Remaining Effects of Covid

[Peter Sarf]

That's basically answered my question above!
With all the schenanigans r/e the enquiry and the total clustermess of disorganisation from the government - it would take one of real serious deadly proportions to force them to lock us down again; basically if they did I reckon nowadays it would be just about unenforceable. The Ministry Of Illegal Parties telling us not to party??

There will be variant after variant some worse than others forever more. Because we now have herd immunity and vaccines it only effects the most frail of the population (just like Flu does). I would say Covid is now so endemic and we (our immune systems) are so used to that we can worry about Flu just as much as Covid.

We can now afford to be complacent - No10 back in early 2020 could not !.

Give it another hundred years or so and another new virus will pop up. Just like Covid did and "Spanish Flu" back in about 1915.

But always remember the news media will need headlines that get you to click on their links and soak up all the advertisements for things you never really needed.

I can imagine the disappointment of people in big houses relishing another winter of sitting at home watching Netflix all day.

All that infrastructure invested in by households so that could stay at home and miss out on nature - poor things !.

Not sure these days whether it's a variant or a storm.

Its all a storm - in a teacup !.

 

[nw1]

Not sure these days whether it's a variant or a storm.

The Ciaran variant.

 

[lookapigeon]

But by far my favourite "covid safe" application was at my local Tesco Express. They had applied the 2m box system in the isles, meaning that you were always supposed to wait at least one box away from the person in front. It lasted until about 12pm on Day 1 of the lockdown when I went in and saw an assistant coming the "wrong" way down the isles and ignoring the boxes with people in. Anyone that was obeying it suddenly stopped!! It really was a time for the crazies!

It was also Tesco who imposed a rather draconian (and pointless) one way system around each invidual aisle, as if covid could detect which direction it would go in. It was a boom time for sign printers.

 

[Enthusiast]

- it would take one of real serious deadly proportions to force them to lock us down again; basically if they did I reckon nowadays it would be just about unenforceable. The Ministry Of Illegal Parties telling us not to party??

The main problem with lockdowns was not the restrictions on going out or having parties (which I agree, would be hard to enforce). The biggest problem - as far as the effect on people's lives - was the forced closing of businesses - especially in the hospitality trade. Another lockdown would still see this happen and people may well put two fingers up and have people round for drinkies. But they would not be able to "gather" (how I hate that term) in the places where they usually do so.

The Covid enquiry began almost four months ago. Lockdowns were one of the most invasive of all the restrictions that were imposed on the general population and I would have expected by now that questions such as "were lockdowns effective", "were they imposed too early/late", "did they last too long", "did they have any unwanted side effects" etc. would have been asked and addressed by now. But no. All we have seen is the various "WhatsApp" messages and other assorted illiterate and insulting rubbish that was exchanged between Ministers and Civil Servants. These have been accompanied by testimonies from various key players which seem designed to slag off their opponents rather than form part of any sort of rational enquiry. It has achieved absolutely nothing so far. And I doubt it ever will.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Correct, the enquiry is not questioning the effectiveness of lockdowns. In fact what I’ve seen it is more likely to result in a report that says we should have done it earlier, harder and longer. A la Chairman Starmer.

 

[52290]

Correct, the enquiry is not questioning the effectiveness of lockdowns. In fact what I’ve seen it is more likely to result in a report that says we should have done it earlier, harder and longer. A la Chairman Starmer.

I may be wrong, I often am, but I understood Sir Starmers position to be that we should have done it earlier, just as hard but shorter.

 

[VauxhallandI]

I may be wrong, I often am, but I understood Sir Starmers position to be that we should have done it earlier, just as hard but shorter.

Well I wouldn’t trust the “shorter”, he seems as susceptible to what he sees as vote chasing as all the others.

The virtue signalling twitterati would have been too much for him not to change his find.

The way he spoke to that pub owner dur8ng it all told me all I need to know about the man, no more for the people than Johnson

 

[Peter Sarf]

The main problem with lockdowns was not the restrictions on going out or having parties (which I agree, would be hard to enforce). The biggest problem - as far as the effect on people's lives - was the forced closing of businesses - especially in the hospitality trade. Another lockdown would still see this happen and people may well put two fingers up and have people round for drinkies. But they would not be able to "gather" (how I hate that term) in the places where they usually do so.

