Re: Coronavirus
 

It's not a matter of "batting for the government", it's pointing out the FACTS(strange concept it would seem) about the reports. Have I posted or quoted anything that if FACTUALLY incorrect?

Eg the claim was made that the government were advised to start lockdown a week earlier. When you actually look at the FACTS, they were merely advised on the 16th or 18th to do so "as soon as possible". It was announced on the 23rd. So possibly told on the Wednesday, take a few days to consider, decide, and plan, and it was announced on the following Monday(weekend getting in the way?).

It is FACT, that both Germany and South Korea had shortages of testing kits and PPE.

It is FACT, that even the WHO didn't initially recommend the general wearing of face masks.

5th May
So just "maybe", not definitely.

20th March
16h March
Other measures and advice were in place BEFORE full lockdown announced on the 23rd. Those other measures and advice should've limited the spread anyway. "Social distancing" was already in place. It's not as if nothing happened before the 23rd. That is FACT.

---------- Post added at 18:40 ---------- Previous post was at 18:34 ----------

As was just said on a TV news report, IF they had gotten hold of anything, it would've been something in, or soon to be in, the public domain. If there was full collaboration, it would've been pointless trying
Link

How much of the alleged attacks are just the SAME sort that the rest of us, get all the time.


Where was the actual evidence of bounties? My issue, as explained at the time, was that it was hypocritical of those making the accusations.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nomadking it's your shall we say, selective, use of facts and the opinions you offer around them. You frame assumptions around them always in favour of the Government.

Indeed, in 6080 posts I'm struggling to think of a time you've ever offered an opinion against them.

Re: Coronavirus
 

To be fair that is the normal around here. There are few notable exceptions to this ..

Re: Coronavirus
 

Selective? I often have to point out the FULL FACTS contained within other peoples links. How could I possibly do that by being more selective? It's usually a case of reading beyond the headline.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So a lockdown could simply be implemented overnight?

This is not a fact. It’s your selective opinion. Indeed, it was announced and implemented, literally overnight. At 8.30pm Monday to stay at home on Tuesday.

What you offer is tedious nonsense copied and pasted, devoid of analysis to the extent where as long as we aren’t the worst performer, under any basis, of any policy, you’d cite the worst example.

I aspire to more than second last.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm assuming that comment is being made firmly tongue in cheek. :D:D:D

---------- Post added at 19:48 ---------- Previous post was at 19:39 ----------

I'm afraid Coronavirus doesn't take holidays. "take a few days to consider" "weekend getting in the way" are poor excuses. They should have and could have moved far quicker.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If only they had had senior Government advisors attending the meetings, who could have escalated the urgency to those in charge...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes Seph, I agree I am fanatically exceptional. :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

I doubt that many read it any more tbh. The tediousness even extends to the layout.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Indeed.

I cannot comprehend why anyone would put themselves out there to be demonstrably wrong on so many occasions. This is neither luck, nor chance. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. This is wilful disinformation and dishonestly of the most absurd degree.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Patients who recovered from CV-19 counted as dead in UK stats?
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...-data-12030392

Poor show from the Trump administration on Coronavirus again.
https://news.sky.com/story/trump-pre...ening-12030212[

Re: Coronavirus
 

This is out of context if you listen to the full statement. She was arguing the science doesn't stand in the way.

Re: Coronavirus
 

:confused: Which Monday and Tuesday are you talking about? The advice to lockdown "as soon as possible" was given on the 16th or 18th March. The lockdown was announced on the 23rd. Other measures were already in place. Not sure why I should be criticised for posting quotes of the TRUTH of what was or wasn't said.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I've got some sympathy for people mis-speaking in live situations but I don't think you can say it's safe in all states for the schools to re-open although it's very desirable and may need alternative approaches eg school split into separate shifts.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Larger gatherings allowed from October in PM press briefing.

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...-wave-12030417

More key points.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If you want to dispute that fine, but that is a different claim that the science should obey Trump.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Posting TRUTH in capital letters doesn’t elevate your opinion from being just that. Opinion. An opinion that always, without fail, sways in favour of one end of the political spectrum.

