When will this shit end?

[squirrelarmy]

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. 

[Crazyfool01]

Just now, parsonjack said:

Just planted a tree to male up for that pointless post 👍

 

shit .... 

[Andre91]

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 November 19, 2020 by Andre91

[Fuzzy Afro]

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. 

[Crazyfool01]

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   

[Fuzzy Afro]

2 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

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

I was hoping for < 16.5k to represent a 50% drop but that feels a bit ambitious 

[ace56blaa]

4 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

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

That would be ideal, but it's following the 7 day trend it'll probs be like 25-30,000 today

 

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, ace56blaa said:

That would be ideal, but it's following the 7 day trend it'll probs be like 25-30,000 today

 

19,600 yesterday .... so i would think a fall from that ? unless reported wrongly ?

 

[Crazyfool01]

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 !!

Edited November 19, 2020 by crazyfool1

[Fuzzy Afro]

5 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

Meanwhile ... I hope to see you all in June 

That can’t be right surely 

[st dan]

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 November 19, 2020 by st dan

[efcfanwirral]

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 !!

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 November 19, 2020 by efcfanwirral

[Crazyfool01]

2 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

That can’t be right surely 

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-supermarkets-most-common-exposure-setting-for-catching-coronavirus-in-england-latest-data-shows-12136418

[Crazyfool01]

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  

[efcfanwirral]

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 November 19, 2020 by efcfanwirral

[SwedgeAntilles]

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.

[Crazyfool01]

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 November 19, 2020 by crazyfool1

[Guest]

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 November 19, 2020 by Ozanne

[steviewevie]

31 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 !!

close the supermarkets.

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

close the supermarkets.

I can at least isolate and see my parents then .... without the food for the Christmas meal  

[Sasperella]

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...

[jannybruck]

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.

[Copperface]

I have lost the good news thread, but this made me laugh.....

 

[Fuzzy Afro]

Just shy of 23000 cases today 

[Guest]

22,915 cases and 501 deaths recorded for today.