Yesterday on my cycle I approached a couple walking ahead of me and thought I should alert them to my presence. So instead of shouting, or calling, I had the bright idea of a loud cough. They both turned round terrified and actually cowered away. I did a lot of apologising and trying to prove myself healthy.
Which, despite my sojourn at Prestbury Park coming up for a month ago, for the moment I remain.
Yes, coughing is the new flashing.
I think flashing might be difficult on a bike
That just demonstrates a lack of determination on your part.
All great, particularly The Marriage of Figaro. I’m a fan of La Boheme as well, but might give it a miss while this is on...
In case you haven't picked this up, Garsington are providing a free stream of their Marriage of Figaro. I haven't yet watched it, but the production got excellent reviews and I think it will be a treat:
HYUFD - I don't want to get into the discussion you are having on the loans, primarily because I don't know the details but can I just clarify something in general:
Previously you said bank loans had to be guaranteed (that is generally not specific to this scenario). It was pointed out by many that this was not the case. You don't still believe that do you?
Just to confirm unsecured loans are quite common. I have often borrowed and the only secured loans I have had are for the mortgages on my house. All others have been unsecured loans. In fact of course this is what 'mortgage' means.
Are those business loans? If so, who have you been using.
Business lending in the UK (for the SME sector) appears to be predicated on the imminent failure of the company - high interest, demand for security etc.This is a long running issue. It goes back, in fact to before 1900....
Personal loans. I was fortunate never needing to borrow for my business. I take advantage of low interest offers and reinvest.
You will find in the small print that using such a personal loan for business purposes means you have violated the terms of the agreement. BIt like using a normal mortgage for a let property.
The world of business banking is very much removed from the customer world. Fees per cheque paid in, fees, fees, fees. Loans are very expensive.
Sorry I haven't made clear obviously. Never used for business purposes. Never needed a business loan. I have borrowed to make personal investments, which I then sell and repay the loan.
It does sound encouraging in that it is not that easy to transmit the virus other than by direct person-to-person contact (meaning that confined spaces - airplanes / cruise liners / parties) are the best means. It's quite good since it will help us work out what can be opened and how - in other words, what degree of social distancing is required moving forward to minimise ongoing transmission. It certainly suggests that pubs / clubs might be amongst the last places to re-open.
I would not be at all surprised if it does turn out that transmission via touching surfaces is a very minor part of the infectious route. I've thought that from the start, simply because if that were not the case, I can't see how contact-tracing would have worked so well in the early days. Those early unknowingly infected people would have continued with their normal life, including going shopping, using cash machines etc, but there didn't seem to be any localised hotspots associated with them which couldn't be traced back to people they'd been in more close contact with.
Still, since we don't know for sure, for the moment we should continue to play safe.
That is very interesting... Streeck, who is director of the Institute of Virology at Bonn University, said he was able to detect coronavirus by swabbing remote controls, washbasins, mobile phones, toilets or door handles. However, it has not been possible to cultivate the virus in the laboratory on the basis of these swabs. "This means that we have detected the RNA (or ribonucleic acid, which carries the virus’s genetic information) of 'dead' viruses," Streeck said. According to his previous research results, he believes "that a door handle can only be infectious if someone has actually coughed in their hand and then reached for it. "After that, you have to reach for the door handle yourself and touch your face," he said. It is not yet possible to say how long the virus can remain on a door handle because not enough studies have been carried out. Streeck added: "We were in a household where many highly infectious people lived, and yet we did not manage to detect a living virus from any surface." He said these early research results would now be further developed in the current study in Heinsberg....
Clearly these observations need further exploration, and independent confirmation, but if they do bear out, then it would make management of the pandemic considerably less complicated.
Based on H.K's experience of how the virus spread in 2003, how fortunate we are that London has no plans to build more high-rise flats ...
All great, particularly The Marriage of Figaro. I’m a fan of La Boheme as well, but might give it a miss while this is on...
In case you haven't picked this up, Garsington are providing a free stream of their Marriage of Figaro. I haven't yet watched it, but the production got excellent reviews and I think it will be a treat:
I reckon I had a case of Coronachondria yesterday. Woke up this morning with barely a sniffle in evidence. As you were.
I've been coughing since I had a bug in December (and it's a "dry" cough too) so I'm always obsessing about whether it's just "same old same old" cough or something different is going on lol!
Likewise - got a slight tail end of an occasional cough. The doctor said it was fine and normal.
Seems a lot of people got something in December that ended up with a cough that fades away very, very slowly.
Add me to that number. mid-December mine started. Had a bit of a coughing fit yesterday when walking the dog. Somebody 50 yards was looking rather perturbed.....
Yesterday on my cycle I approached a couple walking ahead of me and thought I should alert them to my presence. So instead of shouting, or calling, I had the bright idea of a loud cough. They both turned round terrified and actually cowered away. I did a lot of apologising and trying to prove myself healthy.
Which, despite my sojourn at Prestbury Park coming up for a month ago, for the moment I remain.
Do bikes still have bells on them these days? Maybe that's old-fashioned.
Yesterday on my cycle I approached a couple walking ahead of me and thought I should alert them to my presence. So instead of shouting, or calling, I had the bright idea of a loud cough. They both turned round terrified and actually cowered away. I did a lot of apologising and trying to prove myself healthy.
Which, despite my sojourn at Prestbury Park coming up for a month ago, for the moment I remain.
I reckon I had a case of Coronachondria yesterday. Woke up this morning with barely a sniffle in evidence. As you were.
I've been coughing since I had a bug in December (and it's a "dry" cough too) so I'm always obsessing about whether it's just "same old same old" cough or something different is going on lol!
Likewise - got a slight tail end of an occasional cough. The doctor said it was fine and normal.
Seems a lot of people got something in December that ended up with a cough that fades away very, very slowly.
Add me to that number. mid-December mine started. Had a bit of a coughing fit yesterday when walking the dog. Somebody 50 yards was looking rather perturbed.....
Yesterday on my cycle I approached a couple walking ahead of me and thought I should alert them to my presence. So instead of shouting, or calling, I had the bright idea of a loud cough. They both turned round terrified and actually cowered away. I did a lot of apologising and trying to prove myself healthy.
Which, despite my sojourn at Prestbury Park coming up for a month ago, for the moment I remain.
Do bikes still have bells on them these days? Maybe that's old-fashioned.
Mine doesn't or yes that would have been the sensible option.
HYUFD will be upset - the Chancellor has had to make changes to the unworkable business interruption loans scheme. "New rules will prevent lenders from requesting personal guarantees for loans under £250,000"
Why would I be upset? In any case the average house price in the south is over £250 000 so this is only focused on very small businesses correctly
Why would you be upset? Because (a) you proclaimed the brilliance of the scheme as previously (not) implemented by the banks and (b) you seem to almost be revelling in the spectacle of businesses going to the wall.
a) The scheme still stays as it is for all but the smallest businesses as taxpayers cannot pay grants without limit and nor can banks provide loans without guarantees.
b) Outrageous accusation with no evidence
You keep posting the same nonsense. "Banks cannot provide loans without guarantees". The government are proving the guarantee. Thats the whole point. And the amount? An initial £330bn with as much as required. Thats literally what Sunak said.
The government guarantees are for 80% not 100% and to the lender not the borrower. The only change today is personal guarantees by company owners under £250 000 will not be allowed, which will be irrelevant for most company owners given £250 000 is below the average house price in the south and all but the smallest company owners will own property over that level
What's the value of a director's house got to do with the amount of money a company may need to stay afloat?
As the director might need to put up his house as security to the bank to get the loan to keep his company afloat
If there is already a charge on the directors house for a personal mortgage and as security for an existing companies loan how does this house provide extra security?
I reckon I had a case of Coronachondria yesterday. Woke up this morning with barely a sniffle in evidence. As you were.
I've been coughing since I had a bug in December (and it's a "dry" cough too) so I'm always obsessing about whether it's just "same old same old" cough or something different is going on lol!
Likewise - got a slight tail end of an occasional cough. The doctor said it was fine and normal.
Seems a lot of people got something in December that ended up with a cough that fades away very, very slowly.
Add me to that number. mid-December mine started. Had a bit of a coughing fit yesterday when walking the dog. Somebody 50 yards was looking rather perturbed.....
Yesterday on my cycle I approached a couple walking ahead of me and thought I should alert them to my presence. So instead of shouting, or calling, I had the bright idea of a loud cough. They both turned round terrified and actually cowered away. I did a lot of apologising and trying to prove myself healthy.
Which, despite my sojourn at Prestbury Park coming up for a month ago, for the moment I remain.
Do bikes still have bells on them these days? Maybe that's old-fashioned.
I thought it was the law that you had to have a bell on your bike, but apparently that's not the case. Google says they have to be included when the bike is sold in the shop, but you don't have to keep it.
"Police called as 'up to 100 mourners' defy city's six-person funeral limit in coronavirus lockdown Those present included Birmingham MP Tahir Ali - who attended two on the same day"
HYUFD - I don't want to get into the discussion you are having on the loans, primarily because I don't know the details but can I just clarify something in general:
Previously you said bank loans had to be guaranteed (that is generally not specific to this scenario). It was pointed out by many that this was not the case. You don't still believe that do you?
Just to confirm unsecured loans are quite common. I have often borrowed and the only secured loans I have had are for the mortgages on my house. All others have been unsecured loans. In fact of course this is what 'mortgage' means.
Are those business loans? If so, who have you been using.
Business lending in the UK (for the SME sector) appears to be predicated on the imminent failure of the company - high interest, demand for security etc.This is a long running issue. It goes back, in fact to before 1900....
Personal loans. I was fortunate never needing to borrow for my business. I take advantage of low interest offers and reinvest.
You will find in the small print that using such a personal loan for business purposes means you have violated the terms of the agreement. BIt like using a normal mortgage for a let property.
The world of business banking is very much removed from the customer world. Fees per cheque paid in, fees, fees, fees. Loans are very expensive.
Your last para is spot on. I bet there are thousands of small businesses being funded by personal loans. If you can, you'd be mad not to.
We walked with the baby over the countryside yesterday. When we made it back to the road a couple with a dog were approaching us. There were no cars on the road. Then, a police car zoomed past having turned its siren on two seconds previously. I can only assume they thought it would be a laugh to wake the baby, make us jump and the dog bark.
