Coronavirus

[Wolfie]

32 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

"Two families of four stopping for a chat in the street would contravene England’s “rule of six” coronavirus restrictions and constitute mingling, the home secretary has said.

Not defending this awful woman but the fact that she even had to answer that question does my head in.

It's not easy coming up with rules that people can follow. The rule of 6 was brought in because of people claiming previous guidelines were confusing. What happens?. Up pops the media with gotcha questioning about "what happens if....?"

Of course no rule is going to look perfect in every situation. Maybe the public wouldn't be so confused* if the media didn't instantly try to pick everything apart and dream up hypothetical situations which make it look stupid.

*I heard some tourists abroad on the radio last week being interviewed and led into claiming that the quarantine rules were confusing because England has different rules to Scotland etc.

Confusing. Really?.

Question 1: Do you know where you live?.

If "yes", follow the rules for that country.

If "no", then you have bigger problems than whether to quarantine.

[Stive Pesley]

2 hours ago, SchtivePesley said:

finally got my son tested yesterday and we await the results

Still awaiting the results, but the rest of us have also come down with a horrible colds today

He's been back at school for 7 whole days and already the house is full of disease. And that's with all the social distancing, masks, hand gel, obsessive hand-washing etc

 

[Gone]

Another interesting blue chart......do your thing forum 

[Gaspode]

Virologist on the radio yesterday stated that 6 was an arbitrary figue that they had settled on but if the government didn't choose a number and left it to people to use common sense then there would be chaos (without saying it, he was implying  - as has become quite evident - that the public have very little common sense).

I'm afraid there are far too many people looking for excuses or just being bloody-minded when it comes to doing as they are asked....

[alexxxxx]

Think the government guidance is going to have to change or the number of tests will have to rise a lot. 

Seems like a lot of places are saying things like if you live with someone with symptoms you need to get a test before returning to work/school.

I had to do contact tracing to use a toilet the other day... Can see how quickly numbers will run out of control and people will get angry when they can't get a test. 

[Stive Pesley]

19 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Another interesting blue chart......do your thing forum 

What's with the "childrens parties banned" tagline on the Rule Of Six marker? Seems a weird thing to call out, when there is so much more to it than that. 

You got this off mumsnet didn't you? 

[Gone]

Just now, SchtivePesley said:

What's with the "childrens parties banned" tagline on the Rule Of Six marker? Seems a weird thing to call out, when there is so much more to it than that. 

You got this off mumsnet didn't you? 

Haha no saw it on Twitter, just love the reaction to a graph..........btw what is mumsnet? 

[Wolfie]

2 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Haha no saw it on Twitter, just love the reaction to a graph..........btw what is mumsnet? 

It's similar to netmums.

 

Glad to help.

[1of4]

2 hours ago, ariotofmyown said:

"You have got to put this in the context of coronavirus and keeping distance, wearing masks,” Priti Patel told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “The rule of six is about making sure that people are being conscientious and not putting other people’s health at risk.”

She said she would report neighbours or any other group that she saw flouting the new restrictions banning social gatherings of more than six people, which came into place in England on Monday. People face fines of up to £3,200 if they break the new rule, which follows an increase in coronavirus cases.

Will be interesting to see if she reports herself and her fellow MPs when more than six of them enter the House of Commons chamber. They can't claim it's their place of work, as most of them do bugger all when they're in there.

[ariotofmyown]

2 hours ago, Van Wolfie said:

Not defending this awful woman but the fact that she even had to answer that question does my head in.

It's not easy coming up with rules that people can follow. The rule of 6 was brought in because of people claiming previous guidelines were confusing. What happens?. Up pops the media with gotcha questioning about "what happens if....?"

Of course no rule is going to look perfect in every situation. Maybe the public wouldn't be so confused* if the media didn't instantly try to pick everything apart and dream up hypothetical situations which make it look stupid.

*I heard some tourists abroad on the radio last week being interviewed and led into claiming that the quarantine rules were confusing because England has different rules to Scotland etc.

Confusing. Really?.

Question 1: Do you know where you live?.

If "yes", follow the rules for that country.

If "no", then you have bigger problems than whether to quarantine.

I can see what you are getting at but I think this is a practical question rather than some sort of gotcha. There are so many contradictory rules and advice. A family of 4 running into another family of 4 outside is a very common occurance. 

Two parents speaking to a family of 4 is absolutely fine. If the 2 children of the parents join them (who have been with the other 2 kids at school all week) then we should report them to the police?

Just calling it the "rule of six" is laughable...as if it has any merit. 6 people, all from different households meeting up in the pub has a much higher risk of spreading Covid than my 2 families of 4 example. But 8 people breaks the "rule of six" so it's not allowed.

A post-grouse shooting orgy with 5 people is safer than 7 schoolfriends playing footy in the park. Rule of 6.

I've asked plenty of people what the guidelines were for meeting up over the Summer. None of then knew that 6 was the maximum if there was more than 2 households. They all think this latest maximum of 6 is a new thing. They were all people who have been very careful during Covid.

The messaging has been dire and a key reason why the 2nd wave is here.

[ariotofmyown]

54 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

Will be interesting to see if she reports herself and her fellow MPs when more than six of them enter the House of Commons chamber. They can't claim it's their place of work, as most of them do bugger all when they're in there.

And their work is not even generating revenue, like all those other public service wasters.

