SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)

Sparky Rhiwabon said:


Can someone explain to me how schools are safe (30-60+ households mixing with no social distancing especially in Primary) whereas 2 or more households mixing in their own home, or in a pub / restaurant with social distancing in place, is not?

Or how schools are safe in the rest of the UK but not in London?

I'm confused. Or is this just Boris and his “loveable buffoon” act again?
Click to expand...

It is probably too save face on yet another U turn. They will be waiting until the inevitable national lockdown before closing schools nationwide. It seems they value political point scoring over lives.

The fact we are already in a national lockdown in all but name, shows they are playing silly games. All areas are in tier 3 or tier 4 now anyway.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
It is probably too save face on yet another U turn. They will be waiting until the inevitable national lockdown before closing schools nationwide. It seems they value political point scoring over lives.

The fact we are already in a national lockdown in all but name, shows they are playing silly games. All areas are in tier 3 or tier 4 now anyway.
Click to expand...

What's the difference between Tier 4 and national lockdown for a same area?
 
Sparky Rhiwabon said:


Can someone explain to me how schools are safe (30-60+ households mixing with no social distancing especially in Primary) whereas 2 or more households mixing in their own home, or in a pub / restaurant with social distancing in place, is not?

Or how schools are safe in the rest of the UK but not in London?

I'm confused. Or is this just Boris and his “loveable buffoon” act again?
Click to expand...


I'm not sure it comes down to it being safer in schools than mixing at home. I think the big thing is what's essential. For me, it's pretty essential that kids get educated, it's not really essential for me to socialise in pubs, or see my mates indoors, or visit my mam in her home.
I'm sure when schools re opened the advisor's said it may mean a tradeoff in other freedoms so things have been pretty consistent.
Schools have been very slow to react though in my opinion. Private schools put remote learning in place very quickly from what I hear from people I know who's kids attend. My youngest goes to the local comp and they have been slow to put measures in place. When she went back in September face masks were not compulsory until October time.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
It is probably too save face on yet another U turn. They will be waiting until the inevitable national lockdown before closing schools nationwide. It seems they value political point scoring over lives.

The fact we are already in a national lockdown in all but name, shows they are playing silly games. All areas are in tier 3 or tier 4 now anyway.
Click to expand...
I suspect you’re right - he’s repeatedly said that another National Lockdown would be devastating for the economy so, instead, he can have a local (honest) approach but with everyone except the Isle of Nowhere in Tier 5
 
worldgonemad said:
I'm not sure it comes down to it being safer in schools than mixing at home. I think the big thing is what's essential. For me, it's pretty essential that kids get educated, it's not really essential for me to socialise in pubs, or see my mates indoors, or visit my mam in her home.
I'm sure when schools re opened the advisor's said it may mean a tradeoff in other freedoms so things have been pretty consistent.
Schools have been very slow to react though in my opinion. Private schools put remote learning in place very quickly from what I hear from people I know who's kids attend. My youngest goes to the local comp and they have been slow to put measures in place. When she went back in September face masks were not compulsory until October time.
Click to expand...
But that’s not what he’s saying - he’s saying it’s safe. So, if you believe him then, common sense dictates that socialising with other households (up to 30-60+) in other environments must also be safe so a commonsense approach is to ignore those rules as they make no logical sense. It’s irresponsible of him.

Also, whether education is more essential than socialising with friends or family is debatable. The latter has been deemed essential to humans since their inception whereas organised education is a much more recent phenomenon. For that matter, the first school in the UK was around 900 years ago, whereas the first public house was around 300 years before that, so which was deemed more essential? ;)
 
jojojo said:
They need to be straightforward about it now. Don't tell students to go back to college. Don't reopen the schools on Monday. Opening the schools and then closing them down a week or so later does nothing to help the students/pupils or the case numbers.

Go back to the advice that encourages people to work from home, and to avoid going into other people's houses etc to work for any reason other than an emergency.

Do anything they can to buy a bit a time to get hospital admissions and case numbers down and the vaccine rollout running.
Click to expand...

Its a complete clusterfeck.

On one hand, you have Boris & Co saying no further restrictions, YET, but they are coming.

Then you have the Scientists sayings thngs are so bad, we're going to change the vaccine regime and go against what the developers are saying.

