When will this shit end?

[DeanoL]

2 minutes ago, st dan said:

And the times I’ve been to the pubs near me they have all had a member of staff arranging seating on arrival, complete table service and I have had no interaction with anybody else in there. I have only been with my wife (and for food with my 1 year old child on occasion) so we haven’t been mixing. Compare that to when I’ve been round my parents, there has been no distancing at all there.
The point I’m making is that if you take away the option of pubs/restaurants, then more people will end up visiting others homes just for something to do if nothing else. They are long, dark days in autumn/winter! 

But if you went to the same pub with your parents, there wouldn't be any distancing between them/you there either.

And there's nothing to stop you applying pub rules when you visit your family either.

Obviously the argument exists that rules can be enforced directly when in pubs that can't in homes, but seen so very little evidence of any enforcement actually happening (and plenty of evidence of rules being broken) that the point is sort of moot.

I'm not saying people won't meet in homes, just that I'm baffled by people pointing to outbreak stats and saying "so therefore pubs are safer". When it's quite obvious they're not.

Sure, in a 4 person family, if Dad gets COVID, there's a good chance everyone gets COVID. But that's the same regardless whether Dad gets COVID from going to the pub or having a mate around to the house. Regardless, it's still a "home" based outbreak.

[DeanoL]

5 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

But of those 40 people, 34 of them aren’t on your table and are at a table that’s a safe distance away from yours such that even if they have the virus, they aren’t spreading it to you.

And at home, those 34 people don't exist, and aren't sharing the same bathroom as you. At *best* home is equally safe, if the pub is being run perfectly.

Quote

If you have people round your house there is way more likely to be hugging etc

That's behavioral. You really need to dig into why that's the case for you. In many cases it's probably because you see family at home and mates in the pub and are more likely to hug family.

[Old_Johno]

28 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

I live in the South with relatively low cases, but if we need to go into national restrictions because another area of the country is struggling then I’m fine with that as we do all need to show support and be there for the whole country. Even if it’s just like this. 

Because misery loves company? Other than “it’s not fair” there is zero reason to lockdown areas where cases are low. People need to work. 

[squirrelarmy]

Just seen a local report of nearly 600 students and staff testing positive at Leeds University. 
 

That’s just one of several universities in the city. 😬

[Fuzzy Afro]

Just now, DeanoL said:

And at home, those 34 people don't exist, and aren't sharing the same bathroom as you. At *best* home is equally safe, if the pub is being run perfectly.

That's behavioral. You really need to dig into why that's the case for you. In many cases it's probably because you see family at home and mates in the pub and are more likely to hug family.

I hug my friends and my family equally. People are less likely to hug in pubs because they know people are watching and hugging is currently frowned upon. Also in the pub it’s a group of 6 maximum. At home you can invite all the #LadzLadzLadz

[FestivalJamie]

There’s no doubt about it, lockdowns do work. That’s why the papers are driving me mad right now.

The March lockdown worked well, there’s nothing to say another lockdown wouldn’t stop surging virus cases or at least reduce the spread.

The issue is these “local lockdowns” aren’t lockdowns. Telling people to not mix households is completely unenforceable and most people won’t listen or care. The only way to get numbers down is to shut things down so more people have to stay home.

Local lockdowns should have been from the start a complete closure of business in the area with adequate financial support and also the perimeter of the area “closed” so people can’t leave the area with higher rates and people cant come in for a holiday or day out, pick up the virus and then take it back home. The roads of areas under “lockdown” should have had police stationed to prevent people going out. These harsh local measures could have prevented what were local outbreaks developing into a more national outbreak. If we had stamped out the local flare ups, then we wouldn’t be in the position we are now. The issue is that instead of proper local lockdowns we had flimsy restrictions about not mixing households for months on end which aren’t being adhered to. Now we are in a worse off position where forcibly closing things down for a longer period of time will be the only option.

Another Real issue here is the universities, only practical courses should have gone back to campus, everyone else should have been online from home. I’m sure this is a significant contributor to the numbers right now.

