Skybluefaz
Well-Known Member
Clear as mud. My postcode is medium and high
Coronavirus Thread (Off Topic, Politics) (33 Viewers)
- Thread starter BackRoomRummermill
- Start date
Clear as mud. My postcode is medium and high
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
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?
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
But overall it’s the lowest category and that is medium. Lol
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
What a surprise. Wonder how much money has been blown on this.
www.theguardian.com
Again this is something where we seem to be trying to reinvent the wheel. There's tests already available that give rapid results, although they are less accurate than the swab tests. The theory is if you do enough of them you will detect any outbreak and if you then having a working track and trace you can target the more accurate swab tests at the right people.
'Operation Moonshot': doubts over UK's Covid test ambitions after trial scaled back
Salford saliva-testing scheme revised to focus on ‘high-risk environments and groups’
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
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
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
Philosorapter
Well-Known Member
I would expect for teachers to be part of key-workers philosophy because of the mandatory educational needs for all.
Universities offer a service and receive payment, in my opinion two separate things.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
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.
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
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
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.
Already had my Mum on the phone in a panic as I put the app on her phone and she's had the same alert. Click through for more information and it takes you to pages and pages of stuff.
Why do that when the reality is we're at the lowest level and nothing has changed? Causing panic and worry for no reason.
Sick Boy
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
Ccfcisparks
Well-Known Member
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.
Philosorapter
Well-Known Member
Good luck..
Ccfcisparks
Well-Known Member
Appreciate that mate. Its annoying and inconvenient, but I guess it was inevitable and always going to happen eventually.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
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)
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.
Last edited:
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
NI appear to be shutting down everything bar universities, which are advised to go online. Retail stays open.
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
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
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?
And maybe we need another next year in February/March time. But better that than the huge huge swathes of time off. If we can muddle through to summer when schools and universities break, then (hopefully! Yes, I know I'm being naive!) we can actually have a plan in place for this time next year.
That being said, i fear we've missed our window.
Philosorapter
Well-Known Member
Just doesn't sit right with me that people will lose Individual Rights so commerce can still tick over and not take a hit.
Priorities seem to be in the wrong place.
Last edited:
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
He’s pretty though so a lot of middle aged broadsheet women writers go mushy.
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.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
People who don't believe in dinosaurs take more decisive action than the tories
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
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
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Can we just have a national gap year?
“Labour would be doing it too! Only they’d ensure all the children were white!”
“Labour would be doing it too! Only they’d ensure all the children were white!”
Philosorapter
Well-Known Member
I've always liked the idea of a Deity that has buried fossils to look millions of years old just to confuse the hell out of Palentologists or such like.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
And my wife’s distance learning masters
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.
The solution in the specific situation of the unis could be something like a bail out using low interest loans. Move as much online as possible and provide funding to fill the gap left by students who choose to take a gap year. Those students will be back next year and in the mean time the money not spent on them now can be used to move more courses online. Future proofs the unis and provides more flexibility for students. If it’s low interest loans it also salves the tories fear of giving money to people they’re not related to.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
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
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
To me the main issue seems to be that the government are welded to American libertarian ideology. They cannot bear the thought of handing out money. Yet the risk of not doing so will be long term damage to every sector which will reduce tax revenue for years. There is this constant false choice between lockdown/lives and the economy. The economy is fucked if the virus runs rampant anyway.
Agree, we have, the system should be better and also better adhered to
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
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.
Friend of mine live in Nashville, has a teenage daughter at high school. They have been told they will be entirely online until 2021 at the earliest and were told that in the summer. They are starting back with the youngest years in elementary schools and going a year at a time. Waiting long enough to see if there's any impact on infection rates.
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.
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.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
On most degrees in many universities, just about every student will need access to those facilities, if they're to have the same level that they signed up for.
Had a little dig around and got the answers to one of my questions so thought I’d share. It will push the virus back 28 days if it’s well adhered to - still not sure about how this would work with Unis though
‘While the experts said the circuit breaker could push the epidemic back 28 days if it was well adhered to, they said multiple circuit-breaks might be necessary to keep cases low into the winter.’
From this Covid: ministers ignored Sage advice to impose lockdown or face catastrophe
As I’ve said, if it’s implemented to protect nhs capacity (this will differ locally across all regions though) or to buy time for imminent vaccine, I’m in and reckon most would grudgingly buy into it as well. If not, many won’t. Polling is massively in favour but the public is being asked a binary question suggesting a one off circuit break to solve the problem.... it’s far more complex than that (which I know you and some others here appreciate not sure everyone does though )
ps everyone see the London palladium packed out...WTF!!!
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Agree with everything in that post but especially this. Problem at the moment is they want to prioritise the economy without telling people they're happy to sacrifice them. So we're stuck in this middle ground where we have one of the highest death rates and one of the biggest economic impacts.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
Most universities have (or are in the process of) their libraries online now. They just scan the books and you log in to the library portal and read the books on your screen.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
I can safely say, in the universities I have direct experience of (and one in particular is certainly not low down the league table) the need to use the facilities is justified academically.
Now, there are things you can do to mitigate that, but it would not be physically possible to do the degrees (feeble arts ones) in the manner they were sold, without access to those facilities.
It isn't as simple as just throw everything online. if you're going to do that, you need financial recompense and, as that would leave a hole in universities funding, that needs government to plug the gap.
