Discussion:
New boarding on London's buses
(too old to reply)
Recliner
2020-05-29 15:13:36 UTC
Permalink
Received this in e-mail on Friday. I wonder if this is due to softening
of restrictions, the fact that TfL is cash-strapped or a combination of
both.
Those two, plus probably central government pressure.
I note that each of the busses will have restrictions on the amount of
passengers they can carry.
I wonder how that'll be implemented (and for how long)?
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2020-06-01 08:31:23 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 29 May 2020 15:13:36 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Received this in e-mail on Friday. I wonder if this is due to softening
of restrictions, the fact that TfL is cash-strapped or a combination of
both.
Those two, plus probably central government pressure.
I note that each of the busses will have restrictions on the amount of
passengers they can carry.
I wonder how that'll be implemented (and for how long)?
Until passengers cause so much trouble after not being allowed on that TfL
just give up and realise that treating people as adults and allowing them
to make their own decisions wrt crowding is the better approach.
m***@round-midnight.org.uk
2020-06-01 09:07:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Fri, 29 May 2020 15:13:36 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Received this in e-mail on Friday. I wonder if this is due to softening
of restrictions, the fact that TfL is cash-strapped or a combination of
both.
Those two, plus probably central government pressure.
I note that each of the busses will have restrictions on the amount of
passengers they can carry.
I wonder how that'll be implemented (and for how long)?
Until passengers cause so much trouble after not being allowed on that TfL
just give up and realise that treating people as adults and allowing them
to make their own decisions wrt crowding is the better approach.
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people. I'm fed up with the lycras around here
who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2020-06-01 10:41:09 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 10:07:56 +0100
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Fri, 29 May 2020 15:13:36 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Received this in e-mail on Friday. I wonder if this is due to softening
of restrictions, the fact that TfL is cash-strapped or a combination of
both.
Those two, plus probably central government pressure.
I note that each of the busses will have restrictions on the amount of
passengers they can carry.
I wonder how that'll be implemented (and for how long)?
Until passengers cause so much trouble after not being allowed on that TfL
just give up and realise that treating people as adults and allowing them
to make their own decisions wrt crowding is the better approach.
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people. I'm fed up with the lycras around here
who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.
And how long should your fear restrict the lives of the rest of us? If you're
scared wear a full face mask + visor or better yet just stay in your house but
don't expect others to pander to your insecurities.
#Paul
2020-06-01 17:24:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people. I'm fed up with the lycras around
here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.
And how long should your fear restrict the lives of the rest of us?
If you're scared wear a full face mask + visor or better yet just
stay in your house but don't expect others to pander to your
insecurities.
Which is an interesting pair of perspectives, which somehow people need
to work around with some modicum of sense and politeness. How much
time should a "lycra" allow before giving up and just passing a
headphone-oblivious or uncooperative "insecure" (or indeed anybody
not reacting) on a restrictive pathway?

I have to say, having been on both sides of this, that almost
everybody I've passed/ been passed by seem to be quite pragmatic and
will move to the side of the path to the extent possible without fuss.
You can always (also) hold your breath for a pace or two, or turn your
face away, when passing ... although this can make it difficult to say
"Thanks".

#Paul
MissRiaElaine
2020-06-01 13:39:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.  I'm fed up with the lycras around here
who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.

And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"
will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..?
--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
Robin
2020-06-01 15:38:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.  I'm fed up with the lycras around
here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.
And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"
will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..?
As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from
them - starting many years ago.

Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.

*or possibly not if you are an Audi driver
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
"David Jones" <dajhawk18@@googlemail.com>
2020-06-01 22:03:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robin
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are
forcing their decisions on other people.  I'm fed up with the
lycras around here who've decided social distancing is
unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or
Harry to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.
And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social
distancing" will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your
distance..?
As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage
from them - starting many years ago.
Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.
*or possibly not if you are an Audi driver
No. "Social distancing" allows one to be close to anyone of the same
housewhold, while at leasat 2m from anyoned else
Recliner
2020-06-01 22:23:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by "David Jones" <dajhawk18@@googlemail.com>
Post by Robin
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are
forcing their decisions on other people.  I'm fed up with the
lycras around here who've decided social distancing is
unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or
Harry to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.
And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social
distancing" will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your
distance..?
As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage
from them - starting many years ago.
Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.
*or possibly not if you are an Audi driver
No. "Social distancing" allows one to be close to anyone of the same
housewhold, while at leasat 2m from anyoned else
In the UK. In most other countries, it's 1.5m or 1m, or 6' in the US. The
WHO recommends at least 1m.
Jeremy Double
2020-06-02 15:30:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by "David Jones" <dajhawk18@@googlemail.com>
Post by Robin
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are
forcing their decisions on other people.  I'm fed up with the
lycras around here who've decided social distancing is
unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or
Harry to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.
And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social
distancing" will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your
distance..?
As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage
from them - starting many years ago.
Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.
*or possibly not if you are an Audi driver
No. "Social distancing" allows one to be close to anyone of the same
housewhold, while at leasat 2m from anyoned else
In the UK. In most other countries, it's 1.5m or 1m, or 6' in the US. The
WHO recommends at least 1m.
This article, looking at scientific studies, says the virus will be passed
on more if the social distancing distance is reduced from 2m:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/risk-of-infection-could-double-if-2-metre-rule-reduced-study-finds
--
Jeremy Double
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2020-06-02 16:00:03 UTC
Permalink
On 2 Jun 2020 15:30:08 GMT
Post by Jeremy Double
Post by Recliner
Post by "David Jones" <dajhawk18@@googlemail.com>
Post by Robin
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are
forcing their decisions on other people.  I'm fed up with the
lycras around here who've decided social distancing is
unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or
Harry to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.
And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social
distancing" will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your
distance..?
As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage
from them - starting many years ago.
Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.
*or possibly not if you are an Audi driver
No. "Social distancing" allows one to be close to anyone of the same
housewhold, while at leasat 2m from anyoned else
In the UK. In most other countries, it's 1.5m or 1m, or 6' in the US. The
WHO recommends at least 1m.
This article, looking at scientific studies, says the virus will be passed
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/risk-of-infection-could-double-if
-2-metre-rule-reduced-study-finds
Using that logic lets make the social distance 10m. No wait, lets make it
100m! Or better yet lets just lock people up in their houses until they're
given a booked date and time to come out and go shopping.

Life is full of compromises and if the government persist with this 2m
nonsense even against the advice of the WHO then they are going to utterly kill
the economy of this country. Not just in retail, leisure and travel but in
factories that can't operate efficiently - if at all - with 2m distancing of
their employees.

I'm sure Bozo the Clown knows this but he's too in thrall to a bunch of
"experts" whose expertise seems to be based on little more than suck-it-and-see
statistics.
m***@round-midnight.org.uk
2020-06-02 18:38:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On 2 Jun 2020 15:30:08 GMT
Post by Jeremy Double
Post by Recliner
Post by "David Jones" <dajhawk18@@googlemail.com>
Post by Robin
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are
forcing their decisions on other people.  I'm fed up with the
lycras around here who've decided social distancing is
unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or
Harry to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.
And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social
distancing" will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your
distance..?
As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage
from them - starting many years ago.
Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.
*or possibly not if you are an Audi driver
No. "Social distancing" allows one to be close to anyone of the same
housewhold, while at leasat 2m from anyoned else
In the UK. In most other countries, it's 1.5m or 1m, or 6' in the US. The
WHO recommends at least 1m.
This article, looking at scientific studies, says the virus will be passed
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/risk-of-infection-could-double-if
-2-metre-rule-reduced-study-finds
Using that logic lets make the social distance 10m. No wait, lets make it
100m! Or better yet lets just lock people up in their houses until they're
given a booked date and time to come out and go shopping.
Life is full of compromises and if the government persist with this 2m
nonsense even against the advice of the WHO then they are going to utterly kill
the economy of this country. Not just in retail, leisure and travel but in
factories that can't operate efficiently - if at all - with 2m distancing of
their employees.
I'm sure Bozo the Clown knows this but he's too in thrall to a bunch of
"experts" whose expertise seems to be based on little more than suck-it-and-see
statistics.
OK. So we reduce the 2m distancing to 1m. This will increase the R
number a little. What are you going to restrict instead to compensate
and bring the R number back to what it would otherwise be?
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2020-06-03 08:17:56 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 19:38:16 +0100
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Life is full of compromises and if the government persist with this 2m
nonsense even against the advice of the WHO then they are going to utterly
kill
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
the economy of this country. Not just in retail, leisure and travel but in
factories that can't operate efficiently - if at all - with 2m distancing of
their employees.
I'm sure Bozo the Clown knows this but he's too in thrall to a bunch of
"experts" whose expertise seems to be based on little more than
suck-it-and-see
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
statistics.
OK. So we reduce the 2m distancing to 1m. This will increase the R
number a little. What are you going to restrict instead to compensate
and bring the R number back to what it would otherwise be?
I couldn't give a toss about the R number or any of this bloody nonsense
any more. The medics the government are listening to at exclusion of
EVERYONE else can only see one side of a very large equation.
Certes
2020-06-03 10:14:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 19:38:16 +0100
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Life is full of compromises and if the government persist with this 2m
nonsense even against the advice of the WHO then they are going to utterly
kill
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
the economy of this country. Not just in retail, leisure and travel but in
factories that can't operate efficiently - if at all - with 2m distancing of
their employees.
I'm sure Bozo the Clown knows this but he's too in thrall to a bunch of
"experts" whose expertise seems to be based on little more than
suck-it-and-see
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
statistics.
OK. So we reduce the 2m distancing to 1m. This will increase the R
number a little. What are you going to restrict instead to compensate
and bring the R number back to what it would otherwise be?
I couldn't give a toss about the R number or any of this bloody nonsense
any more. The medics the government are listening to at exclusion of
EVERYONE else can only see one side of a very large equation.
From a purely medical viewpoint, we should all stay indoors until we no
longer have an economy. The government (when he's not driving to Durham)
has decided that practical considerations override this Sage advice.
Graeme Wall
2020-06-03 16:59:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 19:38:16 +0100
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Life is full of compromises and if the government persist with this 2m
nonsense even against the advice of the WHO then they are going to utterly
kill
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
the economy of this country. Not just in retail, leisure and travel but in
factories that can't operate efficiently - if at all - with 2m distancing of
their employees.
I'm sure Bozo the Clown knows this but he's too in thrall to a bunch of
"experts" whose expertise seems to be based on little more than
suck-it-and-see
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
statistics.
OK. So we reduce the 2m distancing to 1m. This will increase the R
number a little. What are you going to restrict instead to compensate
and bring the R number back to what it would otherwise be?
I couldn't give a toss about the R number or any of this bloody nonsense
any more. The medics the government are listening to at exclusion of
EVERYONE else can only see one side of a very large equation.
And you know better of course.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
tim...
2020-06-03 10:58:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On 2 Jun 2020 15:30:08 GMT
Post by Jeremy Double
Post by Recliner
Post by "David Jones" <dajhawk18@@googlemail.com>
Post by Robin
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are
forcing their decisions on other people. I'm fed up with the
lycras around here who've decided social distancing is
unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or
Harry to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.
And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social
distancing" will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your
distance..?
As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage
from them - starting many years ago.
Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.
*or possibly not if you are an Audi driver
No. "Social distancing" allows one to be close to anyone of the same
housewhold, while at leasat 2m from anyoned else
In the UK. In most other countries, it's 1.5m or 1m, or 6' in the US. The
WHO recommends at least 1m.
This article, looking at scientific studies, says the virus will be passed
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/risk-of-infection-could-double-if
-2-metre-rule-reduced-study-finds
Using that logic lets make the social distance 10m. No wait, lets make it
100m! Or better yet lets just lock people up in their houses until they're
given a booked date and time to come out and go shopping.
Life is full of compromises and if the government persist with this 2m
nonsense even against the advice of the WHO then they are going to utterly kill
the economy of this country. Not just in retail, leisure and travel but in
factories that can't operate efficiently - if at all - with 2m distancing of
their employees.
I'm sure Bozo the Clown knows this but he's too in thrall to a bunch of
"experts" whose expertise seems to be based on little more than suck-it-and-see
statistics.
OK. So we reduce the 2m distancing to 1m. This will increase the R
number a little. What are you going to restrict instead to compensate and
bring the R number back to what it would otherwise be?
all having to wear masks when on PT
m***@round-midnight.org.uk
2020-06-02 18:40:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On 2 Jun 2020 15:30:08 GMT
Post by Jeremy Double
Post by Recliner
Post by "David Jones" <dajhawk18@@googlemail.com>
Post by Robin
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are
forcing their decisions on other people.  I'm fed up with the
lycras around here who've decided social distancing is
unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or
Harry to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.
And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social
distancing" will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your
distance..?
As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage
from them - starting many years ago.
Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.
*or possibly not if you are an Audi driver
No. "Social distancing" allows one to be close to anyone of the same
housewhold, while at leasat 2m from anyoned else
In the UK. In most other countries, it's 1.5m or 1m, or 6' in the US. The
WHO recommends at least 1m.
This article, looking at scientific studies, says the virus will be passed
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/risk-of-infection-could-double-if
-2-metre-rule-reduced-study-finds
Using that logic lets make the social distance 10m. No wait, lets make it
100m! Or better yet lets just lock people up in their houses until they're
given a booked date and time to come out and go shopping.
Life is full of compromises and if the government persist with this 2m
nonsense even against the advice of the WHO then they are going to utterly kill
the economy of this country. Not just in retail, leisure and travel but in
factories that can't operate efficiently - if at all - with 2m distancing of
their employees.
I'm sure Bozo the Clown knows this but he's too in thrall to a bunch of
"experts" whose expertise seems to be based on little more than suck-it-and-see
statistics.
So little is known about the virus that suck it and see is the best we
have at the moment. However we are learning and presumably the
modelling is getting better.
MissRiaElaine
2020-06-02 21:37:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On 2 Jun 2020 15:30:08 GMT
Post by Jeremy Double
Post by Recliner
Post by "David Jones" <dajhawk18@@googlemail.com>
Post by Robin
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are
forcing  their decisions on other people.  I'm fed up with the
lycras around  here who've decided social distancing is
unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or
Harry  to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.
And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social
distancing"  will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your
distance..?
As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage
from them - starting many years ago.
Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.
*or possibly not if you are an Audi driver
No. "Social distancing" allows one to be close to anyone of the same
housewhold, while at leasat 2m from anyoned else
In the UK. In most other countries, it's 1.5m or 1m, or 6' in the US. The
WHO recommends at least 1m.
This article, looking at scientific studies, says the virus will be passed
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/risk-of-infection-could-double-if
-2-metre-rule-reduced-study-finds
Using that logic lets make the social distance 10m. No wait, lets make it
100m! Or better yet lets just lock people up in their houses until they're
given a booked date and time to come out and go shopping.
Life is full of compromises and if the government persist with this 2m
nonsense even against the advice of the WHO then they are going to utterly kill
the economy of this country. Not just in retail, leisure and travel but in
factories that can't operate efficiently - if at all - with 2m distancing of
their employees.
I'm sure Bozo the Clown knows this but he's too in thrall to a bunch of
"experts" whose expertise seems to be based on little more than suck-it-and-see
statistics.
So little is known about the virus that suck it and see is the best we
have at the moment.  However we are learning and presumably the
modelling is getting better.
At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are
not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or
later, people will say enough is enough.

My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday
in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..?
When will the shops reopen..? How many will reopen, how many will go to
the wall..?

Personally, I have just about had enough. In one food shop today the
cashier peremptorily ordered me back over the "social distance" line
marked on the floor because I was rather anxious to put down the heavy
basket I was carrying before I dropped it. The previous customer had
already paid and was well over "2m" (ye gods it's 6ft) away from me,
finishing packing and 5 seconds later had left. Who was going to infect
who, and does the dreaded virus know what the line marked on the floor
is for..?

Heaven preserve us, because nobody else is going to.
--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2020-06-02 23:08:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On 2 Jun 2020 15:30:08 GMT
Post by Jeremy Double
Post by Recliner
Post by "David Jones" <dajhawk18@@googlemail.com>
Post by Robin
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are
forcing  their decisions on other people.  I'm fed up with the
lycras around  here who've decided social distancing is
unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or
Harry  to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.
And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social
distancing"  will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your
distance..?
As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage
from them - starting many years ago.
Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.
*or possibly not if you are an Audi driver
No. "Social distancing" allows one to be close to anyone of the same
housewhold, while at leasat 2m from anyoned else
In the UK. In most other countries, it's 1.5m or 1m, or 6' in the US. The
WHO recommends at least 1m.
This article, looking at scientific studies, says the virus will be passed
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/risk-of-infection-could-double-if
-2-metre-rule-reduced-study-finds
Using that logic lets make the social distance 10m. No wait, lets make it
100m! Or better yet lets just lock people up in their houses until they're
given a booked date and time to come out and go shopping.
Life is full of compromises and if the government persist with this 2m
nonsense even against the advice of the WHO then they are going to utterly kill
the economy of this country. Not just in retail, leisure and travel but in
factories that can't operate efficiently - if at all - with 2m distancing of
their employees.
I'm sure Bozo the Clown knows this but he's too in thrall to a bunch of
"experts" whose expertise seems to be based on little more than suck-it-and-see
statistics.
So little is known about the virus that suck it and see is the best we
have at the moment.  However we are learning and presumably the
modelling is getting better.
At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are
not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or
later, people will say enough is enough.
My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday
in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..?
Surely shoes are available to purchase online?


Anna Noyd-Dryver
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2020-06-03 08:25:30 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by MissRiaElaine
At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are
not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or
later, people will say enough is enough.
My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday
in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..?
Surely shoes are available to purchase online?
Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really?
Roland Perry
2020-06-03 08:38:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by MissRiaElaine
At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are
not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or
later, people will say enough is enough.
My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday
in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..?
Surely shoes are available to purchase online?
Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really?
Thanks to the EU's Distance Selling Directive (which some people
apparently want to see flushed down the toilet as part of the bundle of
Brussels rule-taking) your purchase isn't final until you've had a
chance to try them on and potentially send them back.

I happen to know my shoe size, and haven't bought a pair in person for
as long as I can remember. Seeing if the style is right... that's
classic B-Arc stuff [shoe event horizon, you know].
--
Roland Perry
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2020-06-03 09:00:02 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:38:49 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by MissRiaElaine
At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are
not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or
later, people will say enough is enough.
My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday
in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..?
Surely shoes are available to purchase online?
Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really?
Thanks to the EU's Distance Selling Directive (which some people
apparently want to see flushed down the toilet as part of the bundle of
Brussels rule-taking) your purchase isn't final until you've had a
chance to try them on and potentially send them back.
Getting your money back isn't the issue, its the hassle of having to send
them back plus not having the shoes to wear in the meantime. Why are some
people so wedded to online that they'll avoid going to an actual shop even
when its a lot simpler?
Charles Ellson
2020-06-03 09:08:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:38:49 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by MissRiaElaine
At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are
not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or
later, people will say enough is enough.
My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday
in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..?
Surely shoes are available to purchase online?
Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really?
Thanks to the EU's Distance Selling Directive (which some people
apparently want to see flushed down the toilet as part of the bundle of
Brussels rule-taking) your purchase isn't final until you've had a
chance to try them on and potentially send them back.
Getting your money back isn't the issue, its the hassle of having to send
them back plus not having the shoes to wear in the meantime. Why are some
people so wedded to online that they'll avoid going to an actual shop even
when its a lot simpler?
You leave your shoes until the last available pair falls apart ?
Recliner
2020-06-03 09:23:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:38:49 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by MissRiaElaine
At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are
not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or
later, people will say enough is enough.
My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday
in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..?
Surely shoes are available to purchase online?
Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really?
Thanks to the EU's Distance Selling Directive (which some people
apparently want to see flushed down the toilet as part of the bundle of
Brussels rule-taking) your purchase isn't final until you've had a
chance to try them on and potentially send them back.
Getting your money back isn't the issue, its the hassle of having to send
them back plus not having the shoes to wear in the meantime. Why are some
people so wedded to online that they'll avoid going to an actual shop even
when its a lot simpler?
You leave your shoes until the last available pair falls apart ?
Yes, that's what surprised me: a woman with only one pair of shoes!
MissRiaElaine
2020-06-03 18:30:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Charles Ellson
You leave your shoes until the last available pair falls apart ?
Yes, that's what surprised me: a woman with only one pair of shoes!
When you're on a low income, then food and gas/electricity bills take
priority.
--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2020-06-03 10:22:16 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 03 Jun 2020 10:08:18 +0100
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:38:49 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by MissRiaElaine
At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are
not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or
later, people will say enough is enough.
My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday
in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..?
Surely shoes are available to purchase online?
Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really?
Thanks to the EU's Distance Selling Directive (which some people
apparently want to see flushed down the toilet as part of the bundle of
Brussels rule-taking) your purchase isn't final until you've had a
chance to try them on and potentially send them back.
Getting your money back isn't the issue, its the hassle of having to send
them back plus not having the shoes to wear in the meantime. Why are some
people so wedded to online that they'll avoid going to an actual shop even
when its a lot simpler?
You leave your shoes until the last available pair falls apart ?
What?
Charles Ellson
2020-06-03 15:16:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Wed, 03 Jun 2020 10:08:18 +0100
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:38:49 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by MissRiaElaine
At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are
not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or
later, people will say enough is enough.
My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday
in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..?
Surely shoes are available to purchase online?
Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really?
Thanks to the EU's Distance Selling Directive (which some people
apparently want to see flushed down the toilet as part of the bundle of
Brussels rule-taking) your purchase isn't final until you've had a
chance to try them on and potentially send them back.
Getting your money back isn't the issue, its the hassle of having to send
them back plus not having the shoes to wear in the meantime. Why are some
people so wedded to online that they'll avoid going to an actual shop even
when its a lot simpler?
You leave your shoes until the last available pair falls apart ?
What?
There is an implication that there is no suitable reserve pair of
shoes available while the mail order pair is being returned.
Roland Perry
2020-06-03 09:43:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:38:49 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by MissRiaElaine
At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are
not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or
later, people will say enough is enough.
My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday
in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..?
Surely shoes are available to purchase online?
Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really?
Thanks to the EU's Distance Selling Directive (which some people
apparently want to see flushed down the toilet as part of the bundle of
Brussels rule-taking) your purchase isn't final until you've had a
chance to try them on and potentially send them back.
Getting your money back isn't the issue, its the hassle of having to send
them back
Print out a label, drop it into an inconvenience store. Simples.
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
plus not having the shoes to wear in the meantime.
Order them in plenty of time.
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Why are some people so wedded to online that they'll avoid going to an
actual shop even when its a lot simpler?
In my case it's because the choice is so much wider, especially in the
smallish size which I take.
--
Roland Perry
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2020-06-03 10:25:32 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 10:43:18 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:38:49 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by MissRiaElaine
At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are
not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or
later, people will say enough is enough.
My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday
in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..?
Surely shoes are available to purchase online?
Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really?
Thanks to the EU's Distance Selling Directive (which some people
apparently want to see flushed down the toilet as part of the bundle of
Brussels rule-taking) your purchase isn't final until you've had a
chance to try them on and potentially send them back.
Getting your money back isn't the issue, its the hassle of having to send
them back
Print out a label, drop it into an inconvenience store. Simples.
If you mean parcel them back up, go queue in the post office for hours behind
some pensioners, hand over money for delivery then yes, its simples.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
plus not having the shoes to wear in the meantime.
Order them in plenty of time.
I don't think many people buy shoes or clothes because they're about to run out.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Why are some people so wedded to online that they'll avoid going to an
actual shop even when its a lot simpler?
In my case it's because the choice is so much wider, especially in the
smallish size which I take.
Thats up to you. I only order online when I don't have a choice because shops
don't sell it - eg gym equipment. Otherwise going to a physical shop is a lot
simpler.
Roland Perry
2020-06-03 12:43:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 10:43:18 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:38:49 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by MissRiaElaine
At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are
not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or
later, people will say enough is enough.
My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday
in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..?
Surely shoes are available to purchase online?
Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really?
Thanks to the EU's Distance Selling Directive (which some people
apparently want to see flushed down the toilet as part of the bundle of
Brussels rule-taking) your purchase isn't final until you've had a
chance to try them on and potentially send them back.
Getting your money back isn't the issue, its the hassle of having to send
them back
Print out a label, drop it into an inconvenience store. Simples.
If you mean parcel them back up, go queue in the post office for hours behind
some pensioners, hand over money for delivery then yes, its simples.
No, print a pre-paid label and drop it off in a couple of minutes at the
local One-Stop (or similar).
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
plus not having the shoes to wear in the meantime.
Order them in plenty of time.
I don't think many people buy shoes or clothes because they're about to run out.
So why wouldn't you have any shoes to wear?
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Why are some people so wedded to online that they'll avoid going to an
actual shop even when its a lot simpler?
In my case it's because the choice is so much wider, especially in the
smallish size which I take.
Thats up to you. I only order online when I don't have a choice because shops
don't sell it - eg gym equipment. Otherwise going to a physical shop is a lot
simpler.
Physical shops have a very limited selection in my size.
--
Roland Perry
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2020-06-03 14:24:20 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 13:43:11 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
If you mean parcel them back up, go queue in the post office for hours behind
some pensioners, hand over money for delivery then yes, its simples.
No, print a pre-paid label and drop it off in a couple of minutes at the
local One-Stop (or similar).
If by local one-stop you mean the post office you still have to queue behind
said pensioners. You can't just lob the parcel over the counter or dump it
in a sack and leg it. Or not in our one anyway.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
plus not having the shoes to wear in the meantime.
Order them in plenty of time.
I don't think many people buy shoes or clothes because they're about to run out.
So why wouldn't you have any shoes to wear?
Huh? The point you and others are missing is that with clothes, shoes and
a number of other products , eg cars, its a very VERY good idea to try before
you buy. Or risk serious disappointment.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Thats up to you. I only order online when I don't have a choice because shops
don't sell it - eg gym equipment. Otherwise going to a physical shop is a lot
simpler.
Physical shops have a very limited selection in my size.
Thats unfortunate, but you're clearly a special case. Most people can buy
shoes that fit in shops.
Roland Perry
2020-06-03 14:33:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 13:43:11 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
If you mean parcel them back up, go queue in the post office for hours behind
some pensioners, hand over money for delivery then yes, its simples.
No, print a pre-paid label and drop it off in a couple of minutes at the
local One-Stop (or similar).
If by local one-stop
It's a popular chain of convenience stores M'Lud. Other brands are
available.
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
you mean the post office you still have to queue behind
said pensioners. You can't just lob the parcel over the counter or dump it
in a sack and leg it. Or not in our one anyway.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
plus not having the shoes to wear in the meantime.
Order them in plenty of time.
I don't think many people buy shoes or clothes because they're about to run out.
So why wouldn't you have any shoes to wear?
Huh? The point you and others are missing is that with clothes, shoes and
a number of other products , eg cars, its a very VERY good idea to try before
you buy. Or risk serious disappointment.
You buy (hanks to the EU) in effect "on approval", and send things back
which don't fit.
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Thats up to you. I only order online when I don't have a choice because shops
don't sell it - eg gym equipment. Otherwise going to a physical shop is a lot
simpler.
Physical shops have a very limited selection in my size.
Thats unfortunate, but you're clearly a special case. Most people can buy
shoes that fit in shops.
You'd think, wouldn't you, but I know several people (men and women)
with smaller feet, and it's a significant issue. I also really need a
half-size, which are even rarer.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2020-06-03 14:48:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 13:43:11 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
If you mean parcel them back up, go queue in the post office for hours behind
some pensioners, hand over money for delivery then yes, its simples.
No, print a pre-paid label and drop it off in a couple of minutes at the
local One-Stop (or similar).
If by local one-stop
It's a popular chain of convenience stores M'Lud.
One which I had never encountered until the first time working in Cambridge

(I think they were an East Midlands thing)

though I note that they do now have a few stores down ere

tim
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2020-06-03 15:19:52 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 15:33:40 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
If by local one-stop
It's a popular chain of convenience stores M'Lud. Other brands are
available.
Never heard of them.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Huh? The point you and others are missing is that with clothes, shoes and
a number of other products , eg cars, its a very VERY good idea to try before
you buy. Or risk serious disappointment.
You buy (hanks to the EU) in effect "on approval", and send things back
which don't fit.
The EU has nothing to do with being able to return goods not fit for purpose.
Thats been british law for decades and I wouldn't be surprised if we gave them
the idea. Nor were they involved in credit card companies refunding customers
for dodgy goods.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Thats up to you. I only order online when I don't have a choice because
shops
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
don't sell it - eg gym equipment. Otherwise going to a physical shop is a
lot
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
simpler.
Physical shops have a very limited selection in my size.
Thats unfortunate, but you're clearly a special case. Most people can buy
shoes that fit in shops.
You'd think, wouldn't you, but I know several people (men and women)
with smaller feet, and it's a significant issue. I also really need a
half-size, which are even rarer.
Just wear the next size up and put in a thick insole. Simples.
Charles Ellson
2020-06-03 16:46:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 15:33:40 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
If by local one-stop
It's a popular chain of convenience stores M'Lud. Other brands are
available.
Never heard of them.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Huh? The point you and others are missing is that with clothes, shoes and
a number of other products , eg cars, its a very VERY good idea to try before
you buy. Or risk serious disappointment.
You buy (hanks to the EU) in effect "on approval", and send things back
which don't fit.
The EU has nothing to do with being able to return goods not fit for purpose.
Thats been british law for decades and I wouldn't be surprised if we gave them
the idea.
Goods which are supplied in accordance with a description and your
order are not "not fit for purpose". The more recent laws allowing
goods bought at a distance to be returned do not care if they are in
perfect condition; simply taking a dislike to them is sufficient
reason to return them. Unlike defective goods, you have to pay the
return cost unless the supplier has decided to bear that expense.
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Nor were they involved in credit card companies refunding customers
for dodgy goods.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Thats up to you. I only order online when I don't have a choice because
shops
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
don't sell it - eg gym equipment. Otherwise going to a physical shop is a
lot
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
simpler.
Physical shops have a very limited selection in my size.
Thats unfortunate, but you're clearly a special case. Most people can buy
shoes that fit in shops.
You'd think, wouldn't you, but I know several people (men and women)
with smaller feet, and it's a significant issue. I also really need a
half-size, which are even rarer.
Just wear the next size up and put in a thick insole. Simples.
Not a podiatrist, are you ?
Roland Perry
2020-06-03 17:25:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
If by local one-stop
It's a popular chain of convenience stores M'Lud. Other brands are
available.
Never heard of them.
I'm sure you'll have heard of the other similar stores.
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Huh? The point you and others are missing is that with clothes, shoes and
a number of other products , eg cars, its a very VERY good idea to try before
you buy. Or risk serious disappointment.
You buy (hanks to the EU) in effect "on approval", and send things back
which don't fit.
The EU has nothing to do with being able to return goods not fit for purpose.
Thats been british law for decades and I wouldn't be surprised if we gave them
the idea. Nor were they involved in credit card companies refunding customers
for dodgy goods.
Wrong. It's the quite separate Distance Selling Directive which gives
customers the right to send stuff back they've bought "on approval"
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Thats up to you. I only order online when I don't have a choice because
shops
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
don't sell it - eg gym equipment. Otherwise going to a physical shop is a
lot
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
simpler.
Physical shops have a very limited selection in my size.
Thats unfortunate, but you're clearly a special case. Most people can buy
shoes that fit in shops.
You'd think, wouldn't you, but I know several people (men and women)
with smaller feet, and it's a significant issue. I also really need a
half-size, which are even rarer.
Just wear the next size up and put in a thick insole. Simples.
That's what I sometimes end up doing, but online does at least often
have *some* stock in the half-size.
--
Roland Perry
Charles Ellson
2020-06-03 15:59:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 13:43:11 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
If you mean parcel them back up, go queue in the post office for hours behind
some pensioners, hand over money for delivery then yes, its simples.
No, print a pre-paid label and drop it off in a couple of minutes at the
local One-Stop (or similar).
If by local one-stop
It's a popular chain of convenience stores M'Lud. Other brands are
available.
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
you mean the post office you still have to queue behind
said pensioners.
ITYF most don't need to go to the Post Office any more, one of the
reasons why branches are being closed. Having accompanied someone else
(not a pensioner) a few times to a Post Office recently, today was the
first time we found ourselves waiting behind an elderly person.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
You can't just lob the parcel over the counter or dump it
in a sack and leg it. Or not in our one anyway.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
plus not having the shoes to wear in the meantime.
Order them in plenty of time.
I don't think many people buy shoes or clothes because they're about to run out.
So why wouldn't you have any shoes to wear?
Huh? The point you and others are missing is that with clothes, shoes and
a number of other products , eg cars, its a very VERY good idea to try before
you buy. Or risk serious disappointment.
You buy (hanks to the EU) in effect "on approval", and send things back
which don't fit.
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Thats up to you. I only order online when I don't have a choice because shops
don't sell it - eg gym equipment. Otherwise going to a physical shop is a lot
simpler.
Physical shops have a very limited selection in my size.
Thats unfortunate, but you're clearly a special case. Most people can buy
shoes that fit in shops.
You'd think, wouldn't you, but I know several people (men and women)
with smaller feet, and it's a significant issue. I also really need a
half-size, which are even rarer.
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2020-06-03 16:17:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Thats unfortunate, but you're clearly a special case. Most people can buy
shoes that fit in shops.
You'd think, wouldn't you, but I know several people (men and women)
with smaller feet, and it's a significant issue. I also really need a
half-size, which are even rarer.
Those with large feet also suffer the same problem.

