SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)

Pogue Mahone said:
Balls. How about this?
Click to expand...
I agree with a lot of that. I'll also throw in the idea that if you try to use restrictions that are not sustainable in the long term, then people will break the rules - and having broken them in a minor (or recoverable) way they may just keep upping the ante, and start ignoring them, or choose to lie, limiting the effectiveness of contact tracing (formal and informal).

It's part of the reason why I keep banging on about Manchester's local restrictions that have been in place since July, but we have seen the infection rate not just rise, but rise faster than elsewhere. I do think things like "the rule of 6" indoors would have been a more helpful, and sustainable guideline. Particularly if it emphasised that the idea is to limit the circle of people you meet in a week, not as a challenge to see how many you can meet in a weekend of pub crawling or a chain of family visits.

I'm seeing it happening in my own extended family. Some are still, more or less, shielding, but increasingly they are relying on non-working (or working from home) adult members of the family to minimise their risks so that they can create a kind of non-regulation support bubble because life does go on. Minor domestic tasks become urgent, technology fails, house moves still need to happen, and social contact is important - even if you're over 70 with a heart condition. That's against the local rules of course, but I really don't blame anyone for stretching the rules to something they can live with. I can't even blame one of the previously shielded ones for taking on babysitting duties for the grandkids, I just have to hope they're as careful as they can be, and as lucky as possible.

We need to reserve the shame/blame game for the right things. Incidentally I'd include catching a train after a positive test on that list, as no one around her was aware of the risk they were taking. I don't see a group of youngsters outside a pub in the same light, they do know the risks to/from each other (though I'm less forgiving if they are living with granny of course)
 
Wibble said:
Another interesting publication that might help exolain why some people get far worse symptoms than others. Or at least suggest that genetics play a part.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2818-3
Click to expand...

Fascinating. I’ve even heard some ID consultants say that every patient they see with a severe infectious illness has some sort of genetic vulnerability.

The regional variations of this particular gene are interesting. And might go some way to explaining the differing outcomes for different ethnicities we’ve seen in the UK. Although the last time I mentioned the possibility of race determining disease outcomes because of genotypical differences, I got my head bitten off by wokecafe zealots.
 
Wibble said:
Internal restrictions of movement is another measure that helps. It is just easier to do at international borders or State borders if you have them.

Each measure aims to reduce infection. If you then make big gains or even elimination within a border you can then work on the next area and eventually join the areas up. This is what has happened in Australia. We are close to zero community infection nationwide except for Victoria who are down to about 15 daily cases.

State borders will soon open barring Victoria and soin after a travel bubble with NZ and some Pacific islands are possible. The principle also helps even if such low levels aren't the aim. It seriously helps flatten the curve as does mask wearing, social distancing etc
Click to expand...
For Australia, and any other country this successful at fighting it, it makes sense. It's a lot easier if the country is a continent and / or has no land borders though. I live within 150 miles of 8 different borders. The consequences to daily life aren't the same if those borders are all shut down for the tiniest of benefits. Now if one of those 9 countries had 0 (or anywhere close) community infections it would make sense, but they don't, and unless one wants to employ draconian methods they won't ever become 0 again. I don't agree that it helps flattening the curve in the same way mask wearing or social distancing does, those two have direct benefits.
 
Brwned said:
https://www.centreforcities.org/data/coronavirus-cases-uk-cities-large-towns/

Slough, Luton and Exeter are the only cities in the south with over 50 cases per 100k while Middlesborough is at nearly 80 cases per 100k. Leicester and Birmingham are the furthest south you get with more than Middlesborough and they've already faced local lockdowns. Add to that Middlesborough's spike is much sharper in the last week than any of the others above 75. Doesn't seem like you need to dig deep to find the truth there. Local councils are making shit decisions because they're in a shit situation.
Click to expand...

All fair points.

The issue here is the lack of financial support for the businesses it will sink. My town has 120 per 100k (the limit of extra measures supposedly being 100, under the newly proposed system) in a population of 90k. One outbreak in a factory, for example, in a town the size ours and that puts you in the next bracket and you get whacked with new measures without any consultation. We have the same measures in place as Liverpool with 268 per 100k, just for comparison. And once you're in these measures, there seems to be no guided way out.

This will kill a lot of SME's, especially in the hospitality sector. That's more unemployed and a lack of business rates being paid locally. Nobody wins.

Lots of businesses have spent money becoming Covid compliant and are now being told that they can stay open, but the rules actually prevent them from trading successfully. The issue (we were told a few weeks ago when the rule of 6 was brought in) was transmission in a household setting which was driving the increase. Closing hospitality venues who are compliant and following rules isn't going to stop those who don't care from mixing in a house and nor is a fine of a few hundred quid, which they likely can't or won't pay anyway.

Incidentally, pre-Covid there was big news in my town about the literal handful of police officers we had on duty at any one time. How is this going to be enforced? I know that in Newcastle the police are spending their time phoning compliant restaurants and trying to catch them out (a client of mine who is in the trade told be this) and as such, I suspect they'll be targeting the low hanging fruit of checking venues rather than actually tackling the problem of illegal gatherings.

