Travelling to Essex; Hertfordshire Police

[jon and michie]

assuming they dont sneeze over you

This is the problem too many cretins and oxygen thieves not paying attention and social distancing

 

[Tomahawk]

By the look of the crowds on London Bridge.. they are the young and therefore invulnerable..
Problem in that in this instance, they actually are invulnerable. ... well near as makes little difference.

 

[ex-Gladys]

By the look of the crowds on London Bridge.. they are the young and therefore invulnerable..
Problem in that in this instance, they actually are invulnerable. ... well near as makes little difference.

You mean like the 31 year old locally to me who was in Colchester hospital for 6 weeks, during which whilst he was ventilated he had two strokes, heart failure and sepsis... Or do you think 31 isn't young?

 

[Brooksie89]

You mean like the 31 year old locally to me who was in Colchester hospital for 6 weeks, during which whilst he was ventilated he had two strokes, heart failure and sepsis... Or do you think 31 isn't young?

Whilst that is an unfortunate bout with the virus, when you look at this graph, it shows that the common assumption of the virus targeting the old overwhelmingly is not unfounded:

 

[Tomahawk]

What is a "person" as opposed to a man or woman?
That graph doesn’t make sense to me. I would expect the total column to be the sum of males and females and hence considerably taller than the "person"column.

 

[bedouin]

What is a "person" as opposed to a man or woman?
That graph doesn’t make sense to me. I would expect the total column to be the sum of males and females and hence considerably taller than the "person"column.

It is per head of population so the "total" will be roughly the average of the male/female

 

[johnalison]

The careless young people may think they are invulnerable, but this is only a reflection of their limited thinking powers. A dose of Covid19 may well do them little harm, but in the process they may well give it to someone they care about who is more vulnerable. Worse still, if enough of them ignore the situation and a further severe spike occurs, the NHS will continue to provide suboptimal service both for Covid and non-Covid illness and they might even find themselves disadvantaged if they become ill or have an accident. The onus is on them to look after us old folk, not because we matter but for their own sakes.

 

[ex-Gladys]

The careless young people may think they are invulnerable, but this is only a reflection of their limited thinking powers. A dose of Covid19 may well do them little harm, but in the process they may well give it to someone they care about who is more vulnerable. Worse still, if enough of them ignore the situation and a further severe spike occurs, the NHS will continue to provide suboptimal service both for Covid and non-Covid illness and they might even find themselves disadvantaged if they become ill or have an accident. The onus is on them to look after us old folk, not because we matter but for their own sakes.

Please read post #43

 

[johnalison]

Please read post #43

I already had. One sad case in many thousands doesn't show that the virus is not harming many youngsters. My prediction is that when the schools go back, one teacher will go down with it and die and the whole country will be brought to a standstill. People are not taking into account the size of the country. We are not a tiny nation; 60 million people is a vast number, which means that rare events become common.

 

[Chalk]

Oh my giddy Aunt! Coronaviris is a disease. It is new, that makes us all nervous. We do not know exactly what the impacts will be, either individually or as a population. It appears to hit vulnerable people by demographic / existing condition, plus some outliers. It is not the end of the world and HM Gov sensibly put in the lockdown to prevent the NHS from being over run. That has been done, and well; but now they want to move the goal posts, AND expect compliance from us. R<1 seems to be the new metric. What next? Common sense says that you can go to your boat and stay there for a weekend. The law 'might' say otherwise - except that it does not (big difference between 'can' and 'should'). Do we follow what we believe the law might mean in fawning aquiescence just in case some people confuse obeying the guidelines / advice with 'saving lives', or live by common sense? Driving to your boat and staying there the weekend is not likely to increase the risk of the disease to anyone else beyond that which you might otherwise be doing. Let us not make a song and dance of it, If you're vulnerable (and that includes being in contact with the vulnerable) stay at home, but do not be a dog in the manger. Be sensible. Stay Calm & Carry on.