[FestivalJamie]

1 minute ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

I hug my friends and my family equally. People are less likely to hug in pubs because they know people are watching and hugging is currently frowned upon. Also in the pub it’s a group of 6 maximum. At home you can invite all the #LadzLadzLadz

Well I’m sorry but it’s a pandemic and people shouldn’t be hugging

[priest17]

I hate this idea that pubs aren't enforcing the rules, you'd think they're all wacky warehouses reading this thread. There's licensing people checking the pubs in Manchester constantly so for their own livelihoods and to stay open they're all doing their bit. Supermarkets are worse at this point from what I've seen.

If the gov can support closing pubs for 2 weeks to see if that has an effect or not go for it but if it doesn't have an effect or they're not willing to help them they need to lift the 10pm rule.

[Fuzzy Afro]

Just now, FestivalJamie said:

Well I’m sorry but it’s a pandemic and people shouldn’t be hugging

But many many people are, more so at home than in the pub. Which is why home gatherings are being singled out as a particularly high risk activity. 

[Fuzzy Afro]

2 minutes ago, FestivalJamie said:

There’s no doubt about it, lockdowns do work. That’s why the papers are driving me mad right now.

The March lockdown worked well, there’s nothing to say another lockdown wouldn’t stop surging virus cases or at least reduce the spread.

The issue is these “local lockdowns” aren’t lockdowns. Telling people to not mix households is completely unenforceable and most people won’t listen or care. The only way to get numbers down is to shut things down so more people have to stay home.

Local lockdowns should have been from the start a complete closure of business in the area with adequate financial support and also the perimeter of the area “closed” so people can’t leave the area with higher rates and people cant come in for a holiday or day out, pick up the virus and then take it back home. The roads of areas under “lockdown” should have had police stationed to prevent people going out. These harsh local measures could have prevented what were local outbreaks developing into a more national outbreak. If we had stamped out the local flare ups, then we wouldn’t be in the position we are now. The issue is that instead of proper local lockdowns we had flimsy restrictions about not mixing households for months on end which aren’t being adhered to. Now we are in a worse off position where forcibly closing things down for a longer period of time will be the only option.

Another Real issue here is the universities, only practical courses should have gone back to campus, everyone else should have been online from home. I’m sure this is a significant contributor to the numbers right now.

The Edinburgh model shows that lockdowns don’t reduce deaths, they just defer them into subsequent waves and increase the overall number of deaths. 

[Crazyfool01]

Just now, FestivalJamie said:

Well I’m sorry but it’s a pandemic and people shouldn’t be hugging

I think a better way of putting this is that people should be avoiding hugging as much as possible .... times and circumstances will necessitate some hugging im afraid 

[Crazyfool01]

Just now, Fuzzy Afro said:

The Edinburgh model shows that lockdowns don’t reduce deaths, they just defer them into subsequent waves and increase the overall number of deaths. 

without a vaccine .... presumably ? 

[FestivalJamie]

1 minute ago, priest17 said:

I hate this idea that pubs aren't enforcing the rules, you'd think they're all wacky warehouses reading this thread. There's licensing people checking the pubs in Manchester constantly so for their own livelihoods and to stay open they're all doing their bit. Supermarkets are worse at this point from what I've seen.

If the gov can support closing pubs for 2 weeks to see if that has an effect or not go for it but if it doesn't have an effect or they're not willing to help them they need to lift the 10pm rule.

But loads of pubs I walk past seem to be serving people at the bar when it’s supposed to be table service only? So I’m not sure I agree here. And it’s harder to get drunk people to wear a mask properly when walking around.

1 minute ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

But many many people are, more so at home than in the pub. Which is why home gatherings are being singled out as a particularly high risk activity. 

Let’s face it, home gatherings can never be stopped from this point, it’s unenforceable. The only way from this point onwards is to shut down the higher risk businesses as education cannot be compromised either. (But why universities everyone has to be in halls etc is beyond me).

