Coronavirus Thread

[Super_horns]

The Government are probably worried about kids and young adults getting the virus and somehow dying or getting seriously ill because they have spent all this time telling them they aren’t in any danger .

 

Seems to be a lot of panic and concern about those not vaccinated.

 

I’d like to think there will be good news but naturally some will be cautious.

 

I presume they have stopped flights to and from India if their variant is causing so much trouble ?

[KFS]

17 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

All things considered - go and see your mum. We're at the point now where gathering inside is okay. Take all the precautions and go and see her, pal. 

Should have prefaced but I am in the US on a work visa which is currently banned from entry into the US based on Covid travel bans (despite being top tax payer bracket and a kid from here). So if I go home and see her, I would need to quarantine 10 days back in the UK and then not allowed back to the country I now call home (US). I've been fully vaxxed for over a month as well. Both countries completely ignoring situations like these and focusing on holidays; and there's not enough of us really for anyone to care.

 

It eats at me every day and now not even the science, vaccine rates or policies support any of this. I'm fuming.

Edited 3 June 2021 by KFS

[Dan LCFC]

Glad more and more are cottoning onto this complete shitshow. There needs to be a serious investigation into this with some tough consequences.

[Kasey Keller]

Fvcking had enough of this complete clusterfvck that is our government , my fvcking 9 year old could do a better job.

june 21st ain’t happening....get ready for it peeps.

gonna be end of July at the earliest.

masks will be here for the next 12 months inside... nightclubs wont reopen they will be mothballed....

its this variant then its that variant....

no wonder self harm and suicide cases are rising ..... i watch the news in the evening and just sit laughing in disbelief of what they are doing next.

airlines are up shlt street....I won’t be going abroad for at least 2 years.

Edited 4 June 2021 by Kasey Keller

[Jattdogg]

I cant speak for others but i just appreciate my life and country so much that I'd rather keep our  borders shut and contain until every Canadian has had access to both vaccine shots before completely opening back up to foreigners or travel abroad. Our borders arent completely shut though so whatever!

 

There is so much to see within this massive land of Canada that i dont need to leave the country. Feck, flying from one side to the other is just as far for me to fly to ireland/England almost lol.

 

I know staycationing within your own country isnt as sexy as going somewhere exotic but to me its a great opportunity to see what your own country offers and spend money locally.

 

Of course at some point in the distant future i want to come back over the pond to england to see my brother and go to places like jamaica, trinidad, portugal and wherever else.

 

Just pray you all keep safe , get vaccinated and your loved ones remain healthy and happy. For those of you first responders i appreciate all that you do to help humanity. For everyone else going through tough times  due to job loss, family loss, divorces, mental illness, Leicester not making champions league i pray you all see it through and good times come flooding back ASAP.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SemperEadem]

8 hours ago, Dan LCFC said:

Glad more and more are cottoning onto this complete shitshow. There needs to be a serious investigation into this with some tough consequences.

Who from though? They are all on the fiddle.

[Nuneatonfox in Manchester]

It’s all going to sh*t again ain’t it 😞

[Happy Fox]

This green light / amber / red system is a shambles tbh, covid vaccination passport system would be fine, but I doubt or if the people in charge have the competence to sort this out.

[Nalis]

Wonder if there will be any new green countries before the end of August? Part of me thinks no unless cases plummet on the continent.

[CosbehFox]

15 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

Government should have just grown a backbone in the first place and not entertained foreign travel for now anyway. We’ve got the variant faff cos nobody would make the decision to be stricter with borders and doing things by half hasn’t worked at any point.

 

Now they’ve got themselves into a situation where they’re making decisions nobody can understand and ruining plans at short notice. One can only assume there’s something to suggest cases are being imported from Portugal

The halfway house situation has completely fcuked aviation as well - the airports are bleeding jobs and money. By having some destinations open and some not - airports are being opened for 25 to 30% capacity, some airlines run, some concessions open in the airport. In reality they'd be better having no passenger travel except select emergencies in two/three airports across the country. Instead the likes of EMA are literally turning the lights on and losing money. 

 

14 hours ago, bovril said:

How has foreign travel been banned for a year? Millions of people have come and gone without quarantining. 

 

And yes it can help stop more cases coming into the country. 

It only took about five weeks for a genius at Heathrow to finally realise that letting all arrivals regardless of original country mix was a bad idea.

 

Finally started using one/two of the terminals for red list locations only. 

