Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

When will this shit end?


Chrisp1986

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

well, he's based in US...I expect he doesn't care what UK govt instructions are. Either we go into office, or our site gets closed.

I bet he hates our pesky employment laws and mandatory national insurance contributions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Sorry to hear that mate, what a horrid position that’s put you in. 

yeah, I have already sent a little complaining email to my boss...but it is what it is, so I will start going in full time from next Monday. It's a small office, there's only about 10 of us, and we have partitions up to separate work stations, but you know, it increases the risk of spread of infection, especially as a number of us have kids in school too...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your responses all @Ryan1984 @august1 @guypjfreak @Leyrulion

Unfortunately his job is literally to rove around the library, so not much chance of just holing up at his desk! They do seem to have put in a great number of restrictions though. Think it's down to 1/3rd normal capacity - no group studying, no students going to get their own books. Apparently everyone he's had to remind/ask to put their mask back on so far has been polite and compliant. 

I think he was more worried before he went back, he seems okay now that he's seen how it's all set up. Of course, the next few weeks will be the real test. Meanwhile my venturing back onto campus one day a week has been postponed by two weeks, and then I imagine will be postponed again.. (I hope).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

In case anyone is curious or worried about battery life for the NHS COVID-19 app, here is the usage of my battery. I’m in an iPhone 11 Pro and iOS 14.

A36D7512-7A6D-412E-BCD7-439D76477906.jpeg

ACCCFFCC-D899-4474-A4A4-764D0A395215.jpeg

Mine is 3% usage. Depends what else you use your phone for. For a background app that you never look at it is fairly significant but not going to make a huge difference in your everyday use. If you’re using your phone a lot anyway it’s not going to make you charge it more often. 
 

My phone is always on charge if I’m not out 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

Mine is 3% usage. Depends what else you use your phone for. For a background app that you never look at it is fairly significant but not going to make a huge difference in your everyday use. If you’re using your phone a lot anyway it’s not going to make you charge it more often. 
 

My phone is always on charge if I’m not out 😂

True it’s a big drain on battery searching for Keir Starmer gifs all day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spain now apparently seeing 300-400 deaths a day but is cooking the numbers to make them look favourable. Basically they only report those who died in the last 24 hours, and if there’s a reporting lag from time of death to time of reporting (as is very often the case, especially outside hospitals), then a person’s death is not subsequently “caught up” in the figures. So deaths which aren’t reported within 24 hours are being fudged out of the official figures completely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

An interesting take on herd immunity in a letter to the Guardian.

From what he says about London, I guess that might be proven or not over the new few weeks and months.

Let’s suppose that the natural R number, in absence of any social distancing regulations and in absence of isolating those who test positive, is 3.0. It could be slightly lower of higher, but in early March before we started being more careful, the epidemic was roughly tripling every 5 days which would imply R is 3.0.

 

That would mean that at least two-thirds of the population needs to be immune for herd immunity to be achieved. 
 

Note that herd immunity doesn’t mean “no one can ever catch it”, it just means that any outbreak will eventually burn itself out because it won’t come into contact with enough susceptible people to infect.

 

You can think of the effective R number as: Natural R x %age of population susceptible 

 

Now if we believe this theory that as many as 50% of people are naturally protected, then we are a lot closer to the magic number of 66.7% than we think (given roughly 8% have been infected)

 

I have pretty good reason to believe that natural immunity does exist. I don’t know if it’s anywhere near as high as 50%, but I know people who have repeatedly been exposed to covid and have not become infected despite trying to catch it deliberately. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

An interesting take on herd immunity in a letter to the Guardian.

From what he says about London, I guess that might be proven or not over the new few weeks and months.

