Lockdown Rebellion could happen because Neil Ferguson (who he?) nipped out 4 sex

[winkywanky]

I believe around 5% of all deaths had no underlying health conditions can't find anything official. This is the best I can find: External Link/Members Only

I would say that those you've listed should shield as well. I think that is perfectly sensible. We need the low risk people back in the work place to limit the damage to the economy.

So with all those millions going back to work, and many of them inevitably becoming infected as well, as well having to take weeks off work (and some becoming seriously ill and dying too), they go back to houses where all the other people are...their kids, their other halves. Some of them will be coming into contact with vulnerable people too, the ones who stayed at home.

The increase in the overall infection rate would likely become very high. And then we're back to the nightmare scenario of the NHS being overrun and all the rest of it.

You can't just pluck simple, 'convenient' figures out of the air and say it'll be alright. It's not that simple at all, there are knock-on effects.

[webpunter]

Prior to the virus the odds i was interested in were promotion from the championship
Have reset my horizon
Err like not dying
Read the article
Know its difficult for the health stattos to predict but an age split on the 5% would be ideal
Not that it changes anything
Have read stuff suggesting genetics play a significant factor
But not enuf info to show why.  Well not yet 

I believe around 5% of all deaths had no underlying health conditions can't find anything official. This is the best I can find: External Link/Members Only

I would say that those you've listed should shield as well. I think that is perfectly sensible. We need the low risk people back in the work place to limit the damage to the economy.

[Doc Holliday]

A few facts:  The average age of those who have dies across the UK and Europe are 80 years old.  And while no one wants to see a loved one die under any circumstances, the vast majority of these patients have died with at least three other known pre-existing morbidities.  The cases (and there are some) of youngsters dying are a rare anomaly.  We are witnessing a pandemic which has close to influenza levels of mortality. 

I will resist questioning 'the few facts' but, that aside, the problem is the number of hospital admissions, rather than death being the outcome. The average age of admissions is around 60 which covers a much wider range of ages. Level 1 care will involve basic respiratory assistance, which may progress to level 2 ie intubation and ventilation, possibly with other organ support. The majority admitted to hospital will survive but sadly of those who need level 2 support roughly 50% will not make it. Most of these will be in higher risk categories be it age related, gender, comorbidities etc

Now lets say you could somehow successfully shield and prevent that group from becoming infected and needing hospitalisation. If you then allowed uncontrolled spread of the virus in the community the NHS would still be swamped with cases and could collapse. The only difference being that the outcome of such cases may be better ie less deaths.

The problem is coming out of lockdown at just the right pace to keep hospital admissions at the right level. Nobody really knows how to do that as nobody has yet done it and it can quickly run away with you.

An example of how difficult this virus can be in terms of infectivity has just occurred in South Korea. They have closed nightclubs after a rapid cluster of cases. In one cluster their excellent track and trace found one carrier had infected all but one of 18 people in just 24 hours.

[johnbanebridge]

So with all those millions going back to work, and many of them inevitably becoming infected as well, as well having to take weeks off work (and some becoming seriously ill and dying too), they go back to houses where all the other people are...their kids, their other halves. Some of them will be coming into contact with vulnerable people too, the ones who stayed at home.

The increase in the overall infection rate would likely become very high. And then we're back to the nightmare scenario of the NHS being overrun and all the rest of it.

You can't just pluck simple, 'convenient' figures out of the air and say it'll be alright. It's not that simple at all, there are knock-on effects.

I've not plucked any figures out the air, I've been to the ONS, what better source? And to answer your first point, I would suggest anyone living with a vulnerable person should maintain shielding and isolation as well. Children don't seem to be adversely affected by the virus. 

This lockdown can't go on forever. We need an nuanced plan now, those who are high risk or live with high risk people continue to isolate and those that are low risk and can get back into the economy.

[Beamer]

I will resist questioning 'the few facts' but, that aside, the problem is the number of hospital admissions, rather than death being the outcome. The average age of admissions is around 60 which covers a much wider range of ages. Level 1 care will involve basic respiratory assistance, which may progress to level 2 ie intubation and ventilation, possibly with other organ support. The majority admitted to hospital will survive but sadly of those who need level 2 support roughly 50% will not make it. Most of these will be in higher risk categories be it age related, gender, comorbidities etc

Now lets say you could somehow successfully shield and prevent that group from becoming infected and needing hospitalisation. If you then allowed uncontrolled spread of the virus in the community the NHS would still be swamped with cases and could collapse. The only difference being that the outcome of such cases may be better ie less deaths.

