Xmas lockdown or not? n/g | Page 3 | Vital Football

Xmas lockdown or not? n/g

wxgill said:
Thank you for all of your replies.

Nice to be in the majority for once.

Has anybody read anything about digital optimisers for household electrics?:off:
Click to expand...
I don't think you answered VG's question? How many deaths would be caused by you having your daughter and grandson over for the day?
 
I will be at my mum and dad's for boxing day, with my 2 boys (hopefully). Looking forward to it, we managed perfectly ok a month ago, so it should be fine now ( don't go if you are poorly, wash hands etc)
 
alphabet_king said:
I disagree.

Realistically we have never had to deal with a pandemic of this level in this modern age, so there's going to be some learning as we go, and making it up as we go along or shall we call it "reacting to unexpected occurrences" to be kinder.

I would actually say I think the govt has had a strategy (which has changed as they find out more about the virus etc. - I am fine with this).... but they have just implemented their strategy very very poorly. This is the key issue for me in regards to the govt.

PPE, Track and Trace - being two prime examples. I work in IT systems development, how it's taken this long to sort out the Track and Trace system is beyond me entirely.
Click to expand...

The government's plan was from the outset was to "follow the science". The science suggested we needed a lockdown at the start of October, but the government decided on a tiered system was the way to slow the spread, to then go back into nation lockdown because it hasn't worked.

No-one is saying they've got an easy job, the easy bit was putting us into lockdown in March the hard bit was always going to be easing the lockdown without the spread of the virus taking off again. I'll put my head on the block and say we'll need another national lockdown by the end of January.

The fact they haven't included schools in the lockdown is madness. Yes the kids may not suffer with symptoms, but they're clearly spreaders, and they admitted they didn't have enough evidence to say either way when they reopened schools, so to me, if you don't know you take the cautious approach and keep them shut and I speak as a parent who's had an 8 year old self isolating over two periods of 14 days. What did her more harm, the learning from home when the schools were shut or not being able to go out the house AT ALL for 14 days at a time (twice), most definitely the latter. Granted there are kids who will be harmed by learning (or not) from home but IMO more damage is being done to the wider community by keeping them open. That isn't with hindsight, its a fairly obvious observation, this virus spreads where people have close contact,it doesn't care if that a school a care home, a bus or train or a pub, so schools despite their best efforts are a breading ground. Most of the schools in Medway currently closed are because of inadequate staffing levels due to staff self isolating. Clearly this type of thing is beyond the thought of government. The kids don't suffer so no one else will affected by schools being open. Staff won't get it, kids won't take it home and give it siblings or parents or play with other kids. It beggars belief this type of thing was not expected to happen. As for the Governments term of places being "Covid secure", PMSL.

Basically they've followed the science when it suits and IMO not been hard enough at times. Having a lockdown and not tieing it with school holidays (something that happens every six weeks) is a fucking joke IMO.
 
Last edited:
We are members of a species that is under threat from a virus and we'll take our chance with both the virus and the behaviour of the species. I understand the desire to point at others but remember that I was once very young and even more foolish. I am now a great deal older and a bit more scared. I live in comfortable circumstances with someone to chunter to and younger people might consider us in tier 1 permanently.

We most of us tend to overcomplicate stuff and look sideways. All we need is for the big majority to think about limiting contact where possible until the vaccine takes over. That's it and it means different things to different people but if we all reduce contacts and take precautions things get better rather than worse. I find that thinking about killing people doesn't help but thinking about the staff at Medway Maritime struggling to cope does.
 
alphabet_king said:
Social distancing doesn't eliminate the risk, it lowers it to more manageable/acceptable levels. There's so much misunderstanding of risk management here it's unbelievable.
Click to expand...

I realise that you can't eliminate the risk totally which is why I wrote "probably" in my prior comment.
 
Captainreblue said:
Basically they've followed the science when it suits and IMO not been hard enough at times. Having a lockdown and not tieing it with school holidays (something that happens every six weeks) is a fucking joke IMO.
Click to expand...
I am also a parent, of 2 teenage boys that commute to different schools in covid hotspot Swale. They are both doing ok, kids are resilient, and going to school means their parents can go out to work.

