The big Coronavirus thread

joe2019

kingstongraham said:

joe2019 said:

Jezyboy said:

It does make sense? That's a relief, it's good news that knowing each other offers some protection against viral transmission, means we don't have to worry about schools.

In as much as that they are following the guideline about the wearing of masks in the workplace, then yes it does make sense.

No it doesn't. Point out the bit that says the advice is to not wear masks when indoors with lots of people.

I assume you are aware that staff in the house of commons have to wear masks?

I assume that everyone in your office wearing a mask 100% of the time.

Jezyboy

I've never seen an office where the density of wheezy windbags is as high as the commons.

pblakeney

kingstongraham said:

joe2019 said:

Jezyboy said:

It does make sense? That's a relief, it's good news that knowing each other offers some protection against viral transmission, means we don't have to worry about schools.

In as much as that they are following the guideline about the wearing of masks in the workplace, then yes it does make sense.

No it doesn't. Point out the bit that says the advice is to not wear masks when indoors with lots of people.

I assume you are aware that staff in the house of commons have to wear masks?

See my post on the previous page.
Guidelines are that you can only catch Covid from strangers. 🤔

kingstongraham

joe2019 said:

kingstongraham said:

joe2019 said:

Jezyboy said:

It does make sense? That's a relief, it's good news that knowing each other offers some protection against viral transmission, means we don't have to worry about schools.

In as much as that they are following the guideline about the wearing of masks in the workplace, then yes it does make sense.

No it doesn't. Point out the bit that says the advice is to not wear masks when indoors with lots of people.

I assume you are aware that staff in the house of commons have to wear masks?

I assume that everyone in your office wearing a mask 100% of the time.

Does that have anything to do with the guidance you claimed you were quoting?

Ben6899

joe2019 said:

Ben6899 said:

Jezyboy said:

WHAT A CLINT

But what he says makes sense.

They don't have to wear masks because they "know each other" and have a "convivial fraternal spirit"... makes sense?

I mean, it objectively doesn't but, whatever Joe.

webboo

Jezyboy said:

Does he mean they know each other as in the biblical term. If that’s the case they won’t need masks as protection, it will be something else.

joe2019

Ben6899 said:

joe2019 said:

Ben6899 said:

Jezyboy said:

WHAT A CLINT

But what he says makes sense.

They don't have to wear masks because they "know each other" and have a "convivial fraternal spirit"... makes sense?

I mean, it objectively doesn't but, whatever Joe.

It was obvious that he was poking fun at the SNP member.

Ben6899

joe2019 said:

Ben6899 said:

joe2019 said:

Ben6899 said:

Jezyboy said:

WHAT A CLINT

But what he says makes sense.

They don't have to wear masks because they "know each other" and have a "convivial fraternal spirit"... makes sense?

I mean, it objectively doesn't but, whatever Joe.

It was obvious that he was poking fun at the SNP member.

I suppose it was... if you fail to see things objectively.

kingstongraham

joe2019 said:

Ben6899 said:

joe2019 said:

Ben6899 said:

Jezyboy said:

WHAT A CLINT

But what he says makes sense.

They don't have to wear masks because they "know each other" and have a "convivial fraternal spirit"... makes sense?

I mean, it objectively doesn't but, whatever Joe.

It was obvious that he was poking fun at the SNP member.

Yes, I agree it was clear he was treating the pandemic guidance as a big joke. I'm not convinced that makes it better.

Jezyboy

I presume if you make the right investment moves during a pandemic, it's not such a bad time.

pangolin

Hes just trolling guys...

kingstongraham

pangolin said:

Hes just trolling guys...

Likewise.

Ben6899

Jezyboy said:

I presume if you make the right investment moves during a pandemic, it's not such a bad time.

To be fair, we low-balled on a property at a time when we knew people were playing it safe with money. And then we completed the purchase without paying any Stamp Duty.

