politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A knighthood for Colonel Tom Moore?

RobD said:

stodge said:

Evening all

As might be expected, the re-opening of some DIY stores and some fast food establishments has drawn people out of lock down.

Trying to use that as a rationale for a mass return to work is interesting - the transport systems in London and elsewhere could not cope and to what extent are companies with offices prepared for social distancing?

Most of the clients with whom I am working have not been happy to hear their offices can only function at 40% capacity to maintain social distancing - the situation is worse in meeting rooms as people tend to sit much closer.

I'm now waiting for some Government minister to tell me it's my patriotic duty to go back to the office even though I can work quite happily at home.

If you can work from home I doubt the government will be asking you to go into the office any time soon.

RobD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

ABZ said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

RobD said:

bigjohnowls said:

Omnium said:

bigjohnowls said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

geoffw said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1256971683879157762

He's been rumbled.

I don't care that they not only can't manage 100k tests but can't manage to consistently lie about it

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

eek said:

RochdalePioneers said:

stodge said:

One of the problem areas for any resumption of anything approaching normal economic life is social distancing on public transport.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52394835

Grant Shapps has come up with the helpful suggestion of staggering working hours. Whether he genuinely believes there is a "rush hour" any more I don't know but in my part of London the underground is busy from 6am to 9am heading into town.

MY guesstimate is the tube could run at 15% of normal passenger levels and that would allow reasonable social distancing but a lot more people use it. Re-opening construction sites will increase passenger numbers let alone other sectors which can't be governed by home working.

Currently on National Rail trains are running up and down the lines empty or nearly empty so there is capacity available but looking at the trains coming into Waterloo or Victoria of a morning and you see the social distancing issues.

London buses are now free and I'm told some of them are running pretty full as it is a useful way of those who either don't care about or believe they have no choice but to break the lock down are using them. Car traffic is around 40% of normal but has crept up slightly in the past week.

Public transport is the Big Problem. Not everyone drives to work. Yet on a bus or train you cannot separate yourself out enough for the powers that be to deem it safe, and without public transport people can't be ordered back to work and the economy can't attempt a restart.

The suggestion of a 1m spacing - would that make enough of a difference?

Suddenly a bus that sat 60 people now sits 15 or if in couples 20. It's still not going to work.

However most buses around here seem to have zero people on them so I wonder why Arriva are still running them.

Well then we're fucked. They can't transport people to work safely which means we can't go back to work. So unless we see a sudden drop in infection rates / the virus mutates to safe then we will face fun choices:
1. Government says "you have to go back to work regardless of the risk. We're cutting off your support"
2. Government says "we said whatever it takes and we meant it. Its Not Safe to have a full return to work or a full resumption in our Schools. Here's an endless supply of cash to keep you at home"

Why would it need to be endless?

With sufficient test, track and trace it should be possible to replace lockdown with containment.

This government are going to organise test track and trace? This government...

It is already under trial in the Isle of Wight

Hancock Test Track & Trace strategy

TEST in the post lets count it

On TRACK to meet a political target even though its not processed

Not a TRACE of integrity

Perhaps you're right, but I'd have marked him as doing ok in this.

"Doing OK in this"?? The final slide?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/882881/2020-05-03_COVID-19_Press_Conference_Slides__5_.pdf

It's the weekend, so demand at the drive through sites and in hospitals is lower. Doesn't take a genius to work that out.

What, cos all the peepuls are doing important leisure time stuff?

Possibly childcare? No schools at the weekend, even if you are a health service worker.

People a) collecting samples; b) processing samples; c) collating data, also need days off and these will be enriched for at weekends. This trend is seen across most European countries.

So planned then? Better than lack of demand bullshit I guess.

Probably a combination of the two, actually.

bigjohnowls said:

Philip_Thompson said:

bigjohnowls said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

One day below 100k matters not. There is only an issue is we start to see day after day next week.

How many unprocessed tests counted as tests do you think we have Francis?

What makes you think they haven't been processed yet?

Which ones?

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RobD said:

stodge said:

Evening all

As might be expected, the re-opening of some DIY stores and some fast food establishments has drawn people out of lock down.

Trying to use that as a rationale for a mass return to work is interesting - the transport systems in London and elsewhere could not cope and to what extent are companies with offices prepared for social distancing?

Most of the clients with whom I am working have not been happy to hear their offices can only function at 40% capacity to maintain social distancing - the situation is worse in meeting rooms as people tend to sit much closer.

I'm now waiting for some Government minister to tell me it's my patriotic duty to go back to the office even though I can work quite happily at home.

If you can work from home I doubt the government will be asking you to go into the office any time soon.

Or ever. There has long been working from home. That wasn't invented this year.

For a lot of companies it was invented this year. IBM, for instance, banned it back in 2015...

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RobD said:

stodge said:

Evening all

As might be expected, the re-opening of some DIY stores and some fast food establishments has drawn people out of lock down.

Trying to use that as a rationale for a mass return to work is interesting - the transport systems in London and elsewhere could not cope and to what extent are companies with offices prepared for social distancing?

Most of the clients with whom I am working have not been happy to hear their offices can only function at 40% capacity to maintain social distancing - the situation is worse in meeting rooms as people tend to sit much closer.

I'm now waiting for some Government minister to tell me it's my patriotic duty to go back to the office even though I can work quite happily at home.

If you can work from home I doubt the government will be asking you to go into the office any time soon.

Or ever. There has long been working from home. That wasn't invented this year.

For a lot of companies it was invented this year. IBM, for instance, banned it back in 2015...

SandyRentool said:

Yokes said:

isam said:

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

eadric said:

Black_Rook said:

JohnLilburne said:

ukpaul said:

JohnLilburne said:

SandyRentool said:

RobD said:

SandyRentool said:

RobD said:

noneoftheabove said:

RobD said:

noneoftheabove said:

RobD said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1256870611697176577

The Times article is wrong. It says that all over 70s have been instructed to shelter for twelve weeks. That's simply not true.

If you look at how it was reported back in March you can see why.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51917562

"Pregnant women, people over the age of 70 and those with certain health conditions should consider the advice "particularly important", he (the PM) said.

People in at-risk groups will be asked within days to stay home for 12 weeks."

The natural assumption was that at risk groups were the above categories, yet those groups were defined differently but only by the following week.

My parents think they need to shelter for 12 weeks, presumably on that basis, and clearly they werent alone in that misunderstanding.

Those are two separate sentences, and classes of people.

Yes I can see that now, but specifying the first group one week before specifying the second group has clearly caused mass confusion, hence the Sunday Times article.

Little harm done by it as everyone is on lockdown now, but poor communication in explaining this from the govt (it has generally been good imo).

The formatting of a BBC article is hardly the fault of the government, the same with a times article. The advice is clearly stated on HMGs website. Those who needed the specific advice to stay at home for 12 weeks were each informed individually by letter.

When the formal advice came it was different to what had been trailed the week before. Fewer people were told to shield. However this change was not pointed out explicitly, so people who had paid more attention to the first announcement will have assumed that the initial criteria applied.

Wasn't the advice always that the most vulnerable would be the ones asked to shelter? I don't think they ever lumped all over-70s into that category.

They did include all over 70s in the pre announcement, but this changed by the time it was implemented.

