|
New boarding on London's buses
|
New boarding on London's buses
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:38:49 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 08:25:30 on Wed, 3 Jun 2020, remarked: On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC) Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: MissRiaElaine wrote: At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or later, people will say enough is enough. My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..? Surely shoes are available to purchase online? Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really? Thanks to the EU's Distance Selling Directive (which some people apparently want to see flushed down the toilet as part of the bundle of Brussels rule-taking) your purchase isn't final until you've had a chance to try them on and potentially send them back. Getting your money back isn't the issue, its the hassle of having to send them back plus not having the shoes to wear in the meantime. Why are some people so wedded to online that they'll avoid going to an actual shop even when its a lot simpler? |
New boarding on London's buses
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:00:02 +0000 (UTC), wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:38:49 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 08:25:30 on Wed, 3 Jun 2020, remarked: On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC) Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: MissRiaElaine wrote: At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or later, people will say enough is enough. My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..? Surely shoes are available to purchase online? Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really? Thanks to the EU's Distance Selling Directive (which some people apparently want to see flushed down the toilet as part of the bundle of Brussels rule-taking) your purchase isn't final until you've had a chance to try them on and potentially send them back. Getting your money back isn't the issue, its the hassle of having to send them back plus not having the shoes to wear in the meantime. Why are some people so wedded to online that they'll avoid going to an actual shop even when its a lot simpler? You leave your shoes until the last available pair falls apart ? |
New boarding on London's buses
Am 02.06.2020 um 21:58 schrieb Anna Noyd-Dryver:
How might the relaxation of the lockdown affect K? Lockdown reduces the chances of a single infectious person spreading the disease to others. “Obviously if you start to allow larger gatherings, have larger workplaces, if you have other types of interaction starting, then that does increase the chance that one infection could spread to more people than it would have been able to a couple of weeks ago,” said Kucharski. “It could decrease the K, but it could also increase the R.” Examples in Germany since lockdown was relaxed: Church Service (Russian/German Church) Frankfurt: 140+ infected Root cause: no masks and singing (legal in Hessen) Church Service (Russian/German Church) Bremerhaven: 100+ infected Supposedly masks were worn and no singing Private family event in Restaurant Leer: 40+ infected Sweet Festival several large families Göttingen: 100+ infected Root cause: private use of Shisha bar with shared mouthpiece (several distancing laws broken, people refused to appear for ordered testing) All of these events did *not* lead to a increased follow-up infections because as soon as one person goes to hospital, several hundred contacts are tested and caught. The extremely low K value in COVID-19 gives us hope that there is little undetected spreading. Rolf |
New boarding on London's buses
wrote:
On 03/06/2020 08:44, Recliner wrote: Sam Wilson wrote: Recliner wrote: MissRiaElaine wrote: On 02/06/2020 20:58, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: wrote: On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100 Robin wrote: On 01/06/2020 14:39, MissRiaElaine wrote: On 01/06/2020 10:07, wrote: Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing their decisions on other people.Â* I'm fed up with the lycras around here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary. But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways. And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing" will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..? As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from them - starting many years ago. Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific (in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*. Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not - so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method of governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have no time for it. Apparently K is the new number to be concerned about. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/k-number-what-is-coronavirus-metric-crucial-lockdown-eases K sheds light on the variation behind R. “Some [infectious] people might generate a lot of secondary cases because of the event they attend, for example, and other people may not generate many secondary cases at all,” said Dr Adam Kucharski, an expert in the dynamics of infectious diseases at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. “K is the statistical value that tells us how much variation there is in that distribution.” But unlike R, K numbers are not intuitive. “The general rule is that the smaller the K value is, the more transmission comes from a smaller number of infectious people,” said Kucharski. “Once K is above about five or 10 it tells you most people are generating pretty similar numbers [of secondary cases], you are not getting these super-spreading events. Once K is below one, you have got the potential for super-spreading.” Is K fixed, or does it fluctuate with public health measures, like R does? As with the rate of transmission, there is a K value that relates to transmission when you do not have any control measures in place. Once measures are implemented, however, the distribution in transmission changes. “It is unlikely that with lockdown measures in place you’d see a lot of super-spreading events simply because there aren’t any opportunities for them,” said Kucharski. “So if you were to analyse that data, you’d probably calculate a different K value because you have got those control measures changing the dynamics of interactions.” What is the K number for Covid-19? In the absence of public health measures, “the values that are coming out for Covid-19 seems to be between about 0.1 and 0.5,” said Kucharski. That, he says, means that in the early stages of an outbreak about 10-20% of infections probably generate about 80% of the transmission. In other words, super-spreading matters – a reality highlighted by reports such as that from South Korea where one individual is thought to have infected dozens of others by attending church. But Kucharski cautioned against the use of the term super-spreader. “I think we do have to be really careful about blaming people because often it is not really much about the person, it is much more about the environment they happened to be in while they were infectious,” he said. Why is K important? Knowing the K value helps to inform what sort of public health measures may help to reduce R. “If we can identify and reduce the situations that are disproportionately driving transmission, then that suggests that we could actually have potentially quite a lot less disruptive measures in place, but still keep the reproduction number low,” said Kucharski. But it could also be important for test-and-trace measures, he said. “If cases occur at random, it’s very hard to track down and stop every chain of transmission. But if cases cluster together, and we can identify those clusters, testing and tracing directed at these situations could have a disproportionate effect on reducing transmission.” How might the relaxation of the lockdown affect K? Lockdown reduces the chances of a single infectious person spreading the disease to others. “Obviously if you start to allow larger gatherings, have larger workplaces, if you have other types of interaction starting, then that does increase the chance that one infection could spread to more people than it would have been able to a couple of weeks ago,” said Kucharski. “It could decrease the K, but it could also increase the R.” R numbers, K numbers, X Y and Z numbers, I don't care, I've had enough. I want my life back. Yes, I think a growing number of people feel the same. Most people now realise that the risk to them personally is extremely low, and they're prepared to risk it, just as we (collectively) risk eating out, crossing the road, eating unhealthily, drinking and/or smoking, using public transport, climbing mountains, winter sports, etc, etc. Then I’ll be staying home while the second wave happens. Well, that's the