Coronavirus

[ariotofmyown]

1 hour ago, Van Wolfie said:

Call me Mr Thicky but how does an R rate of 1 or just over, marry with all the graphs they also have showing rapid increases in cases in the past few weeks?

Mr Thicky made me laugh! Can we call it you anyway?

[Shuff264]

43 minutes ago, EtoileSportiveDeDerby said:

Once a week using the bbc site I check various locations in the UK where family member live to see infection rate per 100,000. It does not take long but I have to type it everytime, does anyone know of a site where those figures are given per town/cities or a local level ?

Of all the big cities, strangely enough the place with lowest numbers seems to be London way below rest of the country.

https://www.covidmessenger.com/ will email you every day with selected local authority data

[Andicis]

Surely the 10pm closing time for pubs will have to be overturned? Boris still can't provide any evidence for the thing, and it's just pushing people out on the street. Just another glaring mistake from the government.

[Wolfie]

54 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Surely the 10pm closing time for pubs will have to be overturned? Boris still can't provide any evidence for the thing, and it's just pushing people out on the street. Just another glaring mistake from the government.

....which was supported by the opposition.

The glaring mistake was (yet again) in trusting people to be sensible

[TuffLuff]

My sources tell me a Sheffield lockdown is incoming tomorrow. Talks are in an advanced stage, hold up due to length of contract.

#covintheknow

[Brammie Steve]

1 hour ago, Andicis said:

Surely the 10pm closing time for pubs will have to be overturned? Boris still can't provide any evidence for the thing, and it's just pushing people out on the street. Just another glaring mistake from the government.

Out onto the street and into the nearest offie or supermarket!

[Andicis]

1 minute ago, Brummie Steve said:

Out onto the street and into the nearest offie or supermarket!

It's exactly the same at 10pm every night. When things closed at varying times it staggered people leaving. 

[Eddie]

2 hours ago, rammieib said:

Not sure which question you're answering their Eddie?

It's a plausible timeline which could explain the explosion of cases in universities.

[Eddie]

2 hours ago, Van Wolfie said:

Call me Mr Thicky but how does an R rate of 1 or just over, marry with all the graphs they also have showing rapid increases in cases in the past few weeks?

Same way the regular "Let's get back to normal" brigade render their arguments...

Wishful thinking.

[bcnram]

1 hour ago, Andicis said:

Surely the 10pm closing time for pubs will have to be overturned? Boris still can't provide any evidence for the thing, and it's just pushing people out on the street. Just another glaring mistake from the government.

Less chance of it spreading outdoors than in a crowded pub. Less chance of the stupid ones doing stupid stuff if they don’t have time for a second shandy to tip them over the edge. 
 

I don’t see it as a glaring mistake, I don’t see the necessity for medical evidence to be available. Common sense does the job just fine. 
 

[ariotofmyown]

1 hour ago, Van Wolfie said:

....which was supported by the opposition.

The glaring mistake was (yet again) in trusting people to be sensible

I think we can trust people to be sensible. We just can't trust drunk people to be sensible!

[Stive Pesley]

55 minutes ago, Van Wolfie said:

...which was supported by the opposition.

The glaring mistake was (yet again) in trusting people to be sensible

Would have been a difficult one to oppose, without a good reason. Saying "no we think the pubs should stay open later" would have been a bad look

As daft as it seems - I think the 10pm curfew was probably the right call. At least if people want to carry on drinking and be idiots then it's not endangering the pub staff (who don't deserve that).

I also think that behaviour is not as widespread as the media portray. It's just moron townies in the city centres that make the headlines. There is no "party in the street" at my local, or indeed the vast majority of local community pubs

 

 

[WhiteHorseRam]

 

I listened to Dr Chris Smith on the BBC last night, Cambridge Uni virologist and someone who has talked a lot of sense throughout, state that he did not believe there would be a vaccine until June at the earliest.

I walked past the Oxford Playhouse today. This has been taken over by the Said Business School and apart from the shape of the building, and me knowing it was the Playhouse, it looks well and truly long-term repurposed.

The good Doctor said we needed to get used to the virus and a plan was needed where the less vulnerable got on with life and the vulnerable just hunker down.

We are stuck with this thing by the sounds of it.

[FindernRam]

4 minutes ago, WhiteHorseRam said:

the vulnerable just hunker down

I'm classed as mildly vulnerable and if I live as long as my mother I have another 25 years to go. No way can I hunker down that long.

If all these youngsters showed a modicum of restraint it would be better for all. AND why all the fuss about pubs closing early. In my youth every pub shut I think at 11. Last orders about 10:30. Somehow we all survived, drunks in the streets were rare and no-body pre-loaded.

