Everybody needs a break and myself i particular cannot stand Autumn or winter. However, we recently had a lovely week long break in NL, 45 mins from home. We just think the risk is too high, have not even visited family in uk since mid December. My BIL in oz has not seen his sick dad for over a year. I personally believe if we just stop travelling and seeing other people things will improve for all.
SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)
- Thread starter Don't Kill Bill
- Start date
Are you saying you did not realise until now that some people, in all age groups, are suffering long term effects? Crikey, no wonder everywhere has increased cases.
Why should Tesco be able to sell non-essential goods if shops selling non-essential goods have been forced to close? There was actually criticism in allowing them to sell clothes during the first lockdown.
And he isn’t “power mad” he’s trying to stop the very concerning growth of hospital admissions that’s currently happening here in Wales. Our field hospital is set to open next week due to the number of cases...we’re in October...if this keeps going at its current rate we are in big trouble in 2-3 weeks time. Unfortunately the guff about cases going up wouldn’t lead to an increase in admissions and deaths was just that...guff.
Right, so the virus goes for someone if they look to get a kettle (that they might need because their last ones broke), a charger (that they may need as their other one is broke and they WFH so the ultimate consequence to not getting a charger will be to lose their job and ultimately their house), or a beer (that an alcoholic might need as going cold turkey from the bat will be too dangerous) but won't if they go and get Pasta?
And it's going to have a knock on effect aswell as it's going to cause yet more panic buying in England I imagine.
Ah yes...the whole the virus is smarter after 10pm argument. It’s all about risk management, to reduce contacts and to help get back to a consistent message to people that you should only be leaving your home for essential journeys. The categories of what is essential haven’t actually been announced yet but the sale of alcohol isn’t being banned...and as I’m sure you’re well aware you can still get things from that rarely used thing: the internet.
As for the latter point it possibly leading to the panic buying of kettles in England is the least of our fecking worries.
It is a bit absurd really and he's setting a bit of a sticky precedent, does the first minster plan to block e-commerce companies who aren't selling essential goods? Trying to put a window dressing of support to closing businesses, by restricting what businesses that are open can sell isn't pandemic management and if anything restricts consumer choice, certainly for those communities that don't have coverage of internet or delivery services.
It's a bit heavy handed from the Welsh first minister, his logic doesn't make sense when he still has ferry traffic coming over from Ireland.
People travelling probably doesn't help tbf, but we're following the rules and will be tested. Holidays in England are shite and a rip off. NL sounds far better.
Appreciate it sucks for a lot of families and it has affected mine too. Everyone has to make a call on how they play it I guess.
We have Ehic cards and medical insurance. If we have to shell out for a flight or something like that it's our own fault.
If the UK puts Cyprus on the red list they continue flights anyway. Plus we can only go if we test negative. Holidays are as much about who is willing to fork out for the covid test now tbh.
He’s pretty open about his logic. It’s about fairness. With locally owned businesses forced to close on the basis they’re not selling anything essential it doesn’t look good if the multinationals can increase their already substantial profits selling similar goods. The ferry traffic bears no relevance to this decision.
No. Of course he doesn’t plan to stop the online sale of non-essential goods. That doesn’t involve going to a shop and coming into contact with people does it? It’s pretty basic really. You should only leave your home for an essential journey. That’s the message. Simple. The same message that worked in March.
He’s looked at the data and realised we have 65% of the admissions we had AT THE PEAK during the first wave....a peak that happened 4 weeks AFTER a lockdown. We’ve locked down today. Anyone looking at that data would realise we’re in a shit sandwich. People not being able to buy a kettle at Tesco for 17 days isn’t really that much of an issue to be perfectly honest.
As for the England thing it is fecking ludicrous that someone from a tier 3 high risk area in England is able to travel to North Wales for a holiday whilst someone from low risk West Wales is legally not able to do so. And I’d imagine numbers travelling daily from Ireland are considerably less than from England. I joked on here back in August that our numbers were looking great and if we could only block the English border they’d stay that way...seems we’ve now decided to attempt that if we drive cases down again. It isn’t really feasible legally or in practice but looking at the utter shit show in England where economically crippling tier 3s are announced with no financial support and no end in sight as the CMO at the same announcement admits the restrictions won’t drive cases down then I can’t say I really blame him.
