|
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and train stations 'to avoid'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52708757
Some rather surprising inclusions and omissions: Full list of London's busiest stations: [nb no "to avoid"] Barking Brixton Canada Water Canary Wharf Canning Town Clapham Junction East Croydon East Ham Lewisham Leyton Liverpool Street London Bridge North Acton Seven Sisters Stratford Walthamstow Central West Croydon West Ham Wood Green Woolwich Arsenal eg Wood Green, but not Oxford-Circus/Bank/Hloborn/Victoria/Waterloo/Paddington/Euston/KGX-STP/et c/etc. -- Roland Perry |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and train stations 'to avoid'
On Mon, 18 May 2020 15:34:18 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52708757 Some rather surprising inclusions and omissions: I wondering if this country has lost its collective sanity. If you need to get to work you need to get to work - telling people to avoid stations is absurd. As for "social" distancing on public transport, give me a break. Adults should be able to decide for themselves if they want to risk it, not have some nanny state nonsense make everyones life difficult. |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and train stations 'to avoid'
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 18/05/2020 16:42, wrote: On Mon, 18 May 2020 15:34:18 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52708757 Some rather surprising inclusions and omissions: I wondering if this country has lost its collective sanity. If you need to get to work you need to get to work - telling people to avoid stations is absurd. As for "social" distancing on public transport, give me a break. Adults should be able to decide for themselves if they want to risk it, not have some nanny state nonsense make everyones life difficult. Precisely. It's like this insane business of telling people they should wear face masks on public transport and in shops. My other half's sister is an operating theatre manager and she says they're a waste of time for the general public. You have to know how to put them on and take them off, and *not* to touch or fiddle with them while they're on. Unlike the numpty we saw behind the deli counter at one of the local stupid markets the other day. I'd rather believe her than some fool government spokesman, I don't always agree with her on everything, but in medical matters I like to think that she knows what she's talking about. Masks worn by the public are NOT meant to protect the wearer. They're not PPE, and they don't perform the same function as the gear that operating theatre staff wear to protect themselves from infection. So your ohs's comments are irrelevant in this context. The masks that the public may choose to wear on the bus, train, plane or shop sole purpose is to protect *other* people from the wearer's saliva, should they be infected. So it doesn't matter in the slightest if they don or remove them properly, and they don't need to wash them at 60°C. The masks don't need to fit perfectly, just well enough to stop droplets of the wearer's saliva from being sprayed around. Without a mask, a sneeze,loud conversation or cough can spray droplets for several metres, and they'll linger in the air; with a mask, even a home-made, two-layer, crude one, the droplets won't get very far. And that's the only reason to wear one. Just remember, when you wear a mask, you're saving other people from contamination by *you*, not protecting yourself. |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and train stations 'toavoid'
On 18/05/2020 23:48, Recliner wrote:
MissRiaElaine wrote: On 18/05/2020 16:42, wrote: On Mon, 18 May 2020 15:34:18 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52708757 Some rather surprising inclusions and omissions: I wondering if this country has lost its collective sanity. If you need to get to work you need to get to work - telling people to avoid stations is absurd. As for "social" distancing on public transport, give me a break. Adults should be able to decide for themselves if they want to risk it, not have some nanny state nonsense make everyones life difficult. Precisely. It's like this insane business of telling people they should wear face masks on public transport and in shops. My other half's sister is an operating theatre manager and she says they're a waste of time for the general public. You have to know how to put them on and take them off, and *not* to touch or fiddle with them while they're on. Unlike the numpty we saw behind the deli counter at one of the local stupid markets the other day. I'd rather believe her than some fool government spokesman, I don't always agree with her on everything, but in medical matters I like to think that she knows what she's talking about. Masks worn by the public are NOT meant to protect the wearer. They're not PPE, and they don't perform the same function as the gear that operating theatre staff wear to protect themselves from infection. So your ohs's comments are irrelevant in this context. The masks that the public may choose to wear on the bus, train, plane or shop sole purpose is to protect *other* people from the wearer's saliva, should they be infected. So it doesn't matter in the slightest if they don or remove them properly, and they don't need to wash them at 60°C. The masks don't need to fit perfectly, just well enough to stop droplets of the wearer's saliva from being sprayed around. Without a mask, a sneeze,loud conversation or cough can spray droplets for several metres, and they'll linger in the air; with a mask, even a home-made, two-layer, crude one, the droplets won't get very far. And that's the only reason to wear one. Just remember, when you wear a mask, you're saving other people from contamination by *you*, not protecting yourself. I'd still rather believe her than you. -- Ria in Aberdeen [Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct] |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and trainstations 'to avoid'
