Jump to content


Photo

The C-19 Thread


  • Please log in to reply
1285 replies to this topic

#16 Banjogirl

Banjogirl

    Virtuoso

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3997 posts
  • Member: 39509
    Joined: 12-September 08

Posted 12 October 2020 - 12:37

One that we went to had taken out half of all the tables, but it was so closely packed before that it still felt pretty crowded!

I went to a cafe last week to meet two friends later in the afternoon. We were the only customers so that was ok, but the staff clearly wanted us to leave so they could close up, which I suppose was reasonable given that it must have been costing them for us to sit there. If it's quiet enough for me to feel comfortable then it's probably not profitable.
  • 0

#17 Hildegard

Hildegard

    Virtuoso

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2150 posts
  • Member: 887389
    Joined: 26-October 13

Posted 12 October 2020 - 14:03

One that we went to had taken out half of all the tables, but it was so closely packed before that it still felt pretty crowded!
 

 

Personally I would report any venue that is not Covid-safe to the HSE.


  • 0

#18 Banjogirl

Banjogirl

    Virtuoso

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3997 posts
  • Member: 39509
    Joined: 12-September 08

Posted 12 October 2020 - 14:29


One that we went to had taken out half of all the tables, but it was so closely packed before that it still felt pretty crowded!


Personally I would report any venue that is not Covid-safe to the HSE.

I daresay it was following the rules. It just didn't feel safe.

The expression Covid safe has got to be a misnomer. Unless everyone entering a venue has tested negative then at best that venue is Covid less dangerous then it could be. Nowhere that is visited by random people could be said to be Covid safe.
  • 0

#19 Hildegard

Hildegard

    Virtuoso

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2150 posts
  • Member: 887389
    Joined: 26-October 13

Posted 12 October 2020 - 14:51

Theres speculation that tomorrow Merseyside people will not be able to travel. 

 

Unfounded speculation. There was nothing about travel restrictions in the parliamentary statement a few minutes ago.
 


  • 2

#20 Hildegard

Hildegard

    Virtuoso

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2150 posts
  • Member: 887389
    Joined: 26-October 13

Posted 12 October 2020 - 14:57

I daresay it was following the rules. It just didn't feel safe.
 

 

The rules are formulated by experts in epidemiology. I think they are likely to be more trustworthy than "feelings".

Terms such as "Covid-safe" and "Covid-secure" are just shorthand for saying that appropriate precautions have been put in place. I'm sure everyone knows that nowhere is 100% safe or secure. A meteor could blow us all to pieces at any time. :unsure:
 


  • 2

#21 Banjogirl

Banjogirl

    Virtuoso

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3997 posts
  • Member: 39509
    Joined: 12-September 08

Posted 12 October 2020 - 17:32

I daresay it was following the rules. It just didn't feel safe.


The rules are formulated by experts in epidemiology. I think they are likely to be more trustworthy than "feelings".
Terms such as "Covid-safe" and "Covid-secure" are just shorthand for saying that appropriate precautions have been put in place. I'm sure everyone knows that nowhere is 100% safe or secure. A meteor could blow us all to pieces at any time. :unsure:

I disagree. I think those expressions give the illusion of safety when it's only relative safety. Lots of people aren't like us, and never think about anything at all! They'll hear those words and think they mean exactly what they sound as if they mean. And then be surprised that they get the virus in one of them.

The safest thing would be not to meet anyone. All of the 'Covid safe' rules are a compromise to allow things to open. It will always be safer to stay at home.
  • 2

#22 corenfa

corenfa

    Virtuoso

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7192 posts
  • Member: 95861
    Joined: 28-March 10
  • Here

Posted 12 October 2020 - 18:24

Safety is indeed relative- we've got our own personal different thresholds. As someone who lacks many risk factors for a bad outcome (I am female, in a normal weight range, relatively not old, O blood type, no pre existing conditions), I probably feel more relaxed about what constitutes safety than my piano teacher, who has several pre-existing conditions that predispose her to a bad outcome.
  • 1

#23 fsharpminor

fsharpminor

    Maestro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18933 posts
  • Member: 7089
    Joined: 07-June 06
  • Heswall, Wirral (originally Keighley, Yorks)

Posted 12 October 2020 - 19:26

 

Theres speculation that tomorrow Merseyside people will not be able to travel. 

 

Unfounded speculation. There was nothing about travel restrictions in the parliamentary statement a few minutes ago.
 

 

Yes were for travel anyway. We are only a few hundred yards from being in West Cheshire, right at the SW point of Wirral borough, and our ward (Heswall), together with Eastham  have the least infection rate of any in Merseyside .   West Cheshire has been moved now into the middle zone though.  We may get a ban on travelling to Wales though, which is 20 mins away.


