Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[8MileBU]

9 hours ago, Michael W said:

It's six. 

The 30 limit was also applied to a maximum of two households, which always made me chuckle. 

The writing has been on the wall since Van Tam reappeared yesterday tbh. The blunt instrument is out even though the issues at this stage are mainly confined to the North of England and Birmingham. 

Is the blunt instrument the wee box JVT needs to stand on at the podium? Maybe he needs it to do the writing on the wall.

[Todd_is_God]

37 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

8 hours ago, Todd_is_God said:

A somewhat reasonable visual aid to compare the "second wave" to the first. It's one thing to say "cases were likely at least ten times higher" than we were recording, but visualising that is not quite as easy.
Not a huge fan of it appearing to represent that we are now able to identify all new cases (though this isn't the point it is making, and I think its fair to assume we will 'miss' a much lower percentage than earlier on), but it does at least give some perspective on why comparing case numbers now to those in March and April is essentially meaningless.

And if anyone had suggested cases were 10x the actual daily declared rate back then it would have been roundly shouted down with you leading the attack. It's absolutely no perspective and for a government to now rubbish their own figures to try to dispel mounting concern just sums their handling up. The figures are the figures. They announced them as accurate even when scrutinised then so they have made their bed and can squirm in it.

What? It was (and is) a widely held and accepted view that actual cases were many times higher...

In fact I myself posted a link to a study that, at one point, estimated they could be up to eighty-five times higher.

Edited September 9, 2020 by Todd_is_God

[Billy Jean King]

What? It was (and is) a widely held and accepted view that actual cases were many times higher...
In fact I myself posted a link to a study that, at one point, estimated they could be up to eighty-five times higher.

I'm not arguing that infections were not higher than stated it's using a notional figure for "perspective " that is objectionable. You can only compare official figures to do that and for a Government to now rubbish their own figures as Hancock just did on BBC to somehow justify their stance now is just typical of their response. It's little wonder we are in full reverse mode now.

[vikingTON]

12 hours ago, Bairnardo said:

Well virginton has already suggested the solution on this very thread. All of the people who need to care for their kids can be replaced by workers who have been laid off elsewhere.

That's right.

If you didn't want to deal with the burden of childcare then you shouldn't have chosen to have them in the first place. The onus is not on the rest of society to keep your career on track and, least of all in this context, to risk another outbreak of a pandemic virus by ditching all credible restrictions in order to look after your sprogs five days a week. It's really that straightforward.

Your footstomping tantrum about how irreplaceable full time parents would be is hilarious, given that we just compiled a list of essential key workers six months ago and put provisions in place for them through local hubs. As for the rest, an employer will quite easily find an equivalent candidate to your no-doubt extra-special skill sets when unemployment is soaring past three million by the end of the year. They'll probably get a dozen excellent candidates for each replacement-level job never mind just one.

[Todd_is_God]

18 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

27 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

What? It was (and is) a widely held and accepted view that actual cases were many times higher...
In fact I myself posted a link to a study that, at one point, estimated they could be up to eighty-five times higher.

I'm not arguing that infections were not higher than stated it's using a notional figure for "perspective " that is objectionable. You can only compare official figures to do that and for a Government to now rubbish their own figures as Hancock just did on BBC to somehow justify their stance now is just typical of their response. It's little wonder we are in full reverse mode now.

But you claimed I would have, which is just nonsense.

You've completely missed the point. We're about to shit the bed over a set of figures lightyears away from March, and with the majority confined to a few areas.

I've not seen Hancock on the BBC so have no idea what you are talking about. 

Edited September 9, 2020 by Todd_is_God

[8MileBU]

32 minutes ago, Stellaboz said:

What's the likelihood of this being under control by next summer?

Been wondering this too - Seen quite a few gigs/tours/festivals announcing dates and line-ups. I can’t help but wonder if the announcements are purely for cash-flow or just plain false confidence, especially when the likely age demographic of concert goers is the same demographic as the main covid-spreaders. 

[Detournement]

29 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

38 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

What? It was (and is) a widely held and accepted view that actual cases were many times higher...
In fact I myself posted a link to a study that, at one point, estimated they could be up to eighty-five times higher.

I'm not arguing that infections were not higher than stated it's using a notional figure for "perspective " that is objectionable. You can only compare official figures to do that and for a Government to now rubbish their own figures as Hancock just did on BBC to somehow justify their stance now is just typical of their response. It's little wonder we are in full reverse mode now.

It's not a notional figure they are using the nation wide serology study for data.

[Todd_is_God]

18 minutes ago, 8MileBU said:

Been wondering this too - Seen quite a few gigs/tours/festivals announcing dates and line-ups. I can’t help but wonder if the announcements are purely for cash-flow or just plain false confidence, especially when the likely age demographic of concert goers is the same demographic as the main covid-spreaders. 

What counts as "under control" though?

Would, say, averaging 10,000 cases per day for months, with ~10 deaths per day, across the UK be under control?

[effeffsee_the2nd]

20 minutes ago, 8MileBU said:

Been wondering this too - Seen quite a few gigs/tours/festivals announcing dates and line-ups. I can’t help but wonder if the announcements are purely for cash-flow or just plain false confidence, especially when the likely age demographic of concert goers is the same demographic as the main covid-spreaders. 

