• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

22nd February - Roadmap out of the pandemic, lifting of restrictions.

Status
Not open for further replies.

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
I agree that furlough has been necessary due to the restrictions put in place. But the restrictions shouldn't really be in place in the first place, and people are essentially being bribed with furlough to agree to the restrictions.
I suggest that it's less a bribe, and more the government acknowledging that furlough payments are the necessary cost of preventing people from earning their livings.
It's worrying because these people completely fail to take into account the wider impacts. For a lot of people on furlough, there likely won't be a job for them to go back to at the end of all this as businesses and industries adapt to a changing economy.
Some jobs are undoubtedly at risk following changes. But with a taper on furlough over the summer, I'm a wee bit more optimistic about the future than that - bearing in mind that many businesses hit by Covid were already weak.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Furlough has lasted because it had become necessary as a means of support to those whose jobs were otherwise disappearing as a result of government policy. While government policy has included lockdown, furlough has been part of the package, and would never have been removed without lockdowns going. Ease lockdown, and furlough will follow - as is the government's current plan.

The problem is it has allowed some people to become very blinded to the true costs of all this. We already have six years of effective tax rises committed, and it’s a safe bet there’s plenty more of that to come. Meanwhile, how many businesses have either already gone, or will struggle to keep their books balanced having been essentially slaughtered over the last year?

I'm fine with have a rational discussion. But some on here (not yourself) seem to be coming straight out of Dr. Strangelove - "10, 20 million deaths - tops!"

It would certainly be interesting to see some proper analysis of how many lives lockdown has saved, especially this year’s one where (unlike March 2020) we already had numerous other mitigation measures in place.

Certainly it does seem to be the case that on both occasions a natural peak had already occurred by the time lockdown started to have any effect.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,817
Location
Yorks
Well said. But the reverse also applies. Last year, the view was that it was all over, and growing case numbers were ignored or dismissed as we hoped/believed that everything was fine. When restrictions and lockdown were reintroduced, more damage was done as businesses incurred costs without being able to generate the revenue to cover them. Considering that trade-off, I'm of the view that a cautious reopening is a reasonable approach when seeking certainty rather than assuming the best case. All possible courses of action involve balances of risk and harm, and that includes immediate reopening; I want those who say it's a one way street to be right, but their analysis seems to start with the desired outcome, not the means - which makes me uncomfortable. My view is that I'd rather wait 5 more weeks and bank on that confidence, than be over-optimistic and then see a reversal. Others' views will undoubtedly differ.

I'm interested in the mechanism, by which a change implemented now, that isn't irreversable, becomes irreversable if implemented in five weeks time.

Are we expecting case rates to become even lower, with the theory being that beyond a certain point they won't rise again ? I think that that's a naive view because even countries with extremely low case rates such as Australia seem to be at a constant threat of outbreaks.

It seems to me that the only way the opening up will become irreversible, will be a via a political decision not to go into lockdown again. Whether we open up more now, or in five weeks time will have no practical impact on this.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
Completely agree, I made a thread a while back about covid and "human exceptionalism", where I believe that our covid response has been "human exceptionalism gone mad", primarily in response to trying to save as many lives from covid and, "beat this virus" (because we're "exceptional"). It maddens me how it's dangerous to talk about death in certain ways, even though it is inevitable, and I believe our failure to acknowledge this as a society is holding back progress.

It was an interesting thread and I think rather key to what has happened over the last 15 months.

There's a pandemic on, and therefore people will die. A terribly uncontroversial statement - and yet it seems that acknowledging this is somehow controversial nowadays.

I do wonder philosophically how we got here, and this assumption that scientists (and politicians!) can somehow overcome mother nature.

(My suspicions are that it is related to two things : the decline in organised religion (that 'this is all there is', no afterlife), and the fact that humans have been able to show great power over the last 80 years or so over some elements of nature (nuclear weapons, climate change, etc.) so why can't we do so in other ways? But that's probably for another thread).

As unfortunate as this is, our best hope is the collateral damage coming up of more deaths from other causes that have been ignored because of covid brings home the reality that, even if we save a life from one cause, nature will only get us another way instead.

