I'm unsure where you read that Spain is not having excessive deaths. Going back to the EuroMoMo graphs, scroll to the bottom and you can see the massive spike in Spain:
Easy E wrote: As for quarantining the High Risk population and allowing freedom to work for low-risk people, how does this work?
Someone care to elaborate on this "plan"?
Is there actually some substance behind it? Maybe some government pitching it, a white paper, a politician asking for votes on it, or is it just a bunch of commentators on the internet saying it?
No it's not a formal plan. It would be the plan I would have endorsed if it was suggested by people in power were we to go through something like this again. I brought it up. The idea behind it is to acquire herd immunity as quikcly as possible while protecting the vulnerable from infection as much as possible.
I'm not entirely sure how to do that "protect the vulnerable". Different strategies for different areas would likely the most effective approach. I can think about 100,000 ideas more constructive than giving away multiple trillions of dollars while your workforce sits dormant though. That is about the dumbest possible solution to the problem IMO.
I just typed out a very lengthy response to Xenomancers explaining to him in detail how 95% of what he posts is wrong, and then dakka ate it when I tried to post it. Rather than going back over with it, I'll simply address his most recent stupid claim and say that Sweden has the HIGHER per capita death rate from COVID in the world, rather than the lowest as he just so recently claimed:
Disciple of Fate wrote: I'm unsure where you read that Spain is not having excessive deaths. Going back to the EuroMoMo graphs, scroll to the bottom and you can see the massive spike in Spain:
Disciple of Fate wrote: I'm unsure where you read that Spain is not having excessive deaths. Going back to the EuroMoMo graphs, scroll to the bottom and you can see the massive spike in Spain:
Scroll down to the middle of that link. Spain is listed as a no excess R number.
You mean the Europe image? That is a video infographic, if you press play you can actually see that it colours up the countries, just that in week 21 they have managed to go back to the average. That's just the default still of it.
Easy E wrote: As for quarantining the High Risk population and allowing freedom to work for low-risk people, how does this work?
Someone care to elaborate on this "plan"?
Is there actually some substance behind it? Maybe some government pitching it, a white paper, a politician asking for votes on it, or is it just a bunch of commentators on the internet saying it?
No it's not a formal plan. It would be the plan I would have endorsed if it was suggested by people in power were we to go through something like this again. I brought it up. The idea behind it is to acquire herd immunity as quikcly as possible while protecting the vulnerable from infection as much as possible.
I'm not entirely sure how to do that "protect the vulnerable". Different strategies for different areas would likely the most effective approach. I can think about 100,000 ideas more constructive than giving away multiple trillions of dollars while your workforce sits dormant though. That is about the dumbest possible solution to the problem IMO.
So basically, it is just internet commentators wish listing and/or armchair quarterbacking?
No it's not a formal plan. It would be the plan I would have endorsed if it was suggested by people in power were we to go through something like this again. I brought it up. The idea behind it is to acquire herd immunity as quikcly as possible while protecting the vulnerable from infection as much as possible.
Ah yes the idea that has never actually worked without vaccine in human history. And the one that has already got several bad news in terms of it actually being possible. Sweden is banking on that. It's failing utterly and even there it's dawning they screwed up. The plan isn't going to work. Even if you assumed surviving the virus gives you meaningful immunity which is unproven still it would still be spectacularly bad.
Also, the r0 is also just a talking point without any nuance applied to it. The R rate will go down naturally as more people become infected. Ill see if I can find the article I read on how it doesn't really mean much just as a standalone number.
Explains how the R rate can go up, but actually be going down. Due to something called Simpsons paradox. It's a new concept to me. I could try to explain but the article does a better job.
Also, the r0 is also just a talking point without any nuance applied to it. The R rate will go down naturally as more people become infected. Ill see if I can find the article I read on how it doesn't really mean much just as a standalone number.
Explains how the R rate can go up, but actually be going down. Due to something called Simpsons paradox. It's a new concept to me. I could try to explain but the article does a better job.
Err, except that what that article says at the end is that the overall R number does matter, because the care homes /hospitals aren't separate systems from everything else, infection can spread from one to the other.
Sweden was very much banking on herd immunity to start with, but due to the low infection rate so far <10%, they're having to rethink that.
“Strictly speaking you have one R: there’s one epidemic and linked sub-epidemics; the epidemic in hospitals is not completely separate from the one in the community.” But to understand how it works, you need to look in this more granular fashion: the overall R is not much use on its own."
When he says he's worried it might be the overall R that matters, he's saying that because that's what people are basing policy on, without applying the other variables. Least that's how it read to me.
Sweden supposedly never aimed to go for herd immunity, but what wasn't helping was the claim that they thought they would reach herd immunity by June/July. Some very mixed signals.
They weren't aiming for it, likely because the UK aimed for it, then did a massive change around when it became apparent that aiming for it was a near disaster in potential lives lost.
So they weren't aiming for it, but they estimated that it would happen by X date and weren't using lockdowns to really avoid it
Yes, but it felt a bit like in Sweden, the idea that herd immunity would be reached relatively quickly was used as a semi justification for not having a stronger lockdown. The kind of "its worse now, but we will get over the hill more quickly" type of reasoning. Perhaps that is just my perception of these kinds of comments.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Yes, but it felt a bit like in Sweden, the idea that herd immunity would be reached relatively quickly was used as a semi justification for not having a stronger lockdown. The kind of "its worse now, but we will get over the hill more quickly" type of reasoning. Perhaps that is just my perception of these kinds of comments.
I think that's what they might have been hoping for; just that the actual numbers of dead is perhaps higher than they thought. Remembering that when you get estimations from scientific studies you'll often have a range of values - best to worst. Sweden might have banked on the best end of the scale. Meanwhile any media for them would have agreed whilst any media against would have plucked the worst case numbers. Reality is only found when things are put into practice - which of course also might prove that the study was flawed - either over or under estimating even at its most extreme ends.
So, here is the deal. If you quarantine only the people 65+, you are effectively murdering them. Because you need workers to care for them. Alright, so you need to quarantine those workers as well. Which means nurses, administration, physicians, sanitation, pharmacy, EMS, Hospitals, and all of their families. Alright, so now we have all those. OH CRAP I FORGOT! We need to quarantine any of the Ombudsman who they would need to contact for abuse. Then there are all those home health people and home hospice, so all of those people working in that area need to be quarantined. Then you would need to quarantine their families, just in case.
Really hope you don't need to go to the Hospital for anything, because we have quarantined it for the elderly. Your physician? Well he is a physician for some elderly patients so you are gonna have to suck it up buttercup. Need something from the pharmacy? NOPE! Quarantined because of the elderly.
OR
We could all act like adults, distance correctly and deal with this until it moves on in a logical manner. As in we all suck it up, sit at home, and stop crying about it.
PS: Kids and anybody at risk under 65? Screw em, not our problem! ONLY 65+ IS WORTH SAVING!
Dreadwinter wrote: PS: Kids and anybody at risk under 65? Screw em, not our problem! ONLY 65+ IS WORTH SAVING!
A real problem is also that being overweight/obese seems to have quite the effect for the virus. Given the rates of overweight/obesity for the West and especially the US in those categories, that is still a massive risk group to leave walking around.
Their whole strategy was protect the elderly, let virus go through on assumption everybody will get it anyway and then have elderly protected because people around them are immune to it due to having caught it already. That's pretty much identical to boris's herd immunity idea. Cover elderly, let virus go through without lockdowns to protect economy and then when enough have caught it those who haven't caught are safe due to others.
That's banking on herd immunity.
Of course now it's shown even in Spain which is one of the worst countries hit only 2.5% or so have actually got it which is pathetically small for this rate and there's still zero evidence whatsoever those are immune to the virus for any meaningful time. If you are only say half a year then at this rate it's not going to be effective at all for herd immunity. Even year lasting protection is pathetic.
In other news South Korea that got virus in control once has seen numbers go up again and some restrictions came back on. One guy that visited multiple bars seems to have caused quite a mess on his own.
The rules have been changed so that only one doc is able to declare CV as a cause of death, remotely without any examination. Before this, 2 docs were required to certify any death, one of whom had to have had been treating the patient, or know them and seen them recently.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Good news Future War Cultist, dental practices will be allowed to reopen from June 8th. its up to each practice as to when they re open apparently.
The rules have been changed so that only one doc is able to declare CV as a cause of death, remotely without any examination. Before this, 2 docs were required to certify any death, one of whom had to have had been treating the patient, or know them and seen them recently.
Accurate death certification is important to understand the lethality of Covd-19.
Excess Deaths is important for overall public health concerns. It contains not only Covid deaths, but also people dying from cancer because they can't access treatment, for example, and excludes everyone not dying in road or swimming accidents.
At some stage it will be possible and useful to unpick the detail. For instance, the death rate caused by lung disease due to traffic pollution must have declined. That's potential guidance for planning future transportation.
Anecdotally, Henley's Duke Street is the most air polluted location in the whole of South Oxfordshire. It was amazing how clean the air was early in the lockdown, when traffic was nearly non-existent. It's astonishing now how sulphurous the air is starting to beceom as traffic builds up again.
Kilkrazy wrote: Accurate death certification is important to understand the lethality of Covd-19.
Excess Deaths is important for overall public health concerns. It contains not only Covid deaths, but also people dying from cancer because they can't access treatment, for example, and excludes everyone not dying in road or swimming accidents.
At some stage it will be possible and useful to unpick the detail. For instance, the death rate caused by lung disease due to traffic pollution must have declined. That's potential guidance for planning future transportation.
Anecdotally, Henley's Duke Street is the most air polluted location in the whole of South Oxfordshire. It was amazing how clean the air was early in the lockdown, when traffic was nearly non-existent. It's astonishing now how sulphurous the air is starting to beceom as traffic builds up again.
Indeed, that's why it seems odd to me that they've changed it in such a way. obviously I'm in no way qualified on the issue, but surely when these numbers are being used every day to inform public policy, its imperative that they be as accurate as possible?
I never knew that about Henley. It sort of makes sense.. That one way system is a nightmare for traffic queues.
Given the vagaries of reporting and different countries doing it in different ways, I suspect that the excess deaths is probably going to make for the best comparisons, especially if they're changing the way things are recorded (or at least declared) half way through.
It is probably the only reliable number everyone should be able to gather.
Testing is different for every country, but deaths are deaths. As long as the records are accurate, and an average is viable, every death can be compared.
But if they're reporting them as CV deaths and there's the possibility that they aren't, that will skew the excess numbers in relation to CV numbers surely?
queen_annes_revenge wrote: But if they're reporting them as CV deaths and there's the possibility that they aren't, that will skew the excess numbers in relation to CV numbers surely?
What do you mean by 'skew the excess numbers in relation to CV'?
The percentage of the excess deaths attributable to CV are not known. It'll take some time to have the breakdown of fatalities within that published. However, the excess deaths during the pandemic is a hard, comparable number.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: But if they're reporting them as CV deaths and there's the possibility that they aren't, that will skew the excess numbers in relation to CV numbers surely?
The excess numbers will give us a rough idea of how many people died during this period, the overwhelming majority above the norm of which would be due to covid-19. It's not going to 100% accurate, as it's being compared to an average, but the numbers reported as due to covid-19 have no bearing on the number of excess deaths. We can then compare those however, which gives us a check on how accurate the reporting and diagnosis is to some degree.
They’re also offset by the lack of injuries in day to day life.
With fewer people walking about and fewer cars, there’ll be a marching drop in RTAs - possibly a bigger drop as with pubs closed, one imagines there are far, far fewer morons drink driving.
Quieter roads may also mean Paramedics can get to call outs faster, as they need to drive through less traffic. Granted they can normally use their neenaws to clear people out the way, but they still need to slow down to navigate the path opened as people pull out their way. But every minute saved puts the victim in a better position to survive whatever’s happened to them.
For example, many many moons ago, I had a strongly inadvisable arm/window interface, and suffered a horrendous wound (severed nerves, tendons, cut to the literal bone, missed my artery by 2mm if memory serves’). As you can imagine, I was pissing blood out the wound at a great rate of knots. I’m not entirely sure why the Scout leaders didn’t wait for an ambulance, as they drove me to A&E in the end.
With a wound like that, which couldn’t be effectively staunched without medical equipment, every minute counts. A similar injury suffered today is arguably lower risk because there’s a far higher chance of the Ambulance arriving well before blood loss becomes critical.
And that’s just a personal example. Heart Attacks, Strokes etc are all time sensitive to improve survival chances. This is why First Aid is so important, as it helps stabilise the victim and keep them more or less ticking over until professional and fully equipped help can get to the scene.
Those deaths are likely somewhat reduced right now, because that aid can travel that much faster.
One thing I see is a few stores just a few, for now, declaring a no cash policy.
Ok, I'm sure it's "policy", I'm sure they have "reasons" for it, and that's all fine. I wont shop at them.
I use a card often, by choice. If they try to make it mandatory, forget it.In a cashless society you can't buy a stick of gum without leaving a record and i just don't want 'the system' to have that kind of big brother omniscience.
Before anyone says "But its just for the duration of the crisis!!!" I'll point out it's been 19 years since 911 and we still have the patriot act, FISA, gitmo, etc. Once the system gets a new power it never lets go of it.
No cash is because money is one of the best ways to pass around disease. It's utterly filthy stuff. Heck an video I was watching the other day on medieval times even had a village where they had a pot of vinegar to put coins in before you were allowed to spend them. Even way back before we really knew about viruses and how they spread money was considered "dirty".
Butchers in the UK used to have a booth where a separate employee would only handle the money, never the butcher.
Card payments with contract free have become easier. Banks in the UK have raised the limit to £45 for contactless (I think that's the value). Meanwhile there are new pay by phone/tablet options that I think give you an even higher limit by no-contact pay.
Plus staff can wipe down keypads for chip-and-pin systems. So you can keep that safe.
A lot of supermarkets have also said that they aren't getting the same bank deliveries of money as well. So banks aren't sending out the cash which means that there's less change and that makes cash less ideal.
Before anyone says "But its just for the duration of the crisis!!!" I'll point out it's been 19 years since 911 and we still have the patriot act, FISA, gitmo, etc. Once the system gets a new power it never lets go of it.
I am glad you pointed out that these actual erosions of our rights are still in force and on the books. Yet, more people went out and protest wearing a mask as totalitarianism then have protested actual surveillance state policies.
i am sure there is an appropriate meme or gif to apply here.... but all I got for it today is this.....
Matt Swain wrote: One thing I see is a few stores just a few, for now, declaring a no cash policy.
Ok, I'm sure it's "policy", I'm sure they have "reasons" for it, and that's all fine. I wont shop at them.
I use a card often, by choice. If they try to make it mandatory, forget it.In a cashless society you can't buy a stick of gum without leaving a record and i just don't want 'the system' to have that kind of big brother omniscience.
Before anyone says "But its just for the duration of the crisis!!!" I'll point out it's been 19 years since 911 and we still have the patriot act, FISA, gitmo, etc. Once the system gets a new power it never lets go of it.
Not taking cash is to reduce contact between you and the member of staff, no inverted commas needed. It's a policy with good reason for it. No government is going to need to make cashless payment mandatory, it'll be the stores who will slowly begin to phase out cash payments for their convenience. There will come a time, probably in our lifetimes when you'll have to go out of your way to find somewhere that takes cash. At the moment though, it is just part of the distancing, keeping people from touching too many things that others have touched.
Shops were already pushing cashless transcations as were the banks. All those branches closing; all those cash machines getting overused because there's fewer and fewer around. All the safety measures. Heck online trading alone accounts for a huge shift.
I agree we will reach a time where cash is generally only used as a "novelty" at markets, bring and buy etc.... Even many of them I can see adapting in time. When everyone has a phone with tehir paypal wired to it they can effortlessly (even today) simply pay someone via an email address at a stall provided they've reception for the net.
In the U.K. at least, there are also pretty solid protections to be had from using card over cash.
If someone bonks me on the head, and lifts £50 out my wallet? It’s gone.
If someone bonks me on the head, lifts my debit card and then spends using Contactless? I get my money back - provided I can reasonably demonstrate I was bonked on the head (Police Reports are useful here, and you can bet I’d be getting the Police involved if such a thing happened)
I could harp on for hours and hours about this, as it’s my literal bread and butter!
Before anyone says "But its just for the duration of the crisis!!!" I'll point out it's been 19 years since 911 and we still have the patriot act, FISA, gitmo, etc. Once the system gets a new power it never lets go of it.
I am glad you pointed out that these actual erosions of our rights are still in force and on the books. Yet, more people went out and protest wearing a mask as totalitarianism then have protested actual surveillance state policies.
i am sure there is an appropriate meme or gif to apply here.... but all I got for it today is this.....
Go back about 100 pages, everyone laughed at my concerns of over policing and creeping authoritarianism.
Ironically, at the start of the crisis I withdrew £250 in cash.It's still in my wallet unspent. It doesn't help that most British banknotes are plastic, which is one of the best surfaces for the virus to survive on. Up to three days, some of the science says.
Kilkrazy wrote: For instance, the death rate caused by lung disease due to traffic pollution must have declined. That's potential guidance for planning future transportation.
Well, that death type specifically probably not. Lung disease caused by traffic pollution is kind of a long term thing. Letting up the pollution for a couple months would have a minuscule effect on the death rate. If someone with pollution based lung disease was going to die last month, their condition would probably have been extremely critical for at least the last year. Not to mention having a lung disease puts you in the Coronavirus risk category anyway.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: In the U.K. at least, there are also pretty solid protections to be had from using card over cash.
