Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
it's not always 80% either, that was top end, there was a limit of £2500 pm
furlough has still fudged a lot of people
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Coronavirus
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
it's not always 80% either, that was top end, there was a limit of £2500 pm
furlough has still fudged a lot of people
paxtonwolf
Tony Marchi
I live in Warrington and work in Knowsley, but regions currently over 100. Looks like it's lockdown at one end or the other for me
Glenda's Legs
Paul Walsh
Hanrooster was definitely talking about a 2 week lockdown as a possibility this morning. Not full-on like before - aim is to keep most people still working and schools open. So restrictions on mixing with other household, restrictions around pubs, non- essential travel etc. It sounded very much in serious consideration.
Grays_1890
Chris Jones
Fair enough, I just can't see them NOT rolling the London Dice now furlough is over
Gazza Dazzla
Chris Perry
I’m certainly not a conspiracy theorist and I’ve no problem wearing a mask or anything like that, but I thought this was interesting (if not already posted?):
Disclaimer, I don’t know who the guy is or his credentials, so don’t shoot the messenger!
Disclaimer, I don’t know who the guy is or his credentials, so don’t shoot the messenger!
paxtonwolf
Tony Marchi
These local lockdowns crack me up. Our daughter cant come round to the house with our grandson (or Vice versa), but we can meet just down the road staying 2m apart, or meet in the pub before 10pm.
Crazy
Crazy
awesome dawson
Mitchell Thomas
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ort-tests-aiding-covid-spread-scientists-warn
Hahaha the UK is a bad joke. Airports could be bringing in Covid and with no quarantine policy or testing that could be spreading the virus around the country. Genius.
Hahaha the UK is a bad joke. Airports could be bringing in Covid and with no quarantine policy or testing that could be spreading the virus around the country. Genius.
SteveAWOL
Chris Jones
Legohamster
Ian Walker
This set of sage group need replacing
they now want testing at airports, but also saying they don’t want testing at airport
they are now moaning there is not herd immunity , why is that - because they pushed for lockdown for everyone
they advised everyone should get a test - now we are running out.
and then the modelling
Not only the lack of testing but their stupid back by 4am flimflam too.
You and I go to location A for a holiday, after eight or w/e days there the UK announces that location A is on the block list now and we have to race back before 4am on a Saturday otherwise quarantine.. You get back on time and I don't, so I have to stay in for fourteen days while you are free to spread whatever germs you may have around.
It quite simply should be if you go abroad then when you come back you need to quarantine for fourteen, or ten, days regardless.
LutonSpurs
Eric Dear
I think the treatments available will mean less deaths but the hospitals being busy means once again other vital services will be delayed and the impact of that will be costly.
johnola
Jermaine Jenas
I find that all convincing and backed up with a boatload of analysis, real world observations and fits my own current gut felt narrative - that it’s over, and our own interventions are causing much more damage than just letting it run it’s course.
I disagreed with Legohamster and Scara some months back when they each held the opinion that excess deaths was just taking the highly susceptible early. Well they appear to have been correct, although mortality was actually playing catch-up rather than getting ahead of itself - but I’m happy to concede that it appears they were much more correct than I was.
It’s comforting in a way that he predicts a natural rise in deaths to match typical seasonal mortality, we should expect to see this and not panic when the roller coaster of numbers hits the apex.
Thw epidemic is over but the disease is still present, and not one to catch if you can avoid it.
End the panic. Get out. Nature knows best.
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
Read my above post. Some just cannot help themselves.
Legohamster
Ian Walker
Via the Telegraph - follow the science - which science?
I knew a second lockdown was on the cards before we’d had the first one. In mid-March my team at the University of Edinburgh modelled a lockdown that ended in June and was followed by a slow, initially imperceptible rise in cases over the summer, culminating in a second lockdown in late September.
We knew that scenario was likely because we knew that a lockdown is a short-term fix, not a long term solution. However cautiously we relaxed restrictions the time would come when the epidemic started to take off again. In the UK, that time is now.
This is not mid-March though. Back then cases and deaths were doubling every 3-4 days. In mid-September, cases are doubling every 7-14 days and deaths even more slowly. This too was expected; the way we are living now does not permit the virus to spread as easily as before, so this should be more of a second bump than a second wave.
Some kind of response is called for, but it must be proportionate. One suggestion is a ‘circuit breaker’, the social distancing version of a short, sharp shock to drive down incidence over a two-week period. The virus would bounce back in time but we’d have bought a few weeks.