The Covid enquiry began almost four months ago. Lockdowns were one of the most invasive of all the restrictions that were imposed on the general population and I would have expected by now that questions such as "were lockdowns effective", "were they imposed too early/late", "did they last too long", "did they have any unwanted side effects" etc. would have been asked and addressed by now. But no. All we have seen is the various "WhatsApp" messages and other assorted illiterate and insulting rubbish that was exchanged between Ministers and Civil Servants. These have been accompanied by testimonies from various key players which seem designed to slag off their opponents rather than form part of any sort of rational enquiry. It has achieved absolutely nothing so far. And I doubt it ever will.

It is dawning on me that tho Covid enquiry will never be a scientific investigation into how Covid-19 spread and what preventative measures worked. It will merely be a chance to show how un-professional those in charge were.

Perhaps there is no actual hard and fast knowledge on how Covid-19 spread anyway.
Or is it the case that no one in authority would want to expose the economy again to such a hammering just to save a million (choose a differnt number) or so lives ?. Lets face it the worse disaster would have been a lot of preventable deaths (because the NHS were overstretched) but then panicking in the streets.

 

[Hadders]

The requirement for "proof of Covid status" in Northern Ireland applied only to hospitality premises that were licensed to sell alcohol or which allowed consumption of BYOB alcohol (although most of the latter that I am aware of did not actually follow the legislation).

Had you chosen Wetherspoons for breakfast rather than Caffe Nero, you would also have had to show papers.

Interesting that when we returned to the hotel bar after the rugby match for a 'nightcap' we were served without having to show 'papers'. Come the next morning and it was 'name, rank, serial number and accompanying papers'.

It really shouldn't be necessary to show a passport to be served breakfast in a hotel where you're a guest. It's something I'd expect in North Korea, not the United Kingdom.

 

[danm14]

Interesting that when we returned to the hotel bar after the rugby match for a 'nightcap' we were served without having to show 'papers'.

Ridiculously, this was also legal, assuming it was after normal bar hours and thus the bar was for residents only.

 

[Bantamzen]

It was also Tesco who imposed a rather draconian (and pointless) one way system around each invidual aisle, as if covid could detect which direction it would go in. It was a boom time for sign printers.

My local Co-op did the same, 5 isles with a system of down 1, up 2, down 3, up 4, erm up 5...

Cue lots of confused locals wondering what to do if they were in isle 4 but needed to go to isle 5 or visa versa. Some thought you had to double back to isle 3, others even thought you had to "start again" at isle 1. The amount of arguments it caused was just insane, not to mention that it meant people spent more time in the store and as a result passing people more often. Oh and then the was "The Rule Of 6", which from what I can tell had all the credibility of banging pots on a Thursday and justified simply because it was "easy to communicate". Utter, utter madness. The loonies certainly had taken over the asylum for a bit!

 

[davews]

Not to mention the queueing in socially distanced lines snaking all round the car park.... waiting there for half an hour caused far more spread (or not) than the five minutes I was actually in the shop.

 

[VauxhallandI]

All this and yet the majority of people did it, go figure

 

[KT550]

There's still a big sign at Prescot station with handy tips about keeping safe, including getting tested twice a week.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Been watching freeview channel 84 (PBS America). One about the Flu pandemic that occured during the 1914-18 war. Next a program re-producing events in peoples letters and memoirs from WW1. Now another just starting about Flu and the end of war (1918) it seems. My oh my how little of a clue we had back then. A lot less chance of survival back then. Plus shell shock - gimmie peace time Covid restrictions any time !. Of course I knew most of it already but choose to forget - we should not. 50million dead - I think it was 10 times more than the war dead. But dying (or surviving) in the trenches was awful of course.

 

[gabrielhj07]

My local Co-op did the same, 5 isles with a system of down 1, up 2, down 3, up 4, erm up 5...

Cue lots of confused locals wondering what to do if they were in isle 4 but needed to go to isle 5 or visa versa. Some thought you had to double back to isle 3, others even thought you had to "start again" at isle 1. The amount of arguments it caused was just insane, not to mention that it meant people spent more time in the store and as a result passing people more often. Oh and then the was "The Rule Of 6", which from what I can tell had all the credibility of banging pots on a Thursday and justified simply because it was "easy to communicate". Utter, utter madness. The loonies certainly had taken over the asylum for a bit!

How many people actually paid attention to that nonsense?

 

[LowLevel]

How many people actually paid attention to that nonsense?

Nearly everybody so far as I could tell?

 

[Bantamzen]

Been watching freeview channel 84 (PBS America). One about the Flu pandemic that occured during the 1914-18 war. Next a program re-producing events in peoples letters and memoirs from WW1. Now another just starting about Flu and the end of war (1918) it seems. My oh my how little of a clue we had back then. A lot less chance of survival back then. Plus shell shock - gimmie peace time Covid restrictions any time !. Of course I knew most of it already but choose to forget - we should not. 50million dead - I think it was 10 times more than the war dead. But dying (or surviving) in the trenches was awful of course.

The 1918-1920 pandemic is not a good comparison for covid, if for no other reason that it came at the end of one of the most devastating wars in human history. Living conditions for hundreds of millions of people were so poor it was an ideal breeding ground for any manner of viruses and bacteria. Throw in millions of people moving back from wartime conditions that were even worse, and it can be no surprise it was so bad.

How many people actually paid attention to that nonsense?

Way, way too many people. I remain genuinely shocked at just how many people complied without even a whisper.

 

[Magdalia]

Oh and then the was "The Rule Of 6", which from what I can tell had all the credibility of banging pots on a Thursday and justified simply because it was "easy to communicate".

The rule of 6 was rooted in simple mathematics as a means for suppressing transmission.

In a group of 6 there are 30 possible pairs that could be a transmission from an infected person to a non-infected person. Increase that to 7 and the number of possible pairs goes up to 42, an increase of 40 per cent. Go much higher and the numbers quickly get huge, because the number of possible transmission pairs is (approximately) proportional to the square of the number of people in the gathering.

Restricting gatherings to small numbers of people had to be a key part of restricting transmission, the only judgement was how big the limit should be. For me, who knows a bit about mathematics, it was one of the most credible parts of the government response.

 

[Peter Sarf]

The rule of 6 was rooted in simple mathematics as a means for suppressing transmission.

In a group of 6 there are 30 possible pairs that could be a transmission from an infected person to a non-infected person. Increase that to 7 and the number of possible pairs goes up to 42, an increase of 40 per cent. Go much higher and the numbers quickly get huge, because the number of possible transmission pairs is (approximately) proportional to the square of the number of people in the gathering.

Restricting gatherings to small numbers of people had to be a key part of restricting transmission, the only judgement was how big the limit should be. For me, who knows a bit about mathematics, it was one of the most credible parts of the government response.

That was my understanding. That 6 was as big a group you would dare have before transmission got really too high. (and remember the "R rate" ?). After all we have to remember the idea was not to totally stop the spread but just to slow it down to a manageable rate. That was to avoid too many people needing the life support systems just to get over their first infection.

As for one way systems. We tried that a bit at work until it was pointed out that the traffic levels were too low to be a consideration. But in shops it would be a good way of keeping people more than 2m apart by stopping them passing each other. Obviously the desired 2m would be achievable if the aisles were wide enough. I put that idea in with things that did not hurt too much so why not.

Funnily enough most small shops seem to have an odd number of isles - Sod's law.

A supermarket (not small) I mainly used at the time never had a one way system but I suppose the aisles were fairly wide. I did miss the place January - about March 2020 while we isolated and had volunteer collections. GP said the missus was too ill then to risk things worsefor her was she had to put up with my food cooked in HER kitchen. Being winter I did not mind missing the walk and bus !.

To be fair I was OK with lockdown probably because for most of it I had to go to work so I was almost envious of those who had a break from commuting in the cold weather. But try looking at it from the other side of the fence though !.

 

[Dent]

After all we have to remember the idea was not to totally stop the spread but just to slow it down to a manageable rate. That was to avoid too many people needing the life support systems just to get over their first infection.

That was what was claimed initially with the "three weeks to flatted the curve", but it was quickly forgotten. Neither the rhetoric from those supporting restrictions after the first few weeks, nor the timing of restrictions, was consistent with the aim being purely to flatted the peaks of equipment usage.

 

[Peter Sarf]

That was what was claimed initially with the "three weeks to flatted the curve", but it was quickly forgotten. Neither the rhetoric from those supporting restrictions after the first few weeks, nor the timing of restrictions, was consistent with the aim being purely to flatted the peaks of equipment usage.

I do wonder how dire things were ?. I think restrictions dragged on because of over reaction, a desire to not chop and change OR because things were really worse than a three week flattened peak. I can imagine a combination of factors.

Of course the apparent decision makers were not necessarily taking the medicine !.

 

[Dent]

I do wonder how dire things were ?. I think restrictions dragged on because of over reaction, a desire to not chop and change OR because things were really worse than a three week flattened peak. I can imagine a combination of factors.

Of course the apparent decision makers were not necessarily taking the medicine !.

I think it is clear that the reasons for continuing restrictions were political rather than scientific, and were certainly not part of a coherent plan to flatten the peaks.

Part of it was that politicians backed themselves into a corner by arguing for restrictions using scaremongering arguments which has no defined logical end point, so then were afraid of having their own scaremongering thrown back at them any time they relaxed any restrictions. There are plenty of examples of opportunistic politicians and journalists doing exactly that.

 

[Crossover]

Indeed none of it made sense; as you will know (probably better than me!) but for the benefit of others reading this, schools were very scared of repercussions and very keen to be doing as the local council health officers advised.

In the case of York, we had the truly awful Sharon Stoltz who appeared to delight in imposing ridiculously onerous restrictions. 'Guidance' is treated by schools as if it is a sin not to follow it to the letter.

I think there were a lot of areas where the narrative ws driven by professional bodies etc which members were afraid to deviate from, as if the proverbial hit the fan, they could say "well we followed the advice given to us" - a tickbox exercise in some ways

 

[Enthusiast]

In a group of 6 there are 30 possible pairs that could be a transmission from an infected person to a non-infected person. Increase that to 7 and the number of possible pairs goes up to 42,

There are only 15 (and 21) actually. But the percentage increase is the same.

...because the number of possible transmission pairs is (approximately) proportional to the square of the number of people in the gathering.

It isn't quite that dramatic. The number of pairs in a gathering is always less than half the square of the number of people in that gathering because the formula to calculate the number of pairs is ((n x (n-1))/2). Could it be that your doubling of the number of pairs has led you to this conclusion?

Whilst it seems common sense that a larger number of people gathered increases the risk of transmission, the calculation of the likelihood is not straightforward. I am not at all convinced that any mathematics - simple or otherwise - was the root of the calculation for the "rule of six." More likely it was "We've got to be seen to be doing something, so six sounds about right."

 

[Bantamzen]

The rule of 6 was rooted in simple mathematics as a means for suppressing transmission.

In a group of 6 there are 30 possible pairs that could be a transmission from an infected person to a non-infected person. Increase that to 7 and the number of possible pairs goes up to 42, an increase of 40 per cent. Go much higher and the numbers quickly get huge, because the number of possible transmission pairs is (approximately) proportional to the square of the number of people in the gathering.

Restricting gatherings to small numbers of people had to be a key part of restricting transmission, the only judgement was how big the limit should be. For me, who knows a bit about mathematics, it was one of the most credible parts of the government response.

I fear you are missing my point. Six was chosen because it was more than 5 and less than 7, not because it was some proven safe point. Just like the 2m social distancing, it was a measure designed to deliver the impression we were doing something. Viral spreads don't work along precise mathematical forecasts, there are way too many variables to get anything close to accurate figures as was shown during the restrictions. And besides the rule wasn't even applied evenly, which it never was meant to be as it was designed to frighten people into simply not interacting at all.

 

[Mojo]

I was in central London for a meeting on Friday and couldn't help but notice how quiet the West End was at 9am outside Tottenham Court Road station.

As someone who used to work and live in the West End, it was never particularly busy until midday in any day of the week.

 

[Magdalia]

Six was chosen because it was more than 5 and less than 7

Six is more than five and less than seven, but that's not why it was chosen. Seven wasn't chosen, even though it is more than six and less than eight.

Viral spreads don't work along precise mathematical forecasts

Combinatorial theory isn't a forecast, it is just a measure of the number of possible transmission routes. It measures the relative risk of transmission for different numbers in a gathering independently of how that transmission occurs.

The number of pairs in a gathering is always less than half the square of the number of people in that gathering because the formula to calculate the number of pairs is ((n x (n-1))/2).

I thought about this. Each pair has to be counted in both directions, because it wasn't known who was infected and who wasn't, and transmission could go both ways.

 

[gabrielhj07]

Six is more than five and less than seven, but that's not why it was chosen. Seven wasn't chosen, even though it is more than six and less than eight.

Why was 6 chosen then? Surely 5 would be 'safer'?

 

[island]

There was a balance between safety and convenience, and it was felt that 6 was the appropriate number.