I still wouldn't rush to repeat the majority of 2020 though; it was otherwise pretty miserable!

First.Aspect

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59011321

Here's one to send to your boss to read, RC.

kingstonian

mully79 said:

It would be nice if we could have some facts nearly 2 years on instead of cherry picked stats to force Uk project fear.

Last time I looked (month or so ago) Uk was fairly close to USA and France in tests per million population. Now we're double both of those with 4.7 million tests per million population and no other similarly populated country is anywhere near.

I’m interested in understanding more about test rates, as anecdotal comments I’ve heard from friends and family overseas (mainly France, Holland, the USA) have pointed to it being way easier and/or cheaper to be tested here. So I wondered if our test rate, which has been 1 - 1.2 million per day for months now, is higher or lower.

Is 4.7 million tests per million population an accurate stat? Does that mean the UK has conducted something like 320 million tests since testing began?

briantrumpet

kingstonian said:

mully79 said:

It would be nice if we could have some facts nearly 2 years on instead of cherry picked stats to force Uk project fear.

Last time I looked (month or so ago) Uk was fairly close to USA and France in tests per million population. Now we're double both of those with 4.7 million tests per million population and no other similarly populated country is anywhere near.

I’m interested in understanding more about test rates, as anecdotal comments I’ve heard from friends and family overseas (mainly France, Holland, the USA) have pointed to it being way easier and/or cheaper to be tested here. So I wondered if our test rate, which has been 1 - 1.2 million per day for months now, is higher or lower.

Is 4.7 million tests per million population an accurate stat? Does that mean the UK has conducted something like 320 million tests since testing began?

I guess I've done about 60 LFTs, and until the latest un-QR'd batch, they were all logged. There will be a lot of people like me, who have had to do that for their job.

Dorset_Boy

I'd have thought 320 million is on the (very) low side given what Brian says, and you repeat that across all the schools.

jimmyjams

So far, the UK has registered around 293 million tests, this last week about 950,000; I don't know if those figures actually mean those with results (you will remember at the beginning, only those sent out were noted, not the ones received back).

Some people claim the high incidence in the UK is due to the high number of tests (their logic being, the more you test, the more cases you will find), but I don't think it works like that. As in cases like that of briantrumpet (job requiring regular testing) and in cases of people following govt advice to get regularly tested for free (but perhaps without real need, as having been nowhere risky), you end up having a lot of people getting perhaps needlessly tested, and a perhaps misleadingly low positive rate (in the UK it is 2.9%).

Pross

That may be true but you are also surely likely to pick up more positive asymptomatic cases too?

TheBigBean

It sounds like it is possible to book a booster at six months on the national vaccine website

briantrumpet

TheBigBean said:

It sounds like it is possible to book a booster at six months on the national vaccine website

Not me, though my six months isn't till 19 November.

TheBigBean

briantrumpet said:

TheBigBean said:

It sounds like it is possible to book a booster at six months on the national vaccine website

Not me, though my six months isn't till 19 November.

You've tried and failed? I feel like you should be able to make an appointment for 19th November.

briantrumpet

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

TheBigBean said:

It sounds like it is possible to book a booster at six months on the national vaccine website

Not me, though my six months isn't till 19 November.

You've tried and failed? I feel like you should be able to make an appointment for 19th November.

Yup. Just said I wasn't eligible for my booster yet.

TheBigBean

That's disappointing.

briantrumpet

TheBigBean said:

That's disappointing.

It doesn't yet look like the website's been modified at all for over-50s from prior to Javid's 'announcement', though I gather that 12-15yo's can book on it now, as a friend did just that for her son yesterday. (He's in a school where covid's been going nuts, and the vaccine service cancelled its whole-school vaccination day.)

briantrumpet

I'm so glad that Labour have got a completely clear response to Government hesitancy:

Shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves said the UK government should introduce its ”plan B” to tackle the rising rates of coronavirus now.

