Coronavirus Thread

[Col city fan]

52 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

A few players have ‘flouted the rules’ over the weekend, visiting to watch other matches, group hugs after scoring goals, group hugs in the changing rooms afterwards etc

The ‘authorities’ are apparently not best chuffed and are looking into it re considering a bigger clamp down 

To my mind, yet more examples of where the few potentially could ruin it for the many.

Looking forward to watching footy has been one of the things keeping me going!

Bit more to this now

Eze from Palace invited to the QPR v Fulham game as a guest. Pictured wearing no mask, no social distancing in place etc

[Rob1742]

There are those that continue to break the rules, there are those that interpret and adapt the rules and there are those that follow the rules.

 

If they tighten the rules today, there will still be those three groups of people. 
 

The only changes that will occur is slight switches between each group, but the mentality will still be the same so there won’t be much change. 
 

One thing I find interesting about people’s behaviour is that their double standards are not as bad as your double standards. People will look down on a rule you have broken, but justify their own with ease.
 

Reminds me of when someone doing work for me insisting on cash in hand started telling me how disgusting it was that Starbucks didn’t pay much tax. 

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

1 hour ago, StriderHiryu said:

I live in London and I 100% agree with you on this. It was madness at the time, everyone knew it was madness, and yet it went ahead anyway. All for what? So a few businesses could earn a few more quid during Christmas shopping, which will now be offset by not being open for months on end as cases spiral out of control. Absolutely moronic decision that was only ever going to end one way.

 

I would like to say that I don't think most Londoners were smug about it though. If restrictions are relaxed, people are going to take advantage of that, it's just human nature to do so. But the point is those restrictions should not have been eased up at all. And at the end of the day, it backfired because we were put into tier 4 for Christmas day itself, and personally that resulted in spending Christmas by myself.

 

I wouldn't trust this government to be able to tie a shoelace yet alone prepare a response for a global health pandemic. Elect a clown and end up with a circus. 

Spot on, although my point about smirking and smugness was directed at the Government not the people.

[reynard]

And so the excuses re vaccination are starting to emerge in duplictous words and interpretations thereof.

In the UK, ministers appear to have downgraded their promise to vaccinate the most vulnerable by mid-February, committing only to offering them an inoculation by that point.

The prime minister, Boris Johnson, said last week that they would have received their first jab by that date – and that daily figures for vaccinations carried out would be published from this week. But, speaking to Sky News, the UK’s vaccines minister, Nadhim Zahawi, has said:The top four categories, actually, for the UK, is 15 million people, [and] in England it’s about 12 million people, so we will have offered a vaccination to all of those people.

Zahawi has used slightly more temperate language than the prime minister in the past, saying that meeting Johnson’s target would be “challenging” and pledging instead to offer vaccines to the most vulnerable by the date the prime minister set.

[stripeyfox]

I would be all for sport stopping for a month or so. Much as I enjoy watching the football as much as anyone, it doesn't seem right that they can carry on whilst the rest of us are being told to consider if any of our interactions are "essential".

 

 

[CosbehFox]

1 minute ago, reynard said:

And so the excuses re vaccination are starting to emerge in duplictous words and interpretations thereof.

In the UK, ministers appear to have downgraded their promise to vaccinate the most vulnerable by mid-February, committing only to offering them an inoculation by that point.

The prime minister, Boris Johnson, said last week that they would have received their first jab by that date – and that daily figures for vaccinations carried out would be published from this week. But, speaking to Sky News, the UK’s vaccines minister, Nadhim Zahawi, has said:The top four categories, actually, for the UK, is 15 million people, [and] in England it’s about 12 million people, so we will have offered a vaccination to all of those people.

Zahawi has used slightly more temperate language than the prime minister in the past, saying that meeting Johnson’s target would be “challenging” and pledging instead to offer vaccines to the most vulnerable by the date the prime minister set.

Knew that would happen - same goalposts moving as per the testing capacity target 

[CosbehFox]

Just now, stripeyfox said:

I would be all for sport stopping for a month or so. Much as I enjoy watching the football as much as anyone, it doesn't seem right that they can carry on whilst the rest of us are being told to consider if any of our interactions are "essential".

 

 

I have come around to the opinion it should simply because unless football goes in an eco bubble aka test cricket - a players household will always lead to an infection somewhere. 
 

The implication for English football will be that not keeping on calendar will see implications on English clubs in Europe and England participating in the Euros. The rest of Europe is nullifying its infection rates at the moment allowing them to continue. Quite literally the sick man of Europe over here 

[StriderHiryu]

10 minutes ago, Mark 'expert' Lawrenson said:

Spot on, although my point about smirking and smugness was directed at the Government not the people.

Ah yeah I thought as much! That said, common sense from regular people clearly went out of the window as soon as restrictions were lifted. Some of the major shopping centres like the two Westifields were absolutely rammed, and those places make Highcross on a Saturday look quiet by comparison. 

