Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Todd_is_God]

I'm tired of seeing stuff like this.

Fearmongering crap which ignores a couple of major factors in causing such a high death toll.

[Michael W]

5 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

The increased risk of death or serious illness to your average rush hour tube user is pretty minimal.

Providing they don't start running around meeting vulnerable friends and family, any increase in deaths would be small

I don't agree. They are in very close proximity to lots of people, not to. Mention grabbing onto the handrails when the tube is moving. It's a breeding ground for the virus. TfL also had a very high absence rate at one point due to the virus - either through having contracted it or being required to isolate.

The government advising against public transport was sensible. What was not sensible was attempting to order everyone back to work knowing full well public transport is the only option quite a lot of people have. That said, I very much doubt everyone on that crowded tube simply had to travel and couldn't have continued working from home. 

[Todd_is_God]

12 minutes ago, Michael W said:

I don't agree. They are in very close proximity to lots of people, not to. Mention grabbing onto the handrails when the tube is moving. It's a breeding ground for the virus.

Then you are simply choosing to ignore the fact that young healthy people are not particularly at risk of serious illness or death.

It's up to you to wash or santise your hands before biting your nails after holding the handrails.

[Wee Bully]

1 hour ago, bendan said:

But R0 has been very low for weeks now - there's no reason to think it will drop lower in the general population. That's why we are past the peak. The current 'lockdown' is not literally a lockdown, so TTI would still be useful. We should have been recruiting before we even got to the peak, not starting to recruit several weeks past it.

I am really loath to respond to this, given yesterdays example, but:

1. What do you mean "R0 has been low for weeks now"?
2. What, in your opinion, does the R number have to be for TTI to be useful?

[cyderspaceman]

56 minutes ago, throbber said:

I take it car sharing won’t he looked upon favourably then? Guys at my work travel to work in van loads of 3-7 people in them as well and taking their own transport isn’t going to be an option for them getting to work. 

Are folk allowed to be passengers in vans? I mean in the back, no belts, no real seats. I wouldn't have thought so.

[ICTChris]

31 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

You’re probably right.  What’s your solution for the 20% who do?

If we have to have public transport at the moment then I'd say that there needs to be strictly enforced social distancing on trains and buses.  By that I mean seats taped off two metres apart, mandatory masks/face coverings, perspex for drivers etc, allowances for stops to give people more time to get off in a distanced manner.

I'm absolutely 100% sure, no doubt whatsoever, that all this will be in place.  *looks to camera*

 

[throbber]

3 minutes ago, cyderspaceman said:

Are folk allowed to be passengers in vans? I mean in the back, no belts, no real seats. I wouldn't have thought so.

 

[Michael W]

4 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Then you are simply choosing to ignore the fact that young healthy people are not particularly at risk of serious illness or death.

It's up to you to wash or santise your hands before biting your nails after holding the handrails.

They are at risk of passing it on to whoever they come into contact with, particular those who may not be young or healthy. 

The tube also isn't full of young people either at rush hour - that's a misconception. 

[bendan]

7 minutes ago, Wee Bully said:

I am really loath to respond to this, given yesterdays example, but:

1. What do you mean "R0 has been low for weeks now"?
2. What, in your opinion, does the R number have to be for TTI to be useful?

1. I did say 'in the general population'. If R was above 1, we'd be seeing more and more new cases. We're not.

2. It was Renton who suggested there was a number at which TTI became useful. 

Edited May 12, 2020 by bendan

[Granny Danger]

42 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

The idea behind reducing it to 60% was to ease you back to work by allowing you to work part-time with your employer.

i.e. if you normally work 40 hours you'd work 16 and be paid 100% of your salary for it (60% govt, 40% employer).

It would have no impact on the tax or ni you normally paid, and would allow for your employer to trade at a reduced turnover without laying people off.

The scheme doesn’t work like that, if you’re furloughed you cannot work for the employer whose employment you are furloughed from.

It could be amended, but as it stands what you’re suggesting isn’t allowed.

[Wee Bully]

4 minutes ago, bendan said:

1. I did say 'in the general population'. If R was above 1, we'd be seeing more and more new cases. We're not.

2. It was Renton who suggested there was a number at which TTI became useful. 

1. The Scottish Government thinks its hovering around 1 (maybe lower, but not far off).  What do you think it is?  0.9, 0.5?

2. Is it your view that TTI is useful regardless of the R number, and if so, why?

[Granny Danger]

40 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

The increased risk of death or serious illness to your average rush hour tube user is pretty minimal.

Providing they don't start running around meeting vulnerable friends and family, any increase in deaths would be small

Neither you nor I are experts in this field, but I would suggest that this is nonsense.

A huge increase in people using public transport with little or no social distancing will see an increase in spread, infections, hospitalisation and deaths.  How many I don’t know.

 

[Todd_is_God]

3 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

It could be amended, but as it stands what you’re suggesting isn’t allowed.

The chat was that it would be amended. Potentially along the lines of what I said.

I didn't just make that up

[bennett]

10 minutes ago, bendan said:

1. I did say 'in the general population'. If R was above 1, we'd be seeing more and more new cases. We're not.

2. It was Renton who suggested there was a number at which TTI became useful. 

Shandons got that dug well trained tbf. 

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

2 hours ago, MixuFixit said:

Aye lots of 'just use your other money' on show from Tories at the moment.

There was a wee thing last month about immigration lawyers asking the home office to relax the income rules for spousal visas (you need to earn at least £18,300), as so many people have lost jobs through no fault of their own and are now at risk of being deported/having their family spilt up.

The response from the immigration minister was:

"Couples can meet the income requirement in other ways. For example, income from investments, property rental or cash savings can also be taken into account."

They're on another planet.

[Granny Danger]

1 minute ago, Todd_is_God said:

The chat was that it would be amended. Potentially along the lines of what I said.

I didn't just make that up

I haven’t seen such suggested changes.  Apologies.

[Todd_is_God]

Just now, Granny Danger said:

Neither you nor I are experts in this field, but I would suggest that this is nonsense.

A huge increase in people using public transport with little or no social distancing will see an increase in spread, infections, hospitalisation and deaths.  How many I don’t know.

It really isn't nonsense. Young healthy adults were not dying in droves from the disease before, there is no reason to suggest they will start now. 

[cyderspaceman]

Yesterday I visited 4 shops. Wore my mask in the first, a clearance outlet with loads of cheap beer. Then forgot to put it on for the next two! Wore it in the last.  (I'll only get half a corona.)  About 40% folk masked. Shops were quiet.  Social distancing mostly well observed. It felt good to be out and about with limited restrictions. Hope you all get similar soon.     First bad weather in weeks but set to improve for the postponed socially distanced soireé at the weekend.   

 I know,   you don't fkn care!   Can't say that blame you.   

[Todd_is_God]

18 minutes ago, Michael W said:

They are at risk of passing it on to whoever they come into contact with, particular those who may not be young or healthy. 

At some point it will be up to those in vulnerable groups to look after themselves and minimise risk.

The expectation that we can put everything on hold or maintain a magical 2m gap between everyone until the virus just goes away is absolutely mindblowing

Edited May 12, 2020 by Todd_is_God

[cyderspaceman]

24 minutes ago, throbber said:

 

Aye, that's a 'crew cab', (won't hold 7) Accepted but my question still stands .

eta  Googled it  for my lazy self.   It's not allowed. Although I was surprised to see seatbelts have to be provided only for over 16s. Seems weird, no doubt there are other regs affecting this.

Edited May 12, 2020 by cyderspaceman