Re: Coronavirus
 

The email the Chief Exec sent to council staff yesterday was more pessimistic than optimistic.

Re: Coronavirus
 

... and now we have a child sent home from school for 2 weeks after a classmate tested positive. :(

Thankfully school distributed chromebooks to her year yesterday so she won’t miss anything. :D. I’m not sure which she’s more cross about ...

Re: Coronavirus
 

No one takes any notice anyway. Apart from the businesses that have to close nothing else changes.

It certainly didn't in Calderdale.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Same here ... aforementioned classmate continued to be sent to school for several days after her mother tested positive. Now the daughter is positive and a significant chunk of her year group is having to self-isolate. Days of disruption to the schooling of dozens of kids in their important exam year just because one woman was too dumb or selfish (or both) to heed basic advice and keep the family home.

It's below the news radar at the moment but if the daughter has spread it to any significant extent while at school, asymptomatic and infectious it's all going to kick off big time.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Did she go abroad before that? Coz that'll make it even worse!

Re: Coronavirus
 

The village jungle drums are a-beating, but so far all anyone’s prepared to say is that it’s fairly typical behaviour for the mother.

My understanding is that 50 children from the high school have now been sent home for 14 days because of this.

Re: Coronavirus
 

STAY CALM AND PARTY ON Boozy revellers hit the town in Leeds after coronavirus watchlist fears


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/125892...rus-watchlist/

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'd imagine there were scenes like that all over the UK on a Friday night, thankfully they will all have the brilliant track & trace app on their phones . . . :rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

it shows the age group that are causing the problems ,never mind track and trace we need round up and lock up ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Is it too much to hope they all work from home . . if they work at all? ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

The problem with too many lockdowns is people will just snap and ignore it at some point.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Probably all live with their parents,so they go home and pass on the virus to those who have stuck rigidly to the rules since march because they are classed as vulnerable.

---------- Post added at 09:36 ---------- Previous post was at 09:34 ----------

Judging the evidence it seems they are ignoring the rules and advice that are supposed to keep us all safe.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Especially when lockdown rules are undermined by a government advisor as l would imagine public compliance to lockdown rules since were severely underminded by this incident.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...690-1/fulltext

Re: Coronavirus
 

exactly
https://fullfact.org/health/what-did...e-broken-them/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...ied-boyfriend/

Re: Coronavirus
 

And they are just as culpable as Cummings as obviously like him they could not make a selfless sacrifice for the greater good..

Re: Coronavirus
 

So who did Cummings meet up with? NOBODY.


It's not so much any gatherings, but people that have been making contact with others BEFORE that gathering. This virus doesn't sit around for months, and only reappear at a gathering. There has to be a chain of transmission going on. If a group of people who have been isolating one way or another, get together, there should be little or no risk. The problem comes from somebody who hasn't been isolating, possibly for legitimate reasons, eg essential worker.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Coronavirus: Tests 'could be picking up dead virus'

Most people are infectious only for about a week, but could test positive weeks afterwards.

Researchers say this could be leading to an over-estimate of the current scale of the pandemic.

But some experts say it is uncertain how a reliable test can be produced that doesn't risk missing cases.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54000629

Re: Coronavirus
 

I am just waiting for the government to finally wake up to the fact that fighting the virus by lockdowns is futile. We cannot carry on like this.

If the scientists are correct and that our later national lockdown made little impact on the virus (in that the peak we reached would have been virtually the same had we not done so), then there will be no second wave here that will have an unacceptable impact on the NHS.

And when will it dawn on people that the reason the number of infections are still going up again has rather something to do with the fact that we are testing more? The number of hospital admissions and the number of deaths recorded both remain very low.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Which scientists have said that, please?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

That point being about 8 weeks ago.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Thanks, but there’s nothing in that five month old article about

Re: Coronavirus
 

THIS article from three months ago suggests a similar theory.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There's various theories. Not clear to me which one is most likely. The number of deaths seems to be staying low, either because treatments are getting better or because the vulnerable are shielding.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The other theories are that now we have a lot more testing so whilst it seems there are more cases we're actually underestimating how high it was in the Spring when most of the cases found were hospital admissions. The actual circulation of the virus might have been huge!