The problem is coming out of lockdown at just the right pace to keep hospital admissions at the right level. Nobody really knows how to do that as nobody has yet done it and it can quickly run away with you.

An example of how difficult this virus can be in terms of infectivity has just occurred in South Korea. They have closed nightclubs after a rapid cluster of cases. In one cluster their excellent track and trace found one carrier had infected all but one of 18 people in just 24 hours.

Yet another example of clear information based on facts rather the rantings based on B.S. associated with so many posts that cover Covid-19. Thanks Doc

[Kev40ish]

So with all those millions going back to work, and many of them inevitably becoming infected as well, as well having to take weeks off work (and some becoming seriously ill and dying too), they go back to houses where all the other people are...their kids, their other halves. Some of them will be coming into contact with vulnerable people too, the ones who stayed at home.

The increase in the overall infection rate would likely become very high. And then we're back to the nightmare scenario of the NHS being overrun and all the rest of it.

You can't just pluck simple, 'convenient' figures out of the air and say it'll be alright. It's not that simple at all, there are knock-on effects.

I get what your saying, like the Hong Kong flu of 1968 it was the second wave that killed the most people.

There was no lockdown a million killed with a less dangerous virus.

However, I do feel that the world we are creating for ourselves, if the economy doesn’t restart, will lead to massive numbers of deaths due to poverty.

Every outcome we make will cost lives, recessions costs lives a balance needs to found.

How many excess deaths will there be in Africa due to poverty and no one really caring about the famines and diseases there, as we have our own problems to focus on.

It’s a difficult decision for the leaders to make but they do need to look at the whole picture for once.

[winkywanky]

I've not plucked any figures out the air, I've been to the ONS, what better source? And to answer your first point, I would suggest anyone living with a vulnerable person should maintain shielding and isolation as well. Children don't seem to be adversely affected by the virus. 

This lockdown can't go on forever. We need an nuanced plan now, those who are high risk or live with high risk people continue to isolate and those that are low risk and can get back into the economy.

My point was that you were using simple, basic figures to jusify your over-simplified reasoning. It doesn't work like that.

At least I actually addressed your points. Once again, even though I pointedly stated that those who question the Lockdown never seem to engage with the likelihood of there being a very large spike, with all the horrible stuff no-one really wants to contemplate, so it is again with your post  .

How many more extra infections will there be with a reduced Lockdown...any ideas? These are the sums being done which define the govt's response to this pandemic.

Of course Lockdown can't go on forever, no one ever said that. But coming out of it needs to be done ultra-carefully. That IS the nuanced plan.

[winkywanky]

I get what your saying, like the Hong Kong flu of 1968 it was the second wave that killed the most people.

There was no lockdown a million killed with a less dangerous virus.

However, I do feel that the world we are creating for ourselves, if the economy doesn’t restart, will lead to massive numbers of deaths due to poverty.

Every outcome we make will cost lives, recessions costs lives a balance needs to found.

How many excess deaths will there be in Africa due to poverty and no one really caring about the famines and diseases there, as we have our own problems to focus on.

It’s a difficult decision for the leaders to make but they do need to look at the whole picture for once.

The economy WILL restart, pretty sure I saw Mark Carney on telly around a week ago saying that he thought recovery to original GDP levels could take two to three years. The bounce-back should be incredibly fast.


You think a Tory govt (and that's no dig at them) isn't looking at the whole picture, in other words to consider the economy too? Of course they are.

We keep getting all these bold statements from people about how the Lockdown doesn't need to be this bad, yet, they never seem to acknowledge the level of infection and deaths we'd have if it wasn't.

The medicine is horrible, but the alternatives are even more horrible.

[Kev40ish]

The economy WILL restart, pretty sure I saw Mark Carney on telly around a week ago saying that he thought recovery to original GDP levels could take two to three years. The bounce-back should be incredibly fast.


You think a Tory govt (and that's no dig at them) isn't looking at the whole picture, in other words to consider the economy too? Of course they are.

We keep getting all these bold statements from people about how the Lockdown doesn't need to be this bad, yet, they never seem to acknowledge the level of infection deaths we'd have if it wasn't.

The medicine is horrible, but the alternatives are even more horrible.

There is no way the economy can survive this if it continues much longer. The debt is too massive. Unemployment will be at an unprecedent level.

Obviously social distancing needs to remain but it does not need to be as restrictive as I know it will be.
Those at risk must remain shielded but it does mean a lot of the population can go back to work and kick start the economy.

Offices, factories and building sites should all reopen following reasonable safety measures

Anyone who is over 65, the obese or people with underlying health conditions should assume responsibility for their own safety, sheltering if they wish.

How many of the 6.3 million people furloughed really will have jobs to go back to if action isn’t taken now?

We need decisive decision making not just hoping what we do will work in the hope that a vaccine will appear soon.  How long do we wait?
 
It won’t affect me or my family as much as other. I have plenty of savings to survive anything that happens and help my children, but there are many less fortunate than me and they are the ones I am concerned about.
The underdeveloped countries will not survive this, but that doesn’t matter there are millions dying there, which dwarfs the Coronavirus every year

[winkywanky]

There is no way the economy can survive this if it continues much longer. The debt is too massive. Unemployment will be at an unprecedent level.

Obviously social distancing needs to remain but it does not need to be as restrictive as I know it will be.
Those at risk must remain shielded but it does mean a lot of the population can go back to work and kick start the economy.

Offices, factories and building sites should all reopen following reasonable safety measures

Anyone who is over 65, the obese or people with underlying health conditions should assume responsibility for their own safety, sheltering if they wish.

How many of the 6.3 million people furloughed really will have jobs to go back to if action isn’t taken now?

We need decisive decision making not just hoping what we do will work in the hope that a vaccine will appear soon.  How long do we wait?

I'm gonna be honest and say I put more store in what Mark Carney says, than what you say  .

The vaccine will quite possibly be available from this Autumn. Obviously I'll get it before you because I'm old  . Joking aside, we will get through this.

The thing to consider is that if we have a big spike, apart from the extra grief from the surge in deaths and serious illness, that in itself would stall the economy.

[Kev40ish]

I'm gonna be honest and say I put more store in what Mark Carney says, than what you say  .

He came and studied the same subject as me at my Uni after Harvard. So we both have the same grounding.

However he like politicians and other financial institutions would want to talk down the potential impact.

And City types are not really the best at looking after money!!!!

I am also not advocating a total relaxation that would lead to a massive spike. I just know I’ll be disappointed with what will be given.
For me it will not go far enough to allow businesses to survive

[winkywanky]

He came and studied the same subject as me at my Uni after Harvard. So we both have the same grounding.

However he like politicians and other financial institutions would want to talk down the potential impact.

And City types are not really the best at looking after money!!!!

Not that I know shit about that stuff, but I always found Carney to be measured and cautious in tone and actions.

And he's no longer the Governor of the Bank of England, so although in a way he's still 'establishment', I don't think he'd say stuff just to be nice to the govt?

[Kev40ish]

Not that I know shit about that stuff, but I always found Carney to be measured and cautious in tone and actions.

And he's no longer the Governor of the Bank of England, so although in a way he's still 'establishment', I don't think he'd say stuff just to be nice to the govt?

He still has political influence, just working with the UN now. So still needs to be up beat.
There are just as many eminent economists predicting doom and gloom.
The best quote I’ve seen that sums it up is.
“It’s a virus-driven ice age”.

“It is an abrupt stop of economic activity, from 100 to zero in just a few days or weeks,” that made it extremely difficult to forecast the outlook.

So like the modelling of the virus itself. Who really knows 

[Spencer Fobby]

You tell me to keep the debate rational and objective, but you don't want to hear just how people die from Covid?  Sorry, but that's the way it is. It's bad enough that you have to be sedated to go onto a ventilator, where you know you have a 50% chance of ever waking up again, but if you weren't able to be treated in hospital you would literally suffocate or die of organ failure. OK then, got that out of the way.

Like everyone else who posts here saying Lockdown is too harsh, you never acknowledge just how many MORE people would become infected if it were looser[/i]. We'll probably have say, 50,000 deaths even with a full Lockdown. With non-vulnerables carrying on working (that's probably 60% of the population?), however careful the majority were, even if the usual 10% of people who fuck it up for everyone else did their usual suff, taking risks, doing things they shouldn't, that could easily become 250,000 deaths. Assuming roughly the same proportion of those would be old, as are dying now, roughly the same proportion of deaths would be younger, ie five times as many now. And as for that sheer number, you don't think that level of infection wouldn't wreck the NHS? And the inevitable corollary of that would be many, many more of the Emergency Services falling ill too?

The sheer number of extra infections would bring the country to its knees in any case, with all the ill people, even if they didn't die, being unable to work for weeks on end.

I can't be sure. Can you? Some scientists are saying the Lockdown could be less, it'd probably be OK. They can't be totally sure of course. So would you be willing to risk the nightmate scenario?  Like I say, 50,000 deaths with a full Lockdown, how many with a lesser Lockdown. Do you feel lucky?

