Coronavirus update - NO MORE RESTRICTIONS

[tell it like it is]

Re: Coronavirus update

That is just silly.
Its not the danger to the individual its the effect of catching it and passing it on and it spreading.

What does that mean? Who is the individual and why it is not a danger to him? Is the person catcing it not an individual? Is the person passing it on not an individual? What is the difference between going to work and catching it, passing it on etc and going to the pub and doing it? The only difference is that someone with the need to work and earn money must go to work but if he so chooses he does not 'have' to go to the pub.
When they open pubs its got to be safe not just for those that use them
How would pubs be not safe to people who don't go to them? that defeats me completely. The people who owrk in them and deliver stock to them will be doing what other people are doing every day now, and like the customers they can choose to do it or not. Publicans and their staff need to be allowed to go back to work just like everybody else.

An individual can have the virus, have no symptoms or ill effects. It can still be transmitted. Hence it isn't a danger to some individuals but can well be dangerous to some they encounter.

[tell it like it is]

Re: Coronavirus update

Quote from the "Independent Sage" meeting which can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFLA...ature=youtu.be

Allyson Pollock is Professor Allyson Pollock, co-director of the Newcastle University Centre for Excellence in Regulatory Science. Sir David King (name most linked with meeting in papers, but not only name involved) is former chief scientific adviser to UK government.

The WHO are saying one thing, the UK government are saying another and the only explanation is "we follow the science." At what point do we in the UK get to find out what's being said and by whom?

The "alternate SAGE" group somewhat inconveniently only features scientists linked to Labour. I'd have thought a more balanced group would have been sought to deflect accusations of political bias?

[xsnaggle]

Re: Coronavirus update

An individual can have the virus, have no symptoms or ill effects. It can still be transmitted. Hence it isn't a danger to some individuals but can well be dangerous to some they encounter.

Who are also individuals. And the same "carrier" can do exactly the same thing at work or on the way there or their way home. And someone catching it at work will still endanger everyone he meets after work.

My point is that the average man in the street will see that its no difference to him going to work and putting himself at risk so will baulk at being continally told he cannot do the things he wants but can do the things he must.

The trace and track app will help people to know if they have been in contact and hopefully they will then isolate when told.

[surge]

Re: Coronavirus update

The "alternate SAGE" group somewhat inconveniently only features scientists linked to Labour. I'd have thought a more balanced group would have been sought to deflect accusations of political bias?

What is your opinion on the quote I highlighted? Do you understand why WHO are saying isolate for 14 days and UK says 7 days? The openness should allow statements to be reviewed and more baseless comments to be 'corrected'.

[xsnaggle]

Re: Coronavirus update

What is your opinion on the quote I highlighted? Do you understand why WHO are saying isolate for 14 days and UK says 7 days? The openness should allow statements to be reviewed and more baseless comments to be 'corrected'.

In all honesty I have always understood the isolation was for a recommended 14 days becuase it can take up to 10 days for symptoms to show.

[tell it like it is]

Re: Coronavirus update

What is your opinion on the quote I highlighted? Do you understand why WHO are saying isolate for 14 days and UK says 7 days? The openness should allow statements to be reviewed and more baseless comments to be 'corrected'.

Should, but won't. When one of the scientists in the alternate SAGE group is married to Corbyn's special advisor, daughter is Head of Complaints ( and being sued by Rachel Riley ) to name but one example, then for every "correct" questioning, I suspect every little thing will be found. WIll Pollock, who tweeted this, https://twitter.com/AllysonPollock/s...29088801525760 act impartiallY?

It's just staggering that whoever put that group together couldn't get a cross section of political views amongst the group. No Tories, no Lib Dems, no SNP, no Plaid.

Even if they do act independently and not as a partisan group, the accusation can always be levelled.

[surge]

Re: Coronavirus update

In all honesty I have always understood the isolation was for a recommended 14 days becuase it can take up to 10 days for symptoms to show.

I don't want to say UK government says 7 days from showing symptoms because obviously if you're unwell on day 7 you don't act as if it's over on day 8, however there seems to be conflicting advice about how long you can be infectious for and I don't understand why. The unknown (some names released today) scientists say it's political decision, the politician's say "we follow the science" and there isn't enough openness about what that "science" is or where it stops.

All scientists will have political views as well as personal bias within scientific field. As far as I understand, they're meant to be aware of them, to remove it as much as possible when making conclusions and be open in information used so can be peer reviewed. The accusation that they're biased will be made most by those i) concerned they're not acting in proper way and ii) dislike conclusions being drawn. Guess my question remains though, is it right that we seemingly don't know why there is conflicting information between WHO and UK government?

[xsnaggle]

Re: Coronavirus update

I don't want to say UK government says 7 days from showing symptoms because obviously if you're unwell on day 7 you don't act as if it's over on day 8, however there seems to be conflicting advice about how long you can be infectious for and I don't understand why. The unknown (some names released today) scientists say it's political decision, the politician's say "we follow the science" and there isn't enough openness about what that "science" is or where it stops.

All scientists will have political views as well as personal bias within scientific field. As far as I understand, they're meant to be aware of them, to remove it as much as possible when making conclusions and be open in information used so can be peer reviewed. The accusation that they're biased will be made most by those i) concerned they're not acting in proper way and ii) dislike conclusions being drawn. Guess my question remains though, is it right that we seemingly don't know why there is conflicting information between WHO and UK government?

well the WHO said at the weekend that the safe distance might be just a metre but UK Gov says its still 2. Which would you beleive in that scenario?
People believe what gthey want to beleive.

[A Quiet Monkfish]

Re: Coronavirus update

well the WHO said at the weekend that the safe distance might be just a metre but UK Gov says its still 2. Which would you beleive in that scenario?
People believe what gthey want to beleive.

There's a difference between choosing which scenario suits one personally, and actually not swallowing everything the Authorities tell us. I can't drive further than a designated distance from my home, yet being in my car is as safe as if I'm tucked up in bed at home. My children have self-isolated for 6 weeks. So have my wife and I. There is no logical, medical or safety reason why I shouldn't visit them, hold them. I think a Govt. that builds a hospital for 4000 people and treats 29 might actually get a few other things wrong..

[xsnaggle]

Re: Coronavirus update

There's a difference between choosing which scenario suits one personally, and actually not swallowing everything the Authorities tell us. I can't drive further than a designated distance from my home, yet being in my car is as safe as if I'm tucked up in bed at home. My children have self-isolated for 6 weeks. So have my wife and I. There is no logical, medical or safety reason why I shouldn't visit them, hold them. I think a Govt. that builds a hospital for 4000 people and treats 29 might actually get a few other things wrong..

I am not arguing with you about your family but it is an example od people saying "Oh the rules shouldn't apply to me because....." I fully agree about driving your car, it is one of the problems with unlocking, everyone will seek to use a car rather than catch public transport.
With regard to the hospitals, would you prefer that huge hospital be built on underused or that 29 people die on a trolley for lack of equipment? The press and others would have a field day.

[surge]

Re: Coronavirus update

well the WHO said at the weekend that the safe distance might be just a metre but UK Gov says its still 2. Which would you beleive in that scenario?
People believe what gthey want to beleive.

I guess the same point stands: I don't know what WHO are basing it off and unless they're open about information they're using my decision will be less informed than I would like.

[A Quiet Monkfish]

Re: Coronavirus update

I am not arguing with you about your family but it is an example od people saying "Oh the rules shouldn't apply to me because....." I fully agree about driving your car, it is one of the problems with unlocking, everyone will seek to use a car rather than catch public transport.
With regard to the hospitals, would you prefer that huge hospital be built on underused or that 29 people die on a trolley for lack of equipment? The press and others would have a field day.

No, of course not. I'm just saying the Govt. - and their advisors, have been 'winging it'. It's not political, I just think in this country we're not very good at actually getting things done. There are 3 national health bodies, a bloated and inefficient civil service, things that are much more streamlined in Germany for example.

[xsnaggle]

Re: Coronavirus update

No, of course not. I'm just saying the Govt. - and their advisors, have been 'winging it'. It's not political, I just think in this country we're not very good at actually getting things done. There are 3 national health bodies, a bloated and inefficient civil service, things that are much more streamlined in Germany for example.

did you see the report about Germany's reproting today?

[tell it like it is]

Re: Coronavirus update

did you see the report about Germany's reproting today?

Still got to be peer reviewed, don't forget, but if it's true the German numbers are ten times those reported, then there's obviously more context applied.

[goats]

Re: Coronavirus update

No, of course not. I'm just saying the Govt. - and their advisors, have been 'winging it'. It's not political, I just think in this country we're not very good at actually getting things done. There are 3 national health bodies, a bloated and inefficient civil service, things that are much more streamlined in Germany for example.

Whitty is winging it? He shoots direct I feel