RugbyRebels

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: I mean any detail could be used as a distraction from his main point, which is to follow Sage's advice and have a short lockdown. Political liability as in any detailed point he made could be attacked in isolation.

But I'm still not understanding what details you want him to come up with. He doesn't have Sage, he's not at Cobra, he doesn't have the department of Health, how can he give a detailed plan?

I didn't ask for a detailed plan, simply more detail.

So what happens if the R number doesn't drop inside 2 weeks because it's already too prevalent in certain communities and given lockdowns take seemingly much longer to take effect than virus spread in 'normal' conditions? How much more lockdown above tier 2/3? What will happen to track and trace and other services to reap any benefits of the circuit break?...

If he's got no answers to any of that fine, but at that point don't set out the commencement of an entirely different policy during a pandemic. He's not a bloke down the pub venting, he's the leader of the official opposition and what he says matters

He's saying we should follow a different plan. You want him to give more details. How is that not asking for a detailed plan? But okay, if you prefer, simply more detail.

Are you seriously expecting him to give a long speech detailing exactly what should happen in a number of different contingencies? More detail than Sage has given, and all without direct access to Sage or other experts? To be honest, it would be irresponsible to attempt to do this without expert advice. All he is doing is saying to follow the scientific advice.

And from a politics point of view, he's just following the government's example in keeping the message simple. Why bog people down with details (which would be risky to give anyway) when a broad strokes message is more effective?

You say that what the leader of the opposition say matters. Presumably because it might affect understanding, confidence and/or compliance in the government's plan? Starmer has been pretty supportive of the government's strategy (if not the execution) to date, at least partly for these reasons (to the dismay of many Labour supporters). But at some point, if the strategy appears to be harmful to the country as it repeats the same mistake of delaying the inevitable as in March, then deviating from the government strategy seems to me to be the right thing to do.

What he's done I consider irresponsible if all that's all he's willing to set out. I'm not unsympathetic to the idea if government policy is deemed to be too harmful a divergence is required but not just a call to head off down difference unidentified tracks. I just don't set such a pathetically low bar for those holding or wanting to hold high office to clear.

Granted many others are often seemingly content with a pathetically low bar

I see that Lancashire has now gone into phase 3 lockdown.
Of course, it's a completely different phase 3 than Merseyside's phase 3...

Which is precisely what the new 3 phase system was explicitly designed to prevent (as was the previous 5 phase system, that was directly contradicted within a few hours of being introduced).



Tell me again how it's all the public's fault for failing to understand such a simple, consistent message

Which Tyler wrote:I see that Lancashire has now gone into phase 3 lockdown.
Of course, it's a completely different phase 3 than Merseyside's phase 3...

Which is precisely what the new 3 phase system was explicitly designed to prevent (as was the previous 5 phase system, that was directly contradicted within a few hours of being introduced).



Tell me again how it's all the public's fault for failing to understand such a simple, consistent message

Once certain powers are transferred back locally to Manchester and Liverpool the local lockdowns will look very similar, and the HMG have already agreed to the extra funding for the Mancs and Scouseland as they've already given to the Tory led Lancashsire council.

I was on a conference call earlier with representatives from a government department and they were assuring us honestly they were still seeking a deal with the EU right as Boris made the announcement we'd go with no deal and it was okay because we knew change was coming and we've got 10 weeks to prepare. To say they got the multiple business leaders ranting at them was slightly amusing, and they deserved it as they kept talking about risk and mitigation without a sodding clue what they were talking about even before Boris undermined their bullshit

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote: I didn't ask for a detailed plan, simply more detail.

So what happens if the R number doesn't drop inside 2 weeks because it's already too prevalent in certain communities and given lockdowns take seemingly much longer to take effect than virus spread in 'normal' conditions? How much more lockdown above tier 2/3? What will happen to track and trace and other services to reap any benefits of the circuit break?...

If he's got no answers to any of that fine, but at that point don't set out the commencement of an entirely different policy during a pandemic. He's not a bloke down the pub venting, he's the leader of the official opposition and what he says matters

He's saying we should follow a different plan. You want him to give more details. How is that not asking for a detailed plan? But okay, if you prefer, simply more detail.

Are you seriously expecting him to give a long speech detailing exactly what should happen in a number of different contingencies? More detail than Sage has given, and all without direct access to Sage or other experts? To be honest, it would be irresponsible to attempt to do this without expert advice. All he is doing is saying to follow the scientific advice.