[FestivalJamie]

1 minute ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

The Edinburgh model shows that lockdowns don’t reduce deaths, they just defer them into subsequent waves and increase the overall number of deaths. 

That’s completely not true though, especially when waiting on a vaccine. Look at germany, 1/5 of the deaths than us because they managed it way better, their death toll is not increasing at this point. You can argue they are just “delaying the deaths” but when a scientific breakthrough comes along those people who might have died if you had let it rip through the community will now be vaccinated and will no longer die.

Theres a reason to keep stalling this virus until a scientific breakthrough, especially as one is so imminent. So many lives can be saved.

[Fuzzy Afro]

1 minute ago, FestivalJamie said:

That’s completely not true though, especially when waiting on a vaccine. Look at germany, 1/5 of the deaths than us because they managed it way better, their death toll is not increasing at this point. You can argue they are just “delaying the deaths” but when a scientific breakthrough comes along those people who might have died if you had let it rip through the community will now be vaccinated and will no longer die.

Theres a reason to keep stalling this virus until a scientific breakthrough, especially as one is so imminent. So many lives can be saved.

More QALY’s could be lost with a lockdown, which is a far better measure than deaths. 

[steviewevie]

There are no simple answers...lockdowns are shit for the economy and shit for people's health but at same time the virus is shit for the economy and shit for people's health.

[FestivalJamie]

1 minute ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

More QALY’s could be lost with a lockdown, which is a far better measure than deaths. 

And the end of the day I’m always going to be in the lockdown camp.

Just to be clear I HATE being in lockdown, but if we can save people’s lives who would die if they caught the virus then I would rather take the personal hit. With a vaccine being so imminent and hopefully within the next 6 months, the more we stall the virus, the more lives can be saved until the vulnerable can be vaccinated.

Yes businesses will struggle, but the government with financial aid can help them to recover. People, once they have died, can never recover.

[Ryan1984]

There was an interview with Gareth Southgate today about the behaviour of some of the players and he was saying how the unity has now gone from the spring lockdown. He said he hopes we can come back together to get through this as it’s the only way but it seems that time is long gone.

[squirrelarmy]

2 minutes ago, FestivalJamie said:

People, once they have died, can never recover.

Same applies to mental health too. Suicide rates are high right now. A severe lockdown over winter will make lonely people even more depressed. 
 

There has to be a balance somewhere. 

[Fuzzy Afro]

3 minutes ago, FestivalJamie said:

And the end of the day I’m always going to be in the lockdown camp.

Just to be clear I HATE being in lockdown, but if we can save people’s lives who would die if they caught the virus then I would rather take the personal hit. With a vaccine being so imminent and hopefully within the next 6 months, the more we stall the virus, the more lives can be saved until the vulnerable can be vaccinated.

Yes businesses will struggle, but the government with financial aid can help them to recover. People, once they have died, can never recover.

Lockdown isn’t just a personal hit though. QALY’s are being lost all over the place between missed cancer appointments, poverty induced by people losing their jobs, people getting depressed because life isn’t worth living and taking their own lives, Alzheimer’s patients getting confused why no one is visiting them leading to heart failure. That’s a lot of QALY’s. 

[DeanoL]

9 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

I hug my friends and my family equally. People are less likely to hug in pubs because they know people are watching and hugging is currently frowned upon. Also in the pub it’s a group of 6 maximum. At home you can invite all the #LadzLadzLadz

Not legally, you can't. Nor can you legally hug people at home either. But plenty of us are managing to have fewer than 6 people round and not hug them. We're definitely safer than pubs. We don't go to pubs either.

6 minutes ago, priest17 said:

I hate this idea that pubs aren't enforcing the rules, you'd think they're all wacky warehouses reading this thread. There's licensing people checking the pubs in Manchester constantly so for their own livelihoods and to stay open they're all doing their bit.

There's a degree of enforcement to ensure people aren't taking the piss and just crowding people in.

But the rules are 2m from everyone not in your household (unless you are wearing a mask and it's 1m).

How many pubs are actually hitting that? Sure, there's a one way system. And table service. But can you comfortably say no one outside of your household passed within 2m of you unless you were both masked? Even if you went to said pub with members of other households?