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 18/05/2020 23:48, Recliner wrote: MissRiaElaine wrote: On 18/05/2020 16:42, wrote: On Mon, 18 May 2020 15:34:18 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52708757 Some rather surprising inclusions and omissions: I wondering if this country has lost its collective sanity. If you need to get to work you need to get to work - telling people to avoid stations is absurd. As for "social" distancing on public transport, give me a break. Adults should be able to decide for themselves if they want to risk it, not have some nanny state nonsense make everyones life difficult. Precisely. It's like this insane business of telling people they should wear face masks on public transport and in shops. My other half's sister is an operating theatre manager and she says they're a waste of time for the general public. You have to know how to put them on and take them off, and *not* to touch or fiddle with them while they're on. Unlike the numpty we saw behind the deli counter at one of the local stupid markets the other day. I'd rather believe her than some fool government spokesman, I don't always agree with her on everything, but in medical matters I like to think that she knows what she's talking about. Masks worn by the public are NOT meant to protect the wearer. They're not PPE, and they don't perform the same function as the gear that operating theatre staff wear to protect themselves from infection. So your ohs's comments are irrelevant in this context. The masks that the public may choose to wear on the bus, train, plane or shop sole purpose is to protect *other* people from the wearer's saliva, should they be infected. So it doesn't matter in the slightest if they don or remove them properly, and they don't need to wash them at 60°C. The masks don't need to fit perfectly, just well enough to stop droplets of the wearer's saliva from being sprayed around. Without a mask, a sneeze,loud conversation or cough can spray droplets for several metres, and they'll linger in the air; with a mask, even a home-made, two-layer, crude one, the droplets won't get very far. And that's the only reason to wear one. Just remember, when you wear a mask, you're saving other people from contamination by *you*, not protecting yourself. I'd still rather believe her than you. Of course you should believe her about PPE, and follow her advice when you start your job as a surgeon or operating theatre sister. I'm obviously not disagreeing with her — she's talking about PPE, I'm not. Bus passengers don't wear PPE, but perhaps some drivers would like to. Why don't you ask her the right question? The government doesn't want tens of millions of members of the public buying up medical-grade PPE, which they don't need, at the expense of medical and care home staff, who do. But please free to leave a care home worker unprotected while you selfishly grab the PPE they needed and you don't. |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and train
On Mon, 18 May 2020 22:48:56 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: Masks worn by the public are NOT meant to protect the wearer. They're not Tell that to all the paranoids wearing them**. 9/10 probably don't have a clue and 99/100 probably don't realise the virus can easily get into you through the tear ducks in your eyes just like a common cold so unless they wear a full face mask they're wasting their time. ** Usually the same morons who cross the street when they see someone coming to maintain the fatuous 2m distance. |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and train
wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2020 22:48:56 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: Masks worn by the public are NOT meant to protect the wearer. They're not Tell that to all the paranoids wearing them**. 9/10 probably don't have a clue and 99/100 probably don't realise the virus can easily get into you through the tear ducks in your eyes just like a common cold so unless they wear a full face mask they're wasting their time. ** Usually the same morons who cross the street when they see someone coming to maintain the fatuous 2m distance. Yes, I think you're right, most members of the public wearing masks probably still think they're protecting themselves, rather than others. In shops, I've only noticed staff wearing protective face shields in Waitrose, and not all staff do. The 2m thing is like a religious prohibition: vaguely based on a sensible idea, but implemented thoughtlessly and inflexibly. In reality, people facing each other and conversing indoors (eg, in a meeting or on a Tube train) probably need nearer to 3m separation to get much protection, while people queuing outdoors (face to back) and not chatting loudly need very little separation for protection — 1m is probably enough. In London, the chances of a susceptible person meeting an infectious one is now very small, and the infection won't be passed if they just walk past each other, or queue behind one another. It appears that most infections were passed on at 'superspreader events', not casual outdoor encounters: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/superspreader-events-may-responsible-80-percent-coronavirus/ A small number of so-called “superspreading” events appear to be responsible for the great majority of coronavirus cases, raising the prospect of the virus being controlled if those events can be reliably pinned down. Many infectious diseases follow an “20/80” rule, whereby the majority of cases are caused by a small number of infectious individuals. These include pathogens such as HIV, measles and Ebola, as well as the coronaviruses Mers and Sars. As the journal Nature noted recently, “population estimates of R0 can obscure considerable individual variation in infectiousness”. This is now thought to be the case with Covid-19. An analysis by researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and the Alan Turing Institute strongly suggests there is a “high degree of individual-level variation” in the transmission of Covid-19. By applying a mathematical model to reported outbreaks of the disease outside China, they estimated that 80 per cent of all secondary transmissions were caused by a small fraction of infected individuals - around 10 percent. “Our finding of a highly-overdispersed offspring distribution highlights a potential benefit to focusing intervention efforts on superspreading”, the study concluded. “As most infected individuals do not contribute to the expansion of an epidemic, the effective reproduction number could be drastically reduced by preventing relatively rare superspreading events”. The race is now on to pinpoint and characterise these “superspreader” events. If we know where the trouble lies we can let the rest of society open up again. Tempting though it may be, most experts say we should not look for individuals. Superspreading events are determined by a complex mix of behavioural and environmental factors. Even sexually transmitted viruses like HIV tend to be “superspread” more by things like needle sharing and prostitution than individuals. Funerals were a major problem in the 2014-16 Ebola outbreak in West Africa. With Sars-Cov-2, it seems likely any infected individual could become a superspreader. Who