Coronavirus

[Malagaram]

52 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I asked this question earlier:

For how long do you think that highly vulnerable people (such as myself) are to be kept under house arrest, so that others can go back to normality? Six months? A year? Longer?

If you were given permission to go outside would you dare do it.When the spanish goverment say it is safe to go outside I for one wouldnt take the risk just yet,how long will this virus last,who knows the real answer.

And I am a vulnerable person having suffered bronchitis and asthma throughout my life

[RamNut]

[Stagtime]

Our restrictions will start lifting Midnight Fri May 1. We will be able to drive up to 50 km from home, use motorbike, boats for recreational purposes, have family picnics, visit national parks and shop for non-essential items. Nrl will commence on May 28 with a 20 round competition, points from previous 2 rounds will carry over. Training starts May 5.  Grand final October 25. All teams will be in lock-down with no crowds at the stadiums.

Queensland covid stats are 1034 (+1) confirmed, 6 deaths and 738 recovered. Testing is open to whole population now.

Australia covid stats are 6738 (+13) confirmed, 88 deaths and 5649 recovered. It will be interesting to see what sort of spike in cases come from easing restrictions.

[Archied]

6 hours ago, Eddie said:

I asked this question earlier:

For how long do you think that highly vulnerable people (such as myself) are to be kept under house arrest, so that others can go back to normality? Six months? A year? Longer?

Seems a strange way to look at it Eddie , 

[Gaspode]

7 hours ago, Eddie said:

I asked this question earlier:

For how long do you think that highly vulnerable people (such as myself) are to be kept under house arrest, so that others can go back to normality? Six months? A year? Longer?

Could someone start a poll so we can vote on how long @Eddie should locked up for?

The more serious answer to your question is when will you feel safe leaving home? Government; specialists; media; other folks on here can all give you an opinion, but it has to come down to personal choice - you’re being told to stay home to protect yourself, the rest of us not in the vulnerable category are asked to stay home and social distance  to protect the wider population - the two situations are not directly linked and you will need to decide for yourself how much risk you’re willing to take.....

[Norman]

I'm not sure why you are all bothering to tell Eddie. He can't hear you. 

[Tamworthram]

8 hours ago, B4ev6is said:

Well it is how I feel  been cant do a thing sigh.

But yet goverment not helping themselfs by telling people travel else were as long your out as longer than it took you to get there yet they wander why people having a go at the police.

I know you can’t help lashing out sometimes B4 but, what exactly is wrong with the police advice regarding travel for exercise? It’s not an exact science but it is a reasonable guide to what is meant by staying local. Don’t drive for an hour or two for a half hour walk around a beauty spot but it’s OK to drive for ten minutes for an hours exercise in the countryside. It’s meant to prevent masses of people descending on the beaches, Snowdonia, Peak District etc. but at the same time allowing those living in built up areas to get out.

[GboroRam]

8 hours ago, curb said:

I’m not sure his statistics stack up.

From what I gather he’s saying that out of those tested a percentage (say 50% because I can’t remember the exact figures) has, or has had the virus. So he then goes on to say that means 50% of the whole population has had the virus. He then quotes the death figure and says that’s a tiny portion of the population.

That all depends on who is being tested. If they’re testing everybody at random then he can make that assumption, but if the only people being tested are in hospital with the virus or are showing symptoms, as we are here, then obviously that will skew the figures. You can only then quote the death rate as a percentage of people being tested not as a percentage of the whole population.

Google some of the official responses. They say exactly that.

I think one comment was that you can't gauge the height of the average American by looking at NBA players. They are looking at a subset of people, that is people who think they may have been ill. 

Also it looks like they may have some political bias behind them which could be accused of colouring their opinion, but that discussion doesn't belong in here.

[Mucker1884]

7 hours ago, Malagaram said:

If you were given permission to go outside would you dare do it.When the spanish goverment say it is safe to go outside I for one wouldnt take the risk just yet,how long will this virus last,who knows the real answer.

And I am a vulnerable person having suffered bronchitis and asthma throughout my life

Agreed.  That's the thing, innit!  Some are seeing it as unjust, having to stay at home.  Other's are reluctant to go out, and more than prepared to stay home.  We're very much in the latter camp, even allowing for the fact that we are in our 50's and with no significant underlying conditions, so pretty much as fit and healthy as we could be... ish!

