When will this shit end?

[FestivalJamie 151]

9 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

And we wouldn't expect the measures to have started to kick in until the last couple of days.

Hmmm whilst rule of 6 might do something to reduce viral transmissions, I can't see the curfew having any positive effects. I imagine the rate of doubling sits at 8-9 days anyway and has been pretty consistent, we have just seen fluctuations due to the testing backlog.

[Toilet Duck 971]

19 minutes ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

I'm sure the pub wasn't the only place they went in the 7 days preceding a positive test though... 

No, of course not. Restaurants and other places where people congregate indoors too. The main difference with workplaces is that it’s just a bit more difficult to maintain social distancing, masks are off to eat and drink and until we know for sure what role airborne transmission plays, I’d consider them high risk (I want pubs, gigs, clubs etc open again as much as anyone btw)...

edit: @stuartbert two hats posted the comparison between NYC and Madrid previously...it’s pretty striking. Indoor dining restarts in NYC this week...let’s see how it goes.

Edited September 27, 2020 by Toilet Duck

[zahidf 658]

Too sexy for a mask

 

[RobertProsineckisLighter 195]

5 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

No, of course not. Restaurants and other places where people congregate indoors too. The main difference with workplaces is that it’s just a bit more difficult to maintain social distancing, masks are off to eat and drink and until we know for sure what role airborne transmission plays, I’d consider them high risk (I want pubs, gigs, clubs etc open again as much as anyone btw)...

I completely agree - but if you close pubs and restaurants something else moves to top of the list and you then have calls to close them to and that can't carry on forever. That's just a one way ticket back to lockdown.

Closing pubs and other hospitality will just force people to socialise elsewhere and in the winter in the UK that's going to be people's homes and to me that's more risky as it's an unregulated place. 

[ace56blaa 134]

2 minutes ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

I completely agree - but if you close pubs and restaurants something else moves to top of the list and you then have calls to close them to and that can't carry on forever. That's just a one way ticket back to lockdown.

Closing pubs and other hospitality will just force people to socialise elsewhere and in the winter in the UK that's going to be people's homes and to me that's more risky as it's an unregulated place. 

Not if the measure works?????

If we sure cases lower because of shutting pubs, there wouldn't be a need to close anything else. - The problem we have faced over summer is that the government kept reopen stuff in quick succession, even after the chief scientist said we shouldn't open anything else.

[Toilet Duck 971]

10 minutes ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

I completely agree - but if you close pubs and restaurants something else moves to top of the list and you then have calls to close them to and that can't carry on forever. That's just a one way ticket back to lockdown.

Closing pubs and other hospitality will just force people to socialise elsewhere and in the winter in the UK that's going to be people's homes and to me that's more risky as it's an unregulated place. 

To be honest, the aim of all the restrictions is to limit contacts. The way the restrictions are organised, still allows significant different contacts, just not at the same time (but you could meet quite a few people within the rules over the course of 5 days, which is the average time it takes someone to develop symptoms and seek a test). Having a core “bubble” (for want of a better word) that you see and don’t mix with anyone else would actually limit contacts much better. Many people are doing this anyway, but it relies on a degree of personal responsibility and your government doesn’t seem to think you can be trusted! (Neither does ours as it happens!)...

Edit: though to be fair, the CMO here has changed his message in the last week or so to say, meet half the people you were planning on meeting this week, so I guess some element of the above is creeping into their thinking...

Edited September 27, 2020 by Toilet Duck

[oneeye 1,136]

17 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Too sexy for a mask

 

Deeply dipstick 

[crazyfool1 3,507]

9 minutes ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

I completely agree - but if you close pubs and restaurants something else moves to top of the list and you then have calls to close them to and that can't carry on forever. That's just a one way ticket back to lockdown.

