Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’d imagine anyone who can promote home working would for some time to come. Offices are essentially too dangerous to put people into that aren’t required to be there.

Lifts, kitchen spaces, shared bathrooms, secure entry systems, shared meeting rooms, shared equipment, hot desking, air conditioning systems and a general tendency to squeeze as many people as you can into small spaces is exactly the kind of environment viruses thrive in.

I’ve lost count of the number of times over the years I’ve saw the common cold spread around an open plan office.

Add into that how do people actually get there: Public transport. Another broadly dangerous activity with far too many people in close proximity.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Totally agree. Is that a record?

Re: Coronavirus
 

With such a broad consensus emerging I'm amazed I've been banned from this thread so often.:D

Re: Coronavirus
 

WFH has been here for a while, just not as widespread that has proved necessary..

Companies who until now may have been averse to WFH may now embrace it and it could become a "new norm".

Some companies may like the idea of reducing cost by reducing office space.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That’s on the idea that people would want to WFH. There probably are many but personally I can’t wait to get back to the office. I miss the team dynamic, camaraderie and the requirement to wear clothes on my lower half.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The concern about working from home always concerns admin staff. In fact I heard the slips by a few BBC reporters saying things like "Why should we have to go into the office?"

No apparent thought for the masses working in factories, laboratories, building sites, et al.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Try not to go for the hat trick then, eh. ;)

---------- Post added at 14:55 ---------- Previous post was at 14:54 ----------

I dont mind working from home.
However, I would prefer not to do it all the while, perhaps 2/3 days a week.
Its not just me it affects, the rest of the house has to adapt, which isnt entirely fair.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Jesus, I had to bite my lip.......so hard :).

Re: Coronavirus
 

Brings a whole new meaning to love/hate relationship... :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ah, one of those office with strict dress codes eh?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think you will find it's whether the company wants it, not whether you want it.

Do you want the work or don't you? Sorry, but that's what it comes down to.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That may be the case but any observations on how the app performs on a jailbroken iPhone is just misdirection.

Anyway, it seems that they maybe be accepting the folly of this approach:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...-apple-google/

Re: Coronavirus
 

Bluddy opressive regime I tell you!!

---------- Post added at 19:42 ---------- Previous post was at 19:41 ----------

Really? Fascinating, what else do you know about the company I work for?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Oh dear (again). I am surprised at your level of condescension. I was asking civil questions so maybe you just have a problem with being questioned?

Thanks for being simple BTW. The scientific test is not the behaviour of the atypical device. Rather it is the behaviour of the App running on the various retail builds of iOS that is the deciding factor, something you fail to grasp.

As to the hard evidence, there seem to be some issues:

Isle of Wight contact tracing app 'fails to work on four-year-old phones', residents say

Exclusive: ‘Wobbly’ tracing app ‘failed’ clinical safety and cyber security tests

Contact tracing app ‘fails’ NHS and cyber security tests

NHS Covid contact-tracing app could be ILLEGAL and will cause chaos for Brits' foreign travel because it's incompatible with Apple-Google system, warn critics as it goes live on the Isle of Wight

Interestingly:

https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/07/uk...racing-report/

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, it's obviously really, Russ. Your company pays you to do the job it needs to be done. You don't have to accept that. You could look at alternative employment.

Just sayin'...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yep just saying a load of rubbish really. They do pay me to do a job and guess what...I do it whether at home or in the office. Still not sure what your point is, or if you actually have one?

Re: Coronavirus
 

God bless unrestricted and uncontrolled capitalism.

As Russ says you don't know his role or his organisation and often it is much more complicated than that. Employers are still responsible for the health and safety of their staff - even at home.

Any industry with union involvement is going to be in for an interesting few months if employers take your approach.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You do realise the employment contract is a two-way thing, don’t you? Both sides have rights and responsibilities, and a good working relationship is based on a balanced approach.

People are employed, not indentured - good companies get the best from their colleagues by discussing and agreeing what’s best for both parties, not just "do as you’re told!"

