|
New boarding on London's buses
|
New boarding on London's buses
On Fri, 29 May 2020 15:13:36 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: wrote: Received this in e-mail on Friday. I wonder if this is due to softening of restrictions, the fact that TfL is cash-strapped or a combination of both. Those two, plus probably central government pressure. I note that each of the busses will have restrictions on the amount of passengers they can carry. I wonder how that'll be implemented (and for how long)? Until passengers cause so much trouble after not being allowed on that TfL just give up and realise that treating people as adults and allowing them to make their own decisions wrt crowding is the better approach. |
New boarding on London's buses
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 10:07:56 +0100
wrote: On 01/06/2020 09:31, wrote: On Fri, 29 May 2020 15:13:36 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: Received this in e-mail on Friday. I wonder if this is due to softening of restrictions, the fact that TfL is cash-strapped or a combination of both. Those two, plus probably central government pressure. I note that each of the busses will have restrictions on the amount of passengers they can carry. I wonder how that'll be implemented (and for how long)? Until passengers cause so much trouble after not being allowed on that TfL just give up and realise that treating people as adults and allowing them to make their own decisions wrt crowding is the better approach. 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. And how long should your fear restrict the lives of the rest of us? If you're scared wear a full face mask + visor or better yet just stay in your house but don't expect others to pander to your insecurities. |
New boarding on London's buses
|
New boarding on London's buses
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*. *or possibly not if you are an Audi driver -- Robin reply-to address is (intended to be) valid |
New boarding on London's buses
|
New boarding on London's buses
"MissRiaElaine" wrote in message ... 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. I with you on that :-) tim |
New boarding on London's buses
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*. *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 |
New boarding on London's buses
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.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*. *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. |
New boarding on London's buses
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. |
New boarding on London's buses
On 02/06/2020 09:37, 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.Ă‚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. ROTFL -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
New boarding on London's buses
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. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/01/two-metre-rule-halves-chances-catching-coronavirus-first-major/ |
New boarding on London's buses
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 10:04:38 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote: On 02/06/2020 09:37, 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.Ă‚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. ROTFL 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. |
New boarding on London's buses
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 10:03:14 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner 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. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...s-chances-catc hing-coronavirus-first-major/ Halving it from a 3% change of catching it in IIRC 15 mins down to 1.5% is virtually irrelevant and certainly not worth thousands of businesses going bust because of this stupid rule. Frankly I'm surprised retailers haven't just given the goverment the finger and just ignore it since if I owned a business that was on the verge of going bust if I didn't then whats to lose. |
New boarding on London's buses
On 02/06/2020 11:35, wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 10:03:14 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...s-chances-catc hing-coronavirus-first-major/ Halving it from a 3% change of catching it in IIRC 15 mins down to 1.5% is virtually irrelevant and certainly not worth thousands of businesses going bust because of this stupid rule. Frankly I'm surprised retailers haven't just given the goverment the finger and just ignore it since if I owned a business that was on the verge of going bust if I didn't then whats to lose. I haven't read the study[1] to see exactly how long one must remain 2 m away to have a 3% chance of infection, but I imagine that those risks add up quickly in a public-facing profession or social activity. www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext; hidden from those who funded it by Elsevier parasites |
New boarding on London's buses
|
New boarding on London's buses
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? Given the figures for virus deaths are all over the place for various countries independent of whatever sort of lockdown they had, it seems pretty clear to me the way this virus spreads is a lot more complex than the "experts" think. |
New boarding on London's buses
Lockdown or no lockdown, the thing that worries me the most is how many
of the small businesses and one-man bands will survive after all this..? Charities which rely on shops for a good proportion if not the majority of their income may go under. I'm retired so I'm reasonably ok in that I don't have to go out to work, although I'm by no means well off. But I do know many small traders and they are very, very worried. -- Ria in Aberdeen [Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct] |
New boarding on London's buses
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...ed-study-finds -- Jeremy Double |
New boarding on London's buses
MissRiaElaine wrote:
Lockdown or no lockdown, the thing that worries me the most is how many of the small businesses and one-man bands will survive after all this..? Charities which rely on shops for a good proportion if not the majority of their income may go under. I'm retired so I'm reasonably ok in that I don't have to go out to work, although I'm by no means well off. But I do know many small traders and they are very, very worried. Yes, there will be far more economic casualties from Covid-19 than those who get sick. The international travel industry will be among the hardest hit, from cruise ships to airlines to resorts. Just about all the world's seaferers and most airline crew are currently not working, and many will soon be laid off. For example, Emirates will be laying off thousands of air crew who will not only lose their jobs, but their residence in Dubai: Emirates, the state-owned carrier based in Dubai, has laid off about 180 pilots on May 31, as part of its larger plan to reduce costs after being low because of COVID-19. Sources told Moneycontrol that the 180 pilots were first officers who were under training for type-rating on the A380. These pilots were on probation. "This is the first phase of the layoffs. These pilots were called to the office and given the letters," a senior executive said. "More announcements are expected tomorrow," the executive added. Moneycontrol has seen a copy of one of these letters. While the notice period for those on probation is seven days, the airline said that it is extending this to 14 days, as a 'gesture of goodwill.' The letter added: "Your last day of service would, therefore, be June 15, and you will continue to receive your usual company medical benefits... should you be unable to repatriate due to travel restrictions, your visa will be extended being your last day of service." The news comes weeks after reports emerged that the airline will lay off 30 percent of its crew and pilots. This will translate to about 30,000 employees. |
New boarding on London's buses
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. |
New boarding on London's buses
Am 02.06.2020 um 17:30 schrieb Jeremy Double:
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.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*. *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...ed-study-finds Actually, the article says that only 3m would be a "safe distance", that anything below 1m would be dangerous and that any distance between 1m and 3m is some kind of compromise between safety and getting a normal life. As the UK was very late in starting social distancing, it is meaningful to be more cautious until your infection nubmers are significantly down. |
New boarding on London's buses
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 18:03:24 +0200
Rolf Mantel wrote: Am 02.06.2020 um 17:30 schrieb Jeremy Double: 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.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*. *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 Actually, the article says that only 3m would be a "safe distance", that 3m isn't a safe distance when a sneeze can go up to 8m and a cough 5m. |
New boarding on London's buses
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.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*. *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? |
New boarding on London's buses
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.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*. *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. So little is known about the virus that suck it and see is the best we have at the moment. However we are learning and presumably the modelling is getting better. |
New boarding on London's buses
wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 10:04:38 +0100 Graeme Wall wrote: On 02/06/2020 09:37, 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.Ă‚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. ROTFL 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. Except for eight times higher death rate in Sweden than in its otherwise-comparable neighbours. And various articles about how Japan are very reluctant to put Coronavirus/Covid designation even on people who are blatantly displaying all the symptoms. Oh and South Korea have gone back into partial lockdown. Anna Noyd-Dryver |
New boarding on London's buses
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.” |
New boarding on London's buses
On 02/06/2020 19:40, wrote:
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 forcingÂ* their decisions on other people.Â* I'm fed up with the lycras aroundÂ* here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary. But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or HarryÂ* to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways. And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"Â* 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. So little is known about the virus that suck it and see is the best we have at the moment.Â* However we are learning and presumably the modelling is getting better. 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..? When will the shops reopen..? How many will reopen, how many will go to the wall..? Personally, I have just about had enough. In one food shop today the cashier peremptorily ordered me back over the "social distance" line marked on the floor because I was rather anxious to put down the heavy basket I was carrying before I dropped it. The previous customer had already paid and was well over "2m" (ye gods it's 6ft) away from me, finishing packing and 5 seconds later had left. Who was going to infect who, and does the dreaded virus know what the line marked on the floor is for..? Heaven preserve us, because nobody else is going to. -- Ria in Aberdeen [Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct] |
New boarding on London's buses
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. -- Ria in Aberdeen [Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct] |
New boarding on London's buses
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. |
New boarding on London's buses
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 greeting. Their transmission rate is around eight times their presumably-comparable neighbours; therefore, without lockdown, would our death rate be eight times what it is with lockdown? Clearly the unaccounted variable in this is how much infection was already in the country (from Italian skiing trips?) before lockdown. Anna Noyd-Dryver |
New boarding on London's buses
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 02/06/2020 19:40, wrote: 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 forcingÂ* their decisions on other people.Â* I'm fed up with the lycras aroundÂ* here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary. But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or HarryÂ* to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways. And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"Â* 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. So little is known about the virus that suck it and see is the best we have at the moment.Â* However we are learning and presumably the modelling is getting better. 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? Anna Noyd-Dryver |
New boarding on London's buses
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. Sam -- The entity formerly known as Spit the dummy to reply |
New boarding on London's buses
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. |
New boarding on London's buses
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. |
New boarding on London's buses
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. 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. Exactly. Its time to start treating people as adults once more. The longer they continue to treat us as children the less respect they'll command. Its pretty obvious given whats happening on beaches that a large proportion of the public no longer give a stuff about anything the government says and thats not a good situation for a government to be in. But with the continuation of 2m distancing and Priti Useless Patel pushing her 14 day quarantine I fear they're just not listening. |
New boarding on London's buses
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? |
New boarding on London's buses
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? |
New boarding on London's buses
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:11 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk