|
Post by talkingheads on Aug 26, 2020 15:53:19 GMT
As the mask wearing has become more prevalent in my day to day life, I have begun to get scared. It's not the virus, it's the masks themselves. It's a psychological thing with me I guess. I struggle with eye contact in the first place but now I avoid it even more. I can't read people's expressions with just their eyes. Walking round shops, getting on the bus, and now even at my work, everyone has masks on, and I find it all very eerie, like I've entered a parrellel universe. I feel like all these masked people are glaring at me, judging me, for just existing. My Asperger's doesn't help with this either. These changes has come too quickly and drastically for me and my ability to adapt to change is impaired and it's so scary, I don't like it Idk if others feel similar or am I just... weird? I'm scared to post about this anywhere else too, especially Twitter and Facebook, as someone is bound to get offended. No I get it. I wasn't the most social person before, but now? Getting to feel like a social leper! Don't chat to strangers anymore, all my shopping is done at speed. There is no comfort in going to the shops, I shop almost entirely online. I was never a huge fan of bars, but at least you could meet people. Going to the pub was like a military operation. Went for the Eat Out to Help Out, won't be rushing back.
|
|
5,593 posts
|
Post by lynette on Aug 26, 2020 15:59:50 GMT
So sorry you are having these difficulties, basi1fawlty and quite understandable. I haven't been out and about much so not confronted with the problem in same way. I don’t like it though. Just something basically human I think, to want to see the face. Reading expressions very important. Some of us think that the wearing of the full burqa is problematic but we had better not go down that road. Some people have adapted very well and some businesses must be flourishing from the sale of the designer mask, the pretty or sloganed or branded masks etc. But then other people and I think I am one of these, would prefer to see this as a temporary measure and the so called surgical paper one use/one day/one journey mask is sufficient. No need to make it seem permanent. I think some will take to the mask for the foreseeable future if it helps guard against other bugs, flu, colds etc. Or if they feel that having a cold it is more socially responsible to wear them. I think that was the situation in say, Japan before Covid.
One thing struck me- the photos of the politicians and the US campaigns will be forever on the net and in books ( not to mention our own cache of photos) and I’m wondering if in the future people will look at them and shake their heads solemnly, pitying our ignorance of science as we do when we see people smoking all the time in those old interviews and movies.
|
|
2,271 posts
|
Post by theatreian on Aug 26, 2020 16:18:08 GMT
the historical truth is that they are not accurate which is why Labour wanted to do away with them for University entrance in their last manifesto. Several teachers I know say that teacher assessed grades are likely to be higher than those achieved. I am frankly getting fed up of the fuss made of this issue. What did everyone think would happen with a year when no exams were sit? It was never going to be a straight forward situation to resolve and the fact that the final grades awarded were the highest in 13 years in the top grades show that students were probably given higher grades than would have been achieved by exams. I do sympathise with those who were doing resits and so had no teacher to assess their grade but for the vast majority they have come out with better than they would have got. This was born out by the jubilant scenes when the GCSE results were published.
|
|
6,358 posts
|
Post by danb on Aug 27, 2020 5:15:04 GMT
the historical truth is that they are not accurate which is why Labour wanted to do away with them for University entrance in their last manifesto. Several teachers I know say that teacher assessed grades are likely to be higher than those achieved. I am frankly getting fed up of the fuss made of this issue. What did everyone think would happen with a year when no exams were sit? It was never going to be a straight forward situation to resolve and the fact that the final grades awarded were the highest in 13 years in the top grades show that students were probably given higher grades than would have been achieved by exams. I do sympathise with those who were doing resits and so had no teacher to assess their grade but for the vast majority they have come out with better than they would have got. This was born out by the jubilant scenes when the GCSE results were published. The government (call Ofqual what you want; it’s still just an arm of low tier governance, there to blame so that the actual policy makers get off scot free) had six months to work out what they were going to do and check it would be fair & accurate. They didn’t run their algorithm enough times or deliberately programmed it to create a new tranche of low paid workers to replace the migrant workers Priti is hell bent on kicking out. Either way I reckon six months is enough not to balls it up on the scale that they did.
|
|
2,206 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Aug 27, 2020 8:40:08 GMT
the historical truth is that they are not accurate which is why Labour wanted to do away with them for University entrance in their last manifesto. Several teachers I know say that teacher assessed grades are likely to be higher than those achieved. I am frankly getting fed up of the fuss made of this issue. What did everyone think would happen with a year when no exams were sit? It was never going to be a straight forward situation to resolve and the fact that the final grades awarded were the highest in 13 years in the top grades show that students were probably given higher grades than would have been achieved by exams. I do sympathise with those who were doing resits and so had no teacher to assess their grade but for the vast majority they have come out with better than they would have got. This was born out by the jubilant scenes when the GCSE results were published. Exam results should be slightly higher this year though. That is correct no?
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Aug 27, 2020 9:32:51 GMT
Several teachers I know say that teacher assessed grades are likely to be higher than those achieved. I am frankly getting fed up of the fuss made of this issue. What did everyone think would happen with a year when no exams were sit? It was never going to be a straight forward situation to resolve and the fact that the final grades awarded were the highest in 13 years in the top grades show that students were probably given higher grades than would have been achieved by exams. I do sympathise with those who were doing resits and so had no teacher to assess their grade but for the vast majority they have come out with better than they would have got. This was born out by the jubilant scenes when the GCSE results were published. Exam results should be slightly higher this year though. That is correct no? The difference comes in as assessed grades are reflecting the ability of a student without any possible issues. In reality there are some who make uncharacteristic errors, crumble under pressure and so on. It wouldn’t be fair to assign that effect to random students, so assessed grades reflect their ability without those pressures. It brings into question the nature of examinations as a means of assessment, to be honest. Examinations are not assessing ability, they are assessing how students fare in examinations.
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Aug 27, 2020 10:42:03 GMT
Exam results should be slightly higher this year though. That is correct no? The difference comes in as assessed grades are reflecting the ability of a student without any possible issues. In reality there are some who make uncharacteristic errors, crumble under pressure and so on. It wouldn’t be fair to assign that effect to random students, so assessed grades reflect their ability without those pressures. It brings into question the nature of examinations as a means of assessment, to be honest. Examinations are not assessing ability, they are assessing how students fare in examinations. Exams are a memory test, no more. Nothing to do with ability as you say. I could memorise a list of French words, wouldn't make me fluent.
|
|
471 posts
|
Post by Deal J on Aug 27, 2020 13:42:01 GMT
The difference comes in as assessed grades are reflecting the ability of a student without any possible issues. In reality there are some who make uncharacteristic errors, crumble under pressure and so on. It wouldn’t be fair to assign that effect to random students, so assessed grades reflect their ability without those pressures. It brings into question the nature of examinations as a means of assessment, to be honest. Examinations are not assessing ability, they are assessing how students fare in examinations. Exams are a memory test, no more. Nothing to do with ability as you say. I could memorise a list of French words, wouldn't make me fluent.That wouldn't 'make' you pass a French exam either!
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Aug 27, 2020 15:07:49 GMT
The difference comes in as assessed grades are reflecting the ability of a student without any possible issues. In reality there are some who make uncharacteristic errors, crumble under pressure and so on. It wouldn’t be fair to assign that effect to random students, so assessed grades reflect their ability without those pressures. It brings into question the nature of examinations as a means of assessment, to be honest. Examinations are not assessing ability, they are assessing how students fare in examinations. Exams are a memory test, no more. Nothing to do with ability as you say. I could memorise a list of French words, wouldn't make me fluent. None of my exams were a memory test. We were expected to have a few technical terms memorised, obviously, but the point of the exams was to test understanding of the subject. So for maths we were given a booklet of formulae because we were being tested on our understanding of knowing which formula to use and how to apply it to a given problem, for chemistry we would be told the necessary facts in the question ("if the atomic weight of a carbon atom is 12..."), for history we'd be given information about an event and be asked to write about its implications, and so on. None of the exams were probing our ability to function in an alternate universe where reference books had never been invented. Exams aren't perfect, but nothing is. Every method of evaluation is going to be better for some people and worse for others, and at least exams don't test the pupils' ability to ask someone else to do the work for them.
|
|
2,536 posts
|
Post by n1david on Aug 27, 2020 22:22:49 GMT
I did very well out of exams, but not everyone does, and there is an argument that coursework is a better test of how someone might perform in the workplace (given that when working one is constantly adjusting behaviour, and you are rarely forced to sit down and say what you know for three hours).
The best way of evaluating surely has to be a mix of both exams and coursework - neither are perfect but we need young people who are more than exam-taking machines. If this year's A-level students had had two years of coursework behind them, there would have been a lot more data to feed into an algorithm.
|
|
4,596 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Sept 2, 2020 12:36:43 GMT
And another u turn after saying yesterday that it was safe to relax lockdown in the greater Manchester area. This and the fact BJ won't visit families of bereaved relatives just makes this government so favourable at the ballot box
|
|
5,593 posts
|
Post by lynette on Sept 6, 2020 12:14:49 GMT
A close friend is getting married today: her mum, his dad, his sister and her kids, her brother and his lot, an aunt and a couple of cousins, masks, social distancing, no party or gathering. They will make it lovely and surround the couple with affection. But on the way home on Friday we passed a club/ pub with about two hundred people heaving outside and on the pavement, not a mask in sight, social distancing, what's that? And I realised what I had long suspected that when the reckoning comes, and it will, in the form of economic collapse, another pandemic , climate catastrophe, the rise of fascism , then the predominant characteristic of humanity will be confirmed as selfishness.
|
|
1,846 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Sept 6, 2020 12:32:44 GMT
Remember reading somewhere that there is a 50 year macro economic cycle* and have a feeling we are entering the economics and the subsequent social issues of the 70’s and going further back the 20’s and we all know how these decades ended.
Increasing unemployment, increasing social unrest and sadly the polarising of and victimisation of minorities, the only thing missing at the moment is rising inflation but a No Deal Brexit and the subsequent tariffs could give us that.
The Conservatives could be in the same position as Labour were in the late 70’s and could become unelectable for a generation.
*Edit: Kondratiev waves
|
|
5,593 posts
|
Post by lynette on Sept 6, 2020 12:36:57 GMT
Interesting but we can’t repeat the 70s though in many ways that might be better than what is to come. Democracy is a slippery guy/gal but back in the 70s there was a different feel about things, plenty of unrest, plenty of hardship but the idea that it would be a good thing to destroy society had not yet taken hold. It has now.
|
|
2,206 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Sept 6, 2020 15:14:21 GMT
Remember reading somewhere that there is a 50 year macro economic cycle * and have a feeling we are entering the economics and the subsequent social issues of the 70’s and going further back the 20’s and we all know how these decades ended. Increasing unemployment, increasing social unrest and sadly the polarising of and victimisation of minorities, the only thing missing at the moment is rising inflation but a No Deal Brexit and the subsequent tariffs could give us that. The Conservatives could be in the same position as Labour were in the late 70’s and could become unelectable for a generation. *Edit: Kondratiev waves Behave yourself, we are a nation of conservatives
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Sept 6, 2020 15:19:17 GMT
Has there been any studies yet into how long, after flu season of course, mask wearing and social distancing might go on? Have any realistic timeframes actually come up? This year has been a complete write off since March, there seems to be hope for next year but I don't know how much research has been done.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Sept 6, 2020 17:04:20 GMT
Has there been any studies yet into how long, after flu season of course, mask wearing and social distancing might go on? Have any realistic timeframes actually come up? The only realistic timeframes are either "until the number of cases reaches zero" or "until we have a vaccine". There seem to be a disturbingly large number of people who think that we've shown the virus who's boss and now it won't bother us any more, but it's the same virus it was at the start of the year and if we abandon the distancing and masks it'll behave the same way as before. No matter how much people want it to be otherwise or how much they insist that we must get back to normal, this isn't a problem that's just going to fade away.
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Sept 6, 2020 17:08:07 GMT
Has there been any studies yet into how long, after flu season of course, mask wearing and social distancing might go on? Have any realistic timeframes actually come up? The only realistic timeframes are either "until the number of cases reaches zero" or "until we have a vaccine". There seem to be a disturbingly large number of people who think that we've shown the virus who's boss and now it won't bother us any more, but it's the same virus it was at the start of the year and if we abandon the distancing and masks it'll behave the same way as before. No matter how much people want it to be otherwise or how much they insist that we must get back to normal, this isn't a problem that's just going to fade away. But isn't saying 'until there's a vaccine or no cases' also wildly unrealistic? The virus mutates and a vaccine ceases to be useful.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Sept 6, 2020 17:40:01 GMT
The only realistic timeframes are either "until the number of cases reaches zero" or "until we have a vaccine". There seem to be a disturbingly large number of people who think that we've shown the virus who's boss and now it won't bother us any more, but it's the same virus it was at the start of the year and if we abandon the distancing and masks it'll behave the same way as before. No matter how much people want it to be otherwise or how much they insist that we must get back to normal, this isn't a problem that's just going to fade away. But isn't saying 'until there's a vaccine or no cases' also wildly unrealistic? The virus mutates and a vaccine ceases to be useful. All viruses mutate but vaccines still work. Mutation is a problem for natural resistance because there are always going to be pockets of people whose immunity is out of date but a vaccination programme means the whole population gets resistant to a recent strain of the virus at once. Also, we can keep on updating vaccines. We may never completely eradicate this disease but with vaccination we can probably get it down to a few deaths a month, just like we have with other diseases.
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Sept 6, 2020 18:36:51 GMT
I feel like the fact there were almost 3,000 new cases should be more headline news rather than snuck out in a tweet:
|
|
4,578 posts
|
Post by Mark on Sept 7, 2020 4:42:36 GMT
I feel like the fact there were almost 3,000 new cases should be more headline news rather than snuck out in a tweet: Test test test. The real question is how many of these people were actually Ill.
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Sept 7, 2020 7:47:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nick on Sept 7, 2020 7:50:07 GMT
I feel like the fact there were almost 3,000 new cases should be more headline news rather than snuck out in a tweet: Test test test. The real question is how many of these people were actually Ill. I know where you’re coming from. But the real question for me (my wife is highly vulnerable) is how many people are they infecting ( the good old R value). Then we can see where this is heading - back to March or a blip that goes away again. Then we can work out whether she can ease the almost total lockdown she’s had since March.
|
|
306 posts
|
Post by MrBraithwaite on Sept 7, 2020 8:56:05 GMT
Always said, when I go back to London after Brexit (and now Covid) I will experience Britain in the 1970s.
|
|
5,593 posts
|
Post by lynette on Sept 7, 2020 12:28:33 GMT
Always said, when I go back to London after Brexit (and now Covid) I will experience Britain in the 1970s. I should have kept that brown and orange blouse with the puffy sleeves and long tight cuff.
|
|
311 posts
|
Post by olliebean on Sept 7, 2020 23:03:09 GMT
Well, that escalated quickly...
|
|
4,458 posts
|
Post by poster J on Sept 8, 2020 9:06:28 GMT
How, exactly, was it avoidable?
This virus isnt going away, outbreaks will happen.
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Sept 8, 2020 9:22:22 GMT
How, exactly, was it avoidable? This virus isnt going away, outbreaks will happen. It was avoidable presumably because anyone with an iota of common sense could tell that opening schools would mean a lot of infections. And rather than find alternative ways, such as other countries having grants for laptops for students to work from home etc, or at the very least a system whereby not every student goes in on the same day. Johnson instead went on television at a school and said it was safe. Said school was then shut a few days later from infection.
|
|
4,458 posts
|
Post by poster J on Sept 8, 2020 10:28:09 GMT
How, exactly, was it avoidable? This virus isnt going away, outbreaks will happen. It was avoidable presumably because anyone with an iota of common sense could tell that opening schools would mean a lot of infections. And rather than find alternative ways, such as other countries having grants for laptops for students to work from home etc, or at the very least a system whereby not every student goes in on the same day. Johnson instead went on television at a school and said it was safe. Said school was then shut a few days later from infection. Anyone with an iota of common sense could see that thinking something like grants for laptops is a solution is perpetuating inequality and difficulties for lower socio-economic classes - lack of equipment is not the only issue, or even the main one. Parents also cannot stay out of work indefinitely. Keeping schools closed is impossible on so many levels (and I say that as someone whose opinion of the PM could not be much lower). We have to learn to live with this virus, not let it dictate our lives, and part of that is accepting that outbreaks will happen and have effective tracing procedures in place to deal with them, rather than naively thinking we can avoid them by hiding under a rock for the next several years (if we are lucky) until there are enough effective vaccines. This can no longer be looked at as a single issue, it has to be balanced against the long term damage of severe limitations on other aspects of society like education. That has the potential to be far more damaging.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Sept 8, 2020 11:01:25 GMT
So many contradictory signals have put us in a worse position now than necessary. Keeping an ‘acceptable’ level of 1000 infections a day being, maybe the worst, as it meant having no accurate and functioning track, trace and isolate system. The trade off of freedom and responsibility has also been unbalanced, so many can slip through the net and/or deliberately ignore unpoliced guidelines.
One important thing - young people are not to blame. They have been told they are not at risk, they have seen pubs open, schools open with few safety measures. How are we supposed to expect safe behaviour if the places they are, are (at least in the case of schools, though universities we have yet to see) given laxer guidelines?
The infection rate is high among 10-30 year olds in France, who have published figures, Yesterday Hancock suggested that the high point here is sixth form/university age, radiating out younger and older. So that message that ‘schools will be last to close’ is a massive unnecessary hostage to fortune. Are the government really going to be able to hold the two contradictory ideas together? Young people share the same places as older people, they clearly are transmitting it just as effectively, how do you stop it radiating out further to ages who are at real risk of severe illness?
|
|