People need to do their best, get through it, and stop moaning all the time.
 
ThreeSixes said:
I am also a parent, of 2 teenage boys that commute to different schools in covid hotspot Swale. They are both doing ok, kids are resilient, and going to school means their parents can go out to work.
People need to do their best, get through it, and stop moaning all the time.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with resilience. It seems as though children are just as likely to catch Covid and carry it, but just not show many symptoms.

That is borne out by the fact that the graph/slide showed how far UK infections suddenly increased at the end of September and grew during the following month.

The other suspicion about Swale relates to their heavy prison population, where social distancing is as much a problem as it is in schools.
 
ThreeSixes said:
Agreed - 2 people walking passed each other without facemasks doesn't mean that both will get the virus. One will have to have it firstly, and there will need to be sustained contact
Click to expand...
Eh? i think you've misunderstood my message. I was actually stating the converse to what you seem to be claiming. You can't guarantee avoiding getting it even if you do wear the facemasks.

And in fact your example is entirely untrue anyway - it shows a gross misunderstanding of the science. Two people walking past one another, not wearing facemasks could absolutely catch it without 'sustained contact'. It was explained numerous times when COVID came about that the particles/germs can be transmitted as droplets in air. So if you breathe out, and someone else by chance happens to walk past and breathe in (or even catch it on their clothing or skin and subsequently ingest that particle), then you will catch it. Of course this is why the 2m rule has been introduced. Because this is the distance which the chance of a particle still being in the air is low vs actual workable distances that you can reasonably expect people to stay away from one another. But again, it's just reducing the chance. The risk is still there. No one has come out and said "covid particles cannot move more than 2m". The science just suggests it's unlikely, and there's a much lower probability (but not nil). People's misunderstanding of the science is worrying.
 
Captainreblue said:
The government's plan was from the outset was to "follow the science". The science suggested we needed a lockdown at the start of October, but the government decided on a tiered system was the way to slow the spread, to then go back into nation lockdown because it hasn't worked.

The fact they haven't included schools in the lockdown is madness.

Basically they've followed the science when it suits and IMO not been hard enough at times. Having a lockdown and not tieing it with school holidays (something that happens every six weeks) is a fucking joke IMO.
Click to expand...

The video is from around 3 months ago but it contains Professor Whitty explaining why it is so import for children to go back to school in September.


Maybe the reason why Boris hasn't closed down the schools in the lockdown is due to advice from his chief medical officer who presumably has been looking at the science?
 
Baghdad_Rob said:
The video is from around 3 months ago but it contains Professor Whitty explaining why it is so import for children to go back to school in September.


Maybe the reason why Boris hasn't closed down the schools in the lockdown is due to advice from his chief medical officer who presumably has been looking at the science?
Click to expand...
Nice to see him using the words 'balance of risk' something Chris Who seems to be oblivious to.
 
alphabet_king said:
Social distancing doesn't eliminate the risk, it lowers it to more manageable/acceptable levels. There's so much misunderstanding of risk management here it's unbelievable.
Click to expand...
And that has been exactly my point when people question pubs shutting at 10 or the difference between family visiting and estate agents coming round. Nothing will ever get rid of covid19 but we can manage how many people get it. Hence my anger at the figures above regarding "non isolators". Isolating when you are meant to is the best way of reducing infections. People moan about the test and trace system (and, agreed, it's not perfect) but such systems are only as good as the people following it. On this case, 89% of them are rubbish at it.
 
alphabet_king said:
Eh? i think you've misunderstood my message. I was actually stating the converse to what you seem to be claiming. You can't guarantee avoiding getting it even if you do wear the facemasks.

And in fact your example is entirely untrue anyway - it shows a gross misunderstanding of the science. Two people walking past one another, not wearing facemasks could absolutely catch it without 'sustained contact'. It was explained numerous times when COVID came about that the particles/germs can be transmitted as droplets in air. So if you breathe out, and someone else by chance happens to walk past and breathe in (or even catch it on their clothing or skin and subsequently ingest that particle), then you will catch it. Of course this is why the 2m rule has been introduced. Because this is the distance which the chance of a particle still being in the air is low vs actual workable distances that you can reasonably expect people to stay away from one another. But again, it's just reducing the chance. The risk is still there. No one has come out and said "covid particles cannot move more than 2m". The science just suggests it's unlikely, and there's a much lower probability (but not nil). People's misunderstanding of the science is worrying.
Click to expand...