I remember my early internet purchases were all done on a credit card because it was the only way to get "proper internet protection." Fastforward to today and most debit cards have similar levels of online protection. Plus there's paypal who offer their own protections. If anything the system, UK side at least, favours the customer quite considerably. The greater threats are really people who buy from obviously dodgy websites or when a website gets bank detail stolen from them. Though, of course, banks are well setup to protect against such measures.
Government doesn't need to outlaw money; convenience and safety and the market will push money out of general use and into cash-in-hand market sectors only.
Of course this also means that banks become even more heavily reliant on government bailouts should they falter. Perhaps even moving toward a government that might have to consider being able to freeze a specific banks UK held accounts and then having the government honour the money if the bank falls under. Since with digital money if your bank starts to die or dies you can't really have savings held in a mattress.
The hardest hit will be charities who rely heavily on those spare change boxes. Though I'm sure they will find new ways to adapt to the market (even things like Humble Bundle come to mind as means that charities can tap into all the more to help generate income for themselves.
Little surprised anyone uses cash TBH, I go months without using generally.
Don't be surprised if things like public transport stay entirely cashless -- think most of London already is IIRC.
Be warned that text messages like this one are already in circulation as the track & trace service launches. They are not genuine and anyone going to that website link will be asked to submit personal information that will then be used by fraudsters.
Before anyone says "But its just for the duration of the crisis!!!" I'll point out it's been 19 years since 911 and we still have the patriot act, FISA, gitmo, etc. Once the system gets a new power it never lets go of it.
I am glad you pointed out that these actual erosions of our rights are still in force and on the books. Yet, more people went out and protest wearing a mask as totalitarianism then have protested actual surveillance state policies.
i am sure there is an appropriate meme or gif to apply here.... but all I got for it today is this.....
Go back about 100 pages, everyone laughed at my concerns of over policing and creeping authoritarianism.
I think you missed my point.
The big civil liberty erosions happened circa 2001 and no one is doing anything about it now to roll them back. But now they are suddenly concerned about civil liberties!
I am not sure I can appropriately convey what I am getting at.
Kilkrazy wrote: For instance, the death rate caused by lung disease due to traffic pollution must have declined. That's potential guidance for planning future transportation.
Well, that death type specifically probably not. Lung disease caused by traffic pollution is kind of a long term thing. Letting up the pollution for a couple months would have a minuscule effect on the death rate. If someone with pollution based lung disease was going to die last month, their condition would probably have been extremely critical for at least the last year. Not to mention having a lung disease puts you in the Coronavirus risk category anyway.
Yes, you're right. It was a bad example to pick. Something like the decline in road traffic deaths would have been a better one.
A pilot flew from Surrey to Anglesey on the Spring Bank Holiday "to go to the beach", a report has revealed.
The man flew from Fairoaks Airport to RAF Valley, a military base near the Welsh coast, on 25 May.
It was closed for maintenance work and security staff believed he had made an emergency landing.
However, he told them "he had flown from London to go to the beach", according to details in a Defence Aviation Safety Occurrence Report.
When told about lockdown and coronavirus restrictions in Wales, he is reported to have told them "it was okay, because he had [the virus] two months ago".
The report lists events involving planes and said the aircraft called the control tower at 12:50 then landed on runway 19 and parked adjacent to the beach.
"The fire section noted the aircraft and responded, thinking the aircraft was in distress. The pilot informed the crew manager he had flown from London to go to the beach."
He told them he found the airfield on Google Earth and decided to land there as Wikipedia said it served civilian traffic. He left shortly after landing.
An RAF spokesman said: "The RAF can confirm that on 25 May a civilian PC-12 aircraft landed on a closed runway at RAF Valley without permission.
"Whilst irregular, it was assessed that there was no threat to station personnel or the wider public. The incident has been reported to the Civil Aviation Authority."
The Ministry of Defence said while civilian aircraft are allowed at its sites, 24 hours notice is required to make sure this does not impact on military activity.
But because it was closed, there was no "immediate danger" to RAF aircraft.
Proof you don't need to be bright to be able to fly a plane. Or the pilot is probably an entitled jerk who has no understanding of the real world.
Little surprised anyone uses cash TBH, I go months without using generally.
A topic worthy of its own thread, certainly?
As I rarely go without cash.
Not only do I think it's much more convenient for small transactions, I also travel a lot, and don't always have instant connection to the internet when I arrive somewhere and simply need cash in order to pay for anything. Never mind when I'm working offshore and want get something from the bond store onboard.
It also helps my wife and I to budget much more effectively, as with electronic payment it's much too easy to spend more than you intend to.
Yes, you're right. It was a bad example to pick. Something like the decline in road traffic deaths would have been a better one.
Funny you should say that. I read an article the other day that said that road accident deaths had not gone down during the corona lockdown in the Netherlands despite there being significantly less traffic on the roads.
Before anyone says "But its just for the duration of the crisis!!!" I'll point out it's been 19 years since 911 and we still have the patriot act, FISA, gitmo, etc. Once the system gets a new power it never lets go of it.
I am glad you pointed out that these actual erosions of our rights are still in force and on the books. Yet, more people went out and protest wearing a mask as totalitarianism then have protested actual surveillance state policies.
i am sure there is an appropriate meme or gif to apply here.... but all I got for it today is this.....
I can see why someone would draw that comparison, but examining it further quickly makes it apparent that those instances and what we are dealing with now are completely different.
Little surprised anyone uses cash TBH, I go months without using generally.
A topic worthy of its own thread, certainly?
As I rarely go without cash.
Not only do I think it's much more convenient for small transactions, I also travel a lot, and don't always have instant connection to the internet when I arrive somewhere and simply need cash in order to pay for anything. Never mind when I'm working offshore and want get something from the bond store onboard.
It also helps my wife and I to budget much more effectively, as with electronic payment it's much too easy to spend more than you intend to.
Yes, you're right. It was a bad example to pick. Something like the decline in road traffic deaths would have been a better one.
Funny you should say that. I read an article the other day that said that road accident deaths had not gone down during the corona lockdown in the Netherlands despite there being significantly less traffic on the roads.
Cops in several UK regions reporting the same today. Essentially saying that people finding themselves on quiet roads have been driving like clowns and many have crashed.
Matt Swain wrote: Before anyone says "But its just for the duration of the crisis!!!" I'll point out it's been 19 years since 911 and we still have the patriot act, FISA, gitmo, etc. Once the system gets a new power it never lets go of it.
I'm not disagreeing with the basic premise of what you are saying, but the nitpicker in me simply could not resist pointing out FISA way predates 9/11 - it was passed in 1978.
Little surprised anyone uses cash TBH, I go months without using generally.
A topic worthy of its own thread, certainly?
As I rarely go without cash.
Not only do I think it's much more convenient for small transactions, I also travel a lot, and don't always have instant connection to the internet when I arrive somewhere and simply need cash in order to pay for anything. Never mind when I'm working offshore and want get something from the bond store onboard.
It also helps my wife and I to budget much more effectively, as with electronic payment it's much too easy to spend more than you intend to.
Yes, you're right. It was a bad example to pick. Something like the decline in road traffic deaths would have been a better one.
Funny you should say that. I read an article the other day that said that road accident deaths had not gone down during the corona lockdown in the Netherlands despite there being significantly less traffic on the roads.
Cops in several UK regions reporting the same today. Essentially saying that people finding themselves on quiet roads have been driving like clowns and many have crashed.
This is true. I went northern CA the other week to go do some training in a SNF (I'm talking from Silicon Valley area to like half an hour above Sac for those in CA) and there were plenty of people getting pulled over for speeding. Off one exit I saw a guy going like 95MPH and almost ran into a car. There was hardly anyone going that direction though.
I did 50 miles around the county on Thursday, and had 2 people pull out on me.
Driving skills have atrophied for a lot of people (and lots weren't that great to start with)
It was announced today that NZ is down to a single case of Corona and there have been zero infections in the past week. Seems that lockdown was pretty damn efficient here thanks to how early and thoroughly it was enforced, some emergency measures are still in place for at least another month just to make sure.
On cashless payments, that has been a thing here for years with tap and go (including phones and watches) being accept pretty much everywhere, including street vendors.
It is probably better to keep things closed until we have a vaccine rather than opening back up for a few days then having to close again immediately due to a new outbreak.
Which brings us to the question, what if there isn't a vaccine... Again.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean, it could be the case that these countries who suqashed it all early have merely postponed their spikes and are just getting what we've had now they've reopened.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean, it could be the case that these countries who suqashed it all early have merely postponed their spikes and are just getting what we've had now they've reopened.
Or, hear me out, they implement a system of as few contacts with infected and people of infected countries as possible and we as a species further squash it in regions that are easily insulated due to geography, like other island nations.
Of course that would take alot of time and effort, especially when we get the island nations out of the way first but at this stage , if there were indeed no vaccine then i don't see any other way.
Given more time and organisation (and a kick up the backside for some governments) and we could, in theory, wipe it out through a global track and trace program. The big hurdle isn't just organising it and ensuring enough resources; its preventing some countries from simply thrusting their head in the sand and ignoring the issue or not caring. Plus there's a lot of nations that are just not stable nor structured to really enact a proper track and trace of their population.
Even developed nations have issues and they've got generally stable government and effective infrastructure and education.
Thing is, as we are seeing from countries with effective lockdowns relaxing them; all it takes is one single person to spark off a whole new wave. Unless you've got a fast and effective tracing system then little hot-spots like that can be a nightmare to contain. Much as we might dislike it the whole "app that tracks your movements" is likely the only effective way to manage it for populations of the size we deal with today.
If you don't have that then there have to be other ways to monitor individuals entering things like public transport and public places. It's one thing to know someone at work had it and you've got to isolate - the issue is that 30min commute in the morning by train; or that 5 mins you pop into a shop to grab a bottle of water that you honestly won't even remember you did later that day let alone 7 days later when the infected person might be detected and the tracing starts to take effect.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: so, nothing feasible then. cool. You just going to stay cooped up in your house until you die of old age?
That's disingenuous, as you know UK Govt policy is for targeted quarantine now for outbreaks. Other countries have managed that without a vaccine and we should be able to as well.
However, that said, I think we've gone too far too fast in the UK already. My experience is that most things are going back to "normal" with some enhanced social distancing for flavour. I understood that our T&T was supposed to roll out once we hit certain levels of fatalities and infection of the virus and be combined with the App. I'm concerned that we've jumped the gun and things aren't ready.
I'm not sure that we're not just setting ourselves up for a fall and a potential re-imposition of stringent lockdown again but with less money and political and public support. The Cummings affair has had a hugely negative impact on trust, that could be a real problem.
if the dominic cummings thing 'damaged trust' then its those people who are taking what he did as some sort of weird personal insult who are at fault. I dont care what he did. hes an adult, he made a decision. Thats it. It should have never come to such a head as it did, (especially given all the other politicians who broke the 'rules', usually in more extreme ways, that we know about) but we all know why that was the case.
Somewhat ironic that those complaining how things were 'too vague' and begging for government hand holding just a few weeks back are now suddenly resolute in their application of the 'rules' when using them to witch hunt someone they dont like. its all a big joke.
Thankfully everything seems to be returning to normal. I went for a walk down the thames again today. tons of people out in the sun. kayakers, swimmers. And I let my daughter play in an empty park. stupid arbitrary rules are stupid.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: so, nothing feasible then. cool. You just going to stay cooped up in your house until you die of old age?
There is a middle ground somewhere between "you don't nee dto take precautions" and "isolate until you die of old age".
Attempting to make this a binary choice (in either direction) is silly. Socially distance. Limit non-essential travel. wear a mask. Those 3 things take us a long way toward keeping ourselves and others safe. Are they a big deal? No. Are they a grave and terrible burden? No. Are they annoying? Yes. Is your health and the health of others worth a bit of annoyance? Sure.
I'm in the US and people here are all "don't tread on me!" "Look at my AR!" It's all pretty silly IMO. Be responsible. Consider others. Deal with some annoyances. It's not all that difficult. I know 2 people that have died from Corona. A neighbor and a college friend. This stuff is real.
More on UK death certification. The guy seems to be a legit doctor, but sceptical about data use.
Given that Russia is currently getting gak for reclassifying coronavirus deaths as "accidentally fell out a window, such a shame", do you really want to be using their blatant propaganda engine as a source?
queen_annes_revenge wrote: if the dominic cummings thing 'damaged trust' then its those people who are taking what he did as some sort of weird personal insult who are at fault. I dont care what he did. hes an adult, he made a decision. Thats it. It should have never come to such a head as it did, (especially given all the other politicians who broke the 'rules', usually in more extreme ways, that we know about) but we all know why that was the case.
Those politicians have either resigned or apologised, Cummings has done neither. That, and Johnson and the cabinet backing him unequivocally sends the message that it's OK to ignore the rules and use your best judgement. There are far to many people in this country whose "best judgement" involves drinking alcohol before driving, taking illegal substances and doing all sorts of ridiculously stupid things. Trusting the average Joe to use their best judgment is usually OK for most people, but there's a lot of bloody idiots out there. As has been proven lately.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Somewhat ironic that those complaining how things were 'too vague' and begging for government hand holding just a few weeks back are now suddenly resolute in their application of the 'rules' when using them to witch hunt someone they dont like. its all a big joke.
The rules were very clear, he breached them and he had a hand in creating them. Ergo he's a hypocrite and the Govt should have at the very least made him apologise.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Thankfully everything seems to be returning to normal. I went for a walk down the thames again today. tons of people out in the sun. kayakers, swimmers. And I let my daughter play in an empty park. stupid arbitrary rules are stupid.
I'm staggered that you think things are going back to normal, and the blasé attitude of the British public I have witnessed over the last week. It is folly to let things go back to normal when our rate of mortality is still so high. Sadly we may have to attempt to lock down again thanks to this.
Did Ian blackford resign? Or that other one who went to all the funerals? I didn't notice.
The rules weren't clear. The public and the media made that clear
a few weeks back when they were decrying the government for more clarity.
Durham police said he 'MAY have committed a MINOR breach' or words to that effect.. but now they're getting stick for it. The heretic must be burned at all costs!
The government shouldn't be 'making' anybody apologise. They're not authoritarian overlords.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: so, nothing feasible then. cool. You just going to stay cooped up in your house until you die of old age?
There is a middle ground somewhere between "you don't nee dto take precautions" and "isolate until you die of old age".
Attempting to make this a binary choice (in either direction) is silly. Socially distance. Limit non-essential travel. wear a mask. Those 3 things take us a long way toward keeping ourselves and others safe. Are they a big deal? No. Are they a grave and terrible burden? No. Are they annoying? Yes. Is your health and the health of others worth a bit of annoyance? Sure.
I'm in the US and people here are all "don't tread on me!" "Look at my AR!" It's all pretty silly IMO. Be responsible. Consider others. Deal with some annoyances. It's not all that difficult. I know 2 people that have died from Corona. A neighbor and a college friend. This stuff is real.
This is true. I was trying to point out the absurdity of shutting down 'until' a vaccine is made.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I did look into his background beforehand, specifically vaccine related.
Did not see the cholesterol stuff.
Regardless, the death certification issue has been pointed out by others in the medical community...
I've had a brief search and could only find occasional articles from either official govt sources or on reputable news outlets that refer to how the Govt classifies deaths in the UK.
Have you got any sources for that claim?
Durham police said he 'MAY have committed a MINOR breach' or words to that effect.. but now they're getting stick for it. The heretic must be burned at all costs!
I know that government are clinging onto 'might' like stalactites, but it's only there because cops don't preempt courts. If they say 'a law may have been broken' they absolutely mean 'we believe the law was broken'.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Did Ian blackford resign? Or that other one who went to all the funerals? I didn't notice.
The rules weren't clear. The public and the media made that clear
a few weeks back when they were decrying the government for more clarity.
Durham police said he 'MAY have committed a MINOR breach' or words to that effect.. but now they're getting stick for it. The heretic must be burned at all costs!
The government shouldn't be 'making' anybody apologise. They're not authoritarian overlords.
Johnson is his boss. If he told Cummings to apologise, he would or face the consequences. Regardless, Cummings definitely breached the rules and then concocted a ridiculous story to attempt to elicit sympathy from a nation who have endured many more privations and pain than he could understand. The man shamelessly and arrogantly claimed he had done nothing wrong, when he absolutely had. He then claimed he had "exceptional" circumstances, which turned out to be nothing more than many of us have had to face.
The very least he could do is apologise, but he could not bring himself to do that and the cabinet backed him to the hilt.
However you cut it, that is wrong and is the reason so many people of all political stripes are so angry and why the Govt has damaged it's trust and reputation which will have repurcussions.
Cummings is certainly in the wrong And it certainly has repercussions for controlling the virus.
You can make the case that his trip to Durham was legitimate. It absolutely broke the spirit of the rules he was instrumental in forming but it doesn't break the law. He's unquestionably a hypocrite, and he's retrospectively jumping on guidance that allows some leeway for people in danger due to abusive family members to justify his actions, which is pretty despicable, and both he and his wife lied about it, but taken at face value his reasoning is potentially valid. However, the trip to Barnard Castle clearly breaks lockdown rules, and his (obviously untrue) justification also breaks the law.
Alas, had government simply said, almost two weeks ago, that he shouldn't have gone to Barnard Castle but he was too important to strategy and messaging to let go this would have blown over. Instead they've made it abundantly clear that lockdown rules are open to interpretation, depending on who you are.
People are already starting to use his behaviour as justification for flouting rules, and government are now muddying the waters relentlessly by bending over backwards to both insist he didn't break any rules, and that everyone else must follow the rules that expressly forbid what he did.
Some will argue (or have always argued) that the public can be left to their own devices and that they are well capable of using their own judgement so this has no bearing on behaviour. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of the populace thing he was wrong, That he broke the rules, and that he should be sacked, so if your position is that what he did was fine, then that populace's judgement clashes hard with your own, and maybe you should rethink whether they're adequately set to use their own best interpretations?
Part of the issue is that the government has encouraged this attitude of right or fired. Rather than a stern punishment and public apology they've instead adopted a policy of either proving they are in the right or firing people. Which tends to work ok for them until you get really key people doing stupid things who suddenly aren't easily replaced at a time when you don't necessarily want reshuffles.
That said I'm also annoyed at the media because they've helped turn this into a distraction fiasco that the more its highlighted the more it weakens the lockdown situation and the control measures. Even if you prove that the government has faults in its approach; a media that feeds those faults is just as much to blame even if they are "seeking justice".
I'm sure there are better ways and means other than focusing on this issue. It's almost like something out of 40K with the insane lengths they are going too - yes lets all drive cars long distance to make sure we've got good eyesight - I mean its not even a credible excuse, its a childish situation of lies.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I did look into his background beforehand, specifically vaccine related.
Did not see the cholesterol stuff.
Regardless, the death certification issue has been pointed out by others in the medical community...
I've had a brief search and could only find occasional articles from either official govt sources or on reputable news outlets that refer to how the Govt classifies deaths in the UK.
Have you got any sources for that claim?
Only the Twitter post from prof Karol Sikora. There's an article in the spectator too but I figured people would just attack that source. The rules have been changed though, in that only one doctor is required, can do it remotely, and need not have had any contact before death as they did before. It's in the medical part of the new act. I could root it out but you'll have to wait until tomorrow.
It's precisely because people disagree on things that situations like this require the application of judgement and common sense.
These new laws are somewhat unprecedented, in that before this act, everything was permitted unless forbidden by law.
The new laws are the opposite. You were only supposed to do certain things. But the non exhaustive 'excuses', extenuating circumstances, and wide ranging nuances of the general public meant that those pieces of legislation were for all intents and purposes, useless, other than an excuse for overzealous rozzers to lace up their jackboots.
That's why it was pointless bringing them in at a blanket level for the general public. They would have been better off just closing down businesses. That would've had the exact same effect as what we have now as no one would have anything or anywhere to go to.
That's the only thing that's been stopping me going anywhere, the fact that nowhere is open.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: so, nothing feasible then. cool. You just going to stay cooped up in your house until you die of old age?
There is a middle ground somewhere between "you don't nee dto take precautions" and "isolate until you die of old age".
Attempting to make this a binary choice (in either direction) is silly. Socially distance. Limit non-essential travel. wear a mask. Those 3 things take us a long way toward keeping ourselves and others safe. Are they a big deal? No. Are they a grave and terrible burden? No. Are they annoying? Yes. Is your health and the health of others worth a bit of annoyance? Sure.
I'm in the US and people here are all "don't tread on me!" "Look at my AR!" It's all pretty silly IMO. Be responsible. Consider others. Deal with some annoyances. It's not all that difficult. I know 2 people that have died from Corona. A neighbor and a college friend. This stuff is real.
God, you would think it would be that easy. Frankly, I think the American mental block is that we are too worried about our personal image. Worried that wearing a mask makes us look "weak" or something comparable. It's simple school-age vanity, covered up with peudo-science BS about the harms of masks and cries that it's stifling our freedoms. As long as you don't have a valid medical condition, wearing a mask for minutes at a time (which is all it is for the vast, vast majority of us) isn't going to hurt anyone, nor is it a sign of a 1984 authoritarian regime shift.
I am a full-time delivery driver, and I have a mask on for less than an hour combined of a two-week paycheck of between 70-80 hours.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: so, nothing feasible then. cool. You just going to stay cooped up in your house until you die of old age?
Oh boy, another one of these answers. You don't understand how this 6ft apart thing works? Because you can go outside, you can go out. Nobody is stopping you from taking a walk around the block.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I did look into his background beforehand, specifically vaccine related.
Did not see the cholesterol stuff.
Regardless, the death certification issue has been pointed out by others in the medical community...
I've had a brief search and could only find occasional articles from either official govt sources or on reputable news outlets that refer to how the Govt classifies deaths in the UK.
Have you got any sources for that claim?
Only the Twitter post from prof Karol Sikora. There's an article in the spectator too but I figured people would just attack that source. The rules have been changed though, in that only one doctor is required, can do it remotely, and need not have had any contact before death as they did before. It's in the medical part of the new act. I could root it out but you'll have to wait until tomorrow.
...
OK, I'm not going to ask you to do that, seems a little pointless. I don't doubt that there have been anomalies and inaccuracies in reporting cause of death, but I don't think there would have been anywhere enough to significantly alter the results.
Maybe in the wash up, we'll learn more.
There seems to be a fair bit of confusion about how deaths are certified.
In the (recent) past, the process went like this:
A person passes away.
A registered medical practitioner confirms the death.
A registered medical practitioner who has cared for the patient in the last 2 weeks writes the death certification- this takes a specific structure:
1a:
1b:
1c:
2:
(examples of this below)
Spoiler:
1 is supposed to be the actual cause of death with conditions directly leading to the death, 2 is contributing factors. This does not mean the mode of death, such as asphyxiation, it would be, say, choking (which kills through asphyxiation). Not every step needs to be filled.
Example:
1a Aspiration pneumonia
1b Cerebral palsy
1c Birth trauma
2 ------
An example based on cancer:
1a COVID pneumonia
1b Lung cancer
1c Smoking (this wouldn't often be included)
2 Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
As you can see, someone could be dying from cancer, but gets finished off by COVID, and both are listed in the certification. If a practitioner did not think the COVID actually is what lead to the patient dying, they could list it in 2 instead.
This is not an exact science, by a long shot. It is often not clear what the exact cause of death was in a patient, and most people nowadays are heavily co-morbid when they pass away, with multiple disease processes contributing to their death. The format above attempts to allow this nuance into the process, by not listing a single line for the cause.
A medical examiner reviews the certification to make sure it is reasonable.
If the patient is being buried and there are no concerns or specific circumstances, that is it. A hospital post-mortem examination may occur, with permission, for the purposes of medical science, but these are getting increasingly rare.
If a patient is being cremated, then two forms need to be filled in- one by a practitioner who cared for the patient in the last 2 weeks, and one by a doctor who had no medical contact with the patient as an independent professional. Both must examine the cadaver for pacemakers and other dangerous implants. A medical examiner reviews this too. The reason for this is because you cannot exhume a cremated body and any evidence of foul play is destroyed with the body.
If there are concerns, or if the patient falls into specific categories (say they have died of an industrial disease, or a medical practitioner has not seen the patient within 2 weeks of death) then the case automatically goes to the Coroner for an enquiry. This may involve a Coroner's post-mortem (these are the common post-mortems) if necessary. The cause of death is issued following the enquiry, alongside any cremation paperwork.
So, what has changed? In terms of certifying deaths, the "must have cared for the patient" period has been extended to 4 weeks prior to death. The biggest change though, is that so long as any registered practitioner has seen the patient within 28 days, another registered practitioner can certify the death if they can state the cause of death to the best of the knowledge and belief. In other words, they are going on record with a professional opinion, based upon their professional registration. This is not without oversight! If it came to light that a specific practitioner was incorrectly listing a lot of deaths, they would have some very difficult questions to answer with their fitness to practice being called into question. That is why people take this seriously and try their best to list an accurate cause of death. Of course some causes of death will be inaccurate in the thousands listed every year, but it will not be a large number, and the format of the listings means that the correct cause is most likely still included somewhere and still being tracked in statistics.
Note that any care provided by healthcare professionals should be well documented, so determining the cause of death for most patients is not especially difficult so long as someone has seen them (multiple co-morbidities notwithstanding). Even in the previous system, you would often find yourself flicking through the notes to find out what happened when they passed away over the weekend and you are left to write the certification on the following Monday.
I think there are also changes to how cremation forms are being handled, but that is only following trends of increasing use of medical examiners anyway (there was talk of removing the part 2 form completed by an independent doctor, and replacing it with the medical examiner review, which was a pre-existing plan before COVID. I think this has happened).
The text of the guidance we received is below.
Spoiler:
a. Any medical practitioner with GMC registration can sign the MCCD, even if they did not attend the deceased during their last illness, if the following conditions are met:
i. The medical practitioner who attended is unable to sign the MCCD or it is impractical for them to do so and,
ii. the medical practitioner who proposes to sign the MCCD is able to state the cause of death to the best of their knowledge and belief, and
iii. a medical practitioner has attended the deceased (including visual/video consultation) within 28 days before death, or viewed the body in person after death (including for verification).
If another medical practitioner attended the deceased during their last illness or after death, the medical practitioner signing the MCCD should record the name and GMC number of the medical practitioner who attended the deceased during their last illness or after death at the ‘last seen alive’ section of the MCCD.
In addition to (i) to (iii) above, if no medical practitioner attended the deceased in the 28 days before death1 or after death, a medical practitioner can sign the MCCD if the following conditions are met:
iv. The medical practitioner who proposes to sign the MCCD is able to state the cause of death to the best of their knowledge and belief, and
v. the medical practitioner has obtained agreement from the coroner they can complete the MCCD.
Medical practitioners working in the same practice/hospital should find this straightforward as they can access patient records. Reasons it is impractical for the attending medical practitioner to complete the MCCD might include: severe pressure on NHS services and the need to ensure medical practitioners with appropriate skills are available to treat patients; and/or medical practitioners becoming infected with COVID-19 and needing to self-isolate. During periods of excess deaths due to COVID-19, healthcare providers are encouraged to redeploy medical practitioners whose role does not usually include direct patient care, such as some medical examiners, to provide indirect support by working as dedicated certifiers, completing MCCDs to enable other medical practitioners to focus on providing patient care.
I hope that helps clear up some of the confusion. I really do not think there will be any significant systematic over-reporting of COVID mortality.
I hope you're right. I do wish that they would do separate categories for confirmed and suspected though. Might make some of the media reports a little less alarmist. But then I guess that's not the medical services fault. The media will always media.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I hope you're right. I do wish that they would do separate categories for confirmed and suspected though. Might make some of the media reports a little less alarmist. But then I guess that's not the medical services fault. The media will always media.
Well, there are- the advice I got from a medical examiner was that we can put probable or suspected COVID pneumonia on death certificates. I have no idea how the government is using these statistics, they are probably just ignoring them for now as not confirmed.
The media fear factory did most of the work for them.
Give Cummings his due. He's amazing at getting the media to push simple, punchy, and memorable messages.
Lots of beaches and parks anecdotally reporting their busiest days in memory today. Nota lot of social distancing in the BBC images. We'll see how that pans out.
Great banter at today's briefing, too. Given the potential for scammers/pranksters to stir trouble With the track and trace programme, when asked how you would know if a tracer calling telling you to isolate was genuine, the Depute CMO Jenny Harries said that ‘It will be very obvious. These are professionally trained individuals. It will be evident from how they speak.’
Kilkrazy wrote: It will be very obvious because they will know your NHS number.
Not according to their own justification of why it is safe and how you can tell it's genuine. They just said it'll always come from a stated phone number, they'll ask you to confirm your name, address, and dob, and they won't ask for other personal details.
Kilkrazy wrote: It will be very obvious because they will know your NHS number.
Not according to their own justification of why it is safe and how you can tell it's genuine. They just said it'll always come from a stated phone number, they'll ask you to confirm your name, address, and dob, and they won't ask for other personal details.
I don't think a scammer would need much else to get started with would they?
That is not something I was expecting at all. I believed everything would be handled via the App, including being alerted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: It will be very obvious because they will know your NHS number.
I'll be honest, I don't know my NHS number off by heart. How would they access that?
I've had a look at the official advice, it's here;
call you from 0300 013 5000
send you text messages from ‘NHS’
ask you to sign into the NHS test and trace contact-tracing website
ask for your full name and date of birth to confirm your identity, and postcode to offer support while self-isolating
ask about the coronavirus symptoms you have been experiencing
ask you to provide the name, telephone number and/or email address of anyone you have had close contact with in the 2 days prior to your symptoms starting
ask if anyone you have been in contact with is under 18 or lives outside of England
I wonder if that number is somehow protected from Spoofing?
Very few people know their NHS number- if someone quoted a ten digit number at you, would you know if it was genuine or not?
When I was getting tested for COVID two weeks ago, the occupational health worker was surprised I had mine to hand because most people don't.
Occupational health didn't have my NHS number available, that is why they were asking me, because it would make processing the test smoother. They had my name, address, phone number, and date of birth. The only bit they gave away was my name, in the opening question. The rest I had to provide to prove I was genuinely who they thought I was (this being standard practice in ID'ing people when face-to-face).
You would basically only need someone's name and number to successfully prank/defraud them.
The new track and trace system may be able to access NHS numbers, but with current data protection laws I think people would have to opt in to allowing their data to be used by the system. I'm not sure if it can piggyback on medical confidentiality practice regarding sharing identifiable data, but if it can, then they would maybe be able to pull the NHS numbers from the NHS data spine. That would be logical, but then hospitals have a hard time accessing GP records for patients, so who knows?
As to regards to scams on track and trace, the answer is the same as with all these scams where they contact you in the first instance claiming to represent an institution.
Hang up, look up the correct number yourself and call back. Preferably from a different line if feasible.
As far as i know, there's no tech out there that'll fool that system.
Azreal13 wrote: As to regards to scams on track and trace, the answer is the same as with all these scams where they contact you in the first instance claiming to represent an institution.
Hang up, look up the correct number yourself and call back. Preferably from a different line if feasible.
As far as i know, there's no tech out there that'll fool that system.
The issue is that doing so doesn't appear to be an option. They calls are being made by folks at home via a computer system that a huge number of them don't really know how to work and you're not going to be able to phone Track and Trace back and speak to anyone useful.
Additionally, in my experience, trying to tell government officials who call you about something important and require that you identify yourself that you want them to prove who they are does not go well (whether because they're incensed at your cheek or because they genuinely have no idea how to facilitate it).
Azreal13 wrote: As to regards to scams on track and trace, the answer is the same as with all these scams where they contact you in the first instance claiming to represent an institution.
Hang up, look up the correct number yourself and call back. Preferably from a different line if feasible.
As far as i know, there's no tech out there that'll fool that system.
This doesn't work very well if the number you were called on is not the same as the available customer service lines. Doubly so if you cannot call the number back upon confirming it is real because it directs external lines to an institutional front desk. Lots of institutions do this to stop the direct lines from being inundated, and make them go through a central line to vet them. These don't always allow access to the department that actually called the person.
Azreal13 wrote: As to regards to scams on track and trace, the answer is the same as with all these scams where they contact you in the first instance claiming to represent an institution.
Hang up, look up the correct number yourself and call back. Preferably from a different line if feasible.
As far as i know, there's no tech out there that'll fool that system.
The issue is that doing so doesn't appear to be an option. They calls are being made by folks at home via a computer system that a huge number of them don't really know how to work and you're not going to be able to phone Track and Trace back and speak to anyone useful.
Additionally, in my experience, trying to tell government officials who call you about something important and require that you identify yourself that you want them to prove who they are does not go well (whether because they're incensed at your cheek or because they genuinely have no idea how to facilitate it).
It is a fair issue- how do you show your ID badge down a phone?
New monthly budget: Gas $0 Entertainment $0 Clothes $0 Groceries $2,799.
••••••••••••••••••
When this quarantine is over, let's not tell some people.
•••••••••••••••••
I stepped on my scale this morning. It said: "Please practice social distancing. Only one person at a time on scale."
///////////////////////
Not to brag, but I haven't been late to anything in over 6 weeks.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
It may take a village to raise a child but I swear its going to take a vineyard to home school one.
••••••••••••••
I wanted zombies and anarchy. Instead we got working from home and toilet paper shortages.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Worst. Apocalypse. Ever.
~~~~~~~~~~~
You know those car commercials where there's only one vehicle on the road - doesn't seem so unrealistic these days.
—————————-
They can open things up next month, I'm staying in until July to see what happens to all of you first.
———————————
Day 37: The garbage man placed an AA flyer on my recycling bin. ��
••••••••••••••••
The spread of Covid-19 is based on two things:
1. How dense the population is.
2. How dense the population
||||||||||||||||||||
People keep asking: "Is coronavirus REALLY all that serious?" Listen all: the churches and casinos are closed. When heaven and hell agree on the same thing it's probably pretty serious.
•••••••••••••••••
Never in a million years could I have imagined I would go up to a bank teller wearing a mask and ask for money.
+++++++++++++
Home school Day 1: I'm trying to figure out how I can get this kid transferred out of my class.
::::::::::::::::::::::::
Putting a drink in each room of my house today and calling it a pub crawl.
——————-——-
Okay, the schools are closed. So do we drop the kids off at the teacher's house or what?
******************
For the second part of this quarantine do we have to stay with the same family or will they relocate us? Asking for myself. . . .