FPT - I’m going to enjoy drinking as much as I can (consistent with being functional during the day and getting a decent sleep) during this crisis. I’ve ordered in some great wines and champagnes.
The hair shirt brigade / busybodies seem mainly interested in policing people who leave the house, policing that they properly clap according to approved doctrine on the doorsteps of their houses, and trying to shame them as to what they do inside their houses.
They can fuck off.
Who exactly are "policing that people clap according to the doctrine on their doorsteps". "Quasi-Stalinist" I believe you called it last night.
Certainly hasn't made any of the news outlets I've seen. Could it possibly all be in your fevered imagination?
It may not have made your news outlets but it is certainly happening. Personally I disagree with Casino and think the clap is a good thing, but it is sad to see on the local village facebook page this morning complaints about certain houses and certain streets not taking part. As with all social media it turns nasty rather quickly.
Fair enough, I was unaware of it.
Hardly sounds quasi-Stalinist though. Reading Casino Royale's post I assumed their were vigilantes dragging people from their houses and forcing them to clap for five minutes.
If the identification on social media of individual houses as dissing the nhs doesn't cause you disquiet it bloody well should. I would be utterly unamazed to learn of vandalistic reprisals.
If I got disquieted by everything that was said on social media I would never get out of bed in the morning.
So what is your solution? Ban people from showing their appreciation to the NHS because a few idiots might say nasty things about those that don't?
Perhaps not actually ban people from being mawkish arseholes, but on the other hand not institutionalise it like a Two Minutes Hate? I really don't like people who think there are acceptable levels of "soft" intimidation and vigilantism.
Millions of people want to show their appreciation to the NHS. If they want to do that for 5 minutes once a week what exactly is your problem?
I can understand that some people don't want to take part but I cannot understand why it winds people like you and Casino Royale up into a frenzy.
It does sound encouraging in that it is not that easy to transmit the virus other than by direct person-to-person contact (meaning that confined spaces - airplanes / cruise liners / parties) are the best means. It's quite good since it will help us work out what can be opened and how - in other words, what degree of social distancing is required moving forward to minimise ongoing transmission. It certainly suggests that pubs / clubs might be amongst the last places to re-open.
I would not be at all surprised if it does turn out that transmission via touching surfaces is a very minor part of the infectious route. I've thought that from the start, simply because if that were not the case, I can't see how contact-tracing would have worked so well in the early days. Those early unknowingly infected people would have continued with their normal life, including going shopping, using cash machines etc, but there didn't seem to be any localised hotspots associated with them which couldn't be traced back to people they'd been in more close contact with.
Still, since we don't know for sure, for the moment we should continue to play safe.
That is very interesting... Streeck, who is director of the Institute of Virology at Bonn University, said he was able to detect coronavirus by swabbing remote controls, washbasins, mobile phones, toilets or door handles. However, it has not been possible to cultivate the virus in the laboratory on the basis of these swabs. "This means that we have detected the RNA (or ribonucleic acid, which carries the virus’s genetic information) of 'dead' viruses," Streeck said. According to his previous research results, he believes "that a door handle can only be infectious if someone has actually coughed in their hand and then reached for it. "After that, you have to reach for the door handle yourself and touch your face," he said. It is not yet possible to say how long the virus can remain on a door handle because not enough studies have been carried out. Streeck added: "We were in a household where many highly infectious people lived, and yet we did not manage to detect a living virus from any surface." He said these early research results would now be further developed in the current study in Heinsberg....
Clearly these observations need further exploration, and independent confirmation, but if they do bear out, then it would make management of the pandemic considerably less complicated.
They also imply that the mainstay of the original UK strategy to "flatten the peak" - hand-washing - would have had minimal effectiveness, although it was initially presented as the very best way of combatting the spread of the virus.
FPT - I’m going to enjoy drinking as much as I can (consistent with being functional during the day and getting a decent sleep) during this crisis. I’ve ordered in some great wines and champagnes.
The hair shirt brigade / busybodies seem mainly interested in policing people who leave the house, policing that they properly clap according to approved doctrine on the doorsteps of their houses, and trying to shame them as to what they do inside their houses.
They can fuck off.
Who exactly are "policing that people clap according to the doctrine on their doorsteps". "Quasi-Stalinist" I believe you called it last night.
Certainly hasn't made any of the news outlets I've seen. Could it possibly all be in your fevered imagination?
It may not have made your news outlets but it is certainly happening. Personally I disagree with Casino and think the clap is a good thing, but it is sad to see on the local village facebook page this morning complaints about certain houses and certain streets not taking part. As with all social media it turns nasty rather quickly.
Fair enough, I was unaware of it.
Hardly sounds quasi-Stalinist though. Reading Casino Royale's post I assumed their were vigilantes dragging people from their houses and forcing them to clap for five minutes.
If the identification on social media of individual houses as dissing the nhs doesn't cause you disquiet it bloody well should. I would be utterly unamazed to learn of vandalistic reprisals.
If I got disquieted by everything that was said on social media I would never get out of bed in the morning.
So what is your solution? Ban people from showing their appreciation to the NHS because a few idiots might say nasty things about those that don't?
Perhaps not actually ban people from being mawkish arseholes, but on the other hand not institutionalise it like a Two Minutes Hate? I really don't like people who think there are acceptable levels of "soft" intimidation and vigilantism.
Millions of people want to show their appreciation to the NHS. If they want to do that for 5 minutes once a week what exactly is your problem?
I can understand that some people don't want to take part but I cannot understand why it winds people like you up into a frenzy.
What on earth makes you think I have been wound up into a frenzy?
Again: I really don't like people who think there are acceptable levels of "soft" intimidation and vigilantism.
FPT - I’m going to enjoy drinking as much as I can (consistent with being functional during the day and getting a decent sleep) during this crisis. I’ve ordered in some great wines and champagnes.
The hair shirt brigade / busybodies seem mainly interested in policing people who leave the house, policing that they properly clap according to approved doctrine on the doorsteps of their houses, and trying to shame them as to what they do inside their houses.
They can fuck off.
Who exactly are "policing that people clap according to the doctrine on their doorsteps". "Quasi-Stalinist" I believe you called it last night.
Certainly hasn't made any of the news outlets I've seen. Could it possibly all be in your fevered imagination?
It may not have made your news outlets but it is certainly happening. Personally I disagree with Casino and think the clap is a good thing, but it is sad to see on the local village facebook page this morning complaints about certain houses and certain streets not taking part. As with all social media it turns nasty rather quickly.
Fair enough, I was unaware of it.
Hardly sounds quasi-Stalinist though. Reading Casino Royale's post I assumed their were vigilantes dragging people from their houses and forcing them to clap for five minutes.
If the identification on social media of individual houses as dissing the nhs doesn't cause you disquiet it bloody well should. I would be utterly unamazed to learn of vandalistic reprisals.
If I got disquieted by everything that was said on social media I would never get out of bed in the morning.
So what is your solution? Ban people from showing their appreciation to the NHS because a few idiots might say nasty things about those that don't?
As I said in my original posting the issue absolutely isn't the clapping which I personally think is a nice touch. It is the subsequent identifying of houses or streets that do not join in as if they have done something worthy of opprobrium.
It is in the same vein as condemning those who do not wear a poppy for a month before Armistice Day.
HYUFD - I don't want to get into the discussion you are having on the loans, primarily because I don't know the details but can I just clarify something in general:
Previously you said bank loans had to be guaranteed (that is generally not specific to this scenario). It was pointed out by many that this was not the case. You don't still believe that do you?
Just to confirm unsecured loans are quite common. I have often borrowed and the only secured loans I have had are for the mortgages on my house. All others have been unsecured loans. In fact of course this is what 'mortgage' means.
Are those business loans? If so, who have you been using.
Business lending in the UK (for the SME sector) appears to be predicated on the imminent failure of the company - high interest, demand for security etc.This is a long running issue. It goes back, in fact to before 1900....
Personal loans. I was fortunate never needing to borrow for my business. I take advantage of low interest offers and reinvest.
You will find in the small print that using such a personal loan for business purposes means you have violated the terms of the agreement. BIt like using a normal mortgage for a let property.
The world of business banking is very much removed from the customer world. Fees per cheque paid in, fees, fees, fees. Loans are very expensive.
Your last para is spot on. I bet there are thousands of small businesses being funded by personal loans. If you can, you'd be mad not to.
Just as large numbers of WeGotMarriedBoughtAHouseRentedTheOldFlat are run on personal mortgages...
It does sound encouraging in that it is not that easy to transmit the virus other than by direct person-to-person contact (meaning that confined spaces - airplanes / cruise liners / parties) are the best means. It's quite good since it will help us work out what can be opened and how - in other words, what degree of social distancing is required moving forward to minimise ongoing transmission. It certainly suggests that pubs / clubs might be amongst the last places to re-open.
I would not be at all surprised if it does turn out that transmission via touching surfaces is a very minor part of the infectious route. I've thought that from the start, simply because if that were not the case, I can't see how contact-tracing would have worked so well in the early days. Those early unknowingly infected people would have continued with their normal life, including going shopping, using cash machines etc, but there didn't seem to be any localised hotspots associated with them which couldn't be traced back to people they'd been in more close contact with.
Still, since we don't know for sure, for the moment we should continue to play safe.
That is very interesting... Streeck, who is director of the Institute of Virology at Bonn University, said he was able to detect coronavirus by swabbing remote controls, washbasins, mobile phones, toilets or door handles. However, it has not been possible to cultivate the virus in the laboratory on the basis of these swabs. "This means that we have detected the RNA (or ribonucleic acid, which carries the virus’s genetic information) of 'dead' viruses," Streeck said. According to his previous research results, he believes "that a door handle can only be infectious if someone has actually coughed in their hand and then reached for it. "After that, you have to reach for the door handle yourself and touch your face," he said. It is not yet possible to say how long the virus can remain on a door handle because not enough studies have been carried out. Streeck added: "We were in a household where many highly infectious people lived, and yet we did not manage to detect a living virus from any surface." He said these early research results would now be further developed in the current study in Heinsberg....
Clearly these observations need further exploration, and independent confirmation, but if they do bear out, then it would make management of the pandemic considerably less complicated.
