When will this shit end?

[jparx]

17 minutes ago, Homer said:

Can I not meet my mate in a park? I thought that was okay?

 

14 minutes ago, Cream Soda said:

It says you can meet up outdoors with 1 member of another household.  That's about it.

Yeah, sorry. I meant nothing new on socialising that wasn't already out there. Wasn't sure if we'd get "can meet up with x number of households at their homes from 1st June" kinda detail.

[Toilet Duck]

7 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

That’s just the anecdotal opinion of one person, your neighbour though isn’t is. There is more evidence to suggest you get at least some immunity than suggests you don’t. It’s been around for a minimum 6 months now, yet we haven’t seen any credible cases of reinfection yet. Antibody tests have also found antibodies present in a certain percentage of people. It’s true we don’t know anything for sure, but there is more evidence to suggest some immunity, compared to none, of which so far there is none that I’ve seen.

I think there are two key points in relation to his neighbour. First, yes, there's is some form of immunity after you get it, but how long it lasts is entirely unknown (I'd expect a year upwards, could even be different depending on the severity of the original infection, will certainly be different depending on the myriad factors that influence immune function at an individual level). Second, the amount of virus frontline workers are exposed to is orders of magnitude higher than chance encounters among the general public. Infection rates in healthcare workers are astronomical, all down to the increased exposure they get by being in frequent contact with people who are shedding tons of virus (it's even screwing up testing to get people back out of hospital as they keep testing positive even though they have had no symptoms for ages). So, if I was going back to the frontline after recovering, I'd be wary too. 

[zero000]

Raab shown as talking bullshit this morning on Radio 4 about meeting up with your parents in a park:

 

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1259749650329997314?s=20

"people can now also spend time outdoors subject to: not meeting up with any more than one person from outside your household" - Taken from the Government document.

Incredibly poor communication again from the Government.

 

 

Edited May 11, 2020 by zero000

[O'Doyle Rules]

I am from Jersey and the approach there is very much "we need most of the island to get it, without overwhelming the health services". This seems to correspond to lockdown easing as its own Nightingale Hospital opens.

My view is that lockdown is being eased in the UK on the assumption that people will get ill, but hospitals will be able to cope. 

The media will drive the government to loosening lockdown. They were obsessed with which country had the highest rates (Italy, Spain, UK, US etc.) and now that the death figures are no longer "shocking", they are pressing ahead with the loosening lockdown agenda.

Edited May 11, 2020 by O'Doyle Rules

[stuartbert two hats]

1 hour ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

Unfortunately yes. What is the alternative? As I said in an earlier post for many it’s good that they’re actually needed to work, with millions of of job losses looming and a crumbling economy then actually being needed is not a bad thing overall. Are you suggesting the government pay people to stay at home indefinitely? It’s unfortunate that some jobs can be done from home and some can’t, but genuinely, how do you get round that?

What about a proper test and trace programme and proper PPE for all workers?  It's not a small job, but it's not difficult to see that the government can and should do far more before sending the proles back over the top.

[hfuhruhurr]

18 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

That’s just the anecdotal opinion of one person, your neighbour though isn’t is.

The guy is a well respected consultant with the expertise and time to read all the peer reviewed stuff he could get his mitts on. So, I'll go with that.

21 minutes ago, Cream Soda said:

Excuse my ignorance but how would a vaccine work in that case?

Apparently vaccination produces a much stronger antibody response so you're immune for much longer.

(I'm no medic, just regurgitating an explanation I heard from an expert on the beeb).

[Toilet Duck]

1 minute ago, stuartbert two hats said:

What about a proper test and trace programme and proper PPE for all workers?  It's not a small job, but it's not difficult to see that the government can and should do far more before sending the proles back over the top.

Exactly! PPE is out there, we are reopening (of sorts) next Monday, the PPE we ordered just arrived this week, but reopening was entirely dependant on it being there and staff being able to come into work safely (I also know you can't shut down hospitals until it arrives, but it should be in place for other business to open up again). We have thermal scanners being installed over the summer so that once all the students come back, everyone entering our buildings will have their temp checked and we are rolling out an in-house testing programme for all of our students so that we can test them frequently and identify, trace and isolate all cases (with quarantine accommodation already block booked and our caterers on hand to provide food for them). I appreciate that we are a medical school and can do this, but a bit of creative thinking could allow far more businesses to operate safely (albeit with extra cost, but not that much compared to the cost of not trading). 

