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

Just now, parsonjack said:

....or the pointless ones as an absolute minimum.

The ones that annoy me are where people press reply all or send emails that aren’t relevant to yourself. 
 

The amount of time wasted by reading unnecessary emails is staggering. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody is going to social distance in their family members’ homes on Christmas Day. Nobody. People can insist that they will all they like but they won’t be able to for the whole day. Someone will get up to go to the toilet, nip out for a cigarette, go to grab the bowl of spuds and end up closer to their family members than they should.
 

Someone will be leaning against the counter top in the kitchen having a glass of wine without a mask on, touch their face, put their glass of wine down on the side. Someone else will touch that surface later on forgetting that the other person was there earlier and didn’t wipe down the area with sanitiser. 
 

It is a fallacy to say that you will ensure that your day is as ‘COVID secure’ as it can be. It won’t be. If you’re ‘willing to risk things for one day’ just say that and don’t pretend that you’re going to be as careful and safe as you would in say, most pubs, which are set up with strict measures to ensure that things are as close to safe as they can be. 
 

For what it’s worth, I totally understand people wanting to see family on Christmas, I’m not called Ebenezer. I personally won’t be and will be having Christmas with just myself and my partner but I know people I love will be going round to other people’s houses. I might not agree with it but I’m not going to shout at them about it. It’s going to happen with or without the rules saying it’s ok to do so. 

Edited by Andre91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

We had 33000 cases reported last Thursday so let’s hope there’s no similar reporting lag this week. I’d like to see at least 1/3 of them drop out of the 7 day average today. 

My hope is that we drop into the 18,000 range ..... based on yesterdays   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they come out and announce that households are not permitted to mix, then we would have to be in a full lockdown for it to be effective and people comply with. Otherwise many will have an attitude of ‘if you can go the pub then I’m going to see my mum’. And this is when it becomes a free for all. 

Ultimately i think it comes down to four possible options over the Christmas period:

1. Lockdown (pubs, bars, restaurants all closed) and no housing mixing. 

2. Lockdown (pubs, bars, restaurants all closed) but household mixing permitted for x number of days. 

3. No lockdown (pubs, bars, restaurants all open) and no household mixing. 

4. No lockdown (pubs, bars, restaurants all open) and household mixing permitted for x number of days. 


Obviously number 4 is the nightmare scenario for containing the virus and I’m hoping won’t be the case.

Number 1 is the ideal for restricting spread of the virus, but will not be met well by the public - the backlash could get nasty. 

Number 3 would not work (for the point i raised above), so I think the only possible and sensible option they have left is for number 2, with strict guidelines around this being only two households, and will only be relaxed for 3-5 days.

I think this would be an acceptable compromise for many given the circumstances, and hopefully means people can enjoy Christmas with their families, and the spread of the virus can remain somewhat contained. Obviously those who are most vulnerable and those who don’t want to take any risks can plan their own Christmas’ contained to just their household if they feel safer in doing so. 

Edited by st dan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

Meanwhile ... I hope to see you all in June ... who would have thought a few days back I was encouraging people to stay away as much as possible and limit the family trips !!

7F8F5BF1-659F-4811-B545-7A661D349BD2.jpeg

I think they've completely manipulated the reporting of that data - it's completely missing homes. and therefore making the child -> parent transmission again sound like its not happening

Most people go to supermarkets so they would be high on where they've been, but the schools being 2nd and 3rd will be what's actually giving them the illness. Test and trace only deals with public spaces.  

These sorts of things do seem to be released for a reason by the government so are we looking at more draconian supermarket rules?

Edited by efcfanwirral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, efcfanwirral said:

I think they've completely manipulated the reporting of that data - it's completely missing homes. and therefore making the child -> parent transmission again sound like its not happening

Most people go to supermarkets so they would be high, but the schools being 2nd and 3rd will be what's actually giving them the illness. Test and trace only deals with public spaces.  

These sorts of things do seem to be released for a reason by the government (and test and trace of course) so are we looking at more draconian supermarket rules?

Maybe and let’s hope so !! I’ve been banging on about queue restrictions being reimposed for the last week :( 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

Maybe and let’s hope so !! I’ve been banging on about queue restrictions being reimposed for the last week :( 

honestly I wouldn't worry - the holes in the way they've presented that data in the article is astounding. and they've actually presented it as "supermarkets are where people are catching it", which is so unlikely to be true.

It's as if they're setting it up for people going shopping "too much" as being the reason they need to have Christmas restrictions or something like that. And maybe to make "NHS" Test and Trace look like its doing something after Starmer's attack yesterday

Your anecdotal evidence from earlier makes MUCH more sense than this 

Edited by efcfanwirral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Spot on.

 

I don’t know how climate change can be managed. My gut feeling is the best approach is to let it happen then adapt our living habits to deal with the new climate. But the ordinary little guy can’t do much about it. It’s up to governments sorting out the polluters.

Thank christ your gut isn't in charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

honestly I wouldn't worry - the holes in the way they've presented that data in the article is astounding. and they've actually presented it as "supermarkets are where people are catching it", which is so unlikely to be true.

It's as if they're setting it up for people going shopping "too much" as being the reason they need to have Christmas restrictions or something like that. 

Your anecdotal evidence from earlier makes MUCH more sense than this 

yep .. I do worry though after the scenes last Sat ... I guess the apprehension is there in many jobs in fairness ... I do think that it needs to be looked at though ... supermarkets do seem to able to get away with having no number restrictions and smaller shops seem to have limits .... not quite sure what the law is on this , ive been trying to research it  any ideas anyone ? might fall in Environmental health ? doesnt seem to fall in HSE remit ... the smaller stores in my company now seem to have limits but the larger stores dont ..... 

Edited by crazyfool1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

honestly I wouldn't worry - the holes in the way they've presented that data in the article is astounding. and they've actually presented it as "supermarkets are where people are catching it", which is so unlikely to be true.

It's as if they're setting it up for people going shopping "too much" as being the reason they need to have Christmas restrictions or something like that. And maybe to make "NHS" Test and Trace look like its doing something after Starmer's attack yesterday

Your anecdotal evidence from earlier makes MUCH more sense than this 

Could be that it’s the place most likely for people to catch the virus as it’s the places that are open the most?

Edited by Ozanne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Could be that it’s the place most likely for people to catch the virus as it’s the places that are open the most?

And because for lots of people, it's the only place they go. For those people, it is of course the most likely place they'll catch it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The data is taken from the first week of lockdown and supermarkets are pretty much the only indoor places most people are going, because we've eliminated stuff like pubs and bars. (It's also a lot easier for people to lie and say they've been to the supermarket when they've actually been mingling within households).

It's irresponsible reporting to frame it as high risk/higher risk than normal, but this is the UK media so whatever gets clicks and shares wins.

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

    • Restore getting more than Lib Dems is not good.
    • https://x.com/amirtibon/status/2083054470871535853   Some thoughts on the Gaza agreement announced overnight, which despite my reservations and concerns, I hope will be implemented. 1. Donald Trump is trying to collect "wins" and "achievements" ahead of the midterm elections. His party is entering that election at a disadvantage, but because Democrats may choose weak and unpopular candidates in specific states, much like Republicans did in 2022, there's a reason for Trump to at least try achieving a surprising result like the one Biden secured four years ago.   2. The will to provide Trump such a "win" was an important motivation for all sides involved in this agreement: Hamas, Netanyahu, Qatar, Egypt, UAE and Turkey. All of them hope, each for their own reasons, that the transactional president will remember their role in the agreement and the positive media coverage it has generated and will continue to generate. You can like it or not, but that's the nature of diplomacy, especially in the Middle East, under Trump.   3. Netanyahu and his band of liars in the Israeli media (and the last few suckers in the American media still buying his spin) are already trying to oversell the agreement and present it in terms that contradict the Board of Peace statements and briefings. Of course, the October 7 Prime Minister can't just say the truth on this one, which goes something like: "I'm trying to stay on good terms with Trump ahead of an election here in Israel that will determine my personal fate and whether or not I go to jail in 2027."   4. For Hamas, the agreement is a way to buy time and survive, which is basically the organization's overarching goal since October 7. They lost most of their leadership and thousands of their fighters; they will also, I believe, give up some of their weapons to the new Gaza-based Palestinian government, which is a good thing. But at the bottom of all their decisions is a simple calculation: being able to say, "we committed the most deadly and humiliating attack against Israel since the start of the conflict, and survived as a movement and an organization to tell about it."   5. Hamas was able to say that yesterday, before the agreement was signed, and it can also say that today, after the conclusion of the negotiations. So in that regard, the agreement is preferable to the murky post-war reality that preceded it, in which Hamas was recruiting again thousands of young fighters, holding on to all its weapons, and controlling 99% of Gaza's population, making money off people buying fuel and cigarettes. Changing even a part of that terrible reality, by collecting some of the weapons and allowing progress on reconstruction under a non-Hamas government, is better. It means coming to terms with the fact that Israel under this government failed to dismantle Hamas and allowed its survival even before this agreement was signed.   6. Do I think the agreement will be fully implemented over the next 300 days, as I understand the timeline? I'm highly skeptical. But I'm also asking: what are the alternatives? Netanyahu, in his quest for political survival at all costs, ignored David Ben-Gurion's national security strategy of seeking short and decisive wars, which was based on Israel's unique internal and external challenges that make it dangerous for this country to have long wars of attrition. The result is an Israel that is hated, isolated and denounced around the world like never before, and is totally reliant on the support of one man (TRUMP) to avoid crushing international sanctions. Going to war in Gaza once again based on the same promise of "finishing Hamas," which this government failed to achieve after three long years, would have been suicidal unless Trump promised his full backing. And Trump, for good reasons, can't give such a commitment after his bitter experience with Netanyahu in Iran and Lebanon.   7. For me and my family, these are all very personal, not only political, questions. My six-year-old daughter will start school on the Gaza border in exactly one month, as we rebuild our life in the same home where Hamas tried to murder us on October 7. We've learned over the years to be highly skeptical of premature victory announcements and diplomatic celebrations. When these things collapse under the cynical realities of the conflict, most of those announcing them are not around to face the consequences. Still, I don't see a better alternative to the 20-Point Plan that Trump presented last year, at least not with Israel's current position of isolation and exhaustion under this government. So I have some hope that the agreement will succeed, even partially, and deliver a period of quiet. For us on the border, that would be significant after three years of war and trauma. And maybe in the long run, with different Israeli and Palestinian leadership, this will become a first step in a broader positive change for the region.
    • Until they're through the first round of votes there's no point believing any reports about who'll win.
    • David Byrne’s obviously got a few hits to play, but he’s not cheesy enough for the Legend Slot. Other headliner perhaps?
    • Too good for the legends slot 
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...