Corona Virus

[joachim1965]

5 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

I've had a quick read through some of the new rulings and it is pretty robust tbf.

 

Just one question though.  You can meet a family member at a park as long as you are two metres apart but cannot meet them in their home.  Does this include their back garden?  I don't see how arranging to meet in a park is less dangerous than arranging to meet in a back garden.  Surely meeting in a park is riskier than a back garden?  Particularly as they are allowing picnics, sunbathing and sitting around in a park from Wednesday.

Spot on, people need to see family, that should be prioritised.

[theessexfox]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

That certainly might be part of the story. So, the real trajectory of our "active cases" might not be as bad as the graph suggests, as the real figures from past weeks should probably have been higher. 

In reality, they might not even be rising any more.....

 

But the truth is we probably still have little idea how many are infected due to the lack of testing.

 

But we do know that there are at least 200k or thereabouts. That's ten times the figure for Germany and at least twice the figure for France, Spain or Italy.

Of course, not all their figures may be accurate - any more than ours is. Given the amount of testing, I assume the German figure is probably the most accurate.

 

Even allowing for inaccuracies, the info available supports a cautious approach, I'd say.

The report today says that an estimated 136,000 people were currently infected by covid on the 9th of May, I think. 

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, rachhere said:

I have been wondering this too. We have access straight to our garden without going through the house, which will of course be the case for many. 

Was curious about this and the only reason I can see is that you would be unlikely to remain solely in the garden (Everyone needs a wee sometime - right?) and that coupled with the fact you are likely to incur more people and more familiarity with your surroundings and less ALERT 

 

Otherwise - no idea

[Dahnsouff]

2 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

Spot on, people need to see family, that should be prioritised.

Neither disagreeing or agreeing, but why? 

[joachim1965]

1 minute ago, Dahnsouff said:

Neither disagreeing or agreeing, but why? 

You don't think people need to see family? 

If you need to ask why then I truly do despair.

[Leeds Fox]

2 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Was curious about this and the only reason I can see is that you would be unlikely to remain solely in the garden (Everyone needs a wee sometime - right?) and that coupled with the fact you are likely to incur more people and more familiarity with your surroundings and less ALERT 

 

Otherwise - no idea

You’d assume it because it aims to keep the meetings in public, maintain the social distancing guidelines and limit the amount of people that actually meet up at 2 people. People would take the ability to go to someone’s house and push the boundaries no doubt. I know most wouldn’t but plenty would. 
 

Although, if you can meet one person in a park, if they live with someone else, is the risk really any lower than meeting two? I’d say not. But again, I think it’s a measure to appease the public while keeping person to person contact at low limit while allowing people to socialise sensibly. 

[ScouseFox]

Just now, joachim1965 said:

You don't think people need to see family? 

If you need to ask why then I truly do despair.

what if you don't have a family but you've got best mates? where do you draw the line at "family"? nobody "needs" to see anyone. they just want to. 

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, joachim1965 said:

You don't think people need to see family? 

If you need to ask why then I truly do despair.

That is a dumb answer. You know nothing about me, nor I you.

Yes, I wish to see my mother and father, both 75, as does my son.

I do not however wish to put them at risk.

Thought not emotion is needed in such circumstances.

[Lionator]

A simply appalling and inappropriate statement in the commons.

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Lionator said:

A simply appalling and inappropriate statement in the commons.

What was said?

[Alf Bentley]

20 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Active cases is a pretty redundant measures as we're not measuring recovered cases. 

 

They also seem to think that community spread is minimal and that most of the cases are currently in hospitals and care homes.

 

Fair point that first one. 

 

I wonder what the basis for that second claim is? Even though the majority of cases are in hospitals and care homes, I wonder how "minimal" the community spread is.....when ONS are highlighting large numbers of excess deaths at home, compared to the norm. Of course, some or possibly many of those will be deaths from other causes - people who didn't go to hospital with heart problems etc. - but presumably at least some are undiagnosed cases of Covid-19. We're dealing with approximations, anyway.

 

2 minutes ago, theessexfox said:

The report today says that an estimated 136,000 people were currently infected by covid on the 9th of May, I think. 

 

That sounds reasonable.

 

I just looked at the old figures on that web site:

 - 133,495 had tested positive by 22nd April (including recovered & died)

- 223,060 had tested positive by 11th May (including recovered & died)

 

As this infection seems to last several weeks for most people, presumably most of the 90,000 since 22/4 are still positive plus some of the 133,000 positive before....allowing for those who have recovered or died. Then you'd need to add however many are out there who are infected but haven't been tested and are either self-isolating or asymptomatic..... 

[Lionator]

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

What was said?

A lot of waffle. Encouraging people to go swimming in the outdoors!!! Continual digs at Labour during the 2008 crash then telling Blackford "this is no time for party politics". Jokes flying around the tory benches which he was engaging in. Ignoring all of Starmer's reasonable questions.

[Izzy]

16 minutes ago, rachhere said:

We have access straight to our garden without going through the house

Up your back passage?