/////////////////////////////
Coronavirus has turned us all into dogs. We wander around the house looking for food. We get told "No" if we get too close to strangers and we get really excited about going for walks and car rides.
“”””””””””””””””
The dumbest thing I've ever bought was a 2020 planner.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Enjoy your day. You don't have anything else to do.
Serious question about covid. No politics, no snark, no insults. If you can't manage that i don't want to see your reply.
I've heard that sneezes and coughs can spread covid like a bad internet meme due to the droplets carrying it.
Accepting this as a proven fact, what about vaping? I'm willing to see how smoking might actually kill covid viruses in it, lord know it does a number of people's lung cells.
But vaping s basically fine water mist? Could it spread covid further than a normal exhalation? I'm going to bing this but since there seem to be a lot of informed people here I wanted to float it for reasonable discussion.
EDIT: Bing'ed it, basically got "Expert says, expert says" situation. The clearest thing I saw is there is no evidence yet that it does spread covid more than normal respiration, which means it's not proven yet either way yet.
Matt Swain wrote: Serious question about covid. No politics, no snark, no insults. If you can't manage that i don't want to see your reply.
I've heard that sneezes and coughs can spread covid like a bad internet meme due to the droplets carrying it.
Accepting this as a proven fact, what about vaping? I'm willing to see how smoking might actually kill covid viruses in it, lord know it does a number of people's lung cells.
But vaping s basically fine water mist? Could it spread covid further than a normal exhalation? I'm going to bing this but since there seem to be a lot of informed people here I wanted to float it for reasonable discussion.
EDIT: Bing'ed it, basically got "Expert says, expert says" situation. The clearest thing I saw is there is no evidence yet that it does spread covid more than normal respiration, which means it's not proven yet either way yet.
I cannot give you a conclusive answer on that. I would advise on the side of caution, however.
So there’s a list of uk professions that are under exemption from having to self quarantine on travelling back to the uk from being abroad.
Looks like if i did manage to get away abroad I’d be back to work straight away while the family would have to stay home and quarantine for 14 days. Oh I’m sure the wife would love that.
Kilkrazy wrote: I've got my NHS card to hand in a drawer with my other ID docs such as my marriage certificate and passport.
It's unlikely that someone will ring me up because I can work very effectively from home and will be doing so until at least September.
If they do, and they can't authenticate themself to me, I'll quit the call.
How do you get an NHS card? I only found out my number when I got admitted to hospital and copied it off my wristband...
The GP gave it to my mother shortly after I was born. It looks like something from WW2, a dull brown piece of cardboard, with that kind of typewritery printing, and the gaps filled in in biro.
Dreadwinter wrote:Maybe this is a sign that people should be finding out what their NHS numbers are and keeping them at the ready in case?
Being prepared goes a long way. Or you could just keep throwing your hands up in the air and saying "WELL I DON'T KNOW IT SO WHAT NOW"
There's almost no context where a British passport holder needs to know their NHS number. I've had a lot of hospital procedures and moved around the country and reasonable amount so registered with lots of different doctors and I've never been asked for it, ever.
Haighus wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote: I've got my NHS card to hand in a drawer with my other ID docs such as my marriage certificate and passport.
It's unlikely that someone will ring me up because I can work very effectively from home and will be doing so until at least September.
If they do, and they can't authenticate themself to me, I'll quit the call.
How do you get an NHS card? I only found out my number when I got admitted to hospital and copied it off my wristband...
Insofar as I'm aware, you aren't even given it when you first enter the system if it's when you're a child. I've no idea what my son's is, and, can't recall ever having seen it. We have a folder with all his NHS documents and I've gone and checked and it isn't on any of them. Several have a CHI number (no idea what the initialism stands for), which we've been asked for before when rebooking vaccinations.
My girlfriend has her NHS number written down, but she arrived here as an adult and was here for a decade as an immigrant before naturalising. She thinks she was maybe given it when she first registered with a doctor as an overseas student.
I guess you only ever need it if you need to demonstrate eligibility?
The quote sounds more like he's saying that the spread is low in Italy right now and that some of the swabs taken are showing a lower viral load than he's seen in the past.
But its not really clear what is being said in terms of if he's referring to infection rates reducing; or if its more talking about the virus itself having locally mutated into a less "lethal" strain.
Turkey has essentially ended all lockdown now. It has had consistently low death rates (relative to other countries) for a while but its levels of infection remain very high. They've had quite unusual rules throughout, too, with full lockdown of under 20s and over 65s and curfews in place, including a complete one over the weekend.
Getting very mixed pictures from relatives and friends. Talk of busy cafes but everyone spaced out in the car parks. Ankara streets being back to normal but Istanbul suburbs remaining very quiet.
Matt Swain wrote: Serious question about covid. No politics, no snark, no insults. If you can't manage that i don't want to see your reply.
I've heard that sneezes and coughs can spread covid like a bad internet meme due to the droplets carrying it.
Accepting this as a proven fact, what about vaping? I'm willing to see how smoking might actually kill covid viruses in it, lord know it does a number of people's lung cells.
But vaping s basically fine water mist? Could it spread covid further than a normal exhalation? I'm going to bing this but since there seem to be a lot of informed people here I wanted to float it for reasonable discussion.
EDIT: Bing'ed it, basically got "Expert says, expert says" situation. The clearest thing I saw is there is no evidence yet that it does spread covid more than normal respiration, which means it's not proven yet either way yet.
This is actually a very interesting question that I'm surprised hasn't received more coverage.
I couldn't find any guidance on this, but a quick literature search has thrown up some preliminary articles basically suggesting both vaping and smoking are highly likely to increase transmission of COVID, as well as the severity of symptoms for those infected.
There do not seem to be any direct studies on the matter, but the inferences are clear- both smoking and vaping produce an aerosol that contacts your lungs through normal use; both also increase the amount people cough and sneeze; the aerosol particles produced are larger than the virus particles on average-allowing the virus to be carried by the aerosol; and this aerosol is apparently known to spread from 23 to 27 feet from the source. There is also evidence from a previous epidemic of a different virus (a hantavirus) that suggests smoking/vaping was an important vector (having looked at the original articles for this, they only suggest it is possible, so that isn't really proven and would be quite hard to prove- basically an informed guess). Homemade or surgical masks would also be much less effective at stopping aerosol transmission as well- you need FFP2 or better masks to adequately protect from aerosols.
Not to mention that smoking and vaping provide a nice bridge from a person's fingers to their mouth when we should be avoiding touching our faces.
Getting very mixed pictures from relatives and friends. Talk of busy cafes but everyone spaced out in the car parks. Ankara streets being back to normal but Istanbul suburbs remaining very quiet.
People aren't sure how to behave and when no one corrects them they easily slip back into old habits. So everyone might line up outside the supermarket with 3m between them; but inside they'll line up with only 1.5m between them or even crowd around each other. Same with beaches and the like; they'll be all distant at one end but then crowding around at another. Part of it is that maintaining social distance requires a degree of vigilance and confidence and most going to relax or enjoy themsleves don't really want to entertain high vigilance.
I'm going to pre-empt QAR and go ahead and say that this is fething stupid and the British government has fething lost it.
No sarcasm, this is absurd. I respect the desire to limit the spread of the virus, etc. but this is going far too far.
I'm the last to defend hurried and ill-considered legislation, but it's a side effect of enforcing social distancing rather than explicitly prohibiting sex with people you don't live with, and should really be reported clearly. Would you advocate specifically exempting people from laws because they want to pump?
Of suggest we sold have always been allowing couples living apart to operate as one household anyway, but if you think it's appropriate to mandate distancing between households, then it's difficult to argue that there should be conjugal visits.
At the same time the concept - avoiding people not from your own household - maintaining social distancing etc.., is exactly what the lockdown has been about. It's not like you can say "no you can't do sports or play warhammer games, but its ok to go have sex". I mean of the rafter of activities that you can do with another person sex is going to be pretty near the top of "ways to exchange disease with each other".
It's not legislation against sex, its legislation against any close contact activities.
In theory if you're keeping to the lockdown policies you wouldn't be having sex with those outside of your household anyway. This is legislation that is just being shifted into gear to be enforced rather than just advised.
Though the timing seems rather odd considering that on other fronts government is relaxing lockdowns. I'm not really sure how you can open the beaches and stores and basically allow people to mingle and - well - not expect them to mingle closer than 2m apart.
Is the 2m distance legally enforced when gathering in gardens? Baecause if not, then it is technically currently legal to have sex in a garden so long as it is sufficiently secluded, but not in a house.
Haighus wrote: Is the 2m distance legally enforced when gathering in gardens? Baecause if not, then it is technically currently legal to have sex in a garden so long as it is sufficiently secluded, but not in a house.
Which would be... odd.
Difficult to tell as the phrase they quote doesn't actually appear in the document they link to, so it's unclear whether outs duplicated for outdoors gatherings..
I saw that this morning. It made me laugh and in the few minutes I had before the walk to work weren't enough time for me to check it wasn't some sort of joke.
Completely pointless legislation. Worth even less than the paper it's written on. Might as well legislate to stop the tides, or the wind from blowing.
I honestly thought the government had given up introducing natural rights and liberty infringing laws, but apparently not.
Plus, even if you agree with this sort of nonsense, it seems a little late.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I saw that this morning. It made me laugh and in the few minutes I had before the walk to work weren't enough time for me to check it wasn't some sort of joke.
Completely pointless legislation. Worth even less than the paper it's written on. Might as well legislate to stop the tides, or the wind from blowing.
I honestly thought the government had given up introducing natural rights and liberty infringing laws, but apparently not.
Plus, even if you agree with this sort of nonsense, it seems a little late.
Again though, this isn't legislation aimed specifically at preventing two consenting adults having sex. It's just the logical outcome of legislation that says two people from different households can't meet indoors yet due to social distancing. That's not really a surprise to anyone is it? As others have mentioned, you could equally well have framed it as saying two people can't meet inside to play 40k, or Hungry Hungry Hippos but that doesn't quite attract the same attention on Twitter I guess.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I saw that this morning. It made me laugh and in the few minutes I had before the walk to work weren't enough time for me to check it wasn't some sort of joke.
Completely pointless legislation. Worth even less than the paper it's written on. Might as well legislate to stop the tides, or the wind from blowing.
I honestly thought the government had given up introducing natural rights and liberty infringing laws, but apparently not.
Plus, even if you agree with this sort of nonsense, it seems a little late.
Again though, this isn't legislation aimed specifically at preventing two consenting adults having sex. It's just the logical outcome of legislation that says two people from different households can't meet indoors yet due to social distancing. That's not really a surprise to anyone is it? As others have mentioned, you could equally well have framed it as saying two people can't meet inside to play 40k, or Hungry Hungry Hippos but that doesn't quite attract the same attention on Twitter I guess.
Yeah I know that. But still, how are police going to enforce it? Just watch for people leaving houses then question them?
I doubt the police are going to do anymore to enforce it than they do for the current guidelines, my guess would be that they've signed it into law because people are more likely to pay attention to that than a "guideline". They clearly should have done it a few weeks back when that was where lockdown got relaxed to, but it's not the entirely stupid thing that clickbait article makes it out to be.
It's also about giving them power to do things IF a situation does arise where they need those powers, rather than having to rush around after (even though its taken a long time to get into law).
Random people meeting up are unlikely to get caught; a brothel or prostitution ring might however be the kind of thing that might warrant such a law where it relates to sex.
I'm going to pre-empt QAR and go ahead and say that this is fething stupid and the British government has fething lost it.
No sarcasm, this is absurd. I respect the desire to limit the spread of the virus, etc. but this is going far too far.
What a joke. Already covered by existing social distancing, near impossible to enforce, and since when has trying to stop people having sex EVER worked?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: a brothel or prostitution ring might however be the kind of thing that might warrant such a law where it relates to sex.
Given they are largely illegal already and avoiding the law anyways...
Not like they are a legal industry that could be regulated as such.
I'm not too surprised that russia and china are making fast advances in these fields, they have a lot of volunteer human subjects (What the rest of the world might call dissidents) to experiment in.
Also there are initial trials testing of a possible vaccine getting underway.
My late grandfather used to tell me of ww2, when people had rationing books, limited meat, sugar, eggs, etc. and no new cars were made from 1942-1946. Looking at how we're handling covid, i dont know if we could win another ww2 level effort.
I'm not too surprised that russia and china are making fast advances in these fields, they have a lot of volunteer human subjects (What the rest of the world might call dissidents) to experiment in.
.
This doesn't have anything to do with potential illegal experiments (and China isn't involved at all). Russia is fast tracking an existing ~25 year old, Japanese flu drug based on a very small initial test (which hasn't even finished yet), and are basically crossing their fingers and hoping that their 'modifications' will make it effective against Covid.
I'm not too surprised that russia and china are making fast advances in these fields, they have a lot of volunteer human subjects (What the rest of the world might call dissidents) to experiment in.
Also there are initial trials testing of a possible vaccine getting underway.
My late grandfather used to tell me of ww2, when people had rationing books, limited meat, sugar, eggs, etc. and no new cars were made from 1942-1946. Looking at how we're handling covid, i dont know if we could win another ww2 level effort.
Yes, easily actually, because an enemy in a conventional Sense you can conventionally organise and Mobillise against.
Unlike pandemics, which are unseren by the eye, remember at the End of the Day we are just apes with a bigger brain .
I'm not too surprised that russia and china are making fast advances in these fields, they have a lot of volunteer human subjects (What the rest of the world might call dissidents) to experiment in.
Eh using existing drug hoping it works. Pretty much what trump was all in with his drug(that he takes pre-emptively) that is being sold.
Big difference is japanese drug has a) had some positive signs b) isn't bunked yet. Trump keeps advocating drug that has shown just ability to increase death rate
The Turkish use Hydroxycloroquine and believe it works well as long as it is administered early. Their death rate is low, so they are doing something right.
It might be they have a generally youger population, of course. You have to control for such biasing factors when you study these things.
The biggest problem with trying to fast-track drugs is that in order to properly test them for side effects you need a relatively long time. You simply can't fast-track a study that's supposed to be looking at side effects over a 6-12 month period. You kinda need that length of time to do the study. I think anyone hoping for a miracle cure in the next couple of months should be very wary of anyone saying they've found one. The only situation where it might be feasible is something like the Russian trials using an already existing family of drugs, but even then any modifications can introduce new side effects.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Turkish use Hydroxycloroquine and believe it works well as long as it is administered early. Their death rate is low, so they are doing something right.
It might be they have a generally youger population, of course. You have to control for such biasing factors when you study these things.
Or they are reporting corona deaths as "accidentally fell from window" style.
More reliable sources than the authoritian turkey have had people die because of that stuff in tests. Death rate went up. Now whom you believe is another thing but I would be sceptical of turkey and it's kind.
Sky News reporting that the UK enquiry into the disproportionate impact of covid-19 on BAME communities has been delayed due to fears of 'stoking racial tensions' amidst the ongoing protests.
I'm fairly sceptical that's why it's been delayed, though If find it believable that they want to hold it back until after PMQs, which will probably be dominated by George Floyd and subsequent events, to avoid having if conflated with it and making what will already be a difficult job for Johnson even worse.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Turkish use Hydroxycloroquine and believe it works well as long as it is administered early. Their death rate is low, so they are doing something right.
It might be they have a generally youger population, of course. You have to control for such biasing factors when you study these things.
Or they are reporting corona deaths as "accidentally fell from window" style.
More reliable sources than the authoritian turkey have had people die because of that stuff in tests. Death rate went up. Now whom you believe is another thing but I would be sceptical of turkey and it's kind.
What exactly is 'its kind'?
Turkish statistics should be treated with some caution, AKP are certainly liable to seek to flatten them, but they're certainly not misreporting them to a degree that doesn't still make them a relative success story.
I'm finding it very hard to be positive about the UK situation at the moment - the Dominic Cummings incident has essentially given the 'all clear', either people assuming the risk is not as great as the gov was making out, or thinking "well if he can do it.. "
Now the UK is relaxing lockdown status at a time of higher daily rate of infection than was used as justification when the lockdown began.
Articles I have read from workers within the health service - where they managed to cope previously without being overwhelmed, and in some ways are better prepared for a second wave, but are now exhausted from the massive physical and emotional pressures of the past months. And of course the people who have not been attended to because of the virus, cancer sufferers turning up at hospital just weeks away from death. It is horrible.
And I read about the status of the testing and tracing system being unfit for purpose, and it likely taking some time before it is up to speed. The workers sat twiddling their thumbs because they are unable to log into the network systems, again a decision that was made that has lead us to this path.
Schools partly re-opening, highly vulnerable people now being allowed out again (what the actual feth..?!). The images I saw of VE day celebrations and parties, as though we were celebrating victory over the virus, and numerous other images of crowded groups. It is obvious that the ability of many to continue to isolate has gone and it will be very difficult to put back in place.
I'm not at all convinced that people are capable of strictly maintaining distance when socialising, and the horribly contagious nature of the virus means that it is likely to spread upon any kind of contact.
And to cap it .. Matt Hancock, who had given the impression of being at least well meaning if not competent, now you read that he has been heavily lobbied by the horse racing industry to the tune of over £100k over recent years. Suddenly, the decision to let Cheltenham go ahead, and for horse racing to start again immediately comes into focus.
Even if you really know it in the back of your mind, it is a horrifying realisation to understand (and have it presented in such stark terms) that the government is not really interested in the wellbeing of its citizens.