It is profoundly disappointing that six months into this pandemic, having rejected every alternative proposed, we keep coming back to lockdown, a strategy that is visibly failing around the world. If we must go this route, let us at least avoid earlier mistakes. The March lockdown was too harsh, failed dismally to protect those who most needed protecting, and had no exit strategy. A circuit breaker must be targeted to minimise disruption, especially to health care provision and education, but also to business and services; it must focus on protecting the elderly and frail; and it must be time-limited, come what may.
We should set some ground rules too. First, we deploy only evidence-based interventions, unlike the rule-of-six in England which unnecessarily applies to children, who play a minor role in transmission, and outdoor activities, which are very low risk. Second, we have a clear plan for using the time we have bought; for instance, to build testing capacity. Third, we agree on a long term strategy that does not involve a crippling on-off cycle of circuit breakers until whenever we might get a vaccine. We must not allow the cure to become worse than the disease.
That long term strategy has to be a risk-based approach to living with Covid-19. This is a very unpleasant virus but, for the great majority of people, not nearly so unpleasant that we should contemplate shutting down society to deal with it. We can help individuals assess the risk to themselves and the people around them, enable everyone to mitigate those risks while ensuring that the most vulnerable are protected, and thereby minimise the need for government-led interventions. Would that work? It seems to be working in Sweden.
Prof Mark Woolhouse is Chair of Infectious Disease Epidemiology at the University of Edinburgh. He is a member of the UK SPI-M advisory group and of Scotland's Covid-19 Advisory Group. He is writing in a personal capacity.
I knew a second lockdown was on the cards before we’d had the first one. In mid-March my team at the University of Edinburgh modelled a lockdown that ended in June and was followed by a slow, initially imperceptible rise in cases over the summer, culminating in a second lockdown in late September.
We knew that scenario was likely because we knew that a lockdown is a short-term fix, not a long term solution. However cautiously we relaxed restrictions the time would come when the epidemic started to take off again. In the UK, that time is now.
This is not mid-March though. Back then cases and deaths were doubling every 3-4 days. In mid-September, cases are doubling every 7-14 days and deaths even more slowly. This too was expected; the way we are living now does not permit the virus to spread as easily as before, so this should be more of a second bump than a second wave.
Some kind of response is called for, but it must be proportionate. One suggestion is a ‘circuit breaker’, the social distancing version of a short, sharp shock to drive down incidence over a two-week period. The virus would bounce back in time but we’d have bought a few weeks.
It is profoundly disappointing that six months into this pandemic, having rejected every alternative proposed, we keep coming back to lockdown, a strategy that is visibly failing around the world. If we must go this route, let us at least avoid earlier mistakes. The March lockdown was too harsh, failed dismally to protect those who most needed protecting, and had no exit strategy. A circuit breaker must be targeted to minimise disruption, especially to health care provision and education, but also to business and services; it must focus on protecting the elderly and frail; and it must be time-limited, come what may.
We should set some ground rules too. First, we deploy only evidence-based interventions, unlike the rule-of-six in England which unnecessarily applies to children, who play a minor role in transmission, and outdoor activities, which are very low risk. Second, we have a clear plan for using the time we have bought; for instance, to build testing capacity. Third, we agree on a long term strategy that does not involve a crippling on-off cycle of circuit breakers until whenever we might get a vaccine. We must not allow the cure to become worse than the disease.
That long term strategy has to be a risk-based approach to living with Covid-19. This is a very unpleasant virus but, for the great majority of people, not nearly so unpleasant that we should contemplate shutting down society to deal with it. We can help individuals assess the risk to themselves and the people around them, enable everyone to mitigate those risks while ensuring that the most vulnerable are protected, and thereby minimise the need for government-led interventions. Would that work? It seems to be working in Sweden.
Prof Mark Woolhouse is Chair of Infectious Disease Epidemiology at the University of Edinburgh. He is a member of the UK SPI-M advisory group and of Scotland's Covid-19 Advisory Group. He is writing in a personal capacity.
Grays_1890
Chris Jones
Because they have put a concentrated effort into this system to reboot their tourism industry
Agree with the sentiment but he is taking a huge risk going to Italy based on their reporting of highest number of cases since lockdown was lifted. Having a test does not stop you getting it by travelling to a high risk country. They are literally dodging the second wave bullet daily. But alas its good point scoring.
I find that all abit odd TBH.
SteveAWOL
Chris Jones
Italy have had fewer confirmed cases than UK for a few months though, according to https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/