we are is likely to be less important than where we go and what we do when we are there. Already, many superspreading venues are known. Hospitals, nursing homes, large dormitories, food processing plans and food markets have all been associated with major outbreaks of Covid-19. Last week it was reported that four out of five traders (79 per cent) at Lima’s wholesale fruit market in Peru have tested positive for coronavirus, for example. In other large markets across the city at least half were found to be carrying the virus. Indoor gyms and exercise studios also appear to lend themselves to superspreading events. A new South Korean study found that 112 people were infected over 24 days after attending “dance classes set to Latin rhythms” at 12 indoor sports facilities. “Intense physical exercise in densely populated sports facilities could increase risk for infection”, said the authors. “Vigorous exercise in confined spaces should be minimised during outbreaks”. Just over half of the cases were the result of transmission from instructors to those attending the dance classes and the overall attack rate was a high 26.3 percent. Characteristics that may have led to the outbreak included “large class sizes, small spaces, and the intensity of the workouts”, said the study. “The moist, warm atmosphere in a sports facility coupled with turbulent air flow generated by intense physical exercise can cause more dense transmission of isolated droplets”, it noted. The researchers did not find any cases where classes were limited to five people or less. Also, pilates and yoga appeared to pose a lesser risk than dance. “We hypothesise that the lower intensity of pilates and yoga did not cause the same transmission effects as those of the more intense fitness dance classes,” said the authors. But you don’t have to be dancing to be exhaling vigorously while in the close contact of others. In Washington State on the west coast of America, a church choir went ahead with its weekly rehearsal in early March even as Covid-19 was sweeping through Seattle, an hour to the south. Dozens of its members went on to catch the virus and two died. The Washington singers were not the only choristers to be hit. Fifty members of the Berlin Cathedral Choir contracted the virus after a March rehearsal, and in England many members of the Voices of Yorkshire choir came down with a Covid-like disease earlier this year. A choir in Amsterdam also fell victim to the virus, with 102 of its 130 members becoming infected after a performance. One died, as did three of the chorister's partners. Research suggests it is not the singing alone that causes the spread of the virus but the close contact that goes with it. “These outbreaks among choir members all occurred during the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic, before lockdowns were imposed and before our minds were concentrated on the importance of social distancing”, Professor Christian Kähler of the Military University, Munich, told the Guardian newspaper. “Choir members probably greeted each other with hugs, and shared drinks during breaks and talked closely with each other. That social behaviour was the real cause of these outbreaks, I believe.” One of the biggest superspreading events in Europe came in the February half term holidays when thousands of people gathered in alpine ski resorts. Hundreds of infections in Germany, Iceland, Norway, Denmark and Britain have been traced back to the resort of Ischgl in the Tyrolean Alps. Many had visited the Kitzloch, a bar known for its après-ski parties. The bar is tightly packed and famous for "beer pong" – a drinking game in which revellers take turns to spit the same ping-pong ball into a beer glass. Earlier this year The Telegraph obtained a video from inside the Kitzloch. It may yet come to define the perfect superspreader event, with attendees all singing along to AC/DC’s Highway to Hell: video In London, cases of coronavirus have dropped dramatically since the lockdown. The superspreading events that were once spreading the virus so widely have now stopped. The challenge now facing investigators is to work out what they were in the first place. |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and train stations 'to avoid'
In message , at 00:01:26 on Tue, 19
May 2020, MissRiaElaine remarked: Masks worn by the public are NOT meant to protect the wearer. They're not PPE, and they don't perform the same function as the gear that operating theatre staff wear to protect themselves from infection. So your ohs's comments are irrelevant in this context. The masks that the public may choose to wear on the bus, train, plane or shop sole purpose is to protect *other* people from the wearer's saliva, should they be infected. So it doesn't matter in the slightest if they don or remove them properly, and they don't need to wash them at 60C. The masks don't need to fit perfectly, just well enough to stop droplets of the wearer's saliva from being sprayed around. Without a mask, a sneeze,loud conversation or cough can spray droplets for several metres, and they'll linger in the air; with a mask, even a home-made, two-layer, crude one, the droplets won't get very far. And that's the only reason to wear one. Just remember, when you wear a mask, you're saving other people from contamination by *you*, not protecting yourself. I'd still rather believe her than you. She's got the wrong end of the stick. You should tell her they are to protect the rest of the world from the wearer, not the other way round. Then it becomes clear. -- Roland Perry |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and train
On Tue, 19 May 2020 08:25:34 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: The 2m thing is like a religious prohibition: vaguely based on a sensible I hadn't thought of it like that, but it certainly matches peoples behaviour. Wierdly - assuming my local supermarket is typical - that behaviour is forgotten in the aisles. Presumably because its almost impossible to observe. Tempting though it may be, most experts say we should not look for individuals. Superspreading events are determined by a complex mix of behavioural and environmental factors. I wonder if its complex in reality. I imagine its the sort of people who wipe their nose with their fingers then go and then go and touch a dozen items in every shop they visit and hardly buy any of them just leaving them on the shelves nicely infected. Ditto when they touch the handles in buses and trains. In London, cases of coronavirus have dropped dramatically since the lockdown. The superspreading events that were once spreading the virus so widely have now stopped. I doubt they've stopped , far more likely IMO is that a significant proportion of the population have caught the virus without knowing it and are now immune. |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and train
In message , at 09:45:14 on Tue, 19 May
2020, remarked: the sort of people who wipe their nose with their fingers then go and then go and touch a dozen items in every shop they visit and hardly buy any of them just leaving them on the shelves nicely infected. Some stores have tried a "touch it, you buy it" policy. I don't know how successfully. But it's what I've been voluntarily doing the last month or two. -- Roland Perry |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and train
|
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and train
On Tue, 19 May 2020 11:54:25 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 09:45:14 on Tue, 19 May 2020, remarked: the sort of people who wipe their nose with their fingers then go and then go and touch a dozen items in every shop they visit and hardly buy any of them just leaving them on the shelves nicely infected. Some stores have tried a "touch it, you buy it" policy. I don't know how successfully. But it's what I've been voluntarily doing the last month or two. I see that the clothes shops that are reopening elsewhere in Europe don't put clothes straight back on the rack if they've been tried on, but put them in a sanitisation room. It's not clear if they actually do anything there, or just leave them for a few hours. |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and train stations 'to avoid'
On 19/05/2020 10:24, Roland Perry wrote:
She's got the wrong end of the stick. You should tell her they are to protect the rest of the world from the wearer, not the other way round. Then it becomes clear. But they don't do that either. Touching and fiddling with them contaminates your hands, you then touch stuff, they are a waste of time and she has not got the wrong end of the stick at all. I have seen people wearing the exact same type of paper masks worn by surgeons, they are, and I repeat, useless for any task in the public arena. You carry on believing what you want, and so will I. When you show me your medical qualifications and your expertise in disease control, I might, just might, take notice of you. -- Ria in Aberdeen [Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct] |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and train stations 'toavoid'
On 19/05/2020 14:57, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 19/05/2020 10:24, Roland Perry wrote: She's got the wrong end of the stick. You should tell her they are to protect the rest of the world from the wearer, not the other way round. Then it becomes clear. But they don't do that either. Touching and fiddling with them contaminates your hands, you then touch stuff, they are a waste of time and she has not got the wrong end of the stick at all. I have seen people wearing the exact same type of paper masks worn by surgeons, they are, and I repeat, useless for any task in the public arena. You carry on believing what you want, and so will I. When you show me your medical qualifications and your expertise in disease control, I might, just might, take notice of you. A further point that you may not be aware of the *majority* of masks that you see people wearing become ineffective after a few minutes due to the moisture expelled from the wearer, and microscopic droplets will pass straight through as if it's not there. |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and train stations 'to avoid'
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 19/05/2020 10:24, Roland Perry wrote: She's got the wrong end of the stick. You should tell her they are to protect the rest of the world from the wearer, not the other way round. Then it becomes clear. But they don't do that either. Touching and fiddling with them contaminates your hands, you then touch stuff, they are a waste of time and she has not got the wrong end of the stick at all. I have seen people wearing the exact same type of paper masks worn by surgeons, they are, and I repeat, useless for any task in the public arena. You carry on believing what you want, and so will I. When you show me your medical qualifications and your expertise in disease control, I might, just might, take notice of you. So what purpose do you think the masks worn by the public are meant to serve? |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and train stations 'to avoid'
In message , at 14:57:07 on Tue, 19
May 2020, MissRiaElaine remarked: On 19/05/2020 10:24, Roland Perry wrote: She's got the wrong end of the stick. You should tell her they are to protect the rest of the world from the wearer, not the other way round. Then it becomes clear. But they don't do that either. Touching and fiddling with them contaminates your hands, you then touch stuff, they are a waste of time and she has not got the wrong end of the stick at all. It's to stop coughs and sneezes, spreading diseases. [Now where's that a quote from?] And frankly much more user-friendly than sneezing into your elbow (which is the NHS's latest advice). -- Roland Perry |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and train stations 'toavoid'
On 19/05/2020 15:13, Recliner wrote:
So what purpose do you think the masks worn by the public are meant to serve? They are a placebo, pure and simple, there to *make* the wearer think that they are safer. |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and train stations 'to avoid'
In message , Roland Perry
writes In message , at 00:01:26 on Tue, 19 May 2020, MissRiaElaine remarked: Masks worn by the public are NOT meant to protect the wearer. They're not PPE, and they don't perform the same function as the gear that operating theatre staff wear to protect themselves from infection. So your ohs's comments are irrelevant in this context. The masks that the public may choose to wear on the bus, train, plane or shop sole purpose is to protect *other* people from the wearer's saliva, should they be infected. So it doesn't matter in the slightest if they don or remove them properly, and they don't need to wash them at 60C. The masks don't need to fit perfectly, just well enough to stop droplets of the wearer's saliva from being sprayed around. Without a mask, a sneeze,loud conversation or cough can spray droplets for several metres, and they'll linger in the air; with a mask, even a home-made, two-layer, crude one, the droplets won't get very far. And that's the only reason to wear one. Just remember, when you wear a mask, you're saving other people from contamination by *you*, not protecting yourself. I'd still rather believe her than you. She's got the wrong end of the stick. You should tell her they are to protect the rest of the world from the wearer, not the other way round. Then it becomes clear. It's amazing how many people still don't 'get' this simple fact (including some of the scientific 'experts' who are advising the government). -- Ian |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and train stations 'to avoid'
