Coronavirus precautions: Has the world gone mad?

[Journeyman]

Face shields of the type being worn in many settings may be sensible for primary schools where distancing is genuinely difficult. Fixed screens would seem a little pointless.

So effectively we're telling very young kids that people are very, very dangerous unless they're covered in PPE? Nope. Terrible idea.

 

[Ianno87]

Face shields of the type being worn in many settings may be sensible for primary schools where distancing is genuinely difficult. Fixed screens would seem a little pointless.

So effectively we're telling very young kids that people are very, very dangerous unless they're covered in PPE? Nope. Terrible idea.

And petrify the hell out of the kids whilst we're at it.

Kids are still many times more likely to be knocked down by a car on the way to school, or even struck by lightning , for crying out loud.

 

[Scotrail12]

Huge no to face coverings in schools. Kids are not likely to die from the virus and this will just scare them!

 

[HSTEd]

The cynic in me might suggest that the teachers don't really want to go back to work.....

 

[Huntergreed]

The cynic in me might suggest that the teachers don't really want to go back to work.....

Most teachers i know are very keen to return to work, they realise the impact this is having on the education of their students and they genuinely care about their pupils. Most (young) teachers that I speak to regularly are desperate to get back to the classroom to catch their pupils back up.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Huge no to face coverings in schools. Kids are not likely to die from the virus and this will just scare them!

They are, however, quite likely to take it home and give it to Grandma, particularly now going and visiting her indoors (albeit not hugging her) is allowed from 4th July (while distancing is still stated, I think grandparent childcare is now de-facto back, as there is no way to enforce otherwise). And then it would be a problem. So we do need to try, within reason, to prevent infection.

Kids have lived, and still do live, in far worse settings and situations than we are in now. They are a lot more resilient to adversity than people on here seem to think - indeed, much, much more so than most adults. All they really need (other than food, water and shelter, obviously) is to be loved and to know they are loved - that sounds trite, but it's also very true. An acrimonious divorce, for example, will do a kid far more damage than the present situation because it calls that basic need into question.

 

[scotrail158713]

I've personally benefited greatly from union membership, but have these idiots got nothing better to do? The number of fresh cases in Scotland is tiny.

Having spoken to my Dad, the unions views aren’t necessarily representative of their members views. That’s both a positive and negative thing.

 

[Ianno87]

They are, however, quite likely to take it home and give it to Grandma, particularly now going and visiting her indoors (albeit not hugging her) is allowed from 4th July (while distancing is still stated, I think grandparent childcare is now de-facto back, as there is no way to enforce otherwise). And then it would be a problem. So we do need to try, within reason, to prevent infection.

Kids have lived, and still do live, in far worse settings and situations than we are in now. They are a lot more resilient to adversity than people on here seem to think - indeed, much, much more so than most adults. All they really need (other than food, water and shelter, obviously) is to be loved and to know they are loved - that sounds trite, but it's also very true. An acrimonious divorce, for example, will do a kid far more damage than the present situation because it calls that basic need into question.

Hugging single grandparents has been permitted for nearly 10 days already.

If grandparents at risk, it remains a choice to stay away from them if you so wish.

 

[Journeyman]

If grandparents at risk, it remains a choice to stay away from them if you so wish.

Absolutely. This is not something governments should interfere with.

 

[DB]

EIS Statement from General Secretary, Larry Flanagan:

"Everyone wishes to see schools operate as normal, but this should be done in a way which is demonstrably safe for students and staff, which doesn't undermine public health messages, and which is done with the interest of school communities being first and foremost and not political expediency."

Does he really think the things he describe constitute 'operating as normal'?

What sort of effect would this have on kids? And let's not forget that they are the lowest risk group. How on earth can anyone claim that draconian and dystopian measures like this proportionate?

 

[HSTEd]

Does he really think the things he describe constitute 'operating as normal'?

What sort of effect would this have on kids? And let's not forget that they are the lowest risk group. How on earth can anyone claim that draconian and dystopian measures like this proportionate?

Because they've made the political decision that deaths from coronavirus avoided have infinite value.

 

[Huntergreed]

Does he really think the things he describe constitute 'operating as normal'?

What sort of effect would this have on kids? And let's not forget that they are the lowest risk group. How on earth can anyone claim that draconian and dystopian measures like this proportionate?

Exactly, I think the government have now fully stopped their 'scare tactics' and fear driven messaging to keep people inside, however we are still left with a terrified population who are demanding the government protect them from the big bad virus. Give it a few weeks, perhaps a month, and people will (hopefully) start to calm down as we return to something resembling normality.

 

[trebor79]

Face shields of the type being worn in many settings may be sensible for primary schools where distancing is genuinely difficult. Fixed screens would seem a little pointless.

Completely pointless to have face shields, and counter productive. My 6 year old son has been back for a couple of weeks now, and the school have done very well to make everything as normal as possible. Nobody is wearing PPE of any description.

The cynic in me might suggest that the teachers don't really want to go back to work.....

It's the union trying to justify their existence. If the union forces such an agreement, I bet individual teachers decide otherwise.
My wife is a teacher and PPE has been made available. Nobody is using it.

 

[johnnychips]

My wife is a teacher and PPE has been made available. Nobody is using it.

Same at my place; however I think my employer is ‘covering their back’ by doing this, and I can’t really blame them.

On having my temperature tested on a warm Monday morning, it was 34.8 degrees C. I think I should have been placed in a warm bath, but had it been equally stupid the other way, I could have been sent home.

 

[Huntergreed]

Same at my place. however I think my employer is ‘covering their back’ by doing this.

On having my temperature tested on a warm Monday morning, it was 34.8 degrees C. I think I should have been placed in a warm bath, but had it been equally stupid the other way, I could have been sent home.

Temperature testing isn’t very logical in my opinion, a high/low temperature can be caused by a very wide range of things including the environment, and preventing people from working/travelling/going on holiday which they’ve paid for for having a high temperature to me isn’t very acceptable

 

[corfield]

Whilst it's refreshing to engage with a more moderate pro-lockdownist I just cannot see how a lockdown commencing 23rd March could have had such an effect so quickly.

If lockdown was the cause of the fall in infections and deaths one would expect a 23rd March lockdown to cause infections (positive test/diagnosis - not date of infection which would be unknown obviously) to peak say around 23rd April with deaths around 23rd May - is that not logical?

I think you need to discount infection statistics as they are based solely on positive tests and such a tiny proportion of people have been tested, even those who believed they had symptoms and isolated - that they are prone to huge errors.

In essence, I’d suggest in the region of 1-5% of people with C19 were positively tested and thus appear in the stats. Thus say 95% weren’t, and a factor which altered the real number affected by say 10% (which is a small factor) would be 9.5%, over double the official value being tracked. Ie the value we are measuring is completely dwarfed by even small errors and changes in reality - to the point it is useless.

The only way to track it is deaths, and even then you run up against “died of covid” vs “died with covid” which is a huge difference. Plus the stuff put out about how we have relaxed death certification (understandably) which seems to create scope for misdagnosis.

In terms of speed, it seems often deaths can be very quick as in a few days from infection, ranging to weeks - so charting lockdown in that sense is hard too.

What seems more likely is that it spread around earlier in the year, most didnt even suffer symptoms and what we saw as a build up and drop off was it getting to those vulnerable who have then been shielded but in a massive shotgun attempt which shielded everyone. Hence why we still need to shield those groups but everyone else should get back to normal ASAP to stop wrecking our ability to protect those that need that.

At the moment we are treading a dangerous path of slowly relaxing but doing it comprehensively (ie soon all kids will be expected back in school and all at work) and thus endangering those that still need protection. We should be adopting a twin speed approach and those in low risk groups (including myself) need to take that risk for the good of society.

 

[Jonny]

I think you need to discount infection statistics as they are based solely on positive tests and such a tiny proportion of people have been tested, even those who believed they had symptoms and isolated - that they are prone to huge errors.

In essence, I’d suggest in the region of 1-5% of people with C19 were positively tested and thus appear in the stats. Thus say 95% weren’t, and a factor which altered the real number affected by say 10% (which is a small factor) would be 9.5%, over double the official value being tracked. Ie the value we are measuring is completely dwarfed by even small errors and changes in reality - to the point it is useless.

The only way to track it is deaths, and even then you run up against “died of covid” vs “died with covid” which is a huge difference. Plus the stuff put out about how we have relaxed death certification (understandably) which seems to create scope for misdagnosis.

In terms of speed, it seems often deaths can be very quick as in a few days from infection, ranging to weeks - so charting lockdown in that sense is hard too.

What seems more likely is that it spread around earlier in the year, most didnt even suffer symptoms and what we saw as a build up and drop off was it getting to those vulnerable who have then been shielded but in a massive shotgun attempt which shielded everyone. Hence why we still need to shield those groups but everyone else should get back to normal ASAP to stop wrecking our ability to protect those that need that.

At the moment we are treading a dangerous path of slowly relaxing but doing it comprehensively (ie soon all kids will be expected back in school and all at work) and thus endangering those that still need protection. We should be adopting a twin speed approach and those in low risk groups (including myself) need to take that risk for the good of society.

You picked up on one thing - we don't know how many people had mild or ^invisible^ cases and made a full recovery. There is a lot that we still do not know and the hidden issue that some people miss is that the unknown scares people. Especially when there is a small risk of death, and the mystery of why some combinations of ethnicity/age/gender are more susceptible than others. The reality is that a bad variant of flu - ironically such as the one near enough 100 years ago - can cause a great deal of mortality and we did not shut down then. It took the bubonic plague for that in days gone by.

What bugs me is that I will gladly walk and/or get the train to avoid having to worry about being accused of endangering others. Or that is how it was before this coronavirus business took off...

 

[adc82140]

Accor hotels are only letting every other room out. Does the virus now go through walls?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Accor hotels are only letting every other room out. Does the virus now go through walls?

You tend to find the doors are in pairs next to each other? Though it may also be because most hotels seem to intend to leave rooms empty for 24 hours between guests. Also is there any connectivity via aircon in their case?

 

[Bantamzen]

You tend to find the doors are in pairs next to each other? Though it may also be because most hotels seem to intend to leave rooms empty for 24 hours between guests. Also is there any connectivity via aircon in their case?

It is possible the aircon is interconnected, so that might be a reason although in reality that could effect two rooms with one in-between. And the chances of two guests hanging around opening doors close to each other for 15 minutes or more are well, pretty much zero. I'm afraid this is another example of covid-what-iffery-syndrome.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is possible the aircon is interconnected, so that might be a reason although in reality that could effect two rooms with one in-between. And the chances of two guests hanging around opening doors close to each other for 15 minutes or more are well, pretty much zero. I'm afraid this is another example of covid-what-iffery-syndrome.

To be fair I think, having suggested that, that aircon in hotels is normally done by piping cold water round the building and each room has its own individual "radiator" which when you turn on the aircon just blows air over it for you. Or some even have a dedicated aircon unit per room.

 

[takno]

Accor hotels are only letting every other room out. Does the virus now go through walls?

I would guess that they know they aren't getting above 50% occupancy any time soon anyway, so it's just as easy to plan their staffing around that, and only unfurlough the people they need. If they do it as an anti-virus measure then it's good publicity, and gives them a better argument when they run to the government to say they can't make money like this.

 

[al78]

And petrify the hell out of the kids whilst we're at it.

Kids are still many times more likely to be knocked down by a car on the way to school, or even struck by lightning , for crying out loud.

That is why many parents insist on driving their kids to school, instead of allowing the kids to walk or cycle, which ironically contributes to the danger.

 

[underbank]

Accor hotels are only letting every other room out. Does the virus now go through walls?

Is that just to spread out the guests and cleaners etc? I.e. far better to have 20 people on each floor rather than 40 on every other floor. If there's usually 2 cleaners per floor, then if only half the rooms are occupied, you only need one cleaner per floor, meaning less risk for the cleaner in the storerooms etc on that floor as they won't be in constant contact with another cleaner throughout the day. It seems daft not to spread out if they can.

 

[island]

It appears so, although entry to the Republic via Northen Ireland is exempt from quarantine.

I don't think it applies for just visiting Ireland, but you can't use it as a loophole for travelling further afield as Ireland has it's own quarantine arrangements in place for international arrivals, which you'd have to comply with.

If you enter Ireland other than from NI, you need to fill in a form stating the address at which you will self-quarantine for 14 days or the length of your stay in Ireland.

Filling out the form is mandatory (until July 9th). Actually self-quarantining appears to be guidance rather than law, unless you are personally ordered to do so by a public health officer.

Source and more details: gov.ie and irishstatutebook.ie

 

[adc82140]

If they'd have said "50% occupancy" I'd have understood, for reasons like breakfast provision. But they have specifically said "every other room"

 

[Journeyman]

If they'd have said "50% occupancy" I'd have understood, for reasons like breakfast provision. But they have specifically said "every other room"

I'm not too fussed unless it causes a capacity problem. It probably reassures the more fearful, and does have the added bonus of making noise disturbances from adjacent rooms non-existent.

 

[LAX54]

So,in trying to save you from C-19, they would rather you be poisoned by the increased exhaust gases produced by crawling traffic.
In that case, is wearing a mask doubly effective?

The traffic has just been made ten times worse by the so called covid arrangements, where before lockdown traffic would tail back a few hundred yards at certain locations, it noe tails back over a mile, and that is with so called reduced traffic, closed the bus lanes and made them cycle / pedestrian, so now the bus is stuck in traffic !

 

[LAX54]

I've probably made this point already, but I've read political diaries of the time and I don't recall a mention of the 68/69 'Hong Kong' flu at all. It doesn't appear to have been an issue our politicians paid much attention to at all, still less anything remotely like the most all-encompassing society-wrecking apparently-worth-throwing-away-the-entire-economy gargantuan behemoth that we're living through now. They had Woodstock while this was going on - and we went to the Moon!

Agreed the population was a lot lower, so not so many to die, and also people did not live as long anyway, not kept alive my 'modern' medicine, and yes life during that pandemic was normal, oddly we are still here, now fear has been instilled in most of the population

 

[duncanp]

Having just come back from a journey on Transport For Wales trains today, I noticed that a lot of the seats had stickers on saying Seat Out Of Use.

Some of the seats that were available were window seats, and others were aisle seats.

On other recent journeys with East Midlands Railway and Avanti West Coast, there were plenty of messages saying please do not sit in an aisle seat in order to make it "safe" for other passengers or staff who had to pass down the train.

Now how come it is "safe" to sit in an aisle seat on Transport for Wales trains, but not on East Midlands Railway and Avanit West Coast?

The answer of course is that it is safe to sit in an aisle seat on all trains, but this is an example of train companies interpreting the regulations differently and making up rules that are a complete load of rubbish, and have no scientific basis whatsoever.