There is no easy answer. I recognise that increase in rates needs to be addressed. This however seems heavy handed unless financial support is provided to help out businesses (and other venues, local sports clubs etc. who are valuable to the community) are trying to trade on.
 
RedRover said:
All fair points.

The issue here is the lack of financial support for the businesses it will sink. My town has 120 per 100k (the limit of extra measures supposedly being 100, under the newly proposed system) in a population of 90k. One outbreak in a factory, for example, in a town the size ours and that puts you in the next bracket and you get whacked with new measures without any consultation. We have the same measures in place as Liverpool with 268 per 100k, just for comparison. And once you're in these measures, there seems to be no guided way out.

This will kill a lot of SME's, especially in the hospitality sector. That's more unemployed and a lack of business rates being paid locally. Nobody wins.

Lots of businesses have spent money becoming Covid compliant and are now being told that they can stay open, but the rules actually prevent them from trading successfully. The issue (we were told a few weeks ago when the rule of 6 was brought in) was transmission in a household setting which was driving the increase. Closing hospitality venues who are compliant and following rules isn't going to stop those who don't care from mixing in a house and nor is a fine of a few hundred quid, which they likely can't or won't pay anyway.

Incidentally, pre-Covid there was big news in my town about the literal handful of police officers we had on duty at any one time. How is this going to be enforced? I know that in Newcastle the police are spending their time phoning compliant restaurants and trying to catch them out (a client of mine who is in the trade told be this) and as such, I suspect they'll be targeting the low hanging fruit of checking venues rather than actually tackling the problem of illegal gatherings.

There is no easy answer. I recognise that increase in rates needs to be addressed. This however seems heavy handed unless financial support is provided to help out businesses (and other venues, local sports clubs etc. who are valuable to the community) are trying to trade on.
Click to expand...

You a monkey hanger? Sounds exactly like the situation in Hartlepool.
 
RedRover said:
Indeed I am. You too?
Click to expand...

Indeed, complete shit show here, clowncil realised if they declare us in the lockdown they'd get extra money. Won't help anyone but line their own pockets imo. Few businesses will close, can't see anyone sticking to the rules anyway tbh.
 
F-Red said:
UK figures - 66 deaths, 6,968 cases.
Click to expand...
staying steady on cases, which can only be a good thing. I guess we won't know for another week or so whether we are getting a grip on it again. If we are, I don't think it will have anything to do with the "rule of six" or the 10pm pub close, more that it's back in the attention of the public (who should not need reminding but there ya go!) due to public addresses etc.

I firmly believe that other than the stuff we are now used to as our every day, at least twice weekly addresses, even from a moron like Boris, is one of our best defences. It's just one of those things people watch, even if its to have a moan about the government before dinner.
 
One Night Only said:
Indeed, complete shit show here, clowncil realised if they declare us in the lockdown they'd get extra money. Won't help anyone but line their own pockets imo. Few businesses will close, can't see anyone sticking to the rules anyway tbh.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I understand the measures they asked for were a "halfway house" type of lockdown but they got more than they bargained for. Hopeless.
 
Adamsk7 said:
staying steady on cases, which can only be a good thing. I guess we won't know for another week or so whether we are getting a grip on it again. If we are, I don't think it will have anything to do with the "rule of six" or the 10pm pub close, more that it's back in the attention of the public (who should not need reminding but there ya go!) due to public addresses etc.

I firmly believe that other than the stuff we are now used to as our every day, at least twice weekly addresses, even from a moron like Boris, is one of our best defences. It's just one of those things people watch, even if its to have a moan about the government before dinner.
Click to expand...

Cases in England seem to be levelling off, or maybe (maybe) dropping. Number today inflated by massive number in NI. Did NI have some big student outbreaks or something?
 
That’s it shift the blame onto the people. They’ve had long enough to sort out a proper testing and tracing process whilst people were in lockdown, they can’t expect people to live like that indefinitely.
 
Our rugby club finished our 2 week quarantine on wed. Had training last night, another positive test this morning and now another 2 week quarantine.

All games cancelled again.

4 weeks into the season, 4 games cancelled.

Amateur sport is fecked
 
Sparky Rhiwabon said:
That’s it shift the blame onto the people. They’ve had long enough to sort out a proper testing and tracing process whilst people were in lockdown, they can’t expect people to live like that indefinitely.
Click to expand...

Nah it's a pretty fair assessment tbh, people have become more relaxed about it all, the fear isn't there like it once was. People are at the point of rather taking the risk catching it and isolating, than stopping their lives for the foreseeable.

I can't think of anyone I know who is as strict with the rules as they were at the start, even the work place is a bit more relaxed, made masks mandatory, but now dgaf if we car share, take our normal breaks, held a charity day with food and cakes the other day.

Track and trace is horseshit anyway, it's been found even if it was implemented you've got that many people who wouldn't follow the advice.

People go on like track and trace working properly would eliminate this like it's some holy grail. It's not.
 