Yes, I was worried it might apply to everyone who gets a flu jab on medical grounds, but for that group it became "follow social distancing especially stringently"

And the ridiculousness of basing it on influenza when we have seen how utterly different it is in its effect is still not being addressed. The lists have become a joke, bearing no real connection to the reality of this virus.

Research is being done, for example the growing realisation that pre-diabetics and the overweight (even people with a BMI as low as 30) can be at risk. A BMI of 40 and you're brown bread. In my case I'm hoping a cardiology appointment can give me an all-clear although how long it will take to organise one I don't know. I could probably afford to pay for a private consultation, but not for an angiogram if one is called for.

A BMI of 30 is the threshold at which "normal" folk (i.e. most people, except for muscular athletes for whom BMI is a very poor measure) transition from being merely overweight to obese. So 30 is not a low value; it's simply that the average person in the UK is now overweight, so it may not seem as excessive as it actually is. 40 is very obese and, based on my limited layman's knowledge, I would've thought there would be a good argument for getting anyone in that category to shield.

Or let Darwin do his work with the fatsos

BMI of 40 is ridiculous. This person does not want to live anyway

Disgusting comment.

People can be overweight not because of not wanting to live, but simply due to enjoying life a bit too much. Enjoying food too much.

BMI 40 may not be good for you, but that equates to about 18 stone for the average man - a lot and an unhealthy amount sure but not absurdly overweight to the point of can't live.

I am seriously overweight and it is all down to alcohol and eating. I have enjoyed getting to where I am immensely. That said, I am also doing 65 press ups and sit ups every other day, as well as 75 squats and lounges. It is a horrific way to spend 20 minutes, but I think it helps!

Surely cardio is better for losing weight?

Its a mix, resistance training of any kind (body weight, weights, or bands or whatever don't matter) is just as important because they help maintain muscle mass which is very important for helping the body burn calories especially as people get older.

What may be considered standard cardio works because its burning calories but needs to be graded with increased work to keep knocking the fat off. That intensity can be seen in two ways, length of work and/or intensity. The problem with that after a while is doesn't help the muscle mass.

Both combined are better than a focus on one. The problem with exercise is so much of if is about 'the shortcut', every form claims its better calorie burning in a shorter time of effort. To keep it simple just mixing things up and doing whatever it is to sufficient intensity (i.e. you got to have pushed it a a bit, whatever your fitness) is the basic rule to work by.

Reducing calorie intake is the way to lose weight. Exercise has a host of benefits, but isn't the primary route to shedding pounds.

I've lost half a stone since going into lockdown. Primarily due to less snacking, particularly chocolate. And no Greggs!

isam said:

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

eadric said:

Black_Rook said:

JohnLilburne said:

ukpaul said:

JohnLilburne said:

SandyRentool said:

RobD said:

SandyRentool said:

RobD said:

noneoftheabove said:

RobD said:

noneoftheabove said:

RobD said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1256870611697176577

The Times article is wrong. It says that all over 70s have been instructed to shelter for twelve weeks. That's simply not true.

If you look at how it was reported back in March you can see why.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51917562

"Pregnant women, people over the age of 70 and those with certain health conditions should consider the advice "particularly important", he (the PM) said.

People in at-risk groups will be asked within days to stay home for 12 weeks."

The natural assumption was that at risk groups were the above categories, yet those groups were defined differently but only by the following week.

My parents think they need to shelter for 12 weeks, presumably on that basis, and clearly they werent alone in that misunderstanding.

Those are two separate sentences, and classes of people.

Yes I can see that now, but specifying the first group one week before specifying the second group has clearly caused mass confusion, hence the Sunday Times article.

Little harm done by it as everyone is on lockdown now, but poor communication in explaining this from the govt (it has generally been good imo).

The formatting of a BBC article is hardly the fault of the government, the same with a times article. The advice is clearly stated on HMGs website. Those who needed the specific advice to stay at home for 12 weeks were each informed individually by letter.

When the formal advice came it was different to what had been trailed the week before. Fewer people were told to shield. However this change was not pointed out explicitly, so people who had paid more attention to the first announcement will have assumed that the initial criteria applied.

Wasn't the advice always that the most vulnerable would be the ones asked to shelter? I don't think they ever lumped all over-70s into that category.

They did include all over 70s in the pre announcement, but this changed by the time it was implemented.

Yes, I was worried it might apply to everyone who gets a flu jab on medical grounds, but for that group it became "follow social distancing especially stringently"

And the ridiculousness of basing it on influenza when we have seen how utterly different it is in its effect is still not being addressed. The lists have become a joke, bearing no real connection to the reality of this virus.

Research is being done, for example the growing realisation that pre-diabetics and the overweight (even people with a BMI as low as 30) can be at risk. A BMI of 40 and you're brown bread. In my case I'm hoping a cardiology appointment can give me an all-clear although how long it will take to organise one I don't know. I could probably afford to pay for a private consultation, but not for an angiogram if one is called for.

A BMI of 30 is the threshold at which "normal" folk (i.e. most people, except for muscular athletes for whom BMI is a very poor measure) transition from being merely overweight to obese. So 30 is not a low value; it's simply that the average person in the UK is now overweight, so it may not seem as excessive as it actually is. 40 is very obese and, based on my limited layman's knowledge, I would've thought there would be a good argument for getting anyone in that category to shield.

Or let Darwin do his work with the fatsos

BMI of 40 is ridiculous. This person does not want to live anyway

Disgusting comment.

People can be overweight not because of not wanting to live, but simply due to enjoying life a bit too much. Enjoying food too much.

BMI 40 may not be good for you, but that equates to about 18 stone for the average man - a lot and an unhealthy amount sure but not absurdly overweight to the point of can't live.

I am seriously overweight and it is all down to alcohol and eating. I have enjoyed getting to where I am immensely. That said, I am also doing 65 press ups and sit ups every other day, as well as 75 squats and lounges. It is a horrific way to spend 20 minutes, but I think it helps!

Surely cardio is better for losing weight?

Philip_Thompson said:

tyson said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

RobD said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Why would it need to be endless?

With sufficient test, track and trace it should be possible to replace lockdown with containment.

This government are going to organise test track and trace? This government...

Yes. Why not this government?

"WHO urges countries to 'track and trace' every Covid-19 case. Advice comes day after UK decides to stop community tests and only test hospital cases."
Published on Friday the 13th. Of March.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/13/who-urges-countries-to-track-and-trace-every-covid-19-case

Because it was pointless at that sage with the capacity available at the time.

Yes, the management of the expansion of test capacity was absymal for months, throwing away the opportunity to retrieve the situation after a failure to plan for an epidemic. But was it pointless to make no effort to at least ramp up the tracing of contacts, so that they could be warned to isolate? And why did it take until the end of April for the Government just to announce its intention to recruit people to do just that?

No...we had the best plan for a pandemic in the world...shut down, control, track and trace.....

we just ignored it...

the problem is we didn't have a Govt that believed in the power of the state when it was required.... instead we had people who thought we needed to prioritise keeping pubs and airports open....

those few weeks have really fucked us up....now god only knows how and when we come out safely...we are so much on the back foot that our only strategy to see how other countries are doing it....

If shutting down the country every time an an epidemic broke anywhere in the world was part of the plan we would be on roughly the 7th or 8th shutdown so far this century having already locked down for SARS, MERS, Ebola and all the others. Get real.

Monkeys said:

I haven't moved from my computer since lockdown started and I've lost 100 pounds on online poker.