 

[stranded]

Oh my giddy Aunt! Coronaviris is a disease. It is new, that makes us all nervous. We do not know exactly what the impacts will be, either individually or as a population. It appears to hit vulnerable people by demographic / existing condition, plus some outliers. It is not the end of the world and HM Gov sensibly put in the lockdown to prevent the NHS from being over run. That has been done, and well; but now they want to move the goal posts, AND expect compliance from us. R<1 seems to be the new metric. What next? Common sense says that you can go to your boat and stay there for a weekend. The law 'might' say otherwise - except that it does not (big difference between 'can' and 'should'). Do we follow what we believe the law might mean in fawning aquiescence just in case some people confuse obeying the guidelines / advice with 'saving lives', or live by common sense? Driving to your boat and staying there the weekend is not likely to increase the risk of the disease to anyone else beyond that which you might otherwise be doing. Let us not make a song and dance of it, If you're vulnerable (and that includes being in contact with the vulnerable) stay at home, but do not be a dog in the manger. Be sensible. Stay Calm & Carry on.

Over 90% of us think we are sensible enough to make our own decisions, while only 30% of the same sample think other people are equally qualified. It is a human condition that we all think we are cleverer than we are. Until the evidence is in and tested, just do as you’re told, because odds are you, and I, are one of the idiots we all think two thirds of the people are.

 

[Tomahawk]

Over 90% of us think we are sensible enough to make our own decisions, while only 30% of the same sample think other people are equally qualified. It is a human condition that we all think we are cleverer than we are. Until the evidence is in and tested, just do as you’re told, because odds are you, and I, are one of the idiots we all think two thirds of the people are.

I take as my benchmark the fact I am alive after sailing offshore for over 30 years including numerous crossings of the English Channel, The Bay of Biscay, the Raz d'insaine and the N Sea. Places that can kill you in an instant.
By the very nature of what we do, yachtsmen are risk assessors. We don't do anything really stupid... otherwise we end up dead.

That puts me (at least) in the 30%.

I agree with Chalk

 

[stranded]

I take as my benchmark the fact I am alive after sailing offshore for over 30 years including numerous crossings of the English Channel, The Bay of Biscay, the Raz d'insaine and the N Sea. Places that can kill you in an instant.
By the very nature of what we do, yachtsmen are risk assessors. We don't do anything really stupid... otherwise we end up dead.

That puts me (at least) in the 30%.

I agree with Chalk

Can’t see anything there that upsets my point.

 

[PeterWright]

Oh my giddy Aunt! Coronaviris is a disease. It is new, that makes us all nervous. We do not know exactly what the impacts will be, either individually or as a population. It appears to hit vulnerable people by demographic / existing condition, plus some outliers. It is not the end of the world and HM Gov sensibly put in the lockdown to prevent the NHS from being over run. That has been done, and well; but now they want to move the goal posts, AND expect compliance from us. R<1 seems to be the new metric. What next? Common sense says that you can go to your boat and stay there for a weekend. The law 'might' say otherwise - except that it does not (big difference between 'can' and 'should'). Do we follow what we believe the law might mean in fawning aquiescence just in case some people confuse obeying the guidelines / advice with 'saving lives', or live by common sense? Driving to your boat and staying there the weekend is not likely to increase the risk of the disease to anyone else beyond that which you might otherwise be doing. Let us not make a song and dance of it, If you're vulnerable (and that includes being in contact with the vulnerable) stay at home, but do not be a dog in the manger. Be sensible. Stay Calm & Carry on.

R<1 is the only sensible goal. R>1 means an exponential increase in numbers infected, R<1 an exponential decrease. The trouble is, populations don't come fitted with an R meter so attempts must be made to infer the actual value of R from other data.

The results of R>1 for a period of months don't bear thinking about so the government is absolutely right to strive for R<!.

Peter.

 

[Tomahawk]

Except to keep R<1 we need to be kept in permanent lockdown. We can't live like under lockdown for the rest of our lives.

For all the bluster about protecting the NHS.. the real truth is that to protect the NHS people have to pay tax and for that they have to get back to work.

And besides, H1N1 has an R about 1.4 in a normal winter. It spreads then fails. the problem with C19 is that the R is about 3 in a non locked down population.