They also imply that the mainstay of the original UK strategy to "flatten the peak" - hand-washing - would have had minimal effectiveness, although it was initially presented as the very best way of combatting the spread of the virus.
What would the transmission vector be then? Just coughing and/or immediate touching?
I agree that it's unlikely that his intent was to get the NHS workers into trouble. It was and is, however, a perfectly plausible consequence. It's utterly irresponsible behaviour.
I also take issue with both your use of the word "creator" (he's basically just stolen someone else's material and repurposed it), and, more importantly, the notion that you're allowed to publish something controversial in the public domain and "expect" everyone in the world to understand what you're done, and that it's somehow their fault if they don't.
The more substantive point that Vance raises is about "hate speech".
It does sound encouraging in that it is not that easy to transmit the virus other than by direct person-to-person contact (meaning that confined spaces - airplanes / cruise liners / parties) are the best means. It's quite good since it will help us work out what can be opened and how - in other words, what degree of social distancing is required moving forward to minimise ongoing transmission. It certainly suggests that pubs / clubs might be amongst the last places to re-open.
I would not be at all surprised if it does turn out that transmission via touching surfaces is a very minor part of the infectious route. I've thought that from the start, simply because if that were not the case, I can't see how contact-tracing would have worked so well in the early days. Those early unknowingly infected people would have continued with their normal life, including going shopping, using cash machines etc, but there didn't seem to be any localised hotspots associated with them which couldn't be traced back to people they'd been in more close contact with.
Still, since we don't know for sure, for the moment we should continue to play safe.
That is very interesting... Streeck, who is director of the Institute of Virology at Bonn University, said he was able to detect coronavirus by swabbing remote controls, washbasins, mobile phones, toilets or door handles. However, it has not been possible to cultivate the virus in the laboratory on the basis of these swabs. "This means that we have detected the RNA (or ribonucleic acid, which carries the virus’s genetic information) of 'dead' viruses," Streeck said. According to his previous research results, he believes "that a door handle can only be infectious if someone has actually coughed in their hand and then reached for it. "After that, you have to reach for the door handle yourself and touch your face," he said. It is not yet possible to say how long the virus can remain on a door handle because not enough studies have been carried out. Streeck added: "We were in a household where many highly infectious people lived, and yet we did not manage to detect a living virus from any surface." He said these early research results would now be further developed in the current study in Heinsberg....
Clearly these observations need further exploration, and independent confirmation, but if they do bear out, then it would make management of the pandemic considerably less complicated.
They also imply that the mainstay of the original UK strategy to "flatten the peak" - hand-washing - would have had minimal effectiveness, although it was initially presented as the very best way of combatting the spread of the virus.
I would caution reading too much into one study of one house. We don't know how diligent they were about cleaning surfaces, for example. It would be strange of hand washing did nothing to help combat the spread. Everyone and their mother is advising more rigorous hand-washing.
Yesterday on my cycle I approached a couple walking ahead of me and thought I should alert them to my presence. So instead of shouting, or calling, I had the bright idea of a loud cough. They both turned round terrified and actually cowered away. I did a lot of apologising and trying to prove myself healthy.
Which, despite my sojourn at Prestbury Park coming up for a month ago, for the moment I remain.
Yes, coughing is the new flashing.
I think flashing might be difficult on a bike
I like a challenge (that challenge being to find an example I hasten to add).
'Exclusive: Girl speaks out about man on bicycle flashing her in Ridgewood, Queens'
FPT - I’m going to enjoy drinking as much as I can (consistent with being functional during the day and getting a decent sleep) during this crisis. I’ve ordered in some great wines and champagnes.
The hair shirt brigade / busybodies seem mainly interested in policing people who leave the house, policing that they properly clap according to approved doctrine on the doorsteps of their houses, and trying to shame them as to what they do inside their houses.
They can fuck off.
Who exactly are "policing that people clap according to the doctrine on their doorsteps". "Quasi-Stalinist" I believe you called it last night.
Certainly hasn't made any of the news outlets I've seen. Could it possibly all be in your fevered imagination?
It may not have made your news outlets but it is certainly happening. Personally I disagree with Casino and think the clap is a good thing, but it is sad to see on the local village facebook page this morning complaints about certain houses and certain streets not taking part. As with all social media it turns nasty rather quickly.
Fair enough, I was unaware of it.
Hardly sounds quasi-Stalinist though. Reading Casino Royale's post I assumed their were vigilantes dragging people from their houses and forcing them to clap for five minutes.
If the identification on social media of individual houses as dissing the nhs doesn't cause you disquiet it bloody well should. I would be utterly unamazed to learn of vandalistic reprisals.
If I got disquieted by everything that was said on social media I would never get out of bed in the morning.
So what is your solution? Ban people from showing their appreciation to the NHS because a few idiots might say nasty things about those that don't?
Perhaps not actually ban people from being mawkish arseholes, but on the other hand not institutionalise it like a Two Minutes Hate? I really don't like people who think there are acceptable levels of "soft" intimidation and vigilantism.
Millions of people want to show their appreciation to the NHS. If they want to do that for 5 minutes once a week what exactly is your problem?
I can understand that some people don't want to take part but I cannot understand why it winds people like you and Casino Royale up into a frenzy.
I'm in the wound category I am afraid. I don't feel that strongly about it, but I certainly don't want to do it and I do find the clapping police appalling. I have the same view of people getting together to pray as Christians around the world did a few days ago altogether.
I suspect for a large number of these people it is all they then do and then feel good about themselves having done bugger all useful. I suggest they stop praying and clapping and get off their arses and do something.
Although I am no fan of Vance I do think, if correct, that is quite disgraceful for using those two care workers to make his point. That could have had repercussions for both of those workers. Especially when the original message is fine.
The original message is fine? You think it's okay to consign Tory voters to death?
Never trust anything on the internet......
I imagine however, given their actual message, that they would be much happier treating people who haven't deliberately flouted any lockdown measures. If these are becoming less completely complied with, maybe the threat of that would work wonders. 'Leave home and you'll be put at the back of the queue for treatment' might be a much more effective sanction than 'Stay home, protect the NHS, save lives'.
What's that got to do with Tory voters? And anyway, I thought the NHS was supposed to be universal, regardless of how good of a person you have been.
I was referring to the 'original message' about staying at home. Given that decisions are having to be made regarding age, existing conditions and such (as is also the case with other conditions and smoking, obesity etc.), should people who have flouted the measures be given the same treatment as someone that they have infected? If they were young and previously fit, had attended a party that resulted in them being infected and then subsequently infected someone with a pre-existing condition, should they be given priority whilst that person is triaged and denied it? If decisions are being made, should those be solely on likelihood to survive or also take into consideration any reckless behaviour on the infected person's part? As the danger is multiplied through people behaving in such a manner, then why not consider it?
HYUFD - I don't want to get into the discussion you are having on the loans, primarily because I don't know the details but can I just clarify something in general:
Previously you said bank loans had to be guaranteed (that is generally not specific to this scenario). It was pointed out by many that this was not the case. You don't still believe that do you?
Just to confirm unsecured loans are quite common. I have often borrowed and the only secured loans I have had are for the mortgages on my house. All others have been unsecured loans. In fact of course this is what 'mortgage' means.
Are those business loans? If so, who have you been using.
Business lending in the UK (for the SME sector) appears to be predicated on the imminent failure of the company - high interest, demand for security etc.This is a long running issue. It goes back, in fact to before 1900....
Personal loans. I was fortunate never needing to borrow for my business. I take advantage of low interest offers and reinvest.
You will find in the small print that using such a personal loan for business purposes means you have violated the terms of the agreement. BIt like using a normal mortgage for a let property.
The world of business banking is very much removed from the customer world. Fees per cheque paid in, fees, fees, fees. Loans are very expensive.
Sorry I haven't made clear obviously. Never used for business purposes. Never needed a business loan. I have borrowed to make personal investments, which I then sell and repay the loan.
Wasn't implying that - just pointing out that if you have not used business banking you will not have been subjected to full JoyJoy* of that part of banking experience.
FPT - I’m going to enjoy drinking as much as I can (consistent with being functional during the day and getting a decent sleep) during this crisis. I’ve ordered in some great wines and champagnes.
The hair shirt brigade / busybodies seem mainly interested in policing people who leave the house, policing that they properly clap according to approved doctrine on the doorsteps of their houses, and trying to shame them as to what they do inside their houses.
They can fuck off.
Who exactly are "policing that people clap according to the doctrine on their doorsteps". "Quasi-Stalinist" I believe you called it last night.
Certainly hasn't made any of the news outlets I've seen. Could it possibly all be in your fevered imagination?
It may not have made your news outlets but it is certainly happening. Personally I disagree with Casino and think the clap is a good thing, but it is sad to see on the local village facebook page this morning complaints about certain houses and certain streets not taking part. As with all social media it turns nasty rather quickly.
Fair enough, I was unaware of it.
Hardly sounds quasi-Stalinist though. Reading Casino Royale's post I assumed their were vigilantes dragging people from their houses and forcing them to clap for five minutes.
If the identification on social media of individual houses as dissing the nhs doesn't cause you disquiet it bloody well should. I would be utterly unamazed to learn of vandalistic reprisals.
If I got disquieted by everything that was said on social media I would never get out of bed in the morning.
So what is your solution? Ban people from showing their appreciation to the NHS because a few idiots might say nasty things about those that don't?
Perhaps not actually ban people from being mawkish arseholes, but on the other hand not institutionalise it like a Two Minutes Hate? I really don't like people who think there are acceptable levels of "soft" intimidation and vigilantism.
Millions of people want to show their appreciation to the NHS. If they want to do that for 5 minutes once a week what exactly is your problem?
I can understand that some people don't want to take part but I cannot understand why it winds people like you and Casino Royale up into a frenzy.
My Dad has had his biopsy to see if the chemo cleared his cancer cancelled, yet we have an empty 4,000 capacity hospital a twenty minute drive away. Why should I applaud the people ignoring him, or not feel annoyed at other people applauding them?
Although I am no fan of Vance I do think, if correct, that is quite disgraceful for using those two care workers to make his point. That could have had repercussions for both of those workers. Especially when the original message is fine.
The original message is fine? You think it's okay to consign Tory voters to death?
