The big Coronavirus thread

Pross

surrey_commuter said:

Do I detect a small swing towards disapproval of the Govt’s approach?

Not really from me, I still don't think they could have done things much differently and even the measures they are constantly recommending are getting ignored e.g. all the old people mingling in the supermarket this morning so I can only imagine the reaction to more Draconian measures (I suspect we'll be discovering those soon). Measures that look like panic and up creating panic.

rick_chasey

Well you’ve got empty shelves in shops and bars that are full so I don’t think the Comms has been up to f@cking scratch.

Pross

rick_chasey said:

Was on my way to the funeral today in my car.

Really really surprised by how full all the cafés were.

Had half a mind to go in and censored them all.

Suspect I may do en route to the chemist to pick up my wife’s and daughter’s prescription, tomorrow.

As I said yesterday, I was in Bridport on Tuesday morning and the Wetherspoons was busy at 11.15am. I would have considered it busy for a Tuesday morning for a coastal town out of season at the best of times. As it was mainly older people maybe they've just accepted they might not get through this and don't want to spend their last weeks shut in a house.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

Well you’ve got empty shelves in shops and bars that are full so I don’t think the Comms has been up to f@cking scratch.

Trouble is that the comms have been just that, and advice.
We already have advice not to drink or smoke. Doesn't work, does it? Rhetorical.
Behaviours won't fully change until forced.
Advising someone not to go to work is somehow completely different from advising them not to go to the pub. In fact, some will find it to be the perfect arrangement.

surrey_commuter

briantrumpet said:

The only comfort here is that it does seem to be controllable... but nearly everyone started too late, and is continuing to do so.

https://twitter.com/lkrichardson/status/1240698808570277890

That is what I have been arguing and you all disagree with me

surrey_commuter

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

Do I detect a small swing towards disapproval of the Govt’s approach?

Not really from me, I still don't think they could have done things much differently and even the measures they are constantly recommending are getting ignored e.g. all the old people mingling in the supermarket this morning so I can only imagine the reaction to more Draconian measures (I suspect we'll be discovering those soon). Measures that look like panic and up creating panic.

The media noise levels about the lack of testing seem to be increasing.

I do wonder if things would be different if we had a more trustworthy PM. If Cameron categorically stated London would not be locked down I would be more likely to believe him and not take preventative action. There must be people fleeing London because they don’t believe him. When he goes on TV to assure us the food supply is secure everybody goes out and panic buys.

kingstongraham

We should already be locked down in London. Surely.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

Well you’ve got empty shelves in shops and bars that are full so I don’t think the Comms has been up to f@cking scratch.

LOL - the comms were that we would let it get to the required level then we would dial it up and down to flatten the spike for the sombrero look. That could have made people complacent.

Alternatively maybe nobody has faith in the messenger.

Pross

I think you may have a point there although I'm not sure anyone trusts any politician these days though.

That said, Andy Burnham is coming across well on Question Time (and, believe it or not, the wife has liked what she's heard from Matt Hancock on social care workers putting them on a level pegging with the NHS)

surrey_commuter

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Well you’ve got empty shelves in shops and bars that are full so I don’t think the Comms has been up to f@cking scratch.

Trouble is that the comms have been just that, and advice.
We already have advice not to drink or smoke. Doesn't work, does it? Rhetorical.
Behaviours won't fully change until forced.
Advising someone not to go to work is somehow completely different from advising them not to go to the pub. In fact, some will find it to be the perfect arrangement.

Businesses were advised to shut. You suspect our Govt knows that advising people to go down the pub is less effective than telling pubs to shut. Therefore why have they made that decision?

pblakeney

surrey_commuter said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Well you’ve got empty shelves in shops and bars that are full so I don’t think the Comms has been up to f@cking scratch.

Trouble is that the comms have been just that, and advice.
We already have advice not to drink or smoke. Doesn't work, does it? Rhetorical.
Behaviours won't fully change until forced.
Advising someone not to go to work is somehow completely different from advising them not to go to the pub. In fact, some will find it to be the perfect arrangement.

Businesses were advised to shut. You suspect our Govt knows that advising people to go down the pub is less effective than telling pubs to shut. Therefore why have they made that decision?

My point was that simply advising isn't stringent enough to get everyone to change.
For example, our office was full today, and I expect it to be the same next week.

tailwindhome

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Well you’ve got empty shelves in shops and bars that are full so I don’t think the Comms has been up to f@cking scratch.

Trouble is that the comms have been just that, and advice.
We already have advice not to drink or smoke. Doesn't work, does it? Rhetorical.
Behaviours won't fully change until forced.
Advising someone not to go to work is somehow completely different from advising them not to go to the pub. In fact, some will find it to be the perfect arrangement.