Speaking on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, Reeves was asked what Labour’s position was on reintroducing restrictions such as the wearing of face coverings and working from home.

She said: “Labour as a responsible opposition have always said that we would follow the science, and we’ve seen today that Sage (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) are saying that some aspects of plan B, like wearing masks on public transports and in shops, and also working from home more flexibly should be introduced.

“I think the first thing is the government have got to do more to make plan A work. If the scientists are saying work from home and masks, we should do that. So get A working better because the vaccination programme has been stalling, introduce those parts of plan B.

“But there are also things not in A or B that need to be done, like paying statutory sick pay from day one and also better ventilation in public spaces.”

Asked directly whether plan B should be introduced now, she said: “Yes, but let’s not let the government off the hook with plan A either.”

What?

rick_chasey

Early on you can give them the benefit of the doubt for being vague about things as they sort it out but they clearly are not in a position to articulate anything effectively.

I read all the legal challenges they are still fighting from the Corbin times are sucking up a vast amount of their money.

briantrumpet

rick_chasey said:

Early on you can give them the benefit of the doubt for being vague about things as they sort it out but they clearly are not in a position to articulate anything effectively.

I read all the legal challenges they are still fighting from the Corbin times are sucking up a vast amount of their money.

They seem to be in defensive mode, not wanting to offend anyone. It's not exactly a lesson in leadership.

kingstonian

briantrumpet said:

I'm so glad that Labour have got a completely clear response to Government hesitancy:

Shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves said the UK government should introduce its ”plan B” to tackle the rising rates of coronavirus now.

Speaking on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, Reeves was asked what Labour’s position was on reintroducing restrictions such as the wearing of face coverings and working from home.

She said: “Labour as a responsible opposition have always said that we would follow the science, and we’ve seen today that Sage (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) are saying that some aspects of plan B, like wearing masks on public transports and in shops, and also working from home more flexibly should be introduced.

“I think the first thing is the government have got to do more to make plan A work. If the scientists are saying work from home and masks, we should do that. So get A working better because the vaccination programme has been stalling, introduce those parts of plan B.

“But there are also things not in A or B that need to be done, like paying statutory sick pay from day one and also better ventilation in public spaces.”

Asked directly whether plan B should be introduced now, she said: “Yes, but let’s not let the government off the hook with plan A either.”

What?

That’s a great example of a political party trying to be all things to all people while offending no one. Ridiculous.

briantrumpet

kingstonian said:

briantrumpet said:

I'm so glad that Labour have got a completely clear response to Government hesitancy:

Shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves said the UK government should introduce its ”plan B” to tackle the rising rates of coronavirus now.

Speaking on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, Reeves was asked what Labour’s position was on reintroducing restrictions such as the wearing of face coverings and working from home.

She said: “Labour as a responsible opposition have always said that we would follow the science, and we’ve seen today that Sage (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) are saying that some aspects of plan B, like wearing masks on public transports and in shops, and also working from home more flexibly should be introduced.

“I think the first thing is the government have got to do more to make plan A work. If the scientists are saying work from home and masks, we should do that. So get A working better because the vaccination programme has been stalling, introduce those parts of plan B.

“But there are also things not in A or B that need to be done, like paying statutory sick pay from day one and also better ventilation in public spaces.”

Asked directly whether plan B should be introduced now, she said: “Yes, but let’s not let the government off the hook with plan A either.”

What?

That’s a great example of a political party trying to be all things to all people while offending no one. Ridiculous.

It rather confirms that they have no 'vision' that they can sell to the electorate, in their current state. They aren't even just doing basic opposition at all well, for fear of upsetting some part of the electorate they've been told they have to attract. There's absolutely nothing coherent about them at all. Well, neither have the Tories, but they just make up mendacious promises of jam tomorrow for everyone, and keep their cash funders happy with Spaffer's giveaways, with a has-been entertainer as their titular leader.