Coronavirus (OLD)

[nomadking]

Link

A venue has been fined £10,000 after it was found to be hosting 120 people at a "post-wedding party", in breach of Covid-19 legislation.
Police said were called to the venue in Stafford Park, Telford at 16:55 BST on Friday.

Under government guidelines, weddings are allowed to have a maximum of 30 guests, reduced to 15 from Monday.

West Mercia Police said it would not be naming the venue, as is its standard when issuing fines.

The Police may not have named the venue, but it doesn't take much to search and find the likely culprit(s). Somebody even made a jokey post about it on the venues Facebook page. Whether that person knows for sure that it was the venue concerned, is another matter.
At least they didn't fill the place to it's 2,000 capacity.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Link


The Police may not have named the venue, but it doesn't take much to search and find the likely culprit(s). Somebody even made a jokey post about it on the venues Facebook page. Whether that person knows for sure that it was the venue concerned, is another matter.
At least they didn't fill the place to it's 2,000 capacity.

Ridiculous.

After winning a massive majority and carte Blanche to implement any vision they wanted to the future of the U.K.

It seems their vision is some quasi-Orwellian police state.

Keir Starmer must Be pissing himself, he done nothing, been pretty invisible and now he finds himself ahead in the polls.

I had great hopes for this government, but they’re starting to evaporate.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Ridiculous.

After winning a massive majority and carte Blanche to implement any vision they wanted to the future of the U.K.

It seems their vision is some quasi-Orwellian police state.

Keir Starmer must Be pissing himself, he done nothing, been pretty invisible and now he finds himself ahead in the polls.

I had great hopes for this government, but they’re starting to evaporate.

It's an example of selfish behaviour. Just look at all the people that have been complaining that restrictions weren't put in place before. Even if you assumed it was 10 per household attending, that is 12 households that are NOW potentially infected. And if some of the guests were from further afield, that will have potentially spread it to a greater area.
Link

Coronavirus cases in Shropshire and Telford 'going wrong way' says health boss

In Wales run by ....... Labour.

In Wales, weddings and civil partnerships can go ahead after rules were relaxed at the end of June, but under social-distancing rules and with receptions limited to 30 people.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by nomadking

It's an example of selfish behaviour. Just look at all the people that have been complaining that restrictions weren't put in place before. Even if you assumed it was 10 per household attending, that is 12 households that are NOW potentially infected. And if some of the guests were from further afield, that will have potentially spread it to a greater area.]

Potentially, maybe, could be, might be, yadda, yadda.

I was more talking about the penalty imposed.

There are time ps when a government has to use extraordinary powers, I acknowledge that. This is not one one of those times.

The initial wave was brought Under control without the use of draconian powers, the nation cooperated, as they saw the numbers, they saw the urgency.

The numbers now are not there, the NHS is not overwhelmed, People are rightly questioning are approach. So instead of trying again to bring the nation with them, with evidence, with rationale, the government are instead employing the jackboot.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Potentially, maybe, could be, might be, yadda, yadda.

I was more talking about the penalty imposed.

There are time ps when a government has to use extraordinary powers, I acknowledge that. This is not one one of those times.

The initial wave was brought Under control without the use of draconian powers, the nation cooperated, as they saw the numbers, they saw the urgency.

The numbers now are not there, the NHS is not overwhelmed, People are rightly questioning are approach. So instead of trying again to bring the nation with them, with evidence, with rationale, the government are instead employing the jackboot.

Same/similar rules in Labour run Wales. 60% of the population in Labour run Wales are going to be in lockdown.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Potentially, maybe, could be, might be, yadda, yadda.

I was more talking about the penalty imposed.

There are time ps when a government has to use extraordinary powers, I acknowledge that. This is not one one of those times.

The initial wave was brought Under control without the use of draconian powers, the nation cooperated, as they saw the numbers, they saw the urgency.

The numbers now are not there, the NHS is not overwhelmed, People are rightly questioning are approach. So instead of trying again to bring the nation with them, with evidence, with rationale, the government are instead employing the jackboot.

It's because we weren't draconian enough and relaxed restrictions too soon that this has come back. Open pubs, restaurants, send kids back to school/uni, encourage everyone back to work, and hey presto, guess what happened next ?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Mr K

It's because we weren't draconian enough and relaxed restrictions too soon that this has come back. Open pubs, restaurants, send kids back to school/uni, encourage everyone back to work, and hey presto, guess what happened next ?

You’re wasting your breath it doesn’t matter what the evidence says some are firmly in the letting old/vulnerable die is a price worth laying for a few points on the stock exchange.