So either they're THAT BAD, or NOT THAT BAD, YET. From my perspective, its better to go into a March style lockdown now, for 8 weeks, and pump out the AZ/Oxford Vaccine as much as possible, and then start opening into T3 in early March. T2 April.
 
ha_rooney said:
Opening schools to then inevitably close them a couple of weeks later is typical of how these cnuts have handled the pandemic.
Click to expand...
Literally what they did with pubs back in November.

Because of it, I got paid exactly the same as I did during furlough and got exposed to covid just before Christmas. To say I was fuming is an understatement.
 
Tibs said:
Its a complete clusterfeck. On one hand, you have Boris & Co saying no further restrictions, YET, but they are coming. Then you have the Scientists sayings thngs are so bad, we're going to change the vaccine regime and go against what the developers are saying.

So either they're THAT BAD, or NOT THAT BAD, YET. From my perspective, its better to go into a March style lockdown now, for 8 weeks, and pump out the AZ/Oxford Vaccine as much as possible, and then start opening into T3 in early March. T2 April.
Click to expand...

The perspective of somebody whose revenues won't be directly impacted by a new full lockdown?
 
*Schools may well be safe for most children*

Forget about the staff and parents/Grandparents Boris?

One thing to bare in mind, the same parent does not always pick up the kids. Sometimes its both, sometimes it's another family member or multiple. Plenty of grandparents.

Also, bubbles were non existant in the christmas term. Some tried but due to staff shortage we had staff covering in year 1 in morning, year 6 in the afternoon. Year 3 at a different school the following morning.
The example above was an extreme case but also she wasn't young either, 50+ with health problems.
 
Ecstatic said:
The perspective of somebody whose revenues won't be directly impacted by a new full lockdown?
Click to expand...

My business launch has been put back by almost a year already because of it, so my earnings have been hampered this year. But, there is support for businesses from Government here
 
Tibs said:
My business launch has been put back by almost a year already because of it, so my earnings have been hampered this year. But, there is support for businesses from Government here
Click to expand...

I wish you all the best in your future endeavours.

I just hope the necessary will be made to support logistically and financially the NHS so that a series of full lockdowns in 2021 will be avoided.

The biggest hope is the relative success of the vaccination campaign which has just started (1M in the UK against 0.1M in Germany and 500 people in France)
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
But the effectiveness of the vaccine has not been tested with these longer gaps. For example if the effectiveness drops to 50% or less, even we vaccinate twice as many people the net outcome will not be an improvement in immunity.
Click to expand...
I'm just saying there is a reason they are doing it.

They're trying to get as many people as possible immunised NOW
 
Schools are safe unless we say they are not safe.

People should stay at home unless we say they should get back to work.

We are following the science unless we are not following the science.

Schools that want to shut down will be sued into not shutting down until we tell them to shut down.

... doublethink
 
Tibs said:
So either they're THAT BAD, or NOT THAT BAD, YET. From my perspective, its better to go into a March style lockdown now, for 8 weeks, and pump out the AZ/Oxford Vaccine as much as possible, and then start opening into T3 in early March. T2 April.
Click to expand...

As much as it pains me as I want a bit more of my life back, this is by far the best option I think, and its clear that's the approach we need to take. It'll probably happen, just much later than it should.
 
rcoobc said:
Right... But they aren't comparing December to march.

They are comparing December to December
Click to expand...

Yeah. And early December and late December are very different. Do you think people have the same desire to get tested if unwell around Christmas and New Years as they do at the start of the month?

Like I said, it shows a trend perhaps at a high level. Nothing else. So excuse your sarcasm.
 
Roger said:
That may be the case regarding comparing positive tests with March/April, however the fact that hospital admissions and deaths are rising at an alarming rate suggests otherwise.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that the wider statistics don’t show a terrible situation. Simply commented about that one statistic.
 
Judas said:
As much as it pains me as I want a bit more of my life back, this is by far the best option I think, and its clear that's the approach we need to take. It'll probably happen, just much later than it should.
Click to expand...

Defo it'll happen too late, and then we will be in this mess with lockdown/tiers until late May/early June, v similar to LY.
 
Judas said:
As much as it pains me as I want a bit more of my life back, this is by far the best option I think, and its clear that's the approach we need to take. It'll probably happen, just much later than it should.
Click to expand...
I think the bit that bothers me most is that I don't believe it be much later. It'll only be a week or two later. It'll let case numbers, hospitalisations, deaths rise rapidly again in areas where things had started to stabilise or improve. As well as overloading the system in some regions.