Also there might be a weaker strain spreading and/or younger people are getting it at higher rates relative to older people.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

New stats of requiring positive test within 28 days of death massage the figures. The old way has it’s flaws, I agree, but death occurs later especially where intensive care is involved. They’re not likely to retest them when on the way out, after a positive test, are they!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Bottom line is, Nobody cares anymore. The threat of further lockdown is an idle threat, they won’t do it.

Local lockdowns/restrictions are a joke as they are just ignored anyway.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If people don’t adhere to local restrictions then a national lockdown is inevitable. You may consider it an idle threat now but when the body bags pile up restrictions will come in as in March. The logic behind decision making has not changed. Regional lockdowns are the only mitigation against a national one.

Colleges and universities aren’t back yet. Many offices are working from home. Herd immunity Whitty says we are at or near the limit of the extent we can ease restrictions. It’s popcorn time for those who can safely observe this social experiment.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That's an interesting read thanks for sharing.
However, I'm still having difficulty in finding mention of the scientists Old Boy is referring to. This is one professor's data modelling.

Re: Coronavirus
 

May sound great in a hollywood script, but it won’t happen.

We’ve had the wave, I haven’t seen anything that suggests a second wave of the same magnitude is coming.

Lockdowns (national and local) have been routinely ignored without cases spiking. There have been ups and downs but nothing major.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well the medical establishment seems convinced there will be a second wave. If there isn't we should definitely be considering removing the social distancing measures.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'd be shouting "the end is nigh" too if it gave me extra funding ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, the number of hospital admissions remains low as well. I agree that once in hospital with Covid, they are better able to treat you than before, but that's not impacting significantly on the low number of deaths as the fact remains that less patients are actually being treated in hospital.

We may not get that second wave, or if we do, it may well be minor compared to what Spain and France are experiencing. Presumably, given what was said about the first peak, that's because the virus had done its worst already. Those who locked down earlier are now reaping the cost of that with this second wave.

This is why it is far too early to criticise the government for the later lockdown. All some other EU countries have done is to prolong the agony. We may yet see other countries overtaking us in terms of the number Covid deaths. Also bear in mind that each country compiles its figures in a different way. That needs ironing out as well before we start agonising over whether this country got it right.

---------- Post added at 13:46 ---------- Previous post was at 13:42 ----------

The medical establishment is not always right! Just keep an eye on the important numbers, which tell you all you need to know. I would have thought that if we were getting a substantial second wave, we'd know about it by now.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Still clinging on to it being different for us on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. When we get the second wave, as it’s now inevitable due to the inadequacy of test, trace, isolate it’ll be just as bad.

We’re simply on delay and not learning the lessons from what we are seeing.

This is the latest “multigenerational households”, “it’ll go away in the summer” or similar speculative nonsense. The good news is though the back to the office campaign has died off before it started.

Re: Coronavirus
 

As of the 4th September the infection rate in Leeds was 47.9 up from 29.6 the week before. It does look like it's beginning to get away from the authorities best efforts.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Whitty said we are at or near the limits of easing restrictions on 31 July so to argue we didn’t know and nobody could have expected it when we are knee deep in the second wave in a couple of months is ignoring the facts.

Not you, but I’m sure others will put in a valiant effort.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Are the numbers up not due to the fact that thousands more people are being tested?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not the whole medical eastablishment.

https://lockdownsceptics.org/address...9-second-wave/

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not this current level. If you look here at the % of positive tests we've gone up from 0.6 to 0.8 in a week: https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-testing

But compared to March/April the testing is dramatically higher so 3000 cases is nowhere near as bad now than then when almost every case was a hospitalisation.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, we don't know yet, do we? The later lockdown we entered into may have come too late to avoid the peak, and that being the case, we should not get the substantial second wave that other countries who locked down earlier are experiencing.

