• Thank you all very much for sharing your time with us in 2025. We hope you all have a safe and happy 2026!

Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

Blue in Munich said:
Common locations reported does not necessarily equate to transmission, and the type of interaction in schools & the supermarket will be completely different.

Add the primary & secondary schools together and that's 22.8%. Factor in the amount of households that will have children in both primary & secondary education and it seems fairly obvious where the biggest transmission risk lies.
Click to expand...

The figures were given as the most commonly mentioned places in the run up to a positive COVID test. Obviously doesn’t prove where the transmission actually took place but what it does show is that the amount of transmission occurring in bars/pubs in comparison to the others is tiny.
 
road2ruin said:
The figures were given as the most commonly mentioned places in the run up to a positive COVID test. Obviously doesn’t prove where the transmission actually took place but what it does show is that the amount of transmission occurring in bars/pubs in comparison to the others is tiny.
Click to expand...

If it doesn't prove where transmission occurred then the numbers can't be used to suggest where transmission occurred....
 
road2ruin said:
Public Health England would probably disagree, from November the figures below suggest that the rates of transmission in a supermarket were far higher than a bar/pub.

Proportion of all common locations reported in PHE data:
  • Supermarket - 18.3%
  • Secondary school - 12.7%
  • Primary school - 10.1%
  • Hospital - 3.6%
  • Care home - 2.8%
  • College - 2.4%
  • Warehouse - 2.2%
  • Nursery preschool - 1.8%
  • Pub or bar - 1.6%
  • Hospitality - 1.5%
  • University - 1.4%
  • Manufacture engineering - 1.4%
  • Household fewer than five - 1.2%
  • General practice - 1.1%
  • Gym - 1.1%
  • Restaurant or cafe - 1.0%
Click to expand...

That data is based on locations reported. It does not mean those are the places responsible, and unless PHE is doing very sophisticated genome analysis and linking cases, they really have no idea. Remember also that the pubs are currently closed except for takeaway food, and they were also subject to tier based restrictions, especially in places where case rates were high most of the time that data covers, so exposure was very low. It stands to reason that a prolonged period indoors in one place poses a higher risk than fleeting contact elsewhere.
 
Imurg said:
If it doesn't prove where transmission occurred then the numbers can't be used to suggest where transmission occurred....
Click to expand...

I agree but if these locations are being used in tracking and tracing cases you only have to look how far down the list pubs/bars are to see that they were barely a factor in transmission.
 
Ethan said:
Remember also that the pubs are currently closed except for takeaway food, and they were also subject to tier based restrictions, especially in places where case rates were high most of the time that data covers, so exposure was very low
Click to expand...

See post 15,737.
 
road2ruin said:
Just to add, these figures were from mid November last year when both pubs, schools etc were all open.
Click to expand...

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19...navirus-in-england-latest-data-shows-12136418

Actually obtained between 9th to 15th of November; I took your "from November" to be from November to current date.

According to statistics, 21.3% of the population is under 18. If we accept that the vast majority of those attending school are under 18, 22.8% of common reported locations (schools) are accessible to 21.3% of the population, whilst 18.2% of commonly reported locations (supermarkets) are open to 100% of the population, and 1.6% of commonly reported locations (pubs) should only be accessible to 78.7% of the population.

I'm still seeing schools as a bigger issue.
 
Whether I go to the pub or not with no beer available would depend on the other restrictions on social contact at the time. If I can have a couple of people round for a meal then I would not be bothered. Would get a takeaway from the pub and eat at home with friends and a bottle of wine. If restrictions in meeting others are more limited, outdoors only for example, then I would go to the pub for the social interaction
 
Blue in Munich said:
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19...navirus-in-england-latest-data-shows-12136418

Actually obtained between 9th to 15th of November; I took your "from November" to be from November to current date.

According to statistics, 21.3% of the population is under 18. If we accept that the vast majority of those attending school are under 18, 22.8% of common reported locations (schools) are accessible to 21.3% of the population, whilst 18.2% of commonly reported locations (supermarkets) are open to 100% of the population, and 1.6% of commonly reported locations (pubs) should only be accessible to 78.7% of the population.

I'm still seeing schools as a bigger issue.
Click to expand...

I don’t disagree with any of that and would agree that transmission from schools was the biggest issue. The point of these figures was in response to the poster who said that pubs were a far bigger issue then supermarkets in terms of transmission.
 
