• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

pauldj42 said:
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.
Click to expand...
This. I had to go down to Hertfordshire from Glasgow last week. Considered flying and trains but decided to drive down as the thought of spending that time in an enclosed cabin/coach with different people didn't appeal to me. The hotel was worrying enough although it was a reputable brand who had put lots of measures in place to minimise the risk.
 
Hobbit said:
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.
Click to expand...

The main concept that underlies medicines approval is benefit-risk, that is the extent to which the likely benefits of a medicine, taking into account the probability a person will get it and the likely consequences and complications including risk of death versus the risk of the treatment in terms of adverse effects. If a medicine has a favourable benefit-risk profile, it is likely to prevent or delay death or serious ill-health at an acceptable but possibly non-zero risk, then it will likely get approved. In the case of Covid, there is a society level assessment taking place too. Some of the benefits apply differently to different parts of the population, as do the risks, but everybody or almost everybody needs to play along to deliver those benefits. Unfortunately there is not much room in that model for people to do there own thing beyond a certain level, because they impact the societal outcomes.
 
GB72 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The fact there is an increase was inevitable. There was always going to be one. Failure to lockdown effectively and test and trace properly meant there was a reservoir of virus bubbling away being held in check, just, by social distancing and other measures, and once those measures were relaxed, it was bound to circulate more widely again. The virus was concentrated more in population centres, not surprisingly, although London has a higher level of immunity through previous exposure than some other places, so was not proportionally affected. Then it causes local outbreaks through a mixture of dumb luck and individual acts of recklessness or carelessness allowing it to accelerate.
 
bobmac said:
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.
Click to expand...

Outdoors? Probably not a big problem. On the school bus, should be wearing them. My eldest's school has just reminded parents and kids that there is a mandate to that effect.
 
Ethan said:
The fact there is an increase was inevitable. There was always going to be one. Failure to lockdown effectively and test and trace properly meant there was a reservoir of virus bubbling away being held in check, just, by social distancing and other measures, and once those measures were relaxed, it was bound to circulate more widely again. The virus was concentrated more in population centres, not surprisingly, although London has a higher level of immunity through previous exposure than some other places, so was not proportionally affected. Then it causes local outbreaks through a mixture of dumb luck and individual acts of recklessness or carelessness allowing it to accelerate.
Click to expand...

But wouldn't the only really effective lockdown be that it is 100% which obviously would be impossible. There would always be someone who is a carrier so it would always be transmitted. Having dealt with cross contamination problems it is almost impossible to top.
 
Old Skier said:
But wouldn't the only really effective lockdown be that it is 100% which obviously would be impossible. There would always be someone who is a carrier so it would always be transmitted. Having dealt with cross contamination problems it is almost impossible to top.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be 100%, which as you say would be impossible, but the better the lockdown, the less the risk with subsequent breaches and acts of bad luck. If very very few people have the virus, having a house party is not very risky. If there is a bit more virus grumbling around, then it is much more risky. It is a probability game, and we can improve the odds with better lockdown. A lot of this tracks back to the timing of so-called lockdown in March and the unwillingness to quarantine inbound travellers.
 
Ethan said:
It doesn't have to be 100%, which as you say would be impossible, but the better the lockdown, the less the risk with subsequent breaches and acts of bad luck. If very very few people have the virus, having a house party is not very risky. If there is a bit more virus grumbling around, then it is much more risky. It is a probability game, and we can improve the odds with better lockdown. A lot of this tracks back to the timing of so-called lockdown in March and the unwillingness to quarantine inbound travellers.
Click to expand...


It really wasn't logistically possible to do that.
These are the numbers of visitors to U.K . by air alone in 2019.
Divide by twelve for per month.
How could you quarantine such numbers ?
"
The three most used airports by international visitors to the United Kingdom in 2019 were London Heathrow, London Gatwick and London Stansted. Heathrow Airport is the UK's busiest airport and was used on more than 11 million visits by overseas residents in 2019. Airports in Wales received the fewest number of non-UK arrivals, accounting for just 129 thousand visits, while Scottish airports were used for around 1.9 million visits. "
 
Swinglowandslow said:
It really wasn't logistically possible to do that.
These are the numbers of visitors to U.K . by air alone in 2019.
Divide by twelve for per month.
How could you quarantine such numbers ?
"
The three most used airports by international visitors to the United Kingdom in 2019 were London Heathrow, London Gatwick and London Stansted. Heathrow Airport is the UK's busiest airport and was used on more than 11 million visits by overseas residents in 2019. Airports in Wales received the fewest number of non-UK arrivals, accounting for just 129 thousand visits, while Scottish airports were used for around 1.9 million visits. "
Click to expand...
You ban foreign visitors and quarantine those coming home for 2 weeks at home.
 