Yeah, it's something we have been discussing here for a while. The underlying T-cell mediated immunity looks to be anything from 30-80% in different populations based on a range of studies (no absolute evidence for one or another and may simply vary by population). For a while I've believed that this was the root of the asymptomatic/mild cases. It's certainly the best explanation I've seen yet. As pointed out previously, what's really needed to nail this down is a prospective study linking t-cell profiles to outcome (or alternatively, look at historical blood samples in areas where the virus is spreading a lot and correlate with how patients do when they actually get infected). The other main factor that needs to be looked at with this hypothesis is whether t-cell immunity has much, if any, impact on acquiring and spreading the virus. Many of us have t-cell profiles that recognise other CoVs, but we still pick them up. They don't do much to us, but we can still spread them, so if the above is really true I don't think it will have an impact on cases, but should translate into better outcomes once a threshold is reached in new infections. Of course, the other underlying factor in all of this (should it be true) is that at around the age of 65, the thymus starts to involute (shrink). This is the part of our bodies where t-cells mature. As a result, over 65s have poorer t-cell driven immunity and it worsens the further past 65 you get. Considering over 65 is where fatality and severe disease rates rocket with COVID, it's certainly at the very least a striking coincidence. So, if all this is true, what you would start to see is lots of cases, lots of mild/asymptomatic infections but still hospitalisations and fatalities over 65 (hence, we still need a vaccine of a blockbuster treatment)...only time will tell!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

yeah, I have already sent a little complaining email to my boss...but it is what it is, so I will start going in full time from next Monday. It's a small office, there's only about 10 of us, and we have partitions up to separate work stations, but you know, it increases the risk of spread of infection, especially as a number of us have kids in school too...

Some of us have had no choice to go into work from day 1. 

The right precautions and its the right thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, WestCountryGirl said:

Thanks for your responses all @Ryan1984 @august1 @guypjfreak @Leyrulion

Unfortunately his job is literally to rove around the library, so not much chance of just holing up at his desk! They do seem to have put in a great number of restrictions though. Think it's down to 1/3rd normal capacity - no group studying, no students going to get their own books. Apparently everyone he's had to remind/ask to put their mask back on so far has been polite and compliant. 

I think he was more worried before he went back, he seems okay now that he's seen how it's all set up. Of course, the next few weeks will be the real test. Meanwhile my venturing back onto campus one day a week has been postponed by two weeks, and then I imagine will be postponed again.. (I hope).

That pretty much describes me 2 1/2 months ago as we reopened. Not usually a particularly anxious person but definitely worried about restarting and then it was fine. If anything I felt at the time that some of the measures were too much and we showed a bit too much caution, although with hindsight maybe not. 25 or so staff, and  thousands of guests later and we've not had a single incidence (that we know of. Could be that someone has not reported symptoms of course) so that caution was a good thing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, efcfanwirral said:

No messing in Singapore! 

The problem here at the moment is that the case count is very low (10-15 a day in the workers dorms or mandatory quarantine from airport arrivals with proactive testing, 0-1 what has been termed a “community case”) yet the restrictions are still limited to 5 people max. Managing the restrictions is a tough act but They are only as useful as the compliance with them. The risk here is so low that people are starting to push the boundaries, although the mask etiquette is virtually perfect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

I have pretty good reason to believe that natural immunity does exist. I don’t know if it’s anywhere near as high as 50%, but I know people who have repeatedly been exposed to covid and have not become infected despite trying to catch it deliberately. 

I feel like that's a story worth sharing if possible!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Let’s suppose that the natural R number, in absence of any social distancing regulations and in absence of isolating those who test positive, is 3.0. It could be slightly lower of higher, but in early March before we started being more careful, the epidemic was roughly tripling every 5 days which would imply R is 3.0.

 

That would mean that at least two-thirds of the population needs to be immune for herd immunity to be achieved. 
 

Note that herd immunity doesn’t mean “no one can ever catch it”, it just means that any outbreak will eventually burn itself out because it won’t come into contact with enough susceptible people to infect.