I understand the antidote for all of this is just to stop reading... but know it's important just for the sake of friends, family and colleagues (who are the only people I hope to be able to support)
And I read about the status of the testing and tracing system being unfit for purpose, and it likely taking some time before it is up to speed. The workers sat twiddling their thumbs because they are unable to log into the network systems, again a decision that was made that has lead us to this path.
If this is at all accurate, then it's going to be a disaster...
One day last week the number of new coronavirus cases registered at Bradford Royal Infirmary jumped to 30. Dr John Wright thinks there could be a link to VE Day parties that ended in fist fights, or in embraces.
The day after the Prime Minister announced an easing of the lockdown, the number of new Covid patients in the hospital fell to a reassuring three. And two of them were my medical colleagues.
The low figure partly resulted from delays in reporting, which happen every weekend, but there was still a collective sigh of relief. Maybe everything was going to be all right after all?
But three days later, on Thursday 14 May, the number of new Covid-positive patients had shot up to 30.
Well, it does, on a local level. The question is whether we'll see things snowball and become widespread.
I was talking to the security guard at Waitose yesterday. He said there had been a noticeable increase in "bad" behaviour -- couples expecting to be allowed in, him being sworn at by groups, and so on. He was in no doubt that it was the result of the relaxation of the rules being taken by some people as licence to do whatever they liked.
Kilkrazy wrote: Well, it does, on a local level. The question is whether we'll see things snowball and become widespread.
I was talking to the security guard at Waitose yesterday. He said there had been a noticeable increase in "bad" behaviour -- couples expecting to be allowed in, him being sworn at by groups, and so on. He was in no doubt that it was the result of the relaxation of the rules being taken by some people as licence to do whatever they liked.
A week or more ago I got that vibe from the local supermarket as well both at the tills and security.
And today activity was very high.
It's hard though - government is with one hand telling people to stay home and stay vigilant, but with the other they are opening shops and places of work; many of which require customers/clients to attend. So people are getting a really confusing mixed message and with good weather and weeks of lockdown many are simply reverting back to their old behaviour. It's understandable and yet at the same time very frustrating; esp when the government appears to be running around doing mad things like justifying car drives for eye tests. Basically showing that the rules can be flouted and aren't all that serious.
Heck its getting harder to convince my parents to remain in proper lockdown - already there are thoughts of drinking coffee with friends; going to play tennis etc... The government isn't helping darn it!
1) Most people don't need support when shopping - there is no need for two (or more) people to perform the task where one can do it just fine
2) Retail outlets attempt to restrict numbers, if they let two people in they have to then wait until those two both leave until they can let two more in. This means fewer individual shoppers moving around. They can let 10 people in to shop each; or 2 families of 5 people. OR they have to let in those two families AND the other 8 and thus they've increased the numbers way beyond what they wanted
3) It doubles the number of people who can be infected from a household and (likely more importantly) doubles the number who might be from an infected household into an enclosed space. It's doubling the risk related to that group.
This has been pretty standard practice through the lockdown - restricting numbers; reducing the amount of people in the store; reducing interactions and contact; attempting to curtail the chances of people breathing out the virus onto others and it spreading.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: ok, so what if that couple dont have a car and they need both people to cart the bags back to wherever they're going?
This sort of thing is why blanket policies like this dont work. because theres too much nuance in everyday life across the general public.
One waits outside the other goes in to shop, completing the shop using a trolley. They come out - produce goes into bags and the trolley back to the depo/person washing trolleys and they go home. They don't both need to go into the store to carry it home, the carrying happens outside (most supermarkets are advising people to bag outside the store not inside to reduce time inside).
Sure there will be people who need a carer or helper to get around who can't use home delivery (it was backed up for a long while and in some ares might still be). But by and large with trolleys you only need one person to walk around a store and put items into it
queen_annes_revenge wrote: ok, so what if that couple dont have a car and they need both people to cart the bags back to wherever they're going?
This sort of thing is why blanket policies like this dont work. because theres too much nuance in everyday life across the general public.
One waits outside the other goes in to shop, completing the shop using a trolley. They come out - produce goes into bags and the trolley back to the depo/person washing trolleys and they go home. They don't both need to go into the store to carry it home, the carrying happens outside (most supermarkets are advising people to bag outside the store not inside to reduce time inside).
Sure there will be people who need a carer or helper to get around who can't use home delivery (it was backed up for a long while and in some ares might still be). But by and large with trolleys you only need one person to walk around a store and put items into it
Or, even simpler, one goes and does the shop, then when they're almost done they call and the other comes and meets them, then nobody has to wait around unnecessarily getting wet/sunburned (delete as appropriate.)
Plus shopping for groceries is one of the legitimate reasons for using public transport so its allowed to call a taxi to drive you and your shop home.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Whenever I go to Aldi or Waitrose there are plenty of cars parked outside with one partner waiting while the other one does the shopping.
It's just a small proportion of people who can't understand why the rules have to apply to them too.
Anecdotally, in my experience couples are usually badly behaved within the supermarket.
I've noticed since the original "go outside as much as you like" easing that people are behaving far worse in the supermarket. Not just couples but parents with children in their mid to late teens, clearly old enough and functional enough to be left home. Last week a full family of four wondering around like a flock of sheep.
Some blame has to go on the supermarket for not enforcing the rules, but then they might in theory, but the personnel I've seen on the door have hardly radiated authority.
Early in the epidemic I went to Waitrose. They had implemented a waiting rule but the door security was a pretty Indian girl who looked about 17 years old and had no authority. Some teenage boy just blew past her while I was waiting. Now they have a tough professional security guard.
Pacific wrote: Even if you really know it in the back of your mind, it is a horrifying realisation to understand (and have it presented in such stark terms) that the government is not really interested in the wellbeing of its citizens.
I understand the antidote for all of this is just to stop reading... but know it's important just for the sake of friends, family and colleagues (who are the only people I hope to be able to support)
It goes a lot deeper. The government is disinterested in the wellbeing of its citizens, but the government is also elected by those citizens. The larger situation is that people are apathetic to their own wellbeing, to which it makes sense that a government made from those people would share such apathy. It seems nonsensical that people would not be interested in their own wellbeing but that is a sum of the population; when the average individual has little concern about the wellbeing of people other than themselves that adds up to a society which is disinterested in its own good. That this is ultimately harmful to the individual is some parts irony and many parts karmic.
Democracy is wonderful in that it allows people to elect the government they deserve.
Kilkrazy wrote: Early in the epidemic I went to Waitrose. They had implemented a waiting rule but the door security was a pretty Indian girl who looked about 17 years old and had no authority. Some teenage boy just blew past her while I was waiting. Now they have a tough professional security guard.
I often have to readjust my perspective, at 6'5" it isn't unusual for people to describe other people to me as tall only for me to realise that yes, that quite small person is in fact 6' and for someone of average height would indeed be considered tall.
With that qualified though, I'm confident i could toss the lad who's been on the door at the local Asda the last two weeks into the bin one handed and at distance.
Thankfully when I've been any queuing has been limited and good natured, god knows what would happen of things got fractious for any reason.
For the vast majority the staff at the door are only there as a reminder and to help people know what to do. Ergo to permit them entry when others leave. Providing a point of minor control/authority on the situation that lets people put them in charge so they don't have to stress about what they should/shouldn't do.
So for the most part regular staff work in the role. It really is only a minority that cause trouble - often more for themselves in the long run than others.
WHO officials were lauding China in public because they wanted to coax more information out of the government, the recordings obtained by the AP suggest. Privately, they complained in meetings the week of Jan. 6 that China was not sharing enough data to assess how effectively the virus spread between people or what risk it posed to the rest of the world, costing valuable time.
“We’re going on very minimal information,” said American epidemiologist Maria Van Kerkhove, now WHO’s technical lead for COVID-19, in one internal meeting. “It’s clearly not enough for you to do proper planning.”
“We’re currently at the stage where yes, they’re giving it to us 15 minutes before it appears on CCTV,” said WHO’s top official in China, Dr. Gauden Galea, referring to the state-owned China Central Television, in another meeting.
...
The recordings suggest that rather than colluding with China, as Trump declared, WHO was itself kept in the dark as China gave it the minimal information required by law. However, the agency did try to portray China in the best light, likely as a means to secure more information. And WHO experts genuinely thought Chinese scientists had done “a very good job” in detecting and decoding the virus, despite the lack of transparency from Chinese officials.
WHO staffers debated how to press China for gene sequences and detailed patient data without angering authorities, worried about losing access and getting Chinese scientists into trouble. Under international law, WHO is required to quickly share information and alerts with member countries about an evolving crisis. Galea noted WHO could not indulge China’s wish to sign off on information before telling other countries because “that is not respectful of our responsibilities.”
...
“It’s obvious that we could have saved more lives and avoided many, many deaths if China and the WHO had acted faster,” said Ali Mokdad, a professor at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.
However, Mokdad and other experts also noted that if WHO had been more confrontational with China, it could have triggered a far worse situation of not getting any information at all.
If WHO had pushed too hard, it could even have been kicked out of China, said Adam Kamradt-Scott, a global health professor at the University of Sydney. But he added that a delay of just a few days in releasing genetic sequences can be critical in an outbreak. And he noted that as Beijing’s lack of transparency becomes even clearer, WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’s continued defense of China is problematic.
“It’s definitely damaged WHO’s credibility,” said Kamradt-Scott. “Did he go too far? I think the evidence on that is clear….it has led to so many questions about the relationship between China and WHO. It is perhaps a cautionary tale.”
WHO and its officials named in this story declined to answer questions asked by The Associated Press without audio or written transcripts of the recorded meetings, which the AP was unable to supply to protect its sources.
We have similar signs asking that only one person per household shops at the supermarket. That doesn't prevent mom, dad and their three kids casually strolling into the supermarket.
Those rules have been posted on nearly every single store, bank, garage and most places that I've seen. I think the only places that don't have someone on the door anyway and people are also assuming it.
If anything its more abnormal for a store not to be limiting customers at this time. Even a lot of the country shops that don't see huge numbers of customers even at the best of times are putting up formal limitations.
The ones on the signs around the supermarket entrance.
It amazes me when people always complain about signs stating rules or warnings on labels of food. People always say "Who is dumb enough to do that?"
Then you have responses from people like this. Who are completely oblivious to anything going on around them.
I think it is more "Who is dumb enough to do that, but also smart enough to read & comprehend the sign in the first place?" To which the answer may very well be no one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: AP came out with a story about the WHO internal struggles on dealing with China in January,some important bits:
WHO officials were lauding China in public because they wanted to coax more information out of the government, the recordings obtained by the AP suggest. Privately, they complained in meetings the week of Jan. 6 that China was not sharing enough data to assess how effectively the virus spread between people or what risk it posed to the rest of the world, costing valuable time.
“We’re going on very minimal information,” said American epidemiologist Maria Van Kerkhove, now WHO’s technical lead for COVID-19, in one internal meeting. “It’s clearly not enough for you to do proper planning.”
“We’re currently at the stage where yes, they’re giving it to us 15 minutes before it appears on CCTV,” said WHO’s top official in China, Dr. Gauden Galea, referring to the state-owned China Central Television, in another meeting.
...
The recordings suggest that rather than colluding with China, as Trump declared, WHO was itself kept in the dark as China gave it the minimal information required by law. However, the agency did try to portray China in the best light, likely as a means to secure more information. And WHO experts genuinely thought Chinese scientists had done “a very good job” in detecting and decoding the virus, despite the lack of transparency from Chinese officials.
WHO staffers debated how to press China for gene sequences and detailed patient data without angering authorities, worried about losing access and getting Chinese scientists into trouble. Under international law, WHO is required to quickly share information and alerts with member countries about an evolving crisis. Galea noted WHO could not indulge China’s wish to sign off on information before telling other countries because “that is not respectful of our responsibilities.”
...
“It’s obvious that we could have saved more lives and avoided many, many deaths if China and the WHO had acted faster,” said Ali Mokdad, a professor at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.
However, Mokdad and other experts also noted that if WHO had been more confrontational with China, it could have triggered a far worse situation of not getting any information at all.
If WHO had pushed too hard, it could even have been kicked out of China, said Adam Kamradt-Scott, a global health professor at the University of Sydney. But he added that a delay of just a few days in releasing genetic sequences can be critical in an outbreak. And he noted that as Beijing’s lack of transparency becomes even clearer, WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’s continued defense of China is problematic.
“It’s definitely damaged WHO’s credibility,” said Kamradt-Scott. “Did he go too far? I think the evidence on that is clear….it has led to so many questions about the relationship between China and WHO. It is perhaps a cautionary tale.”
WHO and its officials named in this story declined to answer questions asked by The Associated Press without audio or written transcripts of the recorded meetings, which the AP was unable to supply to protect its sources.
The ones on the signs around the supermarket entrance.
It amazes me when people always complain about signs stating rules or warnings on labels of food. People always say "Who is dumb enough to do that?"
Then you have responses from people like this. Who are completely oblivious to anything going on around them.
in my experience these people will also be the ones who have gone to the lengths of getting gloves and masks, yet are completely oblivious to the one way arrows or keeping a 2 metre distance.
Local shop near me, a One Stop, a chain owned by Tesco, has a "one way system" and a bloke on the door - who doesn't move 2m from you when you go in...
Their "one way system" is badly laid out because you can't even go "one way" if you only need to go down two of the 3 or 4 cramped aisles! And it's literally one person in, one person out, premises used to be an old pub that was in an old house, think the house was early to mid 20th century, might have even been late 19th.
Luckily, I've not had to experience our local One Stop too often. Although I wasn't actually told to shield until I received a text on May 11th, yeah May 11th, due to chronic asthma. It took 4 weeks of praying and hoping I'd get an online delivery slot before any supermarkets prioritised my household.
Certainly haven't had to go to a full size supermarket since "lockdown" was enacted, couldn't get to one if I even want to.
Very frustrating at this time. I can't drive. I see people crowding on beaches, leaving litter, needlessly travelling hundreds of miles, etc. etc.. Meanwhile I'm observing the "stay at home" and "stay alert" advice as much as I feasibly can, stuck in my immediate area (5 minutes walking distance is about all I can manage due to various health issues) because buses are cut back to 1 every 2 hours, if the bus has just 9 people on it you get told you can't get on, and no service before 08:00 or after 18:00, Sunday service if you're lucky on other routes (especially to the nearest city).
Thoroughly fed up with it, especially while others carry on as though there's no pandemic, and it's all a jolly good break from work!
I also fear the bus situation will remain in effect for months, if not permanently. I can pretty much kiss goodbye to any job prospects going forwards.
I'm between jobs and I was volunteering, in an organisation that assists vulnerable people, albeit as an office worker, prior to this pandemic kicking off in the UK. Now I can't even get to anywhere if they would even take me on, even as a volunteer!!
On top of that we have government officials doing as they please, and government scientific advisors apparently at the very least getting the modelling wrong, thus causing this mass hysteria resulting in what was possibly an unnecessary "lockdown" which has damaged the economy for millions in the UK, when officially only less than 1% (possibly more like only 3% or 5%) of the population have had Covid-19, and deaths, as unfortunate as they all are, are looking like they won't be greatly in excess of the normal yearly death rate of around 600k per year!
Definitely not the only person in the same situation either. Much like when we were "locked down" there doesn't seem to be any coherent plan, if any, in place or forthcoming for people in my situation going forwards. Seems we're supposed to "make do" with whatever public transport services are left and tough luck if it's unusable for getting to/from employment or anything else! We, yet again, seem to be being swept under the carpet like an inconvenient truth, whilst the govt. pander to golfists and people who can get to Ikea and queue all day!
I'm glad some people's biggest issue is what signage to look at whilst out shopping, or if they'll get a holiday this year!
It is a wonder sometimes how many of those people are either willfully ignorant (not reading signage to have an excuse) or just don't think said guidelines apply to them? At my supermarket near the train station you'll likely more people walking against the bright green arrows on the floor than with them and act with indifference when notified. And this is a relatively multicultural area, a decent mix of lots of different groups from different areas.
The one way arrow systems are dumb. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you want to minimize people's contact, you don't funnel them all around the same way and block off any mid aisle through points. I find it staggering that no one else can see this. I've come into contact with more people in the few shops with one way systems than I ever have in places without
Took it's sweet time but guy in charge of Sweden's corona fight admits they blew it with their initial response.
Well they got plenty of deaths as thanks, going to take longer to recover and won't be allowed to travel in nordic countries when they open up soon for travel(excluding sweden) much to their annoyance. But that's just silly complain from them.
Rob Lee wrote: ...and deaths, as unfortunate as they all are, are looking like they won't be greatly in excess of the normal yearly death rate of around 600k per year!
Yeah, what's an extra 65,000 dead people in three months between friends?
Rob Lee wrote: ...and deaths, as unfortunate as they all are, are looking like they won't be greatly in excess of the normal yearly death rate of around 600k per year!
Yeah, what's an extra 65,000 dead people in three months between friends?
Like I said, without getting too political, it's unfortunate. Shouldn't stop anyone from examining the figures and putting them into context and perspective however.
We cannot do anything about the deaths now. They have happened, many would have happened regardless, and it is not helpful getting all emotive about it. We can however stop further hardship, even deaths, happening as a result of the coming economic recession, if not depression.
