2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Aug 3, 2020 13:13:45 GMT
I would have thought it would make more sense to cut back on families mixing. Although some people seem to think that if we open everything up slowly enough the virus won't notice, it was always the case that we had to find a balance that would permit opening up as much of the economy as possible without tipping over into expansion again. The government is certainly aware of that — the policy all along has been to open up bit by bit to see what we can get away with — so it seems odd that they'd permit a relaxation of restrictions in an area that offers no benefit to the economy. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's that particular relaxation that's behind the growth in cases, because people will naturally tend to drop all precautions when in the group of people they trust and feel safe with even though the extended periods of time you spend with the people you know best mean that's actually the group where transmission is most likely. There appears to be three options here. 1) Keep things as they are with R rate slightly over 1 and use local lockdowns to try and stop it getting higher (the whack a mole approach). This means no return for offices or schools, though. 2) Trade off what we have now for opening something else. The problem here is that so little has changed that even closing everything back down again is likely not enough to enable schools and/or offices and the associated activity, to reopen. You get an ‘all work, no play lockdown’ and have to hope it works. Meanwhile either Sunak props ebery business up or they go to the wall. 3) Let it rip and shield anyone vulnerable (the over fifties/at risk option). This is basically herd immunity 2.0 and we saw what happened in reaction to version 1.0. The truth is that we are on the edge of the possible. Whatever Johnson desires he can’t have cake and eat cake. EDIT: Actually, there’s a fourth but they’ve pretty much nixed this one. Lockdown everything for a month then release. Then keep doing the same if necessary.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Aug 2, 2020 16:31:49 GMT
Also this is the latest thinking: Other reporting makes it a bit clearer. Not on strict age but on age+covid risk+workplace risk. A 65 year old working with one or two people versus a 55 year old working alongside hundreds is not reducible to a strict age demarcation, for example. Given this government I also imagine it comes with a waiver; if you want to take the risk then you own the risk (also fits with their 'nothing to do with us' approach so far).
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 31, 2020 12:19:53 GMT
The R rate would rise markedly if schools fully reopen, not just because of asymptomatic transmission being taken into homes but because of how the impact of that drives general mobility and mixing. they would have to reverse all of the leisure openings to get anywhere near. So, it would be an ‘all work, no play’ lockdown, I guess that’s not going to go down well for the millions who don’t have school age children. We didn't get any feedback how the limited reopening affected cases wheb schools went back on 1st June. A lot could depend what happens in Scotland as their bairns go back about 3 weeks prior to England, we'd have early data from that although I don't think Nicola Sturgeon will go blindly into a full reopening and hope for the best, she'll have some stricter measures in place over the next week or so I'd figure. The problem with that is the, now, very large difference in transmission between Scotland and England. I’d say that their approach has given them a couple of months on us, so by the time England reopens them there will be no clear rise coming from Scottish schools. The low level prevalence simmering away in is just the worst way to tackle the whole thing, anything that simmers can get out of hand quickly. One very useful result of the Swedish experiment is seeing how far the number of cases fell when schools went on holiday, from both transmission and behaviour changes. It was a very large, and accurately timed, drop.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 31, 2020 11:30:58 GMT
The R rate would rise markedly if schools fully reopen, not just because of asymptomatic transmission being taken into homes but because of how the impact of that drives general mobility and mixing. they would have to reverse all of the leisure openings to get anywhere near. So, it would be an ‘all work, no play’ lockdown, I guess that’s not going to go down well for the millions who don’t have school age children.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 31, 2020 11:24:52 GMT
This is a ridiculous response, they are blaming the provider and exonerating the customer. The virus is spread by people not wearing masks and/or distancing. Multigenerational households are just the early warning system, what happens there, will be followed elsewhere weeks later. They are not the driver of transmission, they are the victim. They need to come here up North and see how the pubs are not able, or are unwilling to, enforce regulations, how shops, transport and takeaways cannot implement a rule when they have little legal power,
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 30, 2020 22:59:53 GMT
Won't banning people meeting in their homes just lead to much fuller pubs, thus defeating the entire point? This is the barely concealed dog whistle that zahidf is referring to. Now which community would not be going to the pub instead? As I say, it’s as, if not more, likely to be the pubgoers etc, endangering the guy driving their home or serving them their meal/takeaway.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 30, 2020 22:39:56 GMT
