When will this shit end?

[steviewevie]

1 hour ago, Punksnotdead said:

One thing I've not been able to get my head around: How can they say school kids don't spread covid but students are spreading it like wildlife? Like 16-18 year olds in school are magically immune but as soon as they reach uni age they become super spreaders?

I understand that there may be some evidence that younger children don't seem to get it as often, but no-one can convince me that older kids, still in school, aren't getting it & spreading it!

are they saying kids don't spread it? My kid has had to stay home and self isolate after a couple of kids in her class tested positive. I think they know kids can spread it, but schools are prioritised over everything else.

[FestivalJamie]

3 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

excellent to hear .... little tip and hopefully im right ... gloves are fairly ineffective unless you work in a hospital setting and move between patients ... keep a small bottle of hand sanitiser on you ... or even better wash your hands ... but overall nice one  

Sorry I mis worded my post. We have to wear masks the whole time but only gloves when using the chemicals to clean down the rides. I have a sanitiser attached to my lanyard! 🙂

4 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Have you had a bit of a rollercoaster of a day then?

Yeah I had a really good day to be honest!

4 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

And I'm pretty sure everything will be good for uni next year.

Fingers crossed but looks promising! Hopefully!!

[squirrelarmy]

4 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

his puns have their ups and downs 

Stop this ride I want to get off

[steviewevie]

So, official line is Liverpool in tier3 and Nottingham and Manchester in tier2 as hospital admissions in Liverpool is higher.

[Ozanne]

2 minutes ago, FestivalJamie said:

Sorry I mis worded my post. We have to wear masks the whole time but only gloves when using the chemicals to clean down the rides. I have a sanitiser attached to my lanyard! 🙂

Yeah I had a really good day to be honest!

Fingers crossed but looks promising! Hopefully!!

Glad you had a good day mate, long may it continue. 
 

I see Boris is getting ready to blame local leaders for any future rises as they won’t ‘implement’ tier 3.

[Ozanne]

1 minute ago, squirrelarmy said:

Stop this ride I want to get off

That’s what she said. 

[Fuzzy Afro]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

So, official line is Liverpool in tier3 and Nottingham and Manchester in tier2 as hospital admissions in Liverpool is higher.

Yep. Nottingham outbreak seems more confined to students. Liverpool hospitalisations climbing. 

[Punksnotdead]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

are they saying kids don't spread it? My kid has had to stay home and self isolate after a couple of kids in her class tested positive. I think they know kids can spread it, but schools are prioritised over everything else.

Yes, govt scientists have said it a number of times, including today. 

Good to know I'm not safe from the 30 school kids, shouting & running up & down on the bus earlier today!

[MrZigster]

22 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

so lets wait a bit longer then .... someone let me know if they see Jenny Haries making an announcement .... I suspect it will just be the clinically extremely vulnerable this time ..... not the vulnerable ... wording seemed like they are gonna drop the numbers down ...

They kept moving the goalposts last time. Extremely High Risk. High risk. At Risk.

They kept moving illnesses down the rankings (when they realised how many people certain categories contained imo).

Me, my employer and my GP were all baffled and thrown.

We still are if you ask me.

[Chapple12345]

To lighten the mood, here's my tweet of the day 

[Toilet Duck]

8 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

are they saying kids don't spread it? My kid has had to stay home and self isolate after a couple of kids in her class tested positive. I think they know kids can spread it, but schools are prioritised over everything else.

So far, most evidence suggests that younger kids don’t spread it as much, but secondary school kids, pretty much the same as adults. There’s a bunch of studies illustrating this and super-spreading events linked to primary schools are rarer so far (though not non-existent). Saw an interesting study though that suggested that younger kids spread it easily among themselves, but not so much to older people (not entirely sure how this works, but it seemed to suggest spreading to kids the same age happened at the same rate as between adults). Basically, we’re still learning and keeping schools open is a priority, so they’ll probably be the last thing to close. 