Closing pubs and other hospitality will just force people to socialise elsewhere and in the winter in the UK that's going to be people's homes and to me that's more risky as it's an unregulated place. 

you close something until the r goes below 1 .... we have tipped it in favour of the virus now we need to tip it back again ... closing pubs might also cause people not to mingle with groups of strangers .... or even not meet up at all ? many times I used to meet my friends for a quiet drink at the pub .... that now just doesnt happen and it hasn't moved to anyones house either .... maybe my group of friends are just unique in this .....

[RobertProsineckisLighter 195]

5 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

To be honest, the aim of all the restrictions is to limit contacts. The way the restrictions are organised, still allows significant different contacts, just not at the same time (but you could meet quite a few people within the rules over the course of 5 days, which is the average time it takes someone to develop symptoms and seek a test). Having a core “bubble” (for want of a better word) that you see and don’t mix with anyone else would actually limit contacts much better. Many people are doing this anyway, but it relies on a degree of personal responsibility and your government doesn’t seem to think you can be trusted! (Neither does ours as it happens!)...

Edit: though to be fair, the CMO here has changed his message in the last week or so to say, meet half the people you were planning on meeting this week, so I guess some element of the above is creeping into their thinking...

That makes far more sense to me that destroying the entire hospitality industry and the consequences of that! 

I understand the logic of closing the pubs to reduce the R number, but if it comes down you then have no route back to reopening. Another spike comes along then what do you do? To my mind the longer you can leave places open the more 'tools' you have at your disposal, a gradual change to the rules let's you find the sweet spot of what's working surely? 

Closing places is like a switch where what we really need is a dial that we can turn up and down depending on the situation. 

It's easy to say close this close that but it feels like there is a percentage of people gagging for lockdown 2.0 and that's not viable for economic reasons which are important if we want a functioning society (and health service) going forward. We have to learn to live with it as safely as possible and find out what measures are working not just revert to lockdown every time numbers get to a level. 

[steviewevie 473]

7 minutes ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

That makes far more sense to me that destroying the entire hospitality industry and the consequences of that! 

I understand the logic of closing the pubs to reduce the R number, but if it comes down you then have no route back to reopening. Another spike comes along then what do you do? To my mind the longer you can leave places open the more 'tools' you have at your disposal, a gradual change to the rules let's you find the sweet spot of what's working surely? 

Closing places is like a switch where what we really need is a dial that we can turn up and down depending on the situation. 

It's easy to say close this close that but it feels like there is a percentage of people gagging for lockdown 2.0 and that's not viable for economic reasons which are important if we want a functioning society (and health service) going forward. We have to learn to live with it as safely as possible and find out what measures are working not just revert to lockdown every time numbers get to a level. 

yeah, I don't know...think I agree with this. Hate to bring up Sweden, but they have kept pubs/restaurants open, but with similar social distancing restrictions to what we have. Not saying what Sweden has done is correct or anything, but maybe being consistent instead of lockdown down then opening up again, and again etc,  is a better way as we go forward?

[WestCountryGirl 230]

58 minutes ago, Copperface said:

Close family at Uni in Liverpool.

This sounds ominous:

 

https://twitter.com/DPH_MAshton/status/1310249171425865731?s=20

What I don't get is that apparently numbers in Liverpool are spiking and crazy, but I'm not seeing it mentioned in the news in the same way that the 'outbreaks' (unsure of precise terminology) around Leicester, or Leeds or Manchester were.

Maybe I'm remembering wrongly but I seem to recall these being lead stories on the news sites. I can't see anything out there about Liverpool's situation.

I live in Liverpool, and I don't use Twitter. If it weren't for this thread or going to actively check the numbers for my area elsewhere on the internet, I wouldn't be aware that Liverpool is in a particularly bad way. I have to hope that a large portion of the local population are reading the Echo website because otherwise this message isn't getting out there.