In Ireland they banned indoor gatherings >100

Saturday 15th the pubs were full

The social media backlash was instant and vicious - it was socially unacceptable for the pubs to be open so they closed.

awavey

kingstongraham said:

We should already be locked down in London. Surely.

impossible to enforce though isnt it ? youd just end up with another Italian situation, those that can,will flee to their 2nd homes elsewhere round the country spreading the virus into areas its not been taking hold so much yet, and the rest get left behind in a city where everything is shut, most of the rest being the ones who work in the places that have been shut so have no money to live on. the others being the ones taking care of them in hospitals.

surrey_commuter

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Well you’ve got empty shelves in shops and bars that are full so I don’t think the Comms has been up to f@cking scratch.

Trouble is that the comms have been just that, and advice.
We already have advice not to drink or smoke. Doesn't work, does it? Rhetorical.
Behaviours won't fully change until forced.
Advising someone not to go to work is somehow completely different from advising them not to go to the pub. In fact, some will find it to be the perfect arrangement.

Businesses were advised to shut. You suspect our Govt knows that advising people to go down the pub is less effective than telling pubs to shut. Therefore why have they made that decision?

My point was that simply advising isn't stringent enough to get everyone to change.
For example, our office was full today, and I expect it to be the same next week.

My point is that the Govt knows that - so why do you think they have not shut the pubs? Surely all part of the strategy to manage the rate of infection?
Same as closing the tube - stops it spreading on so many different levels. But if you wanted to slow the spread and incredibly easy thing to implement.

surrey_commuter

Pross said:

I think you may have a point there although I'm not sure anyone trusts any politician these days though.

That said, Andy Burnham is coming across well on Question Time (and, believe it or not, the wife has liked what she's heard from Matt Hancock on social care workers putting them on a level pegging with the NHS)

Not sure if she heard him on the radio but on the TV he looks incredibly shifty and out of his depth just doing that politician thing of repeating a few carefully prepared sentences.

pblakeney

surrey_commuter said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Well you’ve got empty shelves in shops and bars that are full so I don’t think the Comms has been up to f@cking scratch.

Trouble is that the comms have been just that, and advice.
We already have advice not to drink or smoke. Doesn't work, does it? Rhetorical.
Behaviours won't fully change until forced.
Advising someone not to go to work is somehow completely different from advising them not to go to the pub. In fact, some will find it to be the perfect arrangement.

Businesses were advised to shut. You suspect our Govt knows that advising people to go down the pub is less effective than telling pubs to shut. Therefore why have they made that decision?

My point was that simply advising isn't stringent enough to get everyone to change.
For example, our office was full today, and I expect it to be the same next week.

My point is that the Govt knows that - so why do you think they have not shut the pubs? Surely all part of the strategy to manage the rate of infection?
Same as closing the tube - stops it spreading on so many different levels. But if you wanted to slow the spread and incredibly easy thing to implement.

Flip side of that is that it is not really working, is it?

mrfpb

Next week what is now advice will become enforceable law. It will also be easier to bypass lots of red tape in the name of public health.

Looking at the bill, it will be a particularly good time to dispose of any inconvenient corpses people may not want to keep under the patio.

pblakeney

mrfpb said:

Next week what is now advice will become enforceable law.

That is my prediction.

crescent

Pross said:

I think you may have a point there although I'm not sure anyone trusts any politician these days though.

That said, Andy Burnham is coming across well on Question Time (and, believe it or not, the wife has liked what she's heard from Matt Hancock on social care workers putting them on a level pegging with the NHS)

I've been impressed by Andy Burnham, too. Very fair minded, makes some excellent points. Glad to see very few attempts at political point scoring, it's not the time.

Pross

surrey_commuter said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Well you’ve got empty shelves in shops and bars that are full so I don’t think the Comms has been up to f@cking scratch.

Trouble is that the comms have been just that, and advice.
We already have advice not to drink or smoke. Doesn't work, does it? Rhetorical.
Behaviours won't fully change until forced.
Advising someone not to go to work is somehow completely different from advising them not to go to the pub. In fact, some will find it to be the perfect arrangement.

Businesses were advised to shut. You suspect our Govt knows that advising people to go down the pub is less effective than telling pubs to shut. Therefore why have they made that decision?

My point was that simply advising isn't stringent enough to get everyone to change.
For example, our office was full today, and I expect it to be the same next week.

My point is that the Govt knows that - so why do you think they have not shut the pubs? Surely all part of the strategy to manage the rate of infection?
Same as closing the tube - stops it spreading on so many different levels. But if you wanted to slow the spread and incredibly easy thing to implement.

I thought the rationale of keeping public transport open is so critical staff can still get around. They could I suppose close stations and only allow those with ID showing they are essential workers to enter.

Pross

crescent said:

Pross said:

I think you may have a point there although I'm not sure anyone trusts any politician these days though.

That said, Andy Burnham is coming across well on Question Time (and, believe it or not, the wife has liked what she's heard from Matt Hancock on social care workers putting them on a level pegging with the NHS)

I've been impressed by Andy Burnham, too. Very fair minded, makes some excellent points. Glad to see very few attempts at political point scoring, it's not the time.

He seems to have done a decent job so far as mayor in Manchester.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

We should already be locked down in London. Surely.

My experience of cycling from Sutton to Tottenham for a meeting yesterday is that reactions are varying widely. Some places deserted, others like a normal day. Streatham and Brixton were notably busy.
Glad to be back home today despite the social distancing of being on a bike. Similarly today, empty streets walking round to pick up the children from school, but playground bustling with chatting parents.

kingstonian

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Well you’ve got empty shelves in shops and bars that are full so I don’t think the Comms has been up to f@cking scratch.

Trouble is that the comms have been just that, and advice.
We already have advice not to drink or smoke. Doesn't work, does it? Rhetorical.
Behaviours won't fully change until forced.
Advising someone not to go to work is somehow completely different from advising them not to go to the pub. In fact, some will find it to be the perfect arrangement.

Businesses were advised to shut. You suspect our Govt knows that advising people to go down the pub is less effective than telling pubs to shut. Therefore why have they made that decision?

My point was that simply advising isn't stringent enough to get everyone to change.
For example, our office was full today, and I expect it to be the same next week.

My point is that the Govt knows that - so why do you think they have not shut the pubs? Surely all part of the strategy to manage the rate of infection?
Same as closing the tube - stops it spreading on so many different levels. But if you wanted to slow the spread and incredibly easy thing to implement.

I thought the rationale of keeping public transport open is so critical staff can still get around. They could I suppose close stations and only allow those with ID showing they are essential workers to enter.

Yep, so many key workers in London rely on the tube to get to their place or work so closing it would cause further issues. They’ve already closed (or are about to close) some of the quieter tube stations in London, wouldn’t be surprised if the volume of trains run will be cut too.

kingstonian

This evening, one of the mums at my youngest son’s school sent a WhatsApp message to a bunch of parents suggesting setting up a few play dates next week.

Some people..................

ballysmate

We have 144 reported deaths and still people can't keep out of pubs. But that said, what good is staying out of the Red Lion to go and join the scrum for toilet rolls at Tesco?
If the government had shut the pubs and clubs 2 weeks ago before we had any deaths and gone for a lock down I get the feeling some on here would have accused them of panicking and tanking the economy unnecessarily.
Terrible position to be in, but if you are in government, you have to go with the best advice available.

awavey

kingstonian said:

This evening, one of the mums at my youngest son’s school sent a WhatsApp message to a bunch of parents suggesting setting up a few play dates next week.

Some people..................

though maybe they are thinking its like it was in the 70s/80s when parents held chickenpox parties

Stevo_666

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

Was on my way to the funeral today in my car.

Really really surprised by how full all the cafés were.

Had half a mind to go in and censored them all.

Suspect I may do en route to the chemist to pick up my wife’s and daughter’s prescription, tomorrow.

FFS. I was just reminding myself that post-WW2 rationing went on for nine years, and these cockwombles won't give up a few weeks of their pïssy lattes to try to stop thousands dying unnecessarily.

This really. It's a bit inconvenient for a few months, but that's about as bad as it gets.

DeVlaeminck

I think it just takes some people a day or two for the reality to sink in. I'd be surprised if there were many people still socialising say early next week - not ideal I know but to be fair they only announced closing the schools yesterday.

pblakeney

awavey said:

kingstonian said:

This evening, one of the mums at my youngest son’s school sent a WhatsApp message to a bunch of parents suggesting setting up a few play dates next week.

Some people..................

though maybe they are thinking its like it was in the 70s/80s when parents held chickenpox parties

They still do round here...

pblakeney

There seems to be a correlation between being able to work from home or being off on full pay and fully supporting a lockdown. I am not arguing one way or the other, just pointing it out.
On the other side those saying that the UK can’t go into lockdown need only look abroad.
We are all ****** either physically or financially. If not directly now then the knock on will catch up eventually.