Personally I'd raise the drinking age to 30 and everyone younger than that should have a 9:30 curfew!?. Old Guys rule O.K!

[Wolfie]

30 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

Would have been a difficult one to oppose, without a good reason. Saying "no we think the pubs should stay open later" would have been a bad look

As daft as it seems - I think the 10pm curfew was probably the right call. At least if people want to carry on drinking and be idiots then it's not endangering the pub staff (who don't deserve that).

I also think that behaviour is not as widespread as the media portray. It's just moron townies in the city centres that make the headlines. There is no "party in the street" at my local, or indeed the vast majority of local community pubs

 

 

I agree & was just countering the argument that it was another glaring mistake. It was perfectly logical thing to do, if the objective is to reduce the risk of transmission in enclosed spaces.

[Andicis]

57 minutes ago, bcnram said:

Less chance of it spreading outdoors than in a crowded pub. Less chance of the stupid ones doing stupid stuff if they don’t have time for a second shandy to tip them over the edge. 
 

I don’t see it as a glaring mistake, I don’t see the necessity for medical evidence to be available. Common sense does the job just fine. 
 

It's making the pubs more crowded though. Young people and older people used to go out at different times, I've never seen the pubs so busy as since the 10pm rule has come in. The pubs also are controlling people, when they go outside, nobody is. People just drink earlier, they don't drink less. They've solved nothing and created more problems, so how is this common sense? 

[WhiteHorseRam]

12 minutes ago, FindernRam said:

I'm classed as mildly vulnerable and if I live as long as my mother I have another 25 years to go. No way can I hunker down that long.

If all these youngsters showed a modicum of restraint it would be better for all. AND why all the fuss about pubs closing early. In my youth every pub shut I think at 11. Last orders about 10:30. Somehow we all survived, drunks in the streets were rare and no-body pre-loaded.

Personally I'd raise the drinking age to 30 and everyone younger than that should have a 9:30 curfew!?. Old Guys rule O.K!

My youth experience …. I had my first drink at 14, pubs did indeed close at 11, and the streets were full of drunks on a Friday and Saturday night.

Me and my mates used to preload (before it had a name) on supermarket own brand scotch to save money, even though it was about £1 a pint.

Ah, the late 80s/early 90s.

Somehow we all survived (mostly). 

Things will work out I am sure - you will spend your 25 yrs watching Derby and growing old(er) disgracefully.?

 

 

 

[Ghost of Clough]

3 hours ago, Andicis said:

Online lectures are worse quality than in person teaching. We used to do seminars in classes of 20, and now they shove 80 of you on a zoom call. So, ignoring your patronising speech about students, the teaching is worse and the students are highly unlikely to perform better.

Online lectures are better than not turning up to in person lectures. I'm not sure about you, but from my own personal experience, I know I would have performed better if I could have attended online lectures rather than missing them because:
a) I was too lazy
b) it was too cold to walk so far
c) I was too tired/hungover 
d) I didn't like the lecturer and/or felt the lecture content wasn't worthwhile
e) illness 

I know I wasn't a one off. A BBC article from a couple of years ago stated average attendance of lectures at the start of term was 79%, dropping to 43% at the end of term. I think there's a strong possibility a lot of students would have performed better if online learning was an option at the time

[Eddie]

41 minutes ago, WhiteHorseRam said:

 

I listened to Dr Chris Smith on the BBC last night, Cambridge Uni virologist and someone who has talked a lot of sense throughout, state that he did not believe there would be a vaccine until June at the earliest.

I walked past the Oxford Playhouse today. This has been taken over by the Said Business School and apart from the shape of the building, and me knowing it was the Playhouse, it looks well and truly long-term repurposed.

The good Doctor said we needed to get used to the virus and a plan was needed where the less vulnerable got on with life and the vulnerable just hunker down.

We are stuck with this thing by the sounds of it.

For how many years should I hunker down?

[Andicis]

1 minute ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Online lectures are better than not turning up to in person lectures. I'm not sure about you, but from my own personal experience, I know I would have performed better if I could have attended online lectures rather than missing them because:
a) I was too lazy
b) it was too cold to walk so far
c) I was too tired/hungover 
d) I didn't like the lecturer and/or felt the lecture content wasn't worthwhile
e) illness 

I know I wasn't a one off. A BBC article from a couple of years ago stated average attendance of lectures at the start of term was 79%, dropping to 43% at the end of term. I think there's a strong possibility a lot of students would have performed better if online learning was an option at the time

Obviously it's better than not going, but the people that would go are the ones being punished with worse quality teaching. Lecturers have no idea how to properly work zoom (at least in my experience), there is little to no interaction, no opportunity to ask questions, and plenty more chance to not listen and zone out.