[Fuzzy Afro 50]

24 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

To be honest, the aim of all the restrictions is to limit contacts. The way the restrictions are organised, still allows significant different contacts, just not at the same time (but you could meet quite a few people within the rules over the course of 5 days, which is the average time it takes someone to develop symptoms and seek a test). Having a core “bubble” (for want of a better word) that you see and don’t mix with anyone else would actually limit contacts much better. Many people are doing this anyway, but it relies on a degree of personal responsibility and your government doesn’t seem to think you can be trusted! (Neither does ours as it happens!)...

Edit: though to be fair, the CMO here has changed his message in the last week or so to say, meet half the people you were planning on meeting this week, so I guess some element of the above is creeping into their thinking...

Segregating society into exclusive bubbles would be a great way to manage it. Of course, that’s effectively what has happened if you have no inter-household mixing. But then say you allow two households to then bubble with each other (any two households, not just single adult households). Then once you are sure you don’t have covid in this bubble, you can bubble with another 2 households. Then you could all of a sudden have 15-20 people in a big bubble.

 

The issue with bubbles is that it’s completely unenforceable with the level of state surveillance infrastructure we have in the UK. You’d need some kind of national database where you register the members of your bubble, so that you can prove to the police that you’re allowed to socialise with a particular person. In the absence of that, it’d be very easy to blag that the person you happen to be caught with on any given day is a bubble member. 

[crazyfool1 3,507]

9 minutes ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

That makes far more sense to me that destroying the entire hospitality industry and the consequences of that! 

I understand the logic of closing the pubs to reduce the R number, but if it comes down you then have no route back to reopening. Another spike comes along then what do you do? To my mind the longer you can leave places open the more 'tools' you have at your disposal, a gradual change to the rules let's you find the sweet spot of what's working surely? 

Closing places is like a switch where what we really need is a dial that we can turn up and down depending on the situation. 

It's easy to say close this close that but it feels like there is a percentage of people gagging for lockdown 2.0 and that's not viable for economic reasons which are important if we want a functioning society (and health service) going forward. We have to learn to live with it as safely as possible and find out what measures are working not just revert to lockdown every time numbers get to a level. 

to counter that though if you leave it too long ... you might need to tip the balance further by closing something else that previously wasn't necessary... I dont want lockdown 2 or anything close to it .... but some areas are spiralling ridiculously and current measures aren't enough .... smaller measures now might prevent more damaging longer term measures ... tough decisions though 

[steviewevie 473]

32 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

To be honest, the aim of all the restrictions is to limit contacts. The way the restrictions are organised, still allows significant different contacts, just not at the same time (but you could meet quite a few people within the rules over the course of 5 days, which is the average time it takes someone to develop symptoms and seek a test). Having a core “bubble” (for want of a better word) that you see and don’t mix with anyone else would actually limit contacts much better. Many people are doing this anyway, but it relies on a degree of personal responsibility and your government doesn’t seem to think you can be trusted! (Neither does ours as it happens!)...

Edit: though to be fair, the CMO here has changed his message in the last week or so to say, meet half the people you were planning on meeting this week, so I guess some element of the above is creeping into their thinking...

but how do you do this bubble thing with schools open, work places open etc?

[crazyfool1 3,507]

7 minutes ago, WestCountryGirl said:

What I don't get is that apparently numbers in Liverpool are spiking and crazy, but I'm not seeing it mentioned in the news in the same way that the 'outbreaks' (unsure of precise terminology) around Leicester, or Leeds or Manchester were.

Maybe I'm remembering wrongly but I seem to recall these being lead stories on the news sites. I can't see anything out there about Liverpool's situation.

I live in Liverpool, and I don't use Twitter. If it weren't for this thread or going to actively check the numbers for my area elsewhere on the internet, I wouldn't be aware that Liverpool is in a particularly bad way. I have to hope that a large portion of the local population are reading the Echo website because otherwise this message isn't getting out there.

ive actually just been sent that info about Liverpool from a friend who's on here  ? any thoughts on why its got so bad there ?  

[Toilet Duck 971]

4 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

but how do you do this bubble thing with schools open, work places open etc?

