When will this shit end?

[zahidf]

5 minutes ago, Cream Soda said:

It doesn't matter how many times we play, the odds will still be the same - 1/1700 (and hopefully dropping all the time).  Not a fair comparison saying if you pick the red card you die either - even if you come across that 1/1700 with the virus it doesn't necessarily mean you will catch it.  And if you catch it, it doesn't mean you will die - far from it.    

If you get the red card, you have get another red card to catch it, then another red card to get symptoms, and then another red card to die from it. 

[Mouseboy11]

9 hours ago, FestivalJamie said:

Following current government legislation, if cinemas set up seating distances to 2m between groups, then wearing a mask in a personal choice of the visitor.

If the government changes legislation and changes the law that masks are compulsory in indoor spaces, cinema chains will have no choice but to enforce this rule. 

Reducing the distance from 2m to 1m with compulsory face masks means the cinema chains can sell double the seats per screen. This will create more revenue than selling some popcorn or sodas.

 

Unlikely to be the case, cinemas make very little from ticket sales and the majority of it is from popcorn etc, hence the insane markup on their price. Cinema chains are going to be keen to not enforce mask wearing.

[Ozanne]

20 minutes ago, zahidf said:

? its a lords committe, so answering questions from people on the committe

I know, I was joking 😂

[steviewevie]

Intu are on the brink of going into administration and may have to close its shopping centres like Trafford Centre and Lakeside...so that will help stop the virus spreading.....and also put a lot of people out of work.

[stuartbert two hats]

19 minutes ago, Cream Soda said:

It doesn't matter how many times we play, the odds will still be the same - 1/1700 (and hopefully dropping all the time).  Not a fair comparison saying if you pick the red card you die either - even if you come across that 1/1700 with the virus it doesn't necessarily mean you will catch it.  And if you catch it, it doesn't mean you will die - far from it.    

If you pick the red card, then you have to pick another card out of 100. Then you do die if you get the red one.

[zahidf]

Just now, stuartbert two hats said:

If you pick the red card, then you have to pick another card out of 100. Then you do die if you get the red one.

Nah, you have to pick 4 red cards in a row ( exposure, catching it, symptoms, death)

[Cream Soda]

3 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

If you pick the red card, then you have to pick another card out of 100. Then you do die if you get the red one.

But then you have to factor in the things that make people die (age, conditions, etc).  A young/healthy person doesn't have a 1/100 chance of death.

[zahidf]

TBH, i think make masks mandatory and open up with some social distancing. Lock down isn't economically feasible anymore. Get track and trace up to scratch is the number 1 priority now

[Toilet Duck]

29 minutes ago, Cream Soda said:

It doesn't matter how many times we play, the odds will still be the same - 1/1700 (and hopefully dropping all the time).  Not a fair comparison saying if you pick the red card you die either - even if you come across that 1/1700 with the virus it doesn't necessarily mean you will catch it.  And if you catch it, it doesn't mean you will die - far from it.    

When evaluating risk in this case, it’s not entirely about you though (I don’t mean you personally, but you, the individual). The more people who think, I like those odds and abandon any sense of personal responsibility, the sooner it gets back to exponential growth and those odds come down and pretty quickly. The odds aren’t fixed, they get lower the more people play. Social responsibility is the key to defeating this. Thankfully, even though the message has been a bit garbled, much of society seems to have twigged this and it has worked to an extent (for comparison, odds of currently catching the virus via community transmission in Ireland are closer to 1 in a million). I know it’s hard to keep up restrictions, but we’re nearly there! As individuals we can behave in a socially responsible way, take what we’ve learned over the last few months and reduce the risk of others getting sick (and by extension, ourselves too as the overall prevalence of the virus in the community continues to drop). Doesn’t mean we can’t start to open up society again, far from it, but there will be modifications for a while (it will pass though, it won’t last forever). 

Edited June 23, 2020 by Toilet Duck

[Cream Soda]

1 minute ago, Toilet Duck said:

When evaluating risk in this case, it’s not entirely about you though (I don’t mean you personally, but you, the individual). The more people who think, I like those odds and abandon any sense of personal responsibility, the sooner it gets back to exponential growth and those odds come down and pretty quickly. The odds aren’t fixed, they get lower the more people play. Social responsibility is the key to defeating this. Thankfully, even though the message has been a bit garbled, much of society seems to have twigged this and it has worked to an extent (for comparison, odds of currently catching the virus via community transmission in Ireland are closer to 1 in a million). I know it’s hard to keep up restrictions, but we’re nearly there! As individuals we can behave in a socially responsible way, take what we’ve learned over the last few months and reduce the risk of others getting sick (and by extension, ourselves too as the overall prevalence of the virus in the community continues to drop). Doesn’t mean we can’t start to open up society again, far from it, but there will be modifications for a while (it will pass though, it won’t last forever). 

I'm not suggesting anyone does that.  But I think it's right that we let our anxiety levels reduce a little bit proportionately to the level of risk or we will all end up nervous wrecks. 

[Neil]

23 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Intu are on the brink of going into administration and may have to close its shopping centres like Trafford Centre and Lakeside...so that will help stop the virus spreading.....and also put a lot of people out of work.

Unlikely an administrator would close the centres, as that makes the business worth much less. Much more likely they'd be kept open and a buyer found.

[squirrelarmy]

35 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Intu are on the brink of going into administration and may have to close its shopping centres like Trafford Centre and Lakeside...so that will help stop the virus spreading.....and also put a lot of people out of work.

I’ve found an article saying that they were struggling to stay afloat in March before the lockdown even came in. No wonder they are struggling now. 
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51851791

[Superscally]

On 6/21/2020 at 3:02 PM, squirrelarmy said:

Anyone seen the government’s new plan for harvesting personal data since their app idea was thrown down the long drop?

The new plan is to force people to register online that they are going to the pub so they can be contacted in the case of a localised outbreak. 
 

This is going to kill the already damaged hospitality industry. 

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-lockdown-easing-on-track-and-you-may-have-to-register-before-going-to-the-pub-12011686

If you think the government need something like this to harvest data, you're a bit sheltered. They've got all of that already. This is innocent enough in my opinion. It's COVID related, not 1984-tastic

[Superscally]

On 6/22/2020 at 10:28 AM, SouthbanKen said:

I respect you as a solid regular poster on this forum, so i mean no offense when i say this, but, ... "honeymooniversary" That type of nonsense can get right in the bin. Your going on a holiday mate, nothing more, nothing less. 

It's purely an excuse for another holiday. I have to use what I can get man. She's as likely to get hammered as me. Trust me, our wedding was free booze carnage for all. We still on? 🤞

[zero000]

Really interesting data from the ONS when you dig down into it. Wales is reporting no excess deaths in week 24, whilst every region in England except the north east recorded excess deaths. 
 

Hardly a ringing endorsement of Boris’ quick lockdown easing. 

[Toilet Duck]

5 minutes ago, Cream Soda said:

I'm not suggesting anyone does that.  But I think it's right that we let our anxiety levels reduce a little bit proportionately to the level of risk or we will all end up nervous wrecks. 

Oh I know, I do understand. I do think things could be explained in a way that is a bit more reassuring. I think if the guidance was “look, we’ve suppressed this to a point where is is a lot less likely that you will become infected, we can make things much safer if we all wear a mask indoors for a couple of months, we now have a watertight system for identifying outbreaks and isolating cases and we have an expanding range of proven treatments to help you if you do get very ill”, then people might feel a bit better about it. The only part of the above that’s a work in progress is the bit related to identifying outbreaks, everything else is true (we could do with more treatments, but options are a lot better now and we can even identify people early who will benefit from specific types of therapy). The difficulty is getting people to keep up some level of modification to our normal behaviour to see us safely out the other side of this. There’s two ways of doing that...level with people and hope they trust you enough to go along with you...or scare them into it. Some parts of the world have managed it the first way, others have chosen the latter (some haven’t managed it at all!).

My advice is to take the steps you are comfortable with. If you see a situation that you think is risky, avoid it if you can. It’s entirely natural to be a bit anxious about all of this, it’s a once in a lifetime disruption of our normal lives, and readjusting is difficult. There’s plenty to be reassured about though and I honestly don’t think we will end up back where we were in March/April again (it would be a monumental f*ck up if we did, given we know so much more now). 

[SouthbanKen]

4 minutes ago, Superscally said:

It's purely an excuse for another holiday. I have to use what I can get man. She's as likely to get hammered as me. Trust me, our wedding was free booze carnage for all. We still on? 🤞

As long as i don't see a post from said holiday with the phrase #couplegoals then we can all agree to move on and not mention this unsavoury incident again. 

[Superscally]

2 minutes ago, SouthbanKen said:

As long as i don't see a post from said holiday with the phrase #couplegoals then we can all agree to move on and not mention this unsavoury incident again. 

Not a chance. @Homer will testify to that. 

[zahidf]

12 minutes ago, zero000 said:

Really interesting data from the ONS when you dig down into it. Wales is reporting no excess deaths in week 24, whilst every region in England except the north east recorded excess deaths. 
 

Hardly a ringing endorsement of Boris’ quick lockdown easing. 

TBF its a lot reduced from last month. So i dont think the lockdown easing has had much to do with things

[steviewevie]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/23/fugaku-worlds-fastest-supercomputer-searches-for-coronavirus-treatment

[steviewevie]

[steviewevie]

 

[km9]

29 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

I wonder if the big gap before Bowie is to allow us to all get over the shuddering disappointment of George Ezra?

[km9]

1 hour ago, Toilet Duck said:

Oh I know, I do understand. I do think things could be explained in a way that is a bit more reassuring. I think if the guidance was “look, we’ve suppressed this to a point where is is a lot less likely that you will become infected, we can make things much safer if we all wear a mask indoors for a couple of months, we now have a watertight system for identifying outbreaks and isolating cases and we have an expanding range of proven treatments to help you if you do get very ill”, then people might feel a bit better about it. The only part of the above that’s a work in progress is the bit related to identifying outbreaks, everything else is true (we could do with more treatments, but options are a lot better now and we can even identify people early who will benefit from specific types of therapy). The difficulty is getting people to keep up some level of modification to our normal behaviour to see us safely out the other side of this. There’s two ways of doing that...level with people and hope they trust you enough to go along with you...or scare them into it. Some parts of the world have managed it the first way, others have chosen the latter (some haven’t managed it at all!).

My advice is to take the steps you are comfortable with. If you see a situation that you think is risky, avoid it if you can. It’s entirely natural to be a bit anxious about all of this, it’s a once in a lifetime disruption of our normal lives, and readjusting is difficult. There’s plenty to be reassured about though and I honestly don’t think we will end up back where we were in March/April again (it would be a monumental f*ck up if we did, given we know so much more now). 

Back on topic though... unfortunately the government can't speak like that. Too many people NEED to be told exactly what they can and can't do.

[DeanoL]

2 hours ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

Was taking to some friends about immunity and not knowing how long it lasts (likely a year or so) But given the majority of people are asymptomatic how does that work? If you’re asymptomatic then your body dealt without without you even knowing, so whether you then become immune or not is surely to an extent irrelevant? They virus has been shown to be fairly stable and doesn’t mutate much, so if you dealt with it first time, why would you not deal with it just as well second time, immunity or no immunity? 

Might well be the issue with symptoms being worse with increased viral load?

2 hours ago, Cream Soda said:

It doesn't matter how many times we play, the odds will still be the same - 1/1700 (and hopefully dropping all the time).  Not a fair comparison saying if you pick the red card you die either - even if you come across that 1/1700 with the virus it doesn't necessarily mean you will catch it.  And if you catch it, it doesn't mean you will die - far from it.    

My point was first time is odds of catching it, second game (if you lose the first one) is odds of dying from it. Yeah, you're very. very unlikely to catch it. That's been the case for the entire time this has been going on, unless you work in hospitals or go around licking door handles.

Problem is there's a not insignificant chance of you dying if you do catch it.

1 hour ago, Cream Soda said:

But then you have to factor in the things that make people die (age, conditions, etc).  A young/healthy person doesn't have a 1/100 chance of death.

Well yeah, but by that argument, you have to factor that into the initial 1 in 1700 figure. Because people going out and meeting people are more likely to catch it. And if you go out at meet people, by definition you'll be meeting people that go out and meet people. You won't be meeting people that stay at home and don't meet people, so almost definitely don't have it.

The whole "1 in 1700 people you meet" thing was nonsense from the start, I was just trying to demonstrate what it looks like if you follow that logic through.