It does sometimes make choosing shoes easier when there are only three
pairs in the shop which fit.


Anna Noyd-Dryver
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2020-06-03 16:17:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 13:43:11 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
If you mean parcel them back up, go queue in the post office for hours behind
some pensioners, hand over money for delivery then yes, its simples.
No, print a pre-paid label and drop it off in a couple of minutes at the
local One-Stop (or similar).
If by local one-stop you mean the post office
A chain of convenience stores <https://www.onestop.co.uk> "One Stop is a
retail convenience
business with over 900 shops". Other similar retail chains exist.
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Huh? The point you and others are missing is that with clothes, shoes and
a number of other products , eg cars, its a very VERY good idea to try before
you buy. Or risk serious disappointment.
Catalogue shopping (order lots, return those which don't fit/suit) was a
thing for many decades before the internet. I don't see why the
introduction of a computer screen into the process should make it any less
achievable.


Anna Noyd-Dryver
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2020-06-03 16:22:52 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 16:17:14 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 13:43:11 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
If you mean parcel them back up, go queue in the post office for hours
behind
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
some pensioners, hand over money for delivery then yes, its simples.
No, print a pre-paid label and drop it off in a couple of minutes at the
local One-Stop (or similar).
If by local one-stop you mean the post office
A chain of convenience stores <https://www.onestop.co.uk> "One Stop is a
retail convenience
business with over 900 shops". Other similar retail chains exist.
Probably found in chavvy areas which even Budgen thought was too downmarket to
bother with. No doubt a branch of Bargain Booze is nearby.
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Catalogue shopping (order lots, return those which don't fit/suit) was a
thing for many decades before the internet. I don't see why the
introduction of a computer screen into the process should make it any less
achievable.
It was a think for a tiny minority of people. Usually the elderly who couldn't
get out much.
Recliner
2020-06-03 16:36:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 16:17:14 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 13:43:11 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
If you mean parcel them back up, go queue in the post office for hours
behind
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
some pensioners, hand over money for delivery then yes, its simples.
No, print a pre-paid label and drop it off in a couple of minutes at the
local One-Stop (or similar).
If by local one-stop you mean the post office
A chain of convenience stores <https://www.onestop.co.uk> "One Stop is a
retail convenience
business with over 900 shops". Other similar retail chains exist.
Probably found in chavvy areas which even Budgen thought was too downmarket to
bother with. No doubt a branch of Bargain Booze is nearby.
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Catalogue shopping (order lots, return those which don't fit/suit) was a
thing for many decades before the internet. I don't see why the
introduction of a computer screen into the process should make it any less
achievable.
It was a think for a tiny minority of people. Usually the elderly who couldn't
get out much.
Also, a lot of catalogue shopping was on (expensive) credit, in the days
before credit cards.
Roland Perry
2020-06-03 17:33:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Catalogue shopping (order lots, return those which don't fit/suit) was a
thing for many decades before the internet. I don't see why the
introduction of a computer screen into the process should make it any less
achievable.
Because it applies by law to all sellers, not just those volunteering to
do it.
--
Roland Perry
MissRiaElaine
2020-06-03 18:42:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Catalogue shopping (order lots, return those which don't fit/suit) was a
thing for many decades before the internet. I don't see why the
introduction of a computer screen into the process should make it any less
achievable.
It's achievable. Just time consuming, and something we don't have the
time to indulge in.

There is also a social aspect to retail shopping. Chatting to the
assistant/cashier is, to us, an enjoyable part of the experience.
--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
MissRiaElaine
2020-06-03 18:39:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 13:43:11 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Physical shops have a very limited selection in my size.
Thats unfortunate, but you're clearly a special case. Most people can buy
shoes that fit in shops.
There's also the issue that a shoe size or a clothes size number is
arbitrary and not consistent between manufacturers. One shoe maker's
size 7 may well be another's size 6.

Dress sizes are even worse. One brand's size 14 could well be the same
physical size as another's size 12 or size 16. You *have* to try things
on before you buy, and doing it online is too much hassle.

As to the reason why she is down to only 1 pair of shoes, blame Sod and
his infernal law. All the pairs she had seemed to fail at the same time
or thereabouts.

Oh yes, the shoe repairer is closed and may well never re-open, being a
sole (groan) trader.
--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2020-06-03 19:44:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 13:43:11 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Physical shops have a very limited selection in my size.
Thats unfortunate, but you're clearly a special case. Most people can buy
shoes that fit in shops.
There's also the issue that a shoe size or a clothes size number is
arbitrary and not consistent between manufacturers. One shoe maker's
size 7 may well be another's size 6.
Dress sizes are even worse. One brand's size 14 could well be the same
physical size as another's size 12 or size 16. You *have* to try things
on before you buy, and doing it online is too much hassle.
As to the reason why she is down to only 1 pair of shoes, blame Sod and
his infernal law. All the pairs she had seemed to fail at the same time
or thereabouts.
Oh yes, the shoe repairer is closed and may well never re-open, being a
sole (groan) trader.
Are there no large supermarkets you can get to which have a clothing
department still open? (Eg George at Asda, Tesco Extra, large Sainsbury's
etc)


Anna Noyd-Dryver
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2020-06-03 15:57:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 10:43:18 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:38:49 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by MissRiaElaine
At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are
not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or
later, people will say enough is enough.
My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday
in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..?
Surely shoes are available to purchase online?
Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really?
Thanks to the EU's Distance Selling Directive (which some people
apparently want to see flushed down the toilet as part of the bundle of
Brussels rule-taking) your purchase isn't final until you've had a
chance to try them on and potentially send them back.
Getting your money back isn't the issue, its the hassle of having to send
them back
Print out a label, drop it into an inconvenience store. Simples.
If you mean parcel them back up, go queue in the post office for hours behind
some pensioners, hand over money for delivery then yes, its simples.
The return would not require payment.

Many newsagents are parcel-drop locations, not just post offices.

The last items I returned to Amazon were via a Next store, obviously not
possible at the moment.


Anna Noyd-Dryver
Basil Jet
2020-06-03 08:57:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by MissRiaElaine
At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are
not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or
later, people will say enough is enough.
My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday
in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..?
Surely shoes are available to purchase online?
Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really?
Trying on multiple shoes before picking one pair in a pandemic?
--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
Epic Soundtracks - Wild Smile (An Anthology)
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2020-06-03 14:14:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Basil Jet
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by MissRiaElaine
At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are
not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or
later, people will say enough is enough.
My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday
in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..?
Surely shoes are available to purchase online?
Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really?
Trying on multiple shoes before picking one pair in a pandemic?
There was a thing on the news the other day about bookshops reopening, the
suggestion being that any item touched by a customer would need to be wiped
down and also quarantined for 72 hours. Presumably the same would apply to
shoes? (Genuine question: presumably large supermarkets still have their
clothing departments open, how are they managing?)


Anna Noyd-Dryver
Rolf Mantel
2020-06-03 16:32:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
There was a thing on the news the other day about bookshops reopening, the
suggestion being that any item touched by a customer would need to be wiped
down and also quarantined for 72 hours. Presumably the same would apply to
shoes? (Genuine question: presumably large supermarkets still have their
clothing departments open, how are they managing?)
In Germany where all shops are open again, H&M have a "try on at home"
policy, so what's advantage is left compared to mail order?

The bike shops indeed have to wipe down and quarantaine a bike that has
been out on a test ride (even the saddle).
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2020-06-03 16:37:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rolf Mantel
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
There was a thing on the news the other day about bookshops reopening, the
suggestion being that any item touched by a customer would need to be wiped
down and also quarantined for 72 hours. Presumably the same would apply to
shoes? (Genuine question: presumably large supermarkets still have their
clothing departments open, how are they managing?)
In Germany where all shops are open again, H&M have a "try on at home"
policy, so what's advantage is left compared to mail order?
I remember when I was younger, being surprised that M&S in Bolton didn't
have rooms to try on clothes (because you were expected to take things home
to try them on) but M&S in Llandudno did (because people generally
travelled further to get there).


Anna Noyd-Dryver
Recliner
2020-06-03 20:15:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Rolf Mantel
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
There was a thing on the news the other day about bookshops reopening, the
suggestion being that any item touched by a customer would need to be wiped
down and also quarantined for 72 hours. Presumably the same would apply to
shoes? (Genuine question: presumably large supermarkets still have their
clothing departments open, how are they managing?)
In Germany where all shops are open again, H&M have a "try on at home"
policy, so what's advantage is left compared to mail order?
I remember when I was younger, being surprised that M&S in Bolton didn't
have rooms to try on clothes (because you were expected to take things home
to try them on) but M&S in Llandudno did (because people generally
travelled further to get there).
Weren't changing rooms a dangerous innovation for ever-conservative M&S?
Graeme Wall
2020-06-03 20:38:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Rolf Mantel
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
There was a thing on the news the other day about bookshops reopening, the
suggestion being that any item touched by a customer would need to be wiped
down and also quarantined for 72 hours. Presumably the same would apply to
shoes? (Genuine question: presumably large supermarkets still have their
clothing departments open, how are they managing?)
In Germany where all shops are open again, H&M have a "try on at home"
policy, so what's advantage is left compared to mail order?
I remember when I was younger, being surprised that M&S in Bolton didn't
have rooms to try on clothes (because you were expected to take things home
to try them on) but M&S in Llandudno did (because people generally
travelled further to get there).
Weren't changing rooms a dangerous innovation for ever-conservative M&S?
Made them more susceptible to shop-lifters.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Graeme Wall
2020-06-03 17:08:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rolf Mantel
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
There was a thing on the news the other day about bookshops reopening, the
suggestion being that any item touched by a customer would need to be wiped
down and also quarantined for 72 hours. Presumably the same would apply to
shoes? (Genuine question: presumably large supermarkets still have their
clothing departments open, how are they managing?)
In Germany where all shops are open again, H&M have a "try on at home"
policy, so what's advantage is left compared to mail order?
M&S did that many years ago.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2020-06-03 14:14:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by MissRiaElaine
At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are
not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or
later, people will say enough is enough.
My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday
in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..?
Surely shoes are available to purchase online?
Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really?
I would expect any online shoe retailer to have a system for sending back
things which don't fit, just as online and catalogue retailers of other
clothing items do.


Anna Noyd-Dryver
Sam Wilson
2020-06-03 15:40:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by MissRiaElaine
At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are
not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or
later, people will say enough is enough.
My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday
in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..?
Surely shoes are available to purchase online?
Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really?
I would expect any online shoe retailer to have a system for sending back
things which don't fit, just as online and catalogue retailers of other
clothing items do.
Anyone else seen adverts from Pearlfeet? They have attractive shoes, a
deeply misleading size chart and suggest that if you want to return
something it’ll be to China at your own cost. I have yet to point out to
them at that that’s not a legal way to deal with the customer in the UK.

Sam
--
The entity formerly known as ***@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2020-06-03 16:17:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by MissRiaElaine
At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are
not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or
later, people will say enough is enough.
My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday
in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..?
Surely shoes are available to purchase online?
Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really?
I would expect any online shoe retailer to have a system for sending back
things which don't fit, just as online and catalogue retailers of other
clothing items do.
Anyone else seen adverts from Pearlfeet? They have attractive shoes, a
deeply misleading size chart and suggest that if you want to return
something it’ll be to China at your own cost. I have yet to point out to
them at that that’s not a legal way to deal with the customer in the UK.
Maybe I should have added the word 'reputable' ;)


Anna Noyd-Dryver
MissRiaElaine
2020-06-03 18:45:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by MissRiaElaine
At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are
not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or
later, people will say enough is enough.
My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday
in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..?
Surely shoes are available to purchase online?
Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really?
I would expect any online shoe retailer to have a system for sending back
things which don't fit, just as online and catalogue retailers of other
clothing items do.
Time. Not everybody wants to wait days or even weeks for items to be
returned, another one sent out, that one sent back as well when it
doesn't fit. I want shoes or clothes that fit now, not in 4 weeks time.
--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
Jeremy Double
2020-06-03 18:09:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by MissRiaElaine
At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are
not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or
later, people will say enough is enough.
My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday
in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..?
Surely shoes are available to purchase online?
Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really?
It’s not something I would do normally, but I did get a new pair of walking
shoes, buying online, in the first week or two of the lockdown. I ordered
exactly the same make, model and size as my existing walking shoes, so I
didn’t think I was taking much of a risk.
--
Jeremy Double
MissRiaElaine
2020-06-03 18:28:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by MissRiaElaine
My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday
in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..?
Surely shoes are available to purchase online?
Of course they are, but they'll invariably take two weeks to arrive, and
when they don't fit, as the first pair you try on never do, you have to
go through the rigmarole of sending them back and then the next pair
that takes another 2 weeks to arrive and stand an equal chance of not
fitting then that's a month gone and we still have no shoes.

There are many things that can easily be bought online, but clothes and
shoes are not in that camp.
--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
Rolf Mantel
2020-06-02 16:03:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeremy Double
Post by Recliner
Post by "David Jones" <dajhawk18@@googlemail.com>
Post by Robin
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are
forcing their decisions on other people.  I'm fed up with the
lycras around here who've decided social distancing is
unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or
Harry to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.
And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social
distancing" will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your
distance..?
As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage
from them - starting many years ago.
Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.
*or possibly not if you are an Audi driver
No. "Social distancing" allows one to be close to anyone of the same
housewhold, while at leasat 2m from anyoned else
In the UK. In most other countries, it's 1.5m or 1m, or 6' in the US. The
WHO recommends at least 1m.
This article, looking at scientific studies, says the virus will be passed
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/risk-of-infection-could-double-if-2-metre-rule-reduced-study-finds
Actually, the article says that only 3m would be a "safe distance", that
anything below 1m would be dangerous and that any distance between 1m
and 3m is some kind of compromise between safety and getting a normal
life.

As the UK was very late in starting social distancing, it is meaningful
to be more cautious until your infection nubmers are significantly down.
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2020-06-02 16:13:40 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 18:03:24 +0200
Post by Jeremy Double
Post by Jeremy Double
Post by Recliner
Post by "David Jones" <dajhawk18@@googlemail.com>
Post by Robin
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are
forcing their decisions on other people.  I'm fed up with the
lycras around here who've decided social distancing is
unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or
Harry to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.
And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social
distancing" will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your
distance..?
As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage
from them - starting many years ago.
Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.
*or possibly not if you are an Audi driver
No. "Social distancing" allows one to be close to anyone of the same
housewhold, while at leasat 2m from anyoned else
In the UK. In most other countries, it's 1.5m or 1m, or 6' in the US. The
WHO recommends at least 1m.
This article, looking at scientific studies, says the virus will be passed
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/risk-of-infection-could-double-if
-2-metre-rule-reduced-study-finds
Actually, the article says that only 3m would be a "safe distance", that
3m isn't a safe distance when a sneeze can go up to 8m and a cough 5m.
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2020-06-02 08:37:51 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100
Post by Robin
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.  I'm fed up with the lycras around
here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.
And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"
will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..?
As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from
them - starting many years ago.
Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.
Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring
the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people
afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not -
so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method of
governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have no
time for it.
Graeme Wall
2020-06-02 09:04:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100
Post by Robin
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.  I'm fed up with the lycras around
here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.
And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"
will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..?
As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from
them - starting many years ago.
Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.
Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring
the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people
afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not -
so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method of
governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have no
time for it.
ROTFL
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2020-06-02 10:33:10 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 10:04:38 +0100
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100
Post by Robin
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.  I'm fed up with the lycras around
here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.
And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"
will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..?
As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from
them - starting many years ago.
Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.
Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring
the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people
afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not -
so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method
of
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have
no
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
time for it.
ROTFL
Roll all you like. Governments have been playing the fear card for months now
but as Sweden and Japan have shown, this virus isn't nearly as contagious
or deadly as they would have us believe.
Arthur Conan Doyle
2020-06-02 12:04:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Roll all you like. Governments have been playing the fear card for months now
but as Sweden and Japan have shown, this virus isn't nearly as contagious
or deadly as they would have us believe.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/sweden-coronavirus-herd-immunity
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2020-06-02 14:43:11 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 02 Jun 2020 07:04:37 -0500
Post by Arthur Conan Doyle
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Roll all you like. Governments have been playing the fear card for months now
but as Sweden and Japan have shown, this virus isn't nearly as contagious
or deadly as they would have us believe.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/sweden-coronavirus-herd-immunity
Wired? Give me a break. As for well and truly failed - how can a herd
immunity approach that has less deaths per million than belgium, UK, spain and
italy and only slight more than france which all had tight lockdowns be said to
have failed exactly?

Given the figures for virus deaths are all over the place for various
countries independent of whatever sort of lockdown they had, it seems pretty
clear to me the way this virus spreads is a lot more complex than the "experts"
think.
MissRiaElaine
2020-06-02 15:15:12 UTC
Permalink
Lockdown or no lockdown, the thing that worries me the most is how many
of the small businesses and one-man bands will survive after all this..?
Charities which rely on shops for a good proportion if not the majority
of their income may go under.

I'm retired so I'm reasonably ok in that I don't have to go out to work,
although I'm by no means well off. But I do know many small traders and
they are very, very worried.
--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
Recliner
2020-06-02 15:39:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by MissRiaElaine
Lockdown or no lockdown, the thing that worries me the most is how many
of the small businesses and one-man bands will survive after all this..?
Charities which rely on shops for a good proportion if not the majority
of their income may go under.
I'm retired so I'm reasonably ok in that I don't have to go out to work,
although I'm by no means well off. But I do know many small traders and
they are very, very worried.
Yes, there will be far more economic casualties from Covid-19 than those
who get sick. The international travel industry will be among the hardest
hit, from cruise ships to airlines to resorts. Just about all the world's
seaferers and most airline crew are currently not working, and many will
soon be laid off.

For example, Emirates will be laying off thousands of air crew who will not
only lose their jobs, but their residence in Dubai:

Emirates, the state-owned carrier based in Dubai, has laid off about 180
pilots on May 31, as part of its larger plan to reduce costs after being
low because of COVID-19.

Sources told Moneycontrol that the 180 pilots were first officers who were
under training for type-rating on the A380. These pilots were on probation.

"This is the first phase of the layoffs. These pilots were called to the
office and given the letters," a senior executive said. "More announcements
are expected tomorrow," the executive added.

Moneycontrol has seen a copy of one of these letters.

While the notice period for those on probation is seven days, the airline
said that it is extending this to 14 days, as a 'gesture of goodwill.' The
letter added:
"Your last day of service would, therefore, be June 15, and you will
continue to receive your usual company medical benefits... should you be
unable to repatriate due to travel restrictions, your visa will be extended
being your last day of service."

The news comes weeks after reports emerged that the airline will lay off 30
percent of its crew and pilots. This will translate to about 30,000
employees.
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2020-06-02 23:08:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Tue, 02 Jun 2020 07:04:37 -0500
Post by Arthur Conan Doyle
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Roll all you like. Governments have been playing the fear card for months now
but as Sweden and Japan have shown, this virus isn't nearly as contagious
or deadly as they would have us believe.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/sweden-coronavirus-herd-immunity
Wired? Give me a break. As for well and truly failed - how can a herd
immunity approach that has less deaths per million than belgium, UK, spain and
italy and only slight more than france which all had tight lockdowns be said to
have failed exactly?
Default behaviours in different countries/regions differ, and therefore
affect their 'default' transmission rates. It appears that Sweden's
'default' death rate is around the same as our lockdown death rate,
presumably because they do stuff like not hugging random strangers as a
greeting. Their transmission rate is around eight times their
presumably-comparable neighbours; therefore, without lockdown, would our
death rate be eight times what it is with lockdown? Clearly the unaccounted
variable in this is how much infection was already in the country (from
Italian skiing trips?) before lockdown.


Anna Noyd-Dryver
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2020-06-03 08:24:56 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:29 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Tue, 02 Jun 2020 07:04:37 -0500
Post by Arthur Conan Doyle
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Roll all you like. Governments have been playing the fear card for months
now
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Arthur Conan Doyle
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
but as Sweden and Japan have shown, this virus isn't nearly as contagious
or deadly as they would have us believe.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/sweden-coronavirus-herd-immunity
Wired? Give me a break. As for well and truly failed - how can a herd
immunity approach that has less deaths per million than belgium, UK, spain
and
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
italy and only slight more than france which all had tight lockdowns be said
to
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
have failed exactly?
Default behaviours in different countries/regions differ, and therefore
affect their 'default' transmission rates. It appears that Sweden's
'default' death rate is around the same as our lockdown death rate,
presumably because they do stuff like not hugging random strangers as a
We don't tend to hug random strangers here in the UK, nor do they do that
much in Belgium AFAIK. You're clutching at straws.
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
greeting. Their transmission rate is around eight times their
presumably-comparable neighbours; therefore, without lockdown, would our
Why does everyone assume NOrway and Denmark are equivalent to Sweden? Just
because they all speak dialects of the same language?
h***@yahoo.co.uk
2020-06-03 09:45:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:29 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Tue, 02 Jun 2020 07:04:37 -0500
Post by Arthur Conan Doyle
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Roll all you like. Governments have been playing the fear card for months
now
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Arthur Conan Doyle
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
but as Sweden and Japan have shown, this virus isn't nearly as contagious
or deadly as they would have us believe.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/sweden-coronavirus-herd-immunity
Wired? Give me a break. As for well and truly failed - how can a herd
immunity approach that has less deaths per million than belgium, UK, spain
and
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
italy and only slight more than france which all had tight lockdowns be said
to
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
have failed exactly?
Default behaviours in different countries/regions differ, and therefore
affect their 'default' transmission rates. It appears that Sweden's
'default' death rate is around the same as our lockdown death rate,
presumably because they do stuff like not hugging random strangers as a
We don't tend to hug random strangers here in the UK, nor do they do that
much in Belgium AFAIK. You're clutching at straws.
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
greeting. Their transmission rate is around eight times their
presumably-comparable neighbours; therefore, without lockdown, would our
Why does everyone assume NOrway and Denmark are equivalent to Sweden? Just
because they all speak dialects of the same language?
AIUI, the Norwegians are still angry at Sweden for allowing the Germans
to march through into Norway.
tim...
2020-06-03 11:13:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:29 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Tue, 02 Jun 2020 07:04:37 -0500
Post by Arthur Conan Doyle
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Roll all you like. Governments have been playing the fear card for months
now
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Arthur Conan Doyle
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
but as Sweden and Japan have shown, this virus isn't nearly as contagious
or deadly as they would have us believe.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/sweden-coronavirus-herd-immunity
Wired? Give me a break. As for well and truly failed - how can a herd
immunity approach that has less deaths per million than belgium, UK, spain
and
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
italy and only slight more than france which all had tight lockdowns be said
to
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
have failed exactly?
Default behaviours in different countries/regions differ, and therefore
affect their 'default' transmission rates. It appears that Sweden's
'default' death rate is around the same as our lockdown death rate,
presumably because they do stuff like not hugging random strangers as a
We don't tend to hug random strangers here in the UK, nor do they do that
much in Belgium AFAIK. You're clutching at straws.
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
greeting. Their transmission rate is around eight times their
presumably-comparable neighbours; therefore, without lockdown, would our
Why does everyone assume NOrway and Denmark are equivalent to Sweden? Just
because they all speak dialects of the same language?
AIUI, the Norwegians are still angry at Sweden for allowing the Germans to
march through into Norway.
As that isn't how the Germans got to Norway, You've made that up

tim
Graeme Wall
2020-06-03 17:00:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:29 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Tue, 02 Jun 2020 07:04:37 -0500
Post by Arthur Conan Doyle
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Roll all you like. Governments have been playing the fear card for months
now
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Arthur Conan Doyle
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
but as Sweden and Japan have shown, this virus isn't nearly as contagious
or deadly as they would have us believe.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/sweden-coronavirus-herd-immunity
Wired? Give me a break. As for well and truly failed - how can a herd
immunity approach that has less deaths per million than belgium, UK, spain
and
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
italy and only slight more than france which all had tight lockdowns be said
to
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
have failed exactly?
Default behaviours in different countries/regions differ, and therefore
affect their 'default' transmission rates. It appears that Sweden's
'default' death rate is around the same as our lockdown death rate,
presumably because they do stuff like not hugging random strangers as a
We don't tend to hug random strangers here in the UK, nor do they do that
much in Belgium AFAIK. You're clutching at straws.
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
greeting. Their transmission rate is around eight times their
presumably-comparable neighbours; therefore, without lockdown, would our
Why does everyone assume NOrway and Denmark are equivalent to Sweden? Just
because they all speak dialects of the same language?
Sweden's Tegnell admits too many died:

<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52903717>
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2020-06-02 19:53:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 10:04:38 +0100
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100
Post by Robin
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.  I'm fed up with the lycras around
here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.
And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"
will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..?
As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from
them - starting many years ago.
Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.
Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring
the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people
afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not -
so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method
of
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have
no
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
time for it.
ROTFL
Roll all you like. Governments have been playing the fear card for months now
but as Sweden and Japan have shown, this virus isn't nearly as contagious
or deadly as they would have us believe.
Except for eight times higher death rate in Sweden than in its
otherwise-comparable neighbours.

And various articles about how Japan are very reluctant to put
Coronavirus/Covid designation even on people who are blatantly displaying
all the symptoms.

Oh and South Korea have gone back into partial lockdown.


Anna Noyd-Dryver
Recliner
2020-06-02 10:03:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100
Post by Robin
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.  I'm fed up with the lycras around
here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.
And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"
will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..?
As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from
them - starting many years ago.
Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.
Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring
the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people
afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not -
so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method of
governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have no
time for it.
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/01/two-metre-rule-halves-chances-catching-coronavirus-first-major/>
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2020-06-02 10:35:11 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 10:03:14 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100
Post by Robin
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.  I'm fed up with the lycras around
here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.
And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"
will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..?
As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from
them - starting many years ago.
Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.
Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring
the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people
afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not
-
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method
of
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have
no
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
time for it.
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/01/two-metre-rule-halves-chances-catc
hing-coronavirus-first-major/>
Halving it from a 3% change of catching it in IIRC 15 mins down to 1.5% is
virtually irrelevant and certainly not worth thousands of businesses going
bust because of this stupid rule. Frankly I'm surprised retailers haven't just
given the goverment the finger and just ignore it since if I owned a business
that was on the verge of going bust if I didn't then whats to lose.
Certes
2020-06-02 10:54:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 10:03:14 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/01/two-metre-rule-halves-chances-catc
hing-coronavirus-first-major/>
Halving it from a 3% change of catching it in IIRC 15 mins down to 1.5% is
virtually irrelevant and certainly not worth thousands of businesses going
bust because of this stupid rule. Frankly I'm surprised retailers haven't just
given the goverment the finger and just ignore it since if I owned a business
that was on the verge of going bust if I didn't then whats to lose.
I haven't read the study[1] to see exactly how long one must remain 2 m
away to have a 3% chance of infection, but I imagine that those risks
add up quickly in a public-facing profession or social activity.

<www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext>;
hidden from those who funded it by Elsevier parasites
Clive D.W. Feather
2020-06-03 16:08:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Frankly I'm surprised retailers haven't just
given the goverment the finger and just ignore it since if I owned a business
that was on the verge of going bust if I didn't then whats to lose.
All your money. Not the company's - yours. All officers of the business
are subject to an unlimited fine.
--
Clive D.W. Feather
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2020-06-02 19:58:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100
Post by Robin
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.  I'm fed up with the lycras around
here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.
And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"
will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..?
As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from
them - starting many years ago.
Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.
Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring
the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people
afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not -
so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method of
governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have no
time for it.
Apparently K is the new number to be concerned about.

<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/k-number-what-is-coronavirus-metric-crucial-lockdown-eases>

K sheds light on the variation behind R. “Some [infectious] people might
generate a lot of secondary cases because of the event they attend, for
example, and other people may not generate many secondary cases at all,”
said Dr Adam Kucharski, an expert in the dynamics of infectious diseases at
the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

“K is the statistical value that tells us how much variation there is in
that distribution.”

But unlike R, K numbers are not intuitive. “The general rule is that the
smaller the K value is, the more transmission comes from a smaller number
of infectious people,” said Kucharski.

“Once K is above about five or 10 it tells you most people are generating
pretty similar numbers [of secondary cases], you are not getting these
super-spreading events. Once K is below one, you have got the potential for
super-spreading.”

Is K fixed, or does it fluctuate with public health measures, like R does?
As with the rate of transmission, there is a K value that relates to
transmission when you do not have any control measures in place. Once
measures are implemented, however, the distribution in transmission
changes. “It is unlikely that with lockdown measures in place you’d see a
lot of super-spreading events simply because there aren’t any opportunities
for them,” said Kucharski. “So if you were to analyse that data, you’d
probably calculate a different K value because you have got those control
measures changing the dynamics of interactions.”

What is the K number for Covid-19?
In the absence of public health measures, “the values that are coming out
for Covid-19 seems to be between about 0.1 and 0.5,” said Kucharski. That,
he says, means that in the early stages of an outbreak about 10-20% of
infections probably generate about 80% of the transmission.

In other words, super-spreading matters – a reality highlighted by reports
such as that from South Korea where one individual is thought to have
infected dozens of others by attending church.

But Kucharski cautioned against the use of the term super-spreader. “I
think we do have to be really careful about blaming people because often it
is not really much about the person, it is much more about the environment
they happened to be in while they were infectious,” he said.

Why is K important?
Knowing the K value helps to inform what sort of public health measures may
help to reduce R.

“If we can identify and reduce the situations that are disproportionately
driving transmission, then that suggests that we could actually have
potentially quite a lot less disruptive measures in place, but still keep
the reproduction number low,” said Kucharski.

But it could also be important for test-and-trace measures, he said. “If
cases occur at random, it’s very hard to track down and stop every chain of
transmission. But if cases cluster together, and we can identify those
clusters, testing and tracing directed at these situations could have a
disproportionate effect on reducing transmission.”

How might the relaxation of the lockdown affect K?
Lockdown reduces the chances of a single infectious person spreading the
disease to others. “Obviously if you start to allow larger gatherings, have
larger workplaces, if you have other types of interaction starting, then
that does increase the chance that one infection could spread to more
people than it would have been able to a couple of weeks ago,” said
Kucharski. “It could decrease the K, but it could also increase the R.”
MissRiaElaine
2020-06-02 21:42:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100
Post by Robin
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.  I'm fed up with the lycras around
here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.
And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"
will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..?
As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from
them - starting many years ago.
Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.
Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring
the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people
afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not -
so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method of
governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have no
time for it.
Apparently K is the new number to be concerned about.
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/k-number-what-is-coronavirus-metric-crucial-lockdown-eases>
K sheds light on the variation behind R. “Some [infectious] people might
generate a lot of secondary cases because of the event they attend, for
example, and other people may not generate many secondary cases at all,”
said Dr Adam Kucharski, an expert in the dynamics of infectious diseases at
the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
“K is the statistical value that tells us how much variation there is in
that distribution.”
But unlike R, K numbers are not intuitive. “The general rule is that the
smaller the K value is, the more transmission comes from a smaller number
of infectious people,” said Kucharski.
“Once K is above about five or 10 it tells you most people are generating
pretty similar numbers [of secondary cases], you are not getting these
super-spreading events. Once K is below one, you have got the potential for
super-spreading.”
Is K fixed, or does it fluctuate with public health measures, like R does?
As with the rate of transmission, there is a K value that relates to
transmission when you do not have any control measures in place. Once
measures are implemented, however, the distribution in transmission
changes. “It is unlikely that with lockdown measures in place you’d see a
lot of super-spreading events simply because there aren’t any opportunities
for them,” said Kucharski. “So if you were to analyse that data, you’d
probably calculate a different K value because you have got those control
measures changing the dynamics of interactions.”
What is the K number for Covid-19?
In the absence of public health measures, “the values that are coming out
for Covid-19 seems to be between about 0.1 and 0.5,” said Kucharski. That,
he says, means that in the early stages of an outbreak about 10-20% of
infections probably generate about 80% of the transmission.
In other words, super-spreading matters – a reality highlighted by reports
such as that from South Korea where one individual is thought to have
infected dozens of others by attending church.
But Kucharski cautioned against the use of the term super-spreader. “I
think we do have to be really careful about blaming people because often it
is not really much about the person, it is much more about the environment
they happened to be in while they were infectious,” he said.
Why is K important?
Knowing the K value helps to inform what sort of public health measures may
help to reduce R.
“If we can identify and reduce the situations that are disproportionately
driving transmission, then that suggests that we could actually have
potentially quite a lot less disruptive measures in place, but still keep
the reproduction number low,” said Kucharski.
But it could also be important for test-and-trace measures, he said. “If
cases occur at random, it’s very hard to track down and stop every chain of
transmission. But if cases cluster together, and we can identify those
clusters, testing and tracing directed at these situations could have a
disproportionate effect on reducing transmission.”
How might the relaxation of the lockdown affect K?
Lockdown reduces the chances of a single infectious person spreading the
disease to others. “Obviously if you start to allow larger gatherings, have
larger workplaces, if you have other types of interaction starting, then
that does increase the chance that one infection could spread to more
people than it would have been able to a couple of weeks ago,” said
Kucharski. “It could decrease the K, but it could also increase the R.”
R numbers, K numbers, X Y and Z numbers, I don't care, I've had enough.
I want my life back.
--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
Recliner
2020-06-02 22:37:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100
Post by Robin
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.  I'm fed up with the lycras around
here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.
And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"
will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..?
As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from
them - starting many years ago.
Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.
Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring
the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people
afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not -
so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method of
governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have no
time for it.
Apparently K is the new number to be concerned about.
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/k-number-what-is-coronavirus-metric-crucial-lockdown-eases>
K sheds light on the variation behind R. “Some [infectious] people might
generate a lot of secondary cases because of the event they attend, for
example, and other people may not generate many secondary cases at all,”
said Dr Adam Kucharski, an expert in the dynamics of infectious diseases at
the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
“K is the statistical value that tells us how much variation there is in
that distribution.”
But unlike R, K numbers are not intuitive. “The general rule is that the
smaller the K value is, the more transmission comes from a smaller number
of infectious people,” said Kucharski.
“Once K is above about five or 10 it tells you most people are generating
pretty similar numbers [of secondary cases], you are not getting these
super-spreading events. Once K is below one, you have got the potential for
super-spreading.”
Is K fixed, or does it fluctuate with public health measures, like R does?
As with the rate of transmission, there is a K value that relates to
transmission when you do not have any control measures in place. Once
measures are implemented, however, the distribution in transmission
changes. “It is unlikely that with lockdown measures in place you’d see a
lot of super-spreading events simply because there aren’t any opportunities
for them,” said Kucharski. “So if you were to analyse that data, you’d
probably calculate a different K value because you have got those control
measures changing the dynamics of interactions.”
What is the K number for Covid-19?
In the absence of public health measures, “the values that are coming out
for Covid-19 seems to be between about 0.1 and 0.5,” said Kucharski. That,
he says, means that in the early stages of an outbreak about 10-20% of
infections probably generate about 80% of the transmission.
In other words, super-spreading matters – a reality highlighted by reports
such as that from South Korea where one individual is thought to have
infected dozens of others by attending church.
But Kucharski cautioned against the use of the term super-spreader. “I
think we do have to be really careful about blaming people because often it
is not really much about the person, it is much more about the environment
they happened to be in while they were infectious,” he said.
Why is K important?
Knowing the K value helps to inform what sort of public health measures may
help to reduce R.
“If we can identify and reduce the situations that are disproportionately
driving transmission, then that suggests that we could actually have
potentially quite a lot less disruptive measures in place, but still keep
the reproduction number low,” said Kucharski.
But it could also be important for test-and-trace measures, he said. “If
cases occur at random, it’s very hard to track down and stop every chain of
transmission. But if cases cluster together, and we can identify those
clusters, testing and tracing directed at these situations could have a
disproportionate effect on reducing transmission.”
How might the relaxation of the lockdown affect K?
Lockdown reduces the chances of a single infectious person spreading the
disease to others. “Obviously if you start to allow larger gatherings, have
larger workplaces, if you have other types of interaction starting, then
that does increase the chance that one infection could spread to more
people than it would have been able to a couple of weeks ago,” said
Kucharski. “It could decrease the K, but it could also increase the R.”
R numbers, K numbers, X Y and Z numbers, I don't care, I've had enough.
I want my life back.
Yes, I think a growing number of people feel the same. Most people now
realise that the risk to them personally is extremely low, and they're
prepared to risk it, just as we (collectively) risk eating out, crossing
the road, eating unhealthily, drinking and/or smoking, using public
transport, climbing mountains, winter sports, etc, etc.
Sam Wilson
2020-06-03 06:40:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100
Post by Robin
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.  I'm fed up with the lycras around
here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.
And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"
will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..?
As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from
them - starting many years ago.
Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.
Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring
the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people
afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not -
so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method of
governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have no
time for it.
Apparently K is the new number to be concerned about.
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/k-number-what-is-coronavirus-metric-crucial-lockdown-eases>
K sheds light on the variation behind R. “Some [infectious] people might
generate a lot of secondary cases because of the event they attend, for
example, and other people may not generate many secondary cases at all,”
said Dr Adam Kucharski, an expert in the dynamics of infectious diseases at
the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
“K is the statistical value that tells us how much variation there is in
that distribution.”
But unlike R, K numbers are not intuitive. “The general rule is that the
smaller the K value is, the more transmission comes from a smaller number
of infectious people,” said Kucharski.
“Once K is above about five or 10 it tells you most people are generating
pretty similar numbers [of secondary cases], you are not getting these
super-spreading events. Once K is below one, you have got the potential for
super-spreading.”
Is K fixed, or does it fluctuate with public health measures, like R does?
As with the rate of transmission, there is a K value that relates to
transmission when you do not have any control measures in place. Once
measures are implemented, however, the distribution in transmission
changes. “It is unlikely that with lockdown measures in place you’d see a
lot of super-spreading events simply because there aren’t any opportunities
for them,” said Kucharski. “So if you were to analyse that data, you’d
probably calculate a different K value because you have got those control
measures changing the dynamics of interactions.”
What is the K number for Covid-19?
In the absence of public health measures, “the values that are coming out
for Covid-19 seems to be between about 0.1 and 0.5,” said Kucharski. That,
he says, means that in the early stages of an outbreak about 10-20% of
infections probably generate about 80% of the transmission.
In other words, super-spreading matters – a reality highlighted by reports
such as that from South Korea where one individual is thought to have
infected dozens of others by attending church.
But Kucharski cautioned against the use of the term super-spreader. “I
think we do have to be really careful about blaming people because often it
is not really much about the person, it is much more about the environment
they happened to be in while they were infectious,” he said.
Why is K important?
Knowing the K value helps to inform what sort of public health measures may
help to reduce R.
“If we can identify and reduce the situations that are disproportionately
driving transmission, then that suggests that we could actually have
potentially quite a lot less disruptive measures in place, but still keep
the reproduction number low,” said Kucharski.
But it could also be important for test-and-trace measures, he said. “If
cases occur at random, it’s very hard to track down and stop every chain of
transmission. But if cases cluster together, and we can identify those
clusters, testing and tracing directed at these situations could have a
disproportionate effect on reducing transmission.”
How might the relaxation of the lockdown affect K?
Lockdown reduces the chances of a single infectious person spreading the
disease to others. “Obviously if you start to allow larger gatherings, have
larger workplaces, if you have other types of interaction starting, then
that does increase the chance that one infection could spread to more
people than it would have been able to a couple of weeks ago,” said
Kucharski. “It could decrease the K, but it could also increase the R.”
R numbers, K numbers, X Y and Z numbers, I don't care, I've had enough.
I want my life back.
Yes, I think a growing number of people feel the same. Most people now
realise that the risk to them personally is extremely low, and they're
prepared to risk it, just as we (collectively) risk eating out, crossing
the road, eating unhealthily, drinking and/or smoking, using public
transport, climbing mountains, winter sports, etc, etc.
Then I’ll be staying home while the second wave happens.

Sam
--
The entity formerly known as ***@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply
Recliner
2020-06-03 07:44:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Recliner
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100
Post by Robin
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.  I'm fed up with the lycras around
here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.
And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"
will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..?
As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from
them - starting many years ago.
Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.
Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring
the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people
afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not -
so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method of
governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have no
time for it.
Apparently K is the new number to be concerned about.
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/k-number-what-is-coronavirus-metric-crucial-lockdown-eases>
K sheds light on the variation behind R. “Some [infectious] people might
generate a lot of secondary cases because of the event they attend, for
example, and other people may not generate many secondary cases at all,”
said Dr Adam Kucharski, an expert in the dynamics of infectious diseases at
the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
“K is the statistical value that tells us how much variation there is in
that distribution.”
But unlike R, K numbers are not intuitive. “The general rule is that the
smaller the K value is, the more transmission comes from a smaller number
of infectious people,” said Kucharski.
“Once K is above about five or 10 it tells you most people are generating
pretty similar numbers [of secondary cases], you are not getting these
super-spreading events. Once K is below one, you have got the potential for
super-spreading.”
Is K fixed, or does it fluctuate with public health measures, like R does?
As with the rate of transmission, there is a K value that relates to
transmission when you do not have any control measures in place. Once
measures are implemented, however, the distribution in transmission
changes. “It is unlikely that with lockdown measures in place you’d see a
lot of super-spreading events simply because there aren’t any opportunities
for them,” said Kucharski. “So if you were to analyse that data, you’d
probably calculate a different K value because you have got those control
measures changing the dynamics of interactions.”
What is the K number for Covid-19?
In the absence of public health measures, “the values that are coming out
for Covid-19 seems to be between about 0.1 and 0.5,” said Kucharski. That,
he says, means that in the early stages of an outbreak about 10-20% of
infections probably generate about 80% of the transmission.
In other words, super-spreading matters – a reality highlighted by reports
such as that from South Korea where one individual is thought to have
infected dozens of others by attending church.
But Kucharski cautioned against the use of the term super-spreader. “I
think we do have to be really careful about blaming people because often it
is not really much about the person, it is much more about the environment
they happened to be in while they were infectious,” he said.
Why is K important?
Knowing the K value helps to inform what sort of public health measures may
help to reduce R.
“If we can identify and reduce the situations that are disproportionately
driving transmission, then that suggests that we could actually have
potentially quite a lot less disruptive measures in place, but still keep
the reproduction number low,” said Kucharski.
But it could also be important for test-and-trace measures, he said. “If
cases occur at random, it’s very hard to track down and stop every chain of
transmission. But if cases cluster together, and we can identify those
clusters, testing and tracing directed at these situations could have a
disproportionate effect on reducing transmission.”
How might the relaxation of the lockdown affect K?
Lockdown reduces the chances of a single infectious person spreading the
disease to others. “Obviously if you start to allow larger gatherings, have
larger workplaces, if you have other types of interaction starting, then
that does increase the chance that one infection could spread to more
people than it would have been able to a couple of weeks ago,” said
Kucharski. “It could decrease the K, but it could also increase the R.”
R numbers, K numbers, X Y and Z numbers, I don't care, I've had enough.
I want my life back.
Yes, I think a growing number of people feel the same. Most people now
realise that the risk to them personally is extremely low, and they're
prepared to risk it, just as we (collectively) risk eating out, crossing
the road, eating unhealthily, drinking and/or smoking, using public
transport, climbing mountains, winter sports, etc, etc.
Then I’ll be staying home while the second wave happens.
Well, that's the big question that may shortly be answered: will it be a
big wave, comparable to the first, or just a much smaller ripple?

Clearly, most younger people expect just a ripple, while the scientists are
undecided. Personally, I think it'll just be a ripple, but we need to be
alert for a second wave. It would help if our test and trace capabilities
were as good as Hapless Hancock keeps telling us they are.