  • 0

#24 ma non troppo

ma non troppo

    Virtuoso

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2339 posts
  • Member: 76027
    Joined: 23-September 09

Posted 12 October 2020 - 20:33

Hm, not as bad (so far) as feared with the new restrictions. I think they realise that a new total lockdown is out of the question for us to survive as a nation - I sense a wind change.
  • 0

#25 corenfa

corenfa

    Virtuoso

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7192 posts
  • Member: 95861
    Joined: 28-March 10
  • Here

Posted 12 October 2020 - 21:01

They should do. The situation isn't the same as earlier- for one thing, I suspect that the case count earlier in the year was a lot higher than actually measured.

This is quite a sobering read:

https://www.washingt...er/?arc404=true
  • 0

#26 Hildegard

Hildegard

    Virtuoso

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2150 posts
  • Member: 887389
    Joined: 26-October 13

Posted 13 October 2020 - 07:55

 

 

Theres speculation that tomorrow Merseyside people will not be able to travel. 

 

Unfounded speculation. There was nothing about travel restrictions in the parliamentary statement a few minutes ago.
 

 

Yes were for travel anyway. We are only a few hundred yards from being in West Cheshire, right at the SW point of Wirral borough, and our ward (Heswall), together with Eastham  have the least infection rate of any in Merseyside .   West Cheshire has been moved now into the middle zone though.  We may get a ban on travelling to Wales though, which is 20 mins away.

 

 

Although I didn't hear any restrictions on travel in the parliamentary statement about Tier 3, there does appear to be a rather vague sort of recommendation:

 

People should try to avoid travelling outside their local area, or entering another area rated Very High other than for work, education,
accessing youth services, or to meet caring responsibilities

 

It's a "should" rather than a "must", though. :rolleyes:


  • 0

#27 ma non troppo

ma non troppo

    Virtuoso

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2339 posts
  • Member: 76027
    Joined: 23-September 09

Posted 13 October 2020 - 08:28

It's interesting that the government seems to have not taken on board the SAGE recommendations this time - according to the leaked reports. I'm not quite sure what is going on here.

I wouldn't personally go out of my way to enter or leave an area of high incidence but I'm glad that it is a recommendation and not a legality. Even making it illegal wouldn't stop people who really wanted to, and as I've said before, this kind of thing is difficult to police - as we know from the low numbers actually obeying the orders to isolate.
  • 0

#28 ma non troppo

ma non troppo

    Virtuoso

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2339 posts
  • Member: 76027
    Joined: 23-September 09

Posted 15 October 2020 - 20:59

Hildegard said this (in the teachers section):


"New infections are now running at almost 20,000 a day. It was obvious this would happen back in July. Once again the response in the UK has been too little, too late. I don't understand why the government doesn't close universities, along with the two top years in secondary schools, as the students concerned are among the prime sources of transmission, and they are old enough to work from home without the need for parents to take time off work to look after them."

Apologies to Hildegard and others for cross posting this and I hope you don't mind - but given the circumstances etc etc.

Hildegard, you make a very interesting point here, and it's a valid argument, but I doubt they will do it. Younger people are generally seen to have suffered greatly already with their loss of freedoms and the possibility of mental health issues arising is great. I think that's why they don't do it. I've seen the effect lockdown has had on a variety of people and I would say that the worst affected have been teenagers - in my experience. It isn't a time in life they should naturally be spending with their parents to such a degree - it's that time when you start to move away, to distance, to spend more time with your friends than your relatives. Added to that the worry about exams and the alienation many feel when they are forced to spend time in their bedrooms talking to people down a screen all day (and yes, I know they do a certain amount of this already).

The amount of time spent with their parents may permanently be damaging family relationships. They're worried about their future and haven't got as much perspective on life to balance things out in their heads as someone older would have.

Then there are the issues of digital deprivation.... It may not be possible for every person in the last two years of secondary school to have their own electronic devices. Some families share a single phone or tablet.

But I get your point, and if one comes from the standpoint that this virus must be managed by closing places and institutions down then this would be an option I guess.
  • 0

#29 EllieD

EllieD

    Prodigy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1003 posts
  • Member: 897806
    Joined: 04-June 17

Posted 16 October 2020 - 07:20

I don't know what the UK government is trying to achieve. I don't think they do. I get the impression they're trying to balance the economy and the virus, which means that they should have some idea of what are acceptable infection / hospitalisation / death figures. But they don't seem to have thought about this. If we went back into full lockdown, theoretically* the transmission would go back down to almost nothing as it did before, but that doesn't seem to be what the government is trying to do. Hence the student situation.

 

*Theoretically because I believe if we went into lockdown again, a sizeable minority would just break all the rules anyway.


  • 1

#30 Aeolienne

Aeolienne

    Virtuoso

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2358 posts
  • Member: 16983
    Joined: 27-September 07
  • Leamington Spa, Warks

Posted 16 October 2020 - 10:06

I thought it odd that a local authority as rural as High Peak had been bumped up to tier 2 - were people failing to socially distance on Kinder Scout? However, according to this the new measures apply exclusively to wards in and around the Glossop urban area, which is close to the border with Greater Manchester if my geography serves me correctly:

https://www.politics...rules-high-peak


  • 0