We have millions of people, some 60+ million, with more than 90% of the population having not had Covid-19, to be looking after, many of whom are vulnerable physically to Covid-19, along with many who have found themselves now in a position where they are vulnerable financially which could also leave them vulnerable physically. We have nearly 3 million officially on Universal Credit, with a further 8 million furloughed, some 2 million of those likely to lose their jobs if figures being banded about are correct, and who knows how many tens/hundreds of thousands if not millions out of work but for one gotcha or another unable to even claim Universal Credit.
And that's whilst there is still any sort of safety net in place.
The focus now should be on those people. They didn't put themselves in that position.
Frankly we shouldn't be in either position, given how other countries seemingly successfully planned for such a crisis and have far more effectively dealt with the virus.
Might be worth starting this thread before the last page and having a look at, and responding to, some of the rebuttals of the above to save the Merry-go-round that you're about to start afresh
queen_annes_revenge wrote: The one way arrow systems are dumb. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you want to minimize people's contact, you don't funnel them all around the same way and block off any mid aisle through points. I find it staggering that no one else can see this. I've come into contact with more people in the few shops with one way systems than I ever have in places without
Being a respiratory disease, breathing out and coughing is the primary mechanism the virus spreads.
Keeping people moving in the same direction keeps them facing in the same direction, and therefore away from each other, which is a measure that's been advised to minimise the chances of transmission.
But above even that, you have 4 people travelling down the same aisle, given most supermarket aisles in the UK are many metres long but few are sufficiently in excess of 2 metres, which way is easier to allow all 4 to maintain social distancing, all moving the same way or with some moving in one direction and others moving the other?
I'm sure you'll have a reason why this doesn't/shouldn't apply to you, but then you needed this explained to you, so...
well I can see your patronising tone and inability to form an adult discussion are still present and that I was mistaken in taking you off ignore.
yeah, I mean I forgot that no one turns their head, or that particles breathed out move forward with the person, and didnt disperse in the area in a static cloud... silly me.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: well I can see your patronising tone and inability to form an adult discussion are still present and that I was mistaken in taking you off ignore.
yeah, I mean I forgot that no one turns their head, or that particles breathed out move forward with the person, and didnt disperse in the area in a static cloud... silly me.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: well I can see your patronising tone and inability to form an adult discussion are still present and that I was mistaken in taking you off ignore.
yeah, I mean I forgot that no one turns their head, or that particles breathed out move forward with the person, and didnt disperse in the area in a static cloud... silly me.
You're evading the point.
How? I literally provided an example of why it is pointless in the last post. You're going to be walking through people's breath regardless of the direction you're going.
Not that (in my opinion) the risk of catching it in a supermarket is particularly high regardless, due to the limited amount of time you're actually in close contact with anyone (but certainly increased when you have one way systems in place)
Unless you're an owl your head will typically face forward or to the side when shopping. Which in theory means if you're all 2m away and all moving in the same direction the vast majority of your breath will not be near to another person.
Of course at times you're going to pass people; or you're going to pass staff etc.. The One Way system is about reducing the potential risk and reducing potential contact with others. It won't eliminate it entirely, its all about reducing within the bounds of "normal" life.
The one way system also makes it much easier to control flow of people through the supermarket and reduce bottlenecks forming where people are heading in different directions and more likely to pass others. Instead when you get a blockage people just end up lining up one behind the other at social distance distances.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: well I can see your patronising tone and inability to form an adult discussion are still present and that I was mistaken in taking you off ignore.
yeah, I mean I forgot that no one turns their head, or that particles breathed out move forward with the person, and didnt disperse in the area in a static cloud... silly me.
You're evading the point.
How? I literally provided an example of why it is pointless in the last post.
No, you did not.
I know this is part of the devils-advocate-discussion thing you have going but it is getting pretty obtuse at this point.
I think arrows in some supermarkets is fine, but I agree about the "funneling" part. I've run into so many places that are closing all entrances and exits but one... and this leads to way more congestion when entering or leaving than normal. I don't understand why anyone thinks this would help. Maybe it's just due to needing staff for other things (like cleaning) but it seems so counter-intuitive.
The same goes for places that, for example, no longer offer kid-seat shopping carts. Indications are that surfaces are not a major source of transmission, and by not having those carts I either have to cram my kids in the basket of a normal one (which I did) or have them out of the cart, which obviously is not as effective for me keeping them distant from others...
RiTides wrote: I think arrows in some supermarkets is fine, but I agree about the "funneling" part. I've run into so many places that are closing all entrances and exits but one... and this leads to way more congestion when entering or leaving than normal. I don't understand why anyone thinks this would help. Maybe it's just due to needing staff for other things (like cleaning) but it seems so counter-intuitive.
The same goes for places that, for example, no longer offer kid-seat shopping carts. Indications are that surfaces are not a major source of transmission, and by not having those carts I either have to cram my kids in the basket of a normal one (which I did) or have them out of the cart, which obviously is not as effective for me keeping them distant from others...
It's just a duvet, like everything else. If places seem like they're doing something, it makes people feel safer.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: well I can see your patronising tone and inability to form an adult discussion are still present and that I was mistaken in taking you off ignore.
yeah, I mean I forgot that no one turns their head, or that particles breathed out move forward with the person, and didnt disperse in the area in a static cloud... silly me.
You're evading the point.
How? I literally provided an example of why it is pointless in the last post.
No, you did not.
I know this is part of the devils-advocate-discussion thing you have going but it is getting pretty obtuse at this point.
Yes, I did. Azrael whatsisface is the one who didn't provide anything disputing my original point, followed by a nice little ad hominem, but this is fun. Lets keep going.
Ugh, I just do not see the point anymore. I do see your strategy has generated discussion, but I do not see how it has moved the discussion forward in a productive way.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Ugh, I just do not see the point anymore. I do see your strategy has generated discussion, but I do not see how it has moved the discussion forward in a productive way.
Because that is the strategy, a certain political side has found that just repeating assertions ad nauseum until the other side stops bothering is the key to "victory". Productive discussion was never part of it.
RiTides wrote: I think arrows in some supermarkets is fine, but I agree about the "funneling" part. I've run into so many places that are closing all entrances and exits but one... and this leads to way more congestion when entering or leaving than normal. I don't understand why anyone thinks this would help. Maybe it's just due to needing staff for other things (like cleaning) but it seems so counter-intuitive.
The same goes for places that, for example, no longer offer kid-seat shopping carts. Indications are that surfaces are not a major source of transmission, and by not having those carts I either have to cram my kids in the basket of a normal one (which I did) or have them out of the cart, which obviously is not as effective for me keeping them distant from others...
It's just a duvet, like everything else. If places seem like they're doing something, it makes people feel safer.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: well I can see your patronising tone and inability to form an adult discussion are still present and that I was mistaken in taking you off ignore.
yeah, I mean I forgot that no one turns their head, or that particles breathed out move forward with the person, and didnt disperse in the area in a static cloud... silly me.
You're evading the point.
How? I literally provided an example of why it is pointless in the last post.
No, you did not.
I know this is part of the devils-advocate-discussion thing you have going but it is getting pretty obtuse at this point.
Yes, I did. Azrael whatsisface is the one who didn't provide anything disputing my original point, followed by a nice little ad hominem, but this is fun. Lets keep going.
So you think that while you are in a grocery store, going down the lanes properly, it is okay the break the distance rules? Because it seems to me that you think that the rules don't apply to you.
We’re very slowly starting to return to normal, as heralded by the reopening of Ikea. Joking aside, cases are at very low numbers and I think the death rate is close to zero.
So you think that while you are in a grocery store, going down the lanes properly, it is okay the break the distance rules? Because it seems to me that you think that the rules don't apply to you.
They aren't rules. They're guidelines. It's physically impossible to stay 2 metres/6 foot from all other people, at all times. There are times when you will come within that distance for short periods of time. Shopping is one of them.
So you think that while you are in a grocery store, going down the lanes properly, it is okay the break the distance rules? Because it seems to me that you think that the rules don't apply to you.
Seems? That's what it is. Any rules that restrict him don't count. Basically he thinks he's law in itself.
Future War Cultist wrote: We’re very slowly starting to return to normal, as heralded by the reopening of Ikea. Joking aside, cases are at very low numbers and I think the death rate is close to zero.
Things are certainly heading in the right direction. Media don't seem to be reporting it though. Granted, I'll give them a little leeway at the moment due to the other nonsense theyre having to cover.
Future War Cultist wrote: We’re very slowly starting to return to normal, as heralded by the reopening of Ikea. Joking aside, cases are at very low numbers and I think the death rate is close to zero.
Still pushing 2k new cases a day and more people died in the UK yesterday* than the EU27 combined.
*well, reported yesterday, presumably 24 hours to yesterday 9am or similar, only including positive tests.
So you think that while you are in a grocery store, going down the lanes properly, it is okay the break the distance rules? Because it seems to me that you think that the rules don't apply to you.
They aren't rules. They're guidelines. It's physically impossible to stay 2 metres/6 foot from all other people, at all times. There are times when you will come within that distance for short periods of time. Shopping is one of them.
Ah, right right. Often times when I go on to other peoples property with warning signs explaining the rule... I mean "guidelines", I completely ignore them and forget that it is possible for everybody to stay 6 ft apart by simply following them and not throwing my hands up in the air and saying "THIS IS IMPOSSIBLY" for no reason.
Hey, next time you are at the grocery store and you are zipping around and you see somebody in an aisle. Wait. Move along as they move. Observe the distance rule. It is that simple. They teach it to children in schools.
Reporting differs across the eu. There are rumours that Italy has around 6-12k deaths that are missing or hidden in the system somewhere or other. Like you yourself say, it's excess deaths that will be the most accurate yardstick here.
Future War Cultist wrote: We’re very slowly starting to return to normal, as heralded by the reopening of Ikea. Joking aside, cases are at very low numbers and I think the death rate is close to zero.
UK is still in the region of 2K cases a day and several hundred deaths per day (probably somewhere around 200 since we get the weekend lull of around 100 then a spike up to around 300 for a few days after). It's possible you were hearing regional reports for death rate if you heard that on the news, not the national.
The big issue is that UK went into lockdown with only 50 odd cases a day, granted that was when we weren't detecting as well as we are now so the number was likely much higher; and the value was swinging upward fast not downward; but still we are not anywhere near out of the woods.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Reporting differs across the eu. There are rumours that Italy has around 6-12k deaths that are missing or hidden in the system somewhere or other. Like you yourself say, it's excess deaths that will be the most accurate yardstick here.
Which, as I think I posted previously, we fair very, very badly in.
I actually support what they are doing, but with the mass protests going on in the UK, with many more still to come, and god knows the impact in the US and other major countries, there's surely going to be a rebound of cases, hopefully with the average age of protesters it won't be too bad and/or maybe a lot already have anti-bodies but I hope they have the common sense to isolate and/or not visit friends or family in the coming weeks, especially those most vulnerable.
Slightly off topic, I'm very tempted to join the protests today myself in my home city (Birmingham, UK), though after the degeneration of the protests into violence last night in London, mostly targeting police I am concerned Police will be not only out in force, but quite riled up, heavy handed and overzealous. It could potentially get quite nasty this evening. On a whole police have got better in this country, but they are far far far from perfect and make mistakes, and I'd argue there is still mass intuitional racism within the service (like any government affiliated organisation and department). At times like this, those small mistakes can escalate, especially in a city with a huge BAME community that (quite justifiably in my opinion) distrust police, and who are very very very angry currently.
I'm also sure there will be selfish A***hole looters and anarchists out tonight as well.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Reporting differs across the eu. There are rumours that Italy has around 6-12k deaths that are missing or hidden in the system somewhere or other. Like you yourself say, it's excess deaths that will be the most accurate yardstick here.
And UK is hiding deaths. Even up to 40% higher than reported. So some 15k or so deaths missing.
Are they missing deaths or the difference between Corona confirmed/suspected and the total number of excess deaths compared to the average? If so then its not so much hidden as just not directly attributed to corona stats. The average death disparity gets widely reported in the media.
Missing would imply the data isn't even making it into the total reported deaths. Which does happen since there is a lag-time but that data does seem to enter the system fairly faithfully. There was certainly issues with hidden numbers when the UK Corona stats didn't inclue outside of hospital deaths.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: I actually support what they are doing, but with the mass protests going on in the UK, with many more still to come, and god knows the impact in the US and other major countries, there's surely going to be a rebound of cases, hopefully with the average age of protesters it won't be too bad and/or maybe a lot already have anti-bodies but I hope they have the common sense to isolate and/or not visit friends or family in the coming weeks, especially those most vulnerable.
Don't count on antibodies. Spain has been ravaged pretty badly by the virus. Antibodies have been found on just few % of population...
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Reporting differs across the eu. There are rumours that Italy has around 6-12k deaths that are missing or hidden in the system somewhere or other. Like you yourself say, it's excess deaths that will be the most accurate yardstick here.
And UK is hiding deaths. Even up to 40% higher than reported. So some 15k or so deaths missing.
We have most of those numbers. They're about two weeks delayed. 62,000 excess deaths as of May 22, 50,000 with COVID-19 as a contributor/cause.
It is easily possible to maintain 2m separation in supermarkets, it just requires a bit of selfless consideration for your fellow shoppers.
Put simply, you follow a one-way system where it is necessary to have one. You don't advance past someone in front of you who is choosing goods. If you are the one choosing, you don't hang about for hours, because you're blocking the people behind you. You make sure you arrive with an organised list to get everything you need efficiently and quickly.
The store needs to keep the number of people inside under 60 or whatever the capacity may be, by a careful one out, one in system. They also need to ensure the tills are well staffed so people can pay and go as quickly as possible.
Every supermarket I've been to during the lockdown has fairly quickly got this system into action except Lidl, so I don't go there any more.
Every supermarket has also contained a small number of people, who seem incapable of following these simple rules.
I'm not going to wait behind someone in a supermarket aisle when I can just walk past them. I'm also not going to endlessly traipse around a one way system if I don't need items from the majority of those aisles. I don't need the minutiae of my life dictated to me by these places. I'm an adult, capable of applying common sense.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I'm not going to wait behind someone in a supermarket aisle when I can just walk past them. I'm also not going to endlessly traipse around a one way system if I don't need items from the majority of those aisles. I don't need the minutiae of my life dictated to me by these places. I'm an adult, capable of applying common sense.
not only have you completely contradicted yourself in this one post, also the fact that people are having to explain basic instructions to you would say otherwise
Kilkrazy wrote: It is easily possible to maintain 2m separation in supermarkets, it just requires a bit of selfless consideration for your fellow shoppers.
it's funny, I was going to post something about "ah, the missing ingredient" - but then he said the quiet part out loud!
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I'm not going to wait behind someone in a supermarket aisle when I can just walk past them.
I mean, how do you respond to that? I dunno if this is Poe's law, or if anyone can genuinely be this self-centered - but either way, impressive show.
Tneva nailed this guy right from the beginning. just as he reiterated above.
Anyway - at my job, we also have the arrows in the hallways, which is well meaning but maybe a little misplaced: at the moment my department is the only one essential enough to be working on-site, and even then, we're only having 2 people onsite at a time - so the entire building, all 5 floors, only has 2 people in it. Seems like a bit of a waste of time to have had maintenance mark off the whole building - but perhaps it will persist even for a while as we phase in people returning to the site.
What really irritates me is that they also are funneling people into the same entrances and exits - there are I think 5 entrances/exits and again, I sort of understand what they are trying to do - but making everyone come in the same entrance and exist the same exit seems counterproductive and in fact the very opposite probably should have been the mandate.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I'm not going to wait behind someone in a supermarket aisle when I can just walk past them. I'm also not going to endlessly traipse around a one way system if I don't need items from the majority of those aisles. I don't need the minutiae of my life dictated to me by these places. I'm an adult, capable of applying common sense.
not only have you completely contradicted yourself in this one post, also the fact that people are having to explain basic instructions to you would say otherwise
Except everyday life doesn't work using just your pure logic does it? when we're trying to get people round and out of supermarkets as quickly as possible, we should all wait behind the (all due respect) old man who moves at a snails pace, or the parent trying to keep control of their child, and proceed round the shop in a big snake. The people outside can wait even longer. Sod them. Honestly...
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Except everyday life doesn't work using just your pure logic does it? when we're trying to get people round and out of supermarkets as quickly as possible
This isn't a universally agreed upon goal; and most people seem able to work with normal societal expectations of shopping with consideration during trying times - even when that means we're not grabbing bread and milk like we're doing a pit stop and we're behind;
queen_annes_revenge wrote: we should all wait behind the (all due respect) old man who moves at a snails pace
Yes, some of us - maybe even most of us - are willing to perform what is a tiny, easily accomplished accomodation in the effort to try and avoid infecting an old person who just needs groceries to live with an illness that could be a death sentence;
I wish you had just posted this right up front at the beginning of the thread and saved a lot of time for everyone involved, because every single one of your posts has orbited this core idea, and even if I ignore you, most people are quoting the short-sighted, selfish, awful things you say here in a futile attempt to rebut them, and so I have to read them anyway. So, no point.
Anyway, perhaps being more honest and up front about your me-at-all-costs philosophy would have saved us all some noise.
At this point, if people can't/won't use the actual "Ignore" function, they could just actually ignore posts from people who have already 100% stated their position on things and are clearly not going to move a millimeter off of it...no matter what.
The Civil Unrest in the USA is actually making it difficult to get reports on the state of Covid-19 here.
I've no doubt it is on the way up in many places - especially where large crowds are gathering and shouting and singing and being gassed, but numbers are hard to come by.