Never trust anything on the internet......
I imagine however, given their actual message, that they would be much happier treating people who haven't deliberately flouted any lockdown measures. If these are becoming less completely complied with, maybe the threat of that would work wonders. 'Leave home and you'll be put at the back of the queue for treatment' might be a much more effective sanction than 'Stay home, protect the NHS, save lives'.
What's that got to do with Tory voters? And anyway, I thought the NHS was supposed to be universal, regardless of how good of a person you have been.
I was referring to the 'original message' about staying at home. Given that decisions are having to be made regarding age, existing conditions and such (as is also the case with other conditions and smoking, obesity etc.), should people who have flouted the measures be given the same treatment as someone that they have infected? If they were young and previously fit, had attended a party that resulted in them being infected and then subsequently infected someone with a pre-existing condition, should they be given priority whilst that person is triaged and denied it? If decisions are being made, should those be solely on likelihood to survive or also take into consideration any reckless behaviour on the infected person's part? As the danger is multiplied through people behaving in such a manner, then why not consider it?
We've already seen one example of someone being wrongly convicted of a crime they didn't commit with the new coronavirus act. What if someone was wrongly denied treatment?
I assume under your scheme we'd still be treating the most dangerous criminals who had contracted it because they respected the rules on social isolation, but not someone who popped out for a jog twice in one day rather than once? Doesn't seem right to me.
FPT - I’m going to enjoy drinking as much as I can (consistent with being functional during the day and getting a decent sleep) during this crisis. I’ve ordered in some great wines and champagnes.
The hair shirt brigade / busybodies seem mainly interested in policing people who leave the house, policing that they properly clap according to approved doctrine on the doorsteps of their houses, and trying to shame them as to what they do inside their houses.
They can fuck off.
Who exactly are "policing that people clap according to the doctrine on their doorsteps". "Quasi-Stalinist" I believe you called it last night.
Certainly hasn't made any of the news outlets I've seen. Could it possibly all be in your fevered imagination?
It may not have made your news outlets but it is certainly happening. Personally I disagree with Casino and think the clap is a good thing, but it is sad to see on the local village facebook page this morning complaints about certain houses and certain streets not taking part. As with all social media it turns nasty rather quickly.
Fair enough, I was unaware of it.
Hardly sounds quasi-Stalinist though. Reading Casino Royale's post I assumed their were vigilantes dragging people from their houses and forcing them to clap for five minutes.
If the identification on social media of individual houses as dissing the nhs doesn't cause you disquiet it bloody well should. I would be utterly unamazed to learn of vandalistic reprisals.
If I got disquieted by everything that was said on social media I would never get out of bed in the morning.
So what is your solution? Ban people from showing their appreciation to the NHS because a few idiots might say nasty things about those that don't?
Perhaps not actually ban people from being mawkish arseholes, but on the other hand not institutionalise it like a Two Minutes Hate? I really don't like people who think there are acceptable levels of "soft" intimidation and vigilantism.
Millions of people want to show their appreciation to the NHS. If they want to do that for 5 minutes once a week what exactly is your problem?
I can understand that some people don't want to take part but I cannot understand why it winds people like you and Casino Royale up into a frenzy.
I'm in the wound category I am afraid. I don't feel that strongly about it, but I certainly don't want to do it and I do find the clapping police appalling. I have the same view of people getting together to pray as Christians around the world did a few days ago altogether.
I suspect for a large number of these people it is all they then do and then feel good about themselves having done bugger all useful. I suggest they stop praying and clapping and get off their arses and do something.
They also imply that the mainstay of the original UK strategy to "flatten the peak" - hand-washing - would have had minimal effectiveness, although it was initially presented as the very best way of combatting the spread of the virus.
Perhaps much of that is because handwashing is (a) something that everyone can easily do, and (b) is a good habit to get into, regardless.
For example, let us say that in reality one of the most effective ways to deter the virus is to chew tobacco. Would the government push this advice forcefully? Spittoons in every supermarket? Not sure.
My Dad has had his biopsy to see if the chemo cleared his cancer cancelled, yet we have an empty 4,000 capacity hospital a twenty minute drive away. Why should I applaud the people ignoring him, or not feel annoyed at other people applauding them?
The reason his biopsy has been cancelled is almost certainly to avoid exposing him to additional risk at a time when his immune system will be weak.
They also imply that the mainstay of the original UK strategy to "flatten the peak" - hand-washing - would have had minimal effectiveness, although it was initially presented as the very best way of combatting the spread of the virus.
Perhaps much of that is because handwashing is (a) something that everyone can easily do, and (b) is a good habit to get into, regardless.
For example, let us say that in reality one of the most effective ways to not get the virus is to chew tobacco. Would the government have pushed that advice forcefully? Spittoons in every supermarket? Not sure.
You must have seen the news that British American Tobacco is working on a cure grown from tobacco plants.
FPT - I’m going to enjoy drinking as much as I can (consistent with being functional during the day and getting a decent sleep) during this crisis. I’ve ordered in some great wines and champagnes.
The hair shirt brigade / busybodies seem mainly interested in policing people who leave the house, policing that they properly clap according to approved doctrine on the doorsteps of their houses, and trying to shame them as to what they do inside their houses.
They can fuck off.
Who exactly are "policing that people clap according to the doctrine on their doorsteps". "Quasi-Stalinist" I believe you called it last night.
Certainly hasn't made any of the news outlets I've seen. Could it possibly all be in your fevered imagination?
It may not have made your news outlets but it is certainly happening. Personally I disagree with Casino and think the clap is a good thing, but it is sad to see on the local village facebook page this morning complaints about certain houses and certain streets not taking part. As with all social media it turns nasty rather quickly.
Fair enough, I was unaware of it.
Hardly sounds quasi-Stalinist though. Reading Casino Royale's post I assumed their were vigilantes dragging people from their houses and forcing them to clap for five minutes.
If the identification on social media of individual houses as dissing the nhs doesn't cause you disquiet it bloody well should. I would be utterly unamazed to learn of vandalistic reprisals.
If I got disquieted by everything that was said on social media I would never get out of bed in the morning.
So what is your solution? Ban people from showing their appreciation to the NHS because a few idiots might say nasty things about those that don't?
Perhaps not actually ban people from being mawkish arseholes, but on the other hand not institutionalise it like a Two Minutes Hate? I really don't like people who think there are acceptable levels of "soft" intimidation and vigilantism.
Millions of people want to show their appreciation to the NHS. If they want to do that for 5 minutes once a week what exactly is your problem?
I can understand that some people don't want to take part but I cannot understand why it winds people like you and Casino Royale up into a frenzy.
I'm in the wound category I am afraid. I don't feel that strongly about it, but I certainly don't want to do it and I do find the clapping police appalling. I have the same view of people getting together to pray as Christians around the world did a few days ago altogether.
I suspect for a large number of these people it is all they then do and then feel good about themselves having done bugger all useful. I suggest they stop praying and clapping and get off their arses and do something.
The clapping itself is fine. The problem is the arseholes who try and turn everything into a virtue signalling competition.
As far as I am concerned, such people go on The List.
All great, particularly The Marriage of Figaro. I’m a fan of La Boheme as well, but might give it a miss while this is on...
In case you haven't picked this up, Garsington are providing a free stream of their Marriage of Figaro. I haven't yet watched it, but the production got excellent reviews and I think it will be a treat:
A really cleverly done production (it originates from Bristol Old Vic, I think, although this version is in one part rather than two). If people are looking for something different, the Schaubuhne in Berlin has a new production on their site every evening. Some with English subtitles, such as Richard III on tomorrow.
"Police called as 'up to 100 mourners' defy city's six-person funeral limit in coronavirus lockdown Those present included Birmingham MP Tahir Ali - who attended two on the same day"
They also imply that the mainstay of the original UK strategy to "flatten the peak" - hand-washing - would have had minimal effectiveness, although it was initially presented as the very best way of combatting the spread of the virus.
Perhaps much of that is because handwashing is (a) something that everyone can easily do, and (b) is a good habit to get into, regardless.
For example, let us say that in reality one of the most effective ways to deter the virus is to chew tobacco. Would the government push this advice forcefully? Spittoons in every supermarket? Not sure.
It is also notable that hand washing & not touching face etc massively reduces the transmission of other, similar viruses.
Yesterday on my cycle I approached a couple walking ahead of me and thought I should alert them to my presence. So instead of shouting, or calling, I had the bright idea of a loud cough. They both turned round terrified and actually cowered away. I did a lot of apologising and trying to prove myself healthy.
Which, despite my sojourn at Prestbury Park coming up for a month ago, for the moment I remain.
Yes, coughing is the new flashing.
I think flashing might be difficult on a bike
I like a challenge (that challenge being to find an example I hasten to add).
'Exclusive: Girl speaks out about man on bicycle flashing her in Ridgewood, Queens'
I'm a bit of a stickler for English so I would respectfully point out that the incident is more accurately described as "man with bicycle .....". I stick with my initial observation.
This is not enough. There needs to be another cross-channel address that explicitly tells people NOT to go out at the weekend, even if the weather is nice.
It does sound encouraging in that it is not that easy to transmit the virus other than by direct person-to-person contact (meaning that confined spaces - airplanes / cruise liners / parties) are the best means. It's quite good since it will help us work out what can be opened and how - in other words, what degree of social distancing is required moving forward to minimise ongoing transmission. It certainly suggests that pubs / clubs might be amongst the last places to re-open.
I would not be at all surprised if it does turn out that transmission via touching surfaces is a very minor part of the infectious route. I've thought that from the start, simply because if that were not the case, I can't see how contact-tracing would have worked so well in the early days. Those early unknowingly infected people would have continued with their normal life, including going shopping, using cash machines etc, but there didn't seem to be any localised hotspots associated with them which couldn't be traced back to people they'd been in more close contact with.
Still, since we don't know for sure, for the moment we should continue to play safe.
