Coronavirus

[rammieib]

5 hours ago, GboroRam said:

The app has its issues, such as the one where you couldn't upload a positive test result (rendering the whole app useless). That has been fixed.

One other problem is when you check in, you can't check out. You either check in to a new venue, or you wait for midnight. I don't know if the app checks the time the person was at the venue when comparing who to alert or if it's just a day comparison, which would be pretty stupid. I go to a bar at 11am and leave shortly after, someone else goes at 11pm and is later tested as positive, I'd hope I don't have to self isolate. 

This app is very wet paint, so I expect it to evolve quickly.

Seriously worrying if I can go to a venue (I've seen both an outdoor astro where I take my daughter and an outdoor cafe in Bradgate Park in Leicester have the NHS scan app), check in, then leave an hour later. Then if 10 hours later someone attends, who 3-10 days later is tested positive, and records that in the App and I suddenly have to quarantine for 14 days. I'm not suggesting this is exactly how it is working but doesn't seem far off based on what you have said.

Why do we even need the check in function on the App? What is the benefit of it. Why not simply let the Blutooth element cover the track and trace protocol?

[Ken Tram]

Adding a quote ...

[Ken Tram]

14 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Unfortunately I'd love to take this up with you, but we're wondering off into territory that belongs in a different thread. Politics is no longer a subject we can discuss at length, but this thread obviously butts up to it on occasion. Anyway, back to CV-19.

Fair enough, but you mentioned austerity in this thread! ?

And perhaps part of the problem is that too many issues are discussed without considering economics? Surely, there is a debate to be had about the measures being taken to tackle Covid, how much they cost, and how they effect the economy. And the unpalatable concept of the value that we give to life. 

And Covid is going to add to the debt - and how we address Covid debt may result in austerity-like measures that you mentioned in your post.

[Ken Tram]

1 minute ago, Ken Tram said:

Unfortunately I'd love to take this up with you, but we're wondering off into territory that belongs in a different thread

You are right ... that I wandered off topic slightly ... but the main issue is on topic that different Covid responses will have different economic impacts ... and the figures that I gave show the impact of austerity-type measures, and illustrate possible consequences of certain Covid economic outcomes.

[WhiteHorseRam]

2 hours ago, Uptherams said:

What's the latest on that meat factory. 150 positive cases. No one showed any signs of illness. PPE and masks clearly had no effect. 

All asymptomatic? All of them? Great sign then isn't it. 

Or has asymptomatic been a red herring all along. Maybe 90% false positive. Maybe only a dozen actually have Covid-19. 

 

Could they have all be using the same towel?

[Andicis]

51 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Feel free to respond but as I mentioned in my reply to Gboro I've made my argument enough times now that its getting boring repeating it.

You're far too patient. They tend to just ignore anything you're saying to come up with some strawman argument against something else entirely. 

51 minutes ago, maxjam said:

The alternative is to drive the economy into the ground and risk massive numbers of secondary deaths further down the line whilst we endure further lockdowns waiting for a vaccine that has no definite arrival time.

I love the fact that people who want reduced restrictions are called selfish, and yet the people calling those people selfish tend to be older and in secure jobs, as a young person I can recognise that my generation is being entirely shafted by this lockdown. I'm lucky that I took a year out of uni, otherwise I'd be trying to get a job at the moment, of around 15 friends that finished this year, only 4 managed to get a job. 

[Gone]

21 minutes ago, Andicis said:

love the fact that people who want reduced restrictions are called selfish, and yet they tend to be older and in secure jobs, as a young person I can recognise that my generation is being entirely shafted by this lockdown. I'm lucky that I took a year out of uni, otherwise I'd be trying to get a job at the moment, of around 15 friends that finished this year, only 4 managed to get a job.

I said the same in response to a poster on here who’s name rhythms with Ready but I think he’s blocked my or he’s too misguided to reply. I stated the arguments given by people are solely based on their personal circumstances, hence they sit in one side or the other. None mean harm by it, none are stupid or ignorant. It’s just the human nature to want to do what’s best for you and yours, and as a younger person I completely get why you think you’re being shafted by all this and totally agree with you. 

[maxjam]

12 minutes ago, Andicis said:

You're far too patient. They tend to just ignore anything you're saying to come up with some strawman argument against something else entirely.

I don't like ignoring people and try to answer anyone that replies to me, but I've reached the point that I'm repeating myself over and over.  Rightly or wrongly I've made my point and backed it up where possible.  Continuing the back and forth is not achieving anything new so I'll leave it here.