In message , at 15:50:21 on Tue, 19 May
2020, Sammi Gray-Jones remarked: So what purpose do you think the masks worn by the public are meant to serve? They are a placebo, pure and simple, there to *make* the wearer think that they are safer. Rinse and repeat. They don't make the *wearer* safer. -- Roland Perry |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and train stations 'to avoid'
In message , at 16:39:04 on Tue, 19
May 2020, Ian Jackson remarked: She's got the wrong end of the stick. You should tell her they are to protect the rest of the world from the wearer, not the other way round. Then it becomes clear. It's amazing how many people still don't 'get' this simple fact (including some of the scientific 'experts' who are advising the government). Not a good precedent for people who claim the public have sufficient common sense to decide whether it's sensible to drive 100 miles to take the dog for a walk. -- Roland Perry |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and train stations 'toavoid'
On 19/05/2020 15:50, Sammi Gray-Jones wrote:
On 19/05/2020 15:13, Recliner wrote: So what purpose do you think the masks worn by the public are meant to serve? They are a placebo, pure and simple, there to *make* the wearer think that they are safer. Of course masks make you safer. A mask over your mouth and nose isn't going to save you if you are a nurse with people coofing into your eyeball all day long, but if I'm in a supermarket and a virus floats along and lands on my mask instead of my lips, it saved me and my family from dying. -- Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to Jon Hassell - 1999 - Fascinoma |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and train
"Recliner" wrote in message ... On Tue, 19 May 2020 09:45:14 +0000 (UTC), wrote: On Tue, 19 May 2020 08:25:34 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: The 2m thing is like a religious prohibition: vaguely based on a sensible I hadn't thought of it like that, but it certainly matches peoples behaviour. Wierdly - assuming my local supermarket is typical - that behaviour is forgotten in the aisles. Presumably because its almost impossible to observe. Tempting though it may be, most experts say we should not look for individuals. Superspreading events are determined by a complex mix of behavioural and environmental factors. I wonder if its complex in reality. I imagine its the sort of people who wipe their nose with their fingers then go and then go and touch a dozen items in every shop they visit and hardly buy any of them just leaving them on the shelves nicely infected. Ditto when they touch the handles in buses and trains. In London, cases of coronavirus have dropped dramatically since the lockdown. The superspreading events that were once spreading the virus so widely have now stopped. I doubt they've stopped , far more likely IMO is that a significant proportion of the population have caught the virus without knowing it and are now immune. I think it's true that in London, most of the mobile population is now either immune of not susceptible to the disease. I was in Waitrose today, and everyone seemed more relaxed. Few of the staff were bothering to wear the face shields they're supplied with, there was no special sanitising of the trolley handles, and people got quite close to each other in the aisles. There was also almost no queue to get in. The few people with or susceptible to the disease in London are in care homes or hospitals, and the task now is to stop it getting back into the wider population. though we are still getting 3,500 new cases every day rather a lot, now that those infect before lockdown have long entered the count We really ought to be on much lower numbers than this like Spain an Italy (with similar total cases) are |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and train
tim... wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message ... On Tue, 19 May 2020 09:45:14 +0000 (UTC), wrote: On Tue, 19 May 2020 08:25:34 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: The 2m thing is like a religious prohibition: vaguely based on a sensible I hadn't thought of it like that, but it certainly matches peoples behaviour. Wierdly - assuming my local supermarket is typical - that behaviour is forgotten in the aisles. Presumably because its almost impossible to observe. Tempting though it may be, most experts say we should not look for individuals. Superspreading events are determined by a complex mix of behavioural and environmental factors. I wonder if its complex in reality. I imagine its the sort of people who wipe their nose with their fingers then go and then go and touch a dozen items in every shop they visit and hardly buy any of them just leaving them on the shelves nicely infected. Ditto when they touch the handles in buses and trains. In London, cases of coronavirus have dropped dramatically since the lockdown. The superspreading events that were once spreading the virus so widely have now stopped. I doubt they've stopped , far more likely IMO is that a significant proportion of the population have caught the virus without knowing it and are now immune. I think it's true that in London, most of the mobile population is now either immune of not susceptible to the disease. I was in Waitrose today, and everyone seemed more relaxed. Few of the staff were bothering to wear the face shields they're supplied with, there was no special sanitising of the trolley handles, and people got quite close to each other in the aisles. There was also almost no queue to get in. The few people with or susceptible to the disease in London are in care homes or hospitals, and the task now is to stop it getting back into the wider population. though we are still getting 3,500 new cases every day You're out by three orders of magnitude. The number of new cases a day in London is probably now in single figures: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/14/london-has-just-24-new-coronavirus-cases-day/ This is from five days ago, so the rate of new cases in London now is likely below 10. The virus has burned out in London. The northeast and Scotland are some weeks behind. |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and train stations 'toavoid'