Re: Coronavirus
 

What are you all arguing about?Is it adding anything to this thread?Apart from confusion.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don't think I made that paritcular claim. ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Just to quote from this ;

Re: Coronavirus
 

To be a pendant a moment this isn't a statistical anomaly, it is a methodological deficiency.

That said the idea of separating what deaths are caused by covid and what are caused by other factors is often quite difficult (in cases not clear cut as getting hit by a bus).

However when everyone uses different methodologies it becomes incredibly difficult to make meaningful comparisons even if some are more sophisticated than others.

However this methodology evidently becomes less accurate the longer the pandemic goes on.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The latest changes in England ;

* From 25 July indoor gyms, pools and other sports facilities can reopen

* On 1 August the government will update its advice on going to work, asking employers to make decisions about how and where their staff can work safely
* From the same date, most remaining leisure settings, including bowling, skating rinks, casinos and all close contact services, such as beauticians, will be allowed to reopen
* Live indoor theatre and concerts will be able to resume with socially distanced audiences
* Wedding receptions for up to 30 people will also be allowed from next month

* From September, schools, nurseries and colleges will be open for all children and young people on a full-time basis, while universities are also working to reopen as fully as possible

* From October, the government intends to allow audiences to return to stadiums, while conferences and other business events can recommence, subject to the outcome of pilots

Re: Coronavirus
 

We will see what the government was advised, and when, after the report is published.

I note that you have conceded that we will have more years of this while we continue to attempt to slow the virus down. That is precisely why I have been advocating the isolation of the 'at risk' groups and freeing up the rest of the population to go about their business as usual. That will get the whole thing out of the way in the UK with the minimum death rate, since most healthy people will survive this unscathed.

The alternative is a continuing hit to the economy, with public tolerence to these restrictions diminishing all the time.

---------- Post added at 20:18 ---------- Previous post was at 20:16 ----------

We can all see that you criticise the government at every turn, so we know which side you are batting for.

---------- Post added at 20:20 ---------- Previous post was at 20:18 ----------

And how often have you supported the government, jfman? The words 'glass houses' and 'stones' come to mind!

---------- Post added at 20:23 ---------- Previous post was at 20:20 ----------

There are plenty of posts supporting your point of view, mate. We all have to accept that we are debating with people who have a wide range of opinions. You mustn't get so upset if someone disagrees with you.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I've accepted that flawed UK Government policy means we have years of this, yes. However other countries will not. We will have years of economic turmoil to go with it.

The economy simply will not 'bounce back' as consumer spending remains diminished, neither will we 'get the virus out the way' - our own esteemed Chief Scientific Adviser and Chief Medical Officer are indicating we now face years of this, with greater and lesser restrictions on activity reacting to it.

And we know where you stand - tens of thousands of lives lost are an acceptable price to pay in the pursuit of economic growth.

I hate to be the one to break it to you but the flawed policy is simply entrenching the recession and reducing the chances of ever returning to 'normal'.

---------- Post added at 21:16 ---------- Previous post was at 20:24 ----------

I supported the lockdown and the furlough scheme. So once again your evidence base is weak.

Re: Coronavirus
 

As was mentioned at the start, we’ll only have some kind of idea of the a death rate when comparing the numbers for 2020 against all the previous years ( and even that will not be accurate). And then when we compare that figure against all the other nations of the world And their figures will We have any kind of idea how we did.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If the last hope for the figures is truly “they would all have died in 2020” anyway then I suspect, as with much of your insight into the virus, you’ll end up badly disappointed.

Still, at least Boris can blame the second wave on employers and local governments now.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

While the excess death metric is probably the best to use, it suffers from overestimation bias because there may be additional deaths caused by the lockdown measures that are unrelated to Covid infection. Such as death because conventional medical proceedure were delayed.

Or even conversely underestimation because people have been doing less dangerous things.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Seems if someone had actually tested positive for COVID 19 but was subsequently run over by a bus that the death was falsely placed on the virus list.

Figures are currently being re-assessed.

Re: Coronavirus
 

How on earth do you make that out? How has our government's policy put us in a worse position than any other country? I have said consistently that it is far too early to make such judgements now. When all this is over, we will be able to compare, but not now. Countries that were patting themselves on the back a few weeks ago are finding that they are having to cope now with a second wave. Then there will be a third, and a fourth until this virus is done with us. I don't know why you have this dreamy idea that by locking down earlier we could have saved more lives. Each lockdown that ends simply exposes everyone once again to this highly infectious virus.

---------- Post added at 11:35 ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 ----------

Where did I say that? I said protect the vulnerable groups and let the virus run through the healthy population. That minimises the number of deaths and is a far more sustainable position to take.

You have no real solution that is capable of working. You cannot keep people locked up forever, and any government that tries to do so is doomed to failure.

And the virus would still hit us when the years of lockdown finally ended.

As for a vaccine, I wouldn't hold my breath. When have we ever concocted a vaccine capable of defeating one of the coronavirus infections? You cannot sensibly pin all your hopes on finding a vaccine.

Re: Coronavirus
 

During the pandemic of 1918/19, over 50 million people died worldwide and a quarter of the British population were affected. The death toll was 228,000 in Britain alone.

That was 100 years ago, no hospitals with todays modern path labs and equipment, no computers spitting out instant spread sheets and graphs, no clever screening and testing available. How do we know those figures are anywhere near accurate?

Seems to me that given the technology we have now, it's all still guesswork and pigeonholing stuff into little boxes :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Where’s your entrepreneurial spirit Old Boy? It’s not ‘too hard’ to make interim assessments based on the evidence available. I suspect the problem is the evidence at present doesn’t suit your narrative.

It’s not my dreamy idea - it’s the ‘experts’ at Sage. You’re also ignoring that some countries are having success - and it’s the countries that are not that are ultimately undermining efforts around the world to combat the virus.

You cannot sensibly say that running the virus through the population is a credible solution. There is no black and white between who will survive and will not, allowing everyone else to safely go about their day.

Not finding a vaccine again I refer to your lack of ‘entrepreneurial spirit’. We’ve the greatest minds in the world on this, on what may be the single biggest human endeavour since the moon landings.

Re: Coronavirus
 

1. No, it's not hard to make an interim assessment, but plainly, that would be wildly inaccurate. Lockdowns slow the virus, but don't eliminate it. Further waves will push the numbers up throughout the world, and that's one of the reasons why it is too early to make proper judgements on which countries have got it right. I would also remind you that it is ridiculous to compare our numbers with other countries, since each of them set such different criteria as to what constitutes a covid death. The fact that other countries only count hospital deaths (not deaths in the community or in care homes) is all the evidence you need that comparisons at this stage are pretty pointless.

2. I agree that some countries are having some initial success. This time next year, I very much suspect the situation will look a lot different. I don't care where you got the dreamy idea from, but it's wrong. There are disagreements within Sage as to how to best deal with this.

3. Allowing the virus to run through the healthy population is exactly what needs to happen. It is the only practical way, and it is nature's way. But by protecting 'at risk' groups, we keep deaths to the minimum.

4. What I said was you cannot pin all your hopes on a vaccine. You have no plan B, so if you were in charge, you would be locking everyone up forever - until the riots started, that is.

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53443724

Re: Coronavirus
 

I want to know when:

A) I can hug my mum in a nursing home (if she isn't home by then)?


B) I can hug my sister, nephew and niece, we need it badly?

Re: Coronavirus
 

And once again I'd say they are not pointless - we can already make excess deaths comparisons as well as the official total. Again, I remind you, that you are simply trying to avoid an uncomfortable reality. However, I'm happy to revisit this in a couple of years time when I'm certain I'll be proven correct and those who claimed 'mild flu', 'it'll go away itself and the summer' and now 'it's too early to tell' will be proven wrong.

I'm uncertain why you persist in being proven wrong, when in actual fact the economy benefits from everyone accepting the reality than trying to hide from it.

If I am certain of anything it's that your suspicions about coronavirus are politically fuelled.

Needs to happen for what/who?

Plan A should have been aiming to eradicate the virus. Plan B a vaccine.

At no stage have I ever suggested locking everyone up forever. As ever, Old Boy, you present the straw man argument.

