Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

[Deleted member 16999]

I have to disagree, while about and about 90% of the people ignoring the rules are younger under 30's. Sure there are the odd elderly or middle aged but the groups, the sharing the masks, the not having masks etc etc are all younger. This might not be true across the country but it is where I liv, just walk the pubs and watch, not great outside of them either.

Last night I popped to Tesco for something we had run out of and I saw 5 people without masks, all between 18 and 25 sure they could have all had exemptions but it's not really likely is it. I then moved on to KFC, 2 people in front of me no masks age 21ish in the take out queue. It's bloody frustrating and annoying.

I’ve given no figures of who is or isn’t to blame, simply stated all age groups have idiots and it’s wrong to put it all on the young, obviously 10% of who you’ve witnessed aren’t young and therefore we agree.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Waitrose was out of toilet roll, kitchen roll, flour and pasta on Friday. People were walking out with trollies piled full and carrying as much toilet roll as they could. HID went to both Sainsburys (to pick up prescriptions) and Waitrose to get some stuff for the in-laws and the shelves in both were pretty bare of a lot of basics

Must be a Southern thing, we have extra lockdown restrictions and all items still available in shops.

 

[SocketRocket]

I think it’s well proven that the supposedly well supervised and better controlled venues have royally taken the proverbial previously and your assumption that because homes aren’t monitored then they won’t abide by it is out of order.

But even if a pub abides by the rules as far as is possible, they may well have considerably more groups of up to 6, thus exponentially increasing the opportunity to spread the virus.
So remind me again how it’s so obvious?

It wont be obvious if you dont want to understand or want to take an objective stance.

Why is it 'out of order' to suggest people at home are more open to breaking the rules than people in controlled places, its is an opinion just like yours about multiple groups of six in pubs. The important thing is to maintain a social distance, hygiene and wearing a mask where required, groups of six in a pub shouldnt be all over each other. There is a very large increase in infections and my opinion is that it's mainly due to people not observing these common sence rules that shouldnt need much explaining.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Its the comparisons that folks try to make that I think are invidious. Let’s simplify things completely.

Say we have decided the level of risk of infection between individuals in the community across all contexts above which we don’t want to go because once we breach that threshold the risk of pandemic spread becomes too high. We’ll say this threshold is 10.

Lets then also make the gross assumption that all social contexts have equal risk of infection between individuals. We‘ll say each risk level is 1. Let’s also say we can identify 20 contexts in which there is risk of infection between individuals. Obviously as a community we can only accept 10 contexts because an 11th puts us over the threshold. We have to choose 10 out of 20 - but they all look the same in respect of risk. Let’s say one of the scenarios we choose is called X.

I have to accept that my most likely scenarios might not be in that 10; let’s say my most likely scenario is called Y, and I would be tempted to ask why can i do X when I can’t do Y - they are identical and I don’t get the logic. The comparison is false. It’s not that X is more or less acceptable than Y in the overall risk landscape - its because we have to choose 10 contexts and aggregate the risk associated with each. And in my simplistic example there are 10 contexts we can’t do that look just the same as 10 that we can. That’s just what aggregated risk looks like.

It’s a cumulative thing that makes looking for logic in comparisons misguided. The government is simply trying to define the ’10’ contexts that give us greatest and widest economic and social benefits whilst maintaining the aggregated risk beneath the threshold above which pandemic spread becomes likely.

 

[Ethan]

Its the comparisons that folks try to make that I think are invidious. Let’s simplify things completely.

Say we have decided the level of risk of infection between individuals in the community across all contexts above which we don’t want to go because once we breach that threshold the risk of pandemic spread becomes too high. We’ll say this threshold is 10.

Lets then also make the gross assumption that all social contexts have equal risk of infection between individuals. We‘ll say each risk level is 1. Let’s also say we can identify 20 contexts in which there is risk of infection between individuals. Obviously as a community we can only accept 10 contexts because an 11th puts us over the threshold. We have to choose 10 out of 20 - but they all look the same in respect of risk. Let’s say one of the scenarios we choose is called X.

