The big Coronavirus thread

kingstongraham

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

shirley_basso said:

Also Ballys wasn't being that clear cut. He was drawing a parallel with people willingly catching it from family members (namely children who you can't feasibly isolate) who also had covid who they live with.

Hardly the same story as someone coming into your office.

Maybe I am misreading, but the vibe is very much, people coming into the office with illnesses is other people's problem, and those people need to deal with the "risks"

I am very much of the view that you can make it the problem of the person who has a cold or covid etc, and make them take responsibility for not making everyone else in the office ill.

One of the upsides of all this is that most of us office-based workers are now in a position to work from home with minimal disruption. There's no benefit to employee or employer in bringing any infectious illness into the workplace.

How will you feel when schools start applying the same logic?

Do you really think that there is minimal disruption to a (normally school based) pupil's education working remotely as opposed to in a classroom?

Or from a remotely based teacher?

DeVlaeminck

I mean I'd hope that one thing this pandemic has done is raise awareness of the spread of respiratory viruses and how we can limit that - by limiting close contact with lots of people in enclosed spaces.

Learning to treat Covid like the flu doesn't mean totally disregarding it - it means annual boosters for certain groups (possibly the majority but let's see) and staying at home if you are pretty sure you have it.

As we have LFTs I'd hope these remain available albeit I don't expect the govt to fund industrial scale use as we've had - you might use a pack of them in a year - maybe they could be made cheap but not totally free to discourage frivolous use.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

Test and trace have specified a quarantine period for a family member, but this is based on the day of her positive PCR and not the day of her first symptom or the day of her positive lateral flow test. Should this just be ignored as the guidance is clear that it is from the first symptom?

Also, I sent four tests at the same time and have only received one result which was 10 hours ago.

The texts I got from T&T were contradictory. First said 7 days from positive test which would have been the 15th, the second said 17th was the last full day and the last on the 18th at 23:59.

So use your own judgement to do what is right

I was planning to do that, but I had assumed they might have it working smoothly by now.. Anyway, thanks for your reply. Which day did you choose?

on the 15th day I walked across the common to a coffee cart in a farm, then got the text about the 17th so returned indoors until then.

Am still keeping away from crowded indoors and will keep away from my parents for another couple of weeks

Ben6899

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

Test and trace have specified a quarantine period for a family member, but this is based on the day of her positive PCR and not the day of her first symptom or the day of her positive lateral flow test. Should this just be ignored as the guidance is clear that it is from the first symptom?

Also, I sent four tests at the same time and have only received one result which was 10 hours ago.

The texts I got from T&T were contradictory. First said 7 days from positive test which would have been the 15th, the second said 17th was the last full day and the last on the 18th at 23:59.

So use your own judgement to do what is right

I was planning to do that, but I had assumed they might have it working smoothly by now.. Anyway, thanks for your reply. Which day did you choose?

on the 15th day I walked across the common to a coffee cart in a farm, then got the text about the 17th so returned indoors until then.

Am still keeping away from crowded indoors and will keep away from my parents for another couple of weeks

I'm presuming you tested negative on 15th morning. But still, very responsible of you to change tact following the text.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

shirley_basso said:

Also Ballys wasn't being that clear cut. He was drawing a parallel with people willingly catching it from family members (namely children who you can't feasibly isolate) who also had covid who they live with.

Hardly the same story as someone coming into your office.

Maybe I am misreading, but the vibe is very much, people coming into the office with illnesses is other people's problem, and those people need to deal with the "risks"

I am very much of the view that you can make it the problem of the person who has a cold or covid etc, and make them take responsibility for not making everyone else in the office ill.

One of the upsides of all this is that most of us office-based workers are now in a position to work from home with minimal disruption. There's no benefit to employee or employer in bringing any infectious illness into the workplace.

How will you feel when schools start applying the same logic?

They already do. Well before Covid they would send home any child with the slightest temperature. The eldest's secondary school have started setting online learning for inset days, so these still count as teaching days. Full time it's not great, but for a few days I think it's a good solution.