That is very interesting... Streeck, who is director of the Institute of Virology at Bonn University, said he was able to detect coronavirus by swabbing remote controls, washbasins, mobile phones, toilets or door handles. However, it has not been possible to cultivate the virus in the laboratory on the basis of these swabs. "This means that we have detected the RNA (or ribonucleic acid, which carries the virus’s genetic information) of 'dead' viruses," Streeck said. According to his previous research results, he believes "that a door handle can only be infectious if someone has actually coughed in their hand and then reached for it. "After that, you have to reach for the door handle yourself and touch your face," he said. It is not yet possible to say how long the virus can remain on a door handle because not enough studies have been carried out. Streeck added: "We were in a household where many highly infectious people lived, and yet we did not manage to detect a living virus from any surface." He said these early research results would now be further developed in the current study in Heinsberg....
Clearly these observations need further exploration, and independent confirmation, but if they do bear out, then it would make management of the pandemic considerably less complicated.
They also imply that the mainstay of the original UK strategy to "flatten the peak" - hand-washing - would have had minimal effectiveness, although it was initially presented as the very best way of combatting the spread of the virus.
And suggest the general utility of masks, which the government were keen to deny, perhaps because we don't have any...
"Police called as 'up to 100 mourners' defy city's six-person funeral limit in coronavirus lockdown Those present included Birmingham MP Tahir Ali - who attended two on the same day"
I reckon I had a case of Coronachondria yesterday. Woke up this morning with barely a sniffle in evidence. As you were.
I've been coughing since I had a bug in December (and it's a "dry" cough too) so I'm always obsessing about whether it's just "same old same old" cough or something different is going on lol!
Likewise - got a slight tail end of an occasional cough. The doctor said it was fine and normal.
Seems a lot of people got something in December that ended up with a cough that fades away very, very slowly.
Add me to that number. mid-December mine started. Had a bit of a coughing fit yesterday when walking the dog. Somebody 50 yards was looking rather perturbed.....
Yesterday on my cycle I approached a couple walking ahead of me and thought I should alert them to my presence. So instead of shouting, or calling, I had the bright idea of a loud cough. They both turned round terrified and actually cowered away. I did a lot of apologising and trying to prove myself healthy.
Which, despite my sojourn at Prestbury Park coming up for a month ago, for the moment I remain.
Do bikes still have bells on them these days? Maybe that's old-fashioned.
Mine doesn't or yes that would have been the sensible option.
A number ion cyclists in London, pre virus, took to attaching a speaker to their bikes and playing music. This was to stop dozy pedestrians stepping into the road as they approach.
There was one chap I used to see near Bank - upright bike, pinstripe suit, always playing Brahms......
This is not enough. There needs to be another cross-channel address that explicitly tells people NOT to go out at the weekend, even if the weather is nice.
It needs to be clear and direct.
People can't exercise outside the house ? Since when ?
This is not enough. There needs to be another cross-channel address that explicitly tells people NOT to go out at the weekend, even if the weather is nice.
It needs to be clear and direct.
People can't exercise outside the house ? Since when ?
You are proving my point.
“It will be fine to go out for a 5 hour day trip on Saturday, as we are allowed to exercise. We might even meet Phil and Jan and their 2 kids whilst we’re there.”
This is not enough. There needs to be another cross-channel address that explicitly tells people NOT to go out at the weekend, even if the weather is nice.
This is not enough. There needs to be another cross-channel address that explicitly tells people NOT to go out at the weekend, even if the weather is nice.
It needs to be clear and direct.
People can't exercise outside the house ? Since when ?
I think he's talking about people "going out" and making a day of it.
HYUFD - I don't want to get into the discussion you are having on the loans, primarily because I don't know the details but can I just clarify something in general:
Previously you said bank loans had to be guaranteed (that is generally not specific to this scenario). It was pointed out by many that this was not the case. You don't still believe that do you?
Just to confirm unsecured loans are quite common. I have often borrowed and the only secured loans I have had are for the mortgages on my house. All others have been unsecured loans. In fact of course this is what 'mortgage' means.
Are those business loans? If so, who have you been using.
Business lending in the UK (for the SME sector) appears to be predicated on the imminent failure of the company - high interest, demand for security etc.This is a long running issue. It goes back, in fact to before 1900....
Personal loans. I was fortunate never needing to borrow for my business. I take advantage of low interest offers and reinvest.
You will find in the small print that using such a personal loan for business purposes means you have violated the terms of the agreement. BIt like using a normal mortgage for a let property.
The world of business banking is very much removed from the customer world. Fees per cheque paid in, fees, fees, fees. Loans are very expensive.
Sorry I haven't made clear obviously. Never used for business purposes. Never needed a business loan. I have borrowed to make personal investments, which I then sell and repay the loan.
Wasn't implying that - just pointing out that if you have not used business banking you will not have been subjected to full JoyJoy* of that part of banking experience.
OK sorry I misread. My business was very much a service based one. Very few payments out. About 200 payments in a year. Cash surplus. Most business accounts were useless for that because of the unnecessary costs. Nationwide did have an account called a 'BusinessInvestor'. Defunct now. It was ideal. Cost free. Lots of limitations which would be hopeless for most businesses, but ok for me. Eg limitations on cheques and deposits per month, no cash, etc.
I also did a deal with HMRC with regard to cash surplus. They allowed me to invest the money in my name (higher return) without it being counted as a loan to me. I had to draw up an agreement between myself and my company and file it with them and obviously pay corporation tax on it.
I'm glad I did that formally as several years later I was challenged on my personal tax return for undeclared bank interest because I wasn't declaring the interest on the company element that I held personally. Hey presto I could produce the agreement with HMRC and show my company was paying corporation tax on it.
Did I feel smug! They probably thought I was a dead cert for being banged to rights.
This is not enough. There needs to be another cross-channel address that explicitly tells people NOT to go out at the weekend, even if the weather is nice.
It needs to be clear and direct.
People can't exercise outside the house ? Since when ?
I think he's talking about people "going out" and making a day of it.
FPT - I’m going to enjoy drinking as much as I can (consistent with being functional during the day and getting a decent sleep) during this crisis. I’ve ordered in some great wines and champagnes.
The hair shirt brigade / busybodies seem mainly interested in policing people who leave the house, policing that they properly clap according to approved doctrine on the doorsteps of their houses, and trying to shame them as to what they do inside their houses.
They can fuck off.
Who exactly are "policing that people clap according to the doctrine on their doorsteps". "Quasi-Stalinist" I believe you called it last night.
Certainly hasn't made any of the news outlets I've seen. Could it possibly all be in your fevered imagination?
It may not have made your news outlets but it is certainly happening. Personally I disagree with Casino and think the clap is a good thing, but it is sad to see on the local village facebook page this morning complaints about certain houses and certain streets not taking part. As with all social media it turns nasty rather quickly.
Fair enough, I was unaware of it.
Hardly sounds quasi-Stalinist though. Reading Casino Royale's post I assumed their were vigilantes dragging people from their houses and forcing them to clap for five minutes.
If the identification on social media of individual houses as dissing the nhs doesn't cause you disquiet it bloody well should. I would be utterly unamazed to learn of vandalistic reprisals.
If I got disquieted by everything that was said on social media I would never get out of bed in the morning.
So what is your solution? Ban people from showing their appreciation to the NHS because a few idiots might say nasty things about those that don't?
Perhaps not actually ban people from being mawkish arseholes, but on the other hand not institutionalise it like a Two Minutes Hate? I really don't like people who think there are acceptable levels of "soft" intimidation and vigilantism.
Millions of people want to show their appreciation to the NHS. If they want to do that for 5 minutes once a week what exactly is your problem?
I can understand that some people don't want to take part but I cannot understand why it winds people like you and Casino Royale up into a frenzy.
People shouldn't be bullied if they decide not to do it. There have been reports of people confronting their neighbours.
FPT - I’m going to enjoy drinking as much as I can (consistent with being functional during the day and getting a decent sleep) during this crisis. I’ve ordered in some great wines and champagnes.
The hair shirt brigade / busybodies seem mainly interested in policing people who leave the house, policing that they properly clap according to approved doctrine on the doorsteps of their houses, and trying to shame them as to what they do inside their houses.
They can fuck off.
Who exactly are "policing that people clap according to the doctrine on their doorsteps". "Quasi-Stalinist" I believe you called it last night.
Certainly hasn't made any of the news outlets I've seen. Could it possibly all be in your fevered imagination?
It may not have made your news outlets but it is certainly happening. Personally I disagree with Casino and think the clap is a good thing, but it is sad to see on the local village facebook page this morning complaints about certain houses and certain streets not taking part. As with all social media it turns nasty rather quickly.
Fair enough, I was unaware of it.
Hardly sounds quasi-Stalinist though. Reading Casino Royale's post I assumed their were vigilantes dragging people from their houses and forcing them to clap for five minutes.
If the identification on social media of individual houses as dissing the nhs doesn't cause you disquiet it bloody well should. I would be utterly unamazed to learn of vandalistic reprisals.
If I got disquieted by everything that was said on social media I would never get out of bed in the morning.
So what is your solution? Ban people from showing their appreciation to the NHS because a few idiots might say nasty things about those that don't?
Perhaps not actually ban people from being mawkish arseholes, but on the other hand not institutionalise it like a Two Minutes Hate? I really don't like people who think there are acceptable levels of "soft" intimidation and vigilantism.
Millions of people want to show their appreciation to the NHS. If they want to do that for 5 minutes once a week what exactly is your problem?
I can understand that some people don't want to take part but I cannot understand why it winds people like you and Casino Royale up into a frenzy.
I'm in the wound category I am afraid. I don't feel that strongly about it, but I certainly don't want to do it and I do find the clapping police appalling. I have the same view of people getting together to pray as Christians around the world did a few days ago altogether.
I suspect for a large number of these people it is all they then do and then feel good about themselves having done bugger all useful. I suggest they stop praying and clapping and get off their arses and do something.
The clapping itself is fine. The problem is the arseholes who try and turn everything into a virtue signalling competition.
As far as I am concerned, such people go on The List.
Clapping is the new poppy-ism.
When people start going out into the streets dressed as a giant pair of hands, that's when we all need to worry.
Although I am no fan of Vance I do think, if correct, that is quite disgraceful for using those two care workers to make his point. That could have had repercussions for both of those workers. Especially when the original message is fine.
The original message is fine? You think it's okay to consign Tory voters to death?
Never trust anything on the internet......
I imagine however, given their actual message, that they would be much happier treating people who haven't deliberately flouted any lockdown measures. If these are becoming less completely complied with, maybe the threat of that would work wonders. 'Leave home and you'll be put at the back of the queue for treatment' might be a much more effective sanction than 'Stay home, protect the NHS, save lives'.