Alpharius wrote: At this point, if people can't/won't use the actual "Ignore" function, they could just actually ignore posts from people who have already 100% stated their position on things and are clearly not going to move a millimeter off of it...no matter what.
The Civil Unrest in the USA is actually making it difficult to get reports on the state of Covid-19 here.
I've no doubt it is on the way up in many places - especially where large crowds are gathering and shouting and singing and being gassed, but numbers are hard to come by.
There’s going to be a horrible spike over there I’m sure of it.
I wonder about that - the big spike. I was sure there would be big spikes in Georgia and Florida, when they reopened, but by and large those things thankfully do not seem to have really happened.
edit: on the other hand, just because places have reopened doesn't mean the general public is participating, I suppose. I saw an article that indicated parts of Georgia remain utterly devoid of shoppers, which is one explanation of why the expected spike didn't occur. I imagine there are other explanations as well.
Depending how places open up, if you've got people shopping at 2m apart; wearing masks; washing hands; not coughing on each other etc... Then chances are spikes might not happen as fast as we expect.
Another aspect is that the spike will get drawn out instead of rising superfast.
Where we are seeing spikes rise much faster is when things like schools come back online - populations that are kept inside in enclosed spaces for prolonged periods of time and are more likely to breach social distancing on more occasions and with less awareness etc...
The return to parliament of MPs in the UK this week has had the expected result of something looking like a scene from a dysoptian sci-fi, MP Alok Sharma suffering the effects of Covid when speaking and dabbing his forehead.
The problem is now that the gov can either back down, acknowledging that it's not possible for MPs to attend safely in person currently, or they can ignore what has happened, carry on and further undermine any remaining effort to try and convince people to continue socially distancing (which has already taken a massive knock). As the return to the House of Commons was utterly unnecessary and just politically motivated because Johnson has been getting roasted by Kier Starmer, unfortunately I don't hold any high hopes that they will follow the prudent course here.
Re. the ongoing protests, putting aside for one moment the social issues behind them, I fear that it will make the infection rate spike up again once more. That many people crammed together, masks and hand gel or not, is going to result in a lot more cases with a virus that is this contagious. Obvious to point out also about the people shouting/calling out and close physical contact etc. A shame as it will undo so much of the hard work and sacrifice of people through lockdown until this point.
At this point, if people can't/won't use the actual "Ignore" function, they could just actually ignore posts from people who have already 100% stated their position on things and are clearly not going to move a millimeter off of it...no matter what.
Problem with ignore is that you still see those people's responses in quoted response from others. And it takes some discipline to then ignore those comments, because you know reading them will make your blood boil..
So...They've started freeing up restrictions here, with retail stores being allowed to open provided they have all the social distancing/mask rules in place. The annoucement was within an hour of the announcement that there was also now a 8pm curfew in force 'indefinitely' (more likely a week or two)
Facebook is full of confused outrage as the right leaning and left leaning people on my wall scream about the form of government control they prefer. "Open everything but respect the curfew! Close everything but remove the curfew!
"
On the plus side, I walked into my local FLGS to buy one thing and walked out with four things so...that's back to normal at least.
Ouze wrote: I wonder about that - the big spike. I was sure there would be big spikes in Georgia and Florida, when they reopened, but by and large those things thankfully do not seem to have really happened.
edit: on the other hand, just because places have reopened doesn't mean the general public is participating, I suppose. I saw an article that indicated parts of Georgia remain utterly devoid of shoppers, which is one explanation of why the expected spike didn't occur. I imagine there are other explanations as well.
I think that a lot of people are trying to maintain that 6' Social Distance and wear masks when out, which will help.
Then, as you noted, a lot of people probably aren't going to go to restaurants, movie theaters, etc. just because their state is now 'open'.
Add in that I'm not sure many states are doing enough testing, reporting the numbers correctly, etc. and...here we are!
Well, that and there are a whole lot of asymptomatic people too, who won't get tested (even if they could) because they're not aware that they have it and can spread it?
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Except everyday life doesn't work using just your pure logic does it? when we're trying to get people round and out of supermarkets as quickly as possible
This isn't a universally agreed upon goal; and most people seem able to work with normal societal expectations of shopping with consideration during trying times - even when that means we're not grabbing bread and milk like we're doing a pit stop and we're behind;
queen_annes_revenge wrote: we should all wait behind the (all due respect) old man who moves at a snails pace
Yes, some of us - maybe even most of us - are willing to perform what is a tiny, easily accomplished accomodation in the effort to try and avoid infecting an old person who just needs groceries to live with an illness that could be a death sentence;
I wish you had just posted this right up front at the beginning of the thread and saved a lot of time for everyone involved, because every single one of your posts has orbited this core idea, and even if I ignore you, most people are quoting the short-sighted, selfish, awful things you say here in a futile attempt to rebut them, and so I have to read them anyway. So, no point.
Anyway, perhaps being more honest and up front about your me-at-all-costs philosophy would have saved us all some noise.
So it's true, americans really don't understand sarcasm..
Whatever helps you sleep at night my dude.
Why couldn't the UK co-opt a system that has already been used elsewhere? Take up the offer from Google or Apple, or follow Australia's route of utilising a system that had been made in Singapore (I assume they were already ready with software for SARS or some other scenario)? This is going to stop a second wave being controlled and more people will now die because of this decision.
As a positive, welcome news about face masks on public transport - I know there isn't a firm declaration in the science, but in cases of risk (and this is how a risk manager would, or should, be looking at it) you look at the 'worst case' outcome of each course of action. On the one outcome, perhaps you're a little uncomfortable and think you look stupid, on the other it might stop you catching (or more likely passing on) the virus. I look at the virus figures for somewhere like Japan or other parts of asia (many of which are far more densely populated than Europe), where literally everyone has been wearing a mask, and you have to think that it helps prevent transmission. There was also some interesting data from China-town in one of the US cities (I forget which), where most of the populace were wearing masks and infection rates were markedly lower. I'm sure there are other factors involved, but the wide range of evidence and research would suggest that face covering of some sort is a good idea.
The problem with masks is that they don't prevent you from catching the disease. In fact with people using non-disposable non-medical masks the mask offers you very little real protection at all and might even increase your chances (or at least offers no difference).
Thing is there is decent proof that masks reduce air travel of your own breath, which means if you're a carrier who is unaware, the use of a mask can reduce your chances of spreading the disease.
I guess the other aspect is the UK government doesn't want mask PPE being hoovered up by the general population and leading to shortfalls for medical groups; however if they were worried about that they could make casual mask use mandatory and at the same time restrict retailers so that masks can only be sold to medical institutions. Amazon already has that limit on some medical supplies from its own choices.
And yeah the UK is really - odd. We aren't opposing the science but we seem to be REALLY dragging our heels on things. Such as tack and trace but also really basic things like quarantine at airports.
Skinnereal wrote: An NHS IT contract goes awry? I've not heard that one before.
Then again NHS hasn't had hand in that. I would rather look at where the company producing has donated cash. Maybe that explains why this company was chosen to do it for lotsa cash.
Overread wrote: The problem with masks is that they don't prevent you from catching the disease. In fact with people using non-disposable non-medical masks the mask offers you very little real protection at all and might even increase your chances (or at least offers no difference).
Thing is there is decent proof that masks reduce air travel of your own breath, which means if you're a carrier who is unaware, the use of a mask can reduce your chances of spreading the disease.
True. Wearing a mask is more of a sign of respect for others instead of protecting yourself.
I was going to open a thread about the Floyd Protests and related police riots since I used to live in the area, and now they are coming to my local town. Then I remembered this thread and decided not to.
There are some definitely some vagaries of language there aren't there. Is the app launch going to be effectively an alpha beta-version which doesn't work properly?
If the app is released then technically the minister will be correct. But, if it's a chocolate teapot, which means that there is no effective and functioning app (which I am now taking 'world class' to mean every time it is used by this government. i.e. it works at some basic level), really that's the only thing that matters here.
If I were a betting man, going on track so far, it's very difficult not to be cynical in this case.
Ouze wrote: I wonder about that - the big spike. I was sure there would be big spikes in Georgia and Florida, when they reopened, but by and large those things thankfully do not seem to have really happened.
edit: on the other hand, just because places have reopened doesn't mean the general public is participating, I suppose. I saw an article that indicated parts of Georgia remain utterly devoid of shoppers, which is one explanation of why the expected spike didn't occur. I imagine there are other explanations as well.
I mean, let's remember that Florida fired the person in charge of reporting numbers, because she was committed to reporting accurate numbers. So Florida not reporting a spike is not necessarily indicative of reality.
I believe early information was that Ibuprofen caused a worse reaction, however it might be that when taken at the right time it helps, but if taken too early/late it causes complications. Or it might be that the complications seen weren't the result of the drug but other element.s
There's a fair amount of evidence that ibuprofen can cause some viral infections to be more potent due to the effect it has on a key enzyme within the blood that regulates water and salt.
As this is one of the issues with covid (the impact on the specific enzyme that is), the hypothesis was that ibuprofen could make conditions worse, one specific effect they though possible was a greater risk of pneumonia from covid.
This has started to be more and more discredited though, and so the anti inflammatory response of ibuprofen should be beneficial in reducing inflammation of the lungs if you have covid, thus reducing hospital treatment of the virus.
We genuinely won't know what the the full picture is of the virus for a long time, the best people to take advice from if you think you are infected are health professionals, ignore the likes of Karen on facebook etc.
This isn't regular over the counter ibuprofen, I'm pretty sure you shouldn't be self medicating without the advice of a health professional at this point.
In the trial, the researchers are using Flarin, a lipid capsule form of ibuprofen that differs from the regular tablet available in pharmacies worldwide. Flarin has a unique formulation to protect the stomach of its users, and it is available in the U.K. Some people are already taking lipid capsules for other diseases, such as arthritis.
I'm sure thats the opposite of the advice that came out at the beginning? I definitely remember waking past a huge pile in Aldi a while back.
Different version of Ibuprofen. Not the sort you see on the shelves in Aldi.
That does however perhaps highlight just how dangerous misinformation is.
I've seen a few people commenting in this thread, posting information (including links to articles with said information), that is in fact wrong by all other accounts.
There is so much disinformation/misinformation about at the moment, not helped by people repeating it on social media/forums.
Wierd, my local conspiracy theorists have been sharing "Reports" that the WHO says masks are only needed when taking care of the sick, which I attribute either to an out of date theory, or complete BS.
Ouze wrote: Bizarre that we're entering the 6th month of this with no clear consensus.
The reality is that science reaches consensus far slower than anyone really wants and far faster when it's not being pulled in a dozen different directions by self-serving politics.
Ouze wrote: Bizarre that we're entering the 6th month of this with no clear consensus.
The reality is that science reaches consensus far slower than anyone really wants and far faster when it's not being pulled in a dozen different directions by self-serving politics.
Well the scientific grey results don't lend themselves for policy politics that well now, don't they.
The controversy over Hydroxychloroquine continues.
The Lancet and a US journal have withdrawn their articles which said it was bad for patients. This is due to flaws in the data supplied by a private company, Surgisphere.
The WHO renewed trials.
Meanwhile a University of Oxford study found an adverse effect of the drug from their own data.
Politics also are using wrong arqument in their goal to discredit mask. "doesn't protect you from catching it". Duh. Point is to prevent you from infecting others. Part they conveniently forget and are just focusing on avoiding virus yourself
The controversy over Hydroxychloroquine continues.
The Lancet and a US journal have withdrawn their articles which said it was bad for patients. This is due to flaws in the data supplied by a private company, Surgisphere.
The WHO renewed trials.
Meanwhile a University of Oxford study found an adverse effect of the drug from their own data.
Sadly, a lot of people are going to read that first bit as "chloroquine isn't bad for patients", which is not what it means
AegisGrimm wrote: Wierd, my local conspiracy theorists have been sharing "Reports" that the WHO says masks are only needed when taking care of the sick, which I attribute either to an out of date theory, or complete BS.
tneva82 wrote: Politics also are using wrong arqument in their goal to discredit mask. "doesn't protect you from catching it". Duh. Point is to prevent you from infecting others. Part they conveniently forget and are just focusing on avoiding virus yourself
While I fully support faulting politicians on their bs, I feel it is also important to note they would not spew it if people weren't so willing to eat.
tneva82 wrote: Politics also are using wrong arqument in their goal to discredit mask. "doesn't protect you from catching it". Duh. Point is to prevent you from infecting others. Part they conveniently forget and are just focusing on avoiding virus yourself
It's not the wrong argument if it fit's what they want. They aren't forgetting anything.
Part of the issue is likely General Public confusing multiple precautions with being either/or
Example. Washing your hands is the simplest way to reduce your risk.
Gloves are another. But should not replace hand washing, not should be worn for extended periods as that’s not the intent behind them.
Hand sanitiser is likewise, broadly speaking, a more practical alternative to hand washing when out and about. But if you get the opportunity to have a proper scrub, take it!
All masks are not equal. Some are known to just not be up to the job. And just wearing a bandana across your mush isn’t really doing anything.
And even if you do have a suitable mask and gloves? They do not replace social distancing.
We need to be doing as many of these things as possible to reduce those risks as much as possible.
Some folk just aren’t getting it at all. Solid example? Pub near me is doing take away beer. And, for now, allow use of their lavvy. Once I’ve had my wee, I wash my hands for 30 seconds, including my wrists, and use the hand drier. Other patrons? I’m not hearing the (very loud, very obvious) hand drier.....which means at least some if not all such patrons remain Filth Wizards, and a walking biohazard. I mean it’s foul enough without a pandemic. And means I’m genuinely surprised my town has one of the lowest infection rates in the country!
Other things I see people do? Handling items in the supermarket, and putting them back on the shelf. Especially when it comes to fresh fruit and veg, maybe just look with your eyes? No, that you’re wearing gloves doesn’t make a difference here, as the virus can sit quite happily atop that latex, waiting to be transferred.
Sometimes you have to touch fruit and veg though. My daughter likes mangoes for breakfast, and they require touching to determine ripeness and hence whether she will eat them or not. Now in theory this is negated by the fact that you wash the items when you get home before putting them in the fridge.
But then I'm apparently a selfish POS for merely walking past people in the supermarket, so I'm sure I'm wrong here too.
I imagine the nitrile glove price gouging racket is going to be doing a roaring trade.
I looked the other day for myself and my mother. £1 a pair was the lowest price I could find. If you're going out once a day, 5 days a week, 4 weeks a month, well I'm sure we all can do the math.
Are many now going to be able to afford that extra expense? But one would assume they are the best possible protection for your hands?
The hand sanitizer racket is just as bad.
Luckily I bought a "face covering" for myself, and one for my mother, a couple of weeks ago, imagine that racket is going to do a roaring trade as well...
As someone who is "at high risk", only told to shield on May 11th - 6-7 weeks into lockdown, it feels like, yet again, we're being advised on something, that there has been no preparation for, either nationally or locally, to ensure people don't end up in a compromised position, especially people who were vulnerable in general before this all kicked off.
Many of the proper masks are restricted for sale anyway. I believe Amazon already restricts them to medical staff only. So sometimes even if you do know the right thing to do you can't get hold of the right tools
Suggesting the general public understand nuance is apparently unreasonable, especially these days. US culture in particular likes to promote black-and-white worldviews which bleeds into other areas shockingly well.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Sometimes you have to touch fruit and veg though. My daughter likes mangoes for breakfast, and they require touching to determine ripeness and hence whether she will eat them or not. Now in theory this is negated by the fact that you wash the items when you get home before putting them in the fridge.
But then I'm apparently a selfish POS for merely walking past people in the supermarket, so I'm sure I'm wrong here too.
On the former, ideally you are washing all of your fruit and vegetables really, coronavirus or not - so I agree with you there. Is there pesticide on it? Animal feces? Stuff grown in dirt makes contact with stuff that is dirty. I wash anything like that except bananas and like, oranges, and probably I should be rinsing those too.
On the latter, I think there was tons of good evidence ITT, so we don't need to pick one specific piece to mischaracterize.
Well you should've seen my supermarket on Friday mate. Selfish POS everywhere, just walking past each other, reckless abandon. everyone doing it.. I couldn't believe my eyes.
Here restrictions have been lifted a bit so flgs opened gaming room but not much use. In first week in 3 days 2 40k table, 1 aos and 1 lotr table used. No idea on rest of 3 days if rpg/card games were any more active(incidentally card gamers could be pushing current no over 50 people group restrictions. Before 50 or so mtg tournaments were held. Miniatures 6 tables is about max. Maybe 7. No wonder ccg are cash makers).
Good example of how removing restrictions doesn't quarantee customers come. Good thing for store opening gaming room doesn't really add expenses more than when it was closed
Alpharius wrote: A certain amount of 'good faith' is necessary in order to actually have a decent conversation.
Ain't that the truth.
Anywho, I'm just waiting for this voluntary experiment undertaken by members of the public over the past week to yield its conclusions. Safe to say if there are no spikes, I will feel somewhat vindicated regarding outdoor activity. It remains to be seen.
ingtaer wrote: NZ's last patient has recovered and we are now officially Corona free, at least until we reopen our borders.
I read that earlier, congratulations!
I just wish we'd had the same level of the organisation, competence and grit from our own Govt, at this rate we'll still be dealing with this well into next year.
New Zealand needs to do the same as Hong Kong. All arrivals are screened for the virus at the airport and have to download the virus tracking app. They have to wait eight hours for their test to come back. If they are infected they go into isolation. If not, they have to use the app so they can be tracked in case of infection same as Korea.