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

shirley_basso said:

Also Ballys wasn't being that clear cut. He was drawing a parallel with people willingly catching it from family members (namely children who you can't feasibly isolate) who also had covid who they live with.

Hardly the same story as someone coming into your office.

Maybe I am misreading, but the vibe is very much, people coming into the office with illnesses is other people's problem, and those people need to deal with the "risks"

I am very much of the view that you can make it the problem of the person who has a cold or covid etc, and make them take responsibility for not making everyone else in the office ill.

One of the upsides of all this is that most of us office-based workers are now in a position to work from home with minimal disruption. There's no benefit to employee or employer in bringing any infectious illness into the workplace.

How will you feel when schools start applying the same logic?

Do you really think that there is minimal disruption to a (normally school based) pupil's education working remotely as opposed to in a classroom?

Or from a remotely based teacher?

I think a cold is minimally disruptive and it is perfectly reasonable to go about your life with one. Unplanned working from home is disruptive to both the workplace and schools.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

shirley_basso said:

Also Ballys wasn't being that clear cut. He was drawing a parallel with people willingly catching it from family members (namely children who you can't feasibly isolate) who also had covid who they live with.

Hardly the same story as someone coming into your office.

Maybe I am misreading, but the vibe is very much, people coming into the office with illnesses is other people's problem, and those people need to deal with the "risks"

I am very much of the view that you can make it the problem of the person who has a cold or covid etc, and make them take responsibility for not making everyone else in the office ill.

One of the upsides of all this is that most of us office-based workers are now in a position to work from home with minimal disruption. There's no benefit to employee or employer in bringing any infectious illness into the workplace.

How will you feel when schools start applying the same logic?

They already do.

They send kids home if they have a cold?

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

shirley_basso said:

Also Ballys wasn't being that clear cut. He was drawing a parallel with people willingly catching it from family members (namely children who you can't feasibly isolate) who also had covid who they live with.

Hardly the same story as someone coming into your office.

Maybe I am misreading, but the vibe is very much, people coming into the office with illnesses is other people's problem, and those people need to deal with the "risks"

I am very much of the view that you can make it the problem of the person who has a cold or covid etc, and make them take responsibility for not making everyone else in the office ill.

One of the upsides of all this is that most of us office-based workers are now in a position to work from home with minimal disruption. There's no benefit to employee or employer in bringing any infectious illness into the workplace.

How will you feel when schools start applying the same logic?

Do you really think that there is minimal disruption to a (normally school based) pupil's education working remotely as opposed to in a classroom?

Or from a remotely based teacher?

For a few days, yes. Better than it working through the class/staff a few at a time and everyone losing out.

kingstongraham

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

shirley_basso said:

Also Ballys wasn't being that clear cut. He was drawing a parallel with people willingly catching it from family members (namely children who you can't feasibly isolate) who also had covid who they live with.

Hardly the same story as someone coming into your office.

Maybe I am misreading, but the vibe is very much, people coming into the office with illnesses is other people's problem, and those people need to deal with the "risks"

I am very much of the view that you can make it the problem of the person who has a cold or covid etc, and make them take responsibility for not making everyone else in the office ill.

One of the upsides of all this is that most of us office-based workers are now in a position to work from home with minimal disruption. There's no benefit to employee or employer in bringing any infectious illness into the workplace.

How will you feel when schools start applying the same logic?

Do you really think that there is minimal disruption to a (normally school based) pupil's education working remotely as opposed to in a classroom?

Or from a remotely based teacher?

I think a cold is minimally disruptive and it is perfectly reasonable to go about your life with one. Unplanned working from home is disruptive to both the workplace and schools.

That's quite irrelevant to the point that I asked about though.

What was stated was that many office workers can work effectively from home, avoiding passing a cold on to others. That's not the case for schools, so I don't know why you think there would be an equivalence.

Jezyboy

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

shirley_basso said:

Also Ballys wasn't being that clear cut. He was drawing a parallel with people willingly catching it from family members (namely children who you can't feasibly isolate) who also had covid who they live with.

Hardly the same story as someone coming into your office.