Gallowgate said:

I started cardio with a skipping rope yesterday. After only 10 minutes yesterday, I’ve got muscles sore today I didn’t even know I had. I highly recommend.

Yokes said:

SandyRentool said:

Yokes said:

isam said:

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

eadric said:

Black_Rook said:

JohnLilburne said:

ukpaul said:

JohnLilburne said:

SandyRentool said:

RobD said:

SandyRentool said:

RobD said:

noneoftheabove said:

RobD said:

noneoftheabove said:

RobD said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1256870611697176577

The Times article is wrong. It says that all over 70s have been instructed to shelter for twelve weeks. That's simply not true.

If you look at how it was reported back in March you can see why.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51917562

"Pregnant women, people over the age of 70 and those with certain health conditions should consider the advice "particularly important", he (the PM) said.

People in at-risk groups will be asked within days to stay home for 12 weeks."

The natural assumption was that at risk groups were the above categories, yet those groups were defined differently but only by the following week.

My parents think they need to shelter for 12 weeks, presumably on that basis, and clearly they werent alone in that misunderstanding.

Those are two separate sentences, and classes of people.

Yes I can see that now, but specifying the first group one week before specifying the second group has clearly caused mass confusion, hence the Sunday Times article.

Little harm done by it as everyone is on lockdown now, but poor communication in explaining this from the govt (it has generally been good imo).

The formatting of a BBC article is hardly the fault of the government, the same with a times article. The advice is clearly stated on HMGs website. Those who needed the specific advice to stay at home for 12 weeks were each informed individually by letter.

When the formal advice came it was different to what had been trailed the week before. Fewer people were told to shield. However this change was not pointed out explicitly, so people who had paid more attention to the first announcement will have assumed that the initial criteria applied.

Wasn't the advice always that the most vulnerable would be the ones asked to shelter? I don't think they ever lumped all over-70s into that category.

They did include all over 70s in the pre announcement, but this changed by the time it was implemented.

Yes, I was worried it might apply to everyone who gets a flu jab on medical grounds, but for that group it became "follow social distancing especially stringently"

And the ridiculousness of basing it on influenza when we have seen how utterly different it is in its effect is still not being addressed. The lists have become a joke, bearing no real connection to the reality of this virus.

Research is being done, for example the growing realisation that pre-diabetics and the overweight (even people with a BMI as low as 30) can be at risk. A BMI of 40 and you're brown bread. In my case I'm hoping a cardiology appointment can give me an all-clear although how long it will take to organise one I don't know. I could probably afford to pay for a private consultation, but not for an angiogram if one is called for.

A BMI of 30 is the threshold at which "normal" folk (i.e. most people, except for muscular athletes for whom BMI is a very poor measure) transition from being merely overweight to obese. So 30 is not a low value; it's simply that the average person in the UK is now overweight, so it may not seem as excessive as it actually is. 40 is very obese and, based on my limited layman's knowledge, I would've thought there would be a good argument for getting anyone in that category to shield.

Or let Darwin do his work with the fatsos

BMI of 40 is ridiculous. This person does not want to live anyway

Disgusting comment.

People can be overweight not because of not wanting to live, but simply due to enjoying life a bit too much. Enjoying food too much.

BMI 40 may not be good for you, but that equates to about 18 stone for the average man - a lot and an unhealthy amount sure but not absurdly overweight to the point of can't live.

I am seriously overweight and it is all down to alcohol and eating. I have enjoyed getting to where I am immensely. That said, I am also doing 65 press ups and sit ups every other day, as well as 75 squats and lounges. It is a horrific way to spend 20 minutes, but I think it helps!

Surely cardio is better for losing weight?

Its a mix, resistance training of any kind (body weight, weights, or bands or whatever don't matter) is just as important because they help maintain muscle mass which is very important for helping the body burn calories especially as people get older.

What may be considered standard cardio works because its burning calories but needs to be graded with increased work to keep knocking the fat off. That intensity can be seen in two ways, length of work and/or intensity. The problem with that after a while is doesn't help the muscle mass.

Both combined are better than a focus on one. The problem with exercise is so much of if is about 'the shortcut', every form claims its better calorie burning in a shorter time of effort. To keep it simple just mixing things up and doing whatever it is to sufficient intensity (i.e. you got to have pushed it a a bit, whatever your fitness) is the basic rule to work by.

Reducing calorie intake is the way to lose weight. Exercise has a host of benefits, but isn't the primary route to shedding pounds.

I've lost half a stone since going into lockdown. Primarily due to less snacking, particularly chocolate. And no Greggs!

Well no, you cant exactly do 30 mins on an exercise bike then hit that bag of Haribo. Calories in vs calories out is a fundamental which you can't buck but the question was about the best form of exercise for losing weight.

As someone who is fortunate to consume between 3200-3500 calories a day but due to aspects of my job and my training can get away with it, I'm also very aware of how easy it is for people to get caught up in whats best exercise when sometimes its just better to start.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Andy_JS said:

https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1256941185681276931

Those figures are good but he's looking at only half the picture. By focusing only on hospital deaths, he's exaggerating the pace of decline.

From today's Observer, Page 8: "Care home owners are still warning that the sector is some way off a peak in cases, unlike the country as a whole."

If you follow him on twitter you will find he does.

Fair enough, I take your word that he does. But the trend in the graphs which I was commenting on didn't.

No, but he looks at all the data. And i believe peak deaths outside hospitals looks about 20th April.

alterego said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Andy_JS said:

https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1256941185681276931

Those figures are good but he's looking at only half the picture. By focusing only on hospital deaths, he's exaggerating the pace of decline.

From today's Observer, Page 8: "Care home owners are still warning that the sector is some way off a peak in cases, unlike the country as a whole."

If you follow him on twitter you will find he does.

Fair enough, I take your word that he does. But the trend in the graphs which I was commenting on didn't.

No, but he looks at all the data. And i believe peak deaths outside hospitals looks about 20th April.

It looks like care home residents and staff are effectively a separate cohort regardless of nationality. The numbers lag other domestic cohorts, then hit heavy and hard. This must be one aspect (of many) of any post pandemic analysis and whilst there are many trying to second guess the result of that analysis with the incomplete and uncorrelated current data, that second guess cannot hope to carry the weight of a proper analysis of correlated and substantial post event data.

JohnLilburne said:

Yokes said:

SandyRentool said:

Yokes said:

isam said:

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

eadric said:

Black_Rook said:

JohnLilburne said:

ukpaul said:

JohnLilburne said:

SandyRentool said:

RobD said:

SandyRentool said:

RobD said:

noneoftheabove said:

RobD said:

noneoftheabove said:

RobD said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1256870611697176577

The Times article is wrong. It says that all over 70s have been instructed to shelter for twelve weeks. That's simply not true.

If you look at how it was reported back in March you can see why.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51917562

"Pregnant women, people over the age of 70 and those with certain health conditions should consider the advice "particularly important", he (the PM) said.

People in at-risk groups will be asked within days to stay home for 12 weeks."

The natural assumption was that at risk groups were the above categories, yet those groups were defined differently but only by the following week.

My parents think they need to shelter for 12 weeks, presumably on that basis, and clearly they werent alone in that misunderstanding.

Those are two separate sentences, and classes of people.

Yes I can see that now, but specifying the first group one week before specifying the second group has clearly caused mass confusion, hence the Sunday Times article.