Second day with no coronavirus deaths in Scotland - though there's a weekend lull in registrations so in reality this means no deaths in hospitals, there will probably be some from care homes and the community registered today.
Sturgeon indicating they expect to move to Phase 2 a week on Thursday.
Even accounting for the weekend lull that's impressive and very encouraging data! UK as a total still gets over 100 deaths even on a weekend day (77 Sunday and just over 200 on Saturday).
I'm figuring that Brazil looks like their stats are still climbing up. I think they are fast going to overtake the UK in terms of the worst performance - at least based on the current official numbers. That said Russia appears to be getting a very high case load and yet surprisingly fewer deaths.
If you look at the tick box for the 7 day average the daily new cases is worrying; they've not beaten the curve they appear to be flatlining at a high daily rate. Either their deaths aren't yet entering the system or its cooking the books. Either way I'd imagine Russia and Brazil to both overtake the UK in death rates (Brazil almost for certain - Russia very likely when you consider their climate and economy).
ingtaer wrote: NZ's last patient has recovered and we are now officially Corona free, at least until we reopen our borders.
I read an interesting article about how many super-rich people have prepared Mega-Bunkers o' Protection for themselves down in NZ, but the problem is if they don't make the decision to get there soon enough during a crisis, they'll get shut out when NZ invariably closes their borders...
I'm sure thats the opposite of the advice that came out at the beginning? I definitely remember waking past a huge pile in Aldi a while back.
Different version of Ibuprofen. Not the sort you see on the shelves in Aldi.
That does however perhaps highlight just how dangerous misinformation is.
I've seen a few people commenting in this thread, posting information (including links to articles with said information), that is in fact wrong by all other accounts.
There is so much disinformation/misinformation about at the moment, not helped by people repeating it on social media/forums.
Azreal13 wrote:This isn't regular over the counter ibuprofen, I'm pretty sure you shouldn't be self medicating without the advice of a health professional at this point.
In the trial, the researchers are using Flarin, a lipid capsule form of ibuprofen that differs from the regular tablet available in pharmacies worldwide. Flarin has a unique formulation to protect the stomach of its users, and it is available in the U.K. Some people are already taking lipid capsules for other diseases, such as arthritis.
I agree that self-medicating is generally not advisable.
However, I don't think the brand here is relevant- Flarin is just a brand of ibuprofen with a gastro-protective coating. The active ingredient is identical and the systemic effects will be the same- the drug will still be reaching the body through the gut and liver the same way as any other oral preparation.
The coating is just intended to reduce any gastric side effects, which are the chief source of issues with NSAIDs. I don't think a reduction in stomach ulcers is why the researchers are using ibuprofen.
In the UK, it's the patient wait to see if there is a rise in infection due to when eases on lockdown started (roughly two weeks ago) and mass people flocked to beaches etc, and then in a few more weeks if the protests have had an impact.
They opened outside dining last weekend in our area. It was a pretty weird feeling - going to an real live restaurant and sitting down at our table we didn't own.
It was nice, but fire season also started this week. That's the season in which everything catches on fire. 4 vegetation fires this week so far.
My city has been doing great recently with covid - I wonder what the numbers look like at the end of the numbers for COVID with the small protest they had. I feel like it'll barely affect it
I agree that self-medicating is generally not advisable.
However, I don't think the brand here is relevant- Flarin is just a brand of ibuprofen with a gastro-protective coating. The active ingredient is identical and the systemic effects will be the same- the drug will still be reaching the body through the gut and liver the same way as any other oral preparation.
The coating is just intended to reduce any gastric side effects, which are the chief source of issues with NSAIDs. I don't think a reduction in stomach ulcers is why the researchers are using ibuprofen.
Yeah, the problem is someone might read what you've stated and think "oh well, I'll be fine if I have Covid-19 and use over the counter Ibuprofen".
I take an NSAID for arthritis, Naproxen. Given the advice so far I've been very concerned about using it if I have a flare up. It weakens the immune system, or so I've been led to believe by what I've read (funny that the GP who prescribed it never told me that!).
endlesswaltz123 wrote: In the UK, it's the patient wait to see if there is a rise in infection due to when eases on lockdown started (roughly two weeks ago) and mass people flocked to beaches etc, and then in a few more weeks if the protests have had an impact.
Let's hope they have not!
I don't believe it will. There were scientists, back when this all kicked off, who were putting forward the idea that as an island we are better placed than anyone to deal with the virus and that at some point it will burn out.
I think we're seeing that burn out.
Although obviously I'm not a scientist. Nor can I lay my hands on a link to where I read that. So definitely don't take my word for that.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: In the UK, it's the patient wait to see if there is a rise in infection due to when eases on lockdown started (roughly two weeks ago) and mass people flocked to beaches etc, and then in a few more weeks if the protests have had an impact.
Let's hope they have not!
I don't believe it will. There were scientists, back when this all kicked off, who were putting forward the idea that as an island we are better placed than anyone to deal with the virus and that at some point it will burn out.
I think we're seeing that burn out.
Although obviously I'm not that scientist. Nor can I lay my hands on a link to where I read that. So definitely don't take my word for that.
There's other factors as well that plays in our favour, due to the nature of the virus (being flu like) we are more likely to be robust in warmer weather. Makes sense really, less likely to have the cold, flu and other bugs flinging around putting our immune system under strain already so covid can be our immune systems full attention.
Though, the counter to that argument is with how infectious and deadly it has been and probably still will be in warmer climates (Though, those countries have either elder populations or are heavily deprived which are two of the 5 'most at risk' categories of people).
I don't believe it will. There were scientists, back when this all kicked off, who were putting forward the idea that as an island we are better placed than anyone to deal with the virus and that at some point it will burn out.
.
And yet we are currently ranked with about one of the worst (reported) death rates in the world. In fact at present only the USA has a higher rate and they are many times our size. It seems like perhaps Brazil will overtake the UK fairly swiftly, but otherwise the UK has weathered this particularly badly.
I think we have had a few issues, first the approach (based on early science) of going for herd immunity which stifled our reaction time to lockdown at the initial period. Then there's our populations general lack of awareness/understanding which hasn't helped matters (though in truth that's not a unique factor). The government has also made odd calls such as only imposing quarantine for those arriving from overseas in the last few weeks as opposed to right at the start of lockdown etc....
It's not all bad, but the UK is far from a shining example, even accounting for our older population.
I don't believe it will. There were scientists, back when this all kicked off, who were putting forward the idea that as an island we are better placed than anyone to deal with the virus and that at some point it will burn out.
.
And yet we are currently ranked with about one of the worst (reported) death rates in the world.
Yeah, the point the scientists at the time were making is that the virus should have nowhere to go, us being an island surrounded by water. As you've said though, our govt. made some dubious decisions.
BTW - Brazil has overtaken the UK, it did so yesterday, or Saturday, or I thought I had read that - we're 4th in the world, they're 3rd now. And there are reports they are no longer reporting their figures, so they may well be higher up.
That is a useful link, I'm not familiar with it though - has anyone checked that it is accurate compared to other sources?
If it is, it looks like using deaths per million population, UK is second only to Belgium in death rate of large countries, just ahead of Italy and Spain... that seems like a more informative figure than total deaths...
Its accurate in so far as the numbers given are those listed by the countries themselves. As reporting varies wildly from very broad (Belgium) to only the strictest definitions (Russia, partly to artificially deflate the number of deaths) on official deaths. After a good while, the excess rate of death is going to be a better metric, but this is what we have for now.
Coronavirus: Lockdowns in Europe saved millions of lives
Lockdowns have saved more than three million lives from coronavirus in Europe, a study estimates.
The team at Imperial College London said the "death toll would have been huge" without lockdown.
But they warned that only a small proportion of people had been infected and we were still only "at the beginning of the pandemic".
Another study argued global lockdowns had "saved more lives, in a shorter period of time, than ever before".
The Imperial study assessed the impact of restrictions in 11 European countries - Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK - up to the beginning of May.
By that time, around 130,000 people had died from coronavirus in those countries.
The researchers used disease modelling to predict how many deaths there would have been if lockdown had not happened. And the work comes from the same group that guided the UK's decision to go into lockdown.
They estimated 3.2 million people would have died by 4 May if not for measures such as closing businesses and telling people to stay at home.
That meant lockdown saved around 3.1 million lives, including 470,000 in the UK, 690,000 in France and 630,000 in Italy, the report in the journal Nature shows.
"Lockdown averted millions of deaths, those deaths would have been a tragedy," said Dr Seth Flaxman, from Imperial.
Their equations made several assumptions, which will affect the figures.
They assume nobody would have changed their behaviour in response to the Covid threat without a lockdown - and that hospitals would not be overwhelmed resulting in a surge in deaths, which nearly happened in some countries.
The study also does not take into account the health consequences of lockdowns that may take years to fully uncover.
Only the beginning?
The model also predicted that the outbreak would be nearly over by now without lockdown, as so many people would have been infected.
More than seven in 10 people in the UK would have had Covid, leading to herd immunity and the virus no longer spreading.
Instead, the researchers estimate that up to 15 million people across Europe had been infected by the beginning of May.
The researchers say at most, 4% of the population in those countries had been infected.
"Claims this is all over can be firmly rejected. We are only at the beginning of this pandemic," said Dr Flaxman.
And it means that as lockdowns start to lift, there is the risk the virus could start to spread again.
"There is a very real risk if mobility goes back up there could be a second wave coming reasonably soon, in the next month or two," said Dr Samir Bhatt.
Meanwhile, a separate study by University of California, Berkeley, analysed the impact of lockdowns in China, South Korea, Iran, France and the US.
Their report, also in Nature, says lockdown prevented 530 million infections in those countries.
Just before lockdowns were introduced, they said cases were doubling every two days.
Dr Solomon Hsiang, one of the researchers, said coronavirus had been a "real human tragedy" but the global action to stop the spread of the virus had "saved more lives, in a shorter period of time, than ever before".
I don't believe it will. There were scientists, back when this all kicked off, who were putting forward the idea that as an island we are better placed than anyone to deal with the virus and that at some point it will burn out.
.
And yet we are currently ranked with about one of the worst (reported) death rates in the world.
Yeah, the point the scientists at the time were making is that the virus should have nowhere to go, us being an island surrounded by water. As you've said though, our govt. made some dubious decisions.
BTW - Brazil has overtaken the UK, it did so yesterday, or Saturday, or I thought I had read that - we're 4th in the world, they're 3rd now. And there are reports they are no longer reporting their figures, so they may well be higher up.
My local healthcare trust (which is in the least affected part of one of the least affected parts of the country) apparently hasn't had a confirmed case in a fortnight.
I don't believe it will. There were scientists, back when this all kicked off, who were putting forward the idea that as an island we are better placed than anyone to deal with the virus and that at some point it will burn out.
.
And yet we are currently ranked with about one of the worst (reported) death rates in the world.
Yeah, the point the scientists at the time were making is that the virus should have nowhere to go, us being an island surrounded by water. As you've said though, our govt. made some dubious decisions.
That... isn't how viruses work. They move between people, not land, so surrounding water isn't a magical barrier. The virus doesn't 'go' at all.
Transmission is a function of how the population interacts with each other- once established as long as people are coming into contact, the virus will keep spreading. The advantage to an island is its easier border control- if someone bothers.
But the UK gets a lot more travelers than say, New Zealand, and has a much higher population density. Once it got there, the island status didn't matter anymore, because a kick-off, the proper precautions weren't taken.
Were those "scientists" by any chance the same guys who were saying bojo herd immunity is good strategy...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: Virus moves between people, water is a barrier to people moving. The logic is pretty straightforward. How valid it is, less so.
That might have been true in millenias ago but these days we have these things called "ships" and "airplanes" that crosses water in no time. Combined with only handful infected people needed to cause cascading effect and that water is zero protection.
The virus did not come to Europe from China via land route either...There's "wee" bit more km's between China and Italy than say Italy and UK.
TBF, UK with it's border to ireland would've had to form a clooective attempt to actually capitalize on that island position with ireland.
To say that politially speaking that might have been connected with issues is pretty fair i believe altough i'd think a concerted effort would've or could've kept the islands in a better state health wise but quite a bit more devastated economically.
tneva82 wrote: Well UK is missing significant % of casualties as well. Last estimate I read put it as 40% deaths missing.
Kilkrazy wrote: The death rate to watch is the excess mortality per 100,000 population.
That 40% is the better number to go by, as it is the excess mortality rate. Confirmed infected deaths can only be counted if they were tested. The UK is not yet good at testing the dead.
So, the number of deaths above normal is much better, as all deaths caused by Covid-19 are counted, whether direct (infected) or indirect (scared to go to hospital from heart attack, or suchlike).
Also, counting against population is a big factor when comparing. USA has had a lot of deaths, and comparing tested deaths against the to UK, is doing terribly.
But, factoring in the populations, USA is not doing as badly.
Not Online!!! wrote: TBF, UK with it's border to ireland would've had to form a clooective attempt to actually capitalize on that island position with ireland.
To say that politially speaking that might have been connected with issues is pretty fair i believe altough i'd think a concerted effort would've or could've kept the islands in a better state health wise but quite a bit more devastated economically.
Well common policy would have been easy enough if there had been will. It's rather funny that the european country with most open borders during the initial phase is and still is UK.
I don't believe it will. There were scientists, back when this all kicked off, who were putting forward the idea that as an island we are better placed than anyone to deal with the virus and that at some point it will burn out.
.
And yet we are currently ranked with about one of the worst (reported) death rates in the world.
Yeah, the point the scientists at the time were making is that the virus should have nowhere to go, us being an island surrounded by water. As you've said though, our govt. made some dubious decisions.
BTW - Brazil has overtaken the UK, it did so yesterday, or Saturday, or I thought I had read that - we're 4th in the world, they're 3rd now. And there are reports they are no longer reporting their figures, so they may well be higher up.
So if you get a mild case of the virus, it'll lasts two weeks then you're all fine.
Or not. Here's an initial UK study that says, for 10% of mild cases, symptoms can last as long as six or seven weeks, including not able to return to work. The article doesn't break down the study by age or preexisting conditions.
"There are fears many people struggling with post-viral effects are therefore not getting the right diagnosis and support, particularly as they are unlikely to be so ill they need hospitalisation."
"Her illness started with a fever and a “slight cough” and exhaustion. Over the next couple of weeks the fatigue worsened, she had dizziness and blacked out and she experienced excruciating back muscle pain, vomiting, diarrhoea, changes in taste and smell, the soles of her feet went black and rashes would appear and disappear within the same day. ... I have the lung capacity of an 85 year old with asthma." (Obviously, this woman was probably one of those hospitalized.)
With the virus existing for only about six months, the long-term effects of the virus are not fully known, including by those who believe to have recovered.
This is a very odd virus. The way it can cause a symptomless infection which is transmissible by breathing, all the way to infecting organs outside the lungs.
ced1106 wrote: So if you get a mild case of the virus, it'll lasts two weeks then you're all fine.
Or not. Here's an initial UK study that says, for 10% of mild cases, symptoms can last as long as six or seven weeks, including not able to return to work. The article doesn't break down the study by age or preexisting conditions.
That matches up with the experiences of two of my colleagues, both relatively young and fit (in their mid-to-late 30s, one of them a triathlete). Both had coronavirus and had symptoms lasting well over a month, one of them with a short period of "remission" before feeling exhausted for another couple of weeks. It seems like the initial reports about the effects of the virus weren't so accurate. Also interesting to note the info about asymptomatic people being less infectious. I wonder if that's just due to less coughing and therefore not as much transmission of infected particles or whether there's something else going on there.
In other news, Scotland had 2 full days of no deaths over the weekend and only 7 reported today, so things are generally moving in the right direction here, I think. Even our Black Lives Matter protests at the weekend seemed to be much more socially distanced than others across the country. Now we get our government telling us on Thursday what we'll be allowed to do a week on Thursday. Don't really get that side of it, TBH. We already know what the different phases of coming out of lockdown entail so I don't see why we need a whole week's notice about moving to the next phase.
also interesting to note that Scotland doesn't (at least on initial study of their results) see the excess deaths in BME groups that many other western nations (including the rest of the UK are seeing)
it could well be that the overall standard of health of enough of Scotlands population is low enough (we're the European capital of so many health issues) that the overall deprivation of BME populations just isn't showing up
Asymptomatic carriers seem unlikely to infect lots of others basically. Makes sense if they aren't coughing everywhere I guess.
They've sinced walked that back a bit, haven't they?
Now it is asymptomatic carriers that have NO symptoms whatsoever are deemed unlikely to spread it - WHO got a lot of negative feedback so they're revising their statement into...that?
Apparently if you have even a single minor almost unnoticeable symptom (scratchy throat? slightly runny nose?), you can spread it 'almost asymptomatically'...
The difficulty is that you need to get some asymptomatic carriers and study the amount of virus particles they breath out in normal (non coughing) breath. Find out how those particles spread and are inhaled by other people and how likely they are to become infected.
It's all rather difficult in the middle of the crisis.
However, the example of Measles shows that viral diseases certainly can be spread by airborne transmission by asymptomatic patients.
That's a good answer.
grandfather used to tell me of ww2, when people had rationing books, limited meat, sugar, eggs, etc. and no new cars were made from 1942-1946. Looking at how we're handling covid, i dont know if we could win another ww2 level effort.
