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.

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.

On 03/06/2020 09:25, 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?

Trying on multiple shoes before picking one pair in a pandemic?

--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
Epic Soundtracks - Wild Smile (An Anthology)

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?

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 ?

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

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/

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!

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/

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

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.