Little harm done by it as everyone is on lockdown now, but poor communication in explaining this from the govt (it has generally been good imo).

The formatting of a BBC article is hardly the fault of the government, the same with a times article. The advice is clearly stated on HMGs website. Those who needed the specific advice to stay at home for 12 weeks were each informed individually by letter.

When the formal advice came it was different to what had been trailed the week before. Fewer people were told to shield. However this change was not pointed out explicitly, so people who had paid more attention to the first announcement will have assumed that the initial criteria applied.

Wasn't the advice always that the most vulnerable would be the ones asked to shelter? I don't think they ever lumped all over-70s into that category.

They did include all over 70s in the pre announcement, but this changed by the time it was implemented.

Yes, I was worried it might apply to everyone who gets a flu jab on medical grounds, but for that group it became "follow social distancing especially stringently"

And the ridiculousness of basing it on influenza when we have seen how utterly different it is in its effect is still not being addressed. The lists have become a joke, bearing no real connection to the reality of this virus.

Research is being done, for example the growing realisation that pre-diabetics and the overweight (even people with a BMI as low as 30) can be at risk. A BMI of 40 and you're brown bread. In my case I'm hoping a cardiology appointment can give me an all-clear although how long it will take to organise one I don't know. I could probably afford to pay for a private consultation, but not for an angiogram if one is called for.

A BMI of 30 is the threshold at which "normal" folk (i.e. most people, except for muscular athletes for whom BMI is a very poor measure) transition from being merely overweight to obese. So 30 is not a low value; it's simply that the average person in the UK is now overweight, so it may not seem as excessive as it actually is. 40 is very obese and, based on my limited layman's knowledge, I would've thought there would be a good argument for getting anyone in that category to shield.

Or let Darwin do his work with the fatsos

BMI of 40 is ridiculous. This person does not want to live anyway

Disgusting comment.

People can be overweight not because of not wanting to live, but simply due to enjoying life a bit too much. Enjoying food too much.

BMI 40 may not be good for you, but that equates to about 18 stone for the average man - a lot and an unhealthy amount sure but not absurdly overweight to the point of can't live.

I am seriously overweight and it is all down to alcohol and eating. I have enjoyed getting to where I am immensely. That said, I am also doing 65 press ups and sit ups every other day, as well as 75 squats and lounges. It is a horrific way to spend 20 minutes, but I think it helps!

Surely cardio is better for losing weight?

Its a mix, resistance training of any kind (body weight, weights, or bands or whatever don't matter) is just as important because they help maintain muscle mass which is very important for helping the body burn calories especially as people get older.

What may be considered standard cardio works because its burning calories but needs to be graded with increased work to keep knocking the fat off. That intensity can be seen in two ways, length of work and/or intensity. The problem with that after a while is doesn't help the muscle mass.

Both combined are better than a focus on one. The problem with exercise is so much of if is about 'the shortcut', every form claims its better calorie burning in a shorter time of effort. To keep it simple just mixing things up and doing whatever it is to sufficient intensity (i.e. you got to have pushed it a a bit, whatever your fitness) is the basic rule to work by.

Reducing calorie intake is the way to lose weight. Exercise has a host of benefits, but isn't the primary route to shedding pounds.

I've lost half a stone since going into lockdown. Primarily due to less snacking, particularly chocolate. And no Greggs!

Well no, you cant exactly do 30 mins on an exercise bike then hit that bag of Haribo. Calories in vs calories out is a fundamental which you can't buck but the question was about the best form of exercise for losing weight.

As someone who is fortunate to consume between 3200-3500 calories a day but due to aspects of my job and my training can get away with it, I'm also very aware of how easy it is for people to get caught up in whats best exercise when sometimes its just better to start.

Yeah, as a runner I burn an average of 3000 calories a day, it does make food choices easier

TOPPING said:

Pulpstar said:

Gallowgate said:

I started cardio with a skipping rope yesterday. After only 10 minutes yesterday, I’ve got muscles sore today I didn’t even know I had. I highly recommend.

Skipping requires coordination I'm not sure I have !
I did get a rope in case the lockdown was more severe but I'm dreadful at it.

Ahem if I may...the biggest mistake people make is to let their arms drift out from their bodies thus shortening the rope and that's why it gets caught up in your feet all the time. Consciously keep your arms close to your sides and your skipping will be transformed.

It's great exercise. Best skipping song, since you asked? Hey Ya by Outkast. Keep up with that and you've arrived.

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Pulpstar said:

Gallowgate said:

I started cardio with a skipping rope yesterday. After only 10 minutes yesterday, I’ve got muscles sore today I didn’t even know I had. I highly recommend.

Skipping requires coordination I'm not sure I have !
I did get a rope in case the lockdown was more severe but I'm dreadful at it.

Ahem if I may...the biggest mistake people make is to let their arms drift out from their bodies thus shortening the rope and that's why it gets caught up in your feet all the time. Consciously keep your arms close to your sides and your skipping will be transformed.

It's great exercise. Best skipping song, since you asked? Hey Ya by Outkast. Keep up with that and you've arrived.

That's a great (and logical) tip.

Still no intention to get a rope though!

bigjohnowls said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

geoffw said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1256971683879157762

He's been rumbled.

I don't care that they not only can't manage 100k tests but can't manage to consistently lie about it

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

eek said:

RochdalePioneers said:

stodge said:

One of the problem areas for any resumption of anything approaching normal economic life is social distancing on public transport.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52394835

Grant Shapps has come up with the helpful suggestion of staggering working hours. Whether he genuinely believes there is a "rush hour" any more I don't know but in my part of London the underground is busy from 6am to 9am heading into town.

MY guesstimate is the tube could run at 15% of normal passenger levels and that would allow reasonable social distancing but a lot more people use it. Re-opening construction sites will increase passenger numbers let alone other sectors which can't be governed by home working.

Currently on National Rail trains are running up and down the lines empty or nearly empty so there is capacity available but looking at the trains coming into Waterloo or Victoria of a morning and you see the social distancing issues.

London buses are now free and I'm told some of them are running pretty full as it is a useful way of those who either don't care about or believe they have no choice but to break the lock down are using them. Car traffic is around 40% of normal but has crept up slightly in the past week.

Public transport is the Big Problem. Not everyone drives to work. Yet on a bus or train you cannot separate yourself out enough for the powers that be to deem it safe, and without public transport people can't be ordered back to work and the economy can't attempt a restart.

The suggestion of a 1m spacing - would that make enough of a difference?

Suddenly a bus that sat 60 people now sits 15 or if in couples 20. It's still not going to work.

However most buses around here seem to have zero people on them so I wonder why Arriva are still running them.

Well then we're fucked. They can't transport people to work safely which means we can't go back to work. So unless we see a sudden drop in infection rates / the virus mutates to safe then we will face fun choices:
1. Government says "you have to go back to work regardless of the risk. We're cutting off your support"
2. Government says "we said whatever it takes and we meant it. Its Not Safe to have a full return to work or a full resumption in our Schools. Here's an endless supply of cash to keep you at home"

Why would it need to be endless?

With sufficient test, track and trace it should be possible to replace lockdown with containment.

This government are going to organise test track and trace? This government...