Blue in Munich said:
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19...navirus-in-england-latest-data-shows-12136418

Actually obtained between 9th to 15th of November; I took your "from November" to be from November to current date.

According to statistics, 21.3% of the population is under 18. If we accept that the vast majority of those attending school are under 18, 22.8% of common reported locations (schools) are accessible to 21.3% of the population, whilst 18.2% of commonly reported locations (supermarkets) are open to 100% of the population, and 1.6% of commonly reported locations (pubs) should only be accessible to 78.7% of the population.

I'm st
Click to expand...

Have schools not always been an issue regarding the spread of illnesses. Wherever I have worked, a number of colds, flu, stomach bugs etc that have spread through the office have started with someone whose kid picked it up at school. Not sure anything can be done about but seems to be a hurdle that we will have to face again
 
My Mrs has headed to her aunt V’s funeral today. Will be very difficult for my wife supporting her mum as her mum didn’t see her twin sister once after March last year, and the home closed its doors to visitors - and that was so hard as they saw each other most days for their 90 yrs as they have always lived close. Yet V still caught the virus and died of COVID-19. I don’t really know how my MiL will manage today...

In my wife’s eyes her mum and aunt are both ‘heroes‘ of our time - less celebrated than some but in her eyes ’heroic’ nonetheless. My wife is very sad at her aunt‘s passing, and very sorrowful - indeed she is very angry - that her aunt V’s long and selfless life ended in this way, alone in solitary confinment in her room in the home, with no family with her for comfort and support.

The measure of the humanity of a society is how it treats it‘s vulnerable. I’m afraid my wife thinks we failed her aunt.
 
Last edited:
I must admit to being a little confused by all the mixed messaging that's flying around just now.
My understanding (please someone correct me if I'm wrong here) was that lock downs and staying at home were for two primary outcomes. 1) to prevent the NHS becoming overwhelmed (Protect the NHS) and 2) to stop people dying (Save lives).
And the means to achieve these was to prevent the spread (Stay at Home).

Now we have a group of vaccines that are proving, for the most part, to help us to work our way back to some normality. And that is good, positive news and should be treated as such.

But, my confusion comes from the (admittedly media driven) the vaccine doesn't deal will with this variant, or that strain... And whilst I appreciate this in NOT positive news (yet the study sized do seem small, e.g, 2000 people in SA out of a population how big?) there are admissions that the vaccines STILL provide protection against severe illness, hospitalisation and death.

Now, IF, and only IF, our primary levers in this were reduce pressure on the NHS (Protect the NHS) and prevent people dying (Save Lives) then WHY is the news that the vaccine actually still does achieve these things being treated so negatively?

Yes, I get that the virus will still spread, but surely the reason for the lockdown was only to prevent the spread so as to stop 1 and 2 happening.

yours
ConfusedinFife
 
GreiginFife said:
I must admit to being a little confused by all the mixed messaging that's flying around just now.
My understanding (please someone correct me if I'm wrong here) was that lock downs and staying at home were for two primary outcomes. 1) to prevent the NHS becoming overwhelmed (Protect the NHS) and 2) to stop people dying (Save lives).
And the means to achieve these was to prevent the spread (Stay at Home).

Now we have a group of vaccines that are proving, for the most part, to help us to work our way back to some normality. And that is good, positive news and should be treated as such.

But, my confusion comes from the (admittedly media driven) the vaccine doesn't deal will with this variant, or that strain... And whilst I appreciate this in NOT positive news (yet the study sized do seem small, e.g, 2000 people in SA out of a population how big?) there are admissions that the vaccines STILL provide protection against severe illness, hospitalisation and death.

Now, IF, and only IF, our primary levers in this were reduce pressure on the NHS (Protect the NHS) and prevent people dying (Save Lives) then WHY is the news that the vaccine actually still does achieve these things being treated so negatively?

Yes, I get that the virus will still spread, but surely the reason for the lockdown was only to prevent the spread so as to stop 1 and 2 happening.

yours
ConfusedinFife
Click to expand...
1/ The media like to scare people. It gives them a headline, they are irresponsible
2/ The govt wants people to stick to distancing, staying home, washing hands etc for some time yet. At least until the first 9 groups have been jabbed, probably longer. A little scare every now and then keeps people on their toes to do this, asking nicely does not work for a lot of people sadly. The alternative is a drift in behaviour.

My views are pretty cynical on this but I don't think I am too far out of snyc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top