[tomtom]

The mixed messaging from the Govt this morning is terrible..... (Ali k's post arrived at the same time..)

"Groups of more than 6 to be banned (inside and outside)"
Actually - they are ALREADY banned - its just that fines can only be dished out to groups of more than 30... everyone (including parts of my family much to my surprise) seems to think up to 30 is fine at the moment... ffs..

Now Hapless Hanccok is saying "Too many people getting CV19 tests are not elligible" (because the system can't cope).
Ahem - arent these EXACTLY the people you need to test with TTI to pick up possible outbreaks/spreads? His message tells people not to bother getting tested if they are not sure - when it should be "if in doubt get a test". Good grief...

[AJM]

"Groups of more than 6 to be banned (inside and outside)"
Actually - they are ALREADY banned - its just that fines can only be dished out to groups of more than 30... everyone (including parts of my family much to my surprise) seems to think up to 30 is fine at the moment... ffs..

30 is the law, 6 is the guidance, up until Monday, right? The reason they can't fine you is that it's discouraged but legal.

I think this may be indicative of the weight people put on guidance and perhaps a shift from people doing things because they think they should to people doing things that the law requires - going the extra mile versus minimum compliance...

[spidermonkey09]

The testing issue is appalling. It feels like the system is a week at most away from falling over completely. I don't know why I'm remotely surprised.

The rhetoric on 'young people need to stop gathering' alongside 'go to work, take public transport and make sure you go to Pret at lunchtime' is a disgrace. This government is only interested in the public's social activity lining the pockets of shareholders. Anything else is considered surplus to economic requirements. Clearly if things are bad (and Whitty/Vallance/Van Tam) seem to think so, a proper lockdown and extension of the furlough scheme will be necessary, just like everything else in the world. Trying to keep people working while telling them their personal freedoms are restricted cannot last. 

[nai]

The mixed messaging from the Govt this morning is terrible..... (Ali k's post arrived at the same time..)

"Groups of more than 6 to be banned (inside and outside)"
Actually - they are ALREADY banned - its just that fines can only be dished out to groups of more than 30... everyone (including parts of my family much to my surprise) seems to think up to 30 is fine at the moment... ffs..

It's a slight tweak isn't it, previously you all members of one household could meet with all members of another household, so no limit on numbers, just use good old British common sense

From https://www.gov.uk/guidance/meeting-people-from-outside-your-household-from-4-july

You should:
only socialise indoors with members of up to 2 households ‒ this includes when dining out or going to the pub
   
socialise outdoors in a group of up to 6 people from different households or up to 2 households (anyone in your support bubble counts as one household)

[Nutty]

"Groups of more than 6 to be banned (inside and outside)"
Actually - they are ALREADY banned - its just that fines can only be dished out to groups of more than 30... everyone (including parts of my family much to my surprise) seems to think up to 30 is fine at the moment... ffs..

30 is the law, 6 is the guidance, up until Monday, right? The reason they can't fine you is that it's discouraged but legal.

I think this may be indicative of the weight people put on guidance and perhaps a shift from people doing things because they think they should to people doing things that the law requires - going the extra mile versus minimum compliance...

I think people were following the guidance generally, then a certain government advisor (and the entire cabinet in backing him up) basically argued that following guidance is for schmucks and you're fine as long as nobody can prove you broke the law. Guess what? Everyone now ignores guidance.

[Yossarian]

I’ve been back from France for nearly 2 weeks. Of the 7 people I know who came back around the same time, only one has been contacted by the quarantine gestapo. She got a succession of text messages and then a couple of phone calls.

I think it’s bizarre in that if they’re using an automated system to text people then to contact everyone would be simpler than picking people at random. 

Also, Border Force at Calais asked whether we’d done the form (I hadn’t but was going to do it on the ferry) - they insisted that it HAD to be ready to be scanned and scrutinised before we left Dover. When we got there we followed various signs indicating “quarantine tracking checks ahead” (or something like that). Cue a bloke in hi-viz waving everyone through. I thought this was a one-off as it was late at night, but apparently everyone else had the same. If you’d chosen to play dumb and not fill the form in then there would be no record of your trip.

[Will Hunt]

Cue a bloke in hi-viz waving everyone through. I thought this was a one-off as it was late at night, but apparently everyone else had the same.

It's almost as if extra checks at border points lead to lengthy queues which the port authorities don't want to deal with. I'm sure that's relevant to something else in the news. 

[gme]

The rhetoric on 'young people need to stop gathering' alongside 'go to work, take public transport and make sure you go to Pret at lunchtime' is a disgrace. This government is only interested in the public's social activity lining the pockets of shareholders. Anything else is considered surplus to economic requirements.

What utter bollocks. Work, public transport, pret etc and also climbing walls, gyms, pubs etc. Are all things that can be managed and controlled. Peoples houses are not ( which is a good thing) and it appears that many people can’t be trusted to follow the rules.

Are climbing walls open just to line shareholders pockets. No.

The economy is important whether you like it or not as it pays for everything. It therefore comes higher up the list than family gatherings.

[spidermonkey09]

What utter bollocks. Work, public transport, pret etc and also climbing walls, gyms, pubs etc. Are all things that can be managed and controlled. Peoples houses are not ( which is a good thing) and it appears that many people can’t be trusted to follow the rules.

Are climbing walls open just to line shareholders pockets. No.

The economy is important whether you like it or not as it pays for everything. It therefore comes higher up the list than family gatherings.

We're yet to see any actual evidence that family gatherings are causing the spike; just the governments word. They know it to be true but are avoiding releasing the evidence proving it; quelle surprise. Forgive me for not being convinced.

You have repeatedly said on these forums that all the pubs and cafes you have visited have been managed and controlled, which is convenient as it neatly fits with your pro-business view. Thats obviously good if thats the case, and I have been to a good number which have good systems, but I've also been to a good number which haven't had systems full stop, never mind good ones. Your contention that 60 people inside a pub is managed but 7 people in a house isn't doesn't stand up to me I'm afraid. I'm perfectly willing to admit that my worldview does not prioritise business and their interests, so perhaps thats where the difference lies.

Of course walls opening is not solely for shareholders but its not controversial or even unexpected that the government is prioritising certain sectors which are friendly towards them; eg pubs. Does anyone seriously think opening these in the way they did was a good idea? I'm caught betwixt and between because I am simultaneously glad they're open (and intend to visit!) while also not being convinced they should be.

I don't have the answers, no one does, but I do object to the crashing difference in rhetoric between ' go to the pub, heres a voucher, spend spend spend' and 'don't have a few friends round.' Its obvious that the risk exists for both and for the government to pretend otherwise is so dishonest. Its that which I object to more than the policy itself. If they presented it as 'this is a sacrifice we need to make to keep schools open' I would probably be more onside.

[spidermonkey09]

I think it’s bizarre in that if they’re using an automated system to text people then to contact everyone would be simpler than picking people at random. 

Presumably this is just a pricing issue; cheaper to only send a few texts rather than 1000s. presumably this job has been outsourced to someone so they will have a contract to contact a certain number of people?

[Paul B]

We're yet to see any actual evidence that family gatherings are causing the spike; just the governments word. They know it to be true but are avoiding releasing the evidence proving it; quelle surprise. Forgive me for not being convinced.

You have repeatedly said on these forums that all the pubs and cafes you have visited have been managed and controlled, which is convenient as it neatly fits with your pro-business view. Thats obviously good if thats the case, and I have been to a good number which have good systems, but I've also been to a good number which haven't had systems full stop, never mind good ones. Your contention that 60 people inside a pub is managed but 7 people in a house isn't doesn't stand up to me I'm afraid. I'm perfectly willing to admit that my worldview does not prioritise business and their interests, so perhaps thats where the difference lies.

The health secretary blamed the rise 'partly due to socialising by people in their 20s and 30s' and the virus spreading 'significantly' at a number of pubs, discovered by contact tracing.

source: https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/bolton-pubs-restaurants-ordered-shut-18898660

[gme]

My view may come over as being totally business focused but it’s not the case. I look at everything as a whole not just coronavirus related and I feel that the economy and education  should be prioritised as they have longer term issues if they fail than people not being able to get together in groups greater than 6.

Any business that does not manage the situation properly looses the right to operate and should be closed.

It’s your assumption that the government makes its decision based on shareholder pressure that got my goat. A vast majority of businesses are not tax dodging behemoths and are just wanting to survive this.

[spidermonkey09]

It’s your assumption that the government makes its decision based on shareholder pressure that got my goat. A vast majority of businesses are not tax dodging behemoths and are just wanting to survive this.

Yep, I absolutely agree. I do think though, that even in a pub where there are solid systems in place, having 60 people in a building is an obvious risk. The pubs in Bolton which Paul linked to might have been like this; we don't know. A bit of honesty from the government would go a long way I think. Instead they have turned the cannon onto a demographic that doesn't vote for them because they know they have fucked it, and any semblance of investigation makes it plain. Its arse covering plain and simple.

I don't actually disagree with your view of prioritising education; thats top of my list too. Where the economy can be safely opened I agree with that too, but all the evidence of which sectors were allowed to open first screams of backhands and favours being granted. The fact there is no extended furlough scheme in place yet for sectors which still aren't open is mental; other countries do it so there is no reason why we can't. Its this which leads me to conclude that the government is making decisions on an ideological 'economy first and fuck everything else' basis rather than what is actually best for the country and the people. I don't mean completely safe either because clearly that would involve doing nothing for years.

[James Malloch]

The fact there is no extended furlough scheme in place yet for sectors which still aren't open is mental; other countries do it so there is no reason why we can't. Its this which leads me to conclude that the government is making decisions on an ideological 'economy first and fuck everything else' basis rather than what is actually best for the country and the people.

I think, added to this, is just the shite that gets spouted day-to-day. One minister talks about widespread rapid testing soon. Another says this will allow 24hr Covid passes meaning people can visit places like theaters. SAGE says 24hr passes are unlikely as the organisation needed for it would be so complex.

Ideas just seem to be spouted on the hoof in interviews with no thought to whether it's actually likely to happen or the additional contradictory information being given to the poor sods who are trying to work out how they can stop their arts venues from closing.

I've seen very little evidence of ministerial competence in such scenarios.

Where I do think it's gone, largely, well is the travel corridor list. Yes it changes frequently but the risks of it changing are well known, decisions are made quickly and have some evidence backing the decisions/changes.

Most other things just seem a mess...

[James Malloch]

Does anyone have a view on how risky air travel is? Some studies I've seen have said that given air is changed frequently and goes through some heat filter, the risk is actually quite low, perhaps unless you're in the immediate vicinity of someone.

I'm not able to work from abroad now which makes visiting family harder as we have tied in holiday/work to make a 3-4 days of travel (driving) justifiable.

The change in rules about remote working has scuppered our plans for next week...

[petejh]

Most of the arguments around the issue of policy/guidance/law seem to me to involve so much political posturing by people with agendas. I don't have strong opinions on any of the above, except that I have a vague fuzzy half-formed view that the current hazard from damage to the economy currently seems to be a greater short, medium and long term risk to the public than the current risk to the public of suffering a bad outcome from covid.

My thinking is along the lines of what is the current likelihood of:
a. me catching covid
b. me dying/becoming seriously ill from covid
c. me spreading covid to someone I love
d. them dying/becoming seriously ill from covid
e. me spreading covid to someone else
f. them dying/becoming seriously ill from covid

...
a. apparently currently very low.. somewhere around 1:25,000 population-wide according to David Spiegelhalter today. compare that to other serious health issues - cancer, heart attack, stroke, diabetes - and I think I'm correct in saying that in many cases the risk of a bad outcome from covid is comparable or less.
b. less than 3% (assuming becoming one of the currently 1-in-25,000 who catches covid)
c. less than 'a'
therefore d, e and f should be less than 'a' but difficult to say for higher-risk people in old age, especially over 80?


But I'd be interested in hearing others' opinions on the risk figures as I'm likely to be incorrect.


edit: for clarity

[Oldmanmatt]

Most of the arguments around the issue of policy/guidance/law seem to me to involve so much political posturing by people with agendas. I don't have strong opinions on any of the above, except that I have a vague fuzzy half-formed view that the current hazard from damage to the economy currently seems to be a greater short, medium and long term risk to the public than the current risk to the public of suffering a bad outcome from covid.

My thinking is along the lines of what is the current likelihood of:
a. me catching covid
b. me dying/becoming seriously ill from covid
c. me spreading covid to someone I love
d. them dying/becoming seriously ill from covid
e. me spreading covid to someone else
f. them dying/becoming seriously ill from covid

...
a. apparently currently very low.. somewhere around 1:25,000 population-wide according to David Spiegelhalter today. compare that to other serious health issues - cancer, heart attack, stroke, diabetes - and I think I'm correct in saying that in many cases the risk is comparable or less.
b. less than 3% (assuming becoming one of the currently 1-in-25,000 who catches covid)
c. less than 'a'
therefore d, e and f should be less than 'a' but difficult to say for higher-risk people in old age, especially over 80?


But I'd be interested in hearing others' opinions on the risk figures as I'm likely to be incorrect.

Yes.

This.

However, “this” a. changes when prevalence in the community changes. Increase the prevalence and all the other risks rise. Including your personal risk, if (yes, I know, “if”) the viral load is a factor in outcome.

So, trying to control that prevalence of infection seems sensible. It seems logical to assume that an all out, rampant, infection rate would be more harmful economically, in short, medium and long term, than sporadic shut downs of limited duration.
Frankly, what ever causes infection rates to rise in an unmanageable manner, logically should be suspended, regardless of peoples attachment to it. Covid might not have an Ebola level of lethality, but let it run free and I think you’d find the results pretty devastating. From what I understand, it’s rather similar to Polio, in many ways. Talking to those who remember those outbreaks, it was pretty awful.
Covid just seems to affect a population that society has less sympathy for...

[tomtom]

Front testing UK last week was running at 20 new cases per 100000 people. Or 1 per 5000 people. That’s new cases.

So assuming this is an underestimate of the actual number - and that’s new infections not people with it. Let’s say that’s actually 1 in 500-1000 people.

This will also be skewed by demographics - with more in younger people at the moment. So let’s say it’s twice as likely in those 15-40 years old.

So 1 in 250 to 500 people you meet age 15-40 are likely to have it. 

I’ve no intention of going to the wall (maybe at very quiet times), Pub or eating out - because I think those odds are more than I’d chance.

What odds would you take (of death) for catching a flight Pete? (Or anyone else) Genuinely interested - serious Q. It’s not something we think about often!

[petejh]

I suppose first I'd need to compare with what are the current odds, in a world without Covid, of death from flying? A quick google reveals the approximate odds of being in a plane crash are 1 in 54 million. I'm assuming 'death from flying' = plane crash.. I'm assuming you don't die of eating the chicken sandwich or peanut allergy..

[petejh]

And then try to think about the increased odds from flying in a world with Covid, at its current prevalence..

Air travel likely to involve a majority of people under 60, I'd guess. People willing to fly are probably more likely to be risk-takers than risk-averse (in a 'willing to risk catching Covid' sense). So people who fly on average probably have a higher likelihood to have Covid at that point in time, than the average for their age-group.


Pfff.. dunno.. so many variables!

[Oldmanmatt]

I suppose first I'd need to compare with what are the current odds, in a world without Covid, of death from flying? A quick google reveals the approximate odds of being in a plane crash are 1 in 54 million. I'm assuming 'death from flying' = plane crash.. I'm assuming you don't die of eating the chicken sandwich or peanut allergy..

People always choose flying as a “risky” activity, but it’s pretty safe as modes of transport go.
Pick riding a Motorbike instead. On the road.


Ultimately, though, it’s a misleading comparison, because you have the choice to ride or not. Because you have some control over when and how. Because you cannot (easily) “spread” your motorcycle accident to a potentially very large number of other people.
These things, should, make attitudes to such a risk far more personal, than should be the case for a risk that affects a much larger proportion of society.

[tomtom]

My question is what risk (of dying) by getting on a flight do you think is reasonable to you. Not what the stats are - not riding a bike. What chance of you kaarking it on a flight to Kalymnos to do some bolt clipping would you deem acceptable?

[James Malloch]

My thinking is along the lines of what is the current likelihood of:
a. me catching covid
b. me dying/becoming seriously ill from covid
c. me spreading covid to someone I love
d. them dying/becoming seriously ill from covid
e. me spreading covid to someone else
f. them dying/becoming seriously ill from covid

My thoughts are basically the same as this - though I've not put any numbers to it. When we have visited high-risk family we've either doing it in an outdoor space whilst maintaining social distancing, or where we've stayed over (i.e. visiting family abroad for a period of time) we have self-isolated (other than walking in the countryside) for 2 weeks in advance. I.e. try to make it so our journey is the highest-risk aspect.

First time we drove (via an overnight ferry) and basically stayed in our room and only interacted with anyone when buying diesel. Now the only real way to visit is flying and we're trying to work out whether it's sensible bearing in mind: 1) we don't want to catch COVID ourselves, and 2) if we passed it on we would give it to high-risk family.

We've assumed that driving is safer than the eurostar/train option, and that in turn is safer than flying. However this article suggests that maybe flying is lower risk than we thought. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2252152-how-likely-are-you-to-be-infected-by-the-coronavirus-on-a-flight/

I guess this just made me start thinking that we have been comfortable with the level of risk if we were to travel via train, so therefore should we be happy with the risk of travelling via plane as well. The fact we'd be visiting and staying with an ill relative means we're very conscious about contracting it ourselves.

The reason for asking was more to see if there was thoughts or evidence about flying that we're not aware of which would inform decisions further.

Edit:

We've also been happy to visit some local restaurants (which put social distancing in place), but the article saying that flying could be less risky than this also made me start to think what's right.

[gme]

What do you class as meet?  Pass in the street, go to the same bar but sit outside, share a bus with, shake hands or give a great big snog.

Unless it’s the 1st I have not been in contact with 250 people in the last six months

[tomtom]

What do you class as meet?  Pass in the street, go to the same bar but sit outside, share a bus with, shake hands or give a great big snog.

Unless it’s the 1st I have not been in contact with 250 people in the last six months

Thats the unknown isnt it...

Does being in the same pub/restaraunt/wall for 1-2 hours as someone with it count... or not...? Does being stood behind someone coughing at the supermarket que count more than the above..

Anyway - its clearly spreading - so 'in general' as a population we are meeting up/socialising (facilitating its spread) more than we can if we want to stop its spread...