Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
filbertway

Coronavirus Thread

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Just had an email from the environmental agency to say that the government have given the ok to go fishing as it's classed as exercise! There ain't many forms of exercise that allow you to smoke 20 fags, drink 3 pints of tea and eat a couple of swiss rolls are there.

Darts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dsr-burnley said:

The way vaccines normally work (and I doubt this disease is any different) is that it stops the virus from multiplying.

 

In the normal way, a virus (or several million virus particles) enter your body and gleefully start multiplying away while your body has no defences.  Then your body spots the invaders and puts its immune system to work creating antivirus softwate, or antibodies as they are more technically called, to kill off all these little virus characters.  The virus characters are multiplying as fast as they can, the antibodies are fighting back, and the end of the war is when the virus is defeated and you recover, or else your body is unable to fight back against the viruses or has to use so much effort to do it that it can't carry out some other function necessary to life, and you die or suffer irreparable damage.

 

But the point of the antibodies is that either they stop the virus multiplying or that they stop it establishing itself in your body.  Either way, instead of the original millions multiplying merrily, they don't multiply and you don't get a big dose of virus.  The initial virus enters your body in exactly the same way, but if your body already knows how to deal with it (either by vaccine or by having had it before) then it can kill the invaders before they multiply like mad.

 

So it's certainly possible to pass it on after you have been vaccinated.  With most viruses, you don't pass it on because you never have enough of the virus to seriously hurt someone - it's the "viral load" issue.  The theory goes that people who are seriously ill, have received a large "viral load" of this virus so it gets a really good hold before the antibodies fight back.  If the "viral load" theory is correct, then people who have had the vaccination will not pass on the disease to any significant degree.

 

But it hasn't been tested yet.  Most viruses, people who are immune can (in practive) not pass it on.  Few exceptions.  In this case, the chances are it's the same as other viruses, but it hasn't been tested yet, so it's all supposition based on other viruses, it's not based on practical knowledge of this one.

Read this. It’ll answer your questions about the vaccine 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StanSP said:

@Col city fan - look how different these definitions are of local. And people wonder why so many do such different things (I'm fully behind the point of using common sense, don't get me wrong).

 

 

'Government guidance says daily outdoor exercise is allowed but people should not travel outside their local area.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the trip had not been "against the law - that's for sure".

People should go for exercise "from your front door and come back to your front door", she said, adding: "That's my view of local."

Policing minister Kit Malthouse told BBC Breakfast that Johnson was taking his once-a-day exercise, saying as long as people are “staying local within their own mind” and are not mixing “then that is reasonable”.'

 

 

You have Met Police' s PCC saying Boris cycling 7 miles is not against the law, and some crap about exercise from your front door and returning back later to your front door. That really doesn't clear anything up to be honest although I suspect what she means is once you leave your house, don't go anywhere else indoors or with anyone else and come back home? That still doesn't clear up 'local'. 

 

Then you have a Policing Minister 'as long as people stay local in their own mind'. Anyone can interpret that as several different distances. Far too vague!! 

Mate, I agree with you

I’ve made it abundantly clear that a series of simple, clear, enforceable rules are the only way that any ‘control’ (for want of a better term) will be achieved.

Have you ever worked at a place where the organisation do ‘fire drills’, according to a Fire Policy? 
When these drills occur (where I’ve worked they are done randomly, on purpose) unless staff know EXACTLY what to do in the event of the fire alarm sounding, you’ll see them scurrying around, shouting at each other, asking where the fire is, where they should be etc. It can be mayhem.

If the staff DO know who the fire co-ordinator is, where to go, where the fire board is, what their roles are etc... it all goes swimmingly.

I liken this procedure, or process, to ‘the rules’ regarding Covid. If unclear or ambiguous, people will revert to type, will become confused and start arguing with each other.

This thread demonstrates this. It encapsulates it. 
Of course, if this confusion reigns when a ‘real fire’ happens, it can be devastating. Fortunately, where I’ve worked the fire policy has been so good, that this has never happened. Similarly, Covid 19 has been devastating, in part due to this ambiguity, this lack of clarity.

So how have I tried to work with this? I’ve tried to exercise my own common sense, my own caution and my own sense of ‘protecting others’. I’ve not got bound up in the questioning of the rules and the arguments with it, because I know this won’t do me any good. I can’t change them, all I can do is to try to work with them in a way that makes sense to me.

So on no account do I agree with everything the government have done. Absolutely not. But I won’t allow myself to get angry and frustrated with it either. I’ve just tried my best to keep myself and others safe as best I could.

 

Edited by Col city fan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

Mate, I agree with you

I’ve made it abundantly clear that a series of simple, clear, enforceable rules are the only way that any ‘control’ (for want of a better term) will be achieved.

Have you ever worked at a place where the organisation do ‘fire drills’, according to a Fire Policy? 
When these drills occur (where I’ve worked they are done randomly, on purpose) unless staff know EXACTLY what to do in the event of the fire alarm sounding, you’ll see them scurrying around, shouting at each other, asking where the fire is, where they should be etc. It can be mayhem.

If the staff DO know who the fire co-ordinator is, where to go, where the fire board is, what their roles are etc... it all goes swimmingly.

I liken this procedure, or process, to ‘the rules’ regarding Covid. If unclear or ambiguous, people will revert to type, will become confused and start arguing with each other.