big question that may shortly be answered: will it be a big wave, comparable to the first, or just a much smaller ripple? Clearly, most younger people expect just a ripple, while the scientists are undecided. Personally, I think it'll just be a ripple, but we need to be alert for a second wave. It would help if our test and trace capabilities were as good as Hapless Hancock keeps telling us they are. At least in London and the southeast, I think enough people are either not susceptible, or now immune, that there will not be a big second wave, even if all lockdown restrictions are lifted, and all businesses allowed to reopen with some basic social distancing. Other parts of the country are a few weeks further behind, and may want to wait a little longer. And, of course, vulnerable people should continue to avoid crowded places. I have two friends who're nurses and the best way to describe them is knackered. They need a few weeks R&R before the next onslaught, not a week, a few weeks R&R so the ability of medial professionals to cope should be a consideration. I fear Cummings' government regards them as expendable collateral damage. The Cummings era is at an end, and temporarily, Johnson has taken over from him until the new Downing Street CEO, Simon Case, gets up to speed. Cummings may hang around for a few months before slinking off to a think tank, but his power has gone. He's morphed from consiglieri to clown in a matter of days. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/06/02/exclusive-boris-johnson-takes-back-control-coronavirus-crisis/ I accept that young people are at low risk of dying but they'll still capable of spreading it on to those who're higher risk. Not children. For some reason, they don't seem to spread it. And most people under 70 are at very low risk of dying. Consider the London borough of Brent, which has had the highest percentage of excess deaths this year. Those excess deaths amount to 0.15% of the population. So, even in the highest risk area, where an NHS hospital had to declare an emergency, 99.85% did not die from the plague. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/02/revealed-coronavirus-death-toll-across-britain-many-excess/ |
New boarding on London's buses
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:00:02 +0000 (UTC), wrote: On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:38:49 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 08:25:30 on Wed, 3 Jun 2020, remarked: On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC) Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: MissRiaElaine wrote: At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or later, people will say enough is enough. My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..? Surely shoes are available to purchase online? Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really? Thanks to the EU's Distance Selling Directive (which some people apparently want to see flushed down the toilet as part of the bundle of Brussels rule-taking) your purchase isn't final until you've had a chance to try them on and potentially send them back. Getting your money back isn't the issue, its the hassle of having to send them back plus not having the shoes to wear in the meantime. Why are some people so wedded to online that they'll avoid going to an actual shop even when its a lot simpler? You leave your shoes until the last available pair falls apart ? Yes, that's what surprised me: a woman with only one pair of shoes! |
New boarding on London's buses
On 03/06/2020 10:23, Recliner wrote:
wrote: On 03/06/2020 08:44, Recliner wrote: Sam Wilson wrote: Recliner wrote: MissRiaElaine wrote: On 02/06/2020 20:58, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: wrote: On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100 Robin wrote: On 01/06/2020 14:39, MissRiaElaine wrote: On 01/06/2020 10:07, wrote: Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing their decisions on other people.Â* I'm fed up with the lycras around here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary. But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways. And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing" will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..? As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from them - starting many years ago. Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific (in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*. Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not - so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method of governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have no time for it. Apparently K is the new number to be concerned about. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/k-number-what-is-coronavirus-metric-crucial-lockdown-eases K sheds light on the variation behind R. “Some [infectious] people might generate a lot of secondary cases because of the event they attend, for example, and other people may not generate many secondary cases at all,” said Dr Adam Kucharski, an expert in the dynamics of infectious diseases at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. “K is the statistical value that tells us how much variation there is in that distribution.” But unlike R, K numbers are not intuitive. “The general rule is that the smaller the K value is, the more transmission comes from a smaller number of infectious people,” said Kucharski. “Once K is above about five or 10 it tells you most people are generating pretty similar numbers [of secondary cases], you are not getting these super-spreading events. Once K is below one, you have got the potential for super-spreading.” Is K fixed, or does it fluctuate with public health measures, like R does? As with the rate of transmission, there is a K value that relates to transmission when you do not have any control measures in place. Once measures are implemented, however, the distribution in transmission changes. “It is unlikely that with lockdown measures in place you’d see a lot of super-spreading events simply because there aren’t any opportunities for them,” said Kucharski. “So if you were to analyse that data, you’d probably calculate a different K value because you have got those control measures changing the dynamics of interactions.” What is the K number for Covid-19? In the absence of public health measures, “the values that are coming out for Covid-19 seems to be between about 0.1 and 0.5,” said Kucharski. That, he says, means that in the early stages of an outbreak about 10-20% of infections probably generate about 80% of the transmission. In other words, super-spreading matters – a reality highlighted by reports such as that from South Korea where one individual is thought to have infected dozens of others by attending church. But Kucharski cautioned against the use of the term super-spreader. “I think we do have to be really careful about blaming people because often it is not really much about the person, it is much more about the environment they happened to be in while they were infectious,” he said. Why is K important? Knowing the K value helps to inform what sort of public health measures may help to reduce R. “If we can identify and reduce the situations that are disproportionately driving transmission, then that suggests that we could actually have potentially quite a lot less disruptive measures in place, but still keep the reproduction number low,” said Kucharski. But it could also be important for test-and-trace measures, he said. “If cases occur at random, it’s very hard to track down and stop every chain of transmission. But if cases cluster together, and we can identify those clusters, testing and tracing directed at these situations could have a disproportionate effect on reducing transmission.” How might the relaxation of the lockdown affect K? Lockdown reduces the chances of a single infectious person spreading the disease to others. “Obviously if you start to allow larger gatherings, have larger workplaces, if you have other types of interaction starting, then that does increase the chance that one infection could spread to more people than it would have been able to a couple of weeks ago,” said Kucharski. “It could decrease the K, but it could also increase the R.” R numbers, K numbers, X Y and Z numbers, I don't care, I've had enough. I want my life back. Yes, I think a growing number of people feel the same. Most people now realise that the risk to them personally is extremely low, and they're prepared to risk it, just as we (collectively) risk eating out, crossing the road, eating unhealthily, drinking and/or smoking, using public transport, climbing mountains, winter sports, etc, etc. Then I’ll be staying home while the second wave happens. Well, that's the big question that may shortly be answered: will it be a big wave, comparable to the first, or just a much smaller ripple? Clearly, most younger people expect just a ripple, while the scientists are undecided. Personally, I think it'll just be a ripple, but we need to be alert for a second wave. It would help if our test and trace capabilities were as good as Hapless Hancock keeps telling us they are. At least in London and the southeast, I think enough people are either not susceptible, or now immune, that there will not be a big second wave, even if all lockdown restrictions are lifted, and all businesses allowed to reopen with some basic social distancing. Other parts of the country are a few weeks further behind, and may want to wait a little longer. And, of course, vulnerable people should continue to avoid crowded places. I have two friends who're nurses and the best way to describe them is knackered. They need a few weeks R&R before the next onslaught, not a week, a few weeks R&R so the ability of medial professionals to cope should be a consideration. I fear Cummings' government regards them as expendable collateral damage. The Cummings era is at an end, and temporarily, Johnson has taken over from him until the new Downing Street CEO, Simon Case, gets up to speed. Cummings may hang around for a few months before slinking off to a think tank, but his power has gone. He's morphed from consiglieri to clown in a matter of days. Following Johnson's blind support for Cummings they've both got similar support, or perhaps I should say contempt. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/06/02/exclusive-boris-johnson-takes-back-control-coronavirus-crisis/ I accept that young people are at low risk of dying but they'll still capable of spreading it on to those who're higher risk. Not children. For some reason, they don't seem to spread it. And most people under 70 are at very low risk of dying. Consider the London borough of Brent, which has had the highest percentage of excess deaths this year. Those excess deaths amount to 0.15% of the population. So, even in the highest risk area, where an NHS hospital had to declare an emergency, 99.85% did not die from the plague. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/02/revealed-coronavirus-death-toll-across-britain-many-excess/ |
New boarding on London's buses
In message , at 09:00:02 on Wed, 3 Jun
2020, remarked: On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:38:49 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 08:25:30 on Wed, 3 Jun 2020, remarked: On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC) Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: MissRiaElaine wrote: At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or later, people will say enough is enough. My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..? Surely shoes are available to purchase online? Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really? Thanks to the EU's Distance Selling Directive (which some people apparently want to see flushed down the toilet as part of the bundle of Brussels rule-taking) your purchase isn't final until you've had a chance to try them on and potentially send them back. Getting your money back isn't the issue, its the hassle of having to send them back Print out a label, drop it into an inconvenience store. Simples. plus not having the shoes to wear in the meantime. Order them in plenty of time. Why are some people so wedded to online that they'll avoid going to an actual shop even when its a lot simpler? In my case it's because the choice is so much wider, especially in the smallish size which I take. -- Roland Perry |
New boarding on London's buses
On 03/06/2020 09:24, wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:29 -0000 (UTC) Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: wrote: On Tue, 02 Jun 2020 07:04:37 -0500 Arthur Conan Doyle wrote: wrote: Roll all you like. Governments have been playing the fear card for months now but as Sweden and Japan have shown, this virus isn't nearly as contagious or deadly as they would have us believe. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/swed...-herd-immunity Wired? Give me a break. As for well and truly failed - how can a herd immunity approach that has less deaths per million than belgium, UK, spain and italy and only slight more than france which all had tight lockdowns be said to have failed exactly? Default behaviours in different countries/regions differ, and therefore affect their 'default' transmission rates. It appears that Sweden's 'default' death rate is around the same as our lockdown death rate, presumably because they do stuff like not hugging random strangers as a We don't tend to hug random strangers here in the UK, nor do they do that much in Belgium AFAIK. You're clutching at straws. greeting. Their transmission rate is around eight times their presumably-comparable neighbours; therefore, without lockdown, would our Why does everyone assume NOrway and Denmark are equivalent to Sweden? Just because they all speak dialects of the same language? AIUI, the Norwegians are still angry at Sweden for allowing the Germans to march through into Norway. |
New boarding on London's buses
wrote:
On 03/06/2020 10:23, Recliner wrote: wrote: On 03/06/2020 08:44, Recliner wrote: Sam Wilson wrote: Recliner wrote: MissRiaElaine wrote: On 02/06/2020 20:58, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: wrote: On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100 Robin wrote: On 01/06/2020 14:39, MissRiaElaine wrote: On 01/06/2020 10:07, wrote: Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing their decisions on other people.Â* I'm fed up with the lycras around here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary. But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways. And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing" will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..? As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from them - starting many years ago. Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific (in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*. Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not - so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method of governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have no time for it. Apparently K is the new number to be concerned about. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/k-number-what-is-coronavirus-metric-crucial-lockdown-eases K sheds light on the variation behind R. “Some [infectious] people might generate a lot of secondary cases because of the event they attend, for example, and other people may not generate many secondary cases at all,” said Dr Adam Kucharski, an expert in the dynamics of infectious diseases at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. “K is the statistical value that tells us how much variation there is in that distribution.” But unlike R, K numbers are not intuitive. “The general rule is that the smaller the K value is, the more transmission comes from a smaller number of infectious people,” said Kucharski. “Once K is above about five or 10 it tells you most people are generating pretty similar numbers [of secondary cases], you are not getting these super-spreading events. Once K is below one, you have got the potential for super-spreading.” Is K fixed, or does it fluctuate with public health measures, like R does? As with the rate of transmission, there is a K value that relates to transmission when you do not have any control measures in place. Once measures are implemented, however, the distribution in transmission changes. “It is unlikely that with lockdown measures in place you’d see a lot of super-spreading events simply because there aren’t any opportunities for them,” said Kucharski. “So if you were to analyse that data, you’d probably calculate a different K value because you have got those control measures changing the dynamics of interactions.” What is the K number for Covid-19? In the absence of public health measures, “the values that are coming out for Covid-19 seems to be between about 0.1 and 0.5,” said Kucharski. That, he says, means that in the early stages of an outbreak about 10-20% of infections probably generate about 80% of the transmission. In other words, super-spreading matters – a reality highlighted by reports such as that from South Korea where one individual is thought to have infected dozens of others by attending church. But Kucharski cautioned against the use of the term super-spreader. “I think we do have to be really careful about blaming people because often it is not really much about the person, it is much more about the environment they happened to be in while they were infectious,” he said. Why is K important? Knowing the K value helps to inform what sort of public health measures may help to reduce R. “If we can identify and reduce the situations that are disproportionately driving transmission, then that suggests that we could actually have potentially quite a lot less disruptive measures in place, but still keep the reproduction number low,” said Kucharski. But it could also be important for test-and-trace measures, he said. “If cases occur at random, it’s very hard to track down and stop every chain of transmission. But if cases cluster together, and we can identify those clusters, testing and tracing directed at these situations could have a disproportionate effect on reducing transmission.” How might the relaxation of the lockdown affect K? Lockdown reduces the chances of a single infectious person spreading the disease to others. “Obviously if you start to allow larger gatherings, have larger workplaces, if you have other types of interaction starting, then that does increase the chance that one infection could spread to more people than it would have been able to a couple of weeks ago,” said Kucharski. “It could decrease the K, but it could also increase the R.” R numbers, K numbers, X Y and Z numbers, I don't care, I've had enough. I want my life back. Yes, I think a growing number of people feel the same. Most people now realise that the risk to them personally is extremely low, and they're prepared to risk it, just as we (collectively) risk eating out, crossing the road, eating unhealthily, drinking and/or smoking, using public transport, climbing mountains, winter sports, etc, etc. Then I’ll be staying home while the second wave happens. Well, that's the big question that may shortly be answered: will it be a big wave, comparable to the first, or just a much smaller ripple? Clearly, most younger people expect just a ripple, while the scientists are undecided. Personally, I think it'll just be a ripple, but we need to be alert for a second wave. It would help if our test and trace capabilities were as good as Hapless Hancock keeps telling us they are. At least in London and the southeast, I think enough people are either not susceptible, or now immune, that there will not be a big second wave, even if all lockdown restrictions are lifted, and all businesses allowed to reopen with some basic social distancing. Other parts of the country are a few weeks further behind, and may want to wait a little longer. And, of course, vulnerable people should continue to avoid crowded places. I have two friends who're nurses and the best way to describe them is knackered. They need a few weeks R&R before the next onslaught, not a week, a few weeks R&R so the ability of medial professionals to cope should be a consideration. I fear Cummings' government regards them as expendable collateral damage. The Cummings era is at an end, and temporarily, Johnson has taken over from him until the new Downing Street CEO, Simon Case, gets up to speed. Cummings may hang around for a few months before slinking off to a think tank, but his power has gone. He's morphed from consiglieri to clown in a matter of days. Following Johnson's blind support for Cummings they've both got similar support, or perhaps I should say contempt. Yes, I don't know if Johnson realised that by not immediately sacking the Dom, he's now inherited Cummings' guilt. That will remain long after Cummings has gone. Presumably he was acting on advice from Cummings? It shows the weakness of the Johnson team: a second-tier cabinet and only one adviser that he listened to. Most previous PMs have been surrounded by several key cabinet ministers, a good press secretary, and useful political advisers. |
New boarding on London's buses
On 03/06/2020 10:51, Recliner wrote:
wrote: On 03/06/2020 10:23, Recliner wrote: wrote: On 03/06/2020 08:44, Recliner wrote: Sam Wilson wrote: Recliner wrote: MissRiaElaine wrote: On 02/06/2020 20:58, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: wrote: On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100 Robin wrote: On 01/06/2020 14:39, MissRiaElaine wrote: On 01/06/2020 10:07, wrote: Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing their decisions on other people.Â* I'm fed up with the lycras around here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary. But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways. And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing" will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..? As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from them - starting many years ago. Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific (in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*. Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not - so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method of governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have no time for it. Apparently K is the new number to be concerned about. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/k-number-what-is-coronavirus-metric-crucial-lockdown-eases K sheds light on the variation behind R. “Some [infectious] people might generate a lot of secondary cases because of the event they attend, for example, and other people may not generate many secondary cases at all,” said Dr Adam Kucharski, an expert in the dynamics of infectious diseases at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. “K is the statistical value that tells us how much variation there is in that distribution.” But unlike R, K numbers are not intuitive. “The general rule is that the smaller the K value is, the more transmission comes from a smaller number of infectious people,” said Kucharski. “Once K is above about five or 10 it tells you most people are generating pretty similar numbers [of secondary cases], you are not getting these super-spreading events. Once K is below one, you have got the potential for super-spreading.” Is K fixed, or does it fluctuate with public health measures, like R does? As with the rate of transmission, there is a K value that relates to transmission when you do not have any control measures in place. Once measures are implemented, however, the distribution in transmission changes. “It is unlikely that with lockdown measures in place you’d see a lot of super-spreading events simply because there aren’t any opportunities for them,” said Kucharski. “So if you were to analyse that data, you’d probably calculate a different K value because you have got those control measures changing the dynamics of interactions.” What is the K number for Covid-19? In the absence of public health measures, “the values that are coming out for Covid-19 seems to be between about 0.1 and 0.5,” said Kucharski. That, he says, means that in the early stages of an outbreak about 10-20% of infections probably generate about 80% of the transmission. In other words, super-spreading matters – a reality highlighted by reports such as that from South Korea where one individual is thought to have infected dozens of others by attending church. But Kucharski cautioned against the use of the term super-spreader. “I think we do have to be really careful about blaming people because often it is not really much about the person, it is much more about the environment they happened to be in while they were infectious,” he said. Why is K important? Knowing the K value helps to inform what sort of public health measures may help to reduce R. “If we can identify and reduce the situations that are disproportionately driving transmission, then that suggests that we could actually have potentially quite a lot less disruptive measures in place, but still keep the reproduction number low,” said Kucharski. But it could also be important for test-and-trace measures, he said. “If cases occur at random, it’s very hard to track down and stop every chain of transmission. But if cases cluster together, and we can identify those clusters, testing and tracing directed at these situations could have a disproportionate effect on reducing transmission.” How might the relaxation of the lockdown affect K? Lockdown reduces the chances of a single infectious person spreading the disease to others. “Obviously if you start to allow larger gatherings, have larger workplaces, if you have other types of interaction starting, then that does increase the chance that one infection could spread to more people than it would have been able to a couple of weeks ago,” said Kucharski. “It could decrease the K, but it could also increase the R.” R numbers, K numbers, X Y and Z numbers, I don't care, I've had enough. I want my life back. Yes, I think a growing number of people feel the same. Most people now realise that the risk to them personally is extremely low, and they're prepared to risk it, just as we (collectively) risk eating out, crossing the road, eating unhealthily, drinking and/or smoking, using public transport, climbing mountains, winter sports, etc, etc. Then I’ll be staying home while the second wave happens. Well, that's the big question that may shortly be answered: will it be a big wave, comparable to the first, or just a much smaller ripple? Clearly, most younger people expect just a ripple, while the scientists are undecided. Personally, I think it'll just be a ripple, but we need to be alert for a second wave. It would help if our test and trace capabilities were as good as Hapless Hancock keeps telling us they are. At least in London and the southeast, I think enough people are either not susceptible, or now immune, that there will not be a big second wave, even if all lockdown restrictions are lifted, and all businesses allowed to reopen with some basic social distancing. Other parts of the country are a few weeks further behind, and may want to wait a little longer. And, of course, vulnerable people should continue to avoid crowded places. I have two friends who're nurses and the best way to describe them is knackered. They need a few weeks R&R before the next onslaught, not a week, a few weeks R&R so the ability of medial professionals to cope should be a consideration. I fear Cummings' government regards them as expendable collateral damage. The Cummings era is at an end, and temporarily, Johnson has taken over from him until the new Downing Street CEO, Simon Case, gets up to speed. Cummings may hang around for a few months before slinking off to a think tank, but his power has gone. He's morphed from consiglieri to clown in a matter of days. Following Johnson's blind support for Cummings they've both got similar support, or perhaps I should say contempt. Yes, I don't know if Johnson realised that by not immediately sacking the Dom, he's now inherited Cummings' guilt. That will remain long after Cummings has gone. I've not thought of it that way. Thank you. Presumably he was acting on advice from Cummings? The suspicion has to be that they discussed how to deal with it and Johnson followed his advise. It shows the weakness of the Johnson team: a second-tier cabinet and only one adviser that he listened to. Most previous PMs have been surrounded by several key cabinet ministers, a good press secretary, and useful political advisers. The government was elected solely to give us Brexit with little or no regard for anything else. The cabinet members and Johnsons' political advisers were nominated for their extreme Brexit views above competence. The government is actually not competent to deal with anything other than Brexit and we've ended up with the mess we're in. In addition the civil service and government does not have the capacity to deal with both the virus and Brexit simultaneously. |
New boarding on London's buses
On 03/06/2020 09:17, wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 19:38:16 +0100 wrote: On 02/06/2020 17:00, wrote: Life is full of compromises and if the government persist with this 2m nonsense even against the advice of the WHO then they are going to utterly kill the economy of this country. Not just in retail, leisure and travel but in factories that can't operate efficiently - if at all - with 2m distancing of their employees. I'm sure Bozo the Clown knows this but he's too in thrall to a bunch of "experts" whose expertise seems to be based on little more than suck-it-and-see statistics. OK. So we reduce the 2m distancing to 1m. This will increase the R number a little. What are you going to restrict instead to compensate and bring the R number back to what it would otherwise be? I couldn't give a toss about the R number or any of this bloody nonsense any more. The medics the government are listening to at exclusion of EVERYONE else can only see one side of a very large equation. From a purely medical viewpoint, we should all stay indoors until we no longer have an economy. The government (when he's not driving to Durham) has decided that practical considerations override this Sage advice. |
New boarding on London's buses
On Wed, 03 Jun 2020 10:08:18 +0100
Charles Ellson wrote: On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:00:02 +0000 (UTC), wrote: On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:38:49 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 08:25:30 on Wed, 3 Jun 2020, remarked: On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC) Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: MissRiaElaine wrote: At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or later, people will say enough is enough. My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..? Surely shoes are available to purchase online? Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really? Thanks to the EU's Distance Selling Directive (which some people apparently want to see flushed down the toilet as part of the bundle of Brussels rule-taking) your purchase isn't final until you've had a chance to try them on and potentially send them back. Getting your money back isn't the issue, its the hassle of having to send them back plus not having the shoes to wear in the meantime. Why are some people so wedded to online that they'll avoid going to an actual shop even when its a lot simpler? You leave your shoes until the last available pair falls apart ? What? |
New boarding on London's buses
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 10:43:18 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 09:00:02 on Wed, 3 Jun 2020, remarked: On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:38:49 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 08:25:30 on Wed, 3 Jun 2020, remarked: On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC) Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: MissRiaElaine wrote: At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or later, people will say enough is enough. My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..? Surely shoes are available to purchase online? Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really? Thanks to the EU's Distance Selling Directive (which some people apparently want to see flushed down the toilet as part of the bundle of Brussels rule-taking) your purchase isn't final until you've had a chance to try them on and potentially send them back. Getting your money back isn't the issue, its the hassle of having to send them back Print out a label, drop it into an inconvenience store. Simples. If you mean parcel them back up, go queue in the post office for hours behind some pensioners, hand over money for delivery then yes, its simples. plus not having the shoes to wear in the meantime. Order them in plenty of time. I don't think many people buy shoes or clothes because they're about to run out. Why are some people so wedded to online that they'll avoid going to an actual shop even when its a lot simpler? In my case it's because the choice is so much wider, especially in the smallish size which I take. Thats up to you. I only order online when I don't have a choice because shops don't sell it - eg gym equipment. Otherwise going to a physical shop is a lot simpler. |
New boarding on London's buses
wrote in message ... On 02/06/2020 17:00, wrote: On 2 Jun 2020 15:30:08 GMT Jeremy Double wrote: Recliner wrote: David Jones wrote: Robin wrote: On 01/06/2020 14:39, MissRiaElaine wrote: On 01/06/2020 10:07, wrote: Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing their decisions on other people. I'm fed up with the lycras around here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary. But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways. And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing" will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..? As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from them - starting many years ago. Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific (in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*. *or possibly not if you are an Audi driver No. "Social distancing" allows one to be close to anyone of the same housewhold, while at leasat 2m from anyoned else In the UK. In most other countries, it's 1.5m or 1m, or 6' in the US. The WHO recommends at least 1m. This article, looking at scientific studies, says the virus will be passed on more if the social distancing distance is reduced from 2m: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ould-double-if -2-metre-rule-reduced-study-finds Using that logic lets make the social distance 10m. No wait, lets make it 100m! Or better yet lets just lock people up in their houses until they're given a booked date and time to come out and go shopping. Life is full of compromises and if the government persist with this 2m nonsense even against the advice of the WHO then they are going to utterly kill the economy of this country. Not just in retail, leisure and travel but in factories that can't operate efficiently - if at all - with 2m distancing of their employees. I'm sure Bozo the Clown knows this but he's too in thrall to a bunch of "experts" whose expertise seems to be based on little more than suck-it-and-see statistics. OK. So we reduce the 2m distancing to 1m. This will increase the R number a little. What are you going to restrict instead to compensate and bring the R number back to what it would otherwise be? all having to wear masks when on PT |
New boarding on London's buses
wrote in message ... On 03/06/2020 09:24, wrote: On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:29 -0000 (UTC) Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: wrote: On Tue, 02 Jun 2020 07:04:37 -0500 Arthur Conan Doyle wrote: wrote: Roll all you like. Governments have been playing the fear card for months now but as Sweden and Japan have shown, this virus isn't nearly as contagious or deadly as they would have us believe. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/swed...-herd-immunity Wired? Give me a break. As for well and truly failed - how can a herd immunity approach that has less deaths per million than belgium, UK, spain and italy and only slight more than france which all had tight lockdowns be said to have failed exactly? Default behaviours in different countries/regions differ, and therefore affect their 'default' transmission rates. It appears that Sweden's 'default' death rate is around the same as our lockdown death rate, presumably because they do stuff like not hugging random strangers as a We don't tend to hug random strangers here in the UK, nor do they do that much in Belgium AFAIK. You're clutching at straws. greeting. Their transmission rate is around eight times their presumably-comparable neighbours; therefore, without lockdown, would our Why does everyone assume NOrway and Denmark are equivalent to Sweden? Just because they all speak dialects of the same language? AIUI, the Norwegians are still angry at Sweden for allowing the Germans to march through into Norway. As that isn't how the Germans got to Norway, You've made that up tim |
New boarding on London's buses
wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 22:37:20 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: MissRiaElaine wrote: On 02/06/2020 20:58, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: R numbers, K numbers, X Y and Z numbers, I don't care, I've had enough. I want my life back. The R number is a method of blinding the plebs with science. It sounds complex and technical therefor it must be true. Shame it bears little resemblence to actual reality. Having looked a little bit at the simulations it looks as though they’ve chosen R as the simplest measure to explain how infections spread. If people can’t understand how the R measure works there’s no point in trying to explain what really happens, whether people want to be treated as adults or not. Sam -- The entity formerly known as Spit the dummy to reply |
New boarding on London's buses
In message , at 10:25:32 on Wed, 3 Jun
2020, remarked: On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 10:43:18 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 09:00:02 on Wed, 3 Jun 2020, remarked: On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:38:49 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 08:25:30 on Wed, 3 Jun 2020, remarked: On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC) Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: MissRiaElaine wrote: At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or later, people will say enough is enough. My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..? Surely shoes are available to purchase online? Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really? Thanks to the EU's Distance Selling Directive (which some people apparently want to see flushed down the toilet as part of the bundle of Brussels rule-taking) your purchase isn't final until you've had a chance to try them on and potentially send them back. Getting your money back isn't the issue, its the hassle of having to send them back Print out a label, drop it into an inconvenience store. Simples. If you mean parcel them back up, go queue in the post office for hours behind some pensioners, hand over money for delivery then yes, its simples. No, print a pre-paid label and drop it off in a couple of minutes at the local One-Stop (or similar). plus not having the shoes to wear in the meantime. Order them in plenty of time. I don't think many people buy shoes or clothes because they're about to run out. So why wouldn't you have any shoes to wear? Why are some people so wedded to online that they'll avoid going to an actual shop even when its a lot simpler? In my case it's because the choice is so much wider, especially in the smallish size which I take. Thats up to you. I only order online when I don't have a choice because shops don't sell it - eg gym equipment. Otherwise going to a physical shop is a lot simpler. Physical shops have a very limited selection in my size. -- Roland Perry |
New boarding on London's buses
|
New boarding on London's buses
On 03/06/2020 13:46, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:06:30 on Wed, 3 Jun 2020, remarked: The government was elected solely to give us Brexit with little or no regard for anything else.Â* The cabinet members and Johnsons' political advisers were nominated for their extreme Brexit views above competence.Â* The government is actually not competent to deal with anything other than Brexit I see little evidence they are capable of that, eitherI could have phrased that better but you're correct and we've ended up with the mess we're in. In addition the civil service and government does not have the capacity to deal with both the virus and Brexit simultaneously. There should be completely separate teams dealing them. What has the almost invisible Gove been doing the last couple of months? I think they do but part of the Brexit team has been transferred to Covid. |
New boarding on London's buses
wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC) Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: MissRiaElaine wrote: At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or later, people will say enough is enough. My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..? Surely shoes are available to purchase online? Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really? I would expect any online shoe retailer to have a system for sending back things which don't fit, just as online and catalogue retailers of other clothing items do. Anna Noyd-Dryver |
New boarding on London's buses
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 13:43:11 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 10:25:32 on Wed, 3 Jun 2020, remarked: If you mean parcel them back up, go queue in the post office for hours behind some pensioners, hand over money for delivery then yes, its simples. No, print a pre-paid label and drop it off in a couple of minutes at the local One-Stop (or similar). If by local one-stop you mean the post office you still have to queue behind said pensioners. You can't just lob the parcel over the counter or dump it in a sack and leg it. Or not in our one anyway. plus not having the shoes to wear in the meantime. Order them in plenty of time. I don't think many people buy shoes or clothes because they're about to run out. So why wouldn't you have any shoes to wear? Huh? The point you and others are missing is that with clothes, shoes and a number of other products , eg cars, its a very VERY good idea to try before you buy. Or risk serious disappointment. Thats up to you. I only order online when I don't have a choice because shops don't sell it - eg gym equipment. Otherwise going to a physical shop is a lot simpler. Physical shops have a very limited selection in my size. Thats unfortunate, but you're clearly a special case. Most people can buy shoes that fit in shops. |
New boarding on London's buses
In message , at 14:24:20 on Wed, 3 Jun
2020, remarked: On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 13:43:11 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 10:25:32 on Wed, 3 Jun 2020, remarked: If you mean parcel them back up, go queue in the post office for hours behind some pensioners, hand over money for delivery then yes, its simples. No, print a pre-paid label and drop it off in a couple of minutes at the local One-Stop (or similar). If by local one-stop It's a popular chain of convenience stores M'Lud. Other brands are available. you mean the post office you still have to queue behind said pensioners. You can't just lob the parcel over the counter or dump it in a sack and leg it. Or not in our one anyway. plus not having the shoes to wear in the meantime. Order them in plenty of time. I don't think many people buy shoes or clothes because they're about to run out. So why wouldn't you have any shoes to wear? Huh? The point you and others are missing is that with clothes, shoes and a number of other products , eg cars, its a very VERY good idea to try before you buy. Or risk serious disappointment. You buy (hanks to the EU) in effect "on approval", and send things back which don't fit. Thats up to you. I only order online when I don't have a choice because shops don't sell it - eg gym equipment. Otherwise going to a physical shop is a lot simpler. Physical shops have a very limited selection in my size. Thats unfortunate, but you're clearly a special case. Most people can buy shoes that fit in shops. You'd think, wouldn't you, but I know several people (men and women) with smaller feet, and it's a significant issue. I also really need a half-size, which are even rarer. -- Roland Perry |
New boarding on London's buses
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 14:24:20 on Wed, 3 Jun 2020, remarked: On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 13:43:11 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 10:25:32 on Wed, 3 Jun 2020, remarked: If you mean parcel them back up, go queue in the post office for hours behind some pensioners, hand over money for delivery then yes, its simples. No, print a pre-paid label and drop it off in a couple of minutes at the local One-Stop (or similar). If by local one-stop It's a popular chain of convenience stores M'Lud. One which I had never encountered until the first time working in Cambridge (I think they were an East Midlands thing) though I note that they do now have a few stores down ere tim |
New boarding on London's buses
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 10:22:16 +0000 (UTC), wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jun 2020 10:08:18 +0100 Charles Ellson wrote: On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:00:02 +0000 (UTC), wrote: On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:38:49 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 08:25:30 on Wed, 3 Jun 2020, remarked: On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC) Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: MissRiaElaine wrote: At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or later, people will say enough is enough. My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..? Surely shoes are available to purchase online? Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really? Thanks to the EU's Distance Selling Directive (which some people apparently want to see flushed down the toilet as part of the bundle of Brussels rule-taking) your purchase isn't final until you've had a chance to try them on and potentially send them back. Getting your money back isn't the issue, its the hassle of having to send them back plus not having the shoes to wear in the meantime. Why are some people so wedded to online that they'll avoid going to an actual shop even when its a lot simpler? You leave your shoes until the last available pair falls apart ? What? There is an implication that there is no suitable reserve pair of shoes available while the mail order pair is being returned. |
New boarding on London's buses
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 15:33:40 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 14:24:20 on Wed, 3 Jun 2020, remarked: If by local one-stop It's a popular chain of convenience stores M'Lud. Other brands are available. Never heard of them. Huh? The point you and others are missing is that with clothes, shoes and a number of other products , eg cars, its a very VERY good idea to try before you buy. Or risk serious disappointment. You buy (hanks to the EU) in effect "on approval", and send things back which don't fit. The EU has nothing to do with being able to return goods not fit for purpose. Thats been british law for decades and I wouldn't be surprised if we gave them the idea. Nor were they involved in credit card companies refunding customers for dodgy goods. Thats up to you. I only order online when I don't have a choice because shops don't sell it - eg gym equipment. Otherwise going to a physical shop is a lot simpler. Physical shops have a very limited selection in my size. Thats unfortunate, but you're clearly a special case. Most people can buy shoes that fit in shops. You'd think, wouldn't you, but I know several people (men and women) with smaller feet, and it's a significant issue. I also really need a half-size, which are even rarer. Just wear the next size up and put in a thick insole. Simples. |
New boarding on London's buses
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
wrote: On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC) Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: MissRiaElaine wrote: At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or later, people will say enough is enough. My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..? Surely shoes are available to purchase online? Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really? I would expect any online shoe retailer to have a system for sending back things which don't fit, just as online and catalogue retailers of other clothing items do. Anyone else seen adverts from Pearlfeet? They have attractive shoes, a deeply misleading size chart and suggest that if you want to return something it’ll be to China at your own cost. I have yet to point out to them at that that’s not a legal way to deal with the customer in the UK. Sam -- The entity formerly known as Spit the dummy to reply |
New boarding on London's buses
wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 10:43:18 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 09:00:02 on Wed, 3 Jun 2020, remarked: On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:38:49 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 08:25:30 on Wed, 3 Jun 2020, remarked: On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC) Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: MissRiaElaine wrote: At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or later, people will say enough is enough. My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..? Surely shoes are available to purchase online? Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really? Thanks to the EU's Distance Selling Directive (which some people apparently want to see flushed down the toilet as part of the bundle of Brussels rule-taking) your purchase isn't final until you've had a chance to try them on and potentially send them back. Getting your money back isn't the issue, its the hassle of having to send them back Print out a label, drop it into an inconvenience store. Simples. If you mean parcel them back up, go queue in the post office for hours behind some pensioners, hand over money for delivery then yes, its simples. The return would not require payment. Many newsagents are parcel-drop locations, not just post offices. The last items I returned to Amazon were via a Next store, obviously not possible at the moment. Anna Noyd-Dryver |
New boarding on London's buses
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 15:33:40 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 14:24:20 on Wed, 3 Jun 2020, remarked: On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 13:43:11 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 10:25:32 on Wed, 3 Jun 2020, remarked: If you mean parcel them back up, go queue in the post office for hours behind some pensioners, hand over money for delivery then yes, its simples. No, print a pre-paid label and drop it off in a couple of minutes at the local One-Stop (or similar). If by local one-stop It's a popular chain of convenience stores M'Lud. Other brands are available. you mean the post office you still have to queue behind said pensioners. ITYF most don't need to go to the Post Office any more, one of the reasons why branches are being closed. Having accompanied someone else (not a pensioner) a few times to a Post Office recently, today was the first time we found ourselves waiting behind an elderly person. You can't just lob the parcel over the counter or dump it in a sack and leg it. Or not in our one anyway. plus not having the shoes to wear in the meantime. Order them in plenty of time. I don't think many people buy shoes or clothes because they're about to run out. So why wouldn't you have any shoes to wear? Huh? The point you and others are missing is that with clothes, shoes and a number of other products , eg cars, its a very VERY good idea to try before you buy. Or risk serious disappointment. You buy (hanks to the EU) in effect "on approval", and send things back which don't fit. Thats up to you. I only order online when I don't have a choice because shops don't sell it - eg gym equipment. Otherwise going to a physical shop is a lot simpler. Physical shops have a very limited selection in my size. Thats unfortunate, but you're clearly a special case. Most people can buy shoes that fit in shops. You'd think, wouldn't you, but I know several people (men and women) with smaller feet, and it's a significant issue. I also really need a half-size, which are even rarer. |
New boarding on London's buses
In article , MissRiaElaine
writes Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing their decisions on other people.* I'm fed up with the lycras around here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary. But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry to force their decisions on us. In the case of the government, that's what we elected them to do. -- Clive D.W. Feather |