12 minutes ago, Andicis said:

I love the fact that people who want reduced restrictions are called selfish, and yet they tend to be older and in secure jobs, as a young person I can recognise that my generation is being entirely shafted by this lockdown. I'm lucky that I took a year out of uni, otherwise I'd be trying to get a job at the moment, of around 15 friends that finished this year, only 4 managed to get a job. 

As usual the young will bear the brunt, both in the short term of trying to find work right now and for years, potentially decades to come ?

Our eldest is due to go to university next year. So far we've watched 3 virtual open days rather than visit the campuses and been told that one of his courses may be moved completely online - it would be a shame for him to miss out on the university experience and make new friends and thats saying nothing about the job market he'll be trying to move into when the time comes.

[Shuff264]

39 minutes ago, rammieib said:

Seriously worrying if I can go to a venue (I've seen both an outdoor astro where I take my daughter and an outdoor cafe in Bradgate Park in Leicester have the NHS scan app), check in, then leave an hour later. Then if 10 hours later someone attends, who 3-10 days later is tested positive, and records that in the App and I suddenly have to quarantine for 14 days. I'm not suggesting this is exactly how it is working but doesn't seem far off based on what you have said.

Why do we even need the check in function on the App? What is the benefit of it. Why not simply let the Blutooth element cover the track and trace protocol?

I think the idea is to spot if a number of people who have all attended a location recently have tested positive, if so something about that location is causing a problem.

Will probably help to deal with local flare ups as well as better understand where exactly the virus is spreading

[Shuff264]

42 minutes ago, rammieib said:

Seriously worrying if I can go to a venue (I've seen both an outdoor astro where I take my daughter and an outdoor cafe in Bradgate Park in Leicester have the NHS scan app), check in, then leave an hour later. Then if 10 hours later someone attends, who 3-10 days later is tested positive, and records that in the App and I suddenly have to quarantine for 14 days. I'm not suggesting this is exactly how it is working but doesn't seem far off based on what you have said.

Why do we even need the check in function on the App? What is the benefit of it. Why not simply let the Blutooth element cover the track and trace protocol?

Just to add the check in has nothing to do with triggering the isolation, that is entirely down to the bluetooth and the algorithm behind the app.

[Andicis]

5 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

I said the same in response to a poster  on here who’s name rhythms with Ready but I think he’s blocked my or he’s too misguided to reply. I stated the arguments give by people are solely based on their personal circumstances, hence they sit in one side or the other. None mean harm by it, none are stupid or ignorant. It’s just the human nature to want to do what’s best for you and yours, and as a younger person I completely get why you think you’re being shafted by all this and totally agree with you. 

Not only does it not kill us, we're paying £9,250 a year (not including living fees) to get put in a prison room in a city centre, then when we finish our degree we'll be unemployed anyway. And then we get scapegoated for everything. I'm really sick and tired of being lectured about how selfish I am for being rather pissed off about it.

[GboroRam]

41 minutes ago, rammieib said:

Seriously worrying if I can go to a venue (I've seen both an outdoor astro where I take my daughter and an outdoor cafe in Bradgate Park in Leicester have the NHS scan app), check in, then leave an hour later. Then if 10 hours later someone attends, who 3-10 days later is tested positive, and records that in the App and I suddenly have to quarantine for 14 days. I'm not suggesting this is exactly how it is working but doesn't seem far off based on what you have said.

Why do we even need the check in function on the App? What is the benefit of it. Why not simply let the Blutooth element cover the track and trace protocol?

Honestly I can't answer your question. 

In order to fix the problem, I've set my house up as a venue with a QR code. When I get home from football training with my lad, I'll scan myself into the venue "my house". Whether or not their checks will take into consideration times people are on site or not I don't know - I'd like to think so but I have no evidence one way or another.

[GboroRam]

40 minutes ago, Ken Tram said:

Fair enough, but you mentioned austerity in this thread! ?

And perhaps part of the problem is that too many issues are discussed without considering economics? Surely, there is a debate to be had about the measures being taken to tackle Covid, how much they cost, and how they effect the economy. And the unpalatable concept of the value that we give to life. 

And Covid is going to add to the debt - and how we address Covid debt may result in austerity-like measures that you mentioned in your post.

You are correct. I didn't raise austerity, but it was mentioned because supporters of lockdown were against austerity, and it's seen as a double standard, so I don't see it as off topic, but a bit tangential.