It is already under trial in the Isle of Wight

Hancock Test Track & Trace strategy

TEST in the post lets count it

On TRACK to meet a political target even though its not processed

Not a TRACE of integrity

JohnLilburne said:

TOPPING said:

JohnLilburne said:

Yokes said:

SandyRentool said:

Yokes said:

isam said:

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

eadric said:

Black_Rook said:

JohnLilburne said:

ukpaul said:

JohnLilburne said:

SandyRentool said:

RobD said:

SandyRentool said:

RobD said:

noneoftheabove said:

RobD said:

noneoftheabove said:

RobD said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1256870611697176577

The Times article is wrong. It says that all over 70s have been instructed to shelter for twelve weeks. That's simply not true.

If you look at how it was reported back in March you can see why.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51917562

"Pregnant women, people over the age of 70 and those with certain health conditions should consider the advice "particularly important", he (the PM) said.

People in at-risk groups will be asked within days to stay home for 12 weeks."

The natural assumption was that at risk groups were the above categories, yet those groups were defined differently but only by the following week.

My parents think they need to shelter for 12 weeks, presumably on that basis, and clearly they werent alone in that misunderstanding.

Those are two separate sentences, and classes of people.

Yes I can see that now, but specifying the first group one week before specifying the second group has clearly caused mass confusion, hence the Sunday Times article.

Little harm done by it as everyone is on lockdown now, but poor communication in explaining this from the govt (it has generally been good imo).

The formatting of a BBC article is hardly the fault of the government, the same with a times article. The advice is clearly stated on HMGs website. Those who needed the specific advice to stay at home for 12 weeks were each informed individually by letter.

When the formal advice came it was different to what had been trailed the week before. Fewer people were told to shield. However this change was not pointed out explicitly, so people who had paid more attention to the first announcement will have assumed that the initial criteria applied.

Wasn't the advice always that the most vulnerable would be the ones asked to shelter? I don't think they ever lumped all over-70s into that category.

They did include all over 70s in the pre announcement, but this changed by the time it was implemented.

Yes, I was worried it might apply to everyone who gets a flu jab on medical grounds, but for that group it became "follow social distancing especially stringently"

And the ridiculousness of basing it on influenza when we have seen how utterly different it is in its effect is still not being addressed. The lists have become a joke, bearing no real connection to the reality of this virus.

Research is being done, for example the growing realisation that pre-diabetics and the overweight (even people with a BMI as low as 30) can be at risk. A BMI of 40 and you're brown bread. In my case I'm hoping a cardiology appointment can give me an all-clear although how long it will take to organise one I don't know. I could probably afford to pay for a private consultation, but not for an angiogram if one is called for.

A BMI of 30 is the threshold at which "normal" folk (i.e. most people, except for muscular athletes for whom BMI is a very poor measure) transition from being merely overweight to obese. So 30 is not a low value; it's simply that the average person in the UK is now overweight, so it may not seem as excessive as it actually is. 40 is very obese and, based on my limited layman's knowledge, I would've thought there would be a good argument for getting anyone in that category to shield.

Or let Darwin do his work with the fatsos

BMI of 40 is ridiculous. This person does not want to live anyway

Disgusting comment.

People can be overweight not because of not wanting to live, but simply due to enjoying life a bit too much. Enjoying food too much.

BMI 40 may not be good for you, but that equates to about 18 stone for the average man - a lot and an unhealthy amount sure but not absurdly overweight to the point of can't live.

I am seriously overweight and it is all down to alcohol and eating. I have enjoyed getting to where I am immensely. That said, I am also doing 65 press ups and sit ups every other day, as well as 75 squats and lounges. It is a horrific way to spend 20 minutes, but I think it helps!

Surely cardio is better for losing weight?

Its a mix, resistance training of any kind (body weight, weights, or bands or whatever don't matter) is just as important because they help maintain muscle mass which is very important for helping the body burn calories especially as people get older.

What may be considered standard cardio works because its burning calories but needs to be graded with increased work to keep knocking the fat off. That intensity can be seen in two ways, length of work and/or intensity. The problem with that after a while is doesn't help the muscle mass.

Both combined are better than a focus on one. The problem with exercise is so much of if is about 'the shortcut', every form claims its better calorie burning in a shorter time of effort. To keep it simple just mixing things up and doing whatever it is to sufficient intensity (i.e. you got to have pushed it a a bit, whatever your fitness) is the basic rule to work by.

Reducing calorie intake is the way to lose weight. Exercise has a host of benefits, but isn't the primary route to shedding pounds.

I've lost half a stone since going into lockdown. Primarily due to less snacking, particularly chocolate. And no Greggs!

Well no, you cant exactly do 30 mins on an exercise bike then hit that bag of Haribo. Calories in vs calories out is a fundamental which you can't buck but the question was about the best form of exercise for losing weight.

As someone who is fortunate to consume between 3200-3500 calories a day but due to aspects of my job and my training can get away with it, I'm also very aware of how easy it is for people to get caught up in whats best exercise when sometimes its just better to start.

Yeah, as a runner I burn an average of 3000 calories a day, it does make food choices easier

Wow that is a lot of running isn't it?

That is based on what my running watch tells me... I run 30-40 miles a week and it tends to elevate your metabolic rate when you're not running. As well as the calorific burn, the body has to do repair and maintenance. And I try to get out for a walk on non-running days and (used to) go to the gym. But yes it provides a good cushion to eat well and have a few pints

RobD said:

OllyT said:

bigjohnowls said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

geoffw said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1256971683879157762

He's been rumbled.

I don't care that they not only can't manage 100k tests but can't manage to consistently lie about it

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

eek said:

RochdalePioneers said:

stodge said:

One of the problem areas for any resumption of anything approaching normal economic life is social distancing on public transport.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52394835

Grant Shapps has come up with the helpful suggestion of staggering working hours. Whether he genuinely believes there is a "rush hour" any more I don't know but in my part of London the underground is busy from 6am to 9am heading into town.

MY guesstimate is the tube could run at 15% of normal passenger levels and that would allow reasonable social distancing but a lot more people use it. Re-opening construction sites will increase passenger numbers let alone other sectors which can't be governed by home working.

Currently on National Rail trains are running up and down the lines empty or nearly empty so there is capacity available but looking at the trains coming into Waterloo or Victoria of a morning and you see the social distancing issues.

London buses are now free and I'm told some of them are running pretty full as it is a useful way of those who either don't care about or believe they have no choice but to break the lock down are using them. Car traffic is around 40% of normal but has crept up slightly in the past week.

Public transport is the Big Problem. Not everyone drives to work. Yet on a bus or train you cannot separate yourself out enough for the powers that be to deem it safe, and without public transport people can't be ordered back to work and the economy can't attempt a restart.

The suggestion of a 1m spacing - would that make enough of a difference?

Suddenly a bus that sat 60 people now sits 15 or if in couples 20. It's still not going to work.

However most buses around here seem to have zero people on them so I wonder why Arriva are still running them.

Well then we're fucked. They can't transport people to work safely which means we can't go back to work. So unless we see a sudden drop in infection rates / the virus mutates to safe then we will face fun choices:
1. Government says "you have to go back to work regardless of the risk. We're cutting off your support"
2. Government says "we said whatever it takes and we meant it. Its Not Safe to have a full return to work or a full resumption in our Schools. Here's an endless supply of cash to keep you at home"

Why would it need to be endless?

With sufficient test, track and trace it should be possible to replace lockdown with containment.

This government are going to organise test track and trace? This government...

