Repellent a concept as it is, HYUFD is talking sense. Walking / running in fresh air with no other people around is not creating risk of passing on or contracting CV19
So when the uk locks down as tight as Spain and says exercise isn't a reason to be out you will be rejecting that advice?
People out touch stuff. People see others doing things and push boundaries because "it's no worse than what others are doing and I am a special case". Saw it yesterday when I had to go out to shop. People out walking and stopping for a sit down on a bench to watch the world go by for a bit because they are glad to be out the house.
When we get locked down as tight as Spain we will be able to leave the house to go and shop. When you shop you touch a whole load of stuff. In an air-conditioned indoor environment with people close by. When I run I touch nothing, outdoors, with no people close by.
If they say they'll fine me for running I won't run. But from a risk perspective I know where the risk lies. And it isn't me running outdoors away from people...
I wasn't saying it was high risk for you to do necessarily. I was however saying it can be higher risk. I am sure most have seen the joggers out and jogging on the spot while waiting to cross a road after pressing the button etc for example. Shopping is definitely higher risk but unfortunately necessary
Under the new rules announced late on Saturday, sport and physical activity outside, even individually, is banned. Using vending machines is forbidden.
Under the new rules announced late on Saturday, sport and physical activity outside, even individually, is banned. Using vending machines is forbidden.
I wonder how much of this is because they need to be seen to be clamping down even further to “get a grip” rather than because it will actually change much?
Under the new rules announced late on Saturday, sport and physical activity outside, even individually, is banned. Using vending machines is forbidden.
I wonder how much of this is because they need to be seen to be clamping down even further to “get a grip” rather than because it will actually change much?
You will have to ask someone who has italian contacts that sadly I only have people in germany, holland,sweden, the us and canada I regularly talk to so can't answer
In a typical year there are 5-600k deaths in a year in the UK. Has anyone attempted to collate figures showing how daily reported deaths this year compares to similar in previous years. Or, as it would clearly be materially insignificant in the UK at the moment, tried to do the same in eg. Italy?
It is very difficult, frankly, to get a real understanding of the scale of this, even taking on board anecdotal reports from hospitals, without knowing this.
At 1,500 normal daily deaths the virus is still in the soundings, just
A helpful comparison is ~25,000 yearly excess winter deaths, which includes things like the seasonal flu, winter vomiting bug and other less obvious impacts (such as the pressure on NHS beds). To some extent, however regretable, we accept that sort of number. Vallance more or less said that if the UK could keep deaths to that sort of number, it would be a success. It's currently looking pretty optimistic.
Repellent a concept as it is, HYUFD is talking sense. Walking / running in fresh air with no other people around is not creating risk of passing on or contracting CV19
So when the uk locks down as tight as Spain and says exercise isn't a reason to be out you will be rejecting that advice?
People out touch stuff. People see others doing things and push boundaries because "it's no worse than what others are doing and I am a special case". Saw it yesterday when I had to go out to shop. People out walking and stopping for a sit down on a bench to watch the world go by for a bit because they are glad to be out the house.
When we get locked down as tight as Spain we will be able to leave the house to go and shop. When you shop you touch a whole load of stuff. In an air-conditioned indoor environment with people close by. When I run I touch nothing, outdoors, with no people close by.
If they say they'll fine me for running I won't run. But from a risk perspective I know where the risk lies. And it isn't me running outdoors away from people...
I wasn't saying it was high risk for you to do necessarily. I was however saying it can be higher risk. I am sure most have seen the joggers out and jogging on the spot while waiting to cross a road after pressing the button etc for example. Shopping is definitely higher risk but unfortunately necessary
There comes a point when the difference in risk between doing things that are allowed as essential and things that are banned because not is so great that the latter is pointless and counterproductive - especially if leading to other negative consequences. And I reiterate that I doubt this is happening because of increased risk of solitary joggers. It is happening because of people abusing the ability to do so to arrange social contact.
So absolutely not a reason not to do it (Solitary Outdoor exercise whilst you can.)
What are peoples at home plans? I did kettlebells before, but plan to take it up again, emerging from isolation with the body of a Greek God. Anyone taking up an instrument, learning to knit, becoming a chef etc.?
I do crunches,star jumps, press ups , jog on the spot, curls etc and a couple of half hour sessions of beat saber every day though my Greek God days are probably long in the past.
Repellent a concept as it is, HYUFD is talking sense. Walking / running in fresh air with no other people around is not creating risk of passing on or contracting CV19
So when the uk locks down as tight as Spain and says exercise isn't a reason to be out you will be rejecting that advice?
People out touch stuff. People see others doing things and push boundaries because "it's no worse than what others are doing and I am a special case". Saw it yesterday when I had to go out to shop. People out walking and stopping for a sit down on a bench to watch the world go by for a bit because they are glad to be out the house.
When we get locked down as tight as Spain we will be able to leave the house to go and shop. When you shop you touch a whole load of stuff. In an air-conditioned indoor environment with people close by. When I run I touch nothing, outdoors, with no people close by.
If they say they'll fine me for running I won't run. But from a risk perspective I know where the risk lies. And it isn't me running outdoors away from people...