Yeah, when lots o things were cancelled or postponed to next year I was thinking och it'll be long over by then, it doesn't look like we'll have normal service this year, perhaps the end of next summer we might be able to bin SD but still keep other precautions in place

[D.A.F.C]

Been wondering this too - Seen quite a few gigs/tours/festivals announcing dates and line-ups. I can’t help but wonder if the announcements are purely for cash-flow or just plain false confidence, especially when the likely age demographic of concert goers is the same demographic as the main covid-spreaders. 

No chance of anything happening until a vaccine or amazing treatment/drugs.
Could be a while longer.
Looking back to the initial outbreak I wonder if governments regret not closing down earlier. The whole world needed to shit down for a few weeks and contain it. Instead we pretend everything was fine in order to squeeze a few more weeks of the economy out but this has caused years worth of damage.

[effeffsee_the2nd]

1 minute ago, Todd_is_God said:

What counts as "under control" though?

Would, say, averaging 10,000 cases per day for months, with ~10 deaths per day, across the UK be under control?

There's going to be a few false starts in the road to normality- we've had some already.  it'll take some trial and error before we find the safest way to open up.  If theres 10000 cases a day for months then it will surely work it's way towards the vulnerable

[Todd_is_God]

1 minute ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

There's going to be a few false starts in the road to normality- we've had some already.  it'll take some trial and error before we find the safest way to open up.  If theres 10000 cases a day for months then it will surely work it's way towards the vulnerable

Yes, but in this hypothetical situation there are still only 10 people per day dying.

It was a yes / no question tbh.

[Todd_is_God]

11 minutes ago, D.A.F.C said:

No chance of anything happening until a vaccine or amazing treatment/drugs.
Could be a while longer.
Looking back to the initial outbreak I wonder if governments regret not closing down earlier. The whole world needed to shit down for a few weeks and contain it. Instead we pretend everything was fine in order to squeeze a few more weeks of the economy out but this has caused years worth of damage.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Sweden didn't.

Maybe, rather than regretting not shutting down earlier, governments will regret pretending that it was possible to prevent absolutely everyone dying, and taken more targetted measures to protect the vulnerable, whilst allowing the young people to get it and get over it.

For all the Sweden model bashers out there, it's pretty much what WM are going to be putting in place in England from Monday. Just 6 months late.

Edited September 9, 2020 by Todd_is_God

[effeffsee_the2nd]

3 minutes ago, Snafu said:

Nah, its all age groups, all types of music. Then there's other live entertainment such as theatre and shows, classical and modern dance, lectures and comedy, military shows etc. A lot of these venues and companies that organise these events could be out of business by next summer so they have to keep things ticking over to survive in the hope they are allowed to put on live shows.

There will be a massive knock on effect if not for the people involved within and around the industry and also needs to be taken into account is that many of the bigger events bring people from abroad so there's also travel companies, hotels and the businesses close to the venue or on route who will miss out.

One of Scotland's main industries as well so not that non essential when it comes to the economy of this country.

it's also possible that a feeling of "show must go on" no pun intended btw will come over the public,  If this ends up as a protracted long haul even like say WW2 then the government and the public will accept the need for as much normality as possible  whilst putting mitigation in place 

[Billy Jean King]

BoJo the Clown addressing his subjects at 4.00pm apparently.

[D.A.F.C]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Sweden didn't.
Maybe, rather than regretting not shutting down earlier, governments will regret pretending that it was possible to prevent absolutely everyone dying, and taken more targetted measures to protect the vulnerable, whilst allowing the young people to get it and get over it.
For all the Sweden model bashers out there, it's pretty much what WM are going to be putting in place in England from Monday. Just 6 months late.

I agree, once we let people travel and large crowds then it was pointless.
Lockdown was pretty ineffective by that stage.

[dirty dingus]

16 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

BoJo the Clown addressing his subjects at 4.00pm apparently.

That will be to take the heat of his upcoming scudding at PMQ's

[Bairnardo]

1 hour ago, virginton said:

If you didn't want to deal with the burden of childcare then you shouldn't have chosen to have them in the first place. The onus is not on the rest of society to keep your career on track and, least of all in this context, to risk another outbreak of a pandemic virus by ditching all credible restrictions in order to look after your sprogs five days a week. It's really that straightforward.

Your footstomping tantrum about how irreplaceable full time parents would be is hilarious, given that we just compiled a list of essential key workers six months ago and put provisions in place for them through local hubs. As for the rest, an employer will quite easily find an equivalent candidate to your no-doubt extra-special skill sets when unemployment is soaring past three million by the end of the year. They'll probably get a dozen excellent candidates for each replacement-level job never mind just one.

I've already put the above ramble in same file as "folk can just buy a house closer to their work". Loathe to take it back out tbh. Suffice to say its an unspeakably stupid claim, and the idea that years and years of building up family friendly policies etc in numerous workplaces could be binned, and the workforce along with it, to be replaced by non-parents is frankly embarrassing for anyone to come out with, let alone someone who steams around a football forum desperately trying to compare their degree qualifications and using patter like "Desmond".

The idea that theres anyone in this thread having more of a footstomping tantrum than yourself.... 

[Distant Doonhamer]

BoJo the Clown addressing his subjects at 4.00pm apparently.

A man who would be out of his depth in a pool of his own piss.

[Billy Jean King]

That will be to take the heat of his upcoming scudding at PMQ's

Speculation on the news there that the approach today will be he is attempting to "Save Christmas " by announcing new restrictions now. This from the utter buffoon that seems to have forgotten he stood on the same platform a few weeks ago telling us it would be all back to normal before Christmas. It's total and utter carnage, total ineptitude.