I have to accept that my most likely scenarios might not be in that 10; let’s say my most likely scenario is called Y, and I would be tempted to ask why can i do X when I can’t do Y - they are identical and I don’t get the logic. The comparison is false. It’s not that X is more or less acceptable than Y in the overall risk landscape - its because we have to choose 10 contexts and aggregate the risk associated with each. And in my simplistic example there are 10 contexts we can’t do that look just the same as 10 that we can. That’s just what aggregated risk looks like.

It’s a cumulative thing that makes looking for logic in comparisons misguided. The government is simply trying to define the ’10’ contexts that give us greatest and widest economic and social benefits whilst maintaining the aggregated risk beneath the threshold above which pandemic spread becomes likely.

The current policy has sacrificed nuance for simplicity, so has some inconsistencies within it. One of the problems with Covid is that even if there is a finite or measurable risk to you, which you may or may not be willing to accept, you may also create risk for others, and their circumstances may be such that such a risk is unacceptable. This is the bit the anti-maskers don't get or perhaps don't care about, it isn't just all about them. The other risk is that we still don't fully understand the longer term effects. It is possible that some of the viral effects could be storing up medium term problems due to impaired immunity of inflammatory effects. If a bunch of Covid survivors start getting end stage liver failure, then the benefit-risk equation dramatically changes. Planning for the unexpected such as that is part of the precautionary principle which is the basic principle of public health. Otherwise known as hope for the best, plan for the worst. Be happy to be called overly cautious.

 

[SaintHacker]

Just been looking at numbers on the government.uk website. Today we saw 6000 odd new cases, which sounds utterly horrific. However there were over 200000 tests on average for the last few days. COmpare that to early April where we were seeing 6000 new cases a day, but only around 20000 tests. Also on Sky news report it says scientists are estimating there were anything up to 100000 cases a day which weren't picked up due to a lack of testing/people being asymptomatic/not getting tested as they thought they just had flu
Not saying we're not in a very serious situation for one minute, but maybe its not quite as bleak as the mainstream media would have us believe?

 

[Swinglowandslow]

For pity’s sake. Of everything I have been witness to during the last six months, with the very obvious exception of untimely deaths the ludicrous and selfish panic buying of items like toilet roll has been by some distance the most depressing.

Rank stupidity seems to be way more contagious than the virus.

Totally agree. The government should instruct supermarkets to limit the amounts bought.
Don't say it can't be done. We know it can.

 

[Blue in Munich]

It wont be obvious if you dont want to understand or want to take an objective stance.

I do want to understand which is why I asked the question, but unfortunately your explanations aren't helping matters. So here's my stance on it.

Having witnessed and had to sort out a lot of what goes on in pubs over the years, I'm firmly of the opinion that the control resides with the drinkers. It is extremely hard for licensees to bring a deal of control when they are outnumbered. They now also have to earn a living rather than rely on furlough payments so are reluctant to upset paying customers.

For the sake of debate, let's say that The Dog & Duck has 12 groups of 6 people in it. Whilst people might nominally be in groups of 6 when they enter, groups going out will be aware of where their friends are going, so there will be some degree of mingling between groups, thus increasing the possibility of transference. If I have a group of friends indoors, I think I'll have far more success in maintaining social distancing in my own house with 5 people I know than I will be maintaining social distancing in that pub I mentioned which has potentially got 66 complete strangers, regardless of how much control the licensee might have.

But notwithstanding the group behaviour aspect, if you've got 12 groups of 6 in the pub, there are 71 potential victims for any 1 carrier to infect, or 71 potential carriers to infect any 1 victim, depending on how you prefer to look at it. With a group of 6 in a house, it's only 5 potential victims for any 1 carrier to infect, or 5 potential carriers to infect 1 victim. So I'm not seeing how it's safer to meet the same group of people in a pub rather than indoors.

Why is it 'out of order' to suggest people at home are more open to breaking the rules than people in controlled places, its is an opinion just like yours about multiple groups of six in pubs.

It's out of order in my opinion because you appear to be basing your decision purely on the degree of supervision involved, rather than the people involved. My experience is that people who follow the rules will follow the rules, and idiots will behave like idiots regardless of whether they are being watched or not. In fact I'd go as far as suggesting that idiots are more likely to act up if they are being watched than if they haven't got an audience to play up to. In my experience, the probability is that there will be more behavioural issues in pubs than in houses. Yes, just an opinion, but one based on experience of dealing with the issues.

The important thing is to maintain a social distance, hygiene and wearing a mask where required, groups of six in a pub shouldnt be all over each other. There is a very large increase in infections and my opinion is that it's mainly due to people not observing these common sence rules that shouldnt need much explaining.

And it will in all probabilty people in groups in pubs, where the consumption rate tends to be greater and the awareness & inhibitions consequently lower, where the simple social distancing & hygiene rules you mention will be overlooked (intentionally or unconsciously) and the infection transmission will be more likely to increase, rather than smaller gatherings indoors. That won't need any explaining to anyone who has spent some time dealing with the issues that occur in pubs.

 

[Hacker Khan]

Well I've downloaded the world beating moonshot NHS app or whatever it is supposed to be. So we'll see what gives.

 

[Ethan]

Just been looking at numbers on the government.uk website. Today we saw 6000 odd new cases, which sounds utterly horrific. However there were over 200000 tests on average for the last few days. COmpare that to early April where we were seeing 6000 new cases a day, but only around 20000 tests. Also on Sky news report it says scientists are estimating there were anything up to 100000 cases a day which weren't picked up due to a lack of testing/people being asymptomatic/not getting tested as they thought they just had flu
Not saying we're not in a very serious situation for one minute, but maybe its not quite as bleak as the mainstream media would have us believe?

Remember that those 200,000 tests include duplicate tests on the same patient, antibody tests for past infection, surveillance of NHS staff and research tests which are not reported to the patient. The true number of people tested because of symptoms is only a fraction of that. The number of cases of Covid is rising and may start to rise much faster very soon.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I do want to understand which is why I asked the question, but unfortunately your explanations aren't helping matters. So here's my stance on it.

Having witnessed and had to sort out a lot of what goes on in pubs over the years, I'm firmly of the opinion that the control resides with the drinkers. It is extremely hard for licensees to bring a deal of control when they are outnumbered. They now also have to earn a living rather than rely on furlough payments so are reluctant to upset paying customers.

For the sake of debate, let's say that The Dog & Duck has 12 groups of 6 people in it. Whilst people might nominally be in groups of 6 when they enter, groups going out will be aware of where their friends are going, so there will be some degree of mingling between groups, thus increasing the possibility of transference. If I have a group of friends indoors, I think I'll have far more success in maintaining social distancing in my own house with 5 people I know than I will be maintaining social distancing in that pub I mentioned which has potentially got 66 complete strangers, regardless of how much control the licensee might have.

But notwithstanding the group behaviour aspect, if you've got 12 groups of 6 in the pub, there are 71 potential victims for any 1 carrier to infect, or 71 potential carriers to infect any 1 victim, depending on how you prefer to look at it. With a group of 6 in a house, it's only 5 potential victims for any 1 carrier to infect, or 5 potential carriers to infect 1 victim. So I'm not seeing how it's safer to meet the same group of people in a pub rather than indoors.



It's out of order in my opinion because you appear to be basing your decision purely on the degree of supervision involved, rather than the people involved. My experience is that people who follow the rules will follow the rules, and idiots will behave like idiots regardless of whether they are being watched or not. In fact I'd go as far as suggesting that idiots are more likely to act up if they are being watched than if they haven't got an audience to play up to. In my experience, the probability is that there will be more behavioural issues in pubs than in houses. Yes, just an opinion, but one based on experience of dealing with the issues.



And it will in all probabilty people in groups in pubs, where the consumption rate tends to be greater and the awareness & inhibitions consequently lower, where the simple social distancing & hygiene rules you mention will be overlooked (intentionally or unconsciously) and the infection transmission will be more likely to increase, rather than smaller gatherings indoors. That won't need any explaining to anyone who has spent some time dealing with the issues that occur in pubs.

Again - you can’t make assessments of the risk associated with specific social contexts based upon individual experience - you have to look at the risk associated with a context across the whole population - how the whole population is likely to act. And then you have to look at what the context not allowed adds to the aggregated risk profile; if you are going to allow it and it takes you over the risk threshold then you have to drop something.

 

[ColchesterFC]

Totally agree. The government should instruct supermarkets to limit the amounts bought.
Don't say it can't be done. We know it can.

Morrisons have reintroduced their restrictions on how much of an individual product you can buy. Maximum of 3 of any one product. Although they do have some flexibility as when they did it before I asked if I could buy 4 frozen pizzas as it's difficult shopping for a family of 4 if you can only buy three. I think as long as they can see that you aren't taking the proverbial then they will let you get what you need.

 

[Hobbit]

Again - you can’t make assessments of the risk associated with specific social contexts based upon individual experience - you have to look at the risk associated with a context across the whole population - how the whole population is likely to act. And then you have to look at what the context not allowed adds to the aggregated risk profile; if you are going to allow it and it takes you over the risk threshold then you have to drop something.

Mmm, I think you're onto something with the above and your previous post. However, if an individual's experience is comprehensive across a wide spectrum of establishments surely their experiences are indeed facts. If they only went into one bar between 6pm and 7pm their experiences would be very limited and very anecdotal. But, as in BiM's 40+ years as a Police officer, I'd say his experiences are very valid, and may in fact add weight to a specific risk factor. You and I might go into one type of bar, and a 20 year old go in another type of bar. A Police officer would go in both and everything in between.

My only other questions with the risk factors you were simplifying is what weighting you might apply to the respective age groups. Obviously take out the 20 year old chronic asthmatic and the 60 year old athlete, as they are outliers. And it would also appear to be a moving feast insomuch as the medics are saving an awful lot more people than they were in March/April.

However, in terms of creating a general set of rules, rather than 10 different sets based on age groups etc, maybe your version might form a basis for creating a one set fits all that the govt might have adopted.

 

[GB72]

Would be interested to hear any thoughts on what has triggered the current increase in cases. Most of the things being mentioned had been ongoing for a while without any major increase. Pubs have been open for over a month, home visits the same, shops have been fully open for even longer. The only factor that changed has been the return of kids to school. Clearly this is essential and nobody would want to close the schools again but is this the main factor in why the cases are increasing. If so, there would not seem to be much that can be done to reduce the number of cases.

 

[bobmac]

I was driving back home through the town centre about 8am and there were school kids everywhere.
Not one mask worn and nobody making any effort to stay 2m apart.
It was just like a normal day.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Would be interested to hear any thoughts on what has triggered the current increase in cases. Most of the things being mentioned had been ongoing for a while without any major increase. Pubs have been open for over a month, home visits the same, shops have been fully open for even longer. The only factor that changed has been the return of kids to school. Clearly this is essential and nobody would want to close the schools again but is this the main factor in why the cases are increasing. If so, there would not seem to be much that can be done to reduce the number of cases.

Life in general and people rushing back to a perceived normality too quickly, friend and his wife went to Belfast for a “romantic” weekend, was contacted 2 days after flight home to isolate, both are now positive for Covid-19 along with 3/4’s of those on the flight.

 

[robinthehood]

I was driving back home through the town centre about 8am and there were school kids everywhere.
Not one mask worn and nobody making any effort to stay 2m apart.
It was just like a normal day.

They only have to wear masks in communal areas at School.

 

[rudebhoy]

Up here there have been several large clusters centred at universities since the students returned. Who could have foreseen that?

There are over 2 million students in higher education. The vast majority of them don't live at home, so are moving in with people from all over. My daughter went off to uni last week, she is fortunate in that she only has 4 in her flat - her boyfriend has moved to a house with 14 occupants. It is an absolute time bomb. The crazy thing is all lessons are online, they should have told them to stay home.

 

[GB72]

Life in general and people rushing back to a perceived normality too quickly, friend and his wife went to Belfast for a “romantic” weekend, was contacted 2 days after flight home to isolate, both are now positive for Covid-19 along with 3/4’s of those on the flight.

Thing is, those sort of things have been permitted for weeks (and in some cases months) and that has not resulted in anything like the rise we have now.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I was driving back home through the town centre about 8am and there were school kids everywhere.
Not one mask worn and nobody making any effort to stay 2m apart.
It was just like a normal day.

They wouldn't be wearing masks wandering around though, would they? Only when people go inside and so far I have found 98% of people complying wherever I have been. In terms of distancing, I think there has been a creep on this one. The idea of 2m has almost become a memory for some.

On GB72 question, I think certain groups of people have become more lax, partly through bloody mindedness and partly through virus lockdown fatigue.