[foxfanazer]

Just now, Izzy said:

Up your back passage?

Oooh matron! 

[Pliskin]

Apparently you can play golf with one person from your household from Wednesday, anyone got any clubs? 

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, Lionator said:

A lot of waffle. Encouraging people to go swimming in the outdoors!!! Continual digs at Labour during the 2008 crash then telling Blackford "this is no time for party politics". Jokes flying around the tory benches which he was engaging in. Ignoring all of Starmer's reasonable questions.

I have it on, and that is not what I saw and heard.

Maybe I better take my blue glasses off!

[joachim1965]

9 minutes ago, ScouseFox said:

what if you don't have a family but you've got best mates? where do you draw the line at "family"? nobody "needs" to see anyone. they just want to. 

The mental health issues that people are going to suffer from not being able to see family is going to be huge.

To say that nobody "needs" to see someone but they just want to is frankly staggering.

[Mike Oxlong]

15 minutes ago, ScouseFox said:

what if you don't have a family but you've got best mates? where do you draw the line at "family"? nobody "needs" to see anyone. they just want to. 

You asking hypothetically ? 

Edited 11 May 2020 by Mike Oxlong

[ScouseFox]

Just now, joachim1965 said:

The mental health issues that people are going to suffer from not being able to see family is going to be huge.

To say that nobody "needs" to see someone but they just want to is frankly staggering.

where do you draw the line, then? just the one parent, it seems? what if you don't have any parents? can i go and see my auntie if she's brought me up like a mother? can i go and see my cousin if he's "like a brother to me"? 

 

i've never gone this long without seeing my best mates in my life. so i guess i need to see them. but because they're not on my birth certificate i can't? or can i because it'll cheer me up? 

 

i fully understand that people want to see other people, i've lived in the same 2 rooms in my flat with no garden and barely even any windows for the last 3 weeks. i want to go for a lager with my dad ffs. but i can't cos we're in the middle of an international fu cking crisis. and at the end of the day i don't physically need to. 

[Mike Oxlong]

Typical example here of how Boris operates 

 

SNP Westminster leader Ian Blackford says "it is obvious the last 24 hours have spread confusion" and warns that "mixed messaging risks lives".

He asks the PM why the government did not share the new slogan with the devolved administrations before it appeared in the Sunday papers.

Boris Johnson says there has been cooperation across the four nations adding: "I think we have been able to make a huge amount of progress together."

He says there is "always political temptation to accentuate divisions but that is not the approach of the government".

 

Just answer the fvckin question Boris ! 

Edited 11 May 2020 by Mike Oxlong

[joachim1965]

2 minutes ago, ScouseFox said:

 

 

i've never gone this long without seeing my best mates in my life. so i guess i need to see them. but because they're not on my birth certificate i can't? or can i because it'll cheer me up? 

 

This statement sums up your ignorance, if you think people with mental health issues only need to see family because it will cheer them up then I have no response that I could give you that would make any sense to you, put the TV on and watch cbeebies.

[StanSP]

41 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

I've had a quick read through some of the new rulings and it is pretty robust tbf.

 

Just one question though.  You can meet a family member at a park as long as you are two metres apart but cannot meet them in their home.  Does this include their back garden?  I don't see how arranging to meet in a park is less dangerous than arranging to meet in a back garden.  Surely meeting in a park is riskier than a back garden?  Particularly as they are allowing picnics, sunbathing and sitting around in a park from Wednesday.

Sorry but everything that has been announced last night and today is straight-forward, simple to understand and there is no time or place for confusion or questions of this perfectly-planned strategy.

 

[ScouseFox]

2 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

This statement sums up your ignorance, if you think people with mental health issues only need to see family because it will cheer them up then I have no response that I could give you that would make any sense to you, put the TV on and watch cbeebies.

haha, ok then 

[oxford blue]

Opinion polls to date have shown Conservatives around they were at the General Election. I hope they would agree they have made mistakes so far eg not shutting down quickly enough (and I was wrong there - i agreed with them, but hindsight shows we would have been better to lockdown earlier.)).

 

But not being able to see family? Can anyone agree with this? Many people have not seen family - let alone touched - for too long. This must be changed. It is crazy we could be very close to family in the workplace - or on public transport (particularly for London Underground users) but can't see them other than outside the home. I hope a government representative explains the logic(!) in this.

 

I don't often agree with Piers Morgan, but I can't disagree with anything in this article - and is better written than I could manage! (Although he is paid for his thoughts...)

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8307337/PIERS-MORGAN-Boris-Johnsons-shameful-mixed-messages-cost-lives.html

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

This statement sums up your ignorance, if you think people with mental health issues only need to see family because it will cheer them up then I have no response that I could give you that would make any sense to you, put the TV on and watch cbeebies.

With respect, I think the argument here is that while this crisis is having a huge effect on the mental health of many people, being able to see family does not address that issue for all or even most people suffering from its effects. As such, it seems to be a mite unfair if this is the only one or simply the overwhelming favourite of such options looking to be given a green light.

Edited 11 May 2020 by leicsmac