On 19/05/2020 16:55, Basil Jet wrote:
On 19/05/2020 15:50, Sammi Gray-Jones wrote: On 19/05/2020 15:13, Recliner wrote: So what purpose do you think the masks worn by the public are meant to serve? They are a placebo, pure and simple, there to *make* the wearer think that they are safer. Of course masks make you safer. A mask over your mouth and nose isn't going to save you if you are a nurse with people coofing into your eyeball all day long, but if I'm in a supermarket and a virus floats along and lands on my mask instead of my lips, it saved me and my family from dying. We give up. You carry on believing that. We're following the advice given to us by a medical professional who we know and trust. You follow what the media says and may your God go with you. -- Ria in Aberdeen [Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct] |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and train stations 'toavoid'
On 19/05/2020 16:49, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:50:21 on Tue, 19 May 2020, Sammi Gray-Jones remarked: So what purpose do you think the masks worn by the public are meant to serve? They are a placebo, pure and simple, there to *make* the wearer think that they are safer. Rinse and repeat. They don't make the *wearer* safer. But they make them *think* they're safer. -- Ria in Aberdeen [Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct] |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and trainstations 'to avoid'
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 19/05/2020 16:49, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 15:50:21 on Tue, 19 May 2020, Sammi Gray-Jones remarked: So what purpose do you think the masks worn by the public are meant to serve? They are a placebo, pure and simple, there to *make* the wearer think that they are safer. Rinse and repeat. They don't make the *wearer* safer. But they make them *think* they're safer. The government and its experts have never claimed that, and nor does the media. It's always been made clear that simple masks for the general public are worn to protect others, not the wearer. If some people nevertheless choose to believe it, they're deluding themselves. After all, plenty of people still take homeopathic 'medicines', which are even less useful than a flimsy mask (but more expensive). Lots of people take high dose vitamin tablets, which are of little or no benefit, and may even be harmful. |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and trainstations 'to avoid'
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 19/05/2020 16:55, Basil Jet wrote: On 19/05/2020 15:50, Sammi Gray-Jones wrote: On 19/05/2020 15:13, Recliner wrote: So what purpose do you think the masks worn by the public are meant to serve? They are a placebo, pure and simple, there to *make* the wearer think that they are safer. Of course masks make you safer. A mask over your mouth and nose isn't going to save you if you are a nurse with people coofing into your eyeball all day long, but if I'm in a supermarket and a virus floats along and lands on my mask instead of my lips, it saved me and my family from dying. We give up. You carry on believing that. We're following the advice given to us by a medical professional who we know and trust. You follow what the media says and may your God go with you. That isn't what the media says. Nobody claims that flimsy masks for the supermarket protect the wearers — they simply provide a modest degree of protection to others, if the wearer is an asymptomatic carrier. If wearers nevertheless choose to believe they're self-protecting, it's up to them. One thing I don't know is how much of a dose you need to get before you're at any risk of catching the virus. If you're healthy and breathe in a stray droplet, that's not enough. Indeed, I wonder if getting such weak doses isn't actually sensible, as it amounts to a vaccine. It's now being said that having a cold is a protection, as the body develops antibodies to a different coronavirus which trains it to combat SARS-CoV2. |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and train stations 'toavoid'
On 19/05/2020 21:40, Recliner wrote:
MissRiaElaine wrote: On 19/05/2020 16:55, Basil Jet wrote: On 19/05/2020 15:50, Sammi Gray-Jones wrote: On 19/05/2020 15:13, Recliner wrote: So what purpose do you think the masks worn by the public are meant to serve? They are a placebo, pure and simple, there to *make* the wearer think that they are safer. Of course masks make you safer. A mask over your mouth and nose isn't going to save you if you are a nurse with people coofing into your eyeball all day long, but if I'm in a supermarket and a virus floats along and lands on my mask instead of my lips, it saved me and my family from dying. We give up. You carry on believing that. We're following the advice given to us by a medical professional who we know and trust. You follow what the media says and may your God go with you. That isn't what the media says. Nobody claims that flimsy masks for the supermarket protect the wearers — they simply provide a modest degree of protection to others, if the wearer is an asymptomatic carrier. If wearers nevertheless choose to believe they're self-protecting, it's up to them. One thing I don't know is how much of a dose you need to get before you're at any risk of catching the virus. If you're healthy and breathe in a stray droplet, that's not enough. Indeed, I wonder if getting such weak doses isn't actually sensible, as it amounts to a vaccine. It's now being said that having a cold is a protection, as the body develops antibodies to a different coronavirus which trains it to combat SARS-CoV2. I'd still like to see your medical qualifications. If you don't have any, shut up, you're as bad as the idiots wandering around my local Morrisons. I'm out of here. -- Ria in Aberdeen [Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct] |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and trainstations 'to avoid'
