Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[COYBL25]

Proof that context is always vital.

This isn't showing the exposure without restrictions. In other words, it is no surprise that of the current total exposures to COVID that 25% are occurring in hospitality, that should be painfully obvious as most people are following the rules around masks in shops and supermarkets, and limiting contact in private dwellings.

The argument remains the same, that the level of risk in these settings is balanced by the necessity to keep the millions of people in the hospitality sector employed. Whether you agree with that or not is another matter, but it is not the case that restaurants or pubs are more dangerous than private dwellings, as some people are trying to infer.

If you suddenly shut all bars and restaurants then those risk factors would disappear from the graph, but Supermarkets and hospitals would suddenly shoot up as a percentage. Does that mean we shut supermarkets ? Of course not.

What matters most is a) number of serious infections and b) number of hospitalisations.

Are you suggesting that he`s been selective with his choice of stats ?

Surely not, no way would he do that lol

 

[davek]

Appears to be a gigantic couple of sections completely missing from that graph mate

One of them should be Liver Building gatherings.

 

[Jebus_lives]

Seems they dropped their pants a bit yesterday and have introduced a whole host of measures pretty much immediately. The bizarre thing is, they were saying back in September that if things progressed as they expected it to that they'd run out of bed space by mid-October, and their rationale for introducing the measures so quickly was that things were progressing so rapidly that they would have to introduce them or they'd run out of bed space by mid-October. All a bit of a pig's ear it seems.

Very much so.

 

[Jebus_lives]

So......

Why is it illegal for the second lowest form of covid exposure and perfectly legal for the rest? In groups of 6 as well?

This is why they can't control anything. Like I have said all along, more likely to catch it elsewhere outdoors than in someone's house.

It's just stupid now.

Perhaps it would be higher were there not legislation to prohibit it.

 

[SpongeBob brown shoes]

Methinks the government is fudging the figures. London is key to the county’s economy so they have to keep London open for business at all costs.

Tories couldn’t give a flying one about the north.

London's only open because half the Tory rats live or work there, labour constituents are obviously the infected ones, a bit like when Maggie destroyed this city

 

[davek]

Proof that context is always vital.

This isn't showing the exposure without restrictions. In other words, it is no surprise that of the current total exposures to COVID that 25% are occurring in hospitality, that should be painfully obvious as most people are following the rules around masks in shops and supermarkets, and limiting contact in private dwellings.

The argument remains the same, that the level of risk in these settings is balanced by the necessity to keep the millions of people in the hospitality sector employed. Whether you agree with that or not is another matter, but it is not the case that restaurants or pubs are more dangerous than private dwellings, as some people are trying to infer.

The restrictions in the north east on hospitality have been in place for a month - they have had no effect whatsoever. Newcastle has the 5th largest rate of infection in the country.

There is no *balanced argument* for staying open for employment purposes. The answer is political, and it's simple: get a package together for the hospitality sectors to shut them up and then shut them down to save lives.

If you suddenly shut all bars and restaurants then those risk factors would disappear from the graph, but Supermarkets and hospitals would suddenly shoot up as a percentage. Does that mean we shut supermarkets ? Of course not.

What matters most is a) number of serious infections and b) number of hospitalisations.

What a ridiculously basic argument that is. No kidding? If you shut down one sector completely another will rise proportionate to it?

Thanks for that.

 

[roydo]

London's only open because half the Tory rats live or work there, labour constituents are obviously the infected ones, a bit like when Maggie destroyed this city

View attachment 103824

Rather than explaining some weird political plot, those maps actually show something else; not something I would be proud of if I lived there.

 

[Brennan]

The restrictions in the north east on hospitality have been in place for a month - they have had no effect whatsoever. Newcastle has the 5th largest rate of infection in the country.

There is no *balanced argument* for staying open for employment purposes. The answer is political, and it's simple: get a package together for the hospitality sectors to shut them up and then shut them down to save lives.


What a ridiculously basic argument that is. No kidding? If you shut down one sector completely another will rise proportionate to it?

Thanks for that.

You're arguing for something that the government is not going to offer, certainly not to the level required to stop plunging these people into debt.

Yes, it would be great if we had a government who would shut everything down and fully fund everybody's wages to kill the virus off. But that is not what this government is offering. You crying and wailing to 'SHUT IT DOWN' will therefore plunge millions into debt and despair over winter.

 

[Kenshin]

Perhaps it would be higher were there not legislation to prohibit it.

Or it's low because it is actually a low risk despite what the government tell us.

Even if you trebled at bar on the chart it still doesn't come close to others.

 

[Brennan]

London's only open because half the Tory rats live or work there, labour constituents are obviously the infected ones, a bit like when Maggie destroyed this city

View attachment 103824

Infection rates in London are below 100 per 100,000. In Liverpool it's nearly 600. Leeds 390, Bradford 290, Newcastle 500, Manchester 543.

 

[Nymzee]

Or it's low because it is actually a low risk despite what the government tell us.

Even if you trebled at bar on the chart it still doesn't come close to others.

If you think a bunch of people in a house with no mask and no regard for social distancing counts as low risk then you've officially lost the plot.

If you hadn't already.

 

[JLW]

One of them should be Liver Building gatherings.

Why wasn’t there a spike Dave 10-14 days after the gatherings you mention, I mean it’s been almost 3 months since then?

 

[Kenshin]

If you think a bunch of people in a house with no mask and no regard for social distancing counts as low risk then you've officially lost the plot.

If you hadn't already.

That is assuming all people do that and don't visit people whilst trying to keep them safe whisky wearing ppe.

According to Dave's bar chart he shared, the risk is extremely low when compared to other activities however. If that's true then it makes only visiting illegal a very silly action don't you think? Means they are ignoring bigger risks.

 

[Nymzee]

That is assuming all people do that and don't visit people whilst trying to keep them safe whisky wearing ppe.

According to Dave's bar chart he shared, the risk is extremely low when compared to other activities however. If that's true then it makes only visiting illegal a very silly action don't you think? Means they are ignoring bigger risks.

I mean what it's even gone into making that bar chart? Looks like something anyone could make on MS PowerPoint.

I think it's just beyond logically the vast majority of people don't wear masks and don't social distancing inside friends/family homes.

Are you telling me every time you've been inside a friends/family house you've worn a mask, stayed 2m away and disinfected where you've been touching?

 

[Kenshin]

I mean what it's even gone into making that bar chart? Looks like something anyone could make on MS PowerPoint.

I think it's just beyond logically the vast majority of people don't wear masks and don't social distancing inside friends/family homes.

Are you telling me every time you've been inside a friends/family house you've worn a mask, stayed 2m away and disinfected where you've been touching?

Tbh I haven't been many houses over the past 6 months but when I did visit friends I did socially distance from them. Not a ridiculous amount but at least 2m , another we sat in the garden.

I agree on the bar chart , seems very basic. I was just taking it on face value lol