At least in London and the southeast, I think enough people are either not
susceptible, or now immune, that there will not be a big second wave, even
if all lockdown restrictions are lifted, and all businesses allowed to
reopen with some basic social distancing. Other parts of the country are a
few weeks further behind, and may want to wait a little longer. And, of
course, vulnerable people should continue to avoid crowded places.
m***@round-midnight.org.uk
2020-06-03 08:40:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Recliner
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100
Post by Robin
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.  I'm fed up with the lycras around
here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.
And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"
will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..?
As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from
them - starting many years ago.
Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.
Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring
the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people
afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not -
so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method of
governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have no
time for it.
Apparently K is the new number to be concerned about.
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/k-number-what-is-coronavirus-metric-crucial-lockdown-eases>
K sheds light on the variation behind R. “Some [infectious] people might
generate a lot of secondary cases because of the event they attend, for
example, and other people may not generate many secondary cases at all,”
said Dr Adam Kucharski, an expert in the dynamics of infectious diseases at
the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
“K is the statistical value that tells us how much variation there is in
that distribution.”
But unlike R, K numbers are not intuitive. “The general rule is that the
smaller the K value is, the more transmission comes from a smaller number
of infectious people,” said Kucharski.
“Once K is above about five or 10 it tells you most people are generating
pretty similar numbers [of secondary cases], you are not getting these
super-spreading events. Once K is below one, you have got the potential for
super-spreading.”
Is K fixed, or does it fluctuate with public health measures, like R does?
As with the rate of transmission, there is a K value that relates to
transmission when you do not have any control measures in place. Once
measures are implemented, however, the distribution in transmission
changes. “It is unlikely that with lockdown measures in place you’d see a
lot of super-spreading events simply because there aren’t any opportunities
for them,” said Kucharski. “So if you were to analyse that data, you’d
probably calculate a different K value because you have got those control
measures changing the dynamics of interactions.”
What is the K number for Covid-19?
In the absence of public health measures, “the values that are coming out
for Covid-19 seems to be between about 0.1 and 0.5,” said Kucharski. That,
he says, means that in the early stages of an outbreak about 10-20% of
infections probably generate about 80% of the transmission.
In other words, super-spreading matters – a reality highlighted by reports
such as that from South Korea where one individual is thought to have
infected dozens of others by attending church.
But Kucharski cautioned against the use of the term super-spreader. “I
think we do have to be really careful about blaming people because often it
is not really much about the person, it is much more about the environment
they happened to be in while they were infectious,” he said.
Why is K important?
Knowing the K value helps to inform what sort of public health measures may
help to reduce R.
“If we can identify and reduce the situations that are disproportionately
driving transmission, then that suggests that we could actually have
potentially quite a lot less disruptive measures in place, but still keep
the reproduction number low,” said Kucharski.
But it could also be important for test-and-trace measures, he said. “If
cases occur at random, it’s very hard to track down and stop every chain of
transmission. But if cases cluster together, and we can identify those
clusters, testing and tracing directed at these situations could have a
disproportionate effect on reducing transmission.”
How might the relaxation of the lockdown affect K?
Lockdown reduces the chances of a single infectious person spreading the
disease to others. “Obviously if you start to allow larger gatherings, have
larger workplaces, if you have other types of interaction starting, then
that does increase the chance that one infection could spread to more
people than it would have been able to a couple of weeks ago,” said
Kucharski. “It could decrease the K, but it could also increase the R.”
R numbers, K numbers, X Y and Z numbers, I don't care, I've had enough.
I want my life back.
Yes, I think a growing number of people feel the same. Most people now
realise that the risk to them personally is extremely low, and they're
prepared to risk it, just as we (collectively) risk eating out, crossing
the road, eating unhealthily, drinking and/or smoking, using public
transport, climbing mountains, winter sports, etc, etc.
Then I’ll be staying home while the second wave happens.
Well, that's the big question that may shortly be answered: will it be a
big wave, comparable to the first, or just a much smaller ripple?
Clearly, most younger people expect just a ripple, while the scientists are
undecided. Personally, I think it'll just be a ripple, but we need to be
alert for a second wave. It would help if our test and trace capabilities
were as good as Hapless Hancock keeps telling us they are.
At least in London and the southeast, I think enough people are either not
susceptible, or now immune, that there will not be a big second wave, even
if all lockdown restrictions are lifted, and all businesses allowed to
reopen with some basic social distancing. Other parts of the country are a
few weeks further behind, and may want to wait a little longer. And, of
course, vulnerable people should continue to avoid crowded places.
I have two friends who're nurses and the best way to describe them is
knackered. They need a few weeks R&R before the next onslaught, not a
week, a few weeks R&R so the ability of medial professionals to cope
should be a consideration. I fear Cummings' government regards them as
expendable collateral damage.

I accept that young people are at low risk of dying but they'll still
capable of spreading it on to those who're higher risk.
Recliner
2020-06-03 09:23:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Recliner
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100
Post by Robin
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.  I'm fed up with the lycras around
here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.
And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"
will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..?
As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from
them - starting many years ago.
Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.
Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring
the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people
afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not -
so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method of
governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have no
time for it.
Apparently K is the new number to be concerned about.
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/k-number-what-is-coronavirus-metric-crucial-lockdown-eases>
K sheds light on the variation behind R. “Some [infectious] people might
generate a lot of secondary cases because of the event they attend, for
example, and other people may not generate many secondary cases at all,”
said Dr Adam Kucharski, an expert in the dynamics of infectious diseases at
the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
“K is the statistical value that tells us how much variation there is in
that distribution.”
But unlike R, K numbers are not intuitive. “The general rule is that the
smaller the K value is, the more transmission comes from a smaller number
of infectious people,” said Kucharski.
“Once K is above about five or 10 it tells you most people are generating
pretty similar numbers [of secondary cases], you are not getting these
super-spreading events. Once K is below one, you have got the potential for
super-spreading.”
Is K fixed, or does it fluctuate with public health measures, like R does?
As with the rate of transmission, there is a K value that relates to
transmission when you do not have any control measures in place. Once
measures are implemented, however, the distribution in transmission
changes. “It is unlikely that with lockdown measures in place you’d see a
lot of super-spreading events simply because there aren’t any opportunities
for them,” said Kucharski. “So if you were to analyse that data, you’d
probably calculate a different K value because you have got those control
measures changing the dynamics of interactions.”
What is the K number for Covid-19?
In the absence of public health measures, “the values that are coming out
for Covid-19 seems to be between about 0.1 and 0.5,” said Kucharski. That,
he says, means that in the early stages of an outbreak about 10-20% of
infections probably generate about 80% of the transmission.
In other words, super-spreading matters – a reality highlighted by reports
such as that from South Korea where one individual is thought to have
infected dozens of others by attending church.
But Kucharski cautioned against the use of the term super-spreader. “I
think we do have to be really careful about blaming people because often it
is not really much about the person, it is much more about the environment
they happened to be in while they were infectious,” he said.
Why is K important?
Knowing the K value helps to inform what sort of public health measures may
help to reduce R.
“If we can identify and reduce the situations that are disproportionately
driving transmission, then that suggests that we could actually have
potentially quite a lot less disruptive measures in place, but still keep
the reproduction number low,” said Kucharski.
But it could also be important for test-and-trace measures, he said. “If
cases occur at random, it’s very hard to track down and stop every chain of
transmission. But if cases cluster together, and we can identify those
clusters, testing and tracing directed at these situations could have a
disproportionate effect on reducing transmission.”
How might the relaxation of the lockdown affect K?
Lockdown reduces the chances of a single infectious person spreading the
disease to others. “Obviously if you start to allow larger gatherings, have
larger workplaces, if you have other types of interaction starting, then
that does increase the chance that one infection could spread to more
people than it would have been able to a couple of weeks ago,” said
Kucharski. “It could decrease the K, but it could also increase the R.”
R numbers, K numbers, X Y and Z numbers, I don't care, I've had enough.
I want my life back.
Yes, I think a growing number of people feel the same. Most people now
realise that the risk to them personally is extremely low, and they're
prepared to risk it, just as we (collectively) risk eating out, crossing
the road, eating unhealthily, drinking and/or smoking, using public
transport, climbing mountains, winter sports, etc, etc.
Then I’ll be staying home while the second wave happens.
Well, that's the big question that may shortly be answered: will it be a
big wave, comparable to the first, or just a much smaller ripple?
Clearly, most younger people expect just a ripple, while the scientists are
undecided. Personally, I think it'll just be a ripple, but we need to be
alert for a second wave. It would help if our test and trace capabilities
were as good as Hapless Hancock keeps telling us they are.
At least in London and the southeast, I think enough people are either not
susceptible, or now immune, that there will not be a big second wave, even
if all lockdown restrictions are lifted, and all businesses allowed to
reopen with some basic social distancing. Other parts of the country are a
few weeks further behind, and may want to wait a little longer. And, of
course, vulnerable people should continue to avoid crowded places.
I have two friends who're nurses and the best way to describe them is
knackered. They need a few weeks R&R before the next onslaught, not a
week, a few weeks R&R so the ability of medial professionals to cope
should be a consideration. I fear Cummings' government regards them as
expendable collateral damage.
The Cummings era is at an end, and temporarily, Johnson has taken over from
him until the new Downing Street CEO, Simon Case, gets up to speed.
Cummings may hang around for a few months before slinking off to a think
tank, but his power has gone. He's morphed from consiglieri to clown in a
matter of days.

<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/06/02/exclusive-boris-johnson-takes-back-control-coronavirus-crisis/>
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
I accept that young people are at low risk of dying but they'll still
capable of spreading it on to those who're higher risk.
Not children. For some reason, they don't seem to spread it. And most
people under 70 are at very low risk of dying.

Consider the London borough of Brent, which has had the highest percentage
of excess deaths this year. Those excess deaths amount to 0.15% of the
population. So, even in the highest risk area, where an NHS hospital had to
declare an emergency, 99.85% did not die from the plague.

<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/02/revealed-coronavirus-death-toll-across-britain-many-excess/>
m***@round-midnight.org.uk
2020-06-03 09:43:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Recliner
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100
Post by Robin
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.  I'm fed up with the lycras around
here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.
And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"
will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..?
As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from
them - starting many years ago.
Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.
Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring
the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people
afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not -
so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method of
governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have no
time for it.
Apparently K is the new number to be concerned about.
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/k-number-what-is-coronavirus-metric-crucial-lockdown-eases>
K sheds light on the variation behind R. “Some [infectious] people might
generate a lot of secondary cases because of the event they attend, for
example, and other people may not generate many secondary cases at all,”
said Dr Adam Kucharski, an expert in the dynamics of infectious diseases at
the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
“K is the statistical value that tells us how much variation there is in
that distribution.”
But unlike R, K numbers are not intuitive. “The general rule is that the
smaller the K value is, the more transmission comes from a smaller number
of infectious people,” said Kucharski.
“Once K is above about five or 10 it tells you most people are generating
pretty similar numbers [of secondary cases], you are not getting these
super-spreading events. Once K is below one, you have got the potential for
super-spreading.”
Is K fixed, or does it fluctuate with public health measures, like R does?
As with the rate of transmission, there is a K value that relates to
transmission when you do not have any control measures in place. Once
measures are implemented, however, the distribution in transmission
changes. “It is unlikely that with lockdown measures in place you’d see a
lot of super-spreading events simply because there aren’t any opportunities
for them,” said Kucharski. “So if you were to analyse that data, you’d
probably calculate a different K value because you have got those control
measures changing the dynamics of interactions.”
What is the K number for Covid-19?
In the absence of public health measures, “the values that are coming out
for Covid-19 seems to be between about 0.1 and 0.5,” said Kucharski. That,
he says, means that in the early stages of an outbreak about 10-20% of
infections probably generate about 80% of the transmission.
In other words, super-spreading matters – a reality highlighted by reports
such as that from South Korea where one individual is thought to have
infected dozens of others by attending church.
But Kucharski cautioned against the use of the term super-spreader. “I
think we do have to be really careful about blaming people because often it
is not really much about the person, it is much more about the environment
they happened to be in while they were infectious,” he said.
Why is K important?
Knowing the K value helps to inform what sort of public health measures may
help to reduce R.
“If we can identify and reduce the situations that are disproportionately
driving transmission, then that suggests that we could actually have
potentially quite a lot less disruptive measures in place, but still keep
the reproduction number low,” said Kucharski.
But it could also be important for test-and-trace measures, he said. “If
cases occur at random, it’s very hard to track down and stop every chain of
transmission. But if cases cluster together, and we can identify those
clusters, testing and tracing directed at these situations could have a
disproportionate effect on reducing transmission.”
How might the relaxation of the lockdown affect K?
Lockdown reduces the chances of a single infectious person spreading the
disease to others. “Obviously if you start to allow larger gatherings, have
larger workplaces, if you have other types of interaction starting, then
that does increase the chance that one infection could spread to more
people than it would have been able to a couple of weeks ago,” said
Kucharski. “It could decrease the K, but it could also increase the R.”
R numbers, K numbers, X Y and Z numbers, I don't care, I've had enough.
I want my life back.
Yes, I think a growing number of people feel the same. Most people now
realise that the risk to them personally is extremely low, and they're
prepared to risk it, just as we (collectively) risk eating out, crossing
the road, eating unhealthily, drinking and/or smoking, using public
transport, climbing mountains, winter sports, etc, etc.
Then I’ll be staying home while the second wave happens.
Well, that's the big question that may shortly be answered: will it be a
big wave, comparable to the first, or just a much smaller ripple?
Clearly, most younger people expect just a ripple, while the scientists are
undecided. Personally, I think it'll just be a ripple, but we need to be
alert for a second wave. It would help if our test and trace capabilities
were as good as Hapless Hancock keeps telling us they are.
At least in London and the southeast, I think enough people are either not
susceptible, or now immune, that there will not be a big second wave, even
if all lockdown restrictions are lifted, and all businesses allowed to
reopen with some basic social distancing. Other parts of the country are a
few weeks further behind, and may want to wait a little longer. And, of
course, vulnerable people should continue to avoid crowded places.
I have two friends who're nurses and the best way to describe them is
knackered. They need a few weeks R&R before the next onslaught, not a
week, a few weeks R&R so the ability of medial professionals to cope
should be a consideration. I fear Cummings' government regards them as
expendable collateral damage.
The Cummings era is at an end, and temporarily, Johnson has taken over from
him until the new Downing Street CEO, Simon Case, gets up to speed.
Cummings may hang around for a few months before slinking off to a think
tank, but his power has gone. He's morphed from consiglieri to clown in a
matter of days.
Following Johnson's blind support for Cummings they've both got similar
support, or perhaps I should say contempt.
Post by Recliner
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/06/02/exclusive-boris-johnson-takes-back-control-coronavirus-crisis/>
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
I accept that young people are at low risk of dying but they'll still
capable of spreading it on to those who're higher risk.
Not children. For some reason, they don't seem to spread it. And most
people under 70 are at very low risk of dying.
Consider the London borough of Brent, which has had the highest percentage
of excess deaths this year. Those excess deaths amount to 0.15% of the
population. So, even in the highest risk area, where an NHS hospital had to
declare an emergency, 99.85% did not die from the plague.
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/02/revealed-coronavirus-death-toll-across-britain-many-excess/>
Recliner
2020-06-03 09:51:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Recliner
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100
Post by Robin
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.  I'm fed up with the lycras around
here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.
And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"
will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..?
As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from
them - starting many years ago.
Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.
Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring
the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people
afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not -
so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method of
governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have no
time for it.
Apparently K is the new number to be concerned about.
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/k-number-what-is-coronavirus-metric-crucial-lockdown-eases>
K sheds light on the variation behind R. “Some [infectious] people might
generate a lot of secondary cases because of the event they attend, for
example, and other people may not generate many secondary cases at all,”
said Dr Adam Kucharski, an expert in the dynamics of infectious diseases at
the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
“K is the statistical value that tells us how much variation there is in
that distribution.”
But unlike R, K numbers are not intuitive. “The general rule is that the
smaller the K value is, the more transmission comes from a smaller number
of infectious people,” said Kucharski.
“Once K is above about five or 10 it tells you most people are generating
pretty similar numbers [of secondary cases], you are not getting these
super-spreading events. Once K is below one, you have got the potential for
super-spreading.”
Is K fixed, or does it fluctuate with public health measures, like R does?
As with the rate of transmission, there is a K value that relates to
transmission when you do not have any control measures in place. Once
measures are implemented, however, the distribution in transmission
changes. “It is unlikely that with lockdown measures in place you’d see a
lot of super-spreading events simply because there aren’t any opportunities
for them,” said Kucharski. “So if you were to analyse that data, you’d
probably calculate a different K value because you have got those control
measures changing the dynamics of interactions.”
What is the K number for Covid-19?
In the absence of public health measures, “the values that are coming out
for Covid-19 seems to be between about 0.1 and 0.5,” said Kucharski. That,
he says, means that in the early stages of an outbreak about 10-20% of
infections probably generate about 80% of the transmission.
In other words, super-spreading matters – a reality highlighted by reports
such as that from South Korea where one individual is thought to have
infected dozens of others by attending church.
But Kucharski cautioned against the use of the term super-spreader. “I
think we do have to be really careful about blaming people because often it
is not really much about the person, it is much more about the environment
they happened to be in while they were infectious,” he said.
Why is K important?
Knowing the K value helps to inform what sort of public health measures may
help to reduce R.
“If we can identify and reduce the situations that are disproportionately
driving transmission, then that suggests that we could actually have
potentially quite a lot less disruptive measures in place, but still keep
the reproduction number low,” said Kucharski.
But it could also be important for test-and-trace measures, he said. “If
cases occur at random, it’s very hard to track down and stop every chain of
transmission. But if cases cluster together, and we can identify those
clusters, testing and tracing directed at these situations could have a
disproportionate effect on reducing transmission.”
How might the relaxation of the lockdown affect K?
Lockdown reduces the chances of a single infectious person spreading the
disease to others. “Obviously if you start to allow larger gatherings, have
larger workplaces, if you have other types of interaction starting, then
that does increase the chance that one infection could spread to more
people than it would have been able to a couple of weeks ago,” said
Kucharski. “It could decrease the K, but it could also increase the R.”
R numbers, K numbers, X Y and Z numbers, I don't care, I've had enough.
I want my life back.
Yes, I think a growing number of people feel the same. Most people now
realise that the risk to them personally is extremely low, and they're
prepared to risk it, just as we (collectively) risk eating out, crossing
the road, eating unhealthily, drinking and/or smoking, using public
transport, climbing mountains, winter sports, etc, etc.
Then I’ll be staying home while the second wave happens.
Well, that's the big question that may shortly be answered: will it be a
big wave, comparable to the first, or just a much smaller ripple?
Clearly, most younger people expect just a ripple, while the scientists are
undecided. Personally, I think it'll just be a ripple, but we need to be
alert for a second wave. It would help if our test and trace capabilities
were as good as Hapless Hancock keeps telling us they are.
At least in London and the southeast, I think enough people are either not
susceptible, or now immune, that there will not be a big second wave, even
if all lockdown restrictions are lifted, and all businesses allowed to
reopen with some basic social distancing. Other parts of the country are a
few weeks further behind, and may want to wait a little longer. And, of
course, vulnerable people should continue to avoid crowded places.
I have two friends who're nurses and the best way to describe them is
knackered. They need a few weeks R&R before the next onslaught, not a
week, a few weeks R&R so the ability of medial professionals to cope
should be a consideration. I fear Cummings' government regards them as
expendable collateral damage.
The Cummings era is at an end, and temporarily, Johnson has taken over from
him until the new Downing Street CEO, Simon Case, gets up to speed.
Cummings may hang around for a few months before slinking off to a think
tank, but his power has gone. He's morphed from consiglieri to clown in a
matter of days.
Following Johnson's blind support for Cummings they've both got similar
support, or perhaps I should say contempt.
Yes, I don't know if Johnson realised that by not immediately sacking the
Dom, he's now inherited Cummings' guilt. That will remain long after
Cummings has gone.

Presumably he was acting on advice from Cummings?

It shows the weakness of the Johnson team: a second-tier cabinet and only
one adviser that he listened to. Most previous PMs have been surrounded by
several key cabinet ministers, a good press secretary, and useful political
advisers.
m***@round-midnight.org.uk
2020-06-03 10:06:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Recliner
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100
Post by Robin
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.  I'm fed up with the lycras around
here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.
And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"
will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..?
As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from
them - starting many years ago.
Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.
Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring
the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people
afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not -
so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method of
governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have no
time for it.
Apparently K is the new number to be concerned about.
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/k-number-what-is-coronavirus-metric-crucial-lockdown-eases>
K sheds light on the variation behind R. “Some [infectious] people might
generate a lot of secondary cases because of the event they attend, for
example, and other people may not generate many secondary cases at all,”
said Dr Adam Kucharski, an expert in the dynamics of infectious diseases at
the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
“K is the statistical value that tells us how much variation there is in
that distribution.”
But unlike R, K numbers are not intuitive. “The general rule is that the
smaller the K value is, the more transmission comes from a smaller number
of infectious people,” said Kucharski.
“Once K is above about five or 10 it tells you most people are generating
pretty similar numbers [of secondary cases], you are not getting these
super-spreading events. Once K is below one, you have got the potential for
super-spreading.”
Is K fixed, or does it fluctuate with public health measures, like R does?
As with the rate of transmission, there is a K value that relates to
transmission when you do not have any control measures in place. Once
measures are implemented, however, the distribution in transmission
changes. “It is unlikely that with lockdown measures in place you’d see a
lot of super-spreading events simply because there aren’t any opportunities
for them,” said Kucharski. “So if you were to analyse that data, you’d
probably calculate a different K value because you have got those control
measures changing the dynamics of interactions.”
What is the K number for Covid-19?
In the absence of public health measures, “the values that are coming out
for Covid-19 seems to be between about 0.1 and 0.5,” said Kucharski. That,
he says, means that in the early stages of an outbreak about 10-20% of
infections probably generate about 80% of the transmission.
In other words, super-spreading matters – a reality highlighted by reports
such as that from South Korea where one individual is thought to have
infected dozens of others by attending church.
But Kucharski cautioned against the use of the term super-spreader. “I
think we do have to be really careful about blaming people because often it
is not really much about the person, it is much more about the environment
they happened to be in while they were infectious,” he said.
Why is K important?
Knowing the K value helps to inform what sort of public health measures may
help to reduce R.
“If we can identify and reduce the situations that are disproportionately
driving transmission, then that suggests that we could actually have
potentially quite a lot less disruptive measures in place, but still keep
the reproduction number low,” said Kucharski.
But it could also be important for test-and-trace measures, he said. “If
cases occur at random, it’s very hard to track down and stop every chain of
transmission. But if cases cluster together, and we can identify those
clusters, testing and tracing directed at these situations could have a
disproportionate effect on reducing transmission.”
How might the relaxation of the lockdown affect K?
Lockdown reduces the chances of a single infectious person spreading the
disease to others. “Obviously if you start to allow larger gatherings, have
larger workplaces, if you have other types of interaction starting, then
that does increase the chance that one infection could spread to more
people than it would have been able to a couple of weeks ago,” said
Kucharski. “It could decrease the K, but it could also increase the R.”
R numbers, K numbers, X Y and Z numbers, I don't care, I've had enough.
I want my life back.
Yes, I think a growing number of people feel the same. Most people now
realise that the risk to them personally is extremely low, and they're
prepared to risk it, just as we (collectively) risk eating out, crossing
the road, eating unhealthily, drinking and/or smoking, using public
transport, climbing mountains, winter sports, etc, etc.
Then I’ll be staying home while the second wave happens.
Well, that's the big question that may shortly be answered: will it be a
big wave, comparable to the first, or just a much smaller ripple?
Clearly, most younger people expect just a ripple, while the scientists are
undecided. Personally, I think it'll just be a ripple, but we need to be
alert for a second wave. It would help if our test and trace capabilities
were as good as Hapless Hancock keeps telling us they are.
At least in London and the southeast, I think enough people are either not
susceptible, or now immune, that there will not be a big second wave, even
if all lockdown restrictions are lifted, and all businesses allowed to
reopen with some basic social distancing. Other parts of the country are a
few weeks further behind, and may want to wait a little longer. And, of
course, vulnerable people should continue to avoid crowded places.
I have two friends who're nurses and the best way to describe them is
knackered. They need a few weeks R&R before the next onslaught, not a
week, a few weeks R&R so the ability of medial professionals to cope
should be a consideration. I fear Cummings' government regards them as
expendable collateral damage.
The Cummings era is at an end, and temporarily, Johnson has taken over from
him until the new Downing Street CEO, Simon Case, gets up to speed.
Cummings may hang around for a few months before slinking off to a think
tank, but his power has gone. He's morphed from consiglieri to clown in a
matter of days.
Following Johnson's blind support for Cummings they've both got similar
support, or perhaps I should say contempt.
Yes, I don't know if Johnson realised that by not immediately sacking the
Dom, he's now inherited Cummings' guilt. That will remain long after
Cummings has gone.
I've not thought of it that way. Thank you.
Post by Recliner
Presumably he was acting on advice from Cummings?
The suspicion has to be that they discussed how to deal with it and
Johnson followed his advise.
Post by Recliner
It shows the weakness of the Johnson team: a second-tier cabinet and only
one adviser that he listened to. Most previous PMs have been surrounded by
several key cabinet ministers, a good press secretary, and useful political
advisers.
The government was elected solely to give us Brexit with little or no
regard for anything else. The cabinet members and Johnsons' political
advisers were nominated for their extreme Brexit views above competence.
The government is actually not competent to deal with anything other
than Brexit and we've ended up with the mess we're in.

In addition the civil service and government does not have the capacity
to deal with both the virus and Brexit simultaneously.
Roland Perry
2020-06-03 12:46:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
The government was elected solely to give us Brexit with little or no
regard for anything else. The cabinet members and Johnsons' political
advisers were nominated for their extreme Brexit views above
competence. The government is actually not competent to deal with
anything other than Brexit
I see little evidence they are capable of that, either.
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
and we've ended up with the mess we're in.
In addition the civil service and government does not have the capacity
to deal with both the virus and Brexit simultaneously.
There should be completely separate teams dealing them. What has the
almost invisible Gove been doing the last couple of months?
--
Roland Perry
m***@round-midnight.org.uk
2020-06-03 13:21:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
The government was elected solely to give us Brexit with little or no
regard for anything else.  The cabinet members and Johnsons' political
advisers were nominated for their extreme Brexit views above
competence.  The government is actually not competent to deal with
anything other than Brexit
I see little evidence they are capable of that, eitherI could have phrased that better but you're correct
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
and we've ended up with the mess we're in.
In addition the civil service and government does not have the
capacity to deal with both the virus and Brexit simultaneously.
There should be completely separate teams dealing them. What has the
almost invisible Gove been doing the last couple of months?
I think they do but part of the Brexit team has been transferred to Covid.
Graeme Wall
2020-06-03 17:15:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Recliner
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100
Post by Robin
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they
are forcing
their decisions on other people.  I'm fed up with the
lycras around
here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom,
Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.
And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social
distancing"
will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..?
As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into
general usage from
them - starting many years ago.
Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather
more than 2m*.
Social distancing in its current form was simply another
method of scaring
the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc.
Making people
afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated),
sometimes not -
so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and
tested method of
governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti
democratic  and I have no
time for it.
Apparently K is the new number to be concerned about.
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/k-number-what-is-coronavirus-metric-crucial-lockdown-eases>
K sheds light on the variation behind R. “Some [infectious]
people might
generate a lot of secondary cases because of the event they attend, for
example, and other people may not generate many secondary
cases at all,”
said Dr Adam Kucharski, an expert in the dynamics of
infectious diseases at
the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
“K is the statistical value that tells us how much variation
there is in
that distribution.”
But unlike R, K numbers are not intuitive. “The general rule
is that the
smaller the K value is, the more transmission comes from a smaller number
of infectious people,” said Kucharski.
“Once K is above about five or 10 it tells you most people are
generating
pretty similar numbers [of secondary cases], you are not getting these
super-spreading events. Once K is below one, you have got the
potential for
super-spreading.”
Is K fixed, or does it fluctuate with public health measures,
like R does?
As with the rate of transmission, there is a K value that relates to
transmission when you do not have any control measures in place. Once
measures are implemented, however, the distribution in transmission
changes. “It is unlikely that with lockdown measures in place
you’d see a
lot of super-spreading events simply because there aren’t any
opportunities
for them,” said Kucharski. “So if you were to analyse that
data, you’d
probably calculate a different K value because you have got those control
measures changing the dynamics of interactions.”
What is the K number for Covid-19?
In the absence of public health measures, “the values that are
coming out
for Covid-19 seems to be between about 0.1 and 0.5,” said
Kucharski. That,
he says, means that in the early stages of an outbreak about 10-20% of
infections probably generate about 80% of the transmission.
In other words, super-spreading matters – a reality
highlighted by reports
such as that from South Korea where one individual is thought to have
infected dozens of others by attending church.
But Kucharski cautioned against the use of the term
super-spreader. “I
think we do have to be really careful about blaming people
because often it
is not really much about the person, it is much more about the
environment
they happened to be in while they were infectious,” he said.
Why is K important?
Knowing the K value helps to inform what sort of public health
measures may
help to reduce R.
“If we can identify and reduce the situations that are
disproportionately
driving transmission, then that suggests that we could actually have
potentially quite a lot less disruptive measures in place, but still keep
the reproduction number low,” said Kucharski.
But it could also be important for test-and-trace measures, he
said. “If
cases occur at random, it’s very hard to track down and stop
every chain of
transmission. But if cases cluster together, and we can identify those
clusters, testing and tracing directed at these situations could have a
disproportionate effect on reducing transmission.”
How might the relaxation of the lockdown affect K?
Lockdown reduces the chances of a single infectious person spreading the
disease to others. “Obviously if you start to allow larger
gatherings, have
larger workplaces, if you have other types of interaction starting, then
that does increase the chance that one infection could spread to more
people than it would have been able to a couple of weeks ago,” said
Kucharski. “It could decrease the K, but it could also
increase the R.”
R numbers, K numbers, X Y and Z numbers, I don't care, I've had enough.
I want my life back.
Yes, I think a growing number of people feel the same. Most people now
realise that the risk to them personally is extremely low, and they're
prepared to risk it, just as we (collectively) risk eating out, crossing
the road, eating unhealthily, drinking and/or smoking, using public
transport, climbing mountains, winter sports, etc, etc.
Then I’ll be staying home while the second wave happens.
Well, that's the big question that may shortly be answered: will it be a
big wave, comparable to the first, or just a much smaller ripple?
Clearly, most younger people expect just a ripple, while the scientists are
undecided. Personally, I think it'll just be a ripple, but we need to be
alert for a second wave. It would help if our test and trace capabilities
were as good as Hapless Hancock keeps telling us they are.
At least in London and the southeast, I think enough people are either not
susceptible, or now immune, that there will not be a big second wave, even
if all lockdown restrictions are lifted, and all businesses allowed to
reopen with some basic social distancing. Other parts of the country are a
few weeks further behind, and may want to wait a little longer. And, of
course, vulnerable people should continue to avoid crowded places.
I have two friends who're nurses and the best way to describe them is
knackered.  They need a few weeks R&R before the next onslaught, not a
week, a few weeks R&R so the ability of medial professionals to cope
should be a consideration.  I fear Cummings' government regards
them as
expendable collateral damage.
The Cummings era is at an end, and temporarily, Johnson has taken over from
him until the new Downing Street CEO, Simon Case, gets up to speed.
Cummings may hang around for a few months before slinking off to a think
tank, but his power has gone. He's morphed from consiglieri to clown in a
matter of days.
Following Johnson's blind support for Cummings they've both got similar
support, or perhaps I should say contempt.
Yes, I don't know if Johnson realised that by not immediately sacking the
Dom, he's now inherited Cummings' guilt. That will remain long after
Cummings has gone.
I've not thought of it that way.  Thank you.
Post by Recliner
Presumably he was acting on advice from Cummings?
The suspicion has to be that they discussed how to deal with it and
Johnson followed his advise.
Post by Recliner
It shows the weakness of the Johnson team: a second-tier cabinet and only
one adviser that he listened to. Most previous PMs have been
surrounded by
several key cabinet ministers, a good press secretary, and useful political
advisers.
The government was elected solely to give us Brexit with little or no
regard for anything else.  The cabinet members and Johnsons' political
advisers were nominated for their extreme Brexit views above competence.
 The government is actually not competent to deal with anything other
than Brexit and we've ended up with the mess we're in.
Unfortunately they are not competent to deal with Brexit either.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Graeme Wall
2020-06-03 17:14:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Recliner
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100
Post by Robin
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.  I'm fed up with the lycras around
here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.
And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"
will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..?
As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from
them - starting many years ago.
Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.
Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring
the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people
afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not -
so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method of
governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have no
time for it.
Apparently K is the new number to be concerned about.
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/k-number-what-is-coronavirus-metric-crucial-lockdown-eases>
K sheds light on the variation behind R. “Some [infectious] people might
generate a lot of secondary cases because of the event they attend, for
example, and other people may not generate many secondary cases at all,”
said Dr Adam Kucharski, an expert in the dynamics of infectious diseases at
the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
“K is the statistical value that tells us how much variation there is in
that distribution.”
But unlike R, K numbers are not intuitive. “The general rule is that the
smaller the K value is, the more transmission comes from a smaller number
of infectious people,” said Kucharski.
“Once K is above about five or 10 it tells you most people are generating
pretty similar numbers [of secondary cases], you are not getting these
super-spreading events. Once K is below one, you have got the potential for
super-spreading.”
Is K fixed, or does it fluctuate with public health measures, like R does?
As with the rate of transmission, there is a K value that relates to
transmission when you do not have any control measures in place. Once
measures are implemented, however, the distribution in transmission
changes. “It is unlikely that with lockdown measures in place you’d see a
lot of super-spreading events simply because there aren’t any opportunities
for them,” said Kucharski. “So if you were to analyse that data, you’d
probably calculate a different K value because you have got those control
measures changing the dynamics of interactions.”
What is the K number for Covid-19?
In the absence of public health measures, “the values that are coming out
for Covid-19 seems to be between about 0.1 and 0.5,” said Kucharski. That,
he says, means that in the early stages of an outbreak about 10-20% of
infections probably generate about 80% of the transmission.
In other words, super-spreading matters – a reality highlighted by reports
such as that from South Korea where one individual is thought to have
infected dozens of others by attending church.
But Kucharski cautioned against the use of the term super-spreader. “I
think we do have to be really careful about blaming people because often it
is not really much about the person, it is much more about the environment
they happened to be in while they were infectious,” he said.
Why is K important?
Knowing the K value helps to inform what sort of public health measures may
help to reduce R.
“If we can identify and reduce the situations that are disproportionately
driving transmission, then that suggests that we could actually have
potentially quite a lot less disruptive measures in place, but still keep
the reproduction number low,” said Kucharski.
But it could also be important for test-and-trace measures, he said. “If
cases occur at random, it’s very hard to track down and stop every chain of
transmission. But if cases cluster together, and we can identify those
clusters, testing and tracing directed at these situations could have a
disproportionate effect on reducing transmission.”
How might the relaxation of the lockdown affect K?
Lockdown reduces the chances of a single infectious person spreading the
disease to others. “Obviously if you start to allow larger gatherings, have
larger workplaces, if you have other types of interaction starting, then
that does increase the chance that one infection could spread to more
people than it would have been able to a couple of weeks ago,” said
Kucharski. “It could decrease the K, but it could also increase the R.”
R numbers, K numbers, X Y and Z numbers, I don't care, I've had enough.
I want my life back.
Yes, I think a growing number of people feel the same. Most people now
realise that the risk to them personally is extremely low, and they're
prepared to risk it, just as we (collectively) risk eating out, crossing
the road, eating unhealthily, drinking and/or smoking, using public
transport, climbing mountains, winter sports, etc, etc.
Then I’ll be staying home while the second wave happens.
Well, that's the big question that may shortly be answered: will it be a
big wave, comparable to the first, or just a much smaller ripple?
Clearly, most younger people expect just a ripple, while the scientists are
undecided. Personally, I think it'll just be a ripple, but we need to be
alert for a second wave. It would help if our test and trace capabilities
were as good as Hapless Hancock keeps telling us they are.
At least in London and the southeast, I think enough people are either not
susceptible, or now immune, that there will not be a big second wave, even
if all lockdown restrictions are lifted, and all businesses allowed to
reopen with some basic social distancing. Other parts of the country are a
few weeks further behind, and may want to wait a little longer. And, of
course, vulnerable people should continue to avoid crowded places.
I have two friends who're nurses and the best way to describe them is
knackered. They need a few weeks R&R before the next onslaught, not a
week, a few weeks R&R so the ability of medial professionals to cope
should be a consideration. I fear Cummings' government regards them as
expendable collateral damage.
The Cummings era is at an end, and temporarily, Johnson has taken over from
him until the new Downing Street CEO, Simon Case, gets up to speed.
Cummings may hang around for a few months before slinking off to a think
tank, but his power has gone. He's morphed from consiglieri to clown in a
matter of days.
Following Johnson's blind support for Cummings they've both got similar
support, or perhaps I should say contempt.
Yes, I don't know if Johnson realised that by not immediately sacking the
Dom, he's now inherited Cummings' guilt. That will remain long after
Cummings has gone.
Presumably he was acting on advice from Cummings?
It shows the weakness of the Johnson team: a second-tier cabinet and only
one adviser that he listened to. Most previous PMs have been surrounded by
several key cabinet ministers, a good press secretary, and useful political
advisers.
I suspect his current press secretary is still banging his head against
the wall.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Recliner
2020-06-03 20:28:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Recliner
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100
Post by Robin
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.  I'm fed up with the lycras around
here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.
And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"
will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..?
As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from
them - starting many years ago.
Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.
Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring
the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people
afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not -
so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method of
governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have no
time for it.
Apparently K is the new number to be concerned about.
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/k-number-what-is-coronavirus-metric-crucial-lockdown-eases>
K sheds light on the variation behind R. “Some [infectious] people might
generate a lot of secondary cases because of the event they attend, for
example, and other people may not generate many secondary cases at all,”
said Dr Adam Kucharski, an expert in the dynamics of infectious diseases at
the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
“K is the statistical value that tells us how much variation there is in
that distribution.”
But unlike R, K numbers are not intuitive. “The general rule is that the
smaller the K value is, the more transmission comes from a smaller number
of infectious people,” said Kucharski.
“Once K is above about five or 10 it tells you most people are generating
pretty similar numbers [of secondary cases], you are not getting these
super-spreading events. Once K is below one, you have got the potential for
super-spreading.”
Is K fixed, or does it fluctuate with public health measures, like R does?
As with the rate of transmission, there is a K value that relates to
transmission when you do not have any control measures in place. Once
measures are implemented, however, the distribution in transmission
changes. “It is unlikely that with lockdown measures in place you’d see a
lot of super-spreading events simply because there aren’t any opportunities
for them,” said Kucharski. “So if you were to analyse that data, you’d
probably calculate a different K value because you have got those control
measures changing the dynamics of interactions.”
What is the K number for Covid-19?
In the absence of public health measures, “the values that are coming out
for Covid-19 seems to be between about 0.1 and 0.5,” said Kucharski. That,
he says, means that in the early stages of an outbreak about 10-20% of
infections probably generate about 80% of the transmission.
In other words, super-spreading matters – a reality highlighted by reports
such as that from South Korea where one individual is thought to have
infected dozens of others by attending church.
But Kucharski cautioned against the use of the term super-spreader. “I
think we do have to be really careful about blaming people because often it
is not really much about the person, it is much more about the environment
they happened to be in while they were infectious,” he said.
Why is K important?
Knowing the K value helps to inform what sort of public health measures may
help to reduce R.
“If we can identify and reduce the situations that are disproportionately
driving transmission, then that suggests that we could actually have
potentially quite a lot less disruptive measures in place, but still keep
the reproduction number low,” said Kucharski.
But it could also be important for test-and-trace measures, he said. “If
cases occur at random, it’s very hard to track down and stop every chain of
transmission. But if cases cluster together, and we can identify those
clusters, testing and tracing directed at these situations could have a
disproportionate effect on reducing transmission.”
How might the relaxation of the lockdown affect K?
Lockdown reduces the chances of a single infectious person spreading the
disease to others. “Obviously if you start to allow larger gatherings, have
larger workplaces, if you have other types of interaction starting, then
that does increase the chance that one infection could spread to more
people than it would have been able to a couple of weeks ago,” said
Kucharski. “It could decrease the K, but it could also increase the R.”
R numbers, K numbers, X Y and Z numbers, I don't care, I've had enough.
I want my life back.
Yes, I think a growing number of people feel the same. Most people now
realise that the risk to them personally is extremely low, and they're
prepared to risk it, just as we (collectively) risk eating out, crossing
the road, eating unhealthily, drinking and/or smoking, using public
transport, climbing mountains, winter sports, etc, etc.
Then I’ll be staying home while the second wave happens.
Well, that's the big question that may shortly be answered: will it be a
big wave, comparable to the first, or just a much smaller ripple?
Clearly, most younger people expect just a ripple, while the scientists are
undecided. Personally, I think it'll just be a ripple, but we need to be
alert for a second wave. It would help if our test and trace capabilities
were as good as Hapless Hancock keeps telling us they are.
At least in London and the southeast, I think enough people are either not
susceptible, or now immune, that there will not be a big second wave, even
if all lockdown restrictions are lifted, and all businesses allowed to
reopen with some basic social distancing. Other parts of the country are a
few weeks further behind, and may want to wait a little longer. And, of
course, vulnerable people should continue to avoid crowded places.
I have two friends who're nurses and the best way to describe them is
knackered. They need a few weeks R&R before the next onslaught, not a
week, a few weeks R&R so the ability of medial professionals to cope
should be a consideration. I fear Cummings' government regards them as
expendable collateral damage.
The Cummings era is at an end, and temporarily, Johnson has taken over from
him until the new Downing Street CEO, Simon Case, gets up to speed.
Cummings may hang around for a few months before slinking off to a think
tank, but his power has gone. He's morphed from consiglieri to clown in a
matter of days.
Following Johnson's blind support for Cummings they've both got similar
support, or perhaps I should say contempt.
Yes, I don't know if Johnson realised that by not immediately sacking the
Dom, he's now inherited Cummings' guilt. That will remain long after
Cummings has gone.
Presumably he was acting on advice from Cummings?
It shows the weakness of the Johnson team: a second-tier cabinet and only
one adviser that he listened to. Most previous PMs have been surrounded by
several key cabinet ministers, a good press secretary, and useful political
advisers.
I suspect his current press secretary is still banging his head against
the wall.
He's so low key, I had to look up who it was: one Rob Oxley, who appears to
be a real lightweight, appointed mainly for his right-wing Brexit
credentials, rather than any senior press experience. He's certainly no
Bernard Ingham, Alastair Campbell, Damian McBride or Andy Coulson.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Oxley>

So, in effect, that's been another role performed by the Dom, who's known
to regularly leak policies and bad news about ministers to the press. I'm
sure he's the one who's been bad-mouthing Hapless Hancock, who looks a lot
more confident now.
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2020-06-03 08:23:14 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 22:37:20 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by MissRiaElaine
R numbers, K numbers, X Y and Z numbers, I don't care, I've had enough.
I want my life back.
The R number is a method of blinding the plebs with science. It sounds
complex and technical therefor it must be true. Shame it bears little
resemblence to actual reality.
Post by Recliner
Yes, I think a growing number of people feel the same. Most people now
realise that the risk to them personally is extremely low, and they're
prepared to risk it, just as we (collectively) risk eating out, crossing
the road, eating unhealthily, drinking and/or smoking, using public
transport, climbing mountains, winter sports, etc, etc.
Exactly. Its time to start treating people as adults once more. The longer
they continue to treat us as children the less respect they'll command. Its
pretty obvious given whats happening on beaches that a large proportion of
the public no longer give a stuff about anything the government says and thats
not a good situation for a government to be in. But with the continuation of
2m distancing and Priti Useless Patel pushing her 14 day quarantine I fear
they're just not listening.
Sam Wilson
2020-06-03 12:15:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 22:37:20 -0000 (UTC)
Post by MissRiaElaine
R numbers, K numbers, X Y and Z numbers, I don't care, I've had enough.
I want my life back.
The R number is a method of blinding the plebs with science. It sounds
complex and technical therefor it must be true. Shame it bears little
resemblence to actual reality.
Having looked a little bit at the simulations it looks as though they’ve
chosen R as the simplest measure to explain how infections spread. If
people can’t understand how the R measure works there’s no point in trying
to explain what really happens, whether people want to be treated as adults
or not.

Sam
--
The entity formerly known as ***@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply
Rolf Mantel
2020-06-03 09:22:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
How might the relaxation of the lockdown affect K?
Lockdown reduces the chances of a single infectious person spreading the
disease to others. “Obviously if you start to allow larger gatherings, have
larger workplaces, if you have other types of interaction starting, then
that does increase the chance that one infection could spread to more
people than it would have been able to a couple of weeks ago,” said
Kucharski. “It could decrease the K, but it could also increase the R.”
Examples in Germany since lockdown was relaxed:

Church Service (Russian/German Church) Frankfurt: 140+ infected
Root cause: no masks and singing (legal in Hessen)
Church Service (Russian/German Church) Bremerhaven: 100+ infected
Supposedly masks were worn and no singing
Private family event in Restaurant Leer: 40+ infected
Sweet Festival several large families Göttingen: 100+ infected
Root cause: private use of Shisha bar with shared mouthpiece (several
distancing laws broken, people refused to appear for ordered testing)

All of these events did *not* lead to a increased follow-up infections
because as soon as one person goes to hospital, several hundred contacts
are tested and caught.

The extremely low K value in COVID-19 gives us hope that there is little
undetected spreading.

Rolf
tim...
2020-06-01 18:37:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people. I'm fed up with the lycras around here
who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry to
force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.
And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"
will get a slap.
I with you on that :-)

tim
Clive D.W. Feather
2020-06-03 16:05:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.  I'm fed up with the lycras around here
who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us.
In the case of the government, that's what we elected them to do.
--
Clive D.W. Feather
Charles Ellson
2020-06-03 16:57:12 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 17:05:07 +0100, "Clive D.W. Feather"
Post by Clive D.W. Feather
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.  I'm fed up with the lycras around here
who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us.
In the case of the government, that's what we elected them to do.
FSVO "We".
MissRiaElaine
2020-06-03 18:23:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clive D.W. Feather
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.  I'm fed up with the lycras around here
who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us.
In the case of the government, that's what we elected them to do.
I voted because I consider it my civic duty to do so. I did not vote to
be talked down to like I am 10 years old and on the naughty step.

I will not be told do this do that do the other, I left school in the
70's and I am perfectly capable of weighing up the risks of doing
something or not.
--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
Loading...