Economic indicators are that although the depression caused by all this has been devastatingly quick and deep, because there were no underlying economic causes, recovery should be swift. I'm not stupid enough to think the collateral damage won't be truly horrible, to the economy and to people's mental health, but this whole situation is a balancing act, weighing one horrible consequence against another. There is no win here, it will be shit.

It's not that I don't want to hear how people die, it's that I would like to keep the debate and discussion on a less emotional level and not descend into a heated argument.  There's been some intimation that I don't care about my elderly relatives.  I do. 

You complain about someone asking how you would feel if it was your parents then in the next breath say you're willing to sacrifice them for your children's prosperity !
Yep, that's exactly how it read !

You may find it strange but some people value their parents more than their children's economic prosperity.

We obviously have different priorities but I see no justification for letting people die prematurely !

How many more people?  I don't know, but I don't think it would ever have reached the levels that Neil Ferguson warned of and his modelling is being challenged in many quarters. 

We were too late going into lockdown and the virus had spread significantly, it could have been even less than it is.  I do think that an earlier, more targeted lockdown with more significant care for those at risk would probably have been more effective.  If you read my post, I never said I was against lockdown - I said the first three weeks was sensible.  I also say that more effort is needed to help the elderly and those at higher risk. 

I will resist questioning 'the few facts'

Those facts come from here, Doc.  Anne McElvoy from the Economist interviewing Britain’s most eminent statistician David Spiegelhalter, biometrics expert Sheila Bird, and the American scientist John Ioannidis, who has written that Covid-19 ‘might be a one-in-a-century evidence fiasco’

External Link/Members Only

I believe we are now at a tipping point where the lives lost trough the virus (which equates on average to lives shortened on average by 1.5 years) compared to lives lost and livelihoods lost and a way of life lost needs to be re-weighed and reconsidered and a method found quickly to minimise both.  A method that is pragmatic and not simply focused on an emotive and angry response to what is a genuine tragedy. 

And for the record hornyguylondon, I wasn't suggesting sacrificing my parents for the sake of my children's economic prosperity.  That is exactly the kind of over emotional deliberate reframing of my intentions that inflates a discussion into a pointless argument.  If you read my words again, you may see that.

[webpunter]

In addition to your research i particularly enjoyed delving into some of your reviews

SophieEnglish  /  36GG  /   External Link/Members Only

JuicyJugsXXX  /   36GG  /    External Link/Members Only

There is a 36GG theme 

Presented with either of these burds in front of any UKP'er i challenge them not to be thinking like its only once

Rat drainpipe up

Their racks are so massive social distancing could well be possible !

HL is +1 

Glad you liked my research. Couldn't find a breakdown from an official source like the ONS.

[webpunter]

Kirie or whatever her name is, will be well pissed off

Slut Cum Dump      External Link/Members Only

How very dare anyone top her stats on infection rates [on the big one as well as the 'C' virus]

 

In one cluster their excellent track and trace found one carrier had infected all but one of 18 people in just 24 hours.

[sparkus]

In addition to your research i particularly enjoyed delving into some of your reviews

SophieEnglish  /  36GG  /   External Link/Members Only

JuicyJugsXXX  /   36GG  /    External Link/Members Only

There is a 36GG theme 

Presented with either of these burds in front of any UKP'er i challenge them not to be thinking like its only once

Rat drainpipe up

Their racks are so massive social distancing could well be possible !

HL is +1 

I've long used bra size/nickname in AW searches, seems a no-brainer?

There was a Spanish in Dagenham with 38HH, never any availability

[webpunter]

On here it is possible to learn something most days
Today is deffo one of them
I was thinking i have searchin on Awank down to a T
[going off piste - referring to T's do hope golf starts soon]

I now have a bunch of new search criteria
36
38
40
DD
EE
FF
GG
HH

A bit scary beyond 40 / HH

You Sir are a genius 
And i see my HL heading north for when things start again  & 

I've long used bra size/nickname in AW searches, seems a no-brainer?

There was a Spanish in Dagenham with 38HH, never any availability

[webpunter]

There was a Spanish in Dagenham
Maybe she was in WestHam

Never any availabillitty
How much would i luv a play with her titty

With the virus its all gone Pete Tong
But boy would i luv if she sucked on my dong

I'll think of her tits & wank with my mits
Though i doubt if i'll last very long 

Boom boom

There was a Spanish in Dagenham with 38HH, never any availability

[sparkus]

There was a Spanish in Dagenham
Maybe she was in WestHam

Never any availabillitty
How much would i luv a play with her titty

With the virus its all gone Pete Tong
But boy would i luv if she sucked on my dong

I'll think of her tits & wank with my mits
Though i doubt if i'll last very long 

Boom boom

Boom-tish.

We're going back almost a decade but I'm sure she was Dagenham East and nickname was Arianna38HH or thereabouts.

Pics were of a tall well built mature bird in basque with a pair of basketballs on her chest

Never ever answered and the only time she did she was manana manana 

[sparkus]

I'd call off the Freedom Monday celebrations: External Link/Members Only

News to these but I think even the apocalyps(o) looks better: External Link/Members Only

Worst week in comms since Gerald Ratner was put in charge of a jewellers.

[Colston36]

I thought he was a scientist.

It's perfectly possible to be a scientist, a statistician, a randy bugger and an idiot. "Each man in his time plays many parts" - W. S.

Boris the bullshitter was a journalist, public speaker and rather bad mayor of London.

[Doc Holliday]

Those facts come from here, Doc.  Anne McElvoy from the Economist interviewing Britain’s most eminent statistician David Spiegelhalter, biometrics expert Sheila Bird, and the American scientist John Ioannidis, who has written that Covid-19 ‘might be a one-in-a-century evidence fiasco’

External Link/Members Only

Thanks for the link .. an excellent podcast discussion which I listened through to the full hour.

I would still question though your 'few facts' statement. The message from the discussion is very much that there are currently few facts just data and whilst there is a lot data, there is still not enough. No mileage in me pursuing the facts you gave any further. However ....

I believe we are now at a tipping point where the lives lost trough the virus (which equates on average to lives shortened on average by 1.5 years)

Cannot let that one go   NOBODY can make a factual statement such as that until at least a few years down the line.  My own 'instinct' is it will be incorrect but I may be wrong? We simply do not know.

Thanks again for the link I enjoyed listening to it. All three agreed there was no option but to use a blunt tool of lockdown because we were badly prepared and that we need to get out of it at the earliest opportunity. How we do that safely is unbelievably complex ... reminds me of this External Link/Members Only

As I have posted before I would not want to have to be making those difficult decisions that lie ahead in the not too distant future.

EDIT I loved the way none of them could explain the anomaly that is Germany's data ... David Spiegelhalter actually passed on the question 

[winkywanky]

He still has political influence, just working with the UN now. So still needs to be up beat.
There are just as many eminent economists predicting doom and gloom.
The best quote I’ve seen that sums it up is.
“It’s a virus-driven ice age”.

“It is an abrupt stop of economic activity, from 100 to zero in just a few days or weeks,” that made it extremely difficult to forecast the outlook.

So like the modelling of the virus itself. Who really knows 

Certainly this is a time of great uncertainty, systems and 'things' are getting a hard reset, everything thrown up in the air, no-one can really tell how they'll land and how things will be when they do.

I think it's fair to say some things will never be the same, some for the good, some for the worse.

[winkywanky]

It's not that I don't want to hear how people die, it's that I would like to keep the debate and discussion on a less emotional level and not descend into a heated argument. There's been some intimation that I don't care about my elderly relatives.  I do. 

How many more people?  I don't know, but I don't think it would ever have reached the levels that Neil Ferguson warned of and his modelling is being challenged in many quarters. 

We were too late going into lockdown and the virus had spread significantly, it could have been even less than it is.  I do think that an earlier, more targeted lockdown with more significant care for those at risk would probably have been more effective.  If you read my post, I never said I was against lockdown - I said the first three weeks was sensible.  I also say that more effort is needed to help the elderly and those at higher risk. 

Those facts come from here, Doc.  Anne McElvoy from the Economist interviewing Britain’s most eminent statistician David Spiegelhalter, biometrics expert Sheila Bird, and the American scientist John Ioannidis, who has written that Covid-19 ‘might be a one-in-a-century evidence fiasco’

External Link/Members Only

I believe we are now at a tipping point where the lives lost trough the virus (which equates on average to lives shortened on average by 1.5 years) compared to lives lost and livelihoods lost and a way of life lost needs to be re-weighed and reconsidered and a method found quickly to minimise both.  A method that is pragmatic and not simply focused on an emotive and angry response to what is a genuine tragedy. 

And for the record hornyguylondon, I wasn't suggesting sacrificing my parents for the sake of my children's economic prosperity.  That is exactly the kind of over emotional deliberate reframing of my intentions that inflates a discussion into a pointless argument.  If you read my words again, you may see that.

I would never suggest such a thing.

It also depends how people couch their argument, as to what response they get, from me certainly.

There have been many posts saying it's all bollocks, it's not that bad, I'm not going to put up with this shit, the govt are just using all this to take control, they don't care about us, etc, etc... And to justify that very basic and blunt sentiment, those people don't want to listen to the reasons behind the strategy. I therefore assume those are the people that meet up secretly with their mates/gfs, aren't careful about distancing and prevention protocols and basically break the rules to suit themselves. They get short shrift from me, because they are the people who are contributing greatly to the spread of the virus and that pisses me off somewhat, not just because of the danger they pose to me and mine, but which they pose to the country as a whole.

You're right that our response was late and somewhat ineffectual, with testing and tracking which quickly became overwhelmed and dropped, and of course the PPE scandal. There's reasons for all of those, some are ineptitude, others are simply owing to factors such as simply how our country is. Small example, Germany has a lot of the industry and technology to do with testing, we don't. So an instant disadvantage which is hard to recover from. Another example of the opposite is that we should have had way more PPE in the cupboards than we did, and that was as a result of ignoring a report around three years ago which said we needed to stock up. That's a fuck up.

But it doesn't matter how angry we get about that, it SHOULD NOT influence the strategy from this point onwards, and from any future points in time. It's no use saying we fucked up and that's why we have this horroble Lockdown, therefore the Lockdown can fuck off. It'll just make things worse. But of course it's a bitter pill to swallow to think that it needn't have been this bad.

The tipping point of which you speak, between the medicine being worse than the disease, of course it exists and needs to be considered. But the analysis of whether we've reached that point must be uncluttered with anger or resentment caused by previous shortcomings. And how many of us here are equipped to make informed judgement calls on that? Not least of which because we all have our own personal situations and our own ways that our lives are being fucked up.

Unfortunately, out of necessity by and large the response will be a one size fits all one, to a great degree (but with larger and larger targeted tweaks) we all have to put up with the same shit until it's all over.

[WARSZAWA16]

I walked to the supermarket and back yesterday afternoon. Saw lots of people and traffic about and quite a few buses pretty packed. Obviously the sunny weather played a big part, but many people are now just ignoring the government's advice and doing their own thing. Also, some sort of a party going on around the corner last night and parks in London very busy too apparently. 

[winkywanky]

We still haven't seen Boris's broadcast yet (tonight, at 7pm folks  ) but apparently the new guidance will have gone from:

STAY AT HOME

to...

STAY ALERT.

It's vague, and I hope and feel sure Boris will put that into context.

But for me personally that will be don't get into a situation where I feel I'd be in danger, and also assume every other fucker has Covid, and act accordingly.

I'll be going out more, going to more places, going further. But at no point will I get closer than 6' to people, I won't allow myself to be in the presence of big groups of people, certainly outside, and especially inside. I'll keep doing the handwashing business, and not touching my face.

I'm lucky, I don't work now and I don't have to make those judgement calls in the workplace. That's gonna be hard and difficult for many, and you just have to hope your employer is responsible over this. Whistleblowing needs to happen.

But, if I went to a park or open space and there were lots of people, clearly breaking guidelines, then I would just turn around and leave.

If I went to a supermarket and I felt protocols weren't being observed (the shop, or the customers), then I would leave and go elsewhere.

Any time I go out, if I see people fucking up, I'll keep away from them.

Finally, my house is my castle. No virus shall enter. So I'll still be washing my shopping down when I get home, I'll still be washing my hands every time I arrive home from outside, and everything that comes into my house, including parcels and the mail, gets washed down.

Some of that's possibly over the top, but it makes ME happy(er).

[Doc Holliday]

... and also assume every other fucker has Covid, and act accordingly.

That is the first rule of cross infection control for any contagious disease. How you proceed from there can be the more complex part, although much of it is still straightforward.

[winkywanky]

Yes, I just hope Boris fills out the latest slogan with lots of context, because if some people can't seem to understand/comply with even a very basic message, a nuanced one will potentially fly over a great many more people's heads.

[The Film Director]

I'm not sure in the scheme of things it will affect things that much, but this new message does appear to be a little confusing, particularly when nothing really seems to have changed.  Can't help thinking to need to 'move into another phase' has driven the need to change the message  (and probably driven by a special adviser  ) it sounds like the sort of thing a management consultant would do.

Also although I'm no fan of her a poor showing that the first Sturgeon knew about the changed messaging was reading it in the paper (so much for co-ordinating all 4 nations  )

[sparkus]

I'm not sure in the scheme of things it will affect things that much, but this new message does appear to be a little confusing, particularly when nothing really seems to have changed.  Can't help thinking to need to 'move into another phase' has driven the need to change the message  (and probably driven by a special adviser  ) it sounds like the sort of thing a management consultant would do.

Also although I'm no fan of her a poor showing that the first Sturgeon knew about the changed messaging was reading it in the paper (so much for co-ordinating all 4 nations  )

Whichever way you look at it, it's a fucking mess.

[hornyguylondon]

I'm not sure in the scheme of things it will affect things that much, but this new message does appear to be a little confusing, particularly when nothing really seems to have changed.  Can't help thinking to need to 'move into another phase' has driven the need to change the message  (and probably driven by a special adviser  ) it sounds like the sort of thing a management consultant would do.

Also although I'm no fan of her a poor showing that the first Sturgeon knew about the changed messaging was reading it in the paper (so much for co-ordinating all 4 nations  )

Wouldn't something more meaningful and direct such as "keep your distance" register more with people 

Sounds like we're now reaching a stage where there will be divergence between the devolved nations so expect the gloves to come off as we come out of this 

[xyfek]

'Stay Alert' is such a rubbish slogan. What does that even mean given the current situation?! The virus is invisible to the naked eye, are we just meant to assume that everyone has it and act accordingly?

Like hornyguy says, 'keep your distance' would be much more to the point.

[hornyguylondon]

'Stay Alert' is such a rubbish slogan. What does that even mean given the current situation?! The virus is invisible to the naked eye, are we just meant to assume that everyone has it and act accordingly?

Like hornyguy says, 'keep your distance' would be much more to the point.

Cheers and my Management Consultant fees are only 10k per word 

[pdq]

I have been reading up about the imperial software used to model cv19 and other epidemics and there is a debate about the rigour of the software eg using the same "seeds" produces different results each time its run.
External Link/Members Only


Anyway to cut a long story short AW is being used as an example of unpredicted effects

External Link/Members Only

Don't think the guy understands  aw as well as he thinks he does. Wonder how he knows about is and is he a member here

[GreyDave]

I have been reading up about the imperial software used to model cv19 and other epidemics and there is a debate about the rigour of the software eg using the same "seeds" produces different results each time its run.
External Link/Members Only


Anyway to cut a long story short AW is being used as an example of unpredicted effects

External Link/Members Only

Don't think the guy understands  aw as well as he thinks he does. Wonder how he knows about is and is he a member here

Lads you lot need to do a bit more home work like this Guy ! Look he did importantant work and even his mother in law has come out and defended him re this Gal Staats.

He was working " Hard" from home with a girl who was a "Super Spreader" what he did was for the good of the Nation 

[lostandfound]

In another context it would be hilarious to see scientists being attacked by the TDD thought police.

At least it's not Excel or R.

Of course any self respecting data scientist would have done it in Haskell. Or erlang - we might have to wait for the results but we could get John Hughes to do the testing.

[pdq]

Have to laugh some wag put this in a GitHub comment

"Not feature complete. It doesn’t simulate violating lockdowns to sleep with married women."

[lostandfound]

It's perfectly possible to be a scientist, a statistician, a randy bugger and an idiot. "Each man in his time plays many parts" - W. S.

Boris the bullshitter was a journalist, public speaker and rather bad mayor of London.

Very true, and I saw that comment and thought I should reply. But when someone thinks a scientist is not also a statistician I don't know where to start.

[winkywanky]

'Stay Alert' is such a rubbish slogan. What does that even mean given the current situation?! The virus is invisible to the naked eye, are we just meant to assume that everyone has it and act accordingly?

Like hornyguy says, 'keep your distance' would be much more to the point.

I would say so. And I did earlier..

It's not just about keeping distance though. As the govt said early on, and I think it's still the case, it's easy to pick it up from stuff/things others have touched before you.

I think as a headline slogan Stay Alert isn't bad. But it urgently needs clarification.

[hornyguylondon]

I would say so. And I did earlier..

It's not just about keeping distance though. As the govt said early on, and I think it's still the case, it's easy to pick it up from stuff/things others have touched before you.

I think as a headline slogan Stay Alert isn't bad. But it urgently needs clarification.

It could be argued that "keep your distance" is still very applicable to the key distancing strategy, whether it's people or surfaces. No slogan's perfect but if if it needs too much clarification it defeats the object. Boris has hit the spot with previous slogans and I'm not one of his experts so time will tell   

[winkywanky]

It could be argued that "keep your distance" is still very applicable to the key distancing strategy, whether it's people or surfaces. No slogan's perfect but if if it needs too much clarification it defeats the object. Boris has hit the spot with previous slogans and I'm not one of his experts so time will tell   

Of course it is, and having heard Boris's little speech tonight, although he could have been clearer, that's his wish.

What I took from the speech was that he's encouraging people to go back to work, so long as they're able to get there without breaking the (same) distancing rules as before, and also be able to do that in their job. Of course not everyone will be able to do that unfortunately. From June they're looking at Junior schools possibly re-opening, and from July possibly the hospitality sector opening up carefully, I guess pubs, restaurants etc, perhaps ones where people can sit outside, or inside if they're able to keep customers far enough apart?

But any of this, only if the R rate is good.

Currently I have several sets of roadworks near my gaff, each with 3-5 guys working on them. Any time I go past, I see the guys needlessly breaking guidelines by having a chat or just hanging about really closely to each other, needlessly. And I see some more Brighton (?) footballers have just gone down with Covid. Seems to much of a coincidence to me, they're obviously not observing protocols  .

[webpunter]

+1
On post & parcels i either leave in a storage place by the front door for 3 days [well a day & a half minimum]
Or open & the do the handwashing 70%+ gel stuff [both actually on the latter]
Shopping the same - some stuff can be left outside.  A big bucket of water & some bleach works the best

Finally, my house is my castle. No virus shall enter. So I'll still be washing my shopping down when I get home, I'll still be washing my hands every time I arrive home from outside, and everything that comes into my house, including parcels and the mail, gets washed down.

[winkywanky]

+1
On post & parcels i either leave in a storage place by the front door for 3 days [well a day & a half minimum]
Or open & the do the handwashing 70%+ gel stuff [both actually on the latter]
Shopping the same - some stuff can be left outside.  A big bucket of water & some bleach works the best

It's like military manoeuvres 

[Avg_Joe]

go to work, but don't use public transport.... well that's gonna choke in the throats of car haters, because people WILL be using their cars, not walking or cycling.

.... and there also goes the quiet roads we've seen of late lol

[hornyguylondon]

Of course it is, and having heard Boris's little speech tonight, although he could have been clearer, that's his wish.

What I took from the speech was that he's encouraging people to go back to work, so long as they're able to get there without breaking the (same) distancing rules as before, and also be able to do that in their job. Of course not everyone will be able to do that unfortunately. From June they're looking at Junior schools possibly re-opening, and from July possibly the hospitality sector opening up carefully, I guess pubs, restaurants etc, perhaps ones where people can sit outside, or inside if they're able to keep customers far enough apart?

But any of this, only if the R rate is good.

Currently I have several sets of roadworks near my gaff, each with 3-5 guys working on them. Any time I go past, I see the guys needlessly breaking guidelines by having a chat or just hanging about really closely to each other, needlessly. And I see some more Brighton (?) footballers have just gone down with Covid. Seems to much of a coincidence to me, they're obviously not observing protocols  .

Yep, I do understand what he's trying to do, it looks like a "suck it and see" approach but we do have to start somewhere. They should however, have had a clearer, concise message (and slogan) given they've had several weeks to plan how to communicate this. Balancing the health and economics as we relax lockdown is going to be a minefield politically so let's hope they can clarify things better going forward.

I've also seen several teams of workers in neighbouring houses not distancing throughout the lockdown period so expect that to pick up after this announcement.
As for football - don't get me started 
 

[winkywanky]

There have been some subtle changes to the CV Rules and I think politically it would have been a bit of a damp squib to keep the old slogan of Stay Home. And a bit mentally crushing to feel that no progress had been made (and of course it has).

So that begs the question, what will the new slogan be? You ideally want a two-word slogan so what two words would be better than Stay Alert? As a slogan, I think it's OK, it means we've moved on a little bit, but we still need to try hard to keep safe.

I guess an alternative slogan might have been Use Your Fucking Loaf but that might not have gone down too well  .

[hornyguylondon]

There have been some subtle changes to the CV Rules and I think politically it would have been a bit of a damp squib to keep the old slogan of Stay Home. And a bit mentally crushing to feel that no progress had been made (and of course it has).

So that begs the question, what will the new slogan be? You ideally want a two-word slogan so what two words would be better than Stay Alert? As a slogan, I think it's OK, it means we've moved on a little bit, but we still need to try hard to keep safe.

I guess an alternative slogan might have been Use Your Fucking Loaf but that might not have gone down too well  .

Steady, we don't want people panic buying bread ! 

[winkywanky]

Shit, I hadn't thought of that and it just goes to show how careful you have to be, not to give people the wrong end of the stick