And from a politics point of view, he's just following the government's example in keeping the message simple. Why bog people down with details (which would be risky to give anyway) when a broad strokes message is more effective?

You say that what the leader of the opposition say matters. Presumably because it might affect understanding, confidence and/or compliance in the government's plan? Starmer has been pretty supportive of the government's strategy (if not the execution) to date, at least partly for these reasons (to the dismay of many Labour supporters). But at some point, if the strategy appears to be harmful to the country as it repeats the same mistake of delaying the inevitable as in March, then deviating from the government strategy seems to me to be the right thing to do.

What he's done I consider irresponsible if all that's all he's willing to set out. I'm not unsympathetic to the idea if government policy is deemed to be too harmful a divergence is required but not just a call to head off down difference unidentified tracks. I just don't set such a pathetically low bar for those holding or wanting to hold high office to clear.

Granted many others are often seemingly content with a pathetically low bar

I guess we'll have to disagree on the amount of detail we expect from our opposition. I doubt that Starmer would enjoy scientists arguing over which of his details is actually a good idea. His strategy would be attacked at its weakest point, any errors would be mocked endlessly - he'd lose credibility.

I guess it's not really a surprise, but still, Jesus:

21,331 new cases and 241 new deaths in the United Kingdom today.

Europe is going to post some big/bad numbers for november by the looks of it

paddy no 11 wrote:Europe is going to post some big/bad numbers for november by the looks of it

Government has been scaring people here but deaths are still in line with the 5 year averages.

“Covid deaths” are up, but every single case is with someone who you’d expect to die, if not this year then next at least. Heart disease, alcoholism, diabetes caused by obesity are the biggest existing diseases on the fatalities.

Stom wrote:

paddy no 11 wrote:Europe is going to post some big/bad numbers for november by the looks of it

Government has been scaring people here but deaths are still in line with the 5 year averages.

“Covid deaths” are up, but every single case is with someone who you’d expect to die, if not this year then next at least. Heart disease, alcoholism, diabetes caused by obesity are the biggest existing diseases on the fatalities.

All of those things are exacerbated by an overwhelmed health system. You may be able to cope with one wheezy fat drunken cunt a week all winter, but if you suddenly have 20 of them at once, shit gets interesting. For this reason, flu shots are being pushed hard here by most schools and large state employers. They are free, but you don't get a biscuit and a cuppa.

morepork wrote:

Stom wrote:

paddy no 11 wrote:Europe is going to post some big/bad numbers for november by the looks of it

Government has been scaring people here but deaths are still in line with the 5 year averages.

“Covid deaths” are up, but every single case is with someone who you’d expect to die, if not this year then next at least. Heart disease, alcoholism, diabetes caused by obesity are the biggest existing diseases on the fatalities.

All of those things are exacerbated by an overwhelmed health system. You may be able to cope with one wheezy fat drunken cunt a week all winter, but if you suddenly have 20 of them at once, shit gets interesting. For this reason, flu shots are being pushed hard here by most schools and large state employers. They are free, but you don't get a biscuit and a cuppa.

Sure, if your health service is stretched. But, as I said, deaths are in line with the 5 year average.

https://www.ksh.hu/docs/eng/xstadat/xst ... h004f.html

Edit: ok, deaths for the last available week were around 1-2% up but that’s within a normal threshold, especially when that equates to around 40 deaths.

However, the previous week was down around the same amount, so it’s pretty much the same.


Edit edit: I was looking at deaths for just 65+. When you add in the younger deaths, there are even fewer compared to previously as young people just aren’t dying.

Iirc, there have been 2 deaths under 45 recorded as COVID, both of whom were very ill. Can’t remember how.

Do the government behead them and drive a stake through the heart to prevent them infecting the living?

What's the Bobby with Covid in China? And why is it not seemingly a thing?

morepork wrote:Do the government behead them and drive a stake through the heart to prevent them infecting the living?

Vlad Tepes wasn't even Transylvanian...he was Wallachian...

And honestly...I have no clue why the stats are so low here. I know of a few people who have caught it and we believe we had it quite near the beginning (we know someone who was in Northern Italy, she didn't tell us until months later, she never got ill), but we don't know anyone who has got seriously ill or been hospitalised.

In fact, over here it's pretty exclusively hit the old. There are few cases among the youth compared to the situations in other countries and while Hungarians aren't the type to flout rules (just moan about how terrible they are), they're not fully on board with everything.