Sparky Rhiwabon said:
That’s it shift the blame onto the people. They’ve had long enough to sort out a proper testing and tracing process whilst people were in lockdown, they can’t expect people to live like that indefinitely.
Click to expand...

Mainly because it's the peoples fault. What good does track and trace do if one ignores rules? For me, govts in the uk and eu have been clear what they want, just there isnt any cooperation.
 
Stanley Road said:
Mainly because it's the peoples fault. What good does track and trace do if one ignores rules? For me, govts in the uk and eu have been clear what they want, just there isnt any cooperation.
Click to expand...
The Government in the UK haven’t been clear about shit. They don’t even know their own rules.
 
Stanley Road said:
Mainly because it's the peoples fault. What good does track and trace do if one ignores rules? For me, govts in the uk and eu have been clear what they want, just there isnt any cooperation.
Click to expand...
The UK govt have certainly not been clear. The messaging has been terribly inconsistent.

"Eat out to help out" one month, 16 million people unable to meet family in their own back gardens a few days after that scheme ended.

"Go back to the office, it is your duty", for about 3 weeks then it is back to work from home if possible.

It is mixed messaging.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
The UK govt have certainly not been clear. The messaging has been terribly inconsistent.

"Eat out to help out" one month, 16 million people unable to meet family in their own back gardens a few days after that scheme ended.

"Go back to the office, it is your duty", for about 3 weeks then it is back to work from home if possible.

It is mixed messaging.
Click to expand...
But we can't have it both ways, back in March people were slating the govt for not reacting to the data as it comes, now they're doing exactly that it's "mixed messaging".
 
Dancfc said:
But we can't have it both ways, back in March people were slating the govt for not reacting to the data as it comes, now they're doing exactly that it's "mixed messaging".
Click to expand...

"Do as I say, not as I do" was not the most effective messaging strategy the government could've come up with.
 
Abizzz said:
For Australia, and any other country this successful at fighting it, it makes sense. It's a lot easier if the country is a continent and / or has no land borders though. I live within 150 miles of 8 different borders. The consequences to daily life aren't the same if those borders are all shut down for the tiniest of benefits. Now if one of those 9 countries had 0 (or anywhere close) community infections it would make sense, but they don't, and unless one wants to employ draconian methods they won't ever become 0 again. I don't agree that it helps flattening the curve in the same way mask wearing or social distancing does, those two have direct benefits.
Click to expand...

It doesn't really matter if it is a national, state border or even a line drawn in chalk if it is enforced. If you control infection moving between each cell you can vastly improve or even eradicate within a cell if you are lucky and good.

The cells can be opened up e.g. the whole od Australia barring Victoria and NZ will be open soon if we can keep.things under control. It is acgreatvtactic when combined with the others.

The primary reason that the redtrictions on the UK population didn't work that well was due to open borders with no quarantine (and the rest of the Boris shitshow).

NZ were good and AU were decent but lucky given how many daily flights we got from China and directly from Wuhan. Even if the UK for once decided EU law mattered and they couldn't close borders they could have enforced quarantine but didn't.
 
Last edited:
Stanley Road said:
Mainly because it's the peoples fault. What good does track and trace do if one ignores rules? For me, govts in the uk and eu have been clear what they want, just there isnt any cooperation.
Click to expand...

Surely it would help quite a lot :lol: having it working a few months ago would have been quite useful I reckon.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
The UK govt have certainly not been clear. The messaging has been terribly inconsistent.

"Eat out to help out" one month, 16 million people unable to meet family in their own back gardens a few days after that scheme ended.

"Go back to the office, it is your duty", for about 3 weeks then it is back to work from home if possible.

It is mixed messaging.
Click to expand...

It’s not mixed messages. It’s changing messages. Not ideal but they have to react to the changing data on infections.

The eat out to help out stuff came at a time when many were getting over-optimistic about the second wave being smaller than the first.

Which was in no small part due to what really were mixed messages coming out of the medical community (i.e. eejits like Prof Sikora) that got traction in the press and will have increased the pressure on the govt to ease restrictions.
 
Wibble said:
Quarantine prevents free movement. That is why it makes a difference.
Click to expand...
And as has been pointed out by others it’s as effective as just quarantining any random person when the infection rate is already similar in the UK. It’s too late for it to make a worthwhile difference.
 
acnumber9 said:
And as has been pointed out by others it’s as effective as just quarantining any random person when the infection rate is already similar in the UK. It’s too late for it to make a worthwhile difference.
Click to expand...

Quarantine is designed to make sure the infection rate doesn't increase in an area, combined with other local methods (household mixing restrictions, social distancing etc). You seem to think that the impact of quarantine as a measure is designed as a tool to decrease the infection rate, it's a management tool.
 
F-Red said:
Quarantine is designed to make sure the infection rate doesn't increase in an area, combined with other local methods (household mixing restrictions, social distancing etc). You seem to think that the impact of quarantine as a measure is designed as a tool to decrease the infection rate, it's a management tool.
Click to expand...
Yes I know that. But as it is, somebody from a worse hit region in the UK can still enter those regions. And people within those badly hit regions are free to move. So it’s not really managing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.