Since Mon 23/3, (Blimey, over 5 weeks already!):
Muckerette has been to the post office once a week, instead of 3/4/5 times a week, to dispatch home made craft items sold on line.  That's a ten minute stroll each way through a housing estate, taken to coincide with opening time in the morning (most around here are still in their pit!), and brings in a little income.
I've done 2 x main shopping trips... 1.2 mile each way in the car.  Plus 2 x trips to the (otherwise empty and abandoned) office, each for about two hours.  That's 1 mile each way, in the car.  (Too much to carry, otherwise I'd go on my bike!)

From an "outside exercise" perspective, we went nowhere for the first three weeks.  In the past fortnight, we've taken (together) one walk for just under an hour (full perimeter of The Racecourse), One slightly longer walk (via Racecourse/Paddock Pub/Breadsall Village/Meteor Centre (no shopping!) and back over The Racecourse), and one cycle ride (via Chester Green and twice around Darley Park/Fields).  The latter was consciously chosen for the wider paths/more open spaces, as opposed to our more normal canal/river side paths or narrower trails etc, and all taken directly from home (no car used).

We treated this exercise as very much a mental thing* rather than physical (we have exercise bikes at home) and felt/feel much better for having done it.  We will no doubt do something similar within the next 7 days.  probably the same bike ride again.
(*We're very much outdoorsy, with regular/year round/All weather camping, hiking and cycling in normal circumstances).

We really don't want to be out there if we don't have to be.  Particularly shops/queues etc, even with social distancing in place (which is never 100% successful anyway!)  Why run the risk!
My heart is tempted to say this is because we want to keep others safe... but my head says we really want to minimise the risk of either of us catching it!  

 

Right now, what I wouldn't give to be doing this again...

 

 

[GboroRam]

26 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

Right now, what I wouldn't give to be doing this again...

 

 

I will never understand people voluntarily sitting in a tent in the cold. I know it takes all sorts, but I just don't get the appeal.

[Mucker1884]

32 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

I will never understand people voluntarily sitting in a tent in the cold. I know it takes all sorts, but I just don't get the appeal.

Understandable.  As with everything, it ain't for everyone!

I don't get the appeal of having a beer (or wine) almost on a daily basis, as many appear to do?  (Not Teetotal, but despite having a cupboard full of beers & spirits, I've had 2 bottles of beer in the sunshine, in the past 5 weeks).

I also don't get cruises... what's that all about?  ?‍♂️
That's just two (of many) examples of "What I don't get"... and no, I wasn't inferring either relates specifically to you personally.  ?

 

Anyway... Other than sleeping, dressing and taking breakfast in there, the vast majority of our time was spent out walking in the hills and dales, Tea Room lunches, and cosy fireside country pub meals in the evening.  There's very little in the way of sitting around, other than maybe a good hour or so before bed sat reading... and the right sort of clothes, whilst not particularly attractive, ensures you are not cold.
I hasten to add though... without doubt... Warmer nights in The South of France is far more appealing!  ??

 

 

EDIT:
Sincere apologies... I appear to have taken the thread off-topic... and not in a political way!  Sorry!

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Norman said:

I'm not sure why you are all bothering to tell Eddie. He can't hear you. 

If you look closely I included subtitles and braille on my reply.

[Steve How Hard?]

1 hour ago, Mucker1884 said:

Understandable.  As with everything, it ain't for everyone!

I don't get the appeal of having a beer (or wine) almost on a daily basis, as many appear to do?  (Not Teetotal, but despite having a cupboard full of beers & spirits, I've had 2 bottles of beer in the sunshine, in the past 5 weeks).

I also don't get cruises... what's that all about?  ?‍♂️
That's just two (of many) examples of "What I don't get"... and no, I wasn't inferring either relates specifically to you personally.  ?

 

Anyway... Other than sleeping, dressing and taking breakfast in there, the vast majority of our time was spent out walking in the hills and dales, Tea Room lunches, and cosy fireside country pub meals in the evening.  There's very little in the way of sitting around, other than maybe a good hour or so before bed sat reading... and the right sort of clothes, whilst not particularly attractive, ensures you are not cold.
I hasten to add though... without doubt... Warmer nights in The South of France is far more appealing!  ??

 

 

EDIT:
Sincere apologies... I appear to have taken the thread off-topic... and not in a political way!  Sorry!

Apology accepted, I can see there was snow intent. ?

[ramsbottom]

Mrs R works for a nationwide house builder who will be reopening their sites in a couple of weeks. They issued a statement that they’ll be putting in place measures to ensure staff and customers are safe. So the both us thought viewings of the show homes by appointment only, ensuring desks are kept at a greater distance, no showings of plots under construction etc. 
 

Then today she received a message on her WhatsApp group to say they need her size for a full hazmat suit!!!

Insanity doesn’t quite sum it up...

 

[Coneheadjohn]

13 minutes ago, ramsbottom said:

Then today she received a message on her WhatsApp group to say they need her size for a full hazmat suit!!!

This is the en suite!

[ramsbottom]

2 minutes ago, Van Cone De Head said:

This is the en suite!

This is what they’re on about ordering...

I mean, what would you think if you walked into a sales office and that was sat the desk!?!?!???

[Uptherams]

11 hours ago, curb said:

I’m not sure his statistics stack up.

From what I gather he’s saying that out of those tested a percentage (say 50% because I can’t remember the exact figures) has, or has had the virus. So he then goes on to say that means 50% of the whole population has had the virus. He then quotes the death figure and says that’s a tiny portion of the population.

That all depends on who is being tested. If they’re testing everybody at random then he can make that assumption, but if the only people being tested are in hospital with the virus or are showing symptoms, as we are here, then obviously that will skew the figures. You can only then quote the death rate as a percentage of people being tested not as a percentage of the whole population.

He was extrapolating the reports per state and nation, not world. Just like they do for the flu. He didn't talk about any nation he didn't have statistics for. You're intentionally trying to muddy the waters. Just like using the figure 50%, to make it appear more obscene. It varied between 1/5th and 1/3 of the population of certain states and nations. 

They aren't doing anything different in terms of estimating how wide spread it is. 

Why should Covid-19 be treated any differently? As they highlight, the numbers indicate it's similar to seasonal flu. So why would you change the methodology? 

Is there a more accurate method.. potentially. Where you poll the population based on its demographics. However it also has it's flaws as the State of New York, with the current data has a third of positive cases, while California it's about 1/5th. 

 

[Uptherams]

12 hours ago, Eddie said:

I asked this question earlier:

For how long do you think that highly vulnerable people (such as myself) are to be kept under house arrest, so that others can go back to normality? Six months? A year? Longer?

It's still indefinitely, however the target is for 60-75% of people to have had it, for herd immunity to be achieved and for there to be no requirement for a vaccination. The statistics and research are indicting we may already be half way to the lower end of that interval in the UK. If so, we might be talking about only a few months. I hope that is the case. In time for the 20/21 season ??

[GboroRam]

47 minutes ago, Uptherams said:

It's still indefinitely, however the target is for 60-75% of people to have had it, for herd immunity to be achieved and for there to be no requirement for a vaccination. The statistics and research are indicting we may already be half way to the lower end of that interval in the UK. If so, we might be talking about only a few months. I hope that is the case. In time for the 20/21 season ??

Fingers crossed eh?

[curb]

1 hour ago, Uptherams said:

He was extrapolating the reports per state and nation, not world. Just like they do for the flu. He didn't talk about any nation he didn't have statistics for. You're intentionally trying to muddy the waters. Just like using the figure 50%, to make it appear more obscene. It varied between 1/5th and 1/3 of the population of certain states and nations. 

They aren't doing anything different in terms of estimating how wide spread it is. 

Why should Covid-19 be treated any differently? As they highlight, the numbers indicate it's similar to seasonal flu. So why would you change the methodology? 

Is there a more accurate method.. potentially. Where you poll the population based on its demographics. However it also has it's flaws as the State of New York, with the current data has a third of positive cases, while California it's about 1/5th. 

 

I didn’t mention the population of the world, and I did emphasise that my 50% was only as an example.

i don’t think you understood my post, If he’s saying that a percentage of the people tested have the virus can be extrapolated to the whole population of the county or state, then the people tested have to be random, not tested as we are testing, which is those in hospital and with symptoms, because it skews the figures. Ie more people are likely to die from a subset of the population that is hospitalised or showing symptoms than a subset of the population that aren’t hospitalised or showing symptoms.