[Crazyfool01]

7 minutes ago, MrZigster said:

They kept moving the goalposts last time. Extremely High Risk. High risk. At Risk.

They kept moving illnesses down the rankings (when they realised how many people certain categories contained imo).

Me, my employer and my GP were all baffled and thrown.

We still are if you ask me.

Yeah that’s why I don’t think I’ll be on it .., although my lockdown weight gain might put me in a higher category than now ... it’s all mad stuff ... I’ll have to give up the gym and badminton if I do get locked down both of which are helpful to fighting covid 

[steviewevie]

 

[Fuzzy Afro]

Been doing some maths on rule of 6 vs rule of 12 at Christmas. @Ozanne particularly interested to get your thoughts

 

Let’s assume we get to Christmas week with roughly the same virus prevalence as now. 1 in 180 people in the UK. 
 

If people gather in groups of 6, there would be around 11m gatherings. In groups of 12, there would be 5.5m. This is very fag packet as many will choose to meet in different sized groups, but just wanted to prove a point. 
 

Assuming the prevalence of 1/180, we’d expect 1 in 30 groups of six to contain a spreader and 1 in 15 groups of 12.

 

Potential infection:

 

rule of six: 11m x (1/30) x 5 = 1.83m

 

rule of twelve: 5.5m x (1/15) x 11 = 4.03m

 

On these numbers it would be absolutely crazy to go to a rule of 12 on Christmas 

[Toilet Duck]

3 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Been doing some maths on rule of 6 vs rule of 12 at Christmas. @Ozanne particularly interested to get your thoughts

 

Let’s assume we get to Christmas week with roughly the same virus prevalence as now. 1 in 180 people in the UK. 
 

If people gather in groups of 6, there would be around 11m gatherings. In groups of 12, there would be 5.5m. This is very fag packet as many will choose to meet in different sized groups, but just wanted to prove a point. 
 

Assuming the prevalence of 1/180, we’d expect 1 in 30 groups of six to contain a spreader and 1 in 15 groups of 12.

 

Potential infection:

 

rule of six: 11m x (1/30) x 5 = 1.83m

 

rule of twelve: 5.5m x (1/15) x 11 = 4.03m

 

On these numbers it would be absolutely crazy to go to a rule of 12 on Christmas 

Unfortunately that assumes everyone spreads the virus in the same way, but they don’t (hence the low K number and large variations in R). Some people just seem to be massively infectious. One couple in Ireland went away for the weekend, kept within the regulations in terms of meeting people and ended up infecting over 30 others during the course of a few dinners with friends. Basically, this virus is the ultimate buzzkill. Anything that’s a bit of craic is a potential super-spreading event. Entirely agree that limiting contacts is the way to go, but I still think just seeing the same people for an extended period rather than multiple small groups is safer and the best way to maintain social contact. 

[dotdash79]

The issue is that people shouldn't stick in the same group of 12, they would mingle.

[dotdash79]

1 minute ago, Toilet Duck said:

Unfortunately that assumes everyone spreads the virus in the same way, but they don’t (hence the low K number and large variations in R). Some people just seem to be massively infectious. One couple in Ireland went away for the weekend, kept within the regulations in terms of meeting people and ended up infecting over 30 others during the course of a few dinners with friends. Basically, this virus is the ultimate buzzkill. Anything that’s a bit of craic is a potential super-spreading event. Entirely agree that limiting contacts is the way to go, but I still think just seeing the same people for an extended period rather than multiple small groups is safer and the best way to maintain social contact. 

[Toilet Duck]

Just now, dotdash79 said:

😂😂😂

[Zoo Music Girl]

17 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

I spotted this as well. He was basically saying quite strongly that they are not going far enough. Guessing he was overruled.