Maybe I am misreading, but the vibe is very much, people coming into the office with illnesses is other people's problem, and those people need to deal with the "risks"

I am very much of the view that you can make it the problem of the person who has a cold or covid etc, and make them take responsibility for not making everyone else in the office ill.

One of the upsides of all this is that most of us office-based workers are now in a position to work from home with minimal disruption. There's no benefit to employee or employer in bringing any infectious illness into the workplace.

How will you feel when schools start applying the same logic?

Do you really think that there is minimal disruption to a (normally school based) pupil's education working remotely as opposed to in a classroom?

Or from a remotely based teacher?

I think a cold is minimally disruptive and it is perfectly reasonable to go about your life with one. Unplanned working from home is disruptive to both the workplace and schools.

I think it depends on the degree of cold, and the level of events that are being missed.

You might push on a bit more to attend a funeral when you've got a stuffy nose, but feel happy about cancelling a pub trip with friends you don't really like.

Which in itself is maybe odd, as a funeral is likely to have old and vulnerable attendees.

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

shirley_basso said:

Also Ballys wasn't being that clear cut. He was drawing a parallel with people willingly catching it from family members (namely children who you can't feasibly isolate) who also had covid who they live with.

Hardly the same story as someone coming into your office.

Maybe I am misreading, but the vibe is very much, people coming into the office with illnesses is other people's problem, and those people need to deal with the "risks"

I am very much of the view that you can make it the problem of the person who has a cold or covid etc, and make them take responsibility for not making everyone else in the office ill.

One of the upsides of all this is that most of us office-based workers are now in a position to work from home with minimal disruption. There's no benefit to employee or employer in bringing any infectious illness into the workplace.

How will you feel when schools start applying the same logic?

Do you really think that there is minimal disruption to a (normally school based) pupil's education working remotely as opposed to in a classroom?

Or from a remotely based teacher?

I think a cold is minimally disruptive and it is perfectly reasonable to go about your life with one. Unplanned working from home is disruptive to both the workplace and schools.

That's quite irrelevant to the point that I asked about though.

What was stated was that many office workers can work effectively from home, avoiding passing a cold on to others. That's not the case for schools, so I don't know why you think there would be an equivalence.

Many office workers can effectively work from home when planned. It is not effective when unplanned. Laptops tend to be in the wrong place, home computers not up to date, in person meetings get cancelled etc.

My point is that once you start making it socially unacceptable to go out with a cold (or work in an office), it starts to apply to all walks of life, so in the end schools and other workplaces will start to send people home. The same attitude will be taken at social events as well.

surrey_commuter

Ben6899 said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

Test and trace have specified a quarantine period for a family member, but this is based on the day of her positive PCR and not the day of her first symptom or the day of her positive lateral flow test. Should this just be ignored as the guidance is clear that it is from the first symptom?

Also, I sent four tests at the same time and have only received one result which was 10 hours ago.

The texts I got from T&T were contradictory. First said 7 days from positive test which would have been the 15th, the second said 17th was the last full day and the last on the 18th at 23:59.

So use your own judgement to do what is right

I was planning to do that, but I had assumed they might have it working smoothly by now.. Anyway, thanks for your reply. Which day did you choose?

on the 15th day I walked across the common to a coffee cart in a farm, then got the text about the 17th so returned indoors until then.

Am still keeping away from crowded indoors and will keep away from my parents for another couple of weeks

I'm presuming you tested negative on 15th morning. But still, very responsible of you to change tact following the text.

The last time I checked was the 17th and I was still positive. My undertsanding of the rules was that I was allowed out after seven days (the 15th) if sympton free which I have been since the 13th

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

shirley_basso said:

Also Ballys wasn't being that clear cut. He was drawing a parallel with people willingly catching it from family members (namely children who you can't feasibly isolate) who also had covid who they live with.

Hardly the same story as someone coming into your office.

Maybe I am misreading, but the vibe is very much, people coming into the office with illnesses is other people's problem, and those people need to deal with the "risks"

I am very much of the view that you can make it the problem of the person who has a cold or covid etc, and make them take responsibility for not making everyone else in the office ill.

One of the upsides of all this is that most of us office-based workers are now in a position to work from home with minimal disruption. There's no benefit to employee or employer in bringing any infectious illness into the workplace.

How will you feel when schools start applying the same logic?

Do you really think that there is minimal disruption to a (normally school based) pupil's education working remotely as opposed to in a classroom?

Or from a remotely based teacher?

I think a cold is minimally disruptive and it is perfectly reasonable to go about your life with one. Unplanned working from home is disruptive to both the workplace and schools.

That's quite irrelevant to the point that I asked about though.

What was stated was that many office workers can work effectively from home, avoiding passing a cold on to others. That's not the case for schools, so I don't know why you think there would be an equivalence.

Many office workers can effectively work from home when planned. It is not effective when unplanned. Laptops tend to be in the wrong place, home computers not up to date, in person meetings get cancelled etc.

My point is that once you start making it socially unacceptable to go out with a cold (or work in an office), it starts to apply to all walks of life, so in the end schools and other workplaces will start to send people home. The same attitude will be taken at social events as well.

Schools *do* send children home. Yes if staff phone in sick it is a bit disruptive. That is something any organisation needs to plan for.

mully79

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

shirley_basso said:

Also Ballys wasn't being that clear cut. He was drawing a parallel with people willingly catching it from family members (namely children who you can't feasibly isolate) who also had covid who they live with.

Hardly the same story as someone coming into your office.

Maybe I am misreading, but the vibe is very much, people coming into the office with illnesses is other people's problem, and those people need to deal with the "risks"

I am very much of the view that you can make it the problem of the person who has a cold or covid etc, and make them take responsibility for not making everyone else in the office ill.

One of the upsides of all this is that most of us office-based workers are now in a position to work from home with minimal disruption. There's no benefit to employee or employer in bringing any infectious illness into the workplace.

How will you feel when schools start applying the same logic?

Do you really think that there is minimal disruption to a (normally school based) pupil's education working remotely as opposed to in a classroom?

Or from a remotely based teacher?

I think a cold is minimally disruptive and it is perfectly reasonable to go about your life with one. Unplanned working from home is disruptive to both the workplace and schools.

That's quite irrelevant to the point that I asked about though.

What was stated was that many office workers can work effectively from home, avoiding passing a cold on to others. That's not the case for schools, so I don't know why you think there would be an equivalence.

Many office workers can effectively work from home when planned. It is not effective when unplanned. Laptops tend to be in the wrong place, home computers not up to date, in person meetings get cancelled etc.

My point is that once you start making it socially unacceptable to go out with a cold (or work in an office), it starts to apply to all walks of life, so in the end schools and other workplaces will start to send people home. The same attitude will be taken at social events as well.

Schools *do* send children home. Yes if staff phone in sick it is a bit disruptive. That is something any organisation needs to plan for.

They used to plan for that by not employing women.

pblakeney

mully79 said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

shirley_basso said:

Also Ballys wasn't being that clear cut. He was drawing a parallel with people willingly catching it from family members (namely children who you can't feasibly isolate) who also had covid who they live with.

Hardly the same story as someone coming into your office.

Maybe I am misreading, but the vibe is very much, people coming into the office with illnesses is other people's problem, and those people need to deal with the "risks"

I am very much of the view that you can make it the problem of the person who has a cold or covid etc, and make them take responsibility for not making everyone else in the office ill.

One of the upsides of all this is that most of us office-based workers are now in a position to work from home with minimal disruption. There's no benefit to employee or employer in bringing any infectious illness into the workplace.

How will you feel when schools start applying the same logic?

Do you really think that there is minimal disruption to a (normally school based) pupil's education working remotely as opposed to in a classroom?

Or from a remotely based teacher?

I think a cold is minimally disruptive and it is perfectly reasonable to go about your life with one. Unplanned working from home is disruptive to both the workplace and schools.

That's quite irrelevant to the point that I asked about though.

What was stated was that many office workers can work effectively from home, avoiding passing a cold on to others. That's not the case for schools, so I don't know why you think there would be an equivalence.

Many office workers can effectively work from home when planned. It is not effective when unplanned. Laptops tend to be in the wrong place, home computers not up to date, in person meetings get cancelled etc.

