Coronavirus Super Thread ( merged )

[Ray Gin]

Just now, Dazo said:

So risk is fine as long as you aren’t having a drink. Makes sense. 🙄

 

The risk is lower if you aren't getting drunk, so yeah it does make sense.

 

[Dazo]

Just now, Ray Gin said:

 

The risk is lower if you aren't getting drunk, so yeah it does make sense.

 

No the risk is the same. Drunk people may add more/different risks but someone sitting on a bus or in a cafe is the same as someone sitting in a pub/restaurant having a meal and a drink. The risk is equal if the guidelines are followed. 

[Victorian]

Normality as we knew it wont exist for quite some time.  At least another year and maybe longer.  Depending on vaccine stock availability and the logistics and efficiency of roll-out,  there could be a gradual return to more normality by the summer.  

 

The Pfizer vaccine and the others to follow.  A lot will depend on how effective they are at preventing transmission.  The Pzifer vaccine shows interim results of being 90% effective,  but that's only at preventing serious cases of covid.  Efficacy at preventing onward transmission isn't known but it seems likely that the vaccine will greatly diminish transmission.  How quick we get back to normality will depend on that.

[Ray Gin]

Just now, Dazo said:

No the risk is the same. Drunk people may add more/different risks 

 

Exactly the point.

 

Drunk people are less likely to follow guidelines.

 

[OmiyaHearts]

8 minutes ago, Brian Dundas said:

Who were you meeting in the pub? I can’t see how you can stay 1m apart from all the different households at your table and from what I have seen people weren’t. 

When lockdown was lifted I was going out with my wife and sometimes meeting my parents or her mum. Most places in Glasgow only allowed 4 at a table and even in places like Platform, if people tried to be fly and book two tables for a group, they split the group in different areas of the pub.

 

I went out to meet mates once, for Scotland v Israel and we sat outside freezing in the beer garden watching. It was pish but that's Scotland for you.

[Dazo]

1 minute ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Exactly the point.

 

Drunk people are less likely to follow guidelines.

 

Then the premises aren’t sticking to the guidelines and should be closed. Exactly how this should be handled. 

[OmiyaHearts]

7 minutes ago, Weakened Offender said:

 

I don't need to now because they're ALL closed. 😊

Haha fair enough!

[Ray Gin]

Just now, Dazo said:

Then the premises aren’t sticking to the guidelines and should be closed. Exactly how this should be handled. 

 

How do you propose tens of thousands of pubs/bars across the country are continually monitored to check they are sticking to the guidelines? Unworkable.

 

[frankblack]

18 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Public transport is essential for some, education has been deemed top priority. Sitting in a pub is not.

 

Cafés have the same problem but at least don't have drunk people to contend with.

 

 

 

Do you have any data that suggests pubs are more of a risk with the virus than cafes or just anecdotes?

[Francis Albert]

11 hours ago, Brian Dundas said:

My point is that the customers weren’t compliant anyway. 

And hard though it is it is the staff/landlord's job  to enforce compliance just as it is in normal times to control offensive and unruly drunken behaviour. The majority of pubs did well although it was noticable that forgetful  old dodderers like me tended to get a tougher time than a group of tattooed toughs ignoring social distancing and household member rules. Some larger pubs perhaps could have employed a couple of bouncers but if all pubs are going to be tarred with the same brush what would be the point?

There is a whiff of puritan zeal about treatment of pubs ... as there is for sunbathing vs jogging.

[OmiyaHearts]

2 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

How do you propose tens of thousands of pubs/bars across the country are continually monitored to check they are sticking to the guidelines? Unworkable.

 

Isn't the same as any workplace? I'm in an office with ten people today - who's monitoring the hygiene of the thousands of offices that are currently open?

 

Workers want to be safe in their place of work, people want to be safe when they go out to eat or drink, so the vast majority of people will do the right thing.

[frankblack]

8 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Exactly the point.

 

Drunk people are less likely to follow guidelines.

 

 

But do you have any data that proves this is actually happening?

[Ray Gin]

2 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

But do you have any data that proves this is actually happening?

 

My own eyes and Facebook feed is proof enough. Be honest, are you telling me you haven't seen any evidence of groups of drunk friends all hanging out with zero social distancing?

[frankblack]

Just now, Ray Gin said:

 

My own eyes and Facebook feed is proof enough. Be honest, are you telling me you haven't seen any evidence of groups of drunk friends all hanging out with zero social distancing?

 

Yes.  The pubs I've been in have been very strict, with limited time slots and safety measures.

[Ray Gin]

1 minute ago, frankblack said:

 

Yes.  The pubs I've been in have been very strict, with limited time slots and safety measures.

 

I said "be honest". Either you walk around with your eyes closed or you've seen drunk people paying no heed to social distancing.

 

 

[graygo]

25 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

The risk is lower if you aren't getting drunk, so yeah it does make sense.

 

 

Out of every 1,000 people who have a drink in a day, whether it be a pub or a restaurant, how many would you say get drunk? How many if it was just restaurants that could sell alcohol? How many if the cut off was 6pm?

 

It's only 3 questions but would be interesting to see if your answers still backed up a complete ban on alcohol sales.

Edited November 10, 2020 by graygo

[Victorian]

13 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

But do you have any data that proves this is actually happening?

 

Ah,  the loaded question to ask for non-existent data for the purpose of dismissing a reasonable opinion.  That opinion falls into the type of opinion that cannot be proved with data and doesn't need to be.  It is purely reasonable to assume it to be.

Edited November 10, 2020 by Victorian

[the general]

5 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

Yes.  The pubs I've been in have been very strict, with limited time slots and safety measures.

 

Tyne Arms Diggers Caldy Sample all really strict and everywhere I went to in city centre made you sanitise give details and most took your temperature. The Montpellier Group were particularly good

[jack D and coke]

2 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

I said "be honest". Either you walk around with your eyes closed or you've seen drunk people paying no heed to social distancing.

 

 

That’s not happening in anyone’s houses though. Keep the boozers shut though and just screw them all? Mibbe most people would go home after a few at 10pm instead of going to a house for the whole night? 
How long do you suggest this goes on? I’m not sitting in my house for the next year for example. I’ll be at pals houses taking far more risks. 

[Ray Gin]

13 minutes ago, OmiyaHearts said:

Isn't the same as any workplace? I'm in an office with ten people today - who's monitoring the hygiene of the thousands of offices that are currently open?

 

Workers want to be safe in their place of work, people want to be safe when they go out to eat or drink, so the vast majority of people will do the right thing.

 

It is, but again they are lower risk as people A - aren't drunk and B - are there to work and not socialise. Also employees have been encouraged to report any workplaces that are forcing them to work in the office but are not adhering to safety guidelines.

 

[Ray Gin]

Just now, jack D and coke said:

That’s not happening in anyone’s houses though. Keep the boozers shut though and just screw them all? Mibbe most people would go home after a few at 10pm instead of going to a house for the whole night? 
How long do you suggest this goes on? I’m not sitting in my house for the next year for example. I’ll be at pals houses taking far more risks. 

 

That's why household visits are banned.

 

Vaccine on the horizon. If people just stick this out for a few more months and get the numbers right down again, the vaccine will do the rounds and things will be far more normal by the summer.

[Weakened Offender]

16 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

 although it was noticable that forgetful  old dodderers like me tended to get a tougher time than a group of tattooed toughs ignoring social distancing and household member rules. 

 

Same in supermarkets. I had a pop in Asda in Chesser when an old wifey was pulled up for not having her face mask over her nose at the checkout as loads of libertarian bellends strutted about the shop not giving one. 

[Ray Gin]

 

7 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Out of every 1,000 people who have a drink in a day, whether it be a pub or a restaurant, how many would you say get drunk? How many if it was just restaurants that could sell alcohol? How many if the cut off was 6pm?

 

It's only 3 questions but would be interesting to see if your answers still backed up a complete ban on alcohol sales.

 

I don't have a clue what the answer is to your 3 questions. There hasn't been a complete ban on alcohol though, you can still drink in your home.

 

[Dazo]

27 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

How do you propose tens of thousands of pubs/bars across the country are continually monitored to check they are sticking to the guidelines? Unworkable.

 

The same way the guidelines are policed now. Catch those that you can and will soon spread and the vast majority will tow the line. Regardless  majority if not all the places I have been in have been sticking to the guidelines so you don’t need to police ever single bar or restaurant. Line all laws and guidelines not everyone will comply but we catch who we can. Seems fair enough for all other walks of life. 

[OmiyaHearts]

10 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

It is, but again they are lower risk as people A - aren't drunk and B - are there to work and not socialise. Also employees have been encouraged to report any workplaces that are forcing them to work in the office but are not adhering to safety guidelines.

 

So someone who works in a pub or restaurant should do the same.

[Taffin]

There are more breaches of social distancing from sober people than drunk people.

[OmiyaHearts]

3 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

 

I don't have a clue what the answer is to your 3 questions. There hasn't been a complete ban on alcohol though, you can still drink in your home.

 

That's the bigger issue. Instead of meeting in a sanitised, relatively safer and distanced venue - people are meeting in their unsanitised homes and drinking together. 

It' believe that closing pubs has caused the increase in transmissions within homes.

[Ray Gin]

2 minutes ago, Dazo said:

The same way the guidelines are policed now. Catch those that you can and will soon spread and the vast majority will tow the line. Regardless  majority if not all the places I have been in have been sticking to the guidelines so you don’t need to police ever single bar or restaurant. Line all laws and guidelines not everyone will comply but we catch who we can. Seems fair enough for all other walks of life. 

 

Again, by "sticking to the guidelines" does this include keeping a group of friends from different households over 1 metre apart?

 

[Ray Gin]

2 minutes ago, OmiyaHearts said:

So someone who works in a pub or restaurant should do the same.

 

They won't though because they are desperate to stay open as working from home isn't an option.

 

[Taffin]

16 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

That’s not happening in anyone’s houses though. Keep the boozers shut though and just screw them all? Mibbe most people would go home after a few at 10pm instead of going to a house for the whole night? 
How long do you suggest this goes on? I’m not sitting in my house for the next year for example. I’ll be at pals houses taking far more risks. 

 

We'd taken (prior to lockdown) to going to friends houses for the weekend rather than for a night in the pub at a pub quiz or whatever. Usually we'd have been home about 2300-2330. Instead folk were up drinking and playing games into the wee hours.

 

Sure, it's limited to six people rather than a pub full but I think it's better to have people in a controlled environment and instead crack down on the establishments that don't follow the rules. 

Edited November 10, 2020 by Taffin
Should read 2200-2230

[OmiyaHearts]

Just now, Brian Dundas said:

These people that are meeting in folks houses shouldn't have been meeting in groups in the pub anyway

Why not? The guidelines in August allowed three households to meet up 

[OmiyaHearts]

3 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

They won't though because they are desperate to stay open as working from home isn't an option.

 

So what you're saying in your last few posts, with no evidence or experience, is that hospitality workers don't enforce the guidelines and won't report their employer if guidelines are breached?

 

Your opinion of hospitality and it's workers is becoming clear. I won't discuss the subject further with you.

[graygo]

7 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

 

I don't have a clue what the answer is to your 3 questions. There hasn't been a complete ban on alcohol though, you can still drink in your home.

 

 

Nice deflection on the alcohol ban. 👍

 

You keep going on about pubs/ restaurants needing to be shut because drunk people can't follow the rules,. I was just asking how prevalent that was that it needed a blanket ban. It's against the law to serve alcohol to a drunk person anyway so the legislation is there to prevent drunk people breaking the rules. I'm pretty sure most if not all landlords would remove a drunk person from their premises rather than be shut for months on end.

[Ray Gin]

Just now, OmiyaHearts said:

So what you're saying in your last few posts, with no evidence or experience, is that hospitality workers don't enforce the guidelines and won't report their employer if guidelines are breached?

 

Your opinion of hospitality and it's workers is becoming clear. I won't discuss the subject further with you.

 

I've said multiple times now that it's near impossible for them to enforce the guidelines. No need to throw your dummy out the pram.

 

 

[graygo]

44 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

How do you propose tens of thousands of pubs/bars across the country are continually monitored to check they are sticking to the guidelines? Unworkable.

 

 

How do you try to stop people speeding in their cars? Total ban? No, you catch as many as you can and hope that is enough to deter others from doing the same.

 

I know it's not the same thing but both kill innocent people.

Edited November 10, 2020 by graygo

[Ray Gin]

1 minute ago, graygo said:

 

Nice deflection on the alcohol ban. 👍

 

You keep going on about pubs/ restaurants needing to be shut because drunk people can't follow the rules,. I was just asking how prevalent that was that it needed a blanket ban. It's against the law to serve alcohol to a drunk person anyway so the legislation is there to prevent drunk people breaking the rules. I'm pretty sure most if not all landlords would remove a drunk person from their premises rather than be shut for months on end.

 

By drunk I'm not talking about absolutely bladdered. Just a few drinks is enough for many people to throw caution out the window.

 

[OmiyaHearts]

2 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

I've said multiple times now that it's near impossible for them to enforce the guidelines. No need to throw your dummy out the pram.

 

 

No it isn't. If you even bothered going out, you'd have seen the rules enforced to the letter by the majority of places.

What are you basing your opinion on then? Guesswork?

[Ray Gin]

1 minute ago, graygo said:

 

How do you try to stop people speeding in their cars? Total ban? No, you catch as many as you can and hope that is enough to deter others from doing the same.

 

I know it's not the same thing but both kill innocent people.

 

Speed cameras. 

[jack D and coke]

8 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

We'd taken (prior to lockdown) to going to friends houses for the weekend rather than for a night in the pub at a pub quiz or whatever. Usually we'd have been home about 2300-2330. Instead folk were up drinking and playing games into the wee hours.

 

Sure, it's limited to six people rather than a pub full but I think it's better to have people in a controlled environment and instead crack down on the establishments that don't follow the rules. 

Yeah like I say the pubs round me were pretty on top of it all. It’s a shame they’ve been punished for doing everything they were asked to do. I’ve had far wilder nights since the pubs were closed again. 

[OmiyaHearts]

2 minutes ago, Brian Dundas said:

3 Households all 1m apart for the duration, I'm not buying it.

Again, another poster basing an opinion on nothing. I don't know why I bother discussing it.

[Ray Gin]

Just now, OmiyaHearts said:

No it isn't. If you even bothered going out, you'd have seen the rules enforced to the letter by the majority of places.

What are you basing your opinion on then? Guesswork?

 

I did go out and nobody stopped groups of friends from different households sitting right beside each other, my group included.

My Facebook feed is full of photos of friends sat in pubs and restaurants sat right next to each other.

 

[graygo]

1 minute ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Speed cameras. 

 

On every road?

 

That's not blanket coverage like the blanket ban you support. In fact that probably catches proportionately the same number of people speeding as a small group of compliance checkers would catch pubs not following guidelines.

[Weakened Offender]

7 minutes ago, OmiyaHearts said:

No it isn't. If you even bothered going out, you'd have seen the rules enforced to the letter by the majority of places.

 

 

I went out loads and that just wasn't my experience in pubs. Restaurants yes, pubs not so much. 

 

There were pubs like Tynecastle Arms, Thistle Bar, Whighams and CSR which were spot on, a few others were doing the minimum, some were policing the non-regulars and letting the regulars do what they want and some done hee haw. 

Edited November 10, 2020 by Weakened Offender

[Malinga the Swinga]

4 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Speed cameras. 

Speed cameras do not stop drivers exceeding limit. The only thing stopping speeding is the drivers themselves. You do through driver education. 

Speed cameras catch some, not all, and are only one deterrent. 

[Francis Albert]

51 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

It is, but again they are lower risk as people A - aren't drunk and B - are there to work and not socialise. Also employees have been encouraged to report any workplaces that are forcing them to work in the office but are not adhering to safety guidelines.

 

Ever worked in an office Ray?

[Dennis Reynolds]

Edinburgh Airport has been sounded out as a mass vaccination point by the end of the year. Quite a few big logistical issues to get past but another good sign.

[graygo]

9 minutes ago, Brian Dundas said:

I've just noticed that part of the mass testing in Liverpool is to test all school pupils over 11.  That should help give us an indication of how many have the virus around the country

 

Edit - just 12 schools, sorry

 

Testing some pupils in one of the highest infected parts of the country won't give us an idea of how many have the virus around the country.

Would you say the same if they tested all pupils in Cornwall?

[Victorian]

The level of debating from some people shows a distinct intellectual / honesty bankruptcy.  Not a good indicator for the character of some people.  

[graygo]

22 minutes ago, Brian Dundas said:

But we know the rates in each area, or don't we? Do you know what the word indication means? (sorry for being rude)

 

Well I suppose if we assume the numbers in the 12 schools have the same rate as the rest of the schools in Liverpool and we assume that the rate in the rest of the country is the same as Liverpool and we don't mind making assumptions then yes it will give us an indication.

 

ps. If we did test the schools in Cornwall and the number came back at virtually zero would we extrapolate that number across the country?

Edited November 10, 2020 by graygo

[pablo]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

 

Ah,  the loaded question to ask for non-existent data for the purpose of dismissing a reasonable opinion.  That opinion falls into the type of opinion that cannot be proved with data and doesn't need to be.  It is purely reasonable to assume it to be.

 

Surely if people's businesses are being destroyed, it's not unreasonable to ask the question on the existence of evidence behind the decisions being made?