You continue to be under the flawed logic that no lockdown = economy working as normal. 100% wrong. While I advocated a longer, stronger lockdown, protecting incomes and businesses along the way to get everyone out the other side in much the same position as before.

You however present the incoherent economics of austerity to save us. People lost their jobs. People spend less. More people lose their jobs. More people spend less. Cycle continues. For years.

It's not my fault your ideology makes you incapable of bold thinking, of 'entrepreneurial spirit' I think you call it.

When all is said and done a coherent strategy of eradicating the virus through isolating everyone as much as possible, for as long as possible, while protecting incomes will be proven to be better for public health and the economy.

Re: Coronavirus
 

A phrase involving a fictional detective comes to mind. :rolleyes:

A few weeks ago I saw a hoodie with long black hair, in black with a black mask on in Lidl and all you could see was the eyes. Might as well have been a burka.

The perfect disguise and all legal.

Re: Coronavirus
 

How ironic can it get?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...-west-53465160

Coronavirus: Potential Covid-19 cluster in Lanarkshire

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, you would think they shouldnt have too much trouble tracing themselves. ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

You over estimate the capability of the private sector, I suspect.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Small-scale medical trial suggests directly inhaling a version of the MS drug beta-interferon via a nebuliser dramatically reduces the severity of Covid-19 symptoms, possibly reducing the chances of needing a ventilator by almost 80%.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53467022

Re: Coronavirus
 

There is more to all of this that government response.

Geography - how easy is it to close borders and restrict movement - New Zealand easy; Europe far less so.
Population - how well will the population obey suggestions/rules - Japan easy; UK not so much

It's a novel situation and no matter what any government does it will not be right to some observers who will often not offer viable alternatives.

---
Read a Tweet at weekend suggest that the papers read by older people are more optimistic than those read by the younger.
That said those older people papers tend to be more right so are more likely supportive than the younger set papers but thought it interesting anyway. Seems to echo a more general attitude that many older people just want to get on with things and it's the younger who are more keen on a cautious approach. It's not carelessness by the older though, they do have concerns and are not reckless but many want to hug families and be social again.

Re: Coronavirus
 

People will do what they want eventually.

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...spike-12032433

There hasn't been a spike since lockdown was eased and all the BLM gatherings.

I think steady as we go.

Grassroots football and Karate starts again next week - woohoo

Re: Coronavirus
 

Excess deaths is a blunt instrument at best. You forget that people are also dying owing to the fact that they could not get their illnesses diagnosed and treated during the lockdown.

The 'mild flu' jibe - you must be getting desperate now. For most people, they either do not know they've had it or only experience mild symptoms. For those 'at risk' groups and others with an underlying health condition it can, of course, be deadly, and there is a likelihood that continual exposure to infected people can make it worse. I accept that the virus does not seem to go away during the summertime as was first speculated, although as people spend less time confined indoors in crowded areas during the summer, the number of infections may well decline for that reason.

I'm glad that we agree the objective of Plan 'A'. Of course you do realise that the only plan to eradicate the virus in the absence of a vaccine is herd immunity. It seems that the government is going for the half-way house solution at the moment with track and trace and local lockdowns. I suppose that is worth a try, but this will send us all on a merry old dance for years to come.

As far as your comments about a longer, stronger lockdown, do come off it - do you think the public would tolerate that? They were already pretty fed up with it when the government started to ease restrictions. I did not present your favourite 'straw man' argument. I have surely already made clear that however long and strong the lockdown, the virus will just attack us again on the eventual release. It only took one super-spreader to set this all off in the UK, remember that?

Austerity, jfman, is what would happen if we were all in the 'longer, stronger' lockdown you advocate. I'd stop arguing if I were you, your plan is falling apart before your eyes. If you're looking, that is.

---------- Post added at 14:35 ---------- Previous post was at 14:31 ----------

I am not really that surprised. The virus is not readily passed on between people outside. It is crowded indoor spaces which are the real worry, hence why the health specialists are concerned about the autumn/winter months.

Re: Coronavirus
 

To those who say the government did not lockdown early enough, or failed to follow scientific advice, this might be an interesting read. This is how I remember it, too, particularly the 'herd immunity' bit.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-534338...5Bpost+type%5D

So there you have it. I particularly liked:

Prof Whitty argued that beginning social distancing measures "too early" would risk people becoming tired of them and public compliance waning.

And Sir Patrick began to talk about the concept of herd immunity. Speaking about the coronavirus he said: "It's not possible to stop everybody getting it and it's also actually not desirable because you want some immunity in the population. We need immunity to protect ourselves from this in the future."

Which, of course, is was I've been saying all along.

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a9630556.html
Bit sobering to those pinning their hours on a cure all vaccine or that life will ever get back to 'normal' again.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Merely an opinion using an example where the reason for the noneradication is well known. There's also the smallpox vaccine to consider.

Re: Coronavirus
 

we'll learn to live with it, like all the other Coronaviruses

Re: Coronavirus
 

Once there’s a vaccine in regular use - even one that needs readministering annually - things will be normal. We’re already vaccinated against a ton of stuff, this is just one more. Covid-19 is a problem because there’s no vaccine, no immunity and therefore it spreads rapidly and overwhelms our health care services. Once its ability to spread freely is dealt with it will be no more troublesome than flu.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I, and many others, already have a Flu vaccine every year, just part of being able to live a normal life.

If having to have a regular Covid -19 vaccination is what it takes then it will be a small inconvenience that many, hopefully most, will accept as being necessary if they wish to have that semblance of a 'normal life'.

The more that is known about about Covid-19, how to treat it, how to identify it, how to fight it and who needs to be vaccinated, the stronger we will be to keep it from decimating the world. Will we ever eradicate it? No. Can we eventually live with it? I damn well hope so.


For anyone who wants to see a fuller report of Sir John Bells's, and other experts evidence to The Health and Social Care Committee, a cross-party group of MPs, a fuller account of the meeting on 21st July can be seen here ...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53488142

Re: Coronavirus
 

Oh please joglynne don't tell me Mr_K was cherry picking from the report. How unusual. Let's face it, until a vaccine is tested and passed no one knows what level of immunity it will give or how long it will last. Until then any opinion is just guesswork.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The immunity thing is interesting in light of a paper preview published in Nature on the 15th July (link warning, very techy!)

In that paper, T-cell responses to different parts of SARS-Cov-2 proteins were tested against the white blood cells of people who were;

• Previously infected with SARS-Cov-2
• Previously infected with SARS (SARS-Cov-1)
• Never infected with either

For the uninitiated, T-cell responses are the immune systems way for killing already infected cells. They also help stimulate the production of antibodies (B-cell response)

Unsurprisingly, people who have had COVID-19 showed a good response to SARS-Cov-2 fragments. So did 100% of people who previously had SARS 17 years ago.

More significant is around 50% of the people who have never seen SARS-Cov-1 or 2 also showed a response to SARS-Cov-2! This suggests, at least in the population tested, that there is some kind of immunity to the current Coronavirus pandemic in naive patients. The follow up needs to be looking at infection rates and outcomes for people who previously showed a response while naive to see if this response translates to real world effects.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Once there is a way to stop the NHS being overloaded then we can get back to normal. I don't see keeping screens around tables and other social distancing remaining. People will want to get back to "crowds" and some businesses need it.
COVID-19, 20, 29 etc will likely become part of the annual disease cycle, some get ill, some very ill, some die, many will just get through it and if like COVID-19 may not really notice it. Until of course VIRUS-xx starts it all off again.

Re: Coronavirus
 

A bit harsh!:(

Re: Coronavirus
 

Probably so, but 'That's Life' the good, bad, and ugly of it

Re: Coronavirus
 

No report cherry picking , I just posted a whole article from the Independent from an 'a distinguished scientist and regius professor of medicine at Oxford University'. He was giving evidence to a select committee, he's probably more expert in the area than you or me.

This whole 'it'll be over by Christmas' bull we get from 'expert Boris' we had from politicians a long time ago on another crisis (before my time even !). Boris can't even follow his own advice and proudly shook the hands of covid patients and subsequently others, where did that get him and his colleagues.... He's a Westminster 'super-spreader' and muppet.
And why Christmas ? Why not 18th October, or 3rd February? It's not something they're in control of and they treat us like morons.

Re: Coronavirus
 

To be bluntly honest, in my personal but non expert opinion, I'd have to say possibly 65% of the population are morons ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

l hope you did not include some of your favourite forum members in that generalising assumption.;):D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not at all Den :shocked:

People on here are generally well behaved, articulate and often helpful in many ways. Even the ones I sometimes disagree with are pleasant people but just have a differing opinion on some topics.

that's not to say, however, that if the cap fits, anyone can feel free to wear it :D ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

He was thinking more of twitter users. :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

l use Twitter sometimes as l use Facebook sometimes.:D

Re: Coronavirus
 

I do not use either as they are probably hacked by the Russians Dhoooo!!!:D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Remember from Friday this week is is obligatory to wear a face mask when shopping:

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...4&d=1595492547

:D

Attachment 28464

Re: Coronavirus
 

Covering up perfection seems wrong to me.;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

My masks are somewhere with Royal Mail, ordered and dispatched in plenty of time but still in transit. Always a bit hard trying new cheese with mask on, maybe cut an eating hole in them!!??

Re: Coronavirus
 

BREAKING: Two more English boroughs have joined Leicester in reaching the highest level on the coronavirus watchlist.

Luton, in Bedfordshire, and Blackburn and Darwen, in Lancashire, have both been designated as an "area of intervention" by Public Health England (PHE).

Lockdowns Imminent.

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...pikes-12034861

Re: Coronavirus
 

What's with all the bellyaching from shopkeepers about enforcing wearing of masks.:confused: I not a smoker, but if I went into a shop with a lit cigarette, they would soon stop me. What is the real difference? Is the difference that with the cigarette, the shop can be penalised for allowing it, but with the mask, the shop can't? Perhaps that has to change.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Free flu vaccine will now be available to over 50's. I've paid for it anyway over the last few years even though I don't qualify, it's a no brainer for £10.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The full report in the on-line version of The Lancet can be found on this link It's rather pithy.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not quite sure how you can have avoided overwhelming hospitals and not reduced the death toll. If instead lockdowns hadn't happened, and the hospitals had been overwhelmed, surely that must mean more deaths. They weren't dropping dead elsewhere.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, I think Boris has set his mind against any more nationwide lockdowns, so this is a good basis for that decision.

Re: Coronavirus
 

This is a dumb analysis, if you repeat it after effective treatments have been discovered you will inevitably conclude a lower death rate.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The difference is that its always illegal to smoke, but masks can perfectly legally not be worn if you have good reason.

Re: Coronavirus
 

All reports can make statistics say what the authors want and back it up with figures. Lockdowns may not have saved lives due to CV19 but they certainly helped prevent hospitals being totally overwhelmed and that may save other lives for other causes of admission.
It's also true that populations affect how CV19 progresses in that population and where there is an older, less fit, overweight, multigenerational mix the affect is worse. It is also possible that some parts of the world have a less virulent form of the virus. Population behaviour can also have an effect so countries like Japan where to suggest isolation and certain businesses close (also they wear masks more in other situations e.g flu) leads to isolation and businesses closing. Compare to western countries where even having rules they get ignored or challenged.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Still no valid reason not to challenge people. That is what they are complaining about, the challenging people bit. They're not being asked to do a full health assessment.:rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Just need Old Boy to come on board about the lockdown being too late and we'll all be in happy harmony. ;)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53525450

Re: Coronavirus
 

The mistake was the total lockdown. Only the vulnerable needed protection.

Anyway, all of this is a case of being wise after the event. The medical guys themselves were advising against an early lockdown - remember that?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Feel free to go and stand in shops, and police them, see how that works out for you.

My Daughter works in retail, and will not challange anyone, that isnt what she gets paid for, its the job of the police (or security).

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yet now they are saying if we'd done it earlier it'd have been shorter, and easier to test, trace and isolate.

Instead we've got the second wave coming and Boris hasn't ruled out a second national lockdown. Indeed, he's already talking it up as a bold, drastic measure, a bit patriotic too like the nuclear deterrent.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don't think we had the means to 'test, trace and isolate' at that stage though

Re: Coronavirus
 

l thought it was supposed to be world beating.;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Indeed I agree, in March it was out of control which is why the emergency brake of a lockdown was needed. With exponential growth even a lockdown a week earlier, theoretically, would leave you chasing for 30% of the live cases give or take using a test, trace, isolate system at the end of an equal length lockdown.

If the virus goes out of control again then a second lockdown remains inevitable. Restrictions are coming back around the world, in US states and in Europe, where flare ups aren't brought under control by test, trace, isolate.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Certainly not good with it flaring up in some areas of the UK, but on the positive side of that (if there is a positive side), people where it hasn't flared up may heed the warnings and follow procedures better.

I count myself lucky not to live in one of the high density population centers of the UK, but it only takes a couple of 'errors of judgement' for it to happen anywhere :(

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well in my local the barmaid tested positive last week shortly after I'd been in for a pint so I have had the opposite luck!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Glad to see Mystic Meg is back, and well.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Thanks for your good wishes.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I went to the cinema the other year to watch the 5th Wave. :angel:

Re: Coronavirus
 

How did you rate it against the others? There’s always a debate between whether the first or second is best in a series. Die Hard 1 and 2 I can’t pick between, 3 better than the remaining movies tho.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not enough police for that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So ?

---------- Post added at 03:39 ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 ----------

I'm not sure if you are joking, or dont know what it is :erm:

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think he was being humorous, a little off the wall joke about the name of the film, coupled with the 'second wave' of Covid, and the belief that sometimes the second or third in a film series aren't as 'effective' as the first ;)

I do have a weird sense of humour though, so could be chuckling at a joke that isn't even there :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Coronavirus: Spain added to England's quarantine list
How many people are going to get caught out by that?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I wonder if it includes the Canary Islands.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Expect the action to be repeated for other countries when outbreaks happen.

---------- Post added at 19:38 ---------- Previous post was at 19:38 ----------

I believe so, along with the Balearics.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The fact remains that the likes of Prof Whittey, by his own admission, were advising the government against an early lockdown. The government accepted that advice - why would they not?

Unless you let the virus run free in the population, we will continue to get second, third, fourth (etc) waves. It will carry on like that until it is done with us.

There is surely enough evidence of this in other parts of the world, and most recently in Spain. Admittedly, the virus would have been slowed down quicker had there been an earlier lockdown in the UK, but that would simply have left more people to be infected at a later date.

---------- Post added at 19:52 ---------- Previous post was at 19:50 ----------

Yeah, if it worked! Boris fell for the civil service hype. They cannot keep to deadlines or what is expected of them for the life of them! I'm glad to see that a purge is on the cards.

---------- Post added at 19:55 ---------- Previous post was at 19:52 ----------

Any further lockdown should be targeted and focussed on 'at risk' groups. A total lockdown is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

---------- Post added at 19:58 ---------- Previous post was at 19:55 ----------

Hopefully, this will apply only to mainland Spain. It would be foolish to include the Canaries if their infection rates were acceptable.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You're making the assumption that there's lasting immunity. This remains unproven. There's no option to let the virus 'run free' - nobody, anywhere in the world, considers that a realistic proposition.

Even the Uber-capitalists in the United States are finding that restrictions are required.

A further lockdown, or indeed lockdowns, will be of the size and scale necessary to suppress the virus at that time. That depends on the numbers in the community - not some flawed ideological belief that people will continue to spend money while they lose jobs and risk their health carrying out normal day to day business.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I have bought the face shields as I feel you can breath better,

Re: Coronavirus
 

The problem is too many people are behaving as if there isn't anything going on. Too many people partying etc. Too many people attending non-essential gatherings. If people were more cautious, here and on holiday abroad, things might ease up.

---------- Post added at 20:27 ---------- Previous post was at 20:21 ----------

Do they help with anything but face-to-face encounters? Eg If somebody is behind you, are you still protected from their exhaled breath? Mind you, the issue should be academic, if everybody else is wearing face masks, shields, or coverings.


Not sure they should be the first choice. Only use when a mask isn't an option.