Swinglowandslow said:
It really wasn't logistically possible to do that.
These are the numbers of visitors to U.K . by air alone in 2019.
Divide by twelve for per month.
How could you quarantine such numbers ?
"
The three most used airports by international visitors to the United Kingdom in 2019 were London Heathrow, London Gatwick and London Stansted. Heathrow Airport is the UK's busiest airport and was used on more than 11 million visits by overseas residents in 2019. Airports in Wales received the fewest number of non-UK arrivals, accounting for just 129 thousand visits, while Scottish airports were used for around 1.9 million visits. "
Click to expand...

It was possible. The US imposed a major travel ban on inward travel. Australia required all arrivals to quarantine in approved hotels. The immediate effect of a quarantine on inward arrivals would have been for many business and leisure travellers to cancel. The proportion coming in would have been much more predominantly returners, and could quarantine in their own homes, if supervised.

There are only two major objectives for a pandemic like this.

1. Stop it getting in.
2. Stop it circulating

The travel ban/quarantine tackles the first, lockdown the second.

One of the lessons we should be learning that although taking these steps is ugly, not taking them is even uglier.
 
Lord Tyrion said:
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.
Click to expand...

The secondary school that my partners son attends only have to wear masks when travelling to school on the bus, no requirement at all within the school including communal areas.

Having just returned to the office from getting my lunch, I would say that less than 30% of people entering shops wear face masks, that demograph typically being between 20 and 50.
 
Whereditgo said:
The secondary school that my partners son attends only have to wear masks when travelling to school on the bus, no requirement at all within the school including communal areas.

Having just returned to the office from getting my lunch, I would say that less than 30% of people entering shops wear face masks, that demograph typically being between 20 and 50.
Click to expand...
Hugely surprised by that. How can the message not be getting through? Compliance where I live and work has been very strong in terms of mask wearing. It is such a clear thing I would have expected social peer pressure to come into play.
 
I think the new student residence hotspots show why houses/flats are the key area, people get together in close proximity out of sight with no attempt to socially distance and all touch the same door handles, kettles, booze bottles, eachother etc. Get infectious (without knowing it much of the time) over the next 2-14 days spreading it everywhere they go. CMO up here knows that people in eachothers homes are the worst from the tracing interview data hence advising Govt on the ban on going to others houses this week, for minimum 3 weeks before review, it is data led, not impulsive. Tough call but to get r rate under 1 quicker I think Scotland is right to try it, very tough on those living alone, my old mother was a bit perplexed about it. Pubs are a factor in spread yes but much lower than inside people's homes. Start with the worst spreading area first, see how the r number looks in a few weeks then tighten or ease accordingly. Targeting people at home is also the least bad economically, businesses need to operate and kids need to go to school much moreso than people socialising in groups at home.
Pubs have been open a while without too much trouble but the new spike is from schools and universities returning. Hopefully the fact the Scottish Uni's are all detecting it means test and trace is working better. Miserable for students being locked up, supposed to be some of the best years of your life. Freshers week is freshers week all aross the UK so you would think there will be similar outbreaks everywhere.
I'm just not convinced certain groups will alter their behaviour, a lot of people won't call and report breaches to police either.
This could be a long long haul.:oops:
 
Whereditgo said:
The secondary school that my partners son attends only have to wear masks when travelling to school on the bus, no requirement at all within the school including communal areas.

Having just returned to the office from getting my lunch, I would say that less than 30% of people entering shops wear face masks, that demograph typically being between 20 and 50.
Click to expand...

Whereabouts in East Yorkshire are you? I was in Filey and Scarborough last week, and I'd say 90%+ in shops were wearing masks.
 
Lord Tyrion said:
Hugely surprised by that. How can the message not be getting through? Compliance where I live and work has been very strong in terms of mask wearing. It is such a clear thing I would have expected social peer pressure to come into play.
Click to expand...

Sad to say I believe its a societal/educational issue, the area being surrounded by social and council housing - I suspect the peer pressure is working in the opposite direction to which you mean!
 
Whereditgo said:
The secondary school that my partners son attends only have to wear masks when travelling to school on the bus, no requirement at all within the school including communal areas.

Having just returned to the office from getting my lunch, I would say that less than 30% of people entering shops wear face masks, that demograph typically being between 20 and 50.
Click to expand...

The guidance from the DFE clearly says you do not need to wear masks in schools. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/face-coverings-in-education/face-coverings-in-education As for face mask wearing round my way in shops then to be honest the only shop I go into is my local Sainsburys and I'd say the compliance is around 90 to 95% with the odd very young child not wearing one. But it is policed quite well as they always have someone at the entrance telling people to put their masks on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top