twisted the context behind that figure mate. 

 

"The two relevant field studies recruited people from NHS test and trace centres, mainly those with symptoms. Detection rates (sensitivity) were 73% (95% confidence interval 64% to 85%) when tested by skilled NIHR research nurses and 79% (73% to 85%) when tested by Porton Down laboratory scientists.89 But testing by Boots test centre employees (following written instructions) achieved sensitivity of just 58% (52% to 63%). This is important, because it is closest to the circumstances for staff, student, visitor, and community testing." 

 

So the tests when carried out by trained nurses or scientists hits between 73% and 79%. Hitting that 58% when done in places such as Boots. 

All for quoting accurate figures, but at least add the context to them, rather than shitting on a figure that tells half a story. 

 

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4787

 

 

[Legend_in_blue]

1 minute ago, UniFox21 said:

You've twisted the context behind that figure mate. 

 

"The two relevant field studies recruited people from NHS test and trace centres, mainly those with symptoms. Detection rates (sensitivity) were 73% (95% confidence interval 64% to 85%) when tested by skilled NIHR research nurses and 79% (73% to 85%) when tested by Porton Down laboratory scientists.89 But testing by Boots test centre employees (following written instructions) achieved sensitivity of just 58% (52% to 63%). This is important, because it is closest to the circumstances for staff, student, visitor, and community testing." 

 

So the tests when carried out by trained nurses or scientists hits between 73% and 79%. Hitting that 58% when done in places such as Boots. 

All for quoting accurate figures, but at least add the context to them, rather than shitting on a figure that tells half a story. 

 

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4787

 

 

 

That's all well and good but do you expect skilled NIHR research nurses to drop into schools UK wide come January?

 

 

[UniFox21]

10 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

 

That's all well and good but do you expect skilled NIHR research nurses to drop into schools UK wide come January?

 

 

No, but you can't start posting these figures and criticising "narratives" without giving the full story. This is the exact same things you're complaining about. 

 

I also would assume people carrying out these tests will be given sufficient training to increase that percentage.