Basically you have to trust the mitigation measures put in place outside the bubble. There’s no simple answer unfortunately (otherwise I presume we’d have done it by now!). Enforcing it via surveillance is not the answer really, and really not the kind of place any of us would like to live. For all that I think Sweden let their old folk down, the collective responsibility they have shown has helped them to a degree (of course that’s easier with Scandinavian style social support). 

[steviewevie 473]

Lockdowners v libertarians: Britain’s coronavirus divide

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/27/lockdowners-v-libertarians-britain-coronavirus-divide

which one are you?

[Copperface 174]

8 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

ive actually just been sent that info about Liverpool from a friend who's on here  ? any thoughts on why its got so bad there ?  

A significant factor (but maybe not the only one) is the return of students (as per Manchester and Glasgow).

[WestCountryGirl 230]

8 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

ive actually just been sent that info about Liverpool from a friend who's on here  ? any thoughts on why its got so bad there ?  

I really can't account for it myself. Looking through that twitter thread though, cases are rising in the 65+ group, so it's not just due to the young.

I've been out for a few meals to restaurants in the different suburban boroughs but haven't ventured into the city centre. I imagine though that Liverpool's night out culture must be a factor. A friend noted that when she walked through town two weekends ago, there seemed to be a lot of tourists from elsewhere in the UK, I guess having visited in lieu of going abroad maybe, so it's been plenty busy as usual.

[crazyfool1 3,507]

1 minute ago, Copperface said:

A significant factor (but maybe not the only one) is the return of students (as per Manchester and Glasgow).

I wonder if they will get some kind of  herd immunity amongst them and the cases will begin to drop .... problem being that the  spread to the wider community needs to be contained ... 

[steviewevie 473]

13 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

ive actually just been sent that info about Liverpool from a friend who's on here  ? any thoughts on why its got so bad there ?  

lots of spit flying about due to scouse accent?

[stuartbert two hats 4,741]

48 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

you close something until the r goes below 1 .... we have tipped it in favour of the virus now we need to tip it back again ... closing pubs might also cause people not to mingle with groups of strangers .... or even not meet up at all ? many times I used to meet my friends for a quiet drink at the pub .... that now just doesnt happen and it hasn't moved to anyones house either .... maybe my group of friends are just unique in this .....

I think it may be an age thing maybe if you're on your teens or twenties and accustomed to going out at least once or twice a week, once the pubs have shut, you'll hunt around for somewhere else to go. If you're a 40-odd year old like me, then you just stay in until the virus goes away.

[crazyfool1 3,507]

1 minute ago, stuartbert two hats said:

I think it may be an age thing maybe if you're on your teens or twenties and accustomed to going out at least once or twice a week, once the pubs have shut, you'll hunt around for somewhere else to go. If you're a 40-odd year old like me, then you just stay in until the virus goes away.

yep I agree that an age thing is involved but quite a lot of teens still live at home with parents so I also think the chances of them having these out of  group meetings drinking  with parents about during a pandemic would be limited .... the ones at uni might be more of a significant impact of course 

[squirrelarmy 812]

11 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

lots of spit flying about due to scouse accent?

Eh eh calm down calm down. 

[Sawdusty Surfer 1,750]

Damn, was so looking forward to rocking the milennium in these dark times and completely missed it.

Story of my life.

First thought was, hey, got 2000 to look forward to but bollocks to that...love to think that this thread will have faded into the mists of time long before we get there. 

It's all shit at the mo, just been to an strange Bottomless Brunch in Bristol for daught #2's significant birthday. Was safe, odd but lovely. 

This wonky world that we're living will end.

It is shit (sorry to repeat myself, blame the Prosecco) but we will get back to doing the thngs that we love. This is a convo we had this afternoon. Hang in there. 

Imagine how wonderful it will be when we finally let loose in a field after all this. It will be better than ever and we will have earned it so much. Keep the faith guys x

 

#maybeadminshouldmovetodrunkenthread