Some measures have been done well by the government. The shop is fined if anyone is caught without a mask, so they all have security guards at the front door telling people to put masks on or they can't come in, which is a very good way of doing it.

But I don't know why cases and, particularly, deaths are so low...

I don't know if this counts as interesting or an aside, but I was listening earlier to a nurse describing some of the problems they're having in Argentina and amongst other details she mentioned nurses are not counted as healthcare professionals in Argentina, though they're still at this time expected to risk dying for the cause.

Apologies if this has already been posted, but it's a must-read article on transmission mechanisms.

https://english.elpais.com/society/2020 ... e-air.html

More importantly Which has rated my NEQI mask(s) as a Best Buy, it's about time we started getting some advice on what masks are actually useful and which are making to wrapping toilet paper around your head. Not sure we should have been waiting for a consumer advice group, the government should have moved quickly on this instead of awarding contracts for any old crap to their mates.

Digby wrote:More importantly Which has rated my NEQI mask(s) as a Best Buy, it's about time we started getting some advice on what masks are actually useful and which are making to wrapping toilet paper around your head. Not sure we should have been waiting for a consumer advice group, the government should have moved quickly on this instead of awarding contracts for any old crap to their mates.

I thought that the general advice from the WHO was that masks pretty much help stop the spread from the infector but don't do much for you getting infected? So they're good to protect others, not yourself?

Some parents at my kids nursery complain that they need to wear masks inside the nursery, even the garden. They're insane.

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:More importantly Which has rated my NEQI mask(s) as a Best Buy, it's about time we started getting some advice on what masks are actually useful and which are making to wrapping toilet paper around your head. Not sure we should have been waiting for a consumer advice group, the government should have moved quickly on this instead of awarding contracts for any old crap to their mates.

I thought that the general advice from the WHO was that masks pretty much help stop the spread from the infector but don't do much for you getting infected? So they're good to protect others, not yourself?

Some parents at my kids nursery complain that they need to wear masks inside the nursery, even the garden. They're insane.

There are 3 main things to consider for most of the reusable masks most of us are wearing, how many layers they're comprised of (and you can get a variance in tests of 7-99% effectiveness at stopping you breathing out disease onto others with masks typically have 1-3 layers of material in their assembly), the comfort (the less comfortable the more people will fiddle with and adjust or even not wear), and the material (things like cotton fare better especially after washing because the shrinkage isn't as bad)

And our governments should be doing a better job at establishing minimum standards than relying on the WHO saying just stick something over your face, and at communicating those minimum standards

How much they protect you as the wearer isn't known, those with Covid it can't help to reduce the exposure to viral load

The NEQI masks I have which are rated well by Which come from Boots (I think) or Ocado, and they're £15 for 3 if that's of interest to anyone. There was another mask they rated highly, I don't recall what that was.

"How much they protect you as the wearer isn't known, those with Covid it can't help to reduce the exposure to viral load"

I don't quite understand this statement. Masks reduce the risk of the person wearing one from infecting others. They aren't meant to treat an infected individual. Viral load is a metric for how many virions are in an infected individual, an index of burden. If you mean masks may be ineffective against a exposure to a threshold quantity of virus, then yes, I suppose so, and there are in fact studies that show an inverse relationship between severeity of symptoms and viral load that point to mild/asymptomatic carriers having a greater risk of shedding. One important thing to factor in here is that physical barriers to transmission are multifactorial. Masks + distancing + sanitation + contact tracing definitely help prevent spread....just look at what is building up now after things reopened somewhat.

You raise a good point about information surrounding masks.The mode of transmission is aerosol, so anything that prevents droplets passing through will help. So will maintaining your distance from people. So will washing the mask regularly. Over here there is practically zero public service on the communication of up to date data to the public, so we have spastics with bandanas flapping around their chins and twats with their bulbous noses poking out

morepork wrote:"How much they protect you as the wearer isn't known, those with Covid it can't help to reduce the exposure to viral load"

I don't quite understand this statement.

You don't understand simple and elegant gibberish?

I think it was probably supposed to say 'though with Covid it can't hurt to reduce the (possible) exposure to a higher viral load'. But I'm guessing.