I know he's open about his logic, I'm saying it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If you're a small business owner and you're forced to close, you're more bothered about your own business and trade rather than whether a supermarket can sell a similar product, hence why it's nothing more than a window dressing. Wales is now in the position whereby the first minister identified that alcohol is more essential than clothes, and bedding (seasonal purchases) in physical retailers.
Consumer behaviour and demand on those products in the marketplace doesn't pent up, it just moves to a different retailer. Which in most cases will be in Amazon in this case - a multinational increasing their substantial profits selling similar goods.
It does if he's making the case of wanting to retain a tight border and to stop cases coming into Wales.
Going by that logic, what difference does it make then if someone is in Tesco buying eggs or bread, and then wanting to purchase clothing or an item deemed as non-essential? I agree with the point of reducing contact, but if you're already in the store it makes no difference to the transmission rate on what someone purchases, which is my point about that it is purely window dressing. Consumers are impacted.
I've no issues with his fire break, however to deem what is essential products and non-essential products in a shop is a bit difficult. I don't see alcohol as an essential purchase, but an alcoholic in Wales might have a different opinion. Someone with no hot water access, might find that a kettle is an essential item. My point is that the Welsh first minister is not the person to be telling people what is essential or not in a store. The type of store that is open or closed is absolutely his call to make, and should be made with the data to reduce contact.
While I wouldn’t particularly agree with the stance, it’s probably to discourage people from going when they don’t need to. I’ve no doubt there are people who just want somewhere to go. Being able to go and buy stuff gives them that excuse to leave the house that they’re less likely to do for just food.
It’s not just that logic - it’s two completely independent bits of logic... 1) Online is allowed because you aren’t leaving your home coming into contact with people and 2) Why should someone be allowed to Travel to Tesco and buy clothes but not a clothes shop? That puts clothes shops at a disadvantage. What if it was a superstore where their clothes section is bigger than most small clothes shops? People who want to go clothes shopping may just pop there instead defeating the whole purpose of non-essential journeys. Maybe they fancy a trip out to go and browse the games section? Or the Electronics aisle? None of that is essential.
I don’t really get why you think it’s fine for the first minister to decide what essential and non-essential goods are when closing stores but not in stores themselves...and in the unlikely event your kettle breaks (It’s entirely possible kettles aren’t banned btw...I’d say they are essential but let’s just go with the Daily Mail which was wrong about alcohol being banned...) during the 17 day lockdown you can buy another online. As I’ve said twice now - it’s to do with the messaging. Only leave your home to go to work if you can’t work from home or buy essential goods. The end.
They really aren't independent, they're instrictly linked. Mark Drakeford has stopped non-essentially item sales in supermarket, in his words "to level the playing field", surely by that logic he would limit e-commerce as well. However he hasn't. There's also an assumption that everyone is online and has access to shopping that way, there's still 11% of Wales that doesn't have access to the internet. Back to the point I made earlier, demand in those types of items doesn't get pent-up, it just moves to another retailer and bought elsewhere, so doing this to level the playing field is just a token gesture by Drakeford to appease those stores he's closing, and those shops that are currently closed aren't going to see a surge of business because he's stopped supermarkets selling clothes.
It may not be essential in your eyes, but to some it could be, which is why I couldn't sit there and say what is essential in a supermarket or isn't, as we have a broad spectrum of peoples needs to address. On the point of supermarket clothing though, it's an essential to those in society who need access to affordable clothing, which is why I don't understand Drakeford's logic here.
I think it's fine for him to decide on sectors and stores for opening because there is a broad recognition that the motivation for doing so is to control infection rates. What he's doing now is telling stores that are open what elements of their business he thinks is acceptable to trade on in order to protect others businesses, which is going far beyond what the purpose of a his fire break is intended to do. Kettle's are deemed as non-essential by the way, its classed as homeware. He's also stopped the sales of books within supermarkets also.
