When will this shit end?

[Crazyfool01]

R rate has risen to above 1 in some parts of country government admits ... lets see if they slow the openings ? 

[EasyUserName]

6 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

R rate has risen to above 1 in some parts of country government admits ... lets see if they slow the openings ? 

Be a bit of a challenge there though.  Industry is already spending big at the moment working towards the various deadline dates.  Stuff being carried out that cannot easily be paused. 

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, EasyUserName said:

Be a bit of a challenge there though.  Industry is already spending big at the moment working towards the various deadline dates.  Stuff being carried out that cannot easily be paused. 

absolutely .... they did mention the would do stuff regionally by saying they shut Weston Hospital ... not sure this will be on the same scale ...

[efcfanwirral]

1 hour ago, zahidf said:

https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/exclusive-five-out-ten-lawyers-want-work-home-good

 

50% of solicitors looking to wfh from now on. Wouldnt want to be in commercial property at the moment. 

I guess those who adapt will win- law firms from the example will still need smaller office spaces with meeting rooms (after social distancing anyway) so I reckon those who stick to the old way rigidly will suffer, but there's a great opportunity for new tailored solutions. And not a moment too soon to move away from the presenteeism culture when it's not necessary in my opinion

12 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

R rate has risen to above 1 in some parts of country government admits ... lets see if they slow the openings ? 

Depends what areas they are - Labour strongholds? Lockdown locally and don't guarantee money for workers who can't work (and say its Labour's fault)  Tory areas? Continue opening.

 

Edited June 12, 2020 by efcfanwirral

[zahidf]

27 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

R rate has risen to above 1 in some parts of country government admits ... lets see if they slow the openings ? 

they said that they will be going more by infection rates now rather than the R rate per se. If infections are low, an R rate just below rate isnt as concerning

[rascalpete]

1 hour ago, Homer said:

Juts saw this on BBC news, followed by Gove saying we won't be extending the transition period.

Just popping down to the jobcentre to apply for info on how to retrain as a disaster capitalist.

Croatia, we supposedly fly out 15th July, still not been cancelled. Spoke to people in Croatia and they are really hoping for British tourists to save their summer as it is unlikely they will see Americans Canadians or Brazilians this year! I guess it’s wait and see.. I see BA, easyJet and Ryanair have taken the government to court today over the quarantine 

[Toilet Duck]

2 hours ago, Waterdeep said:

It seems to be poorly explained (or most likely I'm misreading it!), where does it say they haven't been followed up for three months yet?

Its just the way it's phrased...basically it says "Among 12 participants with antibodies that were detected longer than 40 days after symptom onset, eight remained neutralization positive including two participants who were tested 3 months after symptom onset."

What this means is that 8/12 participants had neutralising antibodies >40 days after they developed symptoms. For 2 of those, they were tested 3 months after they developed symptoms (we have to assume the other ten were >40 days/<90 days (3 months))...I agree that it's not entirely intuitive, but they are just trying to highlight that in some cases, neutralising antibodies were present for as long as 3 months. It also doesn't mean that the other 370 participants don't have antibodies, they just haven't reported the results (possibly because they were not >40 days from symptom onset and they are looking for durable immune responses...but that's just speculation, I don't know why they haven't reported them yet)

[steviewevie]

Article about European countries and travel

https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2020/may/18/europe-holidays-which-european-countries-are-easing-coronavirus-travel-restrictions-lockdown-measures

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, zahidf said:

they said that they will be going more by infection rates now rather than the R rate per se. If infections are low, an R rate just below rate isnt as concerning

😂 more goal posts being moved. This is exactly what they do, the original measure they set isn’t working for them so they change it to another one. It was national R rate then local R rate and now infection rates.

[Toilet Duck]

1 hour ago, zahidf said:

 

Yeah, data on masks really starting to firm up (I know I sound like a broken record at this stage, I'm just bemused at the reluctance to do this properly)...

 

Punchline is pretty clear. Although the case numbers were dropping in NYC when masks were brought in, the change in slope equates to 66,000 fewer infections. That's massive. Same thing replicated in Italy (78,000 fewer infections after masks brought in) and Wuhan, so it's not just specific to one epicentre. Other studies on the introduction of face coverings in Europe have reached similar conclusions. US (minus NYC) continues to creep up without mandated face covering. The other key point from this paper is that social distancing isn't enough (based on how the virus has spread under these conditions), in fact, masks alone make a much bigger difference. Time to change how this is managed from influenza-based protocols to CoV-based (now that we have the data). 

[steviewevie]

 

[squirrelarmy]

[Crazyfool01]

why why why are we still not being stronger on face masks and coverings ?!!! stop talking about it being sensible !! stronger language needed ... stop ignoring elsewhere !!!

[Guest]

Because they haven't got a clue what they are doing.

[Crazyfool01]

Ah so we need to stay at home whilst the shops open ... in the southwest 

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

Ah so we need to stay at home whilst the shops open ... in the southwest 

Yeah it makes no sense. I can form a support bubble but also stay home?

[Crazyfool01]

Just now, Ozanne said:

Yeah it makes no sense. I can form a support bubble but also stay home?

you cant ..... !! Efests is your support bubble .... no trying outside of that  

[Toilet Duck]

1 hour ago, crazyfool1 said:

why why why are we still not being stronger on face masks and coverings ?!!! stop talking about it being sensible !! stronger language needed ... stop ignoring elsewhere !!!

You’re gonna need to change your name mate, you’re no fool!! (not crazy either😁)

[Crazyfool01]

40 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

You’re gonna need to change your name mate, you’re no fool!! (not crazy either😁)

Mildly  like you and many others my name came from inspiration ... in my case a t-shirt I owned when I set up the account .... have you any ideas why we aren't being strong on face coverings?  .... surely they cant be worrying about the nhs supplies being affected now ....  the social distance of 1m could be introduced along with the wearing of face masks .... Its much clearer for them than this stay alert message ... wear a face mask , protect others , therefore yourself ...... why are our scientists choosing different routes ? 

[Toilet Duck]

10 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

Mildly  like you and many others my name came from inspiration ... in my case a t-shirt I owned when I set up the account .... have you any ideas why we aren't being strong on face coverings?  .... surely they cant be worrying about the nhs supplies being affected now ....  the social distance of 1m could be introduced along with the wearing of face masks .... Its much clearer for them than this stay alert message ... wear a face mask , protect others , therefore yourself ...... why are our scientists choosing different routes ? 

It’s the same here, it’s recommended but not mandatory (they’re looking at it again, I expect it to be mandatory on public transport soon as the unions are insisting on it). The excuse here now is that some people can’t wear them due to medical conditions, but the data on masks shows a big impact if about 70% of people wear them. So, anyone with a medical condition will be under the care of a doctor for it, pretty easy to issue a cert saying you can’t wear one, doubt it’s 30% of the population. Early on, it was almost certainly down to the shortage (as well as data from influenza outbreaks suggesting limited impact...influenza models informed many of the measures enacted...the penny is finally dropping that this isn’t influenza and the biology is different). But, there was a lack of hard evidence (even though common sense suggested it was a good idea), and that is now changing as data from places that implemented mask wearing shows better outcomes. Unfortunately, the completely mixed messaging around this has meant that even though it is suggested, most people aren’t bothering (at which point you have to change from guidance to required)

Edited June 12, 2020 by Toilet Duck

[steviewevie]

ok - to be clear,  because I keep reading/hearing different things...masks make a big difference on stopping others catching the virus from you, but don't actually make much difference on yourself catching it?

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

ok - to be clear,  because I keep reading/hearing different things...masks make a big difference on stopping others catching the virus from you, but don't actually make much difference on yourself catching it?

only in the fact they do if others are all wearing them ... sort of like a herd immunity with masks I believe 

[Crazyfool01]

8 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

It’s the same here, it’s recommended but not mandatory (they’re looking at it again, I expect it to be mandatory on public transport soon as the unions are insisting on it). The excuse here now is that some people can’t wear them due to medical conditions, but the data on masks shows a big impact if about 70% of people wear them. So, anyone with a medical condition will be under the care of a doctor for it, pretty easy to issue a cert saying you can’t wear one, doubt it’s 30% of the population. Early on, it was almost certainly down to the shortage (as well as data from influenza outbreaks suggesting limited impact...influenza models informed many of the measures enacted...the penny is finally dropping that this isn’t influenza and the biology is different). But, there was a lack of hard evidence (even though common sense suggested it was a good idea), and that is now changing as data from places that implemented mask wearing shows better outcomes. Unfortunately, the completely mixed messaging around this has meant that even though it is suggested, most people aren’t bothering (at which point you have to change from guidance to required)

and of course many of those will still be shielding so not out and about anyway .....

[Toilet Duck]

35 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

ok - to be clear,  because I keep reading/hearing different things...masks make a big difference on stopping others catching the virus from you, but don't actually make much difference on yourself catching it?

Exactly. Wearing one is the socially responsible thing to do. It’s a very simple message...my mask protects you, yours protects me!

other types of masks do provide some protection to the wearer (FFP2/3 masks), but need to be coupled with other types of PPE (visors/goggles, long sleeve gowns, all the way up to hazmat suits) to really provide protection. But for source control at a population level, fairly basic face coverings work. To be completely honest, disposable surgical masks are actually the most comfortable for any extended period, but they are the least environmentally friendly option. Even cheap ones would be ok if the outer layer is moisture repellent and the inner layer is comfortable. 

Edited June 12, 2020 by Toilet Duck

[Toilet Duck]

27 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

and of course many of those will still be shielding so not out and about anyway .....

Exactly