Coronavirus update - NO MORE RESTRICTIONS

[The Lone Gunman]

Re: Coronavirus update

He’s hardly alone though, labour got there arses handed to them in a plate last election, hugely embarrassing for them with some of the seats they lost. I won’t comment though, I hate the stuff.

Let's be honest, Johnson's ascension to power began with the Brexit referendum. I think the chances that he'd be Prime Minister and Cummings would be the government's top adviser without that Leave vote are slim to none.

[A Quiet Monkfish]

Re: Coronavirus update

You've neglected to mention a crumbling economy, rising unemployment, a variety of other health issues and the fact that a significant and ever-growing percentage of the population are sick to the back teeth of living like this.

The simple fact of the matter is that a full-scale lockdown was always going to be a temporary measure. There are valid arguments to suggest it began too late or it wasn't stringent enough in the UK, but that's effectively in the past now. You only have to have walked the streets in recent weeks to realise that things have changed significantly and many of the predictions about how things will work going forward are fanciful at best.

The ideas of either an indefinite continuation of the current restrictions or a reintroduction of earlier restrictions if the infection rate rises again are unworkable. Personally, I don't see any value at all in suggestion the lockdown should continue. It's just pointless.

Bloody hell. Never thought I'd read that !

[The Lone Gunman]

Re: Coronavirus update

Bloody hell. Never thought I'd read that !

Why? It's been my pretty much my position all along.

[A Quiet Monkfish]

Re: Coronavirus update

Why? It's been my pretty much my position all along.

Hang on. I remember 'discussing' with you around 8 weeks ago about the authorities telling an old couple to clear off from Llandaff Fields. I've been a sceptic [as I am with a lot of things] about lockdown from day 1.

[xsnaggle]

Re: Coronavirus update

You've neglected to mention a crumbling economy, rising unemployment, a variety of other health issues and the fact that a significant and ever-growing percentage of the population are sick to the back teeth of living like this.

The simple fact of the matter is that a full-scale lockdown was always going to be a temporary measure. There are valid arguments to suggest it began too late or it wasn't stringent enough in the UK, but that's effectively in the past now. You only have to have walked the streets in recent weeks to realise that things have changed significantly and many of the predictions about how things will work going forward are fanciful at best.

The ideas of either an indefinite continuation of the current restrictions or a reintroduction of earlier restrictions if the infection rate rises again are unworkable. Personally, I don't see any value at all in suggestion the lockdown should continue. It's just pointless.

I agree, I've said for weeks that people will push back against it eventually, and the bigger the divergence between governing bodies the harder people will push.

[The Lone Gunman]

Re: Coronavirus update

Hang on. I remember 'discussing' with you around 8 weeks ago about the authorities telling an old couple to clear off from Llandaff Fields. I've been a sceptic [as I am with a lot of things] about lockdown from day 1.

It was nine weeks ago, during the first full week of the UK lockdown, and at that stage the police were right to tell the pensioners (who had driven to Llandaff Fields) to clear off.

In my opinion, the original lockdown regulations in this country lacked common sense, were not stringent enough (particularly in terms of exercise and travel) and the guidance provided by the government was far too woolly and open to interpretation. However, as I said at the time, a full-scale lockdown (and let's be honest, we never really had one of those) could only ever be a temporary measure.

Since then, the effects of the virus have become more and more clear in terms of the percentage and age of the population it is affecting, and the government's guidance has become ever more ridiculous - especially the situation that has evolved regarding different rules in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The whole thing has been a badly-managed mess, but that doesn't alter the fact that a lockdown, regardless of how stringent it is, could only ever be temporary in nature.

[A Quiet Monkfish]

Re: Coronavirus update

I agree, I've said for weeks that people will push back against it eventually, and the bigger the divergence between governing bodies the harder people will push.

As Mark Drakeford says ".. this is not an invitation to go into a garden, have a few beers ...".

[The Lone Gunman]

Re: Coronavirus update

As Mark Drakeford says ".. this is not an invitation to go into a garden, have a few beers ...".

People haven't needed an invitation for that. They've been doing it for at least a month already.

[A Quiet Monkfish]

Re: Coronavirus update

It was nine weeks ago, during the first full week of the UK lockdown, and at that stage the police were right to tell the pensioners (who had driven to Llandaff Fields) to clear off.

In my opinion, the original lockdown regulations in this country lacked common sense, were not stringent enough (particularly in terms of exercise and travel) and the guidance provided by the government was far too woolly and open to interpretation. However, as I said at the time, a full-scale lockdown (and let's be honest, we never really had one of those) could only ever be a temporary measure.

Since then, the effects of the virus have become more and more clear in terms of the percentage and age of the population it is affecting, and the government's guidance has become ever more ridiculous - especially the situation that has evolved regarding different rules in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The whole thing has been a badly-managed mess, but that doesn't alter the fact that a lockdown, regardless of how stringent it is, could only ever be temporary in nature.

The lockdown in Wales is allegedly determined by the 'R' number, which is currently between 0.7 and 1. Thing is, this includes care homes. If you exclude care homes it's around .3. You don't get that publicized everywhere though.

[The Lone Gunman]

Re: Coronavirus update

The lockdown in Wales is allegedly determined by the 'R' number, which is currently between 0.7 and 1. Thing is, this includes care homes. If you exclude care homes it's around .3. You don't get that publicized everywhere though.

To be honest, I think a large percentage of people have long since stopped considering the specifics (if they were ever concerned with them in the first place). Personally, I've never really understood the 'R' number. It's never made sense to me. I'm sure if I sat down and studied the theory I'd get it eventually, but I've not bothered to try and I'm absolutely certain that's the case with the majority of the public.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Re: Coronavirus update

To be honest, I think a large percentage of people have long since stopped considering the specifics (if they were ever concerned with them in the first place). Personally, I've never really understood the 'R' number. It's never made sense to me. I'm sure if I sat down and studied the theory I'd get it eventually, but I've not bothered to try and I'm absolutely certain that's the case with the majority of the public.

R is the number of pirate sightings within British waters.

[delmbox]

Re: Coronavirus update

To be honest, I think a large percentage of people have long since stopped considering the specifics (if they were ever concerned with them in the first place). Personally, I've never really understood the 'R' number. It's never made sense to me. I'm sure if I sat down and studied the theory I'd get it eventually, but I've not bothered to try and I'm absolutely certain that's the case with the majority of the public.

It's the amount of people one person could infect. If it's above 1 the virus will grow exponentially, if it's below 1 it'll gradually die out due to lack of people infecting each other.

For example if the R number is 3 then each person who gets it will pass it on to 3 other people, if it's 1 then each person will pass it on to 1 other person. So if it's less than 1 then each person will pass it to "less" than one other person so it doesn't spread as much and dies.

Interestingly, left unchecked, measles has an R number of 15

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Coronavirus update

The lockdown in Wales is allegedly determined by the 'R' number, which is currently between 0.7 and 1. Thing is, this includes care homes. If you exclude care homes it's around .3. You don't get that publicized everywhere though.

Have you got anything you can link to regarding your claims about the R number? The infections by area chart I posted yesterday had something like five of the top 10 in the infections per 100,000 "league" with where I live, RCT, at the top- that is suggestive that the R number in certain parts of Wales is high compared to most of the UK.

[delmbox]

Re: Coronavirus update

Is this true? Not been keeping up with the death counts this week. Crazy if it is

https://twitter.com/MikeCordingley/status/1266683195916943360?s=20

[Jordi Culé]

Re: Coronavirus update

The lockdown in Wales is allegedly determined by the 'R' number, which is currently between 0.7 and 1. Thing is, this includes care homes. If you exclude care homes it's around .3. You don't get that publicized everywhere though.

Is it really? Got a link? Genuinely, interested in those statistics as it would suggest the economy could be ready to rock n roll and we just needed to concentrate on care homes.