Coronavirus Super Thread ( merged )

[graygo]

4 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Pubs also had to implement table service (I think in Scotland too?) which means there's a break between patrons that can be taken to sanitise the table area that the last group were at. Similar to the break between sessions at my gym so it can 'reset' so to speak.

 

Shops are just a steady stream of people wandering about rummaging for good dates etc.

 

It's not really worry comparing them though tbh. Everyone has different priorities of things they'd prefer to see closed before other things, none are more valid than others really and the governments will just do whatever they fancy and target those they think will push back the least.

 

2 minutes ago, GBJambo said:

Yep and pubs have to abide by track and trace and get all clientele’s details. 
Shops do not 

 

I asked if he wanted to talk about the other things pubs had to implement, there's a few for starters.

[westbow]

1 minute ago, redjambo said:

 

But then there was the very recent Australian study that showed that Covid can survive for up to 28 days on surfaces.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/11/australian-study-finds-coronavirus-can-remain-infectious-28/

 

In the end, I think the only way to make a reasonable comparison between shops and hospitality venues would be to determine which ends up actually causing the most viral transmissions per visit, and to do that we would need proper backwards contact tracing which we don't have. So, I think it will have to remain disputed. Just better perhaps that both continue to do their best to minimise the risks.

Cannot comment on the article as it hits a paywall. Since all supermarkets and food retailers stayed open during the last  lockdown and the subsequent decline in cases of Covid, I would say they are not particularly successful vectors.

[kila]

Just now, Taffin said:

Is that not true of CV19 though? We've improved treatment from earlier in the year quite significantly that enable most people with CV19 to live a long and healthy life.

 

I don't really see the benefit to comparing the two but the statement above does seem pretty true for CV19.

 

I don't think we have enough data on the bit in bold yet... how many who have had CV19 have lived long and healthy lives? They only had it weeks or months ago!

 

We're only entering the second wave now which will put all the trial treatments, data modelling on spread/lockdowns etc to the full test. I am optimistic in treatments being the way out of this, and that may already be happening as the ICU numbers could be far worse. Of course this'll be data they'll be sieving through to compare with March/April, as they will soon have plenty numbers on who responds well to what treatments in a hospital bed and who continues down the corridor to ICU.

 

[Heartsmad1874]

https://metro.co.uk/2020/10/15/students-to-be-put-into-two-week-lockdown-so-they-can-go-home-for-christmas-13425123/

[Taffin]

2 minutes ago, kila said:

 

I don't think we have enough data on the bit in bold yet... how many who have had CV19 have lived long and healthy lives? They only had it weeks or months ago!

 

A lot who have needed treatment have lived long and healthy lives but yes, it's a fair point. People may recover and then we learn more later down the line when they start dropping dead. Hopefully not though!!!

 

2 minutes ago, kila said:

 

We're only entering the second wave now which will put all the trial treatments, data modelling on spread/lockdowns etc to the full test. I am optimistic in treatments being the way out of this, and that may already be happening as the ICU numbers could be far worse. Of course this'll be data they'll be sieving through to compare with March/April, as they will soon have plenty numbers on who responds well to what treatments in a hospital bed and who continues down the corridor to ICU.

 

 

Yeh I'm with you on that, if we are to intervene successfully I think it wi be in the form of treatment rather than immunisation. 

[graygo]

5 minutes ago, Brian Dundas said:

You can discuss whatever you want, but the virus spreads through social contact, so unless you go to shops to socialise then they are safer than pubs.

 

"Social contact" and "Social distancing" are terms made up by the government to suit their narrative, physical contact and physical distancing would be more correct.

 

ps. Social contact does not equate to socialising in the sense you mean.

[Governor Tarkin]

3 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

"Social contact" and "Social distancing" are terms made up by the government to suit their narrative, physical contact and physical distancing would be more correct.

 

 

 

Social distancing is a ****ing horific term.

[AlimOzturk]

See in the House of Commons and Scottish parliament, why the **** do they not have to wear face masks? Why do they get special dispensation? 
 

I understand when someone is speaking they can’t wear a mask but surely when sitting down they should be wearing one? One rule for them and another for the general public it would seem as usual

Edited October 15, 2020 by AlimOzturk

[Jambo-Jimbo]

10 minutes ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

Pubs are one of my pleasures however everyone has their own.