It is already under trial in the Isle of Wight

Hancock Test Track & Trace strategy

TEST in the post lets count it

On TRACK to meet a political target even though its not processed

Not a TRACE of integrity

He will probably try to get away with counting them a second time when they do finally get processed. We shall have to watch the wording very carefully over the next few days!

I think that is very unlikely.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Isn't the drop in tests at the weekend going to be a long term issue because since a lot of them are posted out and Royal Mail have stopped the Saturday service and there's not a Sunday service?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Isn't the drop in tests at the weekend going to be a long term issue because since a lot of them are posted out and Royal Mail have stopped the Saturday service and there's not a Sunday service?

MarqueeMark said:

Pulpstar said:

Feels good being in this thread having just banged out 20k

Tests?

JohnLilburne said:

TOPPING said:

JohnLilburne said:

Yokes said:

SandyRentool said:

Yokes said:

isam said:

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

eadric said:

Black_Rook said:

JohnLilburne said:

ukpaul said:

JohnLilburne said:

SandyRentool said:

RobD said:

SandyRentool said:

RobD said:

noneoftheabove said:

RobD said:

noneoftheabove said:

RobD said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1256870611697176577

The Times article is wrong. It says that all over 70s have been instructed to shelter for twelve weeks. That's simply not true.

If you look at how it was reported back in March you can see why.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51917562

"Pregnant women, people over the age of 70 and those with certain health conditions should consider the advice "particularly important", he (the PM) said.

People in at-risk groups will be asked within days to stay home for 12 weeks."

The natural assumption was that at risk groups were the above categories, yet those groups were defined differently but only by the following week.

My parents think they need to shelter for 12 weeks, presumably on that basis, and clearly they werent alone in that misunderstanding.

Those are two separate sentences, and classes of people.

Yes I can see that now, but specifying the first group one week before specifying the second group has clearly caused mass confusion, hence the Sunday Times article.

Little harm done by it as everyone is on lockdown now, but poor communication in explaining this from the govt (it has generally been good imo).

The formatting of a BBC article is hardly the fault of the government, the same with a times article. The advice is clearly stated on HMGs website. Those who needed the specific advice to stay at home for 12 weeks were each informed individually by letter.

When the formal advice came it was different to what had been trailed the week before. Fewer people were told to shield. However this change was not pointed out explicitly, so people who had paid more attention to the first announcement will have assumed that the initial criteria applied.

Wasn't the advice always that the most vulnerable would be the ones asked to shelter? I don't think they ever lumped all over-70s into that category.

They did include all over 70s in the pre announcement, but this changed by the time it was implemented.

Yes, I was worried it might apply to everyone who gets a flu jab on medical grounds, but for that group it became "follow social distancing especially stringently"

And the ridiculousness of basing it on influenza when we have seen how utterly different it is in its effect is still not being addressed. The lists have become a joke, bearing no real connection to the reality of this virus.

Research is being done, for example the growing realisation that pre-diabetics and the overweight (even people with a BMI as low as 30) can be at risk. A BMI of 40 and you're brown bread. In my case I'm hoping a cardiology appointment can give me an all-clear although how long it will take to organise one I don't know. I could probably afford to pay for a private consultation, but not for an angiogram if one is called for.

A BMI of 30 is the threshold at which "normal" folk (i.e. most people, except for muscular athletes for whom BMI is a very poor measure) transition from being merely overweight to obese. So 30 is not a low value; it's simply that the average person in the UK is now overweight, so it may not seem as excessive as it actually is. 40 is very obese and, based on my limited layman's knowledge, I would've thought there would be a good argument for getting anyone in that category to shield.

Or let Darwin do his work with the fatsos

BMI of 40 is ridiculous. This person does not want to live anyway

Disgusting comment.

People can be overweight not because of not wanting to live, but simply due to enjoying life a bit too much. Enjoying food too much.

BMI 40 may not be good for you, but that equates to about 18 stone for the average man - a lot and an unhealthy amount sure but not absurdly overweight to the point of can't live.

I am seriously overweight and it is all down to alcohol and eating. I have enjoyed getting to where I am immensely. That said, I am also doing 65 press ups and sit ups every other day, as well as 75 squats and lounges. It is a horrific way to spend 20 minutes, but I think it helps!

Surely cardio is better for losing weight?

Its a mix, resistance training of any kind (body weight, weights, or bands or whatever don't matter) is just as important because they help maintain muscle mass which is very important for helping the body burn calories especially as people get older.

What may be considered standard cardio works because its burning calories but needs to be graded with increased work to keep knocking the fat off. That intensity can be seen in two ways, length of work and/or intensity. The problem with that after a while is doesn't help the muscle mass.

Both combined are better than a focus on one. The problem with exercise is so much of if is about 'the shortcut', every form claims its better calorie burning in a shorter time of effort. To keep it simple just mixing things up and doing whatever it is to sufficient intensity (i.e. you got to have pushed it a a bit, whatever your fitness) is the basic rule to work by.

Reducing calorie intake is the way to lose weight. Exercise has a host of benefits, but isn't the primary route to shedding pounds.

I've lost half a stone since going into lockdown. Primarily due to less snacking, particularly chocolate. And no Greggs!

Well no, you cant exactly do 30 mins on an exercise bike then hit that bag of Haribo. Calories in vs calories out is a fundamental which you can't buck but the question was about the best form of exercise for losing weight.

As someone who is fortunate to consume between 3200-3500 calories a day but due to aspects of my job and my training can get away with it, I'm also very aware of how easy it is for people to get caught up in whats best exercise when sometimes its just better to start.

Yeah, as a runner I burn an average of 3000 calories a day, it does make food choices easier

Wow that is a lot of running isn't it?

That is based on what my running watch tells me... I run 30-40 miles a week and it tends to elevate your metabolic rate when you're not running. As well as the calorific burn, the body has to do repair and maintenance. And I try to get out for a walk on non-running days and (used to) go to the gym. But yes it provides a good cushion to eat well and have a few pints

TimT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TimT said:

FPT @ TSE "(He doesn't expect a vaccine and but expects lots of new mutations of Covid-19.)"

On what basis and with what expertise does he predict no vaccine and lots of mutations? Or is this just more uninformed fearmongering?

There is plenty of justified fear without adding baseless stuff to it.

His speciality finance/banking area is the medicine/pharma sector.

It is based on talks with those who work in the sector.

You know the vaccine trial protocols, there's a fear that if we do get a vaccine we rush it out and there's complications down the line.

He's also basing it on disreputable leaders running key countries in this pandemic, the worry that China won't give us the full details lest it damages China.

Trump is working on what's best for him and his electoral chances which is an awful place for us all to be in.

The science so far seems pretty clear that the N protein is very stable and that there have so far been no mutations seen to the S protein and the binding domain. So the consensus seems to be that the mutation rate is low.

The Oxford vaccine is based on a well-characterized adenovirus backbone, known to be safe in relative terms, and has worked well in monkeys. That is no guarantee that it will work in humans, but is very promising. There are tens of other vaccine programmes underway around the world.

You'd have to be extremely pessimistic, given what is know about the virus' proteins, to believe that the global scientific community will fail at all 3 of vaccine, antivirals, and treatments. China does have a role to play in this, given the size of their scientific community and their prowess in genomics, but the world is no longer reliant on them for data or samples.

Black_Rook said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

JohnLilburne said:

Dura_Ace said:

JohnLilburne said:

Black_Rook said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Rook, yes and no.

I always forget if it's hyperplastic or hypertropic obesity, but when children are overfed they create more adipocytes (fat cells) which then permanently increase their baseline 'fatness', which is not their fault and rather difficult to do much about.

That said, eating more and exercising less, all else being equal, makes one fat. It's not a wild variable unrelated to human behaviour for most people.

I wasn't aware of those interesting issues relating specifically to children. I opine on the topic of obesity from the adult perspective.

The importance of exercise in maintaining a healthy weight is overstated, and it really needs to be approached as something that is beneficial in its own right for maintaining physical and mental wellbeing. Yes, it can and does help by allowing a bit more flexibility in the way of calorific treats, but I'd say the relative importance of a good diet versus plenty of exercise, both to losing excess weight and maintaining health weight, is around about 4:1.

There is an old runner's adage "you can't outrun a bad diet". You burn about 100 calories a mile, and it tends to make you hungry so you just eat more afterwards. However, once you have a stable, healthy weight then regular activity is invaluable in increasing the amount you need to eat.

I have seen many people join my cycling club to lose weight and none ever have. They just keep eating shit and guzzling alcohol so they can't ride into the red with any frequency or duration.

Cycling's rather low-impact as well, so difficult to burn much off at low levels of intensity.

I was overweight as a youth but then started cycling 25 miles a day (12.5 each way) to school and cycling touring in the holidays and day tours at weekends. Weight dropped remarkably.

18 holes of golf twice a week carrying a full bag of clubs is excellent for the waistline.

It's bloody annoying the golf courses are all shut. OK, social distancing and all that, but TBH there's never been the slightest danger of me hitting a shot anywhere near other people unless they're coming down the opposite nine.

You would've thought that golf would've been one of the first activities to be allowed to start up again. It is practically custom-built to accommodate obedience to the 2m rule.

TimT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

One question I have regarding exercise and calories is if the calories burnt during exercise are on top of your basal metabolic rate or in place of it?

IE if over a day your base rate is burning 2400 calories per day that averages about 100 per hour over the day. If during an hour you burn say 400 calories while exercising is that 2800 calories you'd need that day (2400+400) or is it 2700 (2400+400-100)?

Does that make sense?

You have a resting metabolic rate, on top of which you have your baseline activity level. If you then do exercise on top of your normal baseline, not instead of it, then the activity calories add to both

Edit. So if your baseline is 2100, and your normal activities add 800 over your 16 hours out of bed (50 per hour), then you do one hour at 250, I'd say you are at 2100+800-50+250

Fysics_Teacher said:

Mortimer said:

JohnLilburne said:

TOPPING said:

JohnLilburne said:

Yokes said:

SandyRentool said:

Yokes said:

isam said:

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

eadric said:

Black_Rook said:

JohnLilburne said:

ukpaul said:

JohnLilburne said:

SandyRentool said:

RobD said:

SandyRentool said:

RobD said:

noneoftheabove said:

RobD said:

noneoftheabove said:

RobD said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1256870611697176577

The Times article is wrong. It says that all over 70s have been instructed to shelter for twelve weeks. That's simply not true.

If you look at how it was reported back in March you can see why.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51917562

"Pregnant women, people over the age of 70 and those with certain health conditions should consider the advice "particularly important", he (the PM) said.

People in at-risk groups will be asked within days to stay home for 12 weeks."

The natural assumption was that at risk groups were the above categories, yet those groups were defined differently but only by the following week.

My parents think they need to shelter for 12 weeks, presumably on that basis, and clearly they werent alone in that misunderstanding.

Those are two separate sentences, and classes of people.

Yes I can see that now, but specifying the first group one week before specifying the second group has clearly caused mass confusion, hence the Sunday Times article.

Little harm done by it as everyone is on lockdown now, but poor communication in explaining this from the govt (it has generally been good imo).

The formatting of a BBC article is hardly the fault of the government, the same with a times article. The advice is clearly stated on HMGs website. Those who needed the specific advice to stay at home for 12 weeks were each informed individually by letter.

When the formal advice came it was different to what had been trailed the week before. Fewer people were told to shield. However this change was not pointed out explicitly, so people who had paid more attention to the first announcement will have assumed that the initial criteria applied.

Wasn't the advice always that the most vulnerable would be the ones asked to shelter? I don't think they ever lumped all over-70s into that category.

They did include all over 70s in the pre announcement, but this changed by the time it was implemented.

Yes, I was worried it might apply to everyone who gets a flu jab on medical grounds, but for that group it became "follow social distancing especially stringently"

And the ridiculousness of basing it on influenza when we have seen how utterly different it is in its effect is still not being addressed. The lists have become a joke, bearing no real connection to the reality of this virus.

Research is being done, for example the growing realisation that pre-diabetics and the overweight (even people with a BMI as low as 30) can be at risk. A BMI of 40 and you're brown bread. In my case I'm hoping a cardiology appointment can give me an all-clear although how long it will take to organise one I don't know. I could probably afford to pay for a private consultation, but not for an angiogram if one is called for.

A BMI of 30 is the threshold at which "normal" folk (i.e. most people, except for muscular athletes for whom BMI is a very poor measure) transition from being merely overweight to obese. So 30 is not a low value; it's simply that the average person in the UK is now overweight, so it may not seem as excessive as it actually is. 40 is very obese and, based on my limited layman's knowledge, I would've thought there would be a good argument for getting anyone in that category to shield.

Or let Darwin do his work with the fatsos

BMI of 40 is ridiculous. This person does not want to live anyway

Disgusting comment.

People can be overweight not because of not wanting to live, but simply due to enjoying life a bit too much. Enjoying food too much.

BMI 40 may not be good for you, but that equates to about 18 stone for the average man - a lot and an unhealthy amount sure but not absurdly overweight to the point of can't live.

I am seriously overweight and it is all down to alcohol and eating. I have enjoyed getting to where I am immensely. That said, I am also doing 65 press ups and sit ups every other day, as well as 75 squats and lounges. It is a horrific way to spend 20 minutes, but I think it helps!

Surely cardio is better for losing weight?

Its a mix, resistance training of any kind (body weight, weights, or bands or whatever don't matter) is just as important because they help maintain muscle mass which is very important for helping the body burn calories especially as people get older.

What may be considered standard cardio works because its burning calories but needs to be graded with increased work to keep knocking the fat off. That intensity can be seen in two ways, length of work and/or intensity. The problem with that after a while is doesn't help the muscle mass.

Both combined are better than a focus on one. The problem with exercise is so much of if is about 'the shortcut', every form claims its better calorie burning in a shorter time of effort. To keep it simple just mixing things up and doing whatever it is to sufficient intensity (i.e. you got to have pushed it a a bit, whatever your fitness) is the basic rule to work by.

Reducing calorie intake is the way to lose weight. Exercise has a host of benefits, but isn't the primary route to shedding pounds.

I've lost half a stone since going into lockdown. Primarily due to less snacking, particularly chocolate. And no Greggs!

Well no, you cant exactly do 30 mins on an exercise bike then hit that bag of Haribo. Calories in vs calories out is a fundamental which you can't buck but the question was about the best form of exercise for losing weight.

As someone who is fortunate to consume between 3200-3500 calories a day but due to aspects of my job and my training can get away with it, I'm also very aware of how easy it is for people to get caught up in whats best exercise when sometimes its just better to start.

Yeah, as a runner I burn an average of 3000 calories a day, it does make food choices easier

Wow that is a lot of running isn't it?

That is based on what my running watch tells me... I run 30-40 miles a week and it tends to elevate your metabolic rate when you're not running. As well as the calorific burn, the body has to do repair and maintenance. And I try to get out for a walk on non-running days and (used to) go to the gym. But yes it provides a good cushion to eat well and have a few pints

During the 2015 GE our kitchen was being rebuilt and I was spending all day canvassing/delivering - 15-20m a day walking. Fry up at the local cafe, no lunch, then fish and chips or an indian. With a few beers. Still lost half a stone in two weeks.

15-20m would be the length of some garden paths. Do you mean km?

bigjohnowls said:

Piers Morgan
@piersmorgan
· 11m
UPDATE: On medical advice, and out of an abundance of caution for a mild symptom that arose in past 48hrs, I’ve had a test for COVID-19 and so won’t be working on @GMB until I get the result back, which should be tomorrow.

Philip_Thompson said:

One question I have regarding exercise and calories is if the calories burnt during exercise are on top of your basal metabolic rate or in place of it?

IE if over a day your base rate is burning 2400 calories per day that averages about 100 per hour over the day. If during an hour you burn say 400 calories while exercising is that 2800 calories you'd need that day (2400+400) or is it 2700 (2400+400-100)?

Does that make sense?

MarqueeMark said:

bigjohnowls said:

Piers Morgan
@piersmorgan
· 11m
UPDATE: On medical advice, and out of an abundance of caution for a mild symptom that arose in past 48hrs, I’ve had a test for COVID-19 and so won’t be working on @GMB until I get the result back, which should be tomorrow.

No rush, Piers....

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1257013539002372097

TheScreamingEagles said:

//twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1257013539002372097

kle4 said:

MarqueeMark said:

bigjohnowls said:

Piers Morgan
@piersmorgan
· 11m
UPDATE: On medical advice, and out of an abundance of caution for a mild symptom that arose in past 48hrs, I’ve had a test for COVID-19 and so won’t be working on @GMB until I get the result back, which should be tomorrow.

No rush, Piers....

He fills a useful niche, I suspect. He is Piers Morgan so none of us have to be.

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1257013539002372097

I don't really see what this is intended to accomplish. Scientific views will not be unanimous, and political responses to any advice will not be unanimous, and we already know there are plenty of people, scientific and otherwise, who take different views from both the government and its advisers, here and in other countries, some of who have taken different measures. How does a 'rival' committee produce any further clarity of approach, or additional weight that should be given to a particular view?

They are going to livestream that they disagree with the current position. Did we not know people, including eminent people, disagree?

MarqueeMark said:

Mortimer said:

During the 2015 GE our kitchen was being rebuilt and I was spending all day canvassing/delivering - 15-20m a day walking. Fry up at the local cafe, no lunch, then fish and chips or an indian. With a few beers. Still lost half a stone in two weeks.

No idea how many miles I walked around Torbay in 2015. So much of it is steps. Nothing worse than walking 80 steps up to house to find it had a LibDem triangle in their porch!

I did calculate one day that I'd done the same number of steps as walking up and down the Empire State building - and back up!

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

//twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1257013539002372097

I am very concerned about this stunt of having this committee. It stinks of playing politics, but it will has potential for causing public confusion.

What happens if they start recommending lifting the lockdown, and the public hear SAGE, lockdown lifted....

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mortimer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1257013539002372097

Attention seekers much?

I think the people in this country have had enough of experts with organisations from acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong.

Yes, very amusing, but what about a 'rival SAGE Committee' helps? Pretty sure experts have given their views on these matters before.

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

MarqueeMark said:

bigjohnowls said:

Piers Morgan
@piersmorgan
· 11m
UPDATE: On medical advice, and out of an abundance of caution for a mild symptom that arose in past 48hrs, I’ve had a test for COVID-19 and so won’t be working on @GMB until I get the result back, which should be tomorrow.

No rush, Piers....

He fills a useful niche, I suspect. He is Piers Morgan so none of us have to be.

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1257013539002372097

I don't really see what this is intended to accomplish. Scientific views will not be unanimous, and political responses to any advice will not be unanimous, and we already know there are plenty of people, scientific and otherwise, who take different views from both the government and its advisers, here and in other countries, some of who have taken different measures. How does a 'rival' committee produce any further clarity of approach, or additional weight that should be given to a particular view?

They are going to livestream that they disagree with the current position. Did we not know people, including eminent people, disagree?

I think their grand plan is that they'll be more believable by showing their workings to the public and having no Dominic Cummings about.

Yet without all the data...its not how peer review works in science.

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mortimer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1257013539002372097

Attention seekers much?

I think the people in this country have had enough of experts with organisations from acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong.

Yes, very amusing, but what about a 'rival SAGE Committee' helps? Pretty sure experts have given their views on these matters before.

They can say well look at the numbers, our absolute death numbers are really bad. Ditto compare our cumulative number of tests to say Germany who are really good at this.

DeClare said:

Most honours are given on ministerial advice and candidates have to be vetted by the honours scrutiny committee, that's presumably why he will have to wait 'til June.

But can't the Queen hand out a KCVO or even a GCVO off her own bat, without asking the government?

stodge said:

Horse racing making optimistic noises about a resumption on May 15th:

https://www.racingpost.com/news/coronavirus/racing-working-towards-may-15-resumption-date-following-positive-meetings/433013

We've heard this in South Africa, Germany, Ireland and elsewhere. "Positive meetings" mean nothing if the Government advice actively excludes it happening quickly.

Charles said:

TimT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TimT said:

FPT @ TSE "(He doesn't expect a vaccine and but expects lots of new mutations of Covid-19.)"

On what basis and with what expertise does he predict no vaccine and lots of mutations? Or is this just more uninformed fearmongering?

There is plenty of justified fear without adding baseless stuff to it.

His speciality finance/banking area is the medicine/pharma sector.

It is based on talks with those who work in the sector.

You know the vaccine trial protocols, there's a fear that if we do get a vaccine we rush it out and there's complications down the line.

He's also basing it on disreputable leaders running key countries in this pandemic, the worry that China won't give us the full details lest it damages China.

Trump is working on what's best for him and his electoral chances which is an awful place for us all to be in.

The science so far seems pretty clear that the N protein is very stable and that there have so far been no mutations seen to the S protein and the binding domain. So the consensus seems to be that the mutation rate is low.

The Oxford vaccine is based on a well-characterized adenovirus backbone, known to be safe in relative terms, and has worked well in monkeys. That is no guarantee that it will work in humans, but is very promising. There are tens of other vaccine programmes underway around the world.

You'd have to be extremely pessimistic, given what is know about the virus' proteins, to believe that the global scientific community will fail at all 3 of vaccine, antivirals, and treatments. China does have a role to play in this, given the size of their scientific community and their prowess in genomics, but the world is no longer reliant on them for data or samples.

There’s also dendritic cell vaccines in development. Sure they have disadvantages but efficacy isn’t one of them

ukpaul said:

How do I embed twitter? confused...

Alistair said:

Monkeys said:

I haven't moved from my computer since lockdown started and I've lost 100 pounds on online poker.

I've been considered getting back into online poker. There must be a surge of fish rushing to the tables to relieve lockdown boredom.

I wonder of there are PL Omaha HiLo games these days.