Not all politics are banned - it's hard to have a discussion about the government's response to COVID without having some political element. But we don't want to end up going too far off topic into party politics, because frankly nobody changes their minds (similar to COVID response discussions to be honest) and the discussion deteriorates into a pointless bicker-fest. Besides that, we have to remember to ask ourselves if it relevant to the thread topic, or is it off-topic?

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, Ken Tram said:

It says that the national deficit in 2010, when the coalition government took over, and got the note saying "there is no money left" was £144b.

The article says that the deficit (annual borrowing) was £80b (£1,300 per person) by 2015, and £52b (£850 per person) by 2017.

And where do we borrow the money? I believe that's a secret, but, future generations will be paying them for a while!

According to Google Assistant (!), national debt in 2010 was 74.6% of GDP. GDP was £1.60 trillion in 2010, giving the debt as £1.19 trillion.

By March 2017, the debt was 86.2% of GDP, with GDP being £2.070 trillion. That's £1.78 trillion. And the deficit was £52b.

For completeness, the debt was £1.88b by March 2020 (84.7%), with a deficit of £60.3b.

[jimmyp]

1 hour ago, TexasRam said:

Yes that was the original posters point 

Most people being asymptomatic doesn’t suggest a 90% false positive test rate. 

 

[Gone]

3 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

Most people being asymptomatic doesn’t suggest a 90% false positive test rate. 

 

Can’t agree or disagree as I just don’t have the foggiest 

[jimmyp]

8 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Honestly I can't answer your question. 

In order to fix the problem, I've set my house up as a venue with a QR code. When I get home from football training with my lad, I'll scan myself into the venue "my house". Whether or not their checks will take into consideration times people are on site or not I don't know - I'd like to think so but I have no evidence one way or another.

It appears to be built on a system that takes into account how close you are to an infected person, and how long you spend in proximity to that person. The closer you are to that person the less time you have before being alerted. 

If the person arrives at the venue after you have left regardless as to whether you could check out or not you should not be contacted.

[maxjam]

6 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

For completeness, the debt was £1.88b by March 2020 (84.7%), with a deficit of £60.3b.

And for even more completeness national debt due to the recent covid bailouts is now 100.5% of GDP and has passed £2tn. Yay.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/aug/21/covid-19-drives-uk-national-debt-to-2tn-for-first-time

[GboroRam]

3 hours ago, Uptherams said:

What's the latest on that meat factory. 150 positive cases. No one showed any signs of illness. PPE and masks clearly had no effect. 

All asymptomatic? All of them? Great sign then isn't it. 

Or has asymptomatic been a red herring all along. Maybe 90% false positive. Maybe only a dozen actually have Covid-19. 

 

Working in a meat factory, I know there's a lot of concern that it is an absolute haven for the virus to breed in a chilled environment like this.

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, maxjam said:

Why does it annoy you Neil?  They are at virtually no risk.  If you are vulnerable or uncomfortable mixing with people take your own precautions, wear a mask, practice social distancing and do as my parents do, speak to your kids/grandkids once a week on the front lawn.

Most precautions prevent a person spreading the virus, rather than preventing you from catching it. There are already too many who have the attitude of "it doesn't effect me, so these rules shouldn't apply to me".
Those 200 kids partying may not be affected, but with them all being in close proximity for an extended period of time means the virus will spread quicker throughout the community. It shouldn't take too many functioning brain cells to release a handful of people spreading the virus isn't as bad as 200 spreading it.
Locking the vulnerable up for a few months isn't an option. This wouldn't just be pensioners, but I'm willing to bet included business owners, managers and most of the 'higher-ups' in a very high percentage of companies. I don't think we'd be any better off than we are now

 

1 hour ago, maxjam said:

Herd mentality used to be an option, allow it to pass through the population that is largely immune to its more severe effects.  We are much more informed these days as to who it effects and who should be shielding and how. 

The worst thing this Government ever did was mention herd immunity as an option. It gave people a reason to go out to catch it (better to catch it when hospitals were empty than when they're overflowing). With it mutating, herd-immunity may not be possible anyway.

 

1 hour ago, maxjam said:

The alternative is to drive the economy into the ground and risk massive numbers of secondary deaths further down the line whilst we endure further lockdowns waiting for a vaccine that has no definite arrival time.

Feel free to respond but as I mentioned in my reply to Gboro I've made my argument enough times now that its getting boring repeating it.  The only way to see if what I'm harping on about is complete nonsense or not is to jump forwards in time a year or two so I'll leave it here.