Matt Hancock pinpointing the cause of spikes in Lancashire and West Yorkshire as people meeting in houses and definitely not in shops or pubs has set my dog off barking uncontrollably for some reason. The only people that I see wearing masks around here (I’m in one of those lockdown tightening areas) are from the muslim community - taxi drivers, food establishments etc. All their customers, nothing, Yet again, public facing workers paying the price for those who can’t be bothered. The government would do better by mandating people to wear masks instead of trusting their ‘common sense’, rather than blaming the workers who are being put in danger by them.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Brexit
Jul 30, 2020 11:11:04 GMT
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 30, 2020 11:11:04 GMT
So how are they going to handle the logistics of Northern Ireland? I mean the Good Friday Agreement means they have must have free travel to Ireland but then citizens of the EU can sneak in through Northern Ireland via Ireland? Hmm... Somehow I doubt 'The troubles' will return though. Irish don't face as much descrimination as before plus the younger generations prefers to sort things out via the ballot box rather than civil war. The UK will not withstand the twin pressures of Brexit and Covid. I fully expect Scotland and Northern Ireland to cut ties within a decade, Wales following later. The best way to stop that would be a fully federal state but I think the will to campaign for that has taken a massive hit. I don’t think Northern Ireland would initially vote for a fully united Ireland, maybe some sort of partnership with currency, defence co-operation etc.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 29, 2020 23:35:04 GMT
It is possible if government has the will. They do not have the will, they’re going to spend it on other things. If they really cared about children’s education they would be pulling out all the stops. I meant more that those are the type of situations where children get no support learning at home. Giving them an iPad isn't going to solve that - it sadly in some cases will be more likely taken by the parent or sold, and the child still won't be helped to learn at home, if they even have internet to do so. Contrary to what some people seem to think, throwing money at the situation is not the solution, it's far more complicated than that. The tech is to link home and schoolwork, this is the way education will go in the coming decade anyway, so it just shifts it forwards. I really don’t think that we should allow the most difficult students/parents (in the end there are not that many) to hold back the vast majority. As it is going to be transforming the workplace it is on schools to lead that. As for money, how about getting tech firms to invest in schools by giving the tech to each student? Reinventing school buildings to ensure better environments will need money though and already tne government is far too late, I can't recall them even talking about the necessity of it. Not only for this virus but for much more. Flu deaths have plummeted because of measures taken and we could save both health and therefore wealth by investing in healthier work environments. Now, more than any other time, is the time to make these changes, our successors will condemn us if just go ‘back to normal’.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 29, 2020 22:04:32 GMT
Split classes and blended learning, laptops/tablets for every student, compulsory masks for all in schools, HEPA air filters in every room. Harvard have produced an excellent guide as to how to do so safely. Of course there’s still the increased mobility and mixing that schools create but, if the wider community thinks it can cope with that risk, then it’s quite possible. The key, however, is to plan for zerocovid, bash it down as far as you can, not to have consistent low level community transmission. The government made a choice to reopen bars and restaurants, a choice that makes opening other things more difficult (such as theatres). Clearly you aren't a teacher in a deprived area, as that is about as big a pipe dream as you can get for those kids. It is possible if government has the will. They do not have the will, they’re going to spend it on other things. If they really cared about children’s education they would be pulling out all the stops.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 29, 2020 14:09:53 GMT
Also on Freesat too, for those of us with that platform.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 29, 2020 13:02:54 GMT
Split classes and blended learning, laptops/tablets for every student, compulsory masks for all in schools, HEPA air filters in every room. Harvard have produced an excellent guide as to how to do so safely. Of course there’s still the increased mobility and mixing that schools create but, if the wider community thinks it can cope with that risk, then it’s quite possible. The key, however, is to plan for zerocovid, bash it down as far as you can, not to have consistent low level community transmission. The government made a choice to reopen bars and restaurants, a choice that makes opening other things more difficult (such as theatres). It's unlikely that we are ever going to be in a position of zero Covid in the remaining history of the world; it's probably going to be endemic. We will be able to manage it better through treatments and vaccines, but no vaccine is 100% effective. You could argue that we should have got transmission lower before we unlocked but staying locked till zero Covid is achieved means likely means staying locked forever. On the above post, there are still those in the medical community who haven’t yet accepted the cardiovascular nature of the disease or asymptomatic transmission or, such as WHO because they backed themselves into a corner, aerosolisation. This has exposed the sclerotic nature of organisations that, in a pandemic situation, are too slow to react, We saw it with SAGE early on and not acting on emerging evidence was our downfall. In any case, when you don’t have to run controlled testing, the moral choice is to act where it is safe to do so, as it is with this. As for zerocovid it is the goal rather than the expectation. Aim for 1000 cases a day, as appears to be the English plan, and you get that. Aim for zero, as Scotland has done, and you are going to get much, much closer. Scotland is a great example, if they didn’t have a porous border they’d be well away and capable of reopening much of society safely. Schools in Scotland should be fine if they keep numbers this low, they are effectively in Harvard’s green zone. England? Yellow zone and whack a mole in that zone is a poor option, leading to local lockdowns and rising community transmission. There is a very good reason why the UK outside England have much better polling figures regarding confidence in their governments.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 29, 2020 12:31:59 GMT
So the alternative is to deny children of their education? That is just too big of a sacrifice. Split classes and blended learning, laptops/tablets for every student, compulsory masks for all in schools, HEPA air filters in every room. Harvard have produced an excellent guide as to how to do so safely. Of course there’s still the increased mobility and mixing that schools create but, if the wider community thinks it can cope with that risk, then it’s quite possible. The key, however, is to plan for zerocovid, bash it down as far as you can, not to have consistent low level community transmission. The government made a choice to reopen bars and restaurants, a choice that makes opening other things more difficult (such as theatres).
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 29, 2020 12:14:48 GMT
Sweden closed schools for summer and, lo and behold, case numbers plummeted a week or two later. There is a change in behaviour around that closure, with less mixing and lower mobility, but it’s been a very useful case study. But research now pretty much closes down the idea that schools are a big transmission risk - seems to show that children are far far less likely to transmit the virus as well as be affected by it, so unlikely that schools would make such a difference. Like theglenbucklaird says, probably population, geography, etc is key as well as hitting the circa 20% rate in key areas like Stockholm, which seems to be the point at which transmission drops, regardless of what else you do. I’m afraid you’ve been misinformed on schools. Initially that was the belief but (like aerosol and asymptomatic transmission) that has changed for most who are studying this. The issue was that they weren’t testing children enough and, even when they did, looked for the wrong things or presumed the wrong things. Israel, for example, has seen a massive rise because they reopened schools with reduced distancing, full classes and (when it got hot for a few days), no masks. Remind you of plans for anywhere? Successful reopenings were in areas of near zero transmission plus reduced class sizes, full distancing and/or compulsory masks. Given that children (and this we do know) have a less serious response many are asymptomatic or with negligible symptoms and so transmission is coming into a household via children. What happened in Sweden is another piece in the puzzle. This is a useful summary.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 29, 2020 11:23:10 GMT
Waves tend to refer to viruses that are seasonal, which this one doesn't seem to be; might be easier/harder to transmit depending on time of year, but not to an extent that makes it go away completely. Interesting that Sweden has got the virus down to practically nothing now; will be interesting to see whether their strategy was actually most effective in the medium/long term. Because they didn't really lock down, they're less likely to have to worry about the effects of unlocking. Sweden closed schools for summer and, lo and behold, case numbers plummeted a week or two later. There is a change in behaviour around that closure, with less mixing and lower mobility, but it’s been a very useful case study.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 29, 2020 11:17:32 GMT
When I was young it was Princess Margaret, her purported flings with various men, such as Roddy Llewellyn and her supposed hedonistic lifestyle. It’s vicious attitudes from press barons and their ideologically adjacent lackies that is the problem. 99% of what they publish about the royals is of no public interest and yet they miss the obvious (deliberately, I might say). Take the Epstein scandal, which appears to be of great concern for many powerful men (Ghislaine Maxwell also being the daughter of disgraced press baron Robert Maxwell). It took Prince Andrew sweating his way through the most unconvincing interview possible to get their acknowledgement when it was there for decades to expose, Better they publish ‘squirrels’ on celebrities (hacked phones or not) than possibly endanger anyone connected to their employment. * Maxwell nearly had a West End musical staged about his life but that’s another story. Through Indepedent media would be even less risk taking as Libel laws mean you need to have absolute proof before publishing it. There is a way to have media that is not beholden to individual interests whilst conforming to strict rules on truth and privacy. What you paint as risk taking is not a good thing, there is no risk in truth if backed up by the law (and for that to be backed up by access to the law).
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 29, 2020 11:12:43 GMT
I thought Watchmen was brilliant, well worth a watch and self contained with (it looks like) no plans for a second series. It upends expectations and, like Lindelof’s other work on Lost and The Leftovers, plays with narrative in a really clever way.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 29, 2020 11:07:21 GMT
Quite a few of todays papers are talking about the second wave that is going on in mainland Europe at the moment. Technically it looks like a rebound of the first wave. I’ve been led to believe that a true second wave is a result of the nature of a virus (with the post WW1 flu outbreak it lay dormant over summer, for example). What we’ve done is suppress the first wave through human intervention and that relaxation of intervention releases that suppression. There are some European countries that don’t have this at the moment, such as Scandinavian countries, Ireland and Scotland. They would be best advised to close their borders pronto (and, yes, think of what that would do to split the UK, but it’s becoming inevitable anyway).
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 27, 2020 18:36:13 GMT
When I was young it was Princess Margaret, her purported flings with various men, such as Roddy Llewellyn and her supposed hedonistic lifestyle.
It’s vicious attitudes from press barons and their ideologically adjacent lackies that is the problem. 99% of what they publish about the royals is of no public interest and yet they miss the obvious (deliberately, I might say).
Take the Epstein scandal, which appears to be of great concern for many powerful men (Ghislaine Maxwell also being the daughter of disgraced press baron Robert Maxwell). It took Prince Andrew sweating his way through the most unconvincing interview possible to get their acknowledgement when it was there for decades to expose, Better they publish ‘squirrels’ on celebrities (hacked phones or not) than possibly endanger anyone connected to their employment.
* Maxwell nearly had a West End musical staged about his life but that’s another story.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 27, 2020 10:17:08 GMT
A quick look at newspaper front pages reveals why the press as it currently exists, as a mouthpiece for its wealthy and privileged owners, needs to be destroyed.
Firstly, ranting about holiday plans being affected by rises in cases across Europe when it was they who were reckless in agitating for for and glorifying foreign holidays during a global pandemic in the first place. Secondly, doubling down on their vendetta against the Sussexes with spin that would have done Malcolm Tucker proud.
Mass media in the hands of a few privileged individuals is a recipe for disaster and our society has been weakened and twisted as a result of it for far too long.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 26, 2020 18:52:32 GMT
Goodwin is a well off middle aged guy professing to be in tune with the working class. Give me a break, he’s just a user, piggy backing on grievance to fluff up his own importance, whilst simultaneously mischaracterising and misrepresenting the people he professes to ‘know’. I’d put money on his real views being a lot darker than he lets on.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 25, 2020 15:06:14 GMT
On this point, they should be allowed to put people at a much heightened risk without so much as a request? Other areas might be a lot better but not so much here, so it’s a postcode lottery. Is being asked if there is a reason that you are putting people at risk politely such an imposition? It depends how personal the reason - not everyone is prepared to talk about their health issues ( a pleasant change from those who do so incessantly!) and as I've posted before those who either have been or still are subject to abuse may well not be in a mental state where they can cope with those questions. The same as I am obese due to a medical condition yet have to go through the judgemental eyes of those who think I just eat junk food all the time without knowing my personal story thus I do my best to reserve passing judgement on others Equally, I think it is important to state your own reasons for needing them to wear a mask. For some their age will make it obvious as to why they shouldn't be forced to be around unmasked people but a lot is hidden. This is all one way at the moment, whereby people can claim why they can't wear a mask but those who need others to do so have no similar right. Telling people that you have a heart condition or are a careworker for example, isn't a threat, it is a plea for safety.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 25, 2020 12:06:38 GMT
The issue with lots of people indoors is aerosols. This is why audiences need to be masked. The same should be the case in other places where people spend longer than fifteen minutes together but the government seem to be months behind, yet again, on realising this. Somehow, they have contorted themselves into masks for limited exposure venues and no masks for high exposure venues, They appear to be completely incapable of keeping up with our rapidly changing understanding of the virus.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 25, 2020 11:36:05 GMT
Phantom of London The main long-term risk from covid to this country seems to be that we are turning into a nation of curtain-twitching Stasi informants. On this point, they should be allowed to put people at a much heightened risk without so much as a request? Other areas might be a lot better but not so much here, so it’s a postcode lottery. Is being asked if there is a reason that you are putting people at risk politely such an imposition?
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 23, 2020 7:41:13 GMT
Gambon played Othello twice, most recently in 1990 at the Stephen Joseph Theatre I think directed by Ayckbourn. I think it was the last "blackface" performance of Othello in UK. Surprising it was so recent, I think you have to go back a further decade for another. 1) Simon Russell Beale 2) Kathryn Hunter or Antony Sher 3) Michael Gambon 4) Patrick Stewart 5) Sophie Thompson or Fiona Shaw 6) Harriet Walter 7) Greg Hicks 8) David Bradley 9) Ian McKellen So, I lose this one, you defeated me. There are some great pairings involving dead actors - the actor who played both Prince Hal and Falstaff for example - well, there are two answers actually. Ah, I thought the Ayckbourn one had been canned, surprised it went ahead. One of the Hal/Falstaff pairings will be Ralph Richardson, who doesn’t strike me as obvious casting for the latter but seems to have been lauded for it.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 23, 2020 7:29:38 GMT
3) Michael Gambon.
Had to work out who was old enough and google provided the rest. 1968 is before my theatregoing time.
EDIT: more recent you say? Maybe a different one then. I don’t think Lenny Henry’s played Falstaff (who was my first thought).
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 23, 2020 7:16:01 GMT
5) Fiona Shaw 6) Harriet Walter
Back to the eighties for this couple!
Struggling with 3).
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 23, 2020 6:37:46 GMT
With something as virulent as this the answer is to take measures long before you think they are necessary. We’ve seen this already and savvy countries are clamping down hard on the slightest outbreak (we aren’t, we have sustained low level transmission). If you think it’s too soon to react, it’s the right time to react. As for vaccine, the question is at what point the viral risk outweighs the side effect risk. We are on the same song sheet for your first paragraph. With regards to vaccine, there are people who will not take a vaccine, which is fine, if they want to catch Covid and risk the complications that goes with it, then I have absolutely no problem with that. What people don’t have a right to do is transmit it to other people, who are going about their own law abiding way of life. Agree with that and, presumably, other countries will legislate so that anti vaxxers will face fines, maybe more, to have them comply. Johnson melts into a puddle at the thought of telling people to do something for the common good, however, so the chances of it happening here are, sadly, remote.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 22, 2020 21:44:55 GMT
It is better to control the low infection rate now and keep it that way than let it blow up again, which it will and trying to control it, when; it is out of control, as it was 2 months ago. Get the armed forces in to hand out fines, if necessary and that includes public transport as well. And if Sainsbury’s aren’t going to help enforce the law, I won’t be shopping there. With something as virulent as this the answer is to take measures long before you think they are necessary. We’ve seen this already and savvy countries are clamping down hard on the slightest outbreak (we aren’t, we have sustained low level transmission). If you think it’s too soon to react, it’s the right time to react. As for vaccine, the question is at what point the viral risk outweighs the side effect risk.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Brexit
Jul 21, 2020 12:40:53 GMT
sf likes this
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 21, 2020 12:40:53 GMT
Oh, it is as explosive. Worse in fact.
It would have been awful if the government had found evidence and delayed its publication but, incredibly, they managed to plumb even greater depths. They could not even be bothered to look. That is criminal, literally criminal, all those involved in this are traitors - no more, no less. Was this deliberate ignorance? The evidence seems to be pointing in that direction. They have sold this country down the river.
|
|