Yeah, pubs are controlled so it's not a case of "1 sick person = everyone in the pub gets sick" which would probably be the case in a packed, shoulder to shoulder, London pub with no restrictions. But they're not controlled to the point that you're totally safe. Someone brushes past you at the wrong time or you touch a shared surface in the bathroom or so on. They won't infect everyone in the pub but they'll infect one or two. Who then go on to infect their whole family/school/office/care home. 

 

[Fuzzy Afro]

Just now, DeanoL said:

Not legally, you can't. Nor can you legally hug people at home either. But plenty of us are managing to have fewer than 6 people round and not hug them. We're definitely safer than pubs. We don't go to pubs either.

There's a degree of enforcement to ensure people aren't taking the piss and just crowding people in.

But the rules are 2m from everyone not in your household (unless you are wearing a mask and it's 1m).

How many pubs are actually hitting that? Sure, there's a one way system. And table service. But can you comfortably say no one outside of your household passed within 2m of you unless you were both masked? Even if you went to said pub with members of other households?

Yeah, pubs are controlled so it's not a case of "1 sick person = everyone in the pub gets sick" which would probably be the case in a packed, shoulder to shoulder, London pub with no restrictions. But they're not controlled to the point that you're totally safe. Someone brushes past you at the wrong time or you touch a shared surface in the bathroom or so on. They won't infect everyone in the pub but they'll infect one or two. Who then go on to infect their whole family/school/office/care home. 

 

 

Eh, yes you can. No idea where you’ve gotten that from. 

[efcfanwirral]

 

38 minutes ago, st dan said:

But that’s not the case is it? If so why were households banned from mixing weeks before shutting pubs? And there is no way people are social distancing inside homes. And if this is the case, then why on Earth are they putting misery on millions of people by stopping them seeing their closest family?

I have only been in a few pubs since all of this began, but can say that have been brilliantly managed and I couldn’t have felt much safer in there. 

The way I'm looking at it is that there is no safe indoor space - 2m or otherwise. If you're breathing the same unventilated air as other people, you're taking a chance of catching the virus. Offices, pubs, schools, homes- all the same. 

The only way to stop it is complete shut down, with enforced measures around travel and leaving homes. And none of us want that.

There aren't even enough police to investigate real crimes anyway never mind enforce these rules, and the spikes are in the most crime ridden areas so there isn't a whole lot that can be done.

[Fuzzy Afro]

4 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Not legally, you can't. Nor can you legally hug people at home either. But plenty of us are managing to have fewer than 6 people round and not hug them. We're definitely safer than pubs. We don't go to pubs either.

There's a degree of enforcement to ensure people aren't taking the piss and just crowding people in.

But the rules are 2m from everyone not in your household (unless you are wearing a mask and it's 1m).

How many pubs are actually hitting that? Sure, there's a one way system. And table service. But can you comfortably say no one outside of your household passed within 2m of you unless you were both masked? Even if you went to said pub with members of other households?

Yeah, pubs are controlled so it's not a case of "1 sick person = everyone in the pub gets sick" which would probably be the case in a packed, shoulder to shoulder, London pub with no restrictions. But they're not controlled to the point that you're totally safe. Someone brushes past you at the wrong time or you touch a shared surface in the bathroom or so on. They won't infect everyone in the pub but they'll infect one or two. Who then go on to infect their whole family/school/office/care home. 

 

I can quite comfortably say no one walking past was within 2m for more than 15 minutes....

[tigger123]

23 minutes ago, FestivalJamie said:

Well I’m sorry but it’s a pandemic and people shouldn’t be hugging

Didn't you fly on a plane to Berlin? I hug my parents, both of whom have tested positive for antibodies. I think you going on a plane there and back is far more risky than me hugging my parents who have both tested positive for antibodies. I understand why you went on a plane, hugging my parents is beneficial for my suffering mental health, we didn't criticise you for doing something far more dangerous. Less of the double standards please.