[zahidf]

Interesting on the R rate

 

 

 

[steviewevie]

1 hour ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

Yes and no. I have two friends in construction, one self employed and one employed. I’ve also got two other friends who are self employed working mainly in people’s homes. They have all been desperate for this announcement and desperate to get back to work. One of them is due to do some work at my house an text me first thing this morning to arrange it, he needs and wants the work. They all massively welcome this so you shouldn’t underestimate that for many this is a welcome announcement. They don’t feel disadvantaged because that’s how they earn their living.

I appreciate that it might he be different if you work in a factory or an assembly line as an example. But realistically if your employer physically needs you present to be able to fulfil your job, it’s not realistic to expect them to pay you to stay at home. Anybody who doesn’t want the risk has the option to stay at home, but they’d likely have to forfeit their job and income. It’s unfortunate that some jobs require you to be physically present and in a pandemic these people are placed more at risk, but there really is no solution to that. I don’t think stopping people from working would necessarily be any better on the whole.

your money or your life.

[JoeyT]

The next 2 hours or so of TV on BBC 1 are going to be absolute box office stuff.

Boris is going to get picked apart and it's going to be so fun to watch...

[zahidf]

Useful Q and A from the govt

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-outbreak-faqs-what-you-can-and-cant-do/coronavirus-outbreak-faqs-what-you-can-and-cant-do

[Homer]

7 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

The next 2 hours or so of TV on BBC 1 are going to be absolute box office stuff.

Boris is going to get picked apart and it's going to be so fun to watch...

What's going on? Is this BBC News 24?

[DeanoL]

I know it's rich-people problems and doesn't effect any of us here, but does anyone know why the restriction on visiting a second home is (still) in place? Assuming you can travel by car, I can't see how it has an impact? Is it genuinely just so they can go "look, the rich have got restrictions too!"

(Even if Spaffer ignored it and we all said it was okay anyway...)

[jparx]

Just now, DeanoL said:

I know it's rich-people problems and doesn't effect any of us here, but does anyone know why the restriction on visiting a second home is (still) in place? Assuming you can travel by car, I can't see how it has an impact? Is it genuinely just so they can go "look, the rich have got restrictions too!"

(Even if Spaffer ignored it and we all said it was okay anyway...)

I think it's because NHS capacity is based on where people have their primary home. If everyone suddenly heads to their second home in Cornwall or the Lake District, hospitals in that part of the country might not cope if there's an outbreak. It also makes life more difficult for people who actually live there with increased numbers at the supermarkets etc.

[efcfanwirral]

14 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

The next 2 hours or so of TV on BBC 1 are going to be absolute box office stuff.

Boris is going to get picked apart and it's going to be so fun to watch...

excellent. Is Starmer there? Just put it on and Johnson is doing his speech

Edited May 11, 2020 by efcfanwirral

[Homer]

4 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

excellent. Is Starmer there? Just put it on and Johnson is doing his speech

Starmer is running through all of the announcement and picking it apart.

[Homer]

Starmer asks for clarification, Johnson responds by waffling

[steviewevie]

17 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I know it's rich-people problems and doesn't effect any of us here, but does anyone know why the restriction on visiting a second home is (still) in place? Assuming you can travel by car, I can't see how it has an impact? Is it genuinely just so they can go "look, the rich have got restrictions too!"

(Even if Spaffer ignored it and we all said it was okay anyway...)

unnecessary travel?

[fatyeti24]

19 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I know it's rich-people problems and doesn't effect any of us here, but does anyone know why the restriction on visiting a second home is (still) in place? Assuming you can travel by car, I can't see how it has an impact? Is it genuinely just so they can go "look, the rich have got restrictions too!"

(Even if Spaffer ignored it and we all said it was okay anyway...)

They haven't said you can't travel to your 3rd or 4th home though.  One rule for the rich, one for the rest.

[steviewevie]

Did Johnson actually answer any of Starmer's questions?

[Homer]

5 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Did Johnson actually answer any of Starmer's questions?

He didn't seem to. He waffled for ages, then it got a bit awkward and he started trying to raise his voice and look around - then realised he was playing to an audience that didn't exist then gave up. Fair assessment?

[JoeyT]

5 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Did Johnson actually answer any of Starmer's questions?

He's struggling to answer anything.

He's dodged questions on the quarantine of international travellers multiple times...

[steviewevie]

No need for goverment, let's just use common sense.

[jparx]

The Tory questions are pathetic. They're either utterly irrelevant or Boris gave the answers earlier in his speech.

[steviewevie]

Is Starmer not allowed to ask Johnson why he hasn't answered his questions?