Coronavirus

[Chester40]

10 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

Yes well done me for finding an article that proved your absolute statement, which you posted without any research to be false.

And well done you, for then trying to turn it around to try and make it look like the argument is about something else completely different

 

 

So if you looked hard enough you would find a student died using a toaster, an iron, slipping in the shower.. .would you expect additional action to be taken against those activities. Its the freak that proves the rule. 

 

[jimmyp]

25 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I imagine that a huge number of people testing positive will also have been in a house, been in a car, been in a shop, taken their kids to school, been to work.

If the evidence is that conclusive I look forward to them releasing it and putting the argument to bed.

Yes of course they will of been in most if not all of those places. But we don’t want to close schools, we don’t want to shut all shops, we don’t want to stop everyone from going to work. That would be bad.

We know for certain that cases spread in any situation with a high concentration of people. The hope is that by closing hospitality the spread will be reduced just enough to enable us to keep everything else open. 

The evidence is already out in the public domain.  

The main argument people are having now is about making sure those who are negatively impacted by closing hospitality are paid enough to survive. 

Closing hospitality on its own may however not be enough. 

 

[GboroRam]

41 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

If we don’t soon we may never again, if not the Rams then plenty of others will fold.
“Football is not a matter of life and death, it’s more important than that “ for some that’s the truth I’m afraid, it’s their life and it’s being taken from them. 

You don't believe that was a serious quote do you? You don't think there was a teensy bit of hyperbole in there? 

[jimmyp]

6 minutes ago, Chester40 said:

So if you looked hard enough you would find a student died using a toaster, an iron, slipping in the shower.. .would you expect additional action to be taken against those activities. Its the freak that proves the rule. 

 

A student meeting an unfortunate death via a toaster or iron would have very little impact on others lives. 

A student catching Covid and spreading it to many others would arguably have a far greater impact, having to quarantine for 14 days being just one. 

 

[Gone]

4 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

You don't believe that was a serious quote do you? You don't think there was a teensy bit of hyperbole in there? 

For some it’s the truth, believe that or not. Sorry don’t know what teensy bit or hyperbole means? 

[Rev]

1 hour ago, B4ev6is said:

Derby has one lowest ifections rates in the uk so why cant we go back into pp again but not like those lot down the A52.

I'm one of those lot down the A52. 

It's ok for you to visit PP, but not me?

How about visiting my parents in Spondon? It that ok?

[G STAR RAM]

17 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

Yes of course they will of been in most if not all of those places. But we don’t want to close schools, we don’t want to shut all shops, we don’t want to stop everyone from going to work. That would be bad.

We know for certain that cases spread in any situation with a high concentration of people. The hope is that by closing hospitality the spread will be reduced just enough to enable us to keep everything else open. 

The evidence is already out in the public domain.  

The main argument people are having now is about making sure those who are negatively impacted by closing hospitality are paid enough to survive. 

Closing hospitality on its own may however not be enough. 

Concentration of people in the pubs that I have been in have been much lower than school playgrounds and workplaces.

I have not seen any evidence that supports the notion that closing down hospitality will help get the virus under control.

[Gone]

3 minutes ago, reverendo de duivel said:

I'm one of those lot down the A52. 

It's ok for you to visit PP, but not me?

How about visiting my parents in Spondon? It that ok?

Haha have exactly the same dilemma! Including visiting parents in Spondon 

[maxjam]

16 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

Closing hospitality on its own may however not be enough.

According to Public Health England data approx 50% of all covid outbreaks take place in care homes, 20% at school, 5% in the hospitality industry. 

All 3 of those areas are dominated by women.

[Rev]

3 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Haha have exactly the same dilemma! Including visiting parents in Spondon 

We'll probably be breaking the law if we do it after tomorrow. 

[Chester40]

16 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

A student meeting an unfortunate death via a toaster or iron would have very little impact on others lives. 

A student catching Covid and spreading it to many others would arguably have a far greater impact, having to quarantine for 14 days being just one. 

 

Thanks Dad, I will be back at Xmas ... 

[jimmyp]

2 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Concentration of people in the pubs that I have been in have been much lower than school playgrounds and workplaces.

I have not seen any evidence that supports the notion that closing down hospitality will help get the virus under control.

Closing down any situation that has a high concentration of people will reduce the spread.

Closing schools = reduced spread.

Closing all workplaces = reduced spread. 

Closing either of the above would duck a lot of stuff up though. 

 

So so you look at what you can close to reduce the spread that won’t duck stuff up quite as bad. 

It’s solely about reducing the spread, we can’t control the virus and make it go away given current circumstances.

 

[jimmyp]

4 minutes ago, maxjam said:

According to Public Health England data approx 50% of all covid outbreaks take place in care homes, 20% at school, 5% in the hospitality industry. 

All 3 of those areas are dominated by women.

Yet it’s the women from hospitality that are being hit the most. I’m not making it up you can check hospital admissions by occupation.

[Gone]

3 minutes ago, reverendo de duivel said:

We'll probably be breaking the law if we do it after tomorrow. 

Looks like it’s heading that way pal ?

[maxjam]

9 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

Yet it’s the women from hospitality that are being hit the most. I’m not making it up you can check hospital admissions by occupation.

Then they need better PPE and/or training etc. 

If women working in an industry that only contributes to 5% of all outbreaks are getting hit more often than care workers who work intimately with people in homes that contribute to around 50% of all outbreaks something is not right.

EDIT:  I also can't find any info that limits it to the hospitality sector, just read half a dozen articles that also include the care sector - such as this one;

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/22/younger-women-bearing-brunt-of-second-wave-of-covid-in-uk

[1967RAMS]

6 hours ago, rammieib said:

70,000 confirmed cases of students with it in USA. Zero deaths. 
 

 

70,000 students pass it on to vulnerable family and friends. Loads of deaths 

[maxjam]

3 minutes ago, 1967RAMS said:

70,000 students pass it on to vulnerable family and friends. Loads of deaths 

Depends who they mix with surely?

My kids are at school and see their grandparents once a week - from a distance of about 10m on the front drive.

[jono]

12 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

Closing down any situation that has a high concentration of people will reduce the spread.

Closing schools = reduced spread.

Closing all workplaces = reduced spread. 

Closing either of the above would duck a lot of stuff up though. 

 

So so you look at what you can close to reduce the spread that won’t duck stuff up quite as bad. 

It’s solely about reducing the spread, we can’t control the virus and make it go away given current circumstances.

 

Exactly

The thing is, each and most measures will reduce the spread / deaths from the virus but the consequences of enacting every desirable measure to stop the spread but will then create other problems including death, elsewhere.

there isn’t a hand book .. every country in Europe is seeing the same ebb and flow and are all trying to balance a stack of marbles. 

[jimmyp]

17 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Then they need better PPE and/or training etc. 

If women working in an industry that only contributes to 5% of all outbreaks are getting hit more often than care workers who work intimately with people in homes that contribute to around 50% of all outbreaks something is not right.

EDIT:  I also can't find any info that limits it to the hospitality sector, just read half a dozen articles that also include the care sector - such as this one;

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/22/younger-women-bearing-brunt-of-second-wave-of-covid-in-uk

It’s within the nhs figures for hospital admissions data. It was also in the bmj , new scientist and the lancet, also the daily fail.

The average age of bar workers is also considerably younger than the other sectors. 

 

[G STAR RAM]

6 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

It’s within the nhs figures for hospital admissions data. It was also in the bmj , new scientist and the lancet, also the daily fail.

The average age of bar workers is also considerably younger than the other sectors. 

Read the article in The Daily Mail and you are misrepresenting it.