Have you ever run any companies/large departments?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Lets just be careful with this discussion, and not get into any personal arguments please. :)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Germany's Coronavirus transmission rate rises again.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-corona...e-1/a-53383279

A clear warning there that it would be unwise to lessen the lockdown too much imo.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Distancing is already becoming an issue in supermarkets with many becoming impatient with the laid down methods instituted by said supermarkets and others becoming rather blase about what actually constitutes 2 metres..I can't see how it's going to be maintained for much longer especially when summer arrives.Even the real threat of death doesn't seem to act as a deterrent so I doubt fines will continue to have any effect.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There is still a large pool of people who have yet to become infected. Those that have become infected and have recovered can still transmit it to somebody who is still susceptible. It can only disappear if there is no longer the possibility of it having access to a viable host in order to prolong its "life" and continue the chain of infections.


I've previously used the comparison with dog fleas. Think of the dogs as the as yet uninfected, and humans as the immune. Humans can pick up dog fleas but they are unable to survive and reproduce on human blood. There is a period of time whilst the dog flea is still alive on the human, where it can jump to another human or another dog. If it jumps to another human, it is at risk of starving and dying out. If it jumps to another dog, it now has the opportunity to survive and reproduce, and carry on existing.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I agree, i don't see the mood being so good when people are queued up in the rain, i can see people around me are venturing out more,i think we will have to manage our distancing and just get on with life as best we can, public transport is going to be a major problem with social distancing measures in place and i wan't my family back.

Re: Coronavirus
 

A sudden downpour last week saw dozens of people quit the queues at our local Tesco and dive in for shelter. The staff lost all control.

---------- Post added at 12:12 ---------- Previous post was at 12:10 ----------

I did a course years ago on Contamination Control.

This sums up a lot of what I was taught, and why I believe the 2 metre rule is dangerous.

https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the...hem-avoid-them

Re: Coronavirus
 

You sure about that, such statements on this forum need to backed up with a citation - it’s not Facebook.

As of last month advice was that you are only contagious for around 14 days after recovering from Covid 19. I haven’t seen anything to update that.

if you have immunity you are no longer a viable host


twaddle.

Show me the science behind that theory.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Wonders where our lovely scientist downquark is..the one scientist on CF that I trust.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Never said a person with immunity was a viable host, just the OPPOSITE.

The immune system can only tackle it once it in the blood stream. It can therefore be in the blood stream, on peoples hands, in their mucus, in their saliva etc. That much should be obvious. It might only survive in those environments for a limited time, but it can still be passed on within that limited timeframe.

Infectious person A snogs immune person B, who in turn in a short timeframe, snogs non-infected, non-immune person C. C ends up infected. There doesn't need to be direct A to C contact. B doesn't even need to be a person. There have been cases where B has been a bottle or more strangely a spray bottle.

Somebody obviously has never been around a dog or a cat with fleas.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Takes me back to the Forces in the 70s - one of the jokes that went around at that time.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...7&d=1589114404

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think the answer to that is "no one is quite sure, yet".

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...nt-reinfection Here’s hoping "not".

Re: Coronavirus
 

The key word being "significant", as in still possible, just not to an appreciable extent.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well I’m not sure about snogging scenario, I haven’t been to one of those parties for a long time. But of course the virus can be passed on through touching surfaces that have been coughed or sneezed on and then touching you mouth/eyes/nose we’ve always known that. Potentially 3-5 days it can remain on hard surfaces, down to a few hours on brass/ copper.

Good hygiene practices will be required and yes sharing cigarettes, spliffs, glasses, bottles etc, well that would just be plain stupid anyway.


Me? I’ve had dogs and cats my entire life, as I type I’m looking at my lazy Black Lab asleep in front of the fire.

I didn’t mean fleas jumping around was twaddle, but trying to analogise that with how COVID19 can spread imo is.

Look, I’m very open minded, we’re learning on this everyday, if you can present a paper that explains how it is possible I’m in.

But I don’t think it’s a massive risk, especially with sensible hygiene precautions.

---------- Post added at 14:16 ---------- Previous post was at 14:10 ----------

I was actually reading that, along with several more articles, before I replied. She doesn’t go into how it could be transmitted, whether she is inferring a “carrier” situation or other method? It’s the “other” I’m struggling with


https://www.discovermagazine.com/hea...ainst-covid-19

Re: Coronavirus
 

The dog flea example was NEVER about how Covid-19 can spread. It was an example where something that can only survive and reproduce on one host, can use transfer an intermediary where it cannot survive, but can do so long enough to be transferred onwards. Somebody who has immunity to covid-19 can still carry it for a short period of time, and in that short period of time can transmit it to somebody who is not yet immune.


For "snogging" you can replace with various face to face activities, eg talking and possibly merely breathing.

Re: Coronavirus
 

To all those talking about extending the lockdown, apologies if this has been posted already: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...035-7/fulltext

Re: Coronavirus
 

My is current 1 of only 3 people in the UK reported to have been left paralysed.

She has lost feeling below the knee, she was taken in with loss of sensation which Drs where trying to understand why.

https://theconversation.com/coronavi...ymptoms-136692


https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/paralysis/

Re: Coronavirus
 

Sorry to hear that Homer :(

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's came up.

Bizarrely, Seph and I joined forces and demonstrated that it, arguably, supported the lockdown. It'd only be required for a further two to six months before herd immunity was achieved.

Although neither of us believe the underlying assumptions.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

[/COLOR]But there is very little , if any, info out there that suggests that someone that is immune can transmit the virus that way?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

That is also Nomads “thinking”, but I would like to see any information if it can be transmitted like that. Obviously if someone touches a virus populated droplet and then touches someone on the face, if that all happens within the 72hr-ish window the virus can survive outside.

But if an immune person does the same and then licks his finger, how long can the virus live in his saliva? For example, as that is what is suggested.

I don’t know enough, but that would seem to impact the herd immunity, if you are immune but the virus can live in you, outside the blood stream and therefore outside the immunity response and go on to infect others?

I don’t see how that works.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

The immunity response is not confined to your blood.

Viral load is estimated to be around 70,000 to 100,000 pieces of virus to cause a major attack on our bodies which can overload our immunity system.

Below that the immunity system can fight off the infection and leave us with protection. But it has yet to be discovered how long this immunity lasts.

The main avenue for infection is via the eyes and lungs where ACE-2 receptors are found.

Re: Coronavirus
 

OK the transmissibility of the immune is somewhat up in the air as I understand it. There have been debates where people say that there seems to be reports that no one has ever caught it from a child.
However there is also evidence where the virus has been detected still in the systems of people who have recovered and are suppose to be immune.

A standard virus is not "being produced" by an immune person but they can still spread it by touching things. But the virus does not last very very long on surfaces so immune people would have had to come near someone producing the virus recently. But this virus keeps surprising people.

Sorry I've not been paying attention to this thread for a while so if anyone has a question I will try to address it from the information I know.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That's how much damage just one person can do.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Interesting, and slightly scary, article, which reminds me of Gulf wars/Afghanistan casualties - it’s not just the deaths that happen, it’s often the long-term effects on some of those who survive.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020...eath-covid-19# Another article on the same issues

https://www.vox.com/2020/5/8/2125189...fects-symptoms

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

..

Re: Coronavirus
 

All the posters/messages go through the Government Behavioural Science team (the "nudge" unit).

Has anyone else noticed the subliminal change the red arrows and border markings in the first message (Stay at home etc.) to green arrows and border markings in the latest (Stay alert).

Red for stop, green for go?

Re: Coronavirus
 

This is exactly what I have been saying, Den. Release the lockdown measures and the number of Covid cases increases. It doesn't really matter WHEN the lockdown is ended. Whenever that happens, cases will rise again until such time as either herd immunity is achieved or we have the vaccine. The lockdown only slows the number of cases but doesn't stop them altogether - it simply delays the inevitable.

South Korea has also seen a rise in cases following the relaxation of their lockdown.

Re: Coronavirus
 

What a lockdown should achieve is a reduction in the number of active cases out there, so when it is relaxed or ended there is less opportunity for it spread widely again. Those not able, or more likely unwillingly to follow lockdown are the ones spreading it around. Each time it transfers from one person to another, the clock resets and starts from zero. Without transfers, after a period of X(4?) weeks it would disappear completely. With each transmission the X weeks starts again, prolonging the overall period.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Wee Nicola isn't having it. Scotland stays in the hoose :)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Until the furlough money gets cut off from central Government;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Makes it a little awkward as I work for the forces but am in Scotland

Re: Coronavirus
 

If/when the body count goes up furlough will be extended. Win-win for Scotland as the English get to be guinea pigs. Scotland can follow in three weeks if measures demonstrated to be safe.