What's that got to do with Tory voters? And anyway, I thought the NHS was supposed to be universal, regardless of how good of a person you have been.
I was referring to the 'original message' about staying at home. Given that decisions are having to be made regarding age, existing conditions and such (as is also the case with other conditions and smoking, obesity etc.), should people who have flouted the measures be given the same treatment as someone that they have infected? If they were young and previously fit, had attended a party that resulted in them being infected and then subsequently infected someone with a pre-existing condition, should they be given priority whilst that person is triaged and denied it? If decisions are being made, should those be solely on likelihood to survive or also take into consideration any reckless behaviour on the infected person's part? As the danger is multiplied through people behaving in such a manner, then why not consider it?
We've already seen one example of someone being wrongly convicted of a crime they didn't commit with the new coronavirus act. What if someone was wrongly denied treatment?
I assume under your scheme we'd still be treating the most dangerous criminals who had contracted it because they respected the rules on social isolation, but not someone who popped out for a jog twice in one day rather than once? Doesn't seem right to me.
Yes, there are different levels of intent, they would have to had very clearly done so on purpose (such as the blowhards going on about how, at Easter, they are going to go out and do what they want and bugger the consequences, or someone deliberately spreading it with video evidence). Having a jog twice a day doesn't cut it.
If that dangerous criminal had killed someone through reckless driving, say, then they've been punished already for their behaviour. I don't see why they need to be sanctioned for something completely separate.
FPT - I’m going to enjoy drinking as much as I can (consistent with being functional during the day and getting a decent sleep) during this crisis. I’ve ordered in some great wines and champagnes.
The hair shirt brigade / busybodies seem mainly interested in policing people who leave the house, policing that they properly clap according to approved doctrine on the doorsteps of their houses, and trying to shame them as to what they do inside their houses.
They can fuck off.
Who exactly are "policing that people clap according to the doctrine on their doorsteps". "Quasi-Stalinist" I believe you called it last night.
Certainly hasn't made any of the news outlets I've seen. Could it possibly all be in your fevered imagination?
It may not have made your news outlets but it is certainly happening. Personally I disagree with Casino and think the clap is a good thing, but it is sad to see on the local village facebook page this morning complaints about certain houses and certain streets not taking part. As with all social media it turns nasty rather quickly.
Fair enough, I was unaware of it.
Hardly sounds quasi-Stalinist though. Reading Casino Royale's post I assumed their were vigilantes dragging people from their houses and forcing them to clap for five minutes.
If the identification on social media of individual houses as dissing the nhs doesn't cause you disquiet it bloody well should. I would be utterly unamazed to learn of vandalistic reprisals.
If I got disquieted by everything that was said on social media I would never get out of bed in the morning.
So what is your solution? Ban people from showing their appreciation to the NHS because a few idiots might say nasty things about those that don't?
Perhaps not actually ban people from being mawkish arseholes, but on the other hand not institutionalise it like a Two Minutes Hate? I really don't like people who think there are acceptable levels of "soft" intimidation and vigilantism.
Millions of people want to show their appreciation to the NHS. If they want to do that for 5 minutes once a week what exactly is your problem?
I can understand that some people don't want to take part but I cannot understand why it winds people like you and Casino Royale up into a frenzy.
I'm in the wound category I am afraid. I don't feel that strongly about it, but I certainly don't want to do it and I do find the clapping police appalling. I have the same view of people getting together to pray as Christians around the world did a few days ago altogether.
I suspect for a large number of these people it is all they then do and then feel good about themselves having done bugger all useful. I suggest they stop praying and clapping and get off their arses and do something.
HYUFD - I don't want to get into the discussion you are having on the loans, primarily because I don't know the details but can I just clarify something in general:
Previously you said bank loans had to be guaranteed (that is generally not specific to this scenario). It was pointed out by many that this was not the case. You don't still believe that do you?
Just to confirm unsecured loans are quite common. I have often borrowed and the only secured loans I have had are for the mortgages on my house. All others have been unsecured loans. In fact of course this is what 'mortgage' means.
Are those business loans? If so, who have you been using.
Business lending in the UK (for the SME sector) appears to be predicated on the imminent failure of the company - high interest, demand for security etc.This is a long running issue. It goes back, in fact to before 1900....
Personal loans. I was fortunate never needing to borrow for my business. I take advantage of low interest offers and reinvest.
You will find in the small print that using such a personal loan for business purposes means you have violated the terms of the agreement. BIt like using a normal mortgage for a let property.
The world of business banking is very much removed from the customer world. Fees per cheque paid in, fees, fees, fees. Loans are very expensive.
Sorry I haven't made clear obviously. Never used for business purposes. Never needed a business loan. I have borrowed to make personal investments, which I then sell and repay the loan.
Wasn't implying that - just pointing out that if you have not used business banking you will not have been subjected to full JoyJoy* of that part of banking experience.
OK sorry I misread. My business was very much a service based one. Very few payments out. About 200 payments in a year. Cash surplus. Most business accounts were useless for that because of the unnecessary costs. Nationwide did have an account called a 'BusinessInvestor'. Defunct now. It was ideal. Cost free. Lots of limitations which would be hopeless for most businesses, but ok for me. Eg limitations on cheques and deposits per month, no cash, etc.
I also did a deal with HMRC with regard to cash surplus. They allowed me to invest the money in my name (higher return) without it being counted as a loan to me. I had to draw up an agreement between myself and my company and file it with them and obviously pay corporation tax on it.
I'm glad I did that formally as several years later I was challenged on my personal tax return for undeclared bank interest because I wasn't declaring the interest on the company element that I held personally. Hey presto I could produce the agreement with HMRC and show my company was paying corporation tax on it.
Did I feel smug! They probably thought I was a dead cert for being banged to rights.
Although I am no fan of Vance I do think, if correct, that is quite disgraceful for using those two care workers to make his point. That could have had repercussions for both of those workers. Especially when the original message is fine.
The original message is fine? You think it's okay to consign Tory voters to death?
Never trust anything on the internet......
I imagine however, given their actual message, that they would be much happier treating people who haven't deliberately flouted any lockdown measures. If these are becoming less completely complied with, maybe the threat of that would work wonders. 'Leave home and you'll be put at the back of the queue for treatment' might be a much more effective sanction than 'Stay home, protect the NHS, save lives'.
What's that got to do with Tory voters? And anyway, I thought the NHS was supposed to be universal, regardless of how good of a person you have been.
I was referring to the 'original message' about staying at home. Given that decisions are having to be made regarding age, existing conditions and such (as is also the case with other conditions and smoking, obesity etc.), should people who have flouted the measures be given the same treatment as someone that they have infected? If they were young and previously fit, had attended a party that resulted in them being infected and then subsequently infected someone with a pre-existing condition, should they be given priority whilst that person is triaged and denied it? If decisions are being made, should those be solely on likelihood to survive or also take into consideration any reckless behaviour on the infected person's part? As the danger is multiplied through people behaving in such a manner, then why not consider it?
We've already seen one example of someone being wrongly convicted of a crime they didn't commit with the new coronavirus act. What if someone was wrongly denied treatment?
I assume under your scheme we'd still be treating the most dangerous criminals who had contracted it because they respected the rules on social isolation, but not someone who popped out for a jog twice in one day rather than once? Doesn't seem right to me.
Yes, there are different levels of intent, they would have to had very clearly done so on purpose (such as the blowhards going on about how, at Easter, they are going to go out and do what they want and bugger the consequences, or someone deliberately spreading it with video evidence). Having a jog twice a day doesn't cut it.
If that dangerous criminal had killed someone through reckless driving, say, then they've been punished already for their behaviour. I don't see why they need to be sanctioned for something completely separate.
There's already a sanction for going outside when you shouldn't under the new provisions. Why should they get a potential death penalty in addition?
FPT - I’m going to enjoy drinking as much as I can (consistent with being functional during the day and getting a decent sleep) during this crisis. I’ve ordered in some great wines and champagnes.
The hair shirt brigade / busybodies seem mainly interested in policing people who leave the house, policing that they properly clap according to approved doctrine on the doorsteps of their houses, and trying to shame them as to what they do inside their houses.
They can fuck off.
Who exactly are "policing that people clap according to the doctrine on their doorsteps". "Quasi-Stalinist" I believe you called it last night.
Certainly hasn't made any of the news outlets I've seen. Could it possibly all be in your fevered imagination?
It may not have made your news outlets but it is certainly happening. Personally I disagree with Casino and think the clap is a good thing, but it is sad to see on the local village facebook page this morning complaints about certain houses and certain streets not taking part. As with all social media it turns nasty rather quickly.
Fair enough, I was unaware of it.
Hardly sounds quasi-Stalinist though. Reading Casino Royale's post I assumed their were vigilantes dragging people from their houses and forcing them to clap for five minutes.
If the identification on social media of individual houses as dissing the nhs doesn't cause you disquiet it bloody well should. I would be utterly unamazed to learn of vandalistic reprisals.
If I got disquieted by everything that was said on social media I would never get out of bed in the morning.
So what is your solution? Ban people from showing their appreciation to the NHS because a few idiots might say nasty things about those that don't?
Perhaps not actually ban people from being mawkish arseholes, but on the other hand not institutionalise it like a Two Minutes Hate? I really don't like people who think there are acceptable levels of "soft" intimidation and vigilantism.
Millions of people want to show their appreciation to the NHS. If they want to do that for 5 minutes once a week what exactly is your problem?
I can understand that some people don't want to take part but I cannot understand why it winds people like you and Casino Royale up into a frenzy.
I'm in the wound category I am afraid. I don't feel that strongly about it, but I certainly don't want to do it and I do find the clapping police appalling. I have the same view of people getting together to pray as Christians around the world did a few days ago altogether.
I suspect for a large number of these people it is all they then do and then feel good about themselves having done bugger all useful. I suggest they stop praying and clapping and get off their arses and do something.
The clapping itself is fine. The problem is the arseholes who try and turn everything into a virtue signalling competition.
As far as I am concerned, such people go on The List.
Clapping is the new poppy-ism.
When people start going out into the streets dressed as a giant pair of hands, that's when we all need to worry.