I don't know if it's overoptimism or pure intellectual dishonesty. In March the R rate came down reasonably quickly once the lockdown started. Now we've got significantly more things open (schools, colleges, but also some workplaces and other activities) and we're up against what's reckoned to be a more transmissible version and yet we're supposed to see a similar fall in infections. Throw in colder weather than we had in March/April which will mean people spend more time indoors and I don't see any reason to expect a rapid change in hospitalisations/deaths/cases during January (unless it's upwards).

Cynically, I think they just want to cling on to some of their public statements about priorities - like telling Greenwich schools to go back before Christmas. Then telling just about every borough except Greenwich not to restart, then finally telling Greenwich not to restart. Pathetic posturing in a crisis, that means they end up doing everything as if it's impossible to see things even a week in advance. Before finally announcing that we've all been very naughty and let the R rate go up again, so they have to do something.
 
Ecstatic said:
The perspective of somebody whose revenues won't be directly impacted by a new full lockdown?
Click to expand...
But it also costs business money for constantly opening and closing. I bet most staff and companies would prefer definite plans
 
rcoobc said:
I'm just saying there is a reason they are doing it.

They're trying to get as many people as possible immunised NOW
Click to expand...
Yeah but if everyone is not fully immune what’s the point? 50% is still a huge gamble with people’s health
 
golden_blunder said:
Yeah but if everyone is not fully immune what’s the point? 50% is still a huge gamble with people’s health
Click to expand...
I think the stats work better than that, particularly with the AZ vaccine where we do know more about what happens beyond the 3/4 week window. We know that not only does dose1 reduce the odds of developing symptomatic covid, it also reduces the odds of being hospitalised - to more or less zero in the trial. In the AZ case the second dose arriving at 8 weeks plus, not only does no harm in terms of the subsequent protection level, it may do some good.

The gamble comes when we look at Pfizer, which may have a similar (or better) efficacy profile timeline. It's a gamble because we don't actually know anything about what happens beyond 4 weeks and we're left hoping/extrapolating to guess that (as with AZ) even if efficacy reduces it still maintains a protective effect - keeping people out of hospital. The other unknown is whether dose 2 still does the same job as it did in the Phase 3 trial if it gets delayed. I think they've opted to wait and see on that one. Damage limitation so that more people live through January/February, and hope that we can rapidly pick up the pieces again March.
 
rpitroda said:
I didn’t say that the wider statistics don’t show a terrible situation. Simply commented about that one statistic.
Click to expand...

But from that single statistic that you go on to say "Clearly it does show cases are rising generically but not much more then that"

We all know we are in a terrible situation. That goes without saying.

Unless I got the wrong end of the stick, your comment seems to suggests that things aren't as terrible as they seem.
 
55k cases, 454 deaths.

When this all eventually ends death toll is going to be well over 100k isn't it? Considering the "best case" outcome was predicted at 20k deaths by Vallance and co back in March that suggests a few mistakes have been made along the way. I always thought things would flatline at around 60k but that was just for the first wave, speeding past that now sadly.
 
Roger said:
But from that single statistic that you go on to say "Clearly it does show cases are rising generically but not much more then that"

We all know we are in a terrible situation. That goes without saying.

Unless I got the wrong end of the stick, your comment seems to suggests that things aren't as terrible as they seem.
Click to expand...

I think you did get the wrong end of the stick.

I simply commented that that particular statistic is not a very good one. You then went on to infer from that that I was saying therefore the situation isn’t bad.

Except I simply was just saying that that statistic isn’t a great statistic. Not commenting at all on if the situation is terrible. It quite clearly is. And there’s many many better and more relevant statistics that show that. The number of tests returning positive as a % of tests taken is useful insofar as it might indicate a trend, but other then that does nothing because it has too many variables that impact it other than having the virus or not which make it less helpful.
 
Sparky Rhiwabon said:


Can someone explain to me how schools are safe (30-60+ households mixing with no social distancing especially in Primary) whereas 2 or more households mixing in their own home, or in a pub / restaurant with social distancing in place, is not?

Or how schools are safe in the rest of the UK but not in London?

I'm confused. Or is this just Boris and his “loveable buffoon” act again?
Click to expand...


The one major difference that there is a clear scientific consensus on, supported by reliable data collected over a long period, is that kids are less infectious and less likely to get infected than an adult in equivalent circumstances. So comparing adults and children without accounting for that significant difference can only create misleading conclusions. If they weren’t, things would have been much worse than they are, schools or no schools. That is one of the few fortunate things about this virus as many viruses hit the oldest and youngest worst.

The distinction between schools in London and schools everywhere else is the communities they’re coming from and the level and type of virus they’re exposed to. The government have tried to keep schools open at all costs. Closing schools anywhere is a loss to them, so they’re only doing them in the most severe circumstances.

London is in the most severe circumstances because it has a much larger share of the more transmissible strain of the virus, which makes it easier for everyone to get it and everyone to pass it on. So children still get it and pass it less often than adults, but the chances of a child getting it and passing it on in London is substantially higher than in Liverpool. The only way to even that playing field is to have it become the dominant strain all over the country. Which means schools closed in emergencies and much more.

It is not that kids are more likely to get it in London schools, it is that kids are more likely to get it anywhere in London, in large part because their parents and siblings are also more likely to get it and bring it into the household. So higher levels of transmission change the risk calculation. That’s a normal response to that kind of change in circumstances. It isn’t double standards, it’s looking at two different situations through the same lens.
 
FootballHQ said:
55k cases, 454 deaths.

When this all eventually ends death toll is going to be well over 100k isn't it? Considering the "best case" outcome was predicted at 20k deaths by Vallance and co back in March that suggests a few mistakes have been made along the way. I always thought things would flatline at around 60k but that was just for the first wave, speeding past that now sadly.
Click to expand...
I remember Fauci saying they were looking at 60k deaths in the US..
The US is already at 6 times that..

The UK wont be the only ones getting their projection totally wrong
 
Another 55k cases today in UK, putting the 7 day total at 47.6% higher than last week, when testing has actually gone down!

I was reminded about how, in May, Boris laid out his plan to reopen the UK, saying schools would only open if the r was at 0.5! We’re between 1.1 and 1.3 with a more contagious strain of the virus running uncontrolled. But no let’s keep them open.
 

I think my only sticking point to this is why were some Boroughs in London excluded from the list initially, then the government flip flopped. (Extremely well planned and scientific clearly)


The other is why are some regions outside of London with the highest cases per 100k not having schools closed.
 
It's simple, they're not taking the advice of their advisors at this point. If they've decided the risk to education is worse than the risk to health then fine but they'll have to politically own the impacts to covid spread because of their decision.

No moaning in a couple of weeks It's worse so now we have to act.
 
rcoobc said:
I'm just saying there is a reason they are doing it.

They're trying to get as many people as possible immunised NOW
Click to expand...

You have to question whats behind this governments, highly questionable reasoning. The decision to empty hospitals of the elderly, sending untested patients back to care homes ,the eat out to help out (the virus), pushing to get children back into schools before the September break, attempting to push people back into the office and finally the fiasco over the tier system and Christmas.

I could see the reasoning behind getting as many people as possible partially immunised this if there was a vaccine shortage. But this doesn't appear to be the case with the Oxford/Based on their track record, it sounds like another government half measure.

My genuine concern is that this government, are yet again, looking at this from an economic perspective, seeing if they can get away with partial immunisation and save the treasury a huge amount of money. It's a huge gamble with peoples lives. Perhaps I'm being cynical, however based on their record, this government couldn't win a bet in a one horse race.
 
Roger said:
I could see the reasoning behind getting as many people as possible partially immunised this if there was a vaccine shortage. But this doesn't appear to be the case with the Oxford/Based on their track record, it sounds like another government half measure.

My genuine concern is that this government, are yet again, looking at this from an economic perspective, seeing if they can get away with partial immunisation and save the treasury a huge amount of money. It's a huge gamble with peoples lives. Perhaps I'm being cynical, however based on their record, this government couldn't win a bet in a one horse race.
Click to expand...

I can see the cynicism, but I believe the move on dosage from the JCVI (not the government remember) is to reduce the strain on hospitals which they are seeing currently with the new variant. Vaccinating more quicker with one dose, will reduce the chances of hospitalisation, or at the very least intensive care requirement, and in turn ease the burden the south are currently seeing on ICU.
 
Last edited:
Italy's numbers seem to be going the right way (fingers crossed). The extended national lockdown we've had since 24th December has hopefully made a difference. We've had a complete national lockdown on 24-27 December, 31 December to today and then again we'll all be in the red zone on 5 & 6 January (because Epiphany is celebrated here). In between, the country has had some slight relaxations.

Conte wants to open the schools on 7th Jan, which is when the kids would normally return. We'll find out in a couple of days what the measures will be from 8-15 January.
 
Brwned said:
The distinction between schools in London and schools everywhere else is the communities they’re coming from and the level and type of virus they’re exposed to. London is in the most severe circumstances because it has a much larger share of the more transmissible strain of the virus, which makes it easier for everyone to get it and everyone to pass it on. So children still get it and pass it less often than adults, but the chances of a child getting it and passing it on in London is substantially higher than in Liverpool. It is not that kids are more likely to get it in London schools, it is that kids are more likely to get it anywhere in London, in large part because their parents and siblings are also more likely to get it and bring it into the household. So higher levels of transmission change the risk calculation. It isn’t double standards, it’s looking at two different situations through the same lens.
Click to expand...

I don't see why opening schools would be a good idea in Liverpool and a bad one in London.

There should be a single national policy about schools and children who are a very specific population group Covid-wise.

The lack of clarity, simplicity, consistency and homogeneity destroys the trust the population places in politicians.
 
Last edited:
Ecstatic said:
I don't see why opening schools would be a good idea for children in Liverpool and a bad one in London.

There should be a single national policy about schools and children who are a very specific population group Covid-wise.

The lack of clarity and homogeneity destroys the trust the population placed in politicians.
Click to expand...

I don't think the lines are that clearly drawn. Closing schools is a bad idea in Liverpool and a bad one in London. Opening schools is a bad idea in Liverpool and a bad one in London. They're choosing between two bad choices and in that context, their national policy is for schools to be open wherever possible. Education is a priority that comes ahead of many parts of the economy and social connections. It's one of the few things they've been consistent on for months.

Their understanding of virus transmission right now is that the strain of the virus that transmits 50% quicker is now the dominant strain in London, but not in Liverpool. So "wherever possible" includes Liverpool, but doesn't include London. The current public health recommendations are that "tier 4" restrictions are not enough to hold back transmission of this worse strain, more needs to be done, and quite possibly those areas will be going back to exactly what we went through in March. But that is a last resort that they will only apply in the areas where that worse strain is very prevalent.

They still "hope" that tier 4 restrictions will be enough to hold back transmission with schools open, because their understanding of the data from the last lockdown is almost all areas that were in tier 4 and didn't have that strain did actually see transmission fall to acceptable levels. But that may just be selective misreading in the data, and if they get that wrong they'll just impose more restrictions on the other regions not long after. Personally I'm not sure why people are asking for that to happen. Some people seem to think if schools close then maybe we won't have to cut back on some of the other stuff that us adults like to do. If schools are closed for a significant period it means things are really bad and there will be more restrictions for all of us.

There are obviously pros and cons to a regional strategy but it was what the majority of the public wanted after the first national lockdown. Area x shouldn't be "punished" because of the "bad behaviour" of area y is a very popular view at the moment, particularly in conservative media. I agree with you that disadvantaging children's education in one area for a significant period of time while allowing others' to get on as normal comes with specific challenges that raise some difficult questions.
 
rpitroda said:
I think you did get the wrong end of the stick.

I simply commented that that particular statistic is not a very good one. You then went on to infer from that that I was saying therefore the situation isn’t bad.

Except I simply was just saying that that statistic isn’t a great statistic. Not commenting at all on if the situation is terrible. It quite clearly is. And there’s many many better and more relevant statistics that show that. The number of tests returning positive as a % of tests taken is useful insofar as it might indicate a trend, but other then that does nothing because it has too many variables that impact it other than having the virus or not which make it less helpful.
Click to expand...

rpitroda said:
I think you did get the wrong end of the stick.

I simply commented that that particular statistic is not a very good one. You then went on to infer from that that I was saying therefore the situation isn’t bad.

Except I simply was just saying that that statistic isn’t a great statistic. Not commenting at all on if the situation is terrible. It quite clearly is. And there’s many many better and more relevant statistics that show that. The number of tests returning positive as a % of tests taken is useful insofar as it might indicate a trend, but other then that does nothing because it has too many variables that impact it other than having the virus or not which make it less helpful.
Click to expand...

I inferred that you might be suggesting that things were not as bad Thats a massive leap from isn't bad.

It's the absolute certainty of your conclusion based on incomplete data that I have an issue with.
 
Just found out my partner did a c-section on a patient who later tested positive for covid. She had to self isolate and whilst I don’t, I have no idea how to act in the house. Do I just stay away from her, sleep in different rooms etc?

10-15 staff members taken out in one go apparently
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.