D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Does Starmer's proposal involve keeping universities, as well as schools, open? It just seems nonsensical to shut everything down, bar the two biggest transmitters!
tbf, schools seem the major centre of transmission.
Some info here on how different activities affect the R rate, may be of interest.
The frustrating thing about this is uni education is by far the easiest to move online. Fewer contact hours, motivated students, more resources. Decision to send them back feels largely based on keeping accommodation providers happy.Some info here on how different activities affect the R rate, may be of interest.
What they're doing is exactly what members of Sage were saying here in interviews over the summer. If you want to open schools something else will need to close to compensate. Of course that was ignored and we tried to open everything up and came up against another 'nobody could have predicted this' situation.Oh for fuck sake Northern Ireland, close all non-essential businesses before closing schools. Bunch of right wing assholes.
Can't find the link now but I saw some tweets from an Epidemiologist, think from the University of Southampton, after Van Tam said kids under 16 weren't impacting transmission. She was saying that the data he was basing this on actually shows that primary school kids show limited transmission. From 11 onwards the transmission rate rises rapidly.Excellent find.
But overall it’s the lowest category and that is medium. Lol
Can't find the link now but I saw some tweets from an Epidemiologist, think from the University of Southampton, after Van Tam said kids under 16 weren't impacting transmission. She was saying that the data he was basing this on actually shows that primary school kids show limited transmission. From 11 onwards the transmission rate rises rapidly.
Also pointed out that if, by his own claim, U16s weren't an issue shouldn't 6th forms, universities etc be closed?
The frustrating thing about this is uni education is by far the easiest to move online. Fewer contact hours, motivated students, more resources. Decision to send them back feels largely based on keeping accommodation providers happy.
Use of libraries, equipment, labs, studios. None of that's available online.I’m content for schools to stay open and that’s a decision that adds to infection as Shmmee says. The uni one is interesting and needs some explaining for me. Why couldn’t it all have been done on line. Without an answer it’s easy to assume it was so unis and landlords didn’t lose out on their money. Not wrong but let’s be clear. Their money was prioritised over keeping the r below 1.
I think it’s clear our plan is to keep the r around 1 and protect more vulnerable people and wait for the vaccine or treatment. Which could be more than 12 months away still. New Zealand and other successful countries in this has been to eradicate the virus from their countries.
I wonder if we will have a change of mindset
Does Starmer's proposal involve keeping universities, as well as schools, open? It just seems nonsensical to shut everything down, bar the two biggest transmitters!
There's a lot of competition but this is one if the dumbest things they've done. Introduce a new tier system then ping an alert to anyone who has the app installed telling them their risk has changed and, at best, its now minimum.
Open University does all of this digitally. Admittedly, normal uni couldn’t not be expected to achieve that over the summer but they could go some way to replicating it and postpone some aspects of learning. The courses that really require regular interaction could be on site while and be smaller bubbles rather than cramming them into halls with other students who could easily be working from home.Use of libraries, equipment, labs, studios. None of that's available online.
There appears to be, in some unis at least, little attempt to limit opening of those places, although you do at least need to book your time to visit in advance.
Just been told that one of the warehouse managers I did a stocktake at last Wednesday has tested positive. Looks like a week of self isolation and seeing if I develop any symptoms.
Appreciate that mate. Its annoying and inconvenient, but I guess it was inevitable and always going to happen eventually.Good luck..
It probably wouldn't be the only one, but a number of short, sharp ones is probably better than one massive break, for longer. Also easier to get people to comply, if they see their exit in 2-3 weeks. Think of it a bit like the three day weeks in the 70s - not great, not ideal, but a necessary evil. (I feel obliged to point out I'm talking the idea of forced time off, rather than circumstance around it, before I get the whatabboutery)Spot on NW, to be fair I think he’s saying if it’s done quick it will coincide with half term. I’m all for Starmer putting forward an alternative plan and as this is what Sage appears to have advised (and what still might actually happen), he can’t really lose, however, and this isn’t me being argumentative, has anyone seen answers to the following:
How far do Sage reckon the R rate would reduce during and 2-3 week circuit break ?
As people have already been advised to WFH the largest reduction Sage have indicated (from what I’ve read) appears to be universities and moving them to online learning (R rate reduction of 0.5), what happens to them during and after the circuit break ?
How long after the break would it take for the R rate to return to current levels ? Id imagine there is no way this would be a one off and the uncertainty of future circuit breaks will make it impossible for a lot of businesses
Why take a national lockdown approach when there are large parts of the country with relatively low infection rates ? (and are also at varying stages of the current wave - isn’t this the issue they flagged with coming out of lockdown too early last time due to London rates significantly improving but NW’s not ?)
The minutes also say some of the proposed interventions will be needed ‘throughout winter’. They also acknowledge that some of their proposals more than others will have a detrimental impact on society, the economy (probably hitting poorest worse) etc
If the 2-3 week circuit break sorted the problem, or if it was needed as there was genuine concern over nhs capacity, I’m in, 100%, however, I’d want to know the answers to the above. Basically, Sage are shitting it because they fucked it the first time (initial herd immunity, advice on masks etc) so will err on the side of caution from now on and know their advice will become public. I’m not blaming Sage by the way, it’s a new virus so views/advice will change as more is known and ultimately any decision is the governments
ps appreciate the above won’t be popular, just my thoughts and genuine questions though
It probably wouldn't be the only one, but a number of short, sharp ones is probably better than one massive break, for longer. Also easier to get people to comply, if they see their exit in 2-3 weeks. Think of it a bit like the three day weeks in the 70s - not great, not ideal, but a necessary evil.
Make it national partly because places currently lower will soon rise up, so squash them fully. Also, if you live in one area and work in another, it creates confusion with different rules - better to shut everything down and people can understand, and buy in.
The shift then comes to regulations after the break, which might mean some areas staying in stricter measures for longer - but have them stricter.
If Starmer is saying it coincides with half term (which is what I thought he said, just we were tacking an extra week or two on to half term!) then I'm a lot more willing to buy in myself! There's got to be some flexibility with moving holiday slots around this year, I feel. Naturally this may well have a knock-on effect on tourism, but we know that, so we need to factor that in. Of course, one knock on effect is people take any breaks at more staggered times, so it's easier for those places to cope!
Think you're being unfair on Sage. They appear to be adapting to the evidence, and learning from last time. That's a strength. Dogmatically following the same path regardless of evidence isn't.
It's inevitable it won't fix it, merely mitigate it, but better one now, and one over Christmas (when people tend to take time off, anyway) then a big massive lockdown from mid November through to end February, surely?I did say I’m not blaming Sage and obviously opinions/views change over time, however, I do think they will be extra cautious from now on due to mistakes made earlier on. It’s relatively easy for them (and others) to say ‘lockdown’, they won’t be picking up the pieces
ps I’d also prefer a 2-3 week short lockdown rather than a longer one, just concerned it won’t do the desired job (or will only have a short term impact) - hope I’m wrong as I reckon it will happen
NI appear to be shutting down everything bar universities, which are advised to go online. Retail stays open.
Where has this myth about Sunak being competent come from? It is an incredibly superficial. From what I can see he's got no original thought, just wedded to the same orthodoxy that saw the country in a mess before Covid.
Comical listening to Jenrick on LBC trying to explain what counts as a meal. Going to a pub and having a pasty and pint is out, going to the pub and having a pasty that comes with salad and a pint absolutely fine.
The frustrating thing about this is uni education is by far the easiest to move online. Fewer contact hours, motivated students, more resources. Decision to send them back feels largely based on keeping accommodation providers happy.
Oh for fuck sake Northern Ireland, close all non-essential businesses before closing schools. Bunch of right wing assholes.
Good leadership often means not being afraid of not being liked. Considering the government is obsessed with being liked and testing public opinion, it’s a sure fire sign that they don’t even have great confidence in themselves. Taking unpopular decisions at the time that turn out to the correct would be far better for them, unfortunately they probably don’t even realise that.
It's strange because half the fuck wits in this country would still like them if they were beating puppies to death with clubs made from the bones of children they'd murdered
People who don't believe in dinosaurs take more decisive action than the tories
And my wife’s distance learning mastersOpen University does all of this digitally. Admittedly, normal uni couldn’t not be expected to achieve that over the summer but they could go some way to replicating it and postpone some aspects of learning. The courses that really require regular interaction could be on site while and be smaller bubbles rather than cramming them into halls with other students who could easily be working from home.
Think you’ve summed up one of the main issues here with these two points. The effectiveness of every measure is drastically reduced by trying to keep a donor/influential sector happy. At some point somebody has to take a hit or every part of the economy damaged while killing more of the public. It’s a no win solution to a problem that needn’t exist.There is literally no way to define this that doesn’t end up with locals selling single crisps with a pint or whatever. In trying to keep Tim Martin happy they’ve fucked themselves
I wonder if the Unis themselves didn’t have something to say about it. I expect a lot of students told to work from home online would have chosen a gap year and lead to a massive funding crisis in the sector.
There really is no way through this that I can see that doesn’t involve either paying a large chunk of people to stay at home in one form or another, or telling half the country you’re sacrificing them for the economic good.
The problem with reducing the r rate when there’s 20,000 infections a day is it still means there’s a lot of people being infected. It’s why test isolate and trace is not the only but one of the biggest tools in the bag and it’s criminal it’s not better
When infections were tiny the r rate at 1 could be ok cause there were only a tiny amount of infections then.
We’ve fucked up
That's exactly it, all about the money. There are students who have been asking for their timetables prior to returning and being told they weren't ready, when they went back they were then told the course would be entirely online. But they were also told that if they left their accommodation and didn't pay their rent they risked being kicked off the course.The uni one is interesting and needs some explaining for me. Why couldn’t it all have been done on line. Without an answer it’s easy to assume it was so unis and landlords didn’t lose out on their money. Not wrong but let’s be clear. Their money was prioritised over keeping the r below 1.
If anyone was under the impression that the university sector and the 'everyone must go to uni' attitude was about education rather than profit the current situation has surely proved otherwise.Universities offer a service and receive payment, in my opinion two separate things.
A lot of things can be done online. You can do an entire degree online. The obvious thing to do would have been move everything that can be done online over and then just have back the number of students who genuinely need access to onsite facilities. With the reduction in numbers onsite you could easily timetable things to minimise numbers onsite at any one time.Use of libraries, equipment, labs, studios. None of that's available online.
There appears to be, in some unis at least, little attempt to limit opening of those places, although you do at least need to book your time to visit in advance.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?