I think it is you that misunderstands the science? The 2m rule is for 15 minutes of contact

https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2020/03/04/coronavirus-covid-19-what-is-social-distancing/

And one of the 2 people would need to have Covid also, before it can be caught by the other
 
Baghdad_Rob said:
The video is from around 3 months ago but it contains Professor Whitty explaining why it is so import for children to go back to school in September.


Maybe the reason why Boris hasn't closed down the schools in the lockdown is due to advice from his chief medical officer who presumably has been looking at the science?
Click to expand...

And not once in that video does he address whether kids spread it to family, teachers or among the general population. Its great that kids dont get seriously I'll with it, but it's no good have schools open if they spread it to adults or vulnerable people who do get seriously I'll, end up in hospital or worse case die from getting covid.

Also that video, from 3 months ago, was before the kids returned to school. I wonder if the science might say something different now.

Medway as of last week had 56% of secondary school and 83%of primary school children learning from home and the rate is only going in the wrong direction, but that's ok because kids dont suffer with it, just screw anyone that might catch it off a child.
 
Captainreblue said:
Medway as of last week had 56% of secondary school and 83%of primary school children learning from home and the rate is only going in the wrong direction, but that's ok because kids dont suffer with it, just screw anyone that might catch it off a child.
Click to expand...

As an aside, not sure that we know, yet, whether there are latent issues to Covi-19 ? For all we know, the virus could be lingering in untested younger people in a dormant form. Until we know one way or the other it would surely be wise to have all children, as well as other age groups, vaccinated asap.
 
Schools don't necessarily have to be a problem. My kids go to a school that runs right the way through from nursery up to 18 years old. Probably around 1800 kids in total at the school. I think in the 2 months or so they've been back, they've had to send an entire class home for 14 days on 3 occasions. Other than that, there have been isolated cases here and there (including one of my kids' form teachers), but they assess each case on its own merits, decide who the person concerned has been in close contact with, and send those people home to isolate if necessary.

Touch wood, everything they're doing so far seems to be working. Kids are all dropped off at the gate, no parents allowed onto the site unless they have a good reason. Staggered entry and exit times at each gate to ensure there's never more than one year group waiting at any gate at any time (helps that with it being such a big school there are 6 different gates). Older kids have their temperature taken on the way in. Masks compulsory for everyone (with the possible exception of the kids in nursery, I'm not sure about them). Anyone with symptoms is asked to stay home, and anyone developing symptoms at school taken to a special room, with their parents asked to pick them up immediately.

When the schools went back in mid-September, the number of cases per 100,000 people in Madrid was up above 700 (and from memory, from the area where I live, I think it was around 450). It's currently around 270 in Madrid as a whole, and 285 where I live. Obviously that's also down to other measures taken by the Madrid government, but there's no reason why schools being open needs to be a problem (or at least, why schools being open needs to be a bigger problem than shops, bars, restaurants, etc. being open).
 
ThreeSixes said:
And one of the 2 people would need to have Covid also, before it can be caught by the other
Click to expand...
State the bleeding obvious mate? Do you mean to tell me that coronavirus doesnt just magically appear/grow if it notices people going within less than 2m? this is shocking news.

The problem is that no one really can be that confident they havn't got it, as many cases are asymtomatic, and also even in symtomatic cases it can take up to 2 weeks to show any systems anyway.

The 2m rule has been 'recommended' for all interactions, whether they are 15 minutes or not. That is fairly well understood - maybe not by yourself. Clearly this doesn't eliminate the risk, but it reduces it. i.e. There's proof covid particles can travel up to 8m, but theres much lower chance of it happening and 8m is not really workable. The balancing of risk, as that chief science official said, is what's driving these rules/guidelines.
 
So many people falling out with each other; I'm right you're wrong (funny seen this on some other subjects as well), with no consensus it will all fall apart as everyone knows their argument is correct and anyone who does not whole heartily agree is wrong. Government will have not control (not that it had much in the first place) and it will all go to rats shit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.