[KrefelderFox666]

13 minutes ago, Nalis said:

Wonder if there will be any new green countries before the end of August? Part of me thinks no unless cases plummet on the continent.

You would imagine the government will make sure that UK holidays get the most until schools start again. Then magically countries will open for holidays abroad (guided by the science of course).

 

Let's see what happens next...

[Soup]

1 hour ago, SemperEadem said:

Who from though? They are all on the fiddle.

Yeah nobody will so it's pointless. We the people are the only ones that can do anything but sadly this won't happen.  

 

[Finnegan]

There's something really disgusting about Ryan Air accusing the government of messing with people's lives (actual wording) by increasing restrictions. 

 

Keeping people safe isn't messing with people's lives, wanting no restrictions so you can milk them for profit is, you absolute cvnt. 

 

 

Edit: I should probably clarify, I'm not unsympathetic either to the aviation industry or to people desperate to get a holiday, I'm definitely one of the latter. I just think the head of one of the most shamelessly profiteering companies in the industry, responsible for pioneering some of the worst practices in the industry, should choose his words a little more carefully. 

 

Edited 4 June 2021 by Finnegan

[dsr-burnley]

17 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

There's something really disgusting about Ryan Air accusing the government of messing with people's lives (actual wording) by increasing restrictions. 

 

Keeping people safe isn't messing with people's lives, wanting no restrictions so you can milk them for profit is, you absolute [deleted]. 

 

 

Edit: I should probably clarify, I'm not unsympathetic either to the aviation industry or to people desperate to get a holiday, I'm definitely one of the latter. I just think the head of one of the most shamelessly profiteering companies in the industry, responsible for pioneering some of the worst practices in the industry, should choose his words a little more carefully. 

 

I really don't like this idea of declaring pro-lockdown people to be good and anti-lockdown people to be the opposite.  Just because someone doesn't share the idea that dying of something other than coronavirus is the only valid target in life, is does not necessarily make them a bad person.

[Finnegan]

7 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

I really don't like this idea of declaring pro-lockdown people to be good and anti-lockdown people to be the opposite.  Just because someone doesn't share the idea that dying of something other than coronavirus is the only valid target in life, is does not necessarily make them a bad person.

 

There aren't "pro lockdown" people. 

 

There are decent, conscientious people that want everyone to be safe and this to blow over as quickly as possible and there are selfish, entitled, wilfully thick people who lack the maturity to handle being told "no."

 

 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Finnegan said:

 

There aren't "pro lockdown" people. 

 

There are decent, conscientious people that want everyone to be safe and this to blow over as quickly as possible and there are selfish, entitled, wilfully thick people who lack the maturity to handle being told "no."

 

 

michaeljacksonpopcorn.gif

[Finnegan]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

michaeljacksonpopcorn.gif

 

 

Tbf, I've had more than my monthly dose of General Chat this morning already. 

 

I'm just going to /micdrop and out. 

[Legend_in_blue]

Listened to one of Boris's goons this morning, Jenrick, who claims that after looking at the data, the case rate in Portugal has doubled in the last 3 weeks.  This is a blatant lie.  If govt can't be straight with people in quoting real data correctly that was claimed would be used to guide the lifting of restrictions, we're in this never ending circle for a long, long time to come.  

[OrielCaziado]

Reading articles lately and listening to the media acclaimed experts on the news I can’t help feeling all decisions are currently being made using the worse case scenario.  It’s a mantle of better safe than sorry that seems to have taken over the leaders and decision makers.   Surely they need to be playing for the likeliest scenario and not over reacting to all these new variants. We are a Nation who’s most at risk are jabbed now. Let’s be brave and stop hiding behind the sofa because a new variant as appeared in Outer Mongolia or Moldova. 

[Legend_in_blue]

9 minutes ago, OrielCaziado said:

Reading articles lately and listening to the media acclaimed experts on the news I can’t help feeling all decisions are currently being made using the worse case scenario.  It’s a mantle of better safe than sorry that seems to have taken over the leaders and decision makers.   Surely they need to be playing for the likeliest scenario and not over reacting to all these new variants. We are a Nation who’s most at risk are jabbed now. Let’s be brave and stop hiding behind the sofa because a new variant as appeared in Outer Mongolia or Moldova. 

Sage are pulling the strings.  Always have done.

[StanSP]

 

 

 

 

 

[Zear0]

25 minutes ago, OrielCaziado said:

Reading articles lately and listening to the media acclaimed experts on the news I can’t help feeling all decisions are currently being made using the worse case scenario.  It’s a mantle of better safe than sorry that seems to have taken over the leaders and decision makers.   Surely they need to be playing for the likeliest scenario and not over reacting to all these new variants. We are a Nation who’s most at risk are jabbed now. Let’s be brave and stop hiding behind the sofa because a new variant as appeared in Outer Mongolia or Moldova. 

One of the requirements for use of modelling data relating to strategy or policy relevant to scenarios where a direct consequence relates to human life is to use fully deterministic methods (or at least nearly fully deterministic).  Best-estimate values are generally only ever provided for sensitivity studies to support probabilistic based analysis of data or for lower consequence events.  I fully appreciate for those lucky enough to not have to deal with risk-based safety work on a day to day basis it can appear extremely conservative (by it's nature it is), it is a matter of fact that this is the basis for what they'd consider "tolerable".

 

I'm not agreeing/disagreeing with your position at all, as risk/tolerability by it's nature is judgement based, just sharing my experience of the processes that senior safety committees (who will be advising government) are legally obliged to follow.  "Being brave" ie taking risks would give these assessors kittens.  All these decisions are risk-based, and if the government can't provide a justification for their decisions, they are literally committing a criminal act.

 

What I will share from my own professional experience that supports your point is that the academics who make these recommendations (SAGE) do tend to have extremely blinkered views on things (they assess my work too albeit for a very different industry and, on occasion, drive me nuts).  Specifically, direct consequences is their main focus to the detriment of tolerability to the impact to society/economy.  They'll trot out the "holistic" view of things, but that's rarely actually done.

 

 

[leicsmac]

21 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

One of the requirements for use of modelling data relating to strategy or policy relevant to scenarios where a direct consequence relates to human life is to use fully deterministic methods (or at least nearly fully deterministic).  Best-estimate values are generally only ever provided for sensitivity studies to support probabilistic based analysis of data or for lower consequence events.  I fully appreciate for those lucky enough to not have to deal with risk-based safety work on a day to day basis it can appear extremely conservative (by it's nature it is), it is a matter of fact that this is the basis for what they'd consider "tolerable".

 

I'm not agreeing/disagreeing with your position at all, as risk/tolerability by it's nature is judgement based, just sharing my experience of the processes that senior safety committees (who will be advising government) are legally obliged to follow.  "Being brave" ie taking risks would give these assessors kittens.  All these decisions are risk-based, and if the government can't provide a justification for their decisions, they are literally committing a criminal act.

 

What I will share from my own professional experience that supports your point is that the academics who make these recommendations (SAGE) do tend to have extremely blinkered views on things (they assess my work too albeit for a very different industry and, on occasion, drive me nuts).  Specifically, direct consequences is their main focus to the detriment of tolerability to the impact to society/economy.  They'll trot out the "holistic" view of things, but that's rarely actually done.

 

 

Possibly because that's much easier to model (and indeed, may be the only modeling function that produces results that are reliable as the others simply have too many variables).

Edited 4 June 2021 by leicsmac

[dsr-burnley]

1 hour ago, Finnegan said:

 

There aren't "pro lockdown" people. 

 

There are decent, conscientious people that want everyone to be safe and this to blow over as quickly as possible and there are selfish, entitled, wilfully thick people who lack the maturity to handle being told "no."

 

 

That's the point.  It's fairly prevalent nopwadays, as we found in the Brexit debate, for people to think that their opinion is the only valid one and that people who disagree are plain wrong.

 

So you believe that lockdown is the right way to go and opening up is the wrong way to go - that's fair comment.  People can disagree but they can't object to your belief.  But for you to believe that you are undoubtedly right and anyone who disagrees is selfish, entitled and thick - quite apart from the staggering degree of arrogance involved - that's objectionable.  You need to accept that other people have different opinions from you and it does not make them bad people.

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

That's the point.  It's fairly prevalent nopwadays, as we found in the Brexit debate, for people to think that their opinion is the only valid one and that people who disagree are plain wrong.

 

So you believe that lockdown is the right way to go and opening up is the wrong way to go - that's fair comment.  People can disagree but they can't object to your belief.  But for you to believe that you are undoubtedly right and anyone who disagrees is selfish, entitled and thick - quite apart from the staggering degree of arrogance involved - that's objectionable.  You need to accept that other people have different opinions from you and it does not make them bad people.

I think that depends on how one defines "bad people", which is of course subjective.

 

And Finn tends to define that rather broadly IIRC.