Old Boy in fact still hasn’t answered my question of whether he’d support 50% of the workforce continuing to work from home, as per Sweden?

In fairness to Pierre he came back straight away in support of working from home, even post covid, as more sustainable in the future.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Mr K

It's because we weren't draconian enough and relaxed restrictions too soon that this has come back. Open pubs, restaurants, send kids back to school/uni, encourage everyone back to work, and hey presto, guess what happened next ?

What happened? People got infected, we don’t know if the amount of people infected was more or less than the initial wave.

---------- Post added at 21:33 ---------- Previous post was at 21:27 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

You’re wasting your breath it doesn’t matter what the evidence says some are firmly in the letting old/vulnerable die is a price worth laying for a few points on the stock exchange.

Are more dying? Demonstrably so? Also, it’s not about the stock Exchange ( funny how that’s your first thought) it’s about life, and getting on with it.

In fairness to Pierre he came back straight away in support of working from home, even post covid, as more sustainable in the future.

Absolutely, I do endeavour to be consistent, there is no excuse not to be allowed to work from home if you can, and if you want. As long as performance is not impacted (and that should be easily measured)

It cuts travel costs, building costs, it empowers employees to manage their time and their home/work balance. Done correctly there are no downsides.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

There is no known single source of the problem. You don't know where it is going to originate. All the the activities are potentially a problem, it all depends on which activities any infected people take part in.

Exactly, that's why it would have made sense to do it gradually so we could get some kind of meaningful data.

---------- Post added at 22:15 ---------- Previous post was at 21:43 ----------

This article "Lockdowners v Libertarians" reprises the currrent debate on the forum.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...navirus-divide

[jfman]

Huge own goal here by the Labour Party

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...covid-measures

You either back the Government and share the blame or vote against it and get all the blame. Covid is the ultimate positioned chalice.

Pierre will, rightly, argue the merits of Parliamentary scrutiny and although I disagree my post above is from a Labour perspective. Not that I’d ever vote for them but this is bad politics.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Exactly, that's why it would have made sense to do it gradually so we could get some kind of meaningful data.

---------- Post added at 22:15 ---------- Previous post was at 21:43 ----------

This article "Lockdowners v Libertarians" reprises the currrent debate on the forum.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...navirus-divide

How would that have worked? It would have made matters a lot more complicated as to what was and wasn't allowed. Too many people are unwilling to stick to simple restrictions as it is.

The problem isn't the activities, but whether an infected person takes part in a particular activity. That might have happened at any stage of the relaxation process, beginning, middle, or later on.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

How would that have worked? It would have made matters a lot more complicated as to what was and wasn't allowed. Too many people are unwilling to stick to simple restrictions as it is.

The problem isn't the activities, but whether an infected person takes part in a particular activity. That might have happened at any stage of the relaxation process, beginning, middle, or later on.

It's both things - 1) someone being infectious and threfore able to transmit the virus 2) the environment of the activity aiding or suppressing transmission to others.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It's both things - 1) someone being infectious and threfore able to transmit the virus 2) the environment of the activity aiding or suppressing transmission to others.

But which environments do you allow? It's impossible to predict which one will lead to an outbreak. Different environments already have different conditions depending on risk. If idiots are going to gather in excessive numbers, no rules are going to stop them. If 120 people are going to gather, when the limit has been 30 for some time, what else can you do? Start jailing them and people might start taking notice.

[1andrew1]

Parliament's bars labelled workplace canteens so no 10pm curfew.

Bars in Parliament will be exempt from the 10pm curfew which has been imposed on the hospitality industry in the UK to help curb the spread of coronavirus, according to reports.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...-a4557746.html

---------- Post added at 10:33 ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

But which environments do you allow? It's impossible to predict which one will lead to an outbreak. Different environments already have different conditions depending on risk. If idiots are going to gather in excessive numbers, no rules are going to stop them. If 120 people are going to gather, when the limit has been 30 for some time, what else can you do? Start jailing them and people might start taking notice.

How you enforce misbehaviour is another debate.
To better understand the impact of each relaxation, doing them all at the same time won't help us understand things.

[tweetiepooh]

We had a Zoom prayer meeting last night and one of those attending shared that he contracted Covid earlier in the year, positive test and because of his job has access to antibody tests which are now "negative".

My thinking would still be on the lines though that if you get repeated exposure would your immune response grow/remain? Even if reinfected would that trigger a faster and better immune response? If for herd immunity you need repeated exposure how do we manage that?

---
On a lighter note, don't know if this has been shared already. It's a parody on the 1970's info films - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q7HkxNhnXA