If we do get a big second wave, it would clarify that the only way to avoid the virus is a permanent lockdown, which no-one in their right minds would support.

Re: Coronavirus
 

We didn’t know all of your previous speculative efforts, but any reasonably intelligent person would accept that Covid-19 doesn’t care about the British stiff upper lip and that what we see elsewhere, all things being equal, would happen here. What is going to make the difference?

There’s no evidence that supports your contention that locking down a week, or two, later than other counties prevents a second wave. Unless we developed herd immunity (no laughing at the back!) by our chance as a result of that extra week or two.

The good news is a second lockdown, or regional lockdowns to the extent many can’t really tell the difference, are inevitable regardless of what those in denial think. Companies will continue to work from home, and the economy will tank in any case for longer and the rental incomes of property magnates that own the Daily Mail will be done. So every cloud has a silver lining.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You’re predicting 35000+. Deaths?

I don’t think so.

Infection rates can go up all they want, the death rate is the key metric. I don’t see death rates getting anywhere near the initial wave.

When this whole thing started scientists ( and I posted it in here) said a second wave was unlikely and that it would plateau and would possibly be followed by the odd “ripple“, and I don’t see anything to disagree with that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

We will see where we are in a month or so. We've got near exponential growth in some areas, test, trace, isolate not identifying the majority of close contacts. We're now fudging the figures against counting Covid-19 deaths - while counting everyone who has ever tested positive was clearly not the best way to do so we are now in a position where unless you get tested again between initial diagnosis and death at greater than 29 days you aren't counted on the totals. The onset of symptoms, complications and time spent on a ventilator can easily extend life past this arbitrary cut off. The ONS (and excess death rates) will provide a better metric as a result.

We are however better at treatments - which kills off the myth that they'd die anyway once and for all - which could improve mortality. Either way, numbers are going up and the demand side of the economy are staying home.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Numbers go up, numbers go down, that's life for you.

You really do sound like the paranoia about CV19 has got to you.

Despite the best efforts of the Media and Social Networks to convince you otherwise.

1. There is little chance you will catch it.
2. If you do, there is little chance it will do anything more than annoy you.

Far more people are dying of other causes than the 'virus'.
No one is worried about the Flu now the winter months are coming.
Yet you are almost certainly more likely to catch that, and it can be just as fatal, especially in the same high risk groups.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Can you explain how going into lockdown later means we get a less substatial second wave?

There's plenty of ways to avoid the virus without going into permanent lockdown:

Practice social distancing. Wear a mask. Wash your hands.

Super simple stuff, but too many people aren't doing it, too many people think they know better, or that it's a scam, or that there's worse things to get. If you want to avoid lockdown after lockdown, get people to do the super simple stuff and fine/arrest those who refuse.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I really don’t believe almost all the countries in the world are simply acting out of paranoia. Italian hospital beds weren’t filled by paranoid people in February, they were filled by pneumonia patients.

I do recognise that on a personal level my risks are extremely low. However that isn’t true of everyone in my social circle, family and friends (or indeed, for a significant amount of purchasing power in the economy). If the herd immunity advocates got their way statistically the chances would be that some of them would catch it with a higher mortality level based on age and underlying health issues.

If this was just a flu we are back to the circular conversation where nobody would have noticed. Hospitals wouldn’t have been busier, it’d just be normal, as generally they are equipped to cope with flu every year.

Numbers go down because of significant effort and mitigation. They go up without. At £210bn in cost to date, that’s a lot of Government paranoia. Would have been cheaper with a super-injunction, a D-Notice and hoping nobody noticed.

Re: Coronavirus
 

We have a vaccine for flu. That's the difference.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

This doesn't sound good, not being reported here yet even though it's the UK vaccine.
https://www.news.com.au/world/corona...71da8a135ac814

Re: Coronavirus
 

The majority of the UK do not have/get the vaccine, and at best, its generally about 30 - 40% effective.

Well, except that isnt what I said.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Doesn't actually tell us much does it?
One person in 'tens of thousands' has had a suspected adverse reaction . . that may require hospital treatment, and could result in death :rolleyes:

Pretty poor attempt at instigating mass panic, but will probably draw the usual crowd in for some hysterical doom laden wittering

Re: Coronavirus
 

:D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Possibly because the Australian news website chose not to wait for experts located in the U.K. to get back to them with a bit more context, given the time difference. The Beeb on the other hand went with the story first thing this morning, with a little added analysis:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-54082192

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m sure they don’t need experts in the UK to point out the flaws in their article outlined by Carth above.

Good clickbait though.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Some, including jfman, say that we locked down too late, allowing the virus to take hold. It has been calculated that this resulted in the peak being not far short of what it would have been had we done nothing. If that is correct then it has probably brought down already most of those who were going to die anyway. That means there will probably be no second wave, unless of course the virus mutates, in which case anything could happen.

This would explain why other countries that locked down earlier have a second wave now - it is attacking those now who would have got it had it not been for the lockdown.

On your second point about social distancing, etc, isn't that what we are doing now?

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...fects#contents



---------- Post added at 09:42 ---------- Previous post was at 09:41 ----------

Could you provide a link to these calculations, please?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not from my own small observations they ain't.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Looking at the new "super simple" rule for groups in England - at request of police.

No groups bigger than 6 out or in. Seems simple but if you have a large family that can make things hard to meet grandparents or others but here is my thought - which is riskier
Two large families meeting up exceeding the 6 size or even a group of known participants in a small group (say around 15)
A fluid set of people that are mixing and meeting but never in a group bigger than 6. e.g. students going out in the evening. start in one pub as a six group, 3 move off to pub 2 and 3 others now join the first group, and so on. Much more mixing around, hard to track/trace but never breaks the 6 group limit.

The first obeys the spirit of the law but breaks the letter, the latter (may) keep the letter of the law but breaks the spirit.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You are the only one droning on about the flu! Nobody has claimed that the people in Italian beds were fictional. And you talk about straw man arguments!

Herd immunity is not something man invented. It's nature. You advocate a lockdown until such time as we have a vaccine. You are living in cloud cuckoo land, mate, and you need to get real.

As a self stated economist, I despair of the way you look at the figures. You don't seem to have grasped that the more people you test, the higher number of positive results you are going to pick up. That should be obvious to a man like you - basic stuff really. So while it is correct for the media to say that the number of people testing positive is increasing, the reason for this has been ignored. I would have thought you would have picked that up. We have no reliable way of knowing whether the actual number of infected people is rising because we have no stable set of data to measure it against.

What we should all be watching is the hospital admission rates. They remain very low, and that should tell you all you need to know. Until that rises significantly, there is no cause for alarm.

People should be allowed to get on with their lives now. Vulnerable people should be advised to shield (there should be no compulsion) and care homes should be told to introduce stringent measures to ensure that those in their care are protected. That is what is required. To be clear, a national lockdown is totally unnecessary and would be widely ignored. Enough is enough.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

And many people don't bother to get it. Myself included.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That doesn't explain anything. The idea that Corona only kills the old and weak has long since been disproved, there's plenty of cases of young, fit people also dying from it.

Furthermore, you're comparing the death/hospitalisation rate to the infection rate. Just because a bunch of people died the first time around doesn't stop the virus spreading the second time around. This kind of attitude is going to cause further spread because you don't think it'a as serious as last time.

The virus hasn't eased off, it's just as virulent and deadly as before. We've got better at treating it but that's all.

We had 30 deaths yesterday, jumping from single-digits and the highest we've had in a month. That's not a coincidence.

It's what we're supposed to be doing now, but as I said far too many people aren't taking it seriously. You only have to look around as you go to the shops, or visit a pub to see people who just don't care. If everyone did it properly, we wouldn't be having these peaks again.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Old Boy the contortions that you put yourself in to justify the Governments steps at every stage and the contradictions that result are utterly laughable.

No lockdown - they're going to die anyway - has become we had a late lockdown, there were early deaths but it's alright now. Despite the obvious contradiction that many believe we are better at treating complex cases.

Again there's no evidence to support that we won't go into a second wave unless we keep present restrictions and likely add to them. Steps the Government are taking from next week. It's speculative nonsense, much like your claim that it won't like high temperatures.

---------- Post added at 10:04 ---------- Previous post was at 10:02 ----------

By the point that happens it will simply be too late to intervene. Almost nobody catches Covid and falls into a hospital bed on day 2.

Of course we know the actual numbers are rising - testing has been available for those with symptoms for some weeks now. You can bury your head in the sand, as you have throughout the pandemic, but your 'solutions' neither protect public health or the economy.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The virus does kill mainly the old and those with underlying medical conditions. Nobody said no-one else would succumb to it, but the percentage is extremely low - look at the statistics.

I don't think you understood my point about the infection rate. My point was that nobody knows at this stage whether or not that is increasing. Obviously, the number of positive tests are increasing, simply because we are carrying out more tests. If we stopped testing, the number would fall again, wouldn't it? Even Trumpy understood that.

I am one of those who has been pointing out for a long time now that this virus has not gone anywhere. That's why herd immunity is so important for us to achieve.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There's also no evidence to prove/disprove that 60% of the population are or have been asymptomatic.

The only data we have is the amount of tests done (mainly on those with symptoms), those who tested positive, and those hospitalised due to having the virus . . which includes those with other (potentially life threatening) illnesses.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Older people and those with underlying medical conditions are more susceptable to it, but that doesn't mean the virus isn't potentially deadly to everyone else. It's still killing more healthy people than anything like the flu.

Errr...we do know it's increasing and it's nothing to do with doing extra tests. The goverment posts all the data for you to look at, we're actually testing less this week compared to last week (~180,000 tests processed vs ~200,000), yet we have had a big spike in the same time frame. How do you explain that?

And if it's not a big spike, why is the government suddenly scrambling to increase restrictions again?

Sweden tried that and it didn't work. Let's not repeat history.

(Not directed at OLD BOY specifically) I have seen literally every single one of these arguments in this thread:

https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2020/09/2.jpg

People need to learn to listen to the experts instead of getting their armchair medical degrees out.

Re: Coronavirus
 

We've been listening to experts for years . . . some examples:

Go to work on an egg . . . ooops sorry, eggs are bad for you
Saddam has lots of nasty WMD's
Diesel engines are best for the environment.
Our vehicle emissions are the lowest . . ever
Cows are causing global warming
Thalidomide is perfectly safe

Re: Coronavirus
 

Do you mean autoimmune?

Out of curiosity, have you had adverse reactions to other vaccines at all? I am wondering if you have had reactions to either the flu antigen or another component of the vaccine. If it's the flu antigen, then you would be golden as there is next to no similarity between coronavirus and influenza virus so you wouldn't expect to see a crossover reaction.

Of the other flu vaccine components, the biggest risk is egg protein but that's only present in the injected vaccine, not the live nasal one (Flumist and similar) None of the COVID vaccines I can see are grown in eggs.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ok doc.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

We do research that gives us clearer and better understandings of things, which occasionally changes the advice we give. That's how science works.

We also used to think the sun revolved around the earth, or that if you sailed too far you'd fall off it. We changed our views on that, too.

Science isn't a one-and-done thing, it's a constantly evolving field with new research being done all the time. It's okay if you get overwhelmed by that and can't keep up with the constantly changing landscape, all you have to do is listen to the expert in that field who's spent decades of their life researching and understanding it.

Anything else is the definition of wilful ignorance.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Thanks for confirming the UK Government aren't actually doing u-turns, simply following the advice of experts :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

The UK government, especially a Tory government, follows the advice of experts only when it's convenient for them to do so.

They didn't follow the advice quickly enough in the beginning and thousands died as a result. They should be held accountable for that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

A government that wants all the powers of government but none of the responsibilities and blame when things go wrong which they have done on numerous occasions.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Why are we waiting till Monday for the new limits (6 people) to take force - doesn’t that just mean lots of people will get together over the weekend for the last time before it’s illegal?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Make your mind up on how you want the Government to act. Either:

A) they should be held accountable for not acting quickly enough

B) they're 'suddenly scrambling to increase restrictions again'

. . . or are some people acting controversially no matter what the 'Tory' Government do?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don't think anyone here has made both arguments. Different people making different arguments, but I haven't seen an individual say both.

However, I will say that had the Government acted sooner, they wouldn't have to scramble later.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Whitty and Vallance are up with BoJo at 4pm. Should be good value. Last time out BoJo expected Whitty to give him a couple of minutes to prepare for the hacks questions and he didn’t bother.

I wonder if Whitty expands on being at or near the limit, or Vallance on working from home being a perfectly reasonable adjustment. I’d be particularly keen on hearing from the latter, as the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Civil Service, and his views on BoJo trying to set completely arbitrary targets for return to the workplace. Is there a science behind it that isn’t economics?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’d assume that fair notice is required before behaviour becomes criminal.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Because i have plans that involve a lot of people.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Probably hoping to keep the crowds at the St Ledger. Hancock and Dido Harding both with a keen interest in horse racing donations.

Thankfully the local authority appears to have stepped in. Of course the delay in laying regulations doesn’t mean the Government can’t update its guidance - it’s be unenforceable in law for a period but that doesn’t make it bad advice from a public health perspective.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Interesting, thank you! Has your GP filled out a 'Yellow Card' for adverse reactions in the past - definitely worth doing as it makes drugs better.

Coronaviruses and influenza viruses are very different beasts. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that flu vaccines affect COVID infections which suggests that the immune system sees these two types as very different things.

But hey, we digress...

Re: Coronavirus
 

I have a more sympathy for the Government on judging the right balance between restrictions on people's liberties and fighting the spread of the virus and with the timing of those changes. It's a tricky balance to get right and you don't have precise evidence on the impact of any particular change. Their epidemiologists likely give them a good estimate but they then need to judge that against the economy and people's every day lives.

As I said before we're seeing the biggest restrictions on citizens' freedoms since the war. The Government are right to use that power with caution.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That's because the Virus knows not to attack until Monday,

The same way it knows not to attack people in Europe that socially distance at 1-1.5m instead of 2m

The same way it knows not to attack in pubs, but to attack in you home.

basically, there are that many different rules for where you are and who you're with at any particular time.....it's a very clever virus indeed.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Whitty:

"This is not due to increased testing". Cites Belgium taking rapid, decisive action to giving a reasonable chance of bringing the rates under control. That's alright tho Terry from Twitter who is an anti-vaxxer tells me he's lying and it's a deep state conspiracy.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Bark bark bark:mad:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not sure what you are upset about. If you go onto Twitter there's plenty of conspiracy theories out there, it's reassuring. :)

Re: Coronavirus
 

I was saying terry from twitter is barking mad

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ah, well that's true. :)

Re: Coronavirus
 

So it's the joy of sex, sorry, six, from Monday.....:p:

Re: Coronavirus
 

As long as there's not more than six of you - in England.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Meanwhile up here in the Calder Valley things carry on as normal, and restrictions and lockdowns are just something that happens to other people.

Indeed I’ll be going to karate next week, there’ll be a room full of approx 18 people, I might go for a drink afterwards in a pub full of 30-40 people.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I've filed the new restrictions under not interested.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Neither of those activities are, in and of themselves, against the rules.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Presumably changes in the law take a few days.
People will still get together regardless, just not "officially".

New rules ;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51506729

Worth a read ;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54064347

Re: Coronavirus
 

I know, I was highlighting the irony.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Although it’s never been about one activity necessarily being safer than another. It’s about driving down the number of close contacts. The average commuter on a packed tube train will have far more close contacts with people they don’t know than people they do. Aggregate that to 66 million people and people are interacting a small percentage of number before the pandemic.

Meeting a small number of friends in a busy pub a couple of times a week is neither here nor there.