I am though astonished at the lack of practical updates coming out of our government, about the best we've got is the slogan of 'hands, face, space, kick Domininc Cummings in the bollocks'. But by the time the PPE standards vary wildly, there's nothing being said about masks bar 'masks', that you might know what tier you were in yesterday but probably not today, that nobody seems to know the rules on what you're allowed to do as regards meeting others, being in a pub, going to other houses, bubbling... should be concerning Boris, Mat and Dom, and yet on they vacillate

morepork wrote:"How much they protect you as the wearer isn't known, those with Covid it can't help to reduce the exposure to viral load"

I don't quite understand this statement. Masks reduce the risk of the person wearing one from infecting others. They aren't meant to treat an infected individual. Viral load is a metric for how many virions are in an infected individual, an index of burden. If you mean masks may be ineffective against a exposure to a threshold quantity of virus, then yes, I suppose so, and there are in fact studies that show an inverse relationship between severeity of symptoms and viral load that point to mild/asymptomatic carriers having a greater risk of shedding. One important thing to factor in here is that physical barriers to transmission are multifactorial. Masks + distancing + sanitation + contact tracing definitely help prevent spread....just look at what is building up now after things reopened somewhat.

You raise a good point about information surrounding masks.The mode of transmission is aerosol, so anything that prevents droplets passing through will help. So will maintaining your distance from people. So will washing the mask regularly. Over here there is practically zero public service on the communication of up to date data to the public, so we have spastics with bandanas flapping around their chins and twats with their bulbous noses poking out

There was an absolute gem on the news here tonight. Middle Ages bloke who had just crossed from a very high risk area into a medium one to go to the betting shops and the pub, all of which are closed in his home town. And his mask was covering his mouth not his nose. I also suspect that he drove there and back whilst consuming alcohol.

And we wonder why infection rates are growing. The government isn’t doing a great job, but you can’t account for stupidity.

Sandydragon wrote:

morepork wrote:"How much they protect you as the wearer isn't known, those with Covid it can't help to reduce the exposure to viral load"

I don't quite understand this statement. Masks reduce the risk of the person wearing one from infecting others. They aren't meant to treat an infected individual. Viral load is a metric for how many virions are in an infected individual, an index of burden. If you mean masks may be ineffective against a exposure to a threshold quantity of virus, then yes, I suppose so, and there are in fact studies that show an inverse relationship between severeity of symptoms and viral load that point to mild/asymptomatic carriers having a greater risk of shedding. One important thing to factor in here is that physical barriers to transmission are multifactorial. Masks + distancing + sanitation + contact tracing definitely help prevent spread....just look at what is building up now after things reopened somewhat.

You raise a good point about information surrounding masks.The mode of transmission is aerosol, so anything that prevents droplets passing through will help. So will maintaining your distance from people. So will washing the mask regularly. Over here there is practically zero public service on the communication of up to date data to the public, so we have spastics with bandanas flapping around their chins and twats with their bulbous noses poking out

There was an absolute gem on the news here tonight. Middle Ages bloke who had just crossed from a very high risk area into a medium one to go to the betting shops and the pub, all of which are closed in his home town. And his mask was covering his mouth not his nose. I also suspect that he drove there and back whilst consuming alcohol.

And we wonder why infection rates are growing. The government isn’t doing a great job, but you can’t account for stupidity.

Which is precisely why you need a strong centralised response that is data driven and transparent.

Clarity and consistency help too.

Exactly. There are stupid and irresponsible Brits who are making things worse. But there are also, no doubt, stupid and irresponsible kiwis. The NZ government has a sensible, science driven strategy, it sets a good example, it's consistent and clear. The odd stupid person can't spoil it.

So Downing St. leaked they might be announcing closing the country on Monday, just in time for half-term to be over, but now today the Sun editorial says Covid isn't that bad so once more uncertainty has control with strong support from dithering. There is talk closing the country down would be for a month, so thank god we didn't close down earlier for less time, which is being kicked around the office as a good thing because they'd be able to say we're back open in time for Christmas, or so goes the spin.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:Exactly. There are stupid and irresponsible Brits who are making things worse. But there are also, no doubt, stupid and irresponsible kiwis. The NZ government has a sensible, science driven strategy, it sets a good example, it's consistent and clear. The odd stupid person can't spoil it.

I quite agree that the messaging is awful, or at best confusing. But when you read comments like ‘covid isn’t that dangerous’ and ‘rules are there to be broken’ you realise that even if the messaging had been good, there are still gigantic twats out there who are too selfish for everyone’s good.

And without a national lockdown with common controls, the current situation is too difficult to police which makes the regulations effectively unenforceable.