 

You can think of the effective R number as: Natural R x %age of population susceptible 

 

Now if we believe this theory that as many as 50% of people are naturally protected, then we are a lot closer to the magic number of 66.7% than we think (given roughly 8% have been infected)

 

I have pretty good reason to believe that natural immunity does exist. I don’t know if it’s anywhere near as high as 50%, but I know people who have repeatedly been exposed to covid and have not become infected despite trying to catch it deliberately. 

Why on earth would they try to catch it deliberately?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

I feel like that's a story worth sharing if possible!

 

Just now, SheffJeff said:

Why on earth would they try to catch it deliberately?


Covid had made it into a household where five of my friends live together. One person caught it and tested positive, meaning two week isolation for them all. 
 

As with the rest of us, the remaining four were worried about catching it and then spreading it on either to their vulnerable elderly relatives, or into the wider community. It was therefore decided that since they were all isolating together, it was best to try and catch it from the one person who’d brought it in, see out their infection in a controlled environment, then return to the community after recovering safe in the knowledge that they’d had the virus and not spread it.

 

Despite their best efforts, all of the housemates tested negative repeatedly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

 


Covid had made it into a household where five of my friends live together. One person caught it and tested positive, meaning two week isolation for them all. 
 

As with the rest of us, the remaining four were worried about catching it and then spreading it on either to their vulnerable elderly relatives, or into the wider community. It was therefore decided that since they were all isolating together, it was best to try and catch it from the one person who’d brought it in, see out their infection in a controlled environment, then return to the community after recovering safe in the knowledge that they’d had the virus and not spread it.

 

Despite their best efforts, all of the housemates tested negative repeatedly. 

"Best efforts"

All I can think of is a south park episode where they try to make each other ill by spitting in each others mouths.

I hope it didn't come to this...!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JoeyT said:

"Best efforts"

All I can think of is a south park episode where they try to make each other ill by spitting in each others mouths.

I hope it didn't come to this...!

AFAIK this didn’t happen. The “efforts” extended to the infected guy being welcomed as a normal member of the household and sharing meals with them, watching TV on the sofa etc. Basically they didn’t ask him to quarantine in his bedroom. There wasn’t any spitting, but there also wasn’t any distancing.

 

He was an asymptomatic carrier so I wonder if he wasn’t contagious at all. 

Edited by Fuzzy Afro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

 


Covid had made it into a household where five of my friends live together. One person caught it and tested positive, meaning two week isolation for them all. 
 

As with the rest of us, the remaining four were worried about catching it and then spreading it on either to their vulnerable elderly relatives, or into the wider community. It was therefore decided that since they were all isolating together, it was best to try and catch it from the one person who’d brought it in, see out their infection in a controlled environment, then return to the community after recovering safe in the knowledge that they’d had the virus and not spread it.

 

Despite their best efforts, all of the housemates tested negative repeatedly. 

This fits with the data from Wuhan early in in the outbreak, where only 5% of household contacts of cases actually ended up testing positive.  How symptomatic was the infected individual in this case? I think one of the interesting questions is, what is it about super-spreaders that leads to massive infection levels, while in many other cases, only a small fraction of close contacts end up being infected. There are anecdotal reports of super-spreaders being asymptomatic, so there's got to be some reason to explain it!

 

Edit: Ah, I see you just posted the infected individual was asymptomatic...

Edited by Toilet Duck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Toilet Duck said:

This fits with the data from Wuhan early in in the outbreak, where only 5% of household contacts of cases actually ended up testing positive.  How symptomatic was the infected individual in this case? I think one of the interesting questions is, what is it about super-spreaders that leads to massive infection levels, while in many other cases, only a small fraction of close contacts end up being infected. There are anecdotal reports of super-spreaders being asymptomatic, so there's got to be some reason to explain it!

This guy was asymptomatic, but caught it from someone who was pre-symptomatic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
    • 1, The Menzingers- Everything I Ever Saw 2, Quicksand- Bring On The Psychics 3, Radkey- Bedroom Sand  
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...