My point is that once you start making it socially unacceptable to go out with a cold (or work in an office), it starts to apply to all walks of life, so in the end schools and other workplaces will start to send people home. The same attitude will be taken at social events as well.

Schools *do* send children home. Yes if staff phone in sick it is a bit disruptive. That is something any organisation needs to plan for.

They used to plan for that by not employing women.

Really? When was that? I started school in the 60s and there was female teachers that had been there long before I started.

Stevo_666

ballysmate said:

YOU are the one there. YOU are a grown up. YOU make any decision based on how YOU perceive the threat to your well being based on whether you are jabbed or have a comprised immune system.
Life must get back to normal sometime.

Surprised that you have to spell it out to some people, but there you go.

Stevo_666

ballysmate said:

ddraver said:

And if they dont go..?

And you have plans to see your parents that weekend etc etc

What did you do before when someone turned up ill?
People will have to learn to live with covid and make their own decisions

Maybe Raver wants to be told what to do by the government all the time?

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

ballysmate said:

ddraver said:

And if they dont go..?

And you have plans to see your parents that weekend etc etc

What did you do before when someone turned up ill?
People will have to learn to live with covid and make their own decisions

Maybe Raver wants to be told what to do by the government all the time?

Do the government post on here often?

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

ballysmate said:

ddraver said:

And if they dont go..?

And you have plans to see your parents that weekend etc etc

What did you do before when someone turned up ill?
People will have to learn to live with covid and make their own decisions

Maybe Raver wants to be told what to do by the government all the time?

Do the government post on here often?

?

focuszing723

Breathing in stray synthetic fibres through a mask can't be that great for you. When you think about synthetic clothes worn around the house, these fibres can be breathed in.

focuszing723

I'm still wearing one though in crowded places.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

ballysmate said:

ddraver said:

And if they dont go..?

And you have plans to see your parents that weekend etc etc

What did you do before when someone turned up ill?
People will have to learn to live with covid and make their own decisions

Maybe Raver wants to be told what to do by the government all the time?

Do the government post on here often?

?

The question was asked on here.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

ballysmate said:

ddraver said:

And if they dont go..?

And you have plans to see your parents that weekend etc etc

What did you do before when someone turned up ill?
People will have to learn to live with covid and make their own decisions

Maybe Raver wants to be told what to do by the government all the time?

Do the government post on here often?

?

The question was asked on here.

It's not relevant to my question.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

ballysmate said:

ddraver said:

And if they dont go..?

And you have plans to see your parents that weekend etc etc

What did you do before when someone turned up ill?
People will have to learn to live with covid and make their own decisions

Maybe Raver wants to be told what to do by the government all the time?

Do the government post on here often?

?

The question was asked on here.

It's not relevant to my question.

Yes it is.

pblakeney

It's a bit early for panto season. 😉

kingstongraham

pblakeney said:

It's a bit early for panto season. 😉

I'm assured it's actually behind us.

TheBigBean

This exiting quarantine on day six is all well and good, but it's a bit of a tease if the lateral flows are still positive.

rjsterry

focuszing723 said:

Breathing in stray synthetic fibres through a mask can't be that great for you. When you think about synthetic clothes worn around the house, these fibres can be breathed in.

Entirely different materials.

focuszing723

rjsterry said:

focuszing723 said:

Breathing in stray synthetic fibres through a mask can't be that great for you. When you think about synthetic clothes worn around the house, these fibres can be breathed in.

Entirely different materials.

The material most commonly used to make these masks is polypropylene—a type of fabric made from a “thermoplastic” polymer (meaning that it’s easy to work with and shape at high temperatures). Blue surgical masks can also be made of polystyrene, polycarbonate, polyethylene, or polyester— all of which are types of fabrics derived from thermoplastic polymers.

https://health-desk.org/articles/what-are-blue-surgical-masks-made-of-and-is-the-material-safe

I realize clothes are made of different fibres, but some are still synthetic (Man made).

focuszing723

How does the Human body deal with these? As opposed to natural fibres cotton, wool, hemp...