London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old May 18th 20, 02:34 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,936
Default 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

  #2   Report Post  
Old May 18th 20, 03:42 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jun 2019
Posts: 223
Default 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.


  #3   Report Post  
Old May 18th 20, 10:26 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2018
Posts: 170
Default Coronavirus: TfL reveals 20 busiest Tube and train stations 'to avoid'

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.


--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
  #4   Report Post  
Old May 18th 20, 10:48 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2019
Posts: 491
Default 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.

  #5   Report Post  
Old May 18th 20, 11:01 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2018
Posts: 170
Default 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]


  #6   Report Post  
Old May 18th 20, 11:23 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2019
Posts: 491
Default 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.
  #7   Report Post  
Old May 19th 20, 08:02 AM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jun 2019
Posts: 223
Default 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.

  #8   Report Post  
Old May 19th 20, 08:25 AM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2019
Posts: 491
Default 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.


  #9   Report Post  
Old May 19th 20, 09:24 AM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,936
Default 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
  #10   Report Post  
Old May 19th 20, 09:45 AM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jun 2019
Posts: 223
Default 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.



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Coronavirus case attended UK Bus Summit in Westminster Basil Jet[_4_] London Transport 3 February 15th 20 03:32 PM
6 Thameslink services to avoid after March 2009 Sky Rider London Transport 0 October 31st 08 04:53 PM
AVOID BA AND HEATHROW AND KEEP YOUR LUGGAGE SB London Transport 0 July 12th 08 09:04 AM
How to avoid fair evasion David Howdon London Transport 8 May 14th 07 10:44 PM
Take a Holiday and avoid train problems. CJG London Transport 0 August 27th 03 09:47 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 London Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about London Transport"

 

Copyright © 2017