 

[PeterWright]

I have seen no evidence that keeping R below 1 involves permanent lockdown. We obviously cannot live forever under the sort of constraints which were applied in a hurry to limit spread of a virus about which very little is known. Having now pushed r below 1, the responsible approach is to find which elements of that lockdown can be relaxed without allowing a sustaimed increase in R. This is essentially a research project and its very hard to deduce a causal relationship when you change several things at once, so it won't be a rapid exercise all achieved in a few weeks. I recognise that a short term rise above 1 in R is not catastrophic, although even that depends on the mortality rate of the disease. In my earlier post I did refer to a "R>1 for a period of months".

There are still plenty of citizens infected with the virus, certainly more than there were in January. To abandon all measures which were introduced to control spread of the virus is to invite, with certainty, a second wave greater than the first. That will defer for even longer the relaxation of those measures which could be relaxed in the near future and increase dramatically he downside effects of these measures, including the economic ones. Some time you will have to realise that this virus has changed the way of life we have grown accustomed to and it will never go back to where we were in 2019 unless a reliable vaccination system can be developed. Even then, how long before the next new virus. Epidemiologists have been predicting an event like this (or worse) since the last century. AIDS, H1N1 and Ebola came close, but this has had the most dramatic impact yet - the next could be worse. Lets hope that World Leaders make sure global society learns and is better prepared next time round, because there will be a next time.

Peter.

 

[ianc1200]

Because for some reason the BBC/Sky/Channel 4/ITN refuse to carry good news, how many were aware not one new case of the virus in London yesterday. I see on the Convid Forum it's now 48 hours. But how many are basing their outlook on this relying of the extremely negative media? It's as though people do not want to hear good news.

 

[LONG_KEELER]

I have seen no evidence that keeping R below 1 involves permanent lockdown. We obviously cannot live forever under the sort of constraints which were applied in a hurry to limit spread of a virus about which very little is known. Having now pushed r below 1, the responsible approach is to find which elements of that lockdown can be relaxed without allowing a sustaimed increase in R. This is essentially a research project and its very hard to deduce a causal relationship when you change several things at once, so it won't be a rapid exercise all achieved in a few weeks. I recognise that a short term rise above 1 in R is not catastrophic, although even that depends on the mortality rate of the disease. In my earlier post I did refer to a "R>1 for a period of months".

There are still plenty of citizens infected with the virus, certainly more than there were in January. To abandon all measures which were introduced to control spread of the virus is to invite, with certainty, a second wave greater than the first. That will defer for even longer the relaxation of those measures which could be relaxed in the near future and increase dramatically he downside effects of these measures, including the economic ones. Some time you will have to realise that this virus has changed the way of life we have grown accustomed to and it will never go back to where we were in 2019 unless a reliable vaccination system can be developed. Even then, how long before the next new virus. Epidemiologists have been predicting an event like this (or worse) since the last century. AIDS, H1N1 and Ebola came close, but this has had the most dramatic impact yet - the next could be worse. Lets hope that World Leaders make sure global society learns and is better prepared next time round, because there will be a next time.

Peter.

I share your concern on how we are going to handle the next one. I suppose you could make
a case for China. It has gone from the ox cart to the jet skipping a number of stages that
we in Europe experienced. Personally, with no data whatsoever I doubt it.

I remember reading a little book that suggested that if we are ill it's our own damn fault.

We just turn of the pain alarm clock off, and see the doc for a script but don't look at how we are living. My guess would be that our adrenals and immune systems are pretty well knackered by the time we get to forty five. Having fun with our food and drink is nice up to a point but feel that we have lost something.

I doubt we were put here just to make everything cheap.


.

 

[PeterWright]

Because for some reason the BBC/Sky/Channel 4/ITN refuse to carry good news, how many were aware not one new case of the virus in London yesterday. I see on the Convid Forum it's now 48 hours. But how many are basing their outlook on this relying of the extremely negative media? It's as though people do not want to hear good news.

I was discussing just that point with my good lady wife this morning - it's certainly a good sign, but a long way from demonstrating that the virus is beaten in the UK.

Peter.

 

[jon and michie]

To get back on track with this thread that the OP started - legally he can now travel any distance in this country "England" to carry out unlimited exercise/sporting/leisure activity -- he can with do this alone or with a member of his/her Household. with good common sense he/she should avoid others.
This is more safer than seeing the folk flocking to the beeches these past couple of days.