Re: Coronavirus
 

To be honest nothing really has changed.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Mitch Benn summed it up

Re: Coronavirus
 

Indeed, but in reality all that has changed is that you can now go out as much as you want as long as you socially distance, everything else is the same.

There will be a new alert system ( pretty much like the old terror alert system they had)

If all goes well some primary school classes may reopen from June 1st, and all stays well some bars / restaurants etc may open in July.

But only if death/infection rates continue to fall.

Re: Coronavirus
 

From Wednesday

People can go and sit in a park all day long now if they wish
I can now go out for either a drive in my car or a ride on my motorbike if I wish

Big changes from no unnecessary travel/not being able to sit in a park or down by the river

Just my perspective

Re: Coronavirus
 

The epidemic has to run it's course across the world before it is beaten... because it will creep back into other countries and start all over again. Country to country travel has to be banned for at least a full year.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Agree I think there has been a few significant changes in England including encouraging people back to work if unable to work at home.

Re: Coronavirus
 

From my perspective nothing has changed to any degree, I was already going out as much as wanted. Although I admit I was in a privileged position based on my location

Re: Coronavirus
 

Quite the rebel.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Essentially the Government in England are spending the next three weeks watering down the “stay home, protect the NHS, save lives” message.

Employers won’t have done risk assessments, made adjustments or read and understood guidance (when published) for any meaningful changes to take place immediately.

Re: Coronavirus
 

"Actively encouraged to go to work*"

I wonder what that means in practice?

Hopefully some more clarification tomorrow in the HoC.

*whilst avoiding public transport if possible

---------- Post added at 21:31 ---------- Previous post was at 20:41 ----------

FYI, both local Universities have posted this And an email went round the DWP towards the end last week staying the same thing.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Indeed. No, just lucky.

---------- Post added at 22:03 ---------- Previous post was at 21:57 ----------

Some.......Mrs Pierre works in construction and they had a voluntary shut down initially, but their sites stated up last week and they very much have done risk assessments, adjustments and all that is necessary to work again. Hopefully other sectors have had the foresight to do the same.

They would be remiss, even negligent, if they haven’t.

It every businesses responsibility to see how, if possible, they can operate safely in these conditions.

---------- Post added at 22:07 ---------- Previous post was at 22:03 ----------

There have always been only select businesses that are mandated to close.

Everyone else should have been trying to work out how they can operate safely in the last 6 weeks and be operating if they can.

If you can’t, you can’t. But you should try. Encouraged!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Indeed but until the Government offer clarity on what that would look like a meaningful risk assessment would be unlikely for most.

From the top of my head the availability/requirement to use PPE, potential amendments to the the 2 metre rule, access to mythical antibody tests and access to childcare for those that aren’t ‘key workers’ are immediate variables that would make a substantive risk assessment impossible just a few weeks ago in advance of any opening.

As you say construction voluntarily shut down in England so presumably has fewer obstacles than other sectors.

For other businesses the furlough scheme is exactly there to ensure they aren’t required to operate unsafely or prematurely in the pursuit of profits at the cost of workers lives.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There appears to be a difference in the Lobby briefing before the speech, and what was said - the BBC, Guardian, and other media outlets are reporting https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...nson-announced

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51506729

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...parks-22005053

https://www.businessinsider.in/inter...w/75665136.cms

Difference between speech and briefing highlighted (by me) - again, hopefully this will be clarified tomorrow.

---------- Post added at 22:55 ---------- Previous post was at 22:39 ----------

Please help me - I’m agreeing with Piers Morgan!!

An intervention is required!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Of the highlighted protions by you what do you deem to be the difference? BTW this time my highlighting of the sections of your highlighted post.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Scarier than some agreements I’m having on here :D

Although bizarrely I’m actually inclined to agree with the Government here. The changes to the rules for some workers affects a subset of the population, in supposedly monitored environments for a time limited period. In three weeks time that’ll filter through to the figures (hopefully) in a manner that shows transmission is controlled with testing catching cases.

66 million people all travelling to visit families and friends is a recipe for disaster and as the VE Day street parties demonstrated people can’t be trusted.

Re: Coronavirus
 

As long as you keep your distance, what is stopping you from seeing family or friends ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

You don’t need government for that.

You lack vision, something most entrepreneurs and successful business owners should have. I’m sure those that can, are putting measures in place. Obviously not all can.

no, they had massive issues, including supply chain of other firms. But construction was never mandated to close. So if they did suddenly they were issued with breach of contract orders, so they had to get back to work, and as I’m sure are aware there is no sector more focused on H&S than the construction industry. So before they started up a lot of work went into how they could do it safely.

and I would not expect them to, but I would expect them to be using all their efforts to explore how they can operate safely and unfurlough their employees ASAP.

---------- Post added at 23:19 ---------- Previous post was at 23:19 ----------

Nothing.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I fail to see how I can reasonably be accused of lacking vision when I’ve correctly identified a number of variables for any successful risk assessment.

There’s no obligation to try to unfurlough workers as soon as possible - that’s simply your personal preference in the matter principally because of your political ideology. For some businesses opening up will remain not commercially viable for the foreseeable - in these cases unfurloughing staff “ASAP” as you put it would make no commercial sense and actually would leave some company officers in breach of their legal obligations in respect of foregoing Government assistance and incurring needless losses.

Great business owners and entrepreneurs know state hand outs are a great idea instead of them taking losses themselves. :)

I think you lack vision in this regard.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Meeting family or friends is a very different level of interaction compared to workers.:rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Britain's Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme is set to be extended until the end of September, at a reduced rate of 60 percent.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...source=twitter

Re: Coronavirus
 

Boris proving there's no crisis he can't make worse.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Raab clarified it this morning on the BBC at 08:42 - you can meet up in park if you keep 2 metres apart, and could meet one parent/child in the morning, and another in the afternoon.

Glad it’s clearer now (before it was against the guidelines to meet up with people who weren’t members of your own household).

---------- Post added at 09:23 ---------- Previous post was at 09:22 ----------

It was against Government guidelines - happily, it now isn’t.

---------- Post added at 09:26 ---------- Previous post was at 09:23 ----------

The difference was between the speech which did not contain the highlighted parts (which is the same information, but reported slightly differently in two different articles), and the briefing to the media, which did.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So, does that mean it's OK if my father in law were to visit our garden, If he doesn't use the house and he maintains 2m distancing from my wife and I?

To be honest, i'm struggling to see the difference between the two scenarios.

Also, in theory, i could get on my motorbike, meet a mate at let's say a fuel station and then ride up to Bamburgh on the coast sit on the beach all day whilst maintaining social distancing.

It's very flimsy

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think the message should have been the Social Distancing. As long as you can keep a safe distance from everybody you can pretty much carry on as normal, or as normal can be.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Now the above is much clearer and makes more sense.

I wonder if last nights message was phrased the way it was, was in part to try and stop an onslaught of families getting together.

---------- Post added at 09:42 ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 ----------

Clear as mud


People in England can "meet up with other people" outside their household as long as they are outside and stay 2m apart, the government has confirmed.

Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said people should "use some common sense" and cannot visit others at their home.

Re: Coronavirus
 

As the saying goes "Be alert, this country need Lerts" :D

---------- Post added at 09:57 ---------- Previous post was at 09:51 ----------


You can't do that, but you can drive to a park/beach etc and stay 2 metres a part is allowed

Re: Coronavirus
 

So, my father could drive to a beach, my wife and i can can drive to a beach we can stay 2m apart and thats OK. BUT my father can't come to my house and go into my garden (by means of a side gate and not actually enter the house) and sit on our garden furniture 2m apart?

Where's the difference ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Because all the morons would just see "can visit another house" and see that as can go in. If it had been specified as "can see in garden if 2m apart", then there would be the inevitable constant bellyaching about those without gardens.

All from just one person, and then of course those others would have transmitted to yet more people, and so on.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The morons are visiting regardless of guidance, so I'm not sure if your first statement holds true. What will happen now is that people will complain that they don't have cars etc to meet people at beaches/parks etc.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Why not, as long as you meet outdoors at the fuel station?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Figures plucked out of thin air:

1 cough or sneeze at 2 metres could give you the dangerous viral load in seconds.

Talking loudly at 2 metres could give you the dangerous viral load in a few minutes.

Normal breathing at 2 metres could give you the dangerous viral load in an hour.

So stay away from people who are coughing and sneezing. Don't stay close to people in loud environments where shouting is necessary to communicate. Don't linger with people for extended periods, even if they show no symptoms.

And remember that the viral load doesn't have to come from one person. 100% from one person or 10% each from 10 people will do it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Just had an email from our office saying 'yes we watched it last night' and 'no, carry on working from home'. There's no plans to open up our offices in the near future...

Re: Coronavirus
 

But the number of morons that are currently disregarding the restrictions is relatively small. That group is just going to get bigger and bigger.



The message should be "if you're not sure, just don't do it", not the message propagated by the media of "if you're not sure, do it anyway".

Re: Coronavirus
 

Local children’s nursery (the owner has around 10 sites) sent this out.

Then followed up with this

Re: Coronavirus
 

Speculation and conjecture on your first statement

On your 2nd I haven't seen the media propagating that message so can't comment

Re: Coronavirus
 

That goes backs to Goon Shows.

Re: Coronavirus
 

How on earth do you socially distance toddlers/pre school ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Hardly speculation and conjecture when there is more than enough actual examples.


Anybody who is going around saying "if X is allowed, why not Y", is promoting the message that Y is OK. No shortage of people doing that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Disagree, I believe people are trying to understand what exactly is permitted and what isn't from a very garbled message. This doesn't make them morons and it doesn't mean to say that once answers are provided that they will then break the restrictions.

Clarity was required last night, little was forthcoming.

Re: Coronavirus
 

While I agree the message was garbled Nomadking has a point.

Because X and Y are like for like activities doesn’t mean the Government wants everyone doing both. None of this advice eliminates risk. What it does is tries to reduce the risk by restricting the numbers and types of interactions. It’s not because Y is inherently more dangerous than X.

If we allow all like for like activities in significantly greater numbers of people are at risk.

Why can I go and meet my boss at work but not my mum at her house is doing the rounds on social media. The reality is a small number of people are returning to work gradually, as opposed to everyone going to visit their mum tonight.

The vast, vast majority of workers this morning were either key workers anyway or working from home and still doing so. The outcome of the change is negligible by comparison.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You must of missed the reports of packed commuter trains then this morning ? and also major traffic jams on the roads in certain areas of the country?

A large amount of the population are quite possibly anxious, scared or nervous. what was needed last night was explicit clarity. It wasn't given. People are going to ask questions and quite rightly so. it doesn't make them morons.

I'm not sure how one person driving to another persons house to enter a private garden via a side entrance is a greater risk than one person from one house and another person from another house driving separately to a location such as a park or a beach ?

---------- Post added at 12:06 ---------- Previous post was at 12:02 ----------

Or, I could employ my father in law as my handyman. in which case him coming INTO the house would be perfectly acceptable providing 2m distancing is maintained.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don't think they should have eased the lockdown at all. However, this is a seperate point - and because observably trains were busy doesn't mean that the majority of the workforce are now going out to work.

It doesn't make them morons, but some journalists are clearly acting dim and I'm not sure why.

Each individual activity you describe here is low risk. The total number of infections resulting from a million low risk events and a hundred million low risk events varies drastically.

The Government management of the epidemic at this point doesn't care about your personal risk of infection. It cares about whether we get six thousand new infections tomorrow or seven thousand. If the R number goes up or down. That's the risk factor.

Then there's adherence to the rules. If you meet a family member at the park and it starts to rain you go home. If you meet in the garden eventually a percentage of people decide it's alright to sit in the kitchen two metres apart. Still a low risk event, but higher than being in the open air. It's a slippery slope.

The lines have to be arbitrarily drawn somewhere.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Be interesting to see what people find. Despite the privacy concerns, If the app helps, I will happily install it.

However, the fact they tested on Jailbroken iphones makes me question the results they got. They are not testing like for like. The Jailbreak may well have altered some aspect of the way the OS handles bluetooth.

I have some knowledge of iPhone development (not extensive by any means, but I have written the odd app for my own use). As far as the testing goes, as far as I can see, they should not have needed to jailbreak the phones. Even assuming they couldn't have used android phones to actually monitor the Bluetooth communication, there are a number of devices on the market (for both legal and illegal purposes) that will monitor Bluetooth communication. They could have used one. Assuming the source code published is complete, they didn't even need to jailbreak the device to install the app. They could have compiled it from the source code using their own developer credentials, and installed it via the Apple Development systems and Apple's Testflight app (which enables developers to send a limited number of invites to enable users to install beta versions).