[Stive Pesley]

1 minute ago, ariotofmyown said:

The messaging has been dire

I disagree- the messaging has been very clear

1) If it's a government official breaking the rules - that's OK

2) if the meeting of people involves rich people doing posh stuff that us proles simply don't understand - that's also OK

3) if the meeting involves a situation where a cash register is involved - that's also OK

 

 

 

 

[Wolfie]

15 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

I can see what you are getting at but I think this is a practical question rather than some sort of gotcha. There are so many contradictory rules and advice. A family of 4 running into another family of 4 outside is a very common occurance. 

Two parents speaking to a family of 4 is absolutely fine. If the 2 children of the parents join them (who have been with the other 2 kids at school all week) then we should report them to the police?

Just calling it the "rule of six" is laughable...as if it has any merit. 6 people, all from different households meeting up in the pub has a much higher risk of spreading Covid than my 2 families of 4 example. But 8 people breaks the "rule of six" so it's not allowed.

A post-grouse shooting orgy with 5 people is safer than 7 schoolfriends playing footy in the park. Rule of 6.

I've asked plenty of people what the guidelines were for meeting up over the Summer. None of then knew that 6 was the maximum if there was more than 2 households. They all think this latest maximum of 6 is a new thing. They were all people who have been very careful during Covid.

The messaging has been dire and a key reason why the 2nd wave is here.

I think you've just illustrated the problem for me. Somebody says about the rule of 6 and it's followed by a whole list of numbers and possible exceptions that just muddy the water and the message gets lost in all the noise.

At no point have I ever seen anyone suggest a viable alternative to an arbitrary limit on numbers if the objective is to try and curb the spread, whilst trying to keep the economy moving and people in jobs.

[Mucker1884]

On 09/09/2020 at 10:42, ariotofmyown said:

... Hopefully they don't go after a family gathering of 7 people with 3 grandparents, 2 children and 3 kids.

I was deeply saddened to hear of the loss of the missing person in this family group. Particularly upon learning it was the maternal grandmother, given that she was a retired maths teacher, and she would have been a tremendous help in compiling this post!  ?

[GboroRam]

18 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

I was deeply saddened to hear of the loss of the missing person in this family group. Particularly upon learning it was the maternal grandmother, given that she was a retired maths teacher, and she would have been a tremendous help in compiling this post!  ?

It's a Notts family. One of the parents is also one of the kids.

[Mucker1884]

On 12/09/2020 at 06:45, TexasRam said:

Agree 100% 

 

“If people don’t want to risk it, don’t go”

The problem with that approach is that those that do go are then going to be in my office block come Monday morning, or they are going to be sat at the next table to me in the cafe, offering me their ketchup, or use the petrol pump before me without bothering to put a glove on, or clean their teeth at the camp site wash basin before I go in for my morning wash, or be the site manager at the site I have to visit tomorrow to survey his leaking roof...

Add in the potential lack of personal hygiene and/or social distancing... of which there remains multiple examples on a daily basis... and despite me staying away from such social/sporting gatherings, before you can say “Now where did I put that Zoflora?”, things start to looker a little grimmer than they did before they reopened the sports stadia, etc, “solely for those that wish to attend”. 

[ariotofmyown]

2 hours ago, Van Wolfie said:

I think you've just illustrated the problem for me. Somebody says about the rule of 6 and it's followed by a whole list of numbers and possible exceptions that just muddy the water and the message gets lost in all the noise.

At no point have I ever seen anyone suggest a viable alternative to an arbitrary limit on numbers if the objective is to try and curb the spread, whilst trying to keep the economy moving and people in jobs.

How about the rule of 2? Only 2 households meet at once. With social distancing where possible. This could have be increased as long as infections stayed low. Remember when the R rate was crucial to easing lockdown? They never mention it now.

There are places like schools and work where social distancing is difficult, but they are vital/very important. Making sure people can go to the pubs in groups seem to have been the main concern, rather than one of the last.

Large groups of people meeting up has helped spread it again. And most of them didn't even know they weren't supposed to do it. The result is Patel asking people to report 2 famililes briefly chatting in the street.

[Wolfie]

18 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

How about the rule of 2? Only 2 households meet at once. With social distancing where possible. This could have be increased as long as infections stayed low. Remember when the R rate was crucial to easing lockdown? They never mention it now.

There are places like schools and work where social distancing is difficult, but they are vital/very important. Making sure people can go to the pubs in groups seem to have been the main concern, rather than one of the last.

Large groups of people meeting up has helped spread it again. And most of them didn't even know they weren't supposed to do it. The result is Patel asking people to report 2 famililes briefly chatting in the street.

Sounds reasonable. But then the media will be full of interviews with sad looking people who live on their own saying it's not fair that two big families can meet up. 2 households could be 2 people or 12+. Why can't 12 households of single people meet up?

How is that any more fair than what we have now?

Not having a go at you at all. You've come up with a reasonable solution, but my point is that no limit is fair to everyone.

[Gone]

1 hour ago, Mucker1884 said:

, things start to looker a little grimmer than they did before they reopened the sports stadia, etc

Will they though? When does it all stop. We can’t live like this forever, vaccine or no vaccine. I certainly don’t want to 

[Stive Pesley]

8 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Will they though? When does it all stop. We can’t live like this forever, vaccine or no vaccine. I certainly don’t want to 

Nobody wants to. I think you just have to come to terms with the fact that you trying to convince people on a football forum that the risk has gone away or is being vastly overstated is going to have zero effect on the situation.