This thread demonstrates this. It encapsulates it. 
Of course, if this confusion reigns when a ‘real fire’ happens, it can be devastating. Fortunately, where I’ve worked the fire policy has been so good, that this has never happened. Similarly, Covid 19 has been devastating, in part due to this ambiguity, this lack of clarity.

So how have I tried to work with this? I’ve tried to exercise my own common sense, my own caution and my own sense of ‘protecting others’. I’ve not got bound up in the questioning of the rules and the arguments with it, because I know this won’t do me any good. I can’t change them, all I can do is to try to work with them in a way that makes sense to me.

So on no account do I agree with everything the government have done. Absolutely not. But I won’t allow myself to get angry and frustrated with it either. I’ve just tried my best to keep myself and others safe as best I could.

 

Have you ever thought about writing a comedy series Col, I'm sure the lead character could be based on you lol

 

It just seemed very Partridge esque when you went from using an analogy about fire policies to actually talking about fire policies, put a smile on my face that did :D

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, filbertway said:

Have you ever thought about writing a comedy series Col, I'm sure the lead character could be based on you lol

 

It just seemed very Partridge esque when you went from using an analogy about fire policies to actually talking about fire policies, put a smile on my face that did :D

 

I have had stuff published buddy! Though sadly not a comedy 😩

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure the statements from Morrison and Sainsbury change anything.  They still don;t have the right to deny access to someone with a disability visible or not.  Tesco already have signs saying masks are compulsory - and I don't think I have seen anyone without one for months.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I'm not sure the statements from Morrison and Sainsbury change anything.  They still don;t have the right to deny access to someone with a disability visible or not.  Tesco already have signs saying masks are compulsory - and I don't think I have seen anyone without one for months.

Yeah I think you're right, people making excuses will still make the same excuses and absolutely nothing has changed.

 

"We've put in new measures and aren't allowing people in without a mask"

 

"Oh cool, so everyone in the store will definitely have to wear a mask"

 

"Well, except people with medical exemptions.."

 

"So...nothing has really changed other than someone will be stood at the entrance and parrot what the rules have always been?"

 

"Well...yeah basically"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I'm not sure the statements from Morrison and Sainsbury change anything.  They still don;t have the right to deny access to someone with a disability visible or not.  Tesco already have signs saying masks are compulsory - and I don't think I have seen anyone without one for months.

But surely if their statement means just one person stops the spread it's a positive thing. 

 

It's good that they're leading by example and trying to stamp out pathetic attempts at bending the rules. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stuntman_Mike said:

But surely if their statement means just one person stops the spread it's a positive thing. 

 

It's good that they're leading by example and trying to stamp out pathetic attempts at bending the rules. 

 

 

 

For sure it'll put some non mask wearers off going into the shop or mean that some non mask wearers now decide to wear one whilst shoppng. I was just questioning legally what it changes, because it looked like nothing had.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I'm not sure the statements from Morrison and Sainsbury change anything.  They still don;t have the right to deny access to someone with a disability visible or not.  Tesco already have signs saying masks are compulsory - and I don't think I have seen anyone without one for months.

They are private property and have the right to deny ANYONE entry. Don't get where this myth they don't have the right comes from. :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, filbertway said:

 

Yeah I think you're right, people making excuses will still make the same excuses and absolutely nothing has changed.

 

"We've put in new measures and aren't allowing people in without a mask"

 

"Oh cool, so everyone in the store will definitely have to wear a mask"

 

"Well, except people with medical exemptions.."

 

"So...nothing has really changed other than someone will be stood at the entrance and parrot what the rules have always been?"

 

"Well...yeah basically"

Trying to be positive again, I think what Morrison’s are doing WILL make a difference over time. There will be people who will start to associate ‘shopping at Morrison’s’ with ‘having to take a mask with me or I’ll have the bother at the door of having to explain why I don’t have one’

If the other big stores follow suit, people’s mind sets will change over time i think

At least Morrison’s have thrown the balls in the air to see what comes down. Good on them. It’s a start.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

For sure it'll put some non mask wearers off going into the shop or mean that some non mask wearers now decide to wear one whilst shoppng. I was just questioning legally what it changes, because it looked like nothing had.

You’re just doing this thing again of ‘what if’. Give it a chance and see

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

Trying to be positive again, I think what Morrison’s are doing WILL make a difference over time. There will be people who will start to associate ‘shopping at Morrison’s’ with ‘having to take a mask with me or I’ll have the bother at the door of having to explain why I don’t have one’

If the other big stores follow suit, people’s mind sets will change over time i think

At least Morrison’s have thrown the balls in the air to see what comes down. Good on them. It’s a start.

I admire the positivity, I think the past year had drained me down to my last few drops and I use that on Leicester games :D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

What are you talking about? I'm just questioning legally what's changed, because on the surface it appears nothing has.

You're right, nothing has legally changed. The only thing that's changed is they're now willing to enforce it. They've always been able to deny people entry, but with how the public were with masks when they were first talked about they didn't want to put their security guards in that position. Or risk public backlash with the usual crybabies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

What are you talking about? I'm just questioning legally what's changed, because on the surface it appears nothing has.

Just don’t question It for the moment. Give it a chance and see. ‘Legally’ there might be implications. Who knows? I don’t, do you?

Lets see what happens with masks and Morrison’s. At least they’ve started the ball rolling 

Link to comment
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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...