Jump to content
filbertway

Coronavirus Thread

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

As I've asked several times now, if anyone has any actual evidence of the extent to which non-compliance has driven transmission, then please share it.

 

Until then I'm going to continue to believe that structural factors are a far greater proponent and that you dont get 50000 infections a day because a few people go for walks slightly further from their house than their street.

I think this could well just be circumstantial, but take a look at outbreak data relative to other countries compared to the UK.

 

Those who have done better certainly seem to have been also better at social distancing, mask wearing and other generally reasonable things.

 

Of course, it could just be that their governments were collectively much more on the ball from the start, but I think it's a stretch to think that's responsible for the relative success of all of them.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Where are these rumours that sport will stop people are talking about above?

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!

Edited by Col city fan
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pliskin said:

One thing I think the government can do is add a bit more clarity so for example say;

 

Key workers are...... and that be final.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes 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.

Correct.

 

Certain sectors also can't just stop working regardless of whether they even deal with key industry or key workers. I for example run an insurance company and due to the FCA rules and principles, we HAVE to work since we must be available to service our clients.

 

This is fine, because we can do so from home; but you can see where further issues can occur, since sometimes there are other external authority influences which mean the show simply has to go on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OrielCaziado said:

Sport to stop and allowed out once a week. I’m dreading that but how must people who live alone or live in small houses with big families be feeling. Horrendous for some. Imagine living in a bedsit and having to get through that. 

I had coronavirus back in September and I was living in a shared house. I couldn't leave my room for 14 days, I was losing my mind. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

I'm no defender of the Governement who have botched the whole thing from start to now on the whole but they weren't the only ones thinking London should have been put into Tier 2

https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/reaction-to-tier-2-announement

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

I think this could well just be circumstantial, but take a look at outbreak data relative to other countries compared to the UK.

 

Those who have done better certainly seem to have been also better at social distancing, mask wearing and other generally reasonable things.

 

Of course, it could just be that their governments were collectively much more on the ball from the start, but I think it's a stretch to think that's responsible for the relative success of all of them.

 

That's supposition, not evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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".

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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! :facepalm:

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Alf Bentley
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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! :facepalm:

Great post 

👍

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Col city fan
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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".

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...