[Ryan1984]

3 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

Unfortunately that assumes everyone spreads the virus in the same way, but they don’t (hence the low K number and large variations in R). Some people just seem to be massively infectious. One couple in Ireland went away for the weekend, kept within the regulations in terms of meeting people and ended up infecting over 30 others during the course of a few dinners with friends. Basically, this virus is the ultimate buzzkill. Anything that’s a bit of craic is a potential super-spreading event. Entirely agree that limiting contacts is the way to go, but I still think just seeing the same people for an extended period rather than multiple small groups is safer and the best way to maintain social contact. 

Do you still think we’ll be on the Farm next year?

I’m not hopeful... Maybe there’s a chance of smaller festivals or the late summer ones going ahead?

[Gilgamesh69]

So spoons isn't closing then?

Fucking hell

[Crazyfool01]

Just now, Gilgamesh69 said:

So spoons isn't closing then?

Fucking hell

escaped on a technicality  Boris and Tim being mates ..... and now I presume trade will pick up because of the forced closure of other places ... and people will now order food so profits will increase too ..... 

[Toilet Duck]

4 minutes ago, Ryan1984 said:

Do you still think we’ll be on the Farm next year?

I’m not hopeful... Maybe there’s a chance of smaller festivals or the late summer ones going ahead?

I’m still confident! Data on saliva tests starting to firm up now too. Good concordance with PCR when viral load is high, start to diverge when viral load dwindles. Feeling is that it’s a better indicator of infectiousness, that makes home testing a lot easier (though you can’t do them just after you brush your teeth!). There’s a lot of negative stuff floating around at the moment, even suggestions that a vaccine with 50% efficacy (which is probably where we will end up) is not enough to open back up. On that I disagree. The comparisons with flu aren’t accurate at the moment, but add a vaccine that offers at least some protection into the mix and the situations start to converge. Just can’t see society still shut down with mechanisms of control in our hands. Long COVID is the wild card on that front, need to understand more about it. But if levels in the community are reasonably under control next summer, there’s a vaccine with useable efficacy and there are rapid tests to reduce risk even further, then there’s no reason we can’t start doing things again.

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, Toilet Duck said:

I’m still confident! Data on saliva tests starting to firm up now too. Good concordance with PCR when viral load is high, start to diverge when viral load dwindles. Feeling is that it’s a better indicator of infectiousness, that makes home testing a lot easier (though you can’t do them just after you brush your teeth!). There’s a lot of negative stuff floating around at the moment, even suggestions that a vaccine with 50% efficacy (which is probably where we will end up) is not enough to open back up. On that I disagree. The comparisons with flu aren’t accurate at the moment, but add a vaccine that offers at least some protection into the mix and the situations start to converge. Just can’t see society still shut down with mechanisms of control in our hands. Long COVID is the wild card on that front, need to understand more about it. But if levels in the community are reasonably under control next summer, there’s a vaccine with useable efficacy and there are rapid tests to reduce risk even further, then there’s no reason we can’t start doing things again.

I love you ....  

[Ryan1984]

1 minute ago, Toilet Duck said:

I’m still confident! Data on saliva tests starting to firm up now too. Good concordance with PCR when viral load is high, start to diverge when viral load dwindles. Feeling is that it’s a better indicator of infectiousness, that makes home testing a lot easier (though you can’t do them just after you brush your teeth!). There’s a lot of negative stuff floating around at the moment, even suggestions that a vaccine with 50% efficacy (which is probably where we will end up) is not enough to open back up. On that I disagree. The comparisons with flu aren’t accurate at the moment, but add a vaccine that offers at least some protection into the mix and the situations start to converge. Just can’t see society still shut down with mechanisms of control in our hands. Long COVID is the wild card on that front, need to understand more about it. But if levels in the community are reasonably under control next summer, there’s a vaccine with useable efficacy and there are rapid tests to reduce risk even further, then there’s no reason we can’t start doing things again.

That all sounds brighter. Think we have a long winter ahead of us first!

Did you post something about vaccine trials finishing end of next month as well?