Having said that I see the work and expense my local has put in and I'm sure they'll survive but at what cost.

Credit to the owners who looked after their staff financially during lockdown. 

 

The pub is a lot of peoples pleasure, for some it's sometimes the highlight of their day, especially a lot of old folks, I seen that all too often when I worked in a pub, the old codgers in the afternoon, often their mates the few which were still alive or sometimes the bar staff were the only people they'd talked to that day. 

For many with the current rules, that social interaction has been taken away from a lot of old and lonely people in our society.

 

From my own perspective, never been a regular pub goer, even when I was young, don't get me wrong I like a drink as evidenced on the favorite beer thread, but my pleasure is trying new beers in the comfort of my own house or with a meal when out or when on holiday.

 

[graygo]

5 minutes ago, Brian Dundas said:

I know what I meant and I did not mean physical contact........

 

I'm not going to convince you, but for me there is no proof that Pubs are definitely safer than shops, I will continue to challenge people who use that as a fact when I choose to.

 

You're not going to convince me because you have offered not one shred of evidence to back your point up. You've been given several that go against your point but you chose to ignore them.

I'm out.

[Governor Tarkin]

Pubs are safer than shops imo.

[westbow]

8 minutes ago, Brian Dundas said:

Neither have you, but that's likely as the actual evidence isn't known, we don't have the numbers, yet another reason you can't say as fact Pubs are safer than Shops

Although the point I made earlier was that we all had to use the same shops during lockdown yet cases receded. Surely the proof is in the pudding (aisle). Not saying pubs aren't safe.

Edited October 15, 2020 by westbow
typo

[Back to 2005]

Quarantine is when you lock sick people away.

Tyranny is when you lock healthy people away.

Madness is when the healthy people being locked away under the tyranny actually welcome it gladly & are suspicious of those who don't.

[westbow]

7 minutes ago, Governor Tarkin said:

Pubs are safer than shops imo.

Were you the guy who disinfected his messages? 😀

[graygo]

14 minutes ago, Brian Dundas said:

Neither have you, but that's likely as the actual evidence isn't known, we don't have the numbers, yet another reason you can't say as fact Pubs are safer than Shops

 

I don't have to provide proof mate, you made the claim that shops were safer than pubs, the burden of proof lies with you.

[JudyJudyJudy]

2 hours ago, redjambo said:

 

I'll get that rectal thermometer out of my drawer toot sweet!

Saucey 

[Ron Burgundy]

1 hour ago, luckydug said:

For some that is what this thread is about. 

My biggest gripe is her cancelling of Youth Football and other amateur sports. Couldn't give a shiny shite about the pubs other than the inevitable job losses that will follow.

 

The sport thing is totally absurd.

[Governor Tarkin]

26 minutes ago, westbow said:

Were you the guy who disinfected his messages? 😀

 

Aye mate. 👍

[AlimOzturk]

1 minute ago, Barack said:

Back to ****ing coal then is it, boy bach...?

 

 

Will be us shortly then. 

[The Real Maroonblood]

52 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

The pub is a lot of peoples pleasure, for some it's sometimes the highlight of their day, especially a lot of old folks, I seen that all too often when I worked in a pub, the old codgers in the afternoon, often their mates the few which were still alive or sometimes the bar staff were the only people they'd talked to that day. 

For many with the current rules, that social interaction has been taken away from a lot of old and lonely people in our society.

 

From my own perspective, never been a regular pub goer, even when I was young, don't get me wrong I like a drink as evidenced on the favorite beer thread, but my pleasure is trying new beers in the comfort of my own house or with a meal when out or when on holiday.

 

I noticed your posts on the beer thread and you certainly like a variety and some look really good.
I’m probably classed as an old codger😭 but the wife hasn’t said that yet.

 

[The Real Maroonblood]

39 minutes ago, Governor Tarkin said:

Pubs are safer than shops imo.

[The Real Maroonblood]

7 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

Will be us shortly then. 

The end is nigh.

[Back to 2005]

Something does not add up...

[Governor Tarkin]

2 minutes ago, Back to 2005 said:

Something does not add up...

 

[manaliveits105]

Exactly he is wearing a waistcoat and fob and still has a stainless steel sink

[graygo]

14 minutes ago, Brian Dundas said:

 

 

See, no claim that shops were safer than pubs.

 

You seem in the mood for an argument today, not sure what I have done to make you want to argue with me.........

 

I'm not trawling back like you did to quote the posts but here's the relevant bit.

 

"I don't see how pubs can be safer than shops."

 

Now unless you are saying that they are as safe as each other then that statement is a claim that shops are safer than pubs.

 

ps. It's not you I'm arguing against, it's the point you are making.

 

Edited October 15, 2020 by graygo

[luckydug]

2 hours ago, graygo said:

 

A shop will have a far bigger number of patrons in a day than a pub will so the chances of an infected person being on the premises is greater in a shop.

 

Will that do are do you want to discuss the other measures that pubs have to undergo?

On the other hand people usually spend longer time in the pub than shops. 

How many folk will spend hours in a shop gradually losing all their

inhibitions ?

[redjambo]

2 minutes ago, luckydug said:

On the other hand people usually spend longer time in the pub than shops. 

How many folk will spend hours in a shop gradually losing all their

inhibitions ?

 

Was my favourite pastime until the restraining order.

[westbow]

14 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Was my favourite pastime until the restraining order.

Are you my personal shopper at Harvey Nicks?

[The Internet]

2 hours ago, AlimOzturk said:

See in the House of Commons and Scottish parliament, why the **** do they not have to wear face masks? Why do they get special dispensation? 
 

I understand when someone is speaking they can’t wear a mask but surely when sitting down they should be wearing one? One rule for them and another for the general public it would seem as usual

 

Not much to like about this thread but I do enjoy your crusade against masks  I think they stick to a 2m distancing or whatever in parliament so masks aren't required. Obviously they could make that sacrifice and wear one to try and normalise them if they're so important, but it was always highly unlikely for politicians to subject themselves to the same measures they put on us. 

[graygo]

23 minutes ago, Brian Dundas said:

The point I am making is people say Pubs are safer than shops as if it is fact when it is opinion, we have no real way of knowing as they don't reverse trace.

 

I think shops are safer you think pubs are safer, that's fine, but neither can prove one way or the other.

 

Pubs are safer than shops so there!!

[westbow]

1 hour ago, AlimOzturk said:

Will be us shortly then. 

I thought it was just that England the SG did one-upmanship on?

[westbow]

5 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Pubs are safer than shops so there!!

urnae

[Victorian]

I do not "welcome it gladly".    I understand it sadly.   The continual mischaracterisation is not clever.   It's either very dumb or deliberately provocative.    Those who advocate the fabled non-solution of shield & relax restrictions would gladly impose isolation and the deprivation of liberties on an arbitrary group of people.   A naively conceived group at that.

 

Madness is thinking you have some divine right to tell other people to accept a shite deal in order to improve your own.

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Lord BJ said:

Its does annoy me when I hear politicians, like Hancock, saying ‘we must all do our bit and do what we can to combat COVID’ and the like.

 

Well apart from getting test and trace sorted, the key foundation for controlling the virus. Communication which has been so poor we are almost having civil wars between local and central governments. ****ing up PPE supplies so people are able to even carry out the most essential of services. Throwing COVID patients into care homes and locking them in.

 

Matt have you really done your bit. Cause it looks to me like large part of the reason we are living as we are now is because of your inept and your inability to do your biit.

 

****ing twat

 

 

 

Glad to be in full agreement with one of your posts.   

[Victorian]

5 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

 

FTH make it two 👍

 

Doesn't count when there's no choice.

[AlimOzturk]

13 minutes ago, Victorian said:

I do not "welcome it gladly".    I understand it sadly.   The continual mischaracterisation is not clever.   It's either very dumb or deliberately provocative.    Those who advocate the fabled non-solution of shield & relax restrictions would gladly impose isolation and the deprivation of liberties on an arbitrary group of people.   A naively conceived group at that.

 

Madness is thinking you have some divine right to tell other people to accept a shite deal in order to improve your own.

It is about damage limitation. Look at it in what ever way you want but ultimately the young and healthy are the ones that keep this country running and the economy viable. Without it the old and vulnerable will eventually fall into financial hardship as well if the state can’t afford to pay for their pensions and disability allowance. Have already heard that Dishy wants to end the triple lock.  So whilst it isn’t perfect asking them to shield whilst the rest of us get on with it in the long term it is in their benefit as well. 
 

That’s the way I see It and eventually the way it will be. The world can’t stop turning for one group of people. It isn’t fair. 

Edited October 15, 2020 by AlimOzturk

[AlimOzturk]

39 minutes ago, Mauricio Pinilla said:

 

Not much to like about this thread but I do enjoy your crusade against masks  I think they stick to a 2m distancing or whatever in parliament so masks aren't required. Obviously they could make that sacrifice and wear one to try and normalise them if they're so important, but it was always highly unlikely for politicians to subject themselves to the same measures they put on us. 

The mask thing just makes me cringe. I see folk wearing masks daily but wearing them like utter ******s. Below their nose, on their wrists, placing them on surfaces then back on their face etc...it is crazy beyond belief. And folk wonder why I don’t bother with them...they are filthy things. They must be ****ing riddled with what ever and folk are taking them on and off again and putting them back on again.  🤮 would you put a pair of pish stained boxer shorts back on or yesterday’s gym sweat crusty socks back on yer feet

 

and the litter they cause....take a walk in the town and it is littered with the single use ones.  

 

A snood might be better but it would have to be washed and cleaned after every use. 
 

Can’t help myself. Genuinely hate them. 

Edited October 15, 2020 by AlimOzturk

[Victorian]

4 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

It is about damage limitation. Look at it in what ever way you want but ultimately the young and healthy are the ones that keep this country running and the economy viable. Without it the old and vulnerable will eventually fall into financial hardship as well if the state can’t afford to pay for their pensions and disability allowance. Have already heard that Dishy wants to end the triple lock.  So whilst it isn’t perfect asking them to shield whilst the rest of us get on with it in the long term it is in their benefit as well. 
 

That’s the way I see It and eventually the way it will be. The world can’t stop turning for one group of people. It isn’t fair. 

 

While you have valid points there,  the shielding of the oldest carries an additional injustice.   A lot of these people do not tend to have all that much time left to their lives.   Their relatives do not have all that much time left with some of them.   It's worth consideration when talking about telling people to shield.    A policy of shielding can only really scratch the surface of the real scale of those who are at elevated risk of serious illness.   All the people in their 40s,  50s,  60s and with some health vulnerabilities.   A lot of people with no choice but to continue working to support households.   These people cannot shield.   You only need to view the still limited scale of the hospitalisations to realise that a less suppressed virus poses a serious problem for our resources.    

 

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

3 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

Thats Italy added to the quarantine list. 

 

Looks like there's hardly anybody there anyway, judging from the webcams, Rome is really really quiet, a dozen or so folks at the Spanish Steps, even fewer at the Pantheon and up in Venice there were more pigeons than people in St. Mark's Square earlier today, and it's been like this for weeks now, in fact all over Europe it's like this, empty streets, empty beaches, pretty much deserted cities & resorts, going from the views from the webcams.

[luckydug]

45 minutes ago, Mauricio Pinilla said:

 

Not much to like about this thread but I do enjoy your crusade against masks  I think they stick to a 2m distancing or whatever in parliament so masks aren't required. Obviously they could make that sacrifice and wear one to try and normalise them if they're so important, but it was always highly unlikely for politicians to subject themselves to the same measures they put on us. 

That poster doesn't believe in safe distancing either. 

Doesn't believe in anything except opening the pub. 

[OBE]

40 minutes ago, luckydug said:

That poster doesn't believe in safe distancing either. 

Doesn't believe in anything except opening the pub. 

 

Also, doesn't realise the Covid rules might work if the morons complied. 

 

Covid 19 + Moron = Mobile Biohazard.

Edited October 15, 2020 by OBE

[Enzo Chiefo]

1 hour ago, graygo said:

 

Pubs are safer than shops so there!!

In pubs, you are only mixing with one other household at most. Let's be honest, you are associating with people you know and who will be following the basic rules. Therefore, the chances of them having the virus is miniscule.  Probably drinking with them every week, you are in a social bubble effectively.  You are wearing a mask on the floor and tables are distanced. 

In supermarkets there are complete strangers strutting about without masks,, no social distancing with people sometimes leaning over your shoulder to pick up an item. Not to mention the possible infection from surfaces. No question in my mind that a pub or restaurant that is well run is safer than anywhere, certainly buses, hospitals and supermarkets. 

[graygo]

25 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

In pubs, you are only mixing with one other household at most. Let's be honest, you are associating with people you know and who will be following the basic rules. Therefore, the chances of them having the virus is miniscule.  Probably drinking with them every week, you are in a social bubble effectively.  You are wearing a mask on the floor and tables are distanced. 

In supermarkets there are complete strangers strutting about without masks,, no social distancing with people sometimes leaning over your shoulder to pick up an item. Not to mention the possible infection from surfaces. No question in my mind that a pub or restaurant that is well run is safer than anywhere, certainly buses, hospitals and supermarkets. 

 

I agree.

[JudyJudyJudy]

5 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

I missed the briefing today, surely she didn't come out with that...................away to feck........did she 

She did ! She really did ! I was incredulous 

[Victorian]

Bit of a groundswell towards telling the government to stop arseing around and to introduce a full national lockdown,  mainly in order to get them to properly finance the support packages to enable businesses to close.   I'm tending to agree that it should be done.   The all-out warfare between the government and local leaders is very damaging.   The government will eventually be forced into spending what is necessary but,  predictably,  is prevented from doing so by the baggage of their macro economic dogma.    The reality is that the spending (borrowing) could be multiplied by a magnitude. 

[AlimOzturk]

1 hour ago, luckydug said:

That poster doesn't believe in safe distancing either. 

Doesn't believe in anything except opening the pub. 

 

 

Edited October 15, 2020 by AlimOzturk

[JudyJudyJudy]

4 hours ago, kila said:

 

Not sure your HIV comparison is a worth example given the reliable treatment. From the NHS website - "while there's no cure for HIV, there are very effective treatments that enable most people with the virus to live a long and healthy life."

 

Even if a vaccine isn't the immediate solution to CV19, treatments will be. We don't have to stop people getting sick with CV19 if treatments mean the most vulnerable who have symptoms have to use an inhaler for a week and take it easy.

 

 

My comparison was to evidence that some vaccines may never be found . At present there is no HIV vaccine but treatments to keep people alive , almost as long a life as those who are not HIV . Although the strong meds given for HIV can impact on the liver and cause an earlier death . 

[JudyJudyJudy]

4 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

The pub is a lot of peoples pleasure, for some it's sometimes the highlight of their day, especially a lot of old folks, I seen that all too often when I worked in a pub, the old codgers in the afternoon, often their mates the few which were still alive or sometimes the bar staff were the only people they'd talked to that day. 

For many with the current rules, that social interaction has been taken away from a lot of old and lonely people in our society.

 

From my own perspective, never been a regular pub goer, even when I was young, don't get me wrong I like a drink as evidenced on the favorite beer thread, but my pleasure is trying new beers in the comfort of my own house or with a meal when out or when on holiday.

 

And they have closed bingo halls again too . These can be good places for older people to have contact with others and socialise. 

[Enzo Chiefo]

Just now, Brian Dundas said:

I have quite a few issues with your analysis there. 
 

Pubs do not just have two households in them, many shops only allow 1 person at a time, many more only two. 
 

I don’t see how you are catching Covid from surfaces if you sanitise or wash hands. 
 

Social distancing between groups and households has not been getting observed in every pub I’ve been in, some for work, some for food. 
 

Look it’s fine for people to like pubs and want them open and to feel safe in them, but don’t make up arguments to try and justify it.  

I agree about surfaces. There will of course be more than 2 households, in pubs but, socially distanced.  Table service only, screens in a lot of places and compulsory mask wearing when on the floor. That's as safe as it can be. If the idea is to completely separate all humans from each other then the game's a bogey.  You don't save lives by stopping people living and we all need the confidence to get on with our lives, while taking basic precautions.  The country can't afford, on so many levels, to go further than that.