I wasn't saying it was high risk for you to do necessarily. I was however saying it can be higher risk. I am sure most have seen the joggers out and jogging on the spot while waiting to cross a road after pressing the button etc for example. Shopping is definitely higher risk but unfortunately necessary
There comes a point when the difference in risk between doing things that are allowed as essential and things that are banned because not is so great that the latter is pointless and counterproductive - especially if leading to other negative consequences. And I reiterate that I doubt this is happening because of increased risk of solitary joggers. It is happening because of people abusing the ability to do so to arrange social contact.
Which is the point I have making, any non essential outing no matter how little risk gives a license to others to indulge in slightly more risky behaviour which in turn etc.
What are peoples at home plans? I did kettlebells before, but plan to take it up again, emerging from isolation with the body of a Greek God. Anyone taking up an instrument, learning to knit, becoming a chef etc.?
I do crunches,star jumps, press ups , jog on the spot, curls etc and a couple of half hour sessions of beat saber every day though my Greek God days are probably long in the past.
Repellent a concept as it is, HYUFD is talking sense. Walking / running in fresh air with no other people around is not creating risk of passing on or contracting CV19
So when the uk locks down as tight as Spain and says exercise isn't a reason to be out you will be rejecting that advice?
People out touch stuff. People see others doing things and push boundaries because "it's no worse than what others are doing and I am a special case". Saw it yesterday when I had to go out to shop. People out walking and stopping for a sit down on a bench to watch the world go by for a bit because they are glad to be out the house.
If the Govt introduces those rules then those are the rules we will have to follow. But they won’t be doing it because of people going for solitary walks, even if they are caught up in it as a result.
And as pointed out, France and Italy haven’t even done that now. But apparently Spain is the new beacon of best practice.
Only time will tell which approach is right. The one advantage Spain has, or maybe disadvantage is the PM has to consult the leaders of the auto minors communities who come from a range of parties and of course geographies. This is, in my mind, a healthy check and balance on the PM.
Repellent a concept as it is, HYUFD is talking sense. Walking / running in fresh air with no other people around is not creating risk of passing on or contracting CV19
But if everyone does that, suddenly you do have other people around.
Repellent a concept as it is, HYUFD is talking sense. Walking / running in fresh air with no other people around is not creating risk of passing on or contracting CV19
But if everyone does that, suddenly you do have other people around.
See pictures of the crowds of bike rides in the lake district today.
Iran’s Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said America was responsible for sending coronavirus to Iran, so making it impossible to accept any American help to fight the virus in Iran.
Definitely going for the herd immunity strategy....
Iran’s Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said America was responsible for sending coronavirus to Iran, so making it impossible to accept any American help to fight the virus in Iran.
Turns out being locked up for hours on end every day with nothing but a TV to keep you company is not easy street after all. Maybe prison reform is something else we can take a bit more seriously after this is done.
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion, I am definitely a weirdo. For me, past 2 weeks have flown by and personally really not finding it much of a chore. I haven't even really got stuck into any box set watching.
Yes, my job usually takes me all over the UK and Europe. Last 14 days are probably the first two weeks in years where I haven't travelled out of the town, let alone the county. Quite enjoying it. Plowing through the paperwork, and the accounts are done 8 days ahead of schedule!
Obviously it does help if you have work to do. But with t'interweb, so many opportunities to work on new projects, learn new skills, be creative and paint / draw / make things.
You could learn to programme in Python or how to play all Radiohead's greatest hits....
Repellent a concept as it is, HYUFD is talking sense. Walking / running in fresh air with no other people around is not creating risk of passing on or contracting CV19
So when the uk locks down as tight as Spain and says exercise isn't a reason to be out you will be rejecting that advice?
People out touch stuff. People see others doing things and push boundaries because "it's no worse than what others are doing and I am a special case". Saw it yesterday when I had to go out to shop. People out walking and stopping for a sit down on a bench to watch the world go by for a bit because they are glad to be out the house.
When we get locked down as tight as Spain we will be able to leave the house to go and shop. When you shop you touch a whole load of stuff. In an air-conditioned indoor environment with people close by. When I run I touch nothing, outdoors, with no people close by.
If they say they'll fine me for running I won't run. But from a risk perspective I know where the risk lies. And it isn't me running outdoors away from people...
I wasn't saying it was high risk for you to do necessarily. I was however saying it can be higher risk. I am sure most have seen the joggers out and jogging on the spot while waiting to cross a road after pressing the button etc for example. Shopping is definitely higher risk but unfortunately necessary
There comes a point when the difference in risk between doing things that are allowed as essential and things that are banned because not is so great that the latter is pointless and counterproductive - especially if leading to other negative consequences. And I reiterate that I doubt this is happening because of increased risk of solitary joggers. It is happening because of people abusing the ability to do so to arrange social contact.
Which is the point I have making, any non essential outing no matter how little risk gives a license to others to indulge in slightly more risky behaviour which in turn etc.
It is a possible reason for government clampdown, not for avoiding jogging. People are abusing government lenience, which is specifically designed at allowing outdoor exercise, not taking advantage of people acting responsibly). If Government wasn’t totally happy for people to exercise responsibly they would ban it now. It is to avoid punishing the responsible that they haven’t. Taking a personal decision to stop would make no difference to those who don’t act responsibly.
Iran’s Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said America was responsible for sending coronavirus to Iran, so making it impossible to accept any American help to fight the virus in Iran.
Definitely going for the herd immunity strategy....
Were they offering any? The US has enough problems of its own I would have thought. The Ayatollah should have pointed out the great Satan has been using them as a role model, right down to having a lunatic in charge.
Repellent a concept as it is, HYUFD is talking sense. Walking / running in fresh air with no other people around is not creating risk of passing on or contracting CV19
So when the uk locks down as tight as Spain and says exercise isn't a reason to be out you will be rejecting that advice?
People out touch stuff. People see others doing things and push boundaries because "it's no worse than what others are doing and I am a special case". Saw it yesterday when I had to go out to shop. People out walking and stopping for a sit down on a bench to watch the world go by for a bit because they are glad to be out the house.
When we get locked down as tight as Spain we will be able to leave the house to go and shop. When you shop you touch a whole load of stuff. In an air-conditioned indoor environment with people close by. When I run I touch nothing, outdoors, with no people close by.
If they say they'll fine me for running I won't run. But from a risk perspective I know where the risk lies. And it isn't me running outdoors away from people...
I wasn't saying it was high risk for you to do necessarily. I was however saying it can be higher risk. I am sure most have seen the joggers out and jogging on the spot while waiting to cross a road after pressing the button etc for example. Shopping is definitely higher risk but unfortunately necessary
There comes a point when the difference in risk between doing things that are allowed as essential and things that are banned because not is so great that the latter is pointless and counterproductive - especially if leading to other negative consequences. And I reiterate that I doubt this is happening because of increased risk of solitary joggers. It is happening because of people abusing the ability to do so to arrange social contact.
Which is the point I have making, any non essential outing no matter how little risk gives a license to others to indulge in slightly more risky behaviour which in turn etc.
It is a possible reason for government clampdown, not for avoiding jogging. People are abusing government lenience, which is specifically designed at allowing outdoor exercise, not taking advantage of people acting responsibly). If Government wasn’t totally happy for people to exercise responsibly they would ban it now. It is to avoid punishing the responsible that they haven’t. Taking a personal decision to stop would make no difference to those who don’t act responsibly.
Sadly too many don't act responsibly however as we have seen. I am sure all those bike riders on the picture taken in the lake district started off acting responsibly then when out got to the cafe and instead of turning round joined in.
Over the next few months many of us will make dificult decisions. A tenant of mine phoned this morning, her toilet was leaking. She is on her own and definitely at the top end of high risk, only toilet in the property, what should I do. I phoned her daughter and said I would go in and fix it, or I could call a plumber who would be unlikely on a Sunday. We agreed her Mum stay in a separate room and I would fix it. Took me about 3 hours, with about 1 hour at the end wiping everything I had touched with disinfectant. Hope she does not get sick, I would be very upset if she does. I am feeling fine, and I live in a rural area so hope for the best. As I said at the start we will face difficult decisions.
Over the next few months many of us will make dificult decisions. A tenant of mine phoned this morning, her toilet was leaking. She is on her own and definitely at the top end of high risk, only toilet in the property, what should I do. I phoned her daughter and said I would go in and fix it, or I could call a plumber who would be unlikely on a Sunday. We agreed her Mum stay in a separate room and I would fix it. Took me about 3 hours, with about 1 hour at the end wiping everything I had touched with disinfectant. Hope she does not get sick, I would be very upset if she does. I am feeling fine, and I live in a rural area so hope for the best. As I said at the start we will face difficult decisions.
The risk of infections of other types through lack of sanitation were probably greater. You weighed the risks and acted sensibly and did all you could to prevent infection
Repellent a concept as it is, HYUFD is talking sense. Walking / running in fresh air with no other people around is not creating risk of passing on or contracting CV19
So when the uk locks down as tight as Spain and says exercise isn't a reason to be out you will be rejecting that advice?
People out touch stuff. People see others doing things and push boundaries because "it's no worse than what others are doing and I am a special case". Saw it yesterday when I had to go out to shop. People out walking and stopping for a sit down on a bench to watch the world go by for a bit because they are glad to be out the house.
When we get locked down as tight as Spain we will be able to leave the house to go and shop. When you shop you touch a whole load of stuff. In an air-conditioned indoor environment with people close by. When I run I touch nothing, outdoors, with no people close by.
If they say they'll fine me for running I won't run. But from a risk perspective I know where the risk lies. And it isn't me running outdoors away from people...
I wasn't saying it was high risk for you to do necessarily. I was however saying it can be higher risk. I am sure most have seen the joggers out and jogging on the spot while waiting to cross a road after pressing the button etc for example. Shopping is definitely higher risk but unfortunately necessary
There comes a point when the difference in risk between doing things that are allowed as essential and things that are banned because not is so great that the latter is pointless and counterproductive - especially if leading to other negative consequences. And I reiterate that I doubt this is happening because of increased risk of solitary joggers. It is happening because of people abusing the ability to do so to arrange social contact.
So absolutely not a reason not to do it (Solitary Outdoor exercise whilst you can.)
Quite. How running around the block on near-deserted pavements is somehow meant to be grave threat, when being forced to set foot in a supermarket full of hundreds of potential or actual Plague vectors is not, eludes me. There comes a point when tough-but-necessary measures give way to desperate but useless something-must-be-done-ism.
Looking forward, I think that the current lockdown (and possibly even additional measures) can hold for the initial twelve weeks that the Government is proposing for the quarantining of the old and shielding of the very vulnerable, but after that there will have to be a very careful review of the risks of relaxing restrictions versus the risks of societal collapse.
To put it crudely, there's little point in keeping an extra 50,000 octogenarians alive if, at the end of all of this, the entire country is impoverished and immiserated, a substantial fraction of the population is emotionally traumatised or downright insane, and then the salvaged persons just die from hypothermia or starvation in the Winter because there is no longer a sufficiency of fuel and food.
Repellent a concept as it is, HYUFD is talking sense. Walking / running in fresh air with no other people around is not creating risk of passing on or contracting CV19
So when the uk locks down as tight as Spain and says exercise isn't a reason to be out you will be rejecting that advice?
People out touch stuff. People see others doing things and push boundaries because "it's no worse than what others are doing and I am a special case". Saw it yesterday when I had to go out to shop. People out walking and stopping for a sit down on a bench to watch the world go by for a bit because they are glad to be out the house.
If this disease is spread, as seems very likely to me, by air-conditioning, being outside is much better than being inside in some circumstances.
Under the new rules announced late on Saturday, sport and physical activity outside, even individually, is banned. Using vending machines is forbidden.
I wonder how much of this is because they need to be seen to be clamping down even further to “get a grip” rather than because it will actually change much?
Exactly the kind of gesture measures we have avoided so far. I hope we can continue to do so.
Repellent a concept as it is, HYUFD is talking sense. Walking / running in fresh air with no other people around is not creating risk of passing on or contracting CV19
So when the uk locks down as tight as Spain and says exercise isn't a reason to be out you will be rejecting that advice?
People out touch stuff. People see others doing things and push boundaries because "it's no worse than what others are doing and I am a special case". Saw it yesterday when I had to go out to shop. People out walking and stopping for a sit down on a bench to watch the world go by for a bit because they are glad to be out the house.
If this disease is spread, as seems very likely to me, by air-conditioning, being outside is much better than being inside in some circumstances.
Air conditioning could be a factor.
But it won't be the only factor.
More likely on surfaces in air conditioned areas, rather than via the air conditioning itself, I’d have thought.
Repellent a concept as it is, HYUFD is talking sense. Walking / running in fresh air with no other people around is not creating risk of passing on or contracting CV19
So when the uk locks down as tight as Spain and says exercise isn't a reason to be out you will be rejecting that advice?
People out touch stuff. People see others doing things and push boundaries because "it's no worse than what others are doing and I am a special case". Saw it yesterday when I had to go out to shop. People out walking and stopping for a sit down on a bench to watch the world go by for a bit because they are glad to be out the house.
When we get locked down as tight as Spain we will be able to leave the house to go and shop. When you shop you touch a whole load of stuff. In an air-conditioned indoor environment with people close by. When I run I touch nothing, outdoors, with no people close by.
If they say they'll fine me for running I won't run. But from a risk perspective I know where the risk lies. And it isn't me running outdoors away from people...
I wasn't saying it was high risk for you to do necessarily. I was however saying it can be higher risk. I am sure most have seen the joggers out and jogging on the spot while waiting to cross a road after pressing the button etc for example. Shopping is definitely higher risk but unfortunately necessary
There comes a point when the difference in risk between doing things that are allowed as essential and things that are banned because not is so great that the latter is pointless and counterproductive - especially if leading to other negative consequences. And I reiterate that I doubt this is happening because of increased risk of solitary joggers. It is happening because of people abusing the ability to do so to arrange social contact.
So absolutely not a reason not to do it (Solitary Outdoor exercise whilst you can.)
Quite. How running around the block on near-deserted pavements is somehow meant to be grave threat, when being forced to set foot in a supermarket full of hundreds of potential or actual Plague vectors is not, eludes me. There comes a point when tough-but-necessary measures give way to desperate but useless something-must-be-done-ism.
Looking forward, I think that the current lockdown (and possibly even additional measures) can hold for the initial twelve weeks that the Government is proposing for the quarantining of the old and shielding of the very vulnerable, but after that there will have to be a very careful review of the risks of relaxing restrictions versus the risks of societal collapse.
To put it crudely, there's little point in keeping an extra 50,000 octogenarians alive if, at the end of all of this, the entire country is impoverished and immiserated, a substantial fraction of the population is emotionally traumatised or downright insane, and then the salvaged persons just die from hypothermia or starvation in the Winter because there is no longer a sufficiency of fuel and food.
Here is a thought experiment for you and PB
a)There are necessary things we have to do such as shop. b) There are unnecessary things we need to do like go jogging as there are alternatives.
If every trip out is non zero % chance of transmission either to ourselves or others what % for each category do you think reasonable. I think for example we would all agree 100% chance is not acceptable for category B.
So what do we think is an acceptable % before which category B trips should be curtailed?
Son and girlfriend were at Tesco's earlier making use of the NHS hour
Police had to be called as a fight broke out because non NHS staff were demanding access too.
Just wonderful....
Two girls ahead of me going into the M&S "oldies hour told the people on the door they were shopping for their granny. Once in they killing themselves laughing all the way to the footdhall. It needs watching - the sort of low-life that will do that are more than likely not to be observing any of the recommended practices.
Can we add, what the hell are the Germans doing that we aren't?
The German death rate is so starkly varying from anyone else it must be something in the way they record causes of death. Not deliberately a la Russia, but just a different method.
Easy solution, price at checkout without an NHS ID card is x100.
Easier solution: stick a couple of particular large squaddies with assault rifles on the doors of some of these supermarkets, so that the store guards can check the IDs, and broadcast footage on the news. Repeat until people who aren't meant to be there finally get the message and fuck off.
Under the new rules announced late on Saturday, sport and physical activity outside, even individually, is banned. Using vending machines is forbidden.
I wonder how much of this is because they need to be seen to be clamping down even further to “get a grip” rather than because it will actually change much?
Exactly the kind of gesture measures we have avoided so far. I hope we can continue to do so.
Part of the real tragedy of this is the speed of the increases in numbers. Governments will be under pressure to take ever more draconian measures on the basis of numbers reflecting the position days or weeks ago. Fine when the measures actually have a positive impact, but when the measures actually start being negative/counterproductive...
In a typical year there are 5-600k deaths in a year in the UK. Has anyone attempted to collate figures showing how daily reported deaths this year compares to similar in previous years. Or, as it would clearly be materially insignificant in the UK at the moment, tried to do the same in eg. Italy?
It is very difficult, frankly, to get a real understanding of the scale of this, even taking on board anecdotal reports from hospitals, without knowing this.
At 1,500 normal daily deaths the virus is still in the soundings, just
A helpful comparison is ~25,000 yearly excess winter deaths, which includes things like the seasonal flu, winter vomiting bug and other less obvious impacts (such as the pressure on NHS beds). To some extent, however regretable, we accept that sort of number. Vallance more or less said that if the UK could keep deaths to that sort of number, it would be a success. It's currently looking pretty optimistic.
UK deaths are about 618,000 per annum, 1700 a day. When people got shocked about an 'extra' 20,000 deaths they were, sadly, being absurd. That would be a terrific outcome in the circumstances, and not unlike a really bad flu year.
Until they know the effect of the C-19 figures on the overall statistical picture they really won't know much. I have not seen any data and I don't think there will be meaningful data for a bit yet.
I think a hope for the UK moving forward is that we probably had a higher rate of self-imposed containment than a lot of other countries - Spain, Italy, and above all the US, for example - before official measures kicked in. We’ve focused on those who did not change their routines, but a shedload of people did.
Yes. Also, we have a different demographic profile and cultural habits to Italy.
Our population isn't as elderly. We don't go to Catholic mass en-masse. Brits do a bit less hugging and double-kissing in everyday life as a greeting. We live more in houses than flats and are slightly less communitarian.
The one exception to this may be the metropolitan cities, parricularly London, where cultural habits are very mixed and there are millions living in close proximity - a large number of which aren't changing their habits very much.
We do go to mosques en masse, especially on Fridays. And supermarkets.
It will be interesting to discover how this is really spreading so we can see which measures are effective and which can be abandoned as not necessary. Is there evidence of rapid spread through opera-goers or tube travellers (and the London boroughs with high numbers sort of follow the Bakerloo line) or Muslims or parents of schoolchildren?
Not sure of the source but on another blog is the claim that 25% of deaths are Muslim men.
One difference I percieve (but again I can't be sure on this) is that the German public are more accepting of the measures being imposed, and want to find solutions. Schools here are also closed. In GB closing the schools set of a chain reaction of "but what about exams?", "but what about children of nurses?", ... "does [insert random profession here] count as a key worker?" In Germany the reaction is more like "oh bugger the schools are shutting. We'll make sure the kids are looked after and the education dept can work out what to do about the exams".
Obviously it's hard to compare attitudes in UK and Germany without opinion polling (or at the least, good social media sentiment analysis) because it's hard to know whether your personal experience forms a very biased sample... however, I'll stick up for the British approach of asking hard questions about school closure! Because a lot of those questions are important ones.
School closures are not an "obvious" step to take. Received wisdom among epidemiologists, based on a lot of research, is that you generally don't want to use them as part of a pandemic response, and if you do need to use them then you want to wait as long as possible before unleashing them - preferably near the epidemic peak, but you may be forced into doing it early for other reasons such as teaching staff absenteeism or a pandemic that threatens to overwhelm healthcare capacity.
The "key worker" question is absolutely critical because if you don't sort this out you paralyse or severely hinder large parts of your emergency response, and these losses may wipe out gains you make from the school closure.
The "we'll make sure the kids are looked after" isn't a "well, we'll just sort it out" kinda thing, it is a massively important question the government eggheads need to be sure suitable answers exist for because if this gets messed up, it will lead to the school closures backfiring massively. If you have a disease that's seriously dangerous to the elderly but you impose a measure that leads to a shift of childcare burden onto older generations, while kids might be very good at spreading the disease around, that's got trouble written all over it. On the flip side, if you demand parents themselves do the childcare, we hit the key worker issue. We can argue about the timing and confusion of the HMG response but the basic sequencing seems well though-out to me and is certainly the result of some smart people thinking the issue through - get parents working from or furloughed at home first, so the burden shifts to them not gran, and for those people who need to keep working for us to function during the pandemic, use schools as childcare centres. That's got to be better than knee-jerk blanket closures.
I see a lot of people criticising others for being stupid and socialising/congregating/going out in what they perceive risky ways
I see a lot of the same people saying I can't see how I could catch it just going out for a walk where is the harm in that.
The thinking for both sets of actions however is the same "I can't see the harm"
Just saying
If you cannot see the difference between taking a walk whilst socially distancing or meeting up and socialising with friends....I can draw you a picture if you like..
Indeed, even in France and Italy you can still go out for a walk and exercise provided you keep a few metres from others, if people don't get any exercise they will end up even worse both physically and mentally
People can exercise perfectly well at home, they choose not to because they want to go out so it really isn't an excuse its being selfish and putting others at unnecessary risk. I am sure France and Italy will soon follow Spain in saying its not a legitimate reason to be out.
If you are in a 1 bed flat as I am then no you cannot 'exercise perfectly well at home', you don't have a garden either.
Bollocks. You can do HIIT training in a really small area of space. Doing something like a burpie requires hardly any space at all. And all the variations of press-ups, sit-ups, planks...the list is endless.
Charles Bronson (the murderer not the film star!) wrote an interesting book on fitness using only the equipment in a prison cell.
I think a hope for the UK moving forward is that we probably had a higher rate of self-imposed containment than a lot of other countries - Spain, Italy, and above all the US, for example - before official measures kicked in. We’ve focused on those who did not change their routines, but a shedload of people did.
Yes. Also, we have a different demographic profile and cultural habits to Italy.
Our population isn't as elderly. We don't go to Catholic mass en-masse. Brits do a bit less hugging and double-kissing in everyday life as a greeting. We live more in houses than flats and are slightly less communitarian.
The one exception to this may be the metropolitan cities, parricularly London, where cultural habits are very mixed and there are millions living in close proximity - a large number of which aren't changing their habits very much.
We do go to mosques en masse, especially on Fridays. And supermarkets.
It will be interesting to discover how this is really spreading so we can see which measures are effective and which can be abandoned as not necessary. Is there evidence of rapid spread through opera-goers or tube travellers (and the London boroughs with high numbers sort of follow the Bakerloo line) or Muslims or parents of schoolchildren?
Not sure of the source but on another blog is the claim that 25% of deaths are Muslim men.
Really? A statement like that needs a source I think!
In a typical year there are 5-600k deaths in a year in the UK. Has anyone attempted to collate figures showing how daily reported deaths this year compares to similar in previous years. Or, as it would clearly be materially insignificant in the UK at the moment, tried to do the same in eg. Italy?
It is very difficult, frankly, to get a real understanding of the scale of this, even taking on board anecdotal reports from hospitals, without knowing this.
At 1,500 normal daily deaths the virus is still in the soundings, just
A helpful comparison is ~25,000 yearly excess winter deaths, which includes things like the seasonal flu, winter vomiting bug and other less obvious impacts (such as the pressure on NHS beds). To some extent, however regretable, we accept that sort of number. Vallance more or less said that if the UK could keep deaths to that sort of number, it would be a success. It's currently looking pretty optimistic.
UK deaths are about 618,000 per annum, 1700 a day. When people got shocked about an 'extra' 20,000 deaths they were, sadly, being absurd. That would be a terrific outcome in the circumstances, and not unlike a really bad flu year.
Until they know the effect of the C-19 figures on the overall statistical picture they really won't know much. I have not seen any data and I don't think there will be meaningful data for a bit yet.
Another reason to be cautiously optimistic that the Government knows what it's doing when it places so much emphasis on the twelve week period. By that stage it should have a lot more data to tell it about the effects of shielding on infection rates amongst the most vulnerable, how many of the coronavirus deaths are happening over and above those which would be expected in any event, and ought therefore to be able to determine which measures are truly necessary and which can be relaxed or done away with.
The conclusion could be that all of the measures in place need to be maintained, but it could just as easily prove necessary to keep isolating the more vulnerable groups but allow the rest of society to live under less harsh restrictions. Whatever the decision, it can be made based on a much larger body of available evidence than exists at present.