 

But that's crux of the issue. 95% of people are terrible at making decisions; there is a reason why we elect people to govern the country, because it's a job that requires access to a vast amount of information and people. If you open shopping centres in December, then people are going to take that as a sign that it's OK to go. Hence massive petri dishes of covid circulating en masse. Don't open them and people can't go, and the virus doesn't spread nearly as fast. The vaccine was literally days away from being tolled out when those restrictions were lifted, making the decision even more moronic. 

 

Throughout this pandemic the general public could have done a lot more to stop the spread of the virus, but when you take into account the unclear message, changing rules, the Cummings saga, etc, you've got a recipe for disaster. 

 

If I sound angry, it's because I am! 

[Alf Bentley]

25 minutes ago, reynard said:

And so the excuses re vaccination are starting to emerge in duplictous words and interpretations thereof.

In the UK, ministers appear to have downgraded their promise to vaccinate the most vulnerable by mid-February, committing only to offering them an inoculation by that point.

The prime minister, Boris Johnson, said last week that they would have received their first jab by that date – and that daily figures for vaccinations carried out would be published from this week. But, speaking to Sky News, the UK’s vaccines minister, Nadhim Zahawi, has said:The top four categories, actually, for the UK, is 15 million people, [and] in England it’s about 12 million people, so we will have offered a vaccination to all of those people.

Zahawi has used slightly more temperate language than the prime minister in the past, saying that meeting Johnson’s target would be “challenging” and pledging instead to offer vaccines to the most vulnerable by the date the prime minister set.

 

22 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Knew that would happen - same goalposts moving as per the testing capacity target 

 

There have been plenty of duplicitous words and moving goalposts over the past year, but I think this one might be quite innocent.

 

Hancock used the same formulation of "offering" vaccination to all in the most vulnerable 4 groups by mid-Feb.

They might just be phrasing it that way because they know that a proportion of people will not accept the offer, unfortunately - hopefully only a small proportion.

Of course, even if most of those 12-15m have had a jab by then, many will only have had 1 jab, not both - and 50m+ will have had no jab, though hopefully mainly the least vulnerable to serious illness.

 

Edited 11 January 2021 by Alf Bentley

[FLAN]

Local testing coming my way tomorrow apparently. If you take one without symptoms do you have to isolate?  I can’t see anything on council website about that 

[leicsmac]

38 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

That's supposition, not evidence.

Certainly it is, which is why I said it was circumstantial. It's also about the best that can be expected - if you're looking for a peer reviewed number crunched study that proves that increased public flouting of regs is correlated with increased viral transmission, then we might be here a while because all of those studies will rely on conjecture and supposition because there are so many different factors at play.

 

The being true, frankly your null hypothesis that structural factors are in fact the prime driver of viral transmission is on as shaky ground as my own - and while I'm not going to ask you for evidence to back your position as I know it doesn't really exist conclusively (as mine doesn't) I might ask you to consider that you also don't have evidence for your assertion and therefore you might be wrong.

 

NB. Additionally, I would submit that assuming that people are responsible and then it not being so would cause much less damage than assuming they're not and it being true in this matter. 

 

 

[Col city fan]

33 minutes ago, StriderHiryu said:

Ah yeah I thought as much! That said, common sense from regular people clearly went out of the window as soon as restrictions were lifted. Some of the major shopping centres like the two Westifields were absolutely rammed, and those places make Highcross on a Saturday look quiet by comparison. 

 

But that's crux of the issue. 95% of people are terrible at making decisions; there is a reason why we elect people to govern the country, because it's a job that requires access to a vast amount of information and people. If you open shopping centres in December, then people are going to take that as a sign that it's OK to go. Hence massive petri dishes of covid circulating en masse. Don't open them and people can't go, and the virus doesn't spread nearly as fast. The vaccine was literally days away from being tolled out when those restrictions were lifted, making the decision even more moronic. 

 

Throughout this pandemic the general public could have done a lot more to stop the spread of the virus, but when you take into account the unclear message, changing rules, the Cummings saga, etc, you've got a recipe for disaster. 

 

If I sound angry, it's because I am! 

Great post 

👍

[Sol thewall Bamba]

37 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

I have come around to the opinion it should simply because unless football goes in an eco bubble aka test cricket - a players household will always lead to an infection somewhere. 
 

The implication for English football will be that not keeping on calendar will see implications on English clubs in Europe and England participating in the Euros. The rest of Europe is nullifying its infection rates at the moment allowing them to continue. Quite literally the sick man of Europe over here 

Years and years of an aging, grossly unhealthy population coming home to roost unfortunately. 

[Col city fan]

26 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

There have been plenty of duplicitous words and moving goalposts over the past year, but I think this one might be quite innocent.

 

Hancock used the same formulation of "offering" vaccination to all in the most vulnerable 4 groups by mid-Feb.

They might just be phrasing it that way because they know that a proportion of people will not accept the offer, unfortunately - hopefully only a small proportion.

Of course, even if most of those 12-15m have had a jab by then, many will only have had 1 jab, not both - and 50m+ will have had no jab, though hopefully mainly the least vulnerable to serious illness.

 

It’s all semantics and frankly I don’t give two hoots about it. Anyone who wants to get bound up in politics then go for it

What I DO know is that local people are working tremendously hard at the moment to try to vaccinate as many people as they can

I think we just need to give them a chance and stop banging on about figures, projections etc

The important thing is that it’s happening and people are trying to sort this fookin mess out.

Hows about people just using their common sense, stop moaning about what they can’t control and support those frontline staff who are co-ordinating and delivering the roll out of this vaccine

Wouldn’t that be refreshing

Edited 11 January 2021 by Col city fan

[dsr-burnley]

8 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Years and years of an aging, grossly unhealthy population coming home to roost unfortunately. 

Having a disproportionate number of old people isn't a sign of poor health.  Quite the contrary, I would have thought.

 

UK life expectancy, per Wikipedia, is 81 years.  2 years below the best in Europe, Switzerland, and 9.5 years above the worst, Ukraine.  I'm sure we could do better, but we aren't "grossly unhealthy".

[Leicester_Loyal]

9 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Having a disproportionate number of old people isn't a sign of poor health.  Quite the contrary, I would have thought.

 

UK life expectancy, per Wikipedia, is 81 years.  2 years below the best in Europe, Switzerland, and 9.5 years above the worst, Ukraine.  I'm sure we could do better, but we aren't "grossly unhealthy".

It's our obesity levels that are the problem, we're behind only Turkey and Malta in Europe.

[Ric Flair]

1 hour ago, stripeyfox said:

I would be all for sport stopping for a month or so. Much as I enjoy watching the football as much as anyone, it doesn't seem right that they can carry on whilst the rest of us are being told to consider if any of our interactions are "essential".

 

 

But you can't just stop it for a month and then restart straight away, there will need to be a few weeks training before games start again, therefore all you are doing if it would be just a month is stopping matches but still having the players at the training ground training. 

 

The players are regularly tested, the ones who test positive isolate and the rest get tested, tested, tested and repeat. I really don't see an issue with it right now except to punish any players caught breaking the rules.

[Ric Flair]

3 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

It's our obesity levels that are the problem, we're behind only Turkey and Malta in Europe.

The thing is, when you get old one of the small comforts in life is eating. What else is there to do? I'll eat myself silly. Try and get banned from a few buffet restaurants etc. Chicken Kiev and waffle pizza roll ups.

[FoxesDeb]

2 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

The thing is, when you get old one of the small comforts in life is eating. What else is there to do? I'll eat myself silly. Try and get banned from a few buffet restaurants etc. Chicken Kiev and waffle pizza roll ups.

And what now?!

[Ric Flair]

Going back to this debate about those 2 birds who got fined for not breaking any rules in law, I still fail to see what all the fuss is aboit?

 

It comes down to whether something is more likely to spread the virus or not. The rules are 2 people can meet up for a walk/exercise. Thst as a rule means there's a slightly bigger chance of spread than if people aren't allowed to meet up. The driving cars a few miles to go for the said walk has absolutely no baring on anything unless car emissions are now a big spreader. 

 

My local park is heaving now, kids trying to play on the playgrounds that haven't been padlocked up like the first lockdown and having to play hopscotch to dodge the dog shit. I fail to see how walking round there or driving a few miles to another place to walk around is much different. 

 

Can someone enlighten me what the issues are that I'm missing here? 

[Ric Flair]

9 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

And what now?!

What am I having for lunch? A mug of beans and little sausages and findus crispy pancakes with the end bitten off to let the lava out and use as a spoon.

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, Ric Flair said:

What am I having for lunch? A mug of beans and little sausages and finds crispy pancakes with the end bitten off to let the lava out and use as a spoon.

Its a fine line between madness and genius

 

[Pliskin]

2 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

Unfortunately I don't think that would be possible.  

 

For example, I'm a self-employed accountant.  Key worker?  No.  You would think.  

 

But what about a self-employed accountant who runs payroll for a care agency?  Surely a key worker.  I don't think it is possible to produce a definitive list that won't have issues.

Very true... i think it is more pertinent in large organisations and their offices. Companies are going to have to be very strict when it comes to these key worker letters. There are people I know of where I am who are abusing it to get out of the house.... but like you say unless companies are strict it won’t be able to be policed. 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

27 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Having a disproportionate number of old people isn't a sign of poor health.  Quite the contrary, I would have thought.

 

UK life expectancy, per Wikipedia, is 81 years.  2 years below the best in Europe, Switzerland, and 9.5 years above the worst, Ukraine.  I'm sure we could do better, but we aren't "grossly unhealthy".

I'm not saying we're unhealthy because we're old. I'm saying we're unhealthy AND old.

[Ric Flair]

Just now, Sol thewall Bamba said:

I'm not saying we're unhealthy because we're old. I'm saying we're unhealthy AND old.

I think everyone and I mean EVERYONE should have to do the bleep test once a week and if you can't get to level 15 then you're straight in the sea.