Early on I thought that the key thing that would mitigate against lockdowns etc. to begin with - or at worst would guarantee they would be very short-lived - would be the terrible economic damage that they cause.

That this seems to have been relegated to a minor consideration is one of the most troubling issues in all this, because it points to a probable intent to fundamentally reshape the way our society works. (Not that I'm necessarily opposed to that in theory - before this started I was a Corbyn-supporting socialist - but I don't think any such reshaping in this case is going to be remotely in the interests of the '99%').
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,613
Location
First Class
It was an interesting thread and I think rather key to what has happened over the last 15 months.

There's a pandemic on, and therefore people will die. A terribly uncontroversial statement - and yet it seems that acknowledging this is somehow controversial nowadays.

I do wonder philosophically how we got here, and this assumption that scientists (and politicians!) can somehow overcome mother nature.

(My suspicions are that it is related to two things : the decline in organised religion (that 'this is all there is', no afterlife), and the fact that humans have been able to show great power over the last 80 years or so over some elements of nature (nuclear weapons, climate change, etc.) so why can't we do so in other ways? But that's probably for another thread).



Early on I thought that the key thing that would mitigate against lockdowns etc. to begin with - or at worst would guarantee they would be very short-lived - would be the terrible economic damage that they cause.

That this seems to have been relegated to a minor consideration is one of the most troubling issues in all this, because it points to a probable intent to fundamentally reshape the way our society works. (Not that I'm necessarily opposed to that in theory - before this started I was a Corbyn-supporting socialist - but I don't think any such reshaping in this case is going to be remotely in the interests of the '99%').

Very interesting. This is the first time we've faced real adversity (as opposed to the threat of it during the Cold War for example) in this country since the Second World war. Conflicts, famines and indeed pandemics have been effectively abstract; we've see them happening in far away places, thought to ourselves "how terrible" and then continued with our daily lives. The reaction of many to Covid-19 has been "this can't happen to us" followed by a false belief that we can somehow control it. Vaccines aside, all we can feasibly do is tinker around the edges, it may make (some of) us feel better but over the course of a pandemic it achieves very little. In terms of the graphs we're all familiar with, the peaks and troughs may move slightly but the area under the line remains the same.

I share your concerns regarding the economy. I think we hold opposing political views(!) but what we're seeing transcends such ideologies; this has the potential to turn very nasty for all of us, a small minority excepted....
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,262
Certainly it does seem to be the case that on both occasions a natural peak had already occurred by the time lockdown started to have any effect.
That's not the case though:

Can we believe the lockdown sceptics? - Full Fact

1620128347092.png

The peak in deaths occurred pretty much exactly when you would expect it to under a lockdown.

Scepticism is important, but at some point Ockham's Razor comes into play - the most obvious explanation of the data is usually the correct one.
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,979
Location
0036
Have some patience folk. Nobody likes this, but it’s nearly over - 7 more weeks. Personally I trust the plans informed by the epidemiologists rather than Daily Mail columnists and members of the Reform Party.
Except it's not "nearly over"; no end date has been announced for rules on face coverings and international travel, amongst other things.
 

kez19

Established Member
Joined
15 May 2020
Messages
2,038
Location
Dundee
I’ve not heard anyone suggest there should be a 4th lockdown.


Technically it was trending immediately on social media like twitter when the governments started to open things up - thats your general source for ramping these things up and then quite possibly the media will get wind of it to start the ramping up fear once more.

The whole thing has became than trusting our governments knowing what to do, but they look to social media and the media themselves for guidance, if someone says something and the government(s) don't like they'll go with it to appease the crowd than actually putting their own heads together.

However I look it another way, politicians, media and the likes of SAGE don't really care for "our" lives they only care for themselves, media - ratings/clickbait, SAGE - you could class them under the whole social/media, as what they say the public just swallow it up and the media don't really go in with deepful and throrugh questioning of their theories it more of "yes ok sir/madam", politicians on the other for me as I say just about them and since its the elections its all about votes, they'll happily throw people in the frontline under a bus but still take credit but mistakes are made the buck should be at their door but of course they don't take the flak (Sturgeon casing point for me - she claims to be responsible for her actions but read recently in terms of care home deaths she claimed in a paper recently saying "took her eye off the ball" - personally speaking thats utter bull but as I say do I see the media calling for her to go? No but same actions with Boris and people/media are wanting him to go, (can't stand either) but see the hypocrisy in broad daylight?
 
Last edited:

philosopher

Established Member
Joined
23 Sep 2015
Messages
1,346
If I were being selfish, I’d be happy for the Rule of 6 and social distancing to remain indefinitely as I don’t do anything impacted by it, indeed in many ways it’s beneficial (who doesn’t like quieter restaurants?). In terms of my personal lifestyle all inconvenience is over as of two weeks’ time. As such I would not trust my own judgment as to how much hardship is caused by such a measure. If others interested in prolonged restrictions are being honest they should think the same.
One thing I have learnt from all this is that a particular measure for some people may only be a marginal inconvenience or even a benefit to them, but for others that measure will be very painful. Take the restrictions on international travel for example. For me I am not really bothered too much by it, it just means my holiday has to be the UK instead of overseas. But I know for others it has effectively meant they are completely cut off from seeing their family for an indefinite period of time. The same goes for masks. For most they are an inconvenience, however for those who are mask exempt, they risk dirty looks and possibly even confrontation with others who may challenge them on why they are not wearing one.
 

kez19

Established Member
Joined
15 May 2020
Messages
2,038
Location
Dundee


Yet pre-covid I didn't wear a mask if I had a cold, I carried a tissue however I won't be wearing a mask in the winter regardless.

Also isn't it being polite even if you cough near someone to say something like "sorry" or "excuse me", I couldn't care regardless if someone coughed or sneezed near me but I see since COVID is be all and end all this is now the new approach - I wear a mask so if you cough near me I can moan all over social media about my experience of a cough/sneeze.
 

johntea

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2010
Messages
2,585
Odeon back open on 17 May


The new cinema experience

At Odeon cinemas seats will be limited, guaranteeing unoccupied seats between parties to meet social distancing requirements.
Visitors will be expected to wear face masks but will be allowed to remove them in auditoriums when eating or drinking.
Meanwhile, show start times will be staggered to reduce queues and the cinemas no longer accept cash, which means only contactless payment is accepted and cinemagoers are advised to pre-book seats online.

Hopefully the social distancing and mask nonsense will be quickly scrapped (21 June!), cash not being accepted is absolutely ridiculous and nothing at all to do with Covid! (sadly I suspect that reduces the staffing levels)
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
The peak in deaths occurred pretty much exactly when you would expect it to under a lockdown.

That's a rather odd graph, given the government's own website https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths shows the peak of deaths was on 8th April. It isn't possible for every region to have peaked in deaths *after* that date therefore.

Whether the peak in deaths being on April 8th shows that lockdowns 'work' or not is a rather more complex question.

Yet pre-covid I didn't wear a mask if I had a cold, I carried a tissue however I won't be wearing a mask in the winter regardless.

Without needing to be being political about masks or questioning whether they do anything at all, surely the obvious question here is 'what is more helpful and hygenic'?

- 'Catch it, bin it, kill it' or
- 'Catch it, then strap it tightly to your face for hours'?

I know which I suspect is better.

As an aside, I assume that graphic is from xkcd, which is yet another thing that I used to enjoy reading, but now it just witters on endlessly about the pandemic.
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,262
Yet pre-covid I didn't wear a mask if I had a cold, I carried a tissue however I won't be wearing a mask in the winter regardless.

Also isn't it being polite even if you cough near someone to say something like "sorry" or "excuse me", I couldn't care regardless if someone coughed or sneezed near me but I see since COVID is be all and end all this is now the new approach - I wear a mask so if you cough near me I can moan all over social media about my experience of a cough/sneeze.
For me wearing a mask is a marginal inconvenience so if in the future I'm feeling under the weather and find myself in a public indoor space I'll wear it out of common courtesy. Seems the least I could do.
 

Jamesrob637

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2016
Messages
5,205
A jump towards "the new normal"?? We've had the new normal for yonks now. It's high time for the old normal to return!

It'll be a new normal with 95% of the old

What has changed, stuff like sand hanitiser, will be marginal. But enough to constitute a "new normal."

If I lowered my car by a fraction, would I have the old normal? No. But changes would be very subtle, and mostly to my benefit.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
Odeon back open on 17 May


Hopefully the social distancing and mask nonsense will be quickly scrapped (21 June!), cash not being accepted is absolutely ridiculous and nothing at all to do with Covid! (sadly I suspect that reduces the staffing levels)

The 'new cinema experience' at Odeon sounds remarkably like the 'cinema experience of summer/autumn 2020'. I'm not sure what is 'new' about these measures therefore, but that's the standard of reporting I expect from the BBC nowadays.

They weren't taking cash then either, irritatingly. (Cineworld still were I think).
 

Jonny

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,562
For me wearing a mask is a marginal inconvenience so if in the future I'm feeling under the weather and find myself in a public indoor space I'll wear it out of common courtesy. Seems the least I could do.

I'm not so sure it would be so good if you have hayfever and a runny nose, and you know that it is through a non-infectious cause.

The 'new cinema experience' at Odeon sounds remarkably like the 'cinema experience of summer/autumn 2020'. I'm not sure what is 'new' about these measures therefore, but that's the standard of reporting I expect from the BBC nowadays.

They weren't taking cash then either, irritatingly. (Cineworld still were I think).

Going by the reports, why bother with masks if you're going to be taking them off to eat/drink?
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
5,996
Location
Surrey
If I truly believed this I might agree, but I think there’s a logical fallacy somewhere along the way.

We are concerned, I assume we can agree, about a hypothetical variant which is all four of:
  1. Highly contagious
  2. Causes death/hospitalisation in a high %
  3. Not protected for in terms of transmission by current vaccines
  4. Not protected for in terms of severe outcomes by current vaccines
Now consider that Australia has to keep going into lockdown based on three or four cases, as they have not accepted endemic transmission. They can stay on top of any new variants (except a hypothetical one that is so transmissible lockdowns don’t work), albeit at huge cost.

We already know that cases escape Australia’s quarantine procedures with some regularity, which if left unchecked would result in endemic transmission. And that is based on far more stringent procedures where every country is equivalent to our red list. Our system is more leaky with red list arrivals mixing in immigration or flight connections with no social distancing with “normal” countries.

The U.K. has accepted endemicity. If a new variant meets all four criteria above, it will find a way in because Australia has proved this under tighter controls. There is no way to aim for Covid zero just for one particular new variant (despite the efforts of surge testing in my local borough) and therefore I don’t see how we prevent such a new variant becoming dominant in the U.K in such a doomsday scenario.

My conclusion from this is that all travel controls are futile unless you are going for both an Australia-style travel ban, and Covid zero at home. Do the former without the latter (or even a half way house) and it’s just an ineffective political point.

(Lucky the concern is merely a hypothetical one! The real solutions involve more worldwide vaccination, and probably vaccine boosters).
This a well argued position and can't really disagree with it and for completeness my view is restrictions should be being relaxed quicker given the data. However, my concern is if there is flare up BoJo/Hancock and the wise men will push for restrictions and lockdowns again and thus avoiding a variant getting into the UK should be the priority and that means minimising travel from my chair. Hence my view is id rather have no overseas holiday than risk this outcome so I can go about my daily life as i used to. As you rightly say Australia has leakage so what do you believe will happen if movement levels are in the millions it could turn into a flood seeding another Autumn surge.

Anyhow, my gut instinct, increasingly being backed up by the data, is the Varaints won't gain traction but we don't know that yet but the pros got caught over the Kent variant so why risk it just now. They should be assessing risk of the variants daily and if that changes then relax the restrictions on travel as soon as they know.
 

Jamesrob637

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2016
Messages
5,205

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,668
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
This a well argued position and can't really disagree with it and for completeness my view is restrictions should be being relaxed quicker given the data. However, my concern is if there is flare up BoJo/Hancock and the wise men will push for restrictions and lockdowns again and thus avoiding a variant getting into the UK should be the priority and that means minimising travel from my chair. Hence my view is id rather have no overseas holiday than risk this outcome so I can go about my daily life as i used to. As you rightly say Australia has leakage so what do you believe will happen if movement levels are in the millions it could turn into a flood seeding another Autumn surge.

Anyhow, my gut instinct, increasingly being backed up by the data, is the Varaints won't gain traction but we don't know that yet but the pros got caught over the Kent variant so why risk it just now. They should be assessing risk of the variants daily and if that changes then relax the restrictions on travel as soon as they know.
Once the EU settle on a travel agreement, it is going to be very hard to continue to justify bans on leisure travel abroad from the UK. And given that EU countries are under way with their vaccination programmes it becomes even more difficult for government to continue to peddle the scary variant line for travel into Europe. Maybe further afield will continue to see limited travel, Australia & New Zealand having sealed themselves off as an example, but all the indications are that closer destinations might become available to us sooner rather than later.
 

DelayRepay

Established Member
Joined
21 May 2011
Messages
2,929
The 'new cinema experience' at Odeon sounds remarkably like the 'cinema experience of summer/autumn 2020'. I'm not sure what is 'new' about these measures therefore, but that's the standard of reporting I expect from the BBC nowadays.

I agree and it doesn't sound particularly pleasant, or profitable if they are going to have reduced occupancy. I hope this is just temporary and we will get back to normal (real normal) from 21 June.

I realise cinemas have to comply with all legal requirements, but if they offered two screenings of the same film, one with 50% reduced occupancy (and therefore charged double for a ticker) and mandatory mask wearing and the other like 2019 with no masks or occupancy limits, which would be the most popular?

If there is a real demand from certain sections of the population to wear masks in cinemas, why don't they do 'Masked Up Mondays' to accommodate those people? And leave the other days free for everyone else!
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
8,677
I'm interested in the mechanism, by which a change implemented now, that isn't irreversable, becomes irreversable if implemented in five weeks time.

Are we expecting case rates to become even lower, with the theory being that beyond a certain point they won't rise again ? I think that that's a naive view because even countries with extremely low case rates such as Australia seem to be at a constant threat of outbreaks.

It seems to me that the only way the opening up will become irreversible, will be a via a political decision not to go into lockdown again. Whether we open up more now, or in five weeks time will have no practical impact on this.
I think it is meant to be due to vaccination. More people protected therefore less people to put pressure on the NHS when cases inevitably emerge. That is certainly my takeaway from the various press conferences as for the justification.

For what it's worth I think we should be opening indoor now as the rates in hospital and deaths are below when we reopened last year.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
Going by the reports, why bother with masks if you're going to be taking them off to eat/drink?

I'm sure they would like us to wear masks all the time (for whatever reason, though presumably not much to do with public health because by now we know full well that they don't achieve anything) - but there are some activities where it isn't possible.

Cinemas in particular can't make any money without selling over-priced food and drink. They get almost nothing from ticket sales anymore.

I agree and it doesn't sound particularly pleasant, or profitable if they are going to have reduced occupancy. I hope this is just temporary and we will get back to normal (real normal) from 21 June.

Though unlike say theatres, most cinemas can make money with significantly reduced occupancy (as long as they're selling overpriced food and drink to those who do show up!) - very few screenings actually sell out, except when the major blockbusters come along.

The only real example of a 'blockbuster' we have from last year was Tenet - and in the UK at least, that did pretty well at the box office, all things considered.

Whether it would have done better or worse, without masks and/or reduced capacity - is quite hard to tell.
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,613
Location
First Class
That's not the case though:

Can we believe the lockdown sceptics? - Full Fact

View attachment 95492

The peak in deaths occurred pretty much exactly when you would expect it to under a lockdown.

Scepticism is important, but at some point Ockham's Razor comes into play - the most obvious explanation of the data is usually the correct one.

Or, alternatively, the peak in deaths occurred pretty much exactly when you would expect it to following the peak in infections? I'm not sure we have accurate infection data for the early stages of the pandemic though so it's difficult to prove the point either way.

We do however have accurate infection data for the periods before and after the second and third lockdowns:

1620132680968.png

Cases | Coronavirus in the UK (data.gov.uk)

If you follow the link and study the graph you'll see that infections were already subsiding at the time both lockdowns were imposed, with deaths peaking a couple of weeks later....

Could it be that fullfact.org is actually presenting partial facts to support a particular narrative?
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
5,996
Location
Surrey
Have some patience folk. Nobody likes this, but it’s nearly over - 7 more weeks. Personally I trust the plans informed by the epidemiologists rather than Daily Mail columnists and members of the Reform Party.
What do you expect to happen in seven weeks time that is different from today. Those epidemiologists and modellers were predicting a fourth wave with the plan as it is and i didn't see a suggestion that the plan shouldn't be followed. I would suggest the politicians were setting out there stall to forewarn us of what might happen with cases. Now that it is increasing clear that isn't going to happen the plan should be adjusted to reflect the new situation.

Its not only a Covid death that matters what about all those waiting treatment or on the verge or are having mental health issue - don't they matter? They need to get the balance right and disappointingly for all there social interest Labour and the Liberals don't get this either.
 

Purple Orange

On Moderation
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
3,438
Location
The North
What do you expect to happen in seven weeks time that is different from today. Those epidemiologists and modellers were predicting a fourth wave with the plan as it is and i didn't see a suggestion that the plan shouldn't be followed. I would suggest the politicians were setting out there stall to forewarn us of what might happen with cases. Now that it is increasing clear that isn't going to happen the plan should be adjusted to reflect the new situation.

Its not only a Covid death that matters what about all those waiting treatment or on the verge or are having mental health issue - don't they matter? They need to get the balance right and disappointingly for all there social interest Labour and the Liberals don't get this either.


Yes of course mental health matters hugely. It may also explain a lot of the anger that appears on social media too. However I am more inclined to trust the experts that were involved in the current plan as opposed internet forumers and daily mail columnists. Personally I’d rather we stick to it. In fact knowing there is a plan and seeing it carried out provides a level of mental health ‘comfort’, that we are emerging from this awful period.

Perhaps I am wrong and I should be glad that so many epidemiologists have an interest in the railways and here they all are on this thread!
 

Class 33

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2009
Messages
2,362
Odeon back open on 17 May




Hopefully the social distancing and mask nonsense will be quickly scrapped (21 June!), cash not being accepted is absolutely ridiculous and nothing at all to do with Covid! (sadly I suspect that reduces the staffing levels)


Though the UK Cinema Association has suggested it will oppose plans to wear face masks in cinema showings....

Meanwhile the UK Cinema Association has suggested it will oppose any plans to require film-goers to wear masks during showings.

A spokesman said: "We strongly believe that our exemplary record on safety – with not a single case of Covid traced back to a UK venue – and our ability to manage the movement of cinema-goers in modern, highly ventilated indoor environments offer ample evidence that any relaxation from June 21 can be undertaken safely without the need for further ongoing restrictions, including any requirement for face coverings."

Taken from this article....

 

kez19

Established Member
Joined
15 May 2020
Messages
2,038
Location
Dundee
For me wearing a mask is a marginal inconvenience so if in the future I'm feeling under the weather and find myself in a public indoor space I'll wear it out of common courtesy. Seems the least I could do.

Personal choice

That's a rather odd graph, given the government's own website https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths shows the peak of deaths was on 8th April. It isn't possible for every region to have peaked in deaths *after* that date therefore.

Whether the peak in deaths being on April 8th shows that lockdowns 'work' or not is a rather more complex question.



Without needing to be being political about masks or questioning whether they do anything at all, surely the obvious question here is 'what is more helpful and hygenic'?

- 'Catch it, bin it, kill it' or
- 'Catch it, then strap it tightly to your face for hours'?

I know which I suspect is better.

As an aside, I assume that graphic is from xkcd, which is yet another thing that I used to enjoy reading, but now it just witters on endlessly about the pandemic.

That’s the point though in general before all this, ask yourself that question what did you do if you coughed sneezed or had a cold? You used a tissue, I didn’t see many people “spacing” out to avoid people. It’s called using your own common sense regardless but people have became germaphobes since COVID

I rather if I sneezed put it in a tissue then a bin simple
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top