I think a hope for the UK moving forward is that we probably had a higher rate of self-imposed containment than a lot of other countries - Spain, Italy, and above all the US, for example - before official measures kicked in. We’ve focused on those who did not change their routines, but a shedload of people did.
Yes. Also, we have a different demographic profile and cultural habits to Italy.
Our population isn't as elderly. We don't go to Catholic mass en-masse. Brits do a bit less hugging and double-kissing in everyday life as a greeting. We live more in houses than flats and are slightly less communitarian.
The one exception to this may be the metropolitan cities, parricularly London, where cultural habits are very mixed and there are millions living in close proximity - a large number of which aren't changing their habits very much.
We do go to mosques en masse, especially on Fridays. And supermarkets.
It will be interesting to discover how this is really spreading so we can see which measures are effective and which can be abandoned as not necessary. Is there evidence of rapid spread through opera-goers or tube travellers (and the London boroughs with high numbers sort of follow the Bakerloo line) or Muslims or parents of schoolchildren?
Not sure of the source but on another blog is the claim that 25% of deaths are Muslim men.
It wouldn't surprise me. The worst outbreaks are in London and the Black Country, and the Muslim population is particularly urbanised. Asian men do have high rates of diabetes and cardiovascular disease too.
We have just had a visit from our youngest son and his fiancee (who cancelled their august wedding yesterday) and two of our grandchildren 8 and 6.
I'm sorry to heare the wedding has been postponed. Can I ask why at such an early stage they have cancelled? I'm interested because my neice is getting married in Cambridge in July. I had assumed that they would wait until at least the "into the summer prognosis" became a bit clearer, before making any decision.
Their wedding was for the 22nd August but the Church is restricting the congregation to 5 and now the hotel is going to close, cancelling all the receptions. It does look like a lot of weddings are being cancelled and they have managed to re - book for the 31st July 2021 but 2021 dates are being taken up fast due to all the cancellations
Surely we'll be closer to normal by August!
Given the need to stay at home, I'm rather anticipating a heavy demand on maternity services early next year.
I wonder if their will be a spike in alcoholism in 6 months time. I'm finding it difficult not to open a bottle of wine each day already!
Iran’s Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said America was responsible for sending coronavirus to Iran, so making it impossible to accept any American help to fight the virus in Iran.
Definitely going for the herd immunity strategy....
Never mind sending help, just suspend all effing sanctions for the duration of the emergency
What are peoples at home plans? I did kettlebells before, but plan to take it up again, emerging from isolation with the body of a Greek God. Anyone taking up an instrument, learning to knit, becoming a chef etc.?
Turns out being locked up for hours on end every day with nothing but a TV to keep you company is not easy street after all. Maybe prison reform is something else we can take a bit more seriously after this is done.
Prisons have gyms, libraries, workshops, restaurants etc.
What is being proposed at the moment is solitary confinement
Actually what rules are being implemented in prisons in terms of gyms association etc?
People are in prison as punishment, so if we innocent folk are finding it tough to be confined, it might serve as a reminder to obey the law
Turns out being locked up for hours on end every day with nothing but a TV to keep you company is not easy street after all. Maybe prison reform is something else we can take a bit more seriously after this is done.
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion, I am definitely a weirdo. For me, past 2 weeks have flown by and personally really not finding it much of a chore. I haven't even really got stuck into any box set watching.
I work from home a lot of the time anyway, so up to now it has not been a big deal for me either. But we are only at the start of this. Let's see how we all feel in a couple of months' time! My kids - whi are all back with us now - are going up the wall!!
I have worked from home for years and have hardly been out since Christmas , other than sitting in hospital, I cannot understand why people are so easily upset by being in the house for a few days.
I think a hope for the UK moving forward is that we probably had a higher rate of self-imposed containment than a lot of other countries - Spain, Italy, and above all the US, for example - before official measures kicked in. We’ve focused on those who did not change their routines, but a shedload of people did.
Yes. Also, we have a different demographic profile and cultural habits to Italy.
Our population isn't as elderly. We don't go to Catholic mass en-masse. Brits do a bit less hugging and double-kissing in everyday life as a greeting. We live more in houses than flats and are slightly less communitarian.
The one exception to this may be the metropolitan cities, parricularly London, where cultural habits are very mixed and there are millions living in close proximity - a large number of which aren't changing their habits very much.
We do go to mosques en masse, especially on Fridays. And supermarkets.
It will be interesting to discover how this is really spreading so we can see which measures are effective and which can be abandoned as not necessary. Is there evidence of rapid spread through opera-goers or tube travellers (and the London boroughs with high numbers sort of follow the Bakerloo line) or Muslims or parents of schoolchildren?
Not sure of the source but on another blog is the claim that 25% of deaths are Muslim men.
It wouldn't surprise me. The worst outbreaks are in London and the Black Country, and the Muslim population is particularly urbanised. Asian men do have high rates of diabetes and cardiovascular disease too.
LBC discussion said same , 25% of UK deaths were Muslims.
I think a hope for the UK moving forward is that we probably had a higher rate of self-imposed containment than a lot of other countries - Spain, Italy, and above all the US, for example - before official measures kicked in. We’ve focused on those who did not change their routines, but a shedload of people did.