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 19/05/2020 21:40, Recliner wrote: MissRiaElaine wrote: On 19/05/2020 16:55, Basil Jet wrote: On 19/05/2020 15:50, Sammi Gray-Jones wrote: On 19/05/2020 15:13, Recliner wrote: So what purpose do you think the masks worn by the public are meant to serve? They are a placebo, pure and simple, there to *make* the wearer think that they are safer. Of course masks make you safer. A mask over your mouth and nose isn't going to save you if you are a nurse with people coofing into your eyeball all day long, but if I'm in a supermarket and a virus floats along and lands on my mask instead of my lips, it saved me and my family from dying. We give up. You carry on believing that. We're following the advice given to us by a medical professional who we know and trust. You follow what the media says and may your God go with you. That isn't what the media says. Nobody claims that flimsy masks for the supermarket protect the wearers — they simply provide a modest degree of protection to others, if the wearer is an asymptomatic carrier. If wearers nevertheless choose to believe they're self-protecting, it's up to them. One thing I don't know is how much of a dose you need to get before you're at any risk of catching the virus. If you're healthy and breathe in a stray droplet, that's not enough. Indeed, I wonder if getting such weak doses isn't actually sensible, as it amounts to a vaccine. It's now being said that having a cold is a protection, as the body develops antibodies to a different coronavirus which trains it to combat SARS-CoV2. I'd still like to see your medical qualifications. If you don't have any, shut up, you're as bad as the idiots wandering around my local Morrisons. How many medical qualifications did you need to be a bus driver? And which of my remarks do you feel don't come up to your standards of scientific rigour? I'm out of here. You've been out of London for a long time. |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and train stations 'to avoid'
Recliner wrote:
So what purpose do you think the masks worn by the public are meant to serve? To reassure the lemmings that their government is "doing something." |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and trainstations 'to avoid'
Arthur Conan Doyle wrote:
Recliner wrote: So what purpose do you think the masks worn by the public are meant to serve? To reassure the lemmings that their government is "doing something." Hardly. Unlike in most other countries, masks are neither supplied not mandatory for the public in the UK. The government has always made clear that they were of no benefit to the wearer, and of limited benefit to others. It's always insisted that medical grade PPE was reserved for health care professionals, not the public. In this respect at least, the government has been unusually honest, clear and right. |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and train stations 'to avoid'
In message , at 22:05:09 on Tue, 19
May 2020, MissRiaElaine remarked: I'd still like to see your medical qualifications. It's actually more of an engineering (& material) qualification that's needed; also English Comprehension, to be able to understand the official advice. If you don't have any, shut up, you're as bad as the idiots wandering around my local Morrisons. Understanding how PPE (or even not-really-PPE) works is almost completely disjoint from being able to dish out the correct amount of medication. -- Roland Perry |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and train stations 'to avoid'
In message , at 01:35:15 on Wed, 20 May
2020, Recliner remarked: Unlike in most other countries, masks are neither supplied not mandatory for the public in the UK. The government has always made clear that they were of no benefit to the wearer, and of limited benefit to others. It's always insisted that medical grade PPE was reserved for health care professionals, not the public. I think they are issuing FFP3 masks to essential public sector workers, who aren't strictly speaking "health care professionals". And the funny thing is, those disposable 'surgical masks' we presume are arriving on P2F's may not even be FFP2. -- Roland Perry |
Quote:
you've cited are not in the most busy group. To me, living in Leyton, it's not surprising to learn that Wood Green, North Acton and Leyton are three of the busiest. (The others listed are all interchange stations which hugely increases the footfall). Leyton Underground Station - and I have done the count several times - has in the off-peak periods about 25 passengers every three minutes coming onto the westbound platform with a similar number alighting from trains in the opposite direction. In the peak periods the numbers are much higher. (These figures are of course pre-Covid 19) When I travel off-peak south of the river on National Rail services, I'm always startled by how few people use the trains. |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and train
"Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... On Tue, 19 May 2020 09:45:14 +0000 (UTC), wrote: On Tue, 19 May 2020 08:25:34 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: The 2m thing is like a religious prohibition: vaguely based on a sensible I hadn't thought of it like that, but it certainly matches peoples behaviour. Wierdly - assuming my local supermarket is typical - that behaviour is forgotten in the aisles. Presumably because its almost impossible to observe. Tempting though it may be, most experts say we should not look for individuals. Superspreading events are determined by a complex mix of behavioural and environmental factors. I wonder if its complex in reality. I imagine its the sort of people who wipe their nose with their fingers then go and then go and touch a dozen items in every shop they visit and hardly buy any of them just leaving them on the shelves nicely infected. Ditto when they touch the handles in buses and trains. In London, cases of coronavirus have dropped dramatically since the lockdown. The superspreading events that were once spreading the virus so widely have now stopped. I doubt they've stopped , far more likely IMO is that a significant proportion of the population have caught the virus without knowing it and are now immune. I think it's true that in London, most of the mobile population is now either immune of not susceptible to the disease. I was in Waitrose today, and everyone seemed more relaxed. Few of the staff were bothering to wear the face shields they're supplied with, there was no special sanitising of the trolley handles, and people got quite close to each other in the aisles. There was also almost no queue to get in. The few people with or susceptible to the disease in London are in care homes or hospitals, and the task now is to stop it getting back into the wider population. though we are still getting 3,500 new cases every day You're out by three orders of magnitude. The number of new cases a day in London is probably now in single figures: I mean in the whole country, and it's not the quantum that's the problem, it's the fact that it has barely moved downwards from the peak, after 6 weeks of Lockdown (AIH it did yesterday) I've argued before that a regional change in the rules is unfair and unworkable, so the London number alone is IMHO not relevant tim |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and train stations 'to avoid'