Surely only a week or two away now...
They will go at the top of The List, with an asterix against their names.
I reckon I had a case of Coronachondria yesterday. Woke up this morning with barely a sniffle in evidence. As you were.
I've been coughing since I had a bug in December (and it's a "dry" cough too) so I'm always obsessing about whether it's just "same old same old" cough or something different is going on lol!
Likewise - got a slight tail end of an occasional cough. The doctor said it was fine and normal.
Seems a lot of people got something in December that ended up with a cough that fades away very, very slowly.
Add me to that number. mid-December mine started. Had a bit of a coughing fit yesterday when walking the dog. Somebody 50 yards was looking rather perturbed.....
Yesterday on my cycle I approached a couple walking ahead of me and thought I should alert them to my presence. So instead of shouting, or calling, I had the bright idea of a loud cough. They both turned round terrified and actually cowered away. I did a lot of apologising and trying to prove myself healthy.
Which, despite my sojourn at Prestbury Park coming up for a month ago, for the moment I remain.
Do bikes still have bells on them these days? Maybe that's old-fashioned.
Mine doesn't or yes that would have been the sensible option.
A number ion cyclists in London, pre virus, took to attaching a speaker to their bikes and playing music. This was to stop dozy pedestrians stepping into the road as they approach.
There was one chap I used to see near Bank - upright bike, pinstripe suit, always playing Brahms......
Over 30 years ago a London friend had a bicycle klaxon powered by an aerosol can. It made a noise midway between a fire engine and a rampaging dinosaur. It was particularly effective at zebra crossings to remind pedestrians that bikes don't operate with a three-foot stopping distance.
For some reason Chuck Berry's "my ding-a-ling" started playing in my head at this image of the incredible flashing cyclist. But that only works if he DOES have a bell. On the bike.
This is not enough. There needs to be another cross-channel address that explicitly tells people NOT to go out at the weekend, even if the weather is nice.
It needs to be clear and direct.
Seems pretty clear and direct to me if it's not illegal to go out (though a proper reason is still needed) then urge people not to. Most will do that and those that wouldnt listen wouldnt to a firmer message.
This is not enough. There needs to be another cross-channel address that explicitly tells people NOT to go out at the weekend, even if the weather is nice.
It needs to be clear and direct.
Seems pretty clear and direct to me if it's not illegal to go out then urge people not to. Most will do that and those that wouldnt listen wouldnt to a former message.
But how many people are going to see the 2nd half of a long twitter video, that’s apparent primary focus is just an update on Boris’s health? Not as many as a TV address that simply reiterates “do not go outside, even if its a lovely day, save lives, support the NHS”.
FPT - I’m going to enjoy drinking as much as I can (consistent with being functional during the day and getting a decent sleep) during this crisis. I’ve ordered in some great wines and champagnes.
The hair shirt brigade / busybodies seem mainly interested in policing people who leave the house, policing that they properly clap according to approved doctrine on the doorsteps of their houses, and trying to shame them as to what they do inside their houses.
They can fuck off.
Who exactly are "policing that people clap according to the doctrine on their doorsteps". "Quasi-Stalinist" I believe you called it last night.
Certainly hasn't made any of the news outlets I've seen. Could it possibly all be in your fevered imagination?
It may not have made your news outlets but it is certainly happening. Personally I disagree with Casino and think the clap is a good thing, but it is sad to see on the local village facebook page this morning complaints about certain houses and certain streets not taking part. As with all social media it turns nasty rather quickly.
Fair enough, I was unaware of it.
Hardly sounds quasi-Stalinist though. Reading Casino Royale's post I assumed their were vigilantes dragging people from their houses and forcing them to clap for five minutes.
If the identification on social media of individual houses as dissing the nhs doesn't cause you disquiet it bloody well should. I would be utterly unamazed to learn of vandalistic reprisals.
If I got disquieted by everything that was said on social media I would never get out of bed in the morning.
So what is your solution? Ban people from showing their appreciation to the NHS because a few idiots might say nasty things about those that don't?
As I said in my original posting the issue absolutely isn't the clapping which I personally think is a nice touch. It is the subsequent identifying of houses or streets that do not join in as if they have done something worthy of opprobrium.
It is in the same vein as condemning those who do not wear a poppy for a month before Armistice Day.
You just need to be thick skinned and ignore them. I can ignore social pressure without even trying or even realising.
This is not enough. There needs to be another cross-channel address that explicitly tells people NOT to go out at the weekend, even if the weather is nice.
It needs to be clear and direct.
People can't exercise outside the house ? Since when ?
You are proving my point.
“It will be fine to go out for a 5 hour day trip on Saturday, as we are allowed to exercise. We might even meet Phil and Jan and their 2 kids whilst we’re there.”
The communication strategy is still poor.
You're proving my point. Someone who interprets the message in that way is knowingly interpreting it to take the piss and evade restriction, and theyd find another reason for their action or simply flout it anyway. They would not be confused (ok, a minority a best) but using that as cover.
Things could still be clearer, it's true. But it's not as unclear as people say and that example would show someone acting deliberately not any genuine confusion.
This is not enough. There needs to be another cross-channel address that explicitly tells people NOT to go out at the weekend, even if the weather is nice.
It needs to be clear and direct.
People can't exercise outside the house ? Since when ?
You are proving my point.
“It will be fine to go out for a 5 hour day trip on Saturday, as we are allowed to exercise. We might even meet Phil and Jan and their 2 kids whilst we’re there.”
The communication strategy is still poor.
You're proving my point. Someone who interprets the message in that way is knowingly interpreting it to take the piss and evade restriction, and theyd find another reason for their action or simply flout it anyway. They would not be confused (ok, a minority a best) but using that as cover.
I’m not justifying their actions, merely suggesting that maybe the message could be more “idiot proof”. I don’t think that’s really controversial.
Although I am no fan of Vance I do think, if correct, that is quite disgraceful for using those two care workers to make his point. That could have had repercussions for both of those workers. Especially when the original message is fine.
The original message is fine? You think it's okay to consign Tory voters to death?
Never trust anything on the internet......
I imagine however, given their actual message, that they would be much happier treating people who haven't deliberately flouted any lockdown measures. If these are becoming less completely complied with, maybe the threat of that would work wonders. 'Leave home and you'll be put at the back of the queue for treatment' might be a much more effective sanction than 'Stay home, protect the NHS, save lives'.
What's that got to do with Tory voters? And anyway, I thought the NHS was supposed to be universal, regardless of how good of a person you have been.
I was referring to the 'original message' about staying at home. Given that decisions are having to be made regarding age, existing conditions and such (as is also the case with other conditions and smoking, obesity etc.), should people who have flouted the measures be given the same treatment as someone that they have infected? If they were young and previously fit, had attended a party that resulted in them being infected and then subsequently infected someone with a pre-existing condition, should they be given priority whilst that person is triaged and denied it? If decisions are being made, should those be solely on likelihood to survive or also take into consideration any reckless behaviour on the infected person's part? As the danger is multiplied through people behaving in such a manner, then why not consider it?
We've already seen one example of someone being wrongly convicted of a crime they didn't commit with the new coronavirus act. What if someone was wrongly denied treatment?
I assume under your scheme we'd still be treating the most dangerous criminals who had contracted it because they respected the rules on social isolation, but not someone who popped out for a jog twice in one day rather than once? Doesn't seem right to me.
Yes, there are different levels of intent, they would have to had very clearly done so on purpose (such as the blowhards going on about how, at Easter, they are going to go out and do what they want and bugger the consequences, or someone deliberately spreading it with video evidence). Having a jog twice a day doesn't cut it.
If that dangerous criminal had killed someone through reckless driving, say, then they've been punished already for their behaviour. I don't see why they need to be sanctioned for something completely separate.
There's already a sanction for going outside when you shouldn't under the new provisions. Why should they get a potential death penalty in addition?
There is a severity that I think warrants greater sanction at the moment. As with dangerous driving, it would be up to the courts to decide. This is life or death, yet people seem to be treating it like a minor nuisance. It could conceivably get to the stage where asking people to be good isn't enough and the threat of something tougher is needed. People doing such things seem to think they are invincible and that their behaviour doesn't threaten the safety of others, so why not deprioritise them if hospitals start to get overrun?
Starmer would be making a strategic mistake if he goes down that route as his first act imo. Playing the supportive statesman with gentle prodding on the medias issue of the day is where he should be for now.
Forensic, schmorensic. Far too much is made of this. I don't know what Starmer's reputation as an advocate was like, but he gave up advocacy quite early on in favour of the DPP role and one thing DPPs don't do, is prosecute. As an advocate he did human rights defence stuff which I imagine doesn't lend itself to brilliant Aha, we've wheedled it out of you at last sort of cross examination - more If I could take your lordship to para 453 of the 5th schedule to the Act sort of stuff. And anyway when did forensically brilliant attacks actually damage a PM? There's a sort of rule of thumb among litigators which says that 90% of cases go the way they were always going to go, 9% are lost against the run of play by legal incompetence, and 1% won by legal brilliance, and that sounds about right for politics. Whatever Johnson's downfall is, it won't be anyone getting forensic on his ass, it will be something he does or doesn't do. There will be opportunities for showpiece attacks on him as it all goes pear-shaped but they won't be what made the difference.
Plus as you say, now is not the time to be seen to be making party political attacks on the PM.
Look, they're excited. They have a leader who can string a coherent sentence together using more than one polysyllable work. Don't spoil it.
I reckon I had a case of Coronachondria yesterday. Woke up this morning with barely a sniffle in evidence. As you were.
I've been coughing since I had a bug in December (and it's a "dry" cough too) so I'm always obsessing about whether it's just "same old same old" cough or something different is going on lol!
Likewise - got a slight tail end of an occasional cough. The doctor said it was fine and normal.
Seems a lot of people got something in December that ended up with a cough that fades away very, very slowly.
Add me to that number. mid-December mine started. Had a bit of a coughing fit yesterday when walking the dog. Somebody 50 yards was looking rather perturbed.....
Yesterday on my cycle I approached a couple walking ahead of me and thought I should alert them to my presence. So instead of shouting, or calling, I had the bright idea of a loud cough. They both turned round terrified and actually cowered away. I did a lot of apologising and trying to prove myself healthy.
Which, despite my sojourn at Prestbury Park coming up for a month ago, for the moment I remain.
Do bikes still have bells on them these days? Maybe that's old-fashioned.
Mine doesn't or yes that would have been the sensible option.
A number ion cyclists in London, pre virus, took to attaching a speaker to their bikes and playing music. This was to stop dozy pedestrians stepping into the road as they approach.
There was one chap I used to see near Bank - upright bike, pinstripe suit, always playing Brahms......
Over 30 years ago a London friend had a bicycle klaxon powered by an aerosol can. It made a noise midway between a fire engine and a rampaging dinosaur. It was particularly effective at zebra crossings to remind pedestrians that bikes don't operate with a three-foot stopping distance.
I sympathise. I once witnessed a car cut across and try and crush a full dress Harley. It was making the windows in the street rattle. The car driver literally said - "I didn't see or hear him".
Fortunately the foot guards on the bike tore the side out of the car.
Have to say NHS Nightingale is a staggering achievement by the Gov't to be put together in 10 days.
100% agree. Truly an impressive feat, and especially impressive that we’re now sharing the “instruction manual” around the world. The first time I’ve been “proud” of something we’ve done as a country for a while.
Although I am no fan of Vance I do think, if correct, that is quite disgraceful for using those two care workers to make his point. That could have had repercussions for both of those workers. Especially when the original message is fine.
The original message is fine? You think it's okay to consign Tory voters to death?
Never trust anything on the internet......
I imagine however, given their actual message, that they would be much happier treating people who haven't deliberately flouted any lockdown measures. If these are becoming less completely complied with, maybe the threat of that would work wonders. 'Leave home and you'll be put at the back of the queue for treatment' might be a much more effective sanction than 'Stay home, protect the NHS, save lives'.
What's that got to do with Tory voters? And anyway, I thought the NHS was supposed to be universal, regardless of how good of a person you have been.
I was referring to the 'original message' about staying at home. Given that decisions are having to be made regarding age, existing conditions and such (as is also the case with other conditions and smoking, obesity etc.), should people who have flouted the measures be given the same treatment as someone that they have infected? If they were young and previously fit, had attended a party that resulted in them being infected and then subsequently infected someone with a pre-existing condition, should they be given priority whilst that person is triaged and denied it? If decisions are being made, should those be solely on likelihood to survive or also take into consideration any reckless behaviour on the infected person's part? As the danger is multiplied through people behaving in such a manner, then why not consider it?
We've already seen one example of someone being wrongly convicted of a crime they didn't commit with the new coronavirus act. What if someone was wrongly denied treatment?
I assume under your scheme we'd still be treating the most dangerous criminals who had contracted it because they respected the rules on social isolation, but not someone who popped out for a jog twice in one day rather than once? Doesn't seem right to me.
Yes, there are different levels of intent, they would have to had very clearly done so on purpose (such as the blowhards going on about how, at Easter, they are going to go out and do what they want and bugger the consequences, or someone deliberately spreading it with video evidence). Having a jog twice a day doesn't cut it.
If that dangerous criminal had killed someone through reckless driving, say, then they've been punished already for their behaviour. I don't see why they need to be sanctioned for something completely separate.
There's already a sanction for going outside when you shouldn't under the new provisions. Why should they get a potential death penalty in addition?
There is a severity that I think warrants greater sanction at the moment. As with dangerous driving, it would be up to the courts to decide. This is life or death, yet people seem to be treating it like a minor nuisance. It could conceivably get to the stage where asking people to be good isn't enough and the threat of something tougher is needed. People doing such things seem to think they are invincible and that their behaviour doesn't threaten the safety of others, so why not deprioritise them if hospitals start to get overrun?
The punishment should be dealt with in the courts, not in the NHS.
This is not enough. There needs to be another cross-channel address that explicitly tells people NOT to go out at the weekend, even if the weather is nice.
It needs to be clear and direct.
I'm not sure about that.
Some people respond better to Boris's "Come on chaps. Do the right thing. We're all in this together. I understand your frustration but please stay at home. "
Others might respond better to "Do as you're damned well told!!!".
I reckon I had a case of Coronachondria yesterday. Woke up this morning with barely a sniffle in evidence. As you were.
I've been coughing since I had a bug in December (and it's a "dry" cough too) so I'm always obsessing about whether it's just "same old same old" cough or something different is going on lol!
Likewise - got a slight tail end of an occasional cough. The doctor said it was fine and normal.
Seems a lot of people got something in December that ended up with a cough that fades away very, very slowly.
Add me to that number. mid-December mine started. Had a bit of a coughing fit yesterday when walking the dog. Somebody 50 yards was looking rather perturbed.....
Yesterday on my cycle I approached a couple walking ahead of me and thought I should alert them to my presence. So instead of shouting, or calling, I had the bright idea of a loud cough. They both turned round terrified and actually cowered away. I did a lot of apologising and trying to prove myself healthy.
Which, despite my sojourn at Prestbury Park coming up for a month ago, for the moment I remain.
Do bikes still have bells on them these days? Maybe that's old-fashioned.
Mine doesn't or yes that would have been the sensible option.
A number ion cyclists in London, pre virus, took to attaching a speaker to their bikes and playing music. This was to stop dozy pedestrians stepping into the road as they approach.
There was one chap I used to see near Bank - upright bike, pinstripe suit, always playing Brahms......
Over 30 years ago a London friend had a bicycle klaxon powered by an aerosol can. It made a noise midway between a fire engine and a rampaging dinosaur. It was particularly effective at zebra crossings to remind pedestrians that bikes don't operate with a three-foot stopping distance.
As pedestrians have the right of way at zebra crossings the cyclist should be pedalling sufficiently slowly to be able to stop, just like cars. F*ck his miserable clapped-out klaxon.
They also imply that the mainstay of the original UK strategy to "flatten the peak" - hand-washing - would have had minimal effectiveness, although it was initially presented as the very best way of combatting the spread of the virus.
Perhaps much of that is because handwashing is (a) something that everyone can easily do, and (b) is a good habit to get into, regardless.
For example, let us say that in reality one of the most effective ways to deter the virus is to chew tobacco. Would the government push this advice forcefully? Spittoons in every supermarket? Not sure.
It is also notable that hand washing & not touching face etc massively reduces the transmission of other, similar viruses.
Agreed. No one is entirely sure about all the details of virus transmission even for well characterised ones like flu, as most research is either into population statistics, or done in a controlled lab environment.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KPE6uXhFEU
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa032867
I can understand that some people don't want to take part but I cannot understand why it winds people like you and Casino Royale up into a frenzy.
Good news report:
"Great-grandmother, 99, becomes oldest Briton to beat coronavirus as her family joke her recovery is down to diet of marmalade and biscuits"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8183957/Bramhall-great-grandmother-99-oldest-Briton-beat-coronavirus.html
Again: I really don't like people who think there are acceptable levels of "soft" intimidation and vigilantism.
It is in the same vein as condemning those who do not wear a poppy for a month before Armistice Day.
Should "Tory" be a protected characteristic?
'Exclusive: Girl speaks out about man on bicycle flashing her in Ridgewood, Queens'
https://tinyurl.com/ugsqexc
I suspect for a large number of these people it is all they then do and then feel good about themselves having done bugger all useful. I suggest they stop praying and clapping and get off their arses and do something.
*https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/52338c7a-1637-459e-a04e-bd97f9d15c5c
I assume under your scheme we'd still be treating the most dangerous criminals who had contracted it because they respected the rules on social isolation, but not someone who popped out for a jog twice in one day rather than once? Doesn't seem right to me.
For example, let us say that in reality one of the most effective ways to deter the virus is to chew tobacco. Would the government push this advice forcefully? Spittoons in every supermarket? Not sure.
As far as I am concerned, such people go on The List.
https://www.schaubuehne.de/de/seiten/online-spielplan.html
Must have been a bit of a slow news day in NY?
It needs to be clear and direct.
There was one chap I used to see near Bank - upright bike, pinstripe suit, always playing Brahms......
“It will be fine to go out for a 5 hour day trip on Saturday, as we are allowed to exercise. We might even meet Phil and Jan and their 2 kids whilst we’re there.”
The communication strategy is still poor.
I also did a deal with HMRC with regard to cash surplus. They allowed me to invest the money in my name (higher return) without it being counted as a loan to me. I had to draw up an agreement between myself and my company and file it with them and obviously pay corporation tax on it.
I'm glad I did that formally as several years later I was challenged on my personal tax return for undeclared bank interest because I wasn't declaring the interest on the company element that I held personally. Hey presto I could produce the agreement with HMRC and show my company was paying corporation tax on it.
Did I feel smug! They probably thought I was a dead cert for being banged to rights.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5k8Su_ek2k
When people start going out into the streets dressed as a giant pair of hands, that's when we all need to worry.
Surely only a week or two away now...
If that dangerous criminal had killed someone through reckless driving, say, then they've been punished already for their behaviour. I don't see why they need to be sanctioned for something completely separate.
"In Manchester police have been dropping off Easter eggs to residents stuck inside their homes as the lockdown continues."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-52143728
Flame Shoulder x 1 (new for the year)
Caloptilia stigmatella x 1 (new for the year)
Agonopterix heracliana - ciliella agg. x 1
Early Thorn x 1
Red Chestnut x 1
Chestnut x 1
Clouded Drab x 1
Common Quaker x 8
Double-stripe Pug x 1
Early Grey x 4
Early Tooth-striped x 1
Hebrew Character x 8
Oak Beauty x 6
Small Quaker x 3
Twin-spotted Quaker x 1
Water Carpet x 1
White-shouldered House Moth x 1
Here's the Water Carpet:
Things could still be clearer, it's true. But it's not as unclear as people say and that example would show someone acting deliberately not any genuine confusion.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/02/swedes-rest-world-engaging-reckless-experiment/
Fortunately the foot guards on the bike tore the side out of the car.
US figures, annualised, I infer.
Some people respond better to Boris's "Come on chaps. Do the right thing. We're all in this together. I understand your frustration but please stay at home. "
Others might respond better to "Do as you're damned well told!!!".
I think Boris's is the more effective approach.
No one is entirely sure about all the details of virus transmission even for well characterised ones like flu, as most research is either into population statistics, or done in a controlled lab environment.