Yes. Also, we have a different demographic profile and cultural habits to Italy.
Our population isn't as elderly. We don't go to Catholic mass en-masse. Brits do a bit less hugging and double-kissing in everyday life as a greeting. We live more in houses than flats and are slightly less communitarian.
The one exception to this may be the metropolitan cities, parricularly London, where cultural habits are very mixed and there are millions living in close proximity - a large number of which aren't changing their habits very much.
We do go to mosques en masse, especially on Fridays. And supermarkets.
It will be interesting to discover how this is really spreading so we can see which measures are effective and which can be abandoned as not necessary. Is there evidence of rapid spread through opera-goers or tube travellers (and the London boroughs with high numbers sort of follow the Bakerloo line) or Muslims or parents of schoolchildren?
Not sure of the source but on another blog is the claim that 25% of deaths are Muslim men.
Really? A statement like that needs a source I think!
Majid the show host , a Muslim , on LBC said it earlier live on Radio, does that salve your woke concience.
Comments
source
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-51991972
It's less complicated, as it's a civil ceremony with a joint ceremony-reception, which has kept it on the table for now.
But I think it is more likely than not that the venue will call it quits in the next two weeks.
So absolutely not a reason not to do it (Solitary Outdoor exercise whilst you can.)
Definitely going for the herd immunity strategy....
Easy solution, price at checkout without an NHS ID card is x100.
A tenant of mine phoned this morning, her toilet was leaking. She is on her own and definitely at the top end of high risk, only toilet in the property, what should I do.
I phoned her daughter and said I would go in and fix it, or I could call a plumber who would be unlikely on a Sunday. We agreed her Mum stay in a separate room and I would fix it.
Took me about 3 hours, with about 1 hour at the end wiping everything I had touched with disinfectant.
Hope she does not get sick, I would be very upset if she does. I am feeling fine, and I live in a rural area so hope for the best.
As I said at the start we will face difficult decisions.
Looking forward, I think that the current lockdown (and possibly even additional measures) can hold for the initial twelve weeks that the Government is proposing for the quarantining of the old and shielding of the very vulnerable, but after that there will have to be a very careful review of the risks of relaxing restrictions versus the risks of societal collapse.
To put it crudely, there's little point in keeping an extra 50,000 octogenarians alive if, at the end of all of this, the entire country is impoverished and immiserated, a substantial fraction of the population is emotionally traumatised or downright insane, and then the salvaged persons just die from hypothermia or starvation in the Winter because there is no longer a sufficiency of fuel and food.
But it won't be the only factor.
a)There are necessary things we have to do such as shop.
b) There are unnecessary things we need to do like go jogging as there are alternatives.
If every trip out is non zero % chance of transmission either to ourselves or others what % for each category do you think reasonable. I think for example we would all agree 100% chance is not acceptable for category B.
So what do we think is an acceptable % before which category B trips should be curtailed?
NEW THREAD
Until they know the effect of the C-19 figures on the overall statistical picture they really won't know much. I have not seen any data and I don't think there will be meaningful data for a bit yet.
School closures are not an "obvious" step to take. Received wisdom among epidemiologists, based on a lot of research, is that you generally don't want to use them as part of a pandemic response, and if you do need to use them then you want to wait as long as possible before unleashing them - preferably near the epidemic peak, but you may be forced into doing it early for other reasons such as teaching staff absenteeism or a pandemic that threatens to overwhelm healthcare capacity.
The "key worker" question is absolutely critical because if you don't sort this out you paralyse or severely hinder large parts of your emergency response, and these losses may wipe out gains you make from the school closure.
The "we'll make sure the kids are looked after" isn't a "well, we'll just sort it out" kinda thing, it is a massively important question the government eggheads need to be sure suitable answers exist for because if this gets messed up, it will lead to the school closures backfiring massively. If you have a disease that's seriously dangerous to the elderly but you impose a measure that leads to a shift of childcare burden onto older generations, while kids might be very good at spreading the disease around, that's got trouble written all over it. On the flip side, if you demand parents themselves do the childcare, we hit the key worker issue. We can argue about the timing and confusion of the HMG response but the basic sequencing seems well though-out to me and is certainly the result of some smart people thinking the issue through - get parents working from or furloughed at home first, so the burden shifts to them not gran, and for those people who need to keep working for us to function during the pandemic, use schools as childcare centres. That's got to be better than knee-jerk blanket closures.
Worth reading on the schools issue: UK govt evidence review from 2013 by Jackson/Mangtani/Vynnycky and two papers by W John Edmunds and friends about cost of school closure and their impact on critical care provision. These are very finely balanced decisions and would have generated intense debate with govt/advisory circles before the plans went ahead.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Solitary-Fitness-Dont-Fancy-Expensive-ebook/dp/B00ALU7E2Q
The conclusion could be that all of the measures in place need to be maintained, but it could just as easily prove necessary to keep isolating the more vulnerable groups but allow the rest of society to live under less harsh restrictions. Whatever the decision, it can be made based on a much larger body of available evidence than exists at present.
He has made no public appearances in 5 days.