"MissRiaElaine" wrote in message ... On 19/05/2020 16:55, Basil Jet wrote: On 19/05/2020 15:50, Sammi Gray-Jones wrote: On 19/05/2020 15:13, Recliner wrote: So what purpose do you think the masks worn by the public are meant to serve? They are a placebo, pure and simple, there to *make* the wearer think that they are safer. Of course masks make you safer. A mask over your mouth and nose isn't going to save you if you are a nurse with people coofing into your eyeball all day long, but if I'm in a supermarket and a virus floats along and lands on my mask instead of my lips, it saved me and my family from dying. We give up. You carry on believing that. We're following the advice given to us by a medical professional who we know and trust. You follow what the media says and may your God go with you. what advice is that to wear medical grade PPE or a cloth mask that can be bought from Amazon (or wherever) tim -- Ria in Aberdeen [Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct] |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and train stations 'to avoid'
"MissRiaElaine" wrote in message ... On 19/05/2020 16:49, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 15:50:21 on Tue, 19 May 2020, Sammi Gray-Jones remarked: So what purpose do you think the masks worn by the public are meant to serve? They are a placebo, pure and simple, there to *make* the wearer think that they are safer. Rinse and repeat. They don't make the *wearer* safer. But they make them *think* they're safer. well that's worse then, isn't it! Wearers take greater risks, they are more likely to catch the disease because of the risks, they then place more other people at risk than otherwise would have been the case tim |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and train
tim... wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... On Tue, 19 May 2020 09:45:14 +0000 (UTC), wrote: On Tue, 19 May 2020 08:25:34 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: The 2m thing is like a religious prohibition: vaguely based on a sensible I hadn't thought of it like that, but it certainly matches peoples behaviour. Wierdly - assuming my local supermarket is typical - that behaviour is forgotten in the aisles. Presumably because its almost impossible to observe. Tempting though it may be, most experts say we should not look for individuals. Superspreading events are determined by a complex mix of behavioural and environmental factors. I wonder if its complex in reality. I imagine its the sort of people who wipe their nose with their fingers then go and then go and touch a dozen items in every shop they visit and hardly buy any of them just leaving them on the shelves nicely infected. Ditto when they touch the handles in buses and trains. In London, cases of coronavirus have dropped dramatically since the lockdown. The superspreading events that were once spreading the virus so widely have now stopped. I doubt they've stopped , far more likely IMO is that a significant proportion of the population have caught the virus without knowing it and are now immune. I think it's true that in London, most of the mobile population is now either immune of not susceptible to the disease. I was in Waitrose today, and everyone seemed more relaxed. Few of the staff were bothering to wear the face shields they're supplied with, there was no special sanitising of the trolley handles, and people got quite close to each other in the aisles. There was also almost no queue to get in. The few people with or susceptible to the disease in London are in care homes or hospitals, and the task now is to stop it getting back into the wider population. though we are still getting 3,500 new cases every day You're out by three orders of magnitude. The number of new cases a day in London is probably now in single figures: I mean in the whole country, and it's not the quantum that's the problem, it's the fact that it has barely moved downwards from the peak, after 6 weeks of Lockdown (AIH it did yesterday) I've argued before that a regional change in the rules is unfair and unworkable, so the London number alone is IMHO not relevant We already have regional variations in the rules, and will see more as schools start going back. It's not only fair and workable, but is inevitable. The virus arrived first in London, which you might regard as unsporting behaviour on its part, but nobody told it your rules. It had longer to spread in London before the lockdown started, so London got hit harder and earlier than anywhere else. It had a higher peak of excess deaths, and then an earlier decline in new cases. The virus has now almost burned out in London, but not in the north of England or Scotland, which are a few weeks behind on the curve. In fact, their curve was more squashed than London's, so they may need a significantly longer total period of lockdown before the virus runs its course. Remember, the lockdown isn't a cure; it's just a way of prolonging the agony, and only justified to avoid overloading the NHS, which it did very successfully, even in London. |
Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and train stations 'to avoid'
On 19/05/2020 21:09, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 19/05/2020 16:55, Basil Jet wrote: On 19/05/2020 15:50, Sammi Gray-Jones wrote: On 19/05/2020 15:13, Recliner wrote: So what purpose do you think the masks worn by the public are meant to serve? They are a placebo, pure and simple, there to *make* the wearer think that they are safer. Of course masks make you safer. A mask over your mouth and nose isn't going to save you if you are a nurse with people coofing into your eyeball all day long, but if I'm in a supermarket and a virus floats along and lands on my mask instead of my lips, it saved me and my family from dying. We give up. You carry on believing that. We're following the advice given to us by a medical professional who we know and trust. You follow what the media says and may your God go with you. The medical profession wants to keep the cost of buying their own PPE down by reducing the public competing for it and driving prices up, so they are hardly unbiased. It is obvious that wearing a mask makes the wearer safer.. it would defy the laws of physics if it didn't, so you throwing your toys out of the pram is not enough to make me change my mind. -- Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to The Greg Foat Group - 2012 - Girl And Robot With Flowers |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:39 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk