For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 29
#1783240
eltonioni wrote:From today's HMG release. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus ... =immediate

Deaths in all settings
Daily 11


That's a month after all shops could reopen and 2-3 weeks since all that hand-wringing about crowds on beaches, in parks, protests, etc. Just saying. :whistle:



That's the 24 hour number reported yesterday, the numbers of interest are Wednesday and beyond...just saying' :whistle:

We're still running well ahead of the countries in Europe in a similar position, where local lockdowns a la Leicester are occurring....
#1783241
eltonioni wrote:@Flyin'Dutch' we're in statistically insignificant territory so far as the population is concerned.


15% of the UK population being statistically insignificant.

Scotland and Wales together have a similar population as London.
#1783243
johnm wrote:
eltonioni wrote:From today's HMG release. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus ... =immediate

Deaths in all settings
Daily 11


That's a month after all shops could reopen and 2-3 weeks since all that hand-wringing about crowds on beaches, in parks, protests, etc. Just saying. :whistle:



That's the 24 hour number reported yesterday, the numbers of interest are Wednesday and beyond...just saying' :whistle:

We're still running well ahead of the countries in Europe in a similar position, where local lockdowns a la Leicester are occurring....

...and?

Once thing doesn't change - people deliberately getting their understanding of the situation ariss about 'it if it doesn't suit them personally. Over 70's needed to stay indoors back in the day when it mattered, but went flying instead. Now it doesn't much matter. Just sayin. ;)



@Flyin'Dutch' don't understand, what's 15%? :scratch:
#1783259
Well I hope so, the whole point of a government under these circumstances is to do some scenario planning, assess the risks and then develop and test contingency plans. If they can't do that they are in danger of becoming a part of the problem.
#1783260
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:
SteveN wrote:Great quote from the 'Going Postal' forum:

"I'm going to f*rt in shops. If anyone complains I'll ask they how well they think their face mask works."


Nice quote but there is no science, behind it.

Methane is a gas and a small molecule.


Since you mention "science", it is not the methane content which makes farts smelly.

In fact it is the lack of smell of methane, and other alkanes, that requires an odourant to be added to natural gas for safety reasons.

I'm surprised this sort of stuff isn't covered in Dutch secondary schools, never mind universities :wink:

Bill H
#1783263
Bill you are absolutely right. I did not say that the smell from farts was generated by the methane, just that the majority of the gas is methane.

The stink is the result of the accompanying other gaseous components.

But you are correct nothing ever useful was taught at Dutch schools and universities - the only reason I got through. You always knew that.

:D
Bill Haddow liked this
#1783266
I'm getting seriously bored with the BBC's idea of "news". It isn't a prediction, it's a possibility.................anything's possible, as we know and this sort of gormless speculation adds nothing to the debate. The "predictions" were way off the mark for the first wave - even with the UK's habit of gold plating and counting everything that might (possibly) have been anywhere near something to do with Covid as "related". We could all die in a meteor impact tomorrow but that isn't on the news.
robert79, SteveN liked this
#1783274
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:
MattL wrote:
I don't think anyone can rationally say this has anything to do with infection control.


You omitted 'sensible'

Mask wearing is an effective way to help reduce the transmission from emitter to receiver and thus reduce effective R rate.

Only if the correct kind of face covering is worn. I see too many people wearing respirators, which might protect them from others, but if they are a carrier will be spraying a nice jet of virus droplets out of the outlet valve.

Obviously, the legislation won't be unveiled until the night before as seems to be the governments modus operandi at the moment. They would regain a modicum of my respect if they outlawed the wearing of respirators, which actually would do more harm than good if the motivation is altruism.
Somehow I doubt it'll be that well thought through.
#1783280
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:
Colonel Panic wrote:
robert79 wrote:Simple, other than the once a week for groceries, I won't go to shops.
This is the official end of the high street and market towns. Jeff Bezos will be the first trillionaire in history.

I'm hoping for a u-turn in the not to distant future, or mass disobedience.

Bizarre attitude IMV; I wore a mask several times yesterday, and whilst it wasn't exactly pleasant, it was hardly a chore either. :roll:


Indeed.

We have been wearing masks for shopping etc for nearly three months in Germany, it has allowed the reopening of a lot of the economy without an increase in infected people.

A tiny price to pay for those extra freedoms.

Supermarkets have never shut and all other shops have been open for a month with no increase in infected people - it continues to decrease other than for localised outbreaks.

My problem isn't so much the measure. It's that it's far too late to make any difference, and the manner by which it's been brought in.
Am I the only person who is a little frightened at the fact that because of an enabling act, if Boris decides something, that's it. No debate. No checks and balances. No parliamentary scrutiny or challenge.
So you might be OK with mask wearing in a shop. But what's next? Masks outside? In your home? Perhaps you will only be allowed to visit the supermarket a set number of times a month, or only be allowed out of your home on certain days of the week to help with social distancing?
Yes, all very unlikely you say. But 6 months ago would you have believed we'd have a Tory government paying 80% of the wages of the proletariat, or be subsidising eating out for a month?
What t the Twitter and Facebook mob going to demand of Boris next? And when will he stop pandering to them?

Secondly, it's just brain-dead to on the one hand encourage us to go the pub, restaurants and back into the office where masks are not mandated but at the same time mandate masks in shops. In all of these places you will have much closer and longer duration contact with people than reaching for the cornflakes in Tesco. It's either safe or it's not. My view is it's safe not to wear a mask (for me and others), because where I live the seven day rolling average case number is zero. If I was in Leicester I might feel differently.
It's a pointless measure at this stage of the game, and unless the use of certain types of mask is outlawed could well be counter productive.
#1783298
Flyingfemme wrote:I'm getting seriously bored with the BBC's idea of "news".


Welcome to the club. From current Beeb Scotland news web page:

'I wonder if I'll ever get to hug my mum again'

Broadcaster Alison Walker calls for relatives of care home residents with dementia to get key worker status.

‘What do shoppers think about wearing face coverings?’

We asked shoppers in Edinburgh if they have been wearing them already, and what they think about the new law.


How this sort of stuff can be regarded as news is beyond belief.

Bill H
JAFO, skydriller liked this
#1783303
robert79 wrote:
Only if the correct kind of face covering is worn. I see too many people wearing respirators, which might protect them from others, but if they are a carrier will be spraying a nice jet of virus droplets out of the outlet valve.


The only description in the various existing regulations is for something which covers the mouth and nose and allows the wearer to breathe. I will continue to wear an FFP3 respirator as the best way for me to avoid spreading the virus is to avoid catching it.

Bill H
#1783305
I have pointed out before that it is unwise to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Face coverings are useful in confined spaces, masks generally have filters, social distancing is wise where practicable and hand washing /sanitizing is vital.

It makes sense to adopt these measures systematically and it also makes sense to keep the guidance as simple as possible since much of the population is basically stupid and some of those are downright unpleasant and awkward.

If this is done we stand a chance of keeping things under control while we learn more about the virus and its effects and consider other measures based on better knowledge from research and experience.

It is possible to take slightly higher risk, where test, track and isolate is relatively easy, like workplaces, than in shops etc. where it's just a mass of strangers unknown to each other. This is why pubs and restaurants are being invited to take bookings and retain contact details and these have already been used more than once.

HMG is subject to Parliamentary scrutiny but with a majority of around 80 for the governing party things would have to get pretty dire for them to be constrained in any way.
Paul_Sengupta, JAFO liked this
#1783332
johnm wrote:Face coverings are useful in confined spaces, masks generally have filters, social distancing is wise where practicable and hand washing /sanitizing is vital.

FFP3 respirators do not have a filter on the outlet.
johnm wrote:It makes sense to adopt these measures systematically and it also makes sense to keep the guidance as simple as possible since much of the population is basically stupid and some of those are downright unpleasant and awkward.

There's nothing complicated about "do not use a FFP3 respirator".

johnm wrote:If this is done we stand a chance of keeping things under control while we learn more about the virus and its effects and consider other measures based on better knowledge from research and experience.

It is under control at present. I'd prefer the government to expend it's energies on making trace & trace work properly to ensure that stays the case, rather than half-arsed mandates on what clothing I have to wear in certain places.

johnm wrote:HMG is subject to Parliamentary scrutiny but with a majority of around 80 for the governing party things would have to get pretty dire for them to be constrained in any way.

I must have completely missed the parliamentary debates before face coverings on public transport and in shops were introduced.
SteveN liked this
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 29