We’re going around in circles here. They are two separate entities. Online has nothing do with it. It’s irrelevant to this discussion. Online has been deemed safe. It stays as is. There is no COVID justification to restrict online goods. Going to shops carries a transmission risk. In order to minimise that transmission risk non-essential goods have been banned. This is to reduce the numbers going to shops and the time spent in shops. Those same non-essential goods being sold in Tesco or in Argos is irrelevant - they’re banned. You’re “it may not be essential to you but others it is” argument can be used against your very position. Why close anything then? Ultimately someone will deem it essential.
“Affordable clothing is essential to some people” - Then why shut TK Max? Or Primark? Also...and I feel this is key...it is seventeen days!!!! This isn’t a year. Who hasn’t got enough clothes to last 17 days? And if they haven’t they’ve had a week to buy clothes to last 17 days. Or they can buy clothes online during the next 17 days. It isn’t hard. Nobody needs to read a book in the next 17 days. It’s not essential. Or watch a movie. Or buy a TV. See what I’m saying? I feel it’s impossible to stress this enough...it’s 17 days.
Ultimately I’m basically just tired of everyone trying to find contradictions in everything. There will always be flaws and logical fallacies in such binary rules. If Tesco was allowed to sell clothes you just know some clever twat would be saying “ooh look how clever this virus is...it knows when I’m buying a jumper at Gap but not at Tesco”. It’s tiring. Unless you have to leave for work or for essential goods stay at home. Ultimately that’s the spirit of the lockdown. It really isn’t difficult.
This image sums it up perfectly for me in terms of the perceived society priorities in Wales:
Yes that’s definitely not true in England where Pubs were opened before gyms and outdoor sport. Definitely unique to Wales.This image sums it up perfectly for me in terms of the perceived society priorities in Wales:
I've seen mates of mine practically crying on Facebook about not being able to buy shit like toasters from a Supermarket - what do I do they say when mine brakes?
1) Use the grill
2) Order from Amazon/Argos whatever
3) Have some cereal
It's for 2 fecking weeks - it really isn't difficult to live without buying a toaster from Tesco
1) Use the grill
2) Order from Amazon/Argos whatever
3) Have some cereal
It's for 2 fecking weeks - it really isn't difficult to live without buying a toaster from Tesco
What does the sign say?This image sums it up perfectly for me in terms of the perceived society priorities in Wales:
Just something along the lines of "Due to government guidelines, we're unable to sell items not deemed essential. Thanks for your understanding."
If that picture is from anywhere east of Llandudno, it's bound to be a Google Translate job anyway.
Does anyone actually buy anything from those aisles that have household/kitchen stuff? I don’t even walk down them. Actually, I haven’t been in a supermarket since full lock down, as I’ve been using click and collects. I don’t really know why anyone with a car is bothering to go into a supermarket.
@Mickeza, I think you summed it all up very well. Browsing clothes and book aisles just invites more people to hang around in the shop. When you pick up a box of teabags you don't stand there looking at it for 5 minutes.
I think it's completely fair for the large shops to have the same restrictions as those which only sell clothes or books. The strategy and layout of superstores is to encourage impulse buying, so that if you do come in to buy some milk you'll maybe pick up something you didn't intend to buy as you walk to the tills. A significant number of people consider browsing in shops to be a leisure activity at the weekend.
For the vast majority of people, online shopping is a part of life (it kept us going in the first Italian lockdown) and although we hate to see Bezos getting another billion dollars, it's not going away now and has been a lifeline for a lot of people who are at risk.
I think it's completely fair for the large shops to have the same restrictions as those which only sell clothes or books. The strategy and layout of superstores is to encourage impulse buying, so that if you do come in to buy some milk you'll maybe pick up something you didn't intend to buy as you walk to the tills. A significant number of people consider browsing in shops to be a leisure activity at the weekend.
For the vast majority of people, online shopping is a part of life (it kept us going in the first Italian lockdown) and although we hate to see Bezos getting another billion dollars, it's not going away now and has been a lifeline for a lot of people who are at risk.
You are wasting your time discussing with him mate . Some people don`t want to understand and it is one of the reasons we are in a mess now.
All week Penna, a mate works in the Co op and said there are still loads of people that come to the shop 2 or 3 times a day just to get out . Very often older folk that live alone too which isn`t ideal.
Just to remind you of the Welsh first ministers logic, it was only in September did he feel it was necessary to make face coverings in retail mandatory, despite waves of evidence strongly suggesting the positive impact it makes in those environments. To suggest he’s capable of good decision making puts him in the clueless camp with Boris and Hancock.
I also agree that he got it wrong there but that has nothing to do with the discussion you were having with Mickeza .
Also, to the point on non-essential retail, SAGE's opinion on it's impact to the R rate this month:
https://assets.publishing.service.g...data/file/925856/S0770_NPIs_table__pivot_.pdf
Fair enough, enjoy your break.
So much for the regional approach working out in Italy. Or the idea that the north / south divide and the economic effects being felt particularly harshly in historically disadvantaged areas was being kept under control. Likewise for the idea that there's something uniquely wrong with young people in the UK that were intolerant to the restrictions and their effects.
Maybe we should listen to them.
So much for the regional approach working out in Italy. Or the idea that the north / south divide and the economic effects being felt particularly harshly in historically disadvantaged areas was being kept under control. Likewise for the idea that there's something uniquely wrong with young people in the UK that were intolerant to the restrictions and their effects.
Maybe we should listen to them.
What do you mean by the last sentence? I’m sure there’s a hell of a lot of Italians with different opinions to those that took to the streets. And I’m sure they would like to be listened to as well.
Nothing more than surely we're better off hearing them out than dismissing them. Not that we should decide based on the views of that minority, or even that decisions should be made based on the loudest voices. But I think we're at a point now where attempting to shut down those voices or vilify the groups that hold them are legitimately counterproductive.
Early on people were compliant even when they didn't agree with the decisions, and they were tolerant of the fact their views were being not just ignored but actively demonised. We're long past that point now so finding a better way to allow those views to be heard is in itself a necessary tool to encourage compliance, IMO.
Rule by decree has a shelf life in democracy and it will expire at some point; I'd argue we've passed that point so need a new strategy.
But what does making them feel heard look like? Bear in mind a lot of the discontent is being fuelled by completely deluded nonsense on social media. Even if we find a way to weed out the tin foil hat brigade (who will never be happy) you’re still talking about a wide range of, often diametrically opposed, opinions. I don’t know on earth any government could make them all feel listened to or less pissed off with a strategy they disagree with.
Last edited:
Yeah so it's baked into the problem that you can't create a solution that everyone agrees with. There's a segment of the population that don't accept that, and it's all or nothing for them. But my impression is the majority are more accepting than that. In general policy disagreements and in this particular moment.
At the simplest level, I think more people will feel heard if the decisions are debated more thoroughly in places like parliament. People accepted the need for rule by decree, emergency measures in the beginning but there's no way that can last. So just getting back to normal procedure on that front is a significant step.
People comply with rules they don't agree with at least in part because the officials they elected at least voice their argument, and if they lose, they tend to accept it rather than revolt. Most democracies are incredibly compliant. So it's not about radically new strategies but rather employing some of the strategies that played a role in normal public compliance.
That would filter down to public discourse too, which I think is an important component. If parliament or the equivalent were airing a wider range of perspectives more often, it would somewhat temper the majority's desire to dismissively shut down alternative perspectives. We will need to do some things to strengthen national unity because what worked before isn't working now.
I know a lot of people have used the sprint vs marathon analogy but I thought the context it was used in by an American nurse was particularly relatable.
We can all see that weariness is dampening people's compliance but it's also weakening the bonds that those symbols used to symbolise. I think a shift in public discourse will play a role in holding things together.
UK Figures for today - 174 deaths, 23,012 new cases
For those in the know, are gastrointestinal issues a common symptom?
Yes. We've had a couple of patients recently who's only presenting complaint was diarrhoea.
Also been some interesting studies that show you might be able to predict where the next spikes/clusters/outbreaks may be by examining the faeces in the sewage systems.....
Thing is, this isn't unusual for a lot of pathogens. Lots of viruses are multi-system, including ones which many people consider to be relatively benign (mono for instance). Bacteria too.
GI upset often primary symptom in kids, right? Sure I read that somewhere.
This image sums it up perfectly for me in terms of the perceived society priorities in Wales:
The same in Italy
He finally got tested yesterday and it returned positive today. Two more people in the office building have developed symptoms, taking us to a total of 11 that I know of so far, 7 of those have already tested positive. An absolute joke.