New boarding on London's buses
|
New boarding on London's buses
wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 13:43:11 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 10:25:32 on Wed, 3 Jun 2020, remarked: If you mean parcel them back up, go queue in the post office for hours behind some pensioners, hand over money for delivery then yes, its simples. No, print a pre-paid label and drop it off in a couple of minutes at the local One-Stop (or similar). If by local one-stop you mean the post office A chain of convenience stores https://www.onestop.co.uk "One Stop is a retail convenience business with over 900 shops". Other similar retail chains exist. Huh? The point you and others are missing is that with clothes, shoes and a number of other products , eg cars, its a very VERY good idea to try before you buy. Or risk serious disappointment. Catalogue shopping (order lots, return those which don't fit/suit) was a thing for many decades before the internet. I don't see why the introduction of a computer screen into the process should make it any less achievable. Anna Noyd-Dryver |
New boarding on London's buses
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:24:20 on Wed, 3 Jun 2020, remarked: Thats unfortunate, but you're clearly a special case. Most people can buy shoes that fit in shops. You'd think, wouldn't you, but I know several people (men and women) with smaller feet, and it's a significant issue. I also really need a half-size, which are even rarer. Those with large feet also suffer the same problem. It does sometimes make choosing shoes easier when there are only three pairs in the shop which fit. Anna Noyd-Dryver |
New boarding on London's buses
Sam Wilson wrote:
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: wrote: On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC) Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: MissRiaElaine wrote: At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or later, people will say enough is enough. My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..? Surely shoes are available to purchase online? Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really? I would expect any online shoe retailer to have a system for sending back things which don't fit, just as online and catalogue retailers of other clothing items do. Anyone else seen adverts from Pearlfeet? They have attractive shoes, a deeply misleading size chart and suggest that if you want to return something it’ll be to China at your own cost. I have yet to point out to them at that that’s not a legal way to deal with the customer in the UK. Maybe I should have added the word 'reputable' ;) Anna Noyd-Dryver |
New boarding on London's buses
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 16:17:14 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: wrote: On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 13:43:11 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 10:25:32 on Wed, 3 Jun 2020, remarked: If you mean parcel them back up, go queue in the post office for hours behind some pensioners, hand over money for delivery then yes, its simples. No, print a pre-paid label and drop it off in a couple of minutes at the local One-Stop (or similar). If by local one-stop you mean the post office A chain of convenience stores https://www.onestop.co.uk "One Stop is a retail convenience business with over 900 shops". Other similar retail chains exist. Probably found in chavvy areas which even Budgen thought was too downmarket to bother with. No doubt a branch of Bargain Booze is nearby. Catalogue shopping (order lots, return those which don't fit/suit) was a thing for many decades before the internet. I don't see why the introduction of a computer screen into the process should make it any less achievable. It was a think for a tiny minority of people. Usually the elderly who couldn't get out much. |
New boarding on London's buses
Am 03.06.2020 um 16:14 schrieb Anna Noyd-Dryver:
There was a thing on the news the other day about bookshops reopening, the suggestion being that any item touched by a customer would need to be wiped down and also quarantined for 72 hours. Presumably the same would apply to shoes? (Genuine question: presumably large supermarkets still have their clothing departments open, how are they managing?) In Germany where all shops are open again, H&M have a "try on at home" policy, so what's advantage is left compared to mail order? The bike shops indeed have to wipe down and quarantaine a bike that has been out on a test ride (even the saddle). |
New boarding on London's buses
wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 16:17:14 -0000 (UTC) Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: wrote: On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 13:43:11 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 10:25:32 on Wed, 3 Jun 2020, remarked: If you mean parcel them back up, go queue in the post office for hours behind some pensioners, hand over money for delivery then yes, its simples. No, print a pre-paid label and drop it off in a couple of minutes at the local One-Stop (or similar). If by local one-stop you mean the post office A chain of convenience stores https://www.onestop.co.uk "One Stop is a retail convenience business with over 900 shops". Other similar retail chains exist. Probably found in chavvy areas which even Budgen thought was too downmarket to bother with. No doubt a branch of Bargain Booze is nearby. Catalogue shopping (order lots, return those which don't fit/suit) was a thing for many decades before the internet. I don't see why the introduction of a computer screen into the process should make it any less achievable. It was a think for a tiny minority of people. Usually the elderly who couldn't get out much. Also, a lot of catalogue shopping was on (expensive) credit, in the days before credit cards. |
New boarding on London's buses
Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 03.06.2020 um 16:14 schrieb Anna Noyd-Dryver: There was a thing on the news the other day about bookshops reopening, the suggestion being that any item touched by a customer would need to be wiped down and also quarantined for 72 hours. Presumably the same would apply to shoes? (Genuine question: presumably large supermarkets still have their clothing departments open, how are they managing?) In Germany where all shops are open again, H&M have a "try on at home" policy, so what's advantage is left compared to mail order? I remember when I was younger, being surprised that M&S in Bolton didn't have rooms to try on clothes (because you were expected to take things home to try them on) but M&S in Llandudno did (because people generally travelled further to get there). Anna Noyd-Dryver |
New boarding on London's buses
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 15:19:52 +0000 (UTC), wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 15:33:40 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 14:24:20 on Wed, 3 Jun 2020, remarked: If by local one-stop It's a popular chain of convenience stores M'Lud. Other brands are available. Never heard of them. Huh? The point you and others are missing is that with clothes, shoes and a number of other products , eg cars, its a very VERY good idea to try before you buy. Or risk serious disappointment. You buy (hanks to the EU) in effect "on approval", and send things back which don't fit. The EU has nothing to do with being able to return goods not fit for purpose. Thats been british law for decades and I wouldn't be surprised if we gave them the idea. Goods which are supplied in accordance with a description and your order are not "not fit for purpose". The more recent laws allowing goods bought at a distance to be returned do not care if they are in perfect condition; simply taking a dislike to them is sufficient reason to return them. Unlike defective goods, you have to pay the return cost unless the supplier has decided to bear that expense. Nor were they involved in credit card companies refunding customers for dodgy goods. Thats up to you. I only order online when I don't have a choice because shops don't sell it - eg gym equipment. Otherwise going to a physical shop is a lot simpler. Physical shops have a very limited selection in my size. Thats unfortunate, but you're clearly a special case. Most people can buy shoes that fit in shops. You'd think, wouldn't you, but I know several people (men and women) with smaller feet, and it's a significant issue. I also really need a half-size, which are even rarer. Just wear the next size up and put in a thick insole. Simples. Not a podiatrist, are you ? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:29 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk