coronavirus

[Maximus Decimus]

Just now, Ackroman said:

I'm not saying it's not a problem but it's not as big a problem as they would like you to think. I've had to shift my opinions to the political thread so I've put some stuff on there.

How many excess deaths is it OK to accept? Is the death of maybe 250,000 largely older people just acceptable damage?   

[Dave T]

20 minutes ago, redjonn said:

i guess its difficult to a)have a simple message easily understood and b)having nuances that can confuse.

Its like the over 70's... not all over 70's are as vulnerable as other over 70's... how do you get simple clear instructions with lots of if this but that, on the other hand....

also not helped when national policing body give guidance to police on how to implement fines for consistency across forces.  It ain't official guidance to public its trying not to be draconian but then we read it as well its ok as the police have written it. The nuance being it's purely in the context of applying fines but not what restrictions are.

In communications their is also too many different actors articulating the message... I mean even the mirror had the restrictions reported incorrectly at one point when I read the paper... I at least expected it to be accurately reported but then question why... as distinct to inaccurately report.

Civil servants must at times bash heads against wall when drafting communications simple and clear enough for us numskulls to easy understand the rule. 

I'm definitely one of the numskulls but even so some are even worse than me...

 

I do think much of the confusion could have been avoided with a bit more thought, there has absolutely been mixed messaging. 

Ultimately the Government advice is relatively light touch and can be summarised as go out as little as possible, but nipping to  the shops,  working, doing exercise and caring for people is fine, and always social distance with people outside of your home.

The problems then come with mixed messages:

1 - Shopping - Government states only go for food shopping, yet B&Q is open. Police go to the extreme and threaten to inspect your trolleys to make sure you aren't buying luxuries!

Solution - only allow shops with processes in place to open, and the message should be use the shops how you see fit, but try and go as little as possible. 

2 - Working - initial communication used the word essential, this was removed, and pretty much anyone can work, preferably at home, but if not possible, then going in, ideally with social distancing. But people still criticise people going to work for some reason.

Solution - be clear in the first instance and not muddle your comms! Don't sit quietly and allow the media and public anger over things like the construction industry who are following guidelines as they are allowed to work.

3 - Exercise - again, people have gone to extremes, criticising anyone who has ventured more than a mile from home, and this was fuelled by over-zealous policing early on, with outrageous drone footage of people being shared. Debate has raged about sitting down in the park, or visiting beaches etc. 

Solution - the clarified guidance about taking a short journey to exercise is fine, but tbh, I think they should have just said something like 1hr exercise max, including travel time. 

4 - Caring for people - seems to have been fine tbh, although plenty of people use this to justify dropping cake off at neighbours, or friends or families. 

Fine

5 - Social distancing - as per Saintslass' post, you technically can go and meet one other person, but that is most definitely not the guidance, it seems to be a loophole. 

Solution - close that loophole!

Mods, please don't take this to be a political thread, it isn't, it is about our comms strategy and how the public and the police have received it. I think if we have learnt anything, it is that ambiguity should be removed as much as possible. And I don't think that should be done via more extreme measures necessarily. I actually think the government has taken a decent pragmatic approach with some tweaks to comms it could have been much better. I know me and my small family are struggling with this lockdown, and it would be even harder had we not been able to go out, or needed forms to police how much we went out.

And the final thing that could have been better - stop the effing 'experts' and politicians undermining the guidance ffs!!!

[JonM]

1 hour ago, Wolford6 said:

Prof Neil Ferguson is actually a physicist and statistician rather than a medical specialist.

Thinking back to my University days, no civil engineering or physics students were remotely attractive to trophy women. I can only assume that the Prof  is very rich.

Tsk. I came here expecting comments about curves being flattened.

[ckn]

11 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

How many excess deaths is it OK to accept? Is the death of maybe 250,000 largely older people just acceptable damage?   

An estimated US$2tn was spent following 2977 deaths on Sept 11th 2001. The UK spent UK£ billions as well on the aftermath of that and our own bombings.

The UK government announced a £500 billion package in 2008 to save the banks and actually spent £137bn.

Those are the contexts I see as more accurate for this one-off virus that had the potential to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths above and beyond normal.

The UK's expected government bill is looking like around £40bn. A genuine bargain compared to both terorism and banking threats.

[Bedford Roughyed]

2 hours ago, Damien said:

I've seen some epic grasping at straws but this takes some beating. Equating the actions of the deputy chief scientific advisor to the Government to Michael Ball? Really, I've seen it all now.

They are not equal, at all.

However, I would ask if Michael Ball is travelling in an essential manner.  Having a journalist covering the story is one thing, bussing in celebs for a 2m meeting is another.  Yes it makes nice uplifting, blitz spirit TV, but not really essential?

[Maximus Decimus]

45 minutes ago, ckn said:

An estimated US$2tn was spent following 2977 deaths on Sept 11th 2001. The UK spent UK£ billions as well on the aftermath of that and our own bombings.

The UK government announced a £500 billion package in 2008 to save the banks and actually spent £137bn.

Those are the contexts I see as more accurate for this one-off virus that had the potential to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths above and beyond normal.

The UK's expected government bill is looking like around £40bn. A genuine bargain compared to both terorism and banking threats.

There appears to be an amount of callousness and ageism going on from many. As if a few tens of thousands of old people dying isn't worth it because they would've died soon anyway. 

 

[Robin Evans]

10 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

There appears to be an amount of callousness and ageism going on from many. As if a few tens of thousands of old people dying isn't worth it because they would've died soon anyway. 

 

Yup.... my right to go for a pint negates their right to life cos they're old and have stuff wrong with them..... is essentially how some appear to view it.

[Robin Evans]

Flu might have got em anyhow apparently....

[redjonn]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I do think much of the confusion could have been avoided with a bit more thought, there has absolutely been mixed messaging. 

Ultimately the Government advice is relatively light touch and can be summarised as go out as little as possible, but nipping to  the shops,  working, doing exercise and caring for people is fine, and always social distance with people outside of your home.

The problems then come with mixed messages:

1 - Shopping - Government states only go for food shopping, yet B&Q is open. Police go to the extreme and threaten to inspect your trolleys to make sure you aren't buying luxuries!

Solution - only allow shops with processes in place to open, and the message should be use the shops how you see fit, but try and go as little as possible. 

2 - Working - initial communication used the word essential, this was removed, and pretty much anyone can work, preferably at home, but if not possible, then going in, ideally with social distancing. But people still criticise people going to work for some reason.

Solution - be clear in the first instance and not muddle your comms! Don't sit quietly and allow the media and public anger over things like the construction industry who are following guidelines as they are allowed to work.

3 - Exercise - again, people have gone to extremes, criticising anyone who has ventured more than a mile from home, and this was fuelled by over-zealous policing early on, with outrageous drone footage of people being shared. Debate has raged about sitting down in the park, or visiting beaches etc. 

Solution - the clarified guidance about taking a short journey to exercise is fine, but tbh, I think they should have just said something like 1hr exercise max, including travel time. 

4 - Caring for people - seems to have been fine tbh, although plenty of people use this to justify dropping cake off at neighbours, or friends or families. 

Fine

5 - Social distancing - as per Saintslass' post, you technically can go and meet one other person, but that is most definitely not the guidance, it seems to be a loophole. 

Solution - close that loophole!

Mods, please don't take this to be a political thread, it isn't, it is about our comms strategy and how the public and the police have received it. I think if we have learnt anything, it is that ambiguity should be removed as much as possible. And I don't think that should be done via more extreme measures necessarily. I actually think the government has taken a decent pragmatic approach with some tweaks to comms it could have been much better. I know me and my small family are struggling with this lockdown, and it would be even harder had we not been able to go out, or needed forms to police how much we went out.

And the final thing that could have been better - stop the effing 'experts' and politicians undermining the guidance ffs!!!

you may be right... certainly the last sentence.

Having said that I had to read your comments a number of times and I'm still not sure I understand each of your comments/solutions... especially when I add in my own assumptions where its not precise and specific to every circumstance.

[Maximus Decimus]

1 minute ago, Robin Evans said:

Yup.... my right to go for a pint negates their right to life cos they're old and have stuff wrong with them..... is essentially how some appear to view it.

My father-in-law is in his mid 70s and has a heart condition. Other than that he is well and he could easily have a good 10 years in him. However, were he to catch Coronavirus he'd be in danger.

By many, he would be written off as an elderly person with underlying health issues, but he is still very much the patriarch and the driving force of the family who does a great deal in his community. His death would be a tragedy for the family, but instead I think some people view the likely people to lose their lives as old people couped at home who would die soon anyway.

I'm not saying that we should make decisions based on emotion: it should of course be whichever policy does the least harm but I absolutely object to their age being a reason to accept high casualties.

[Dave T]

13 minutes ago, redjonn said:

you may be right... certainly the last sentence.

Having said that I had to read your comments a number of times and I'm still not sure I understand each of your comments/solutions... especially when I add in my own assumptions where its not precise and specific to every circumstance.

My point about the solutions etc are to be clearer - this can be done without changing anything. 

A perfect example is that you are only allowed to go food shopping, yet B&Q is allowed to be open and people are allowed to shop there. 

I think it is right that people should be allowed to shop there, but for some reason they seem pretty happy to leave the ambiguity there. I suspect this is done so that things can be communicated  in nice bite-sized slogans, but ultimately it is causing confusion. 

The more people get wound up and angry about these things the less effective they will ultimately become.

Look at John M's post here, highlighting Michael Ball meeting that Tom guy as an example.

[Robin Evans]

8 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

My father-in-law is in his mid 70s and has a heart condition. Other than that he is well and he could easily have a good 10 years in him. However, were he to catch Coronavirus he'd be in danger.

By many, he would be written off as an elderly person with underlying health issues, but he is still very much the patriarch and the driving force of the family who does a great deal in his community. His death would be a tragedy for the family, but instead I think some people view the likely people to lose their lives as old people couped at home who would die soon anyway.

I'm not saying that we should make decisions based on emotion: it should of course be whichever policy does the least harm but I absolutely object to their age being a reason to accept high casualties.

Absolutely..... we can't just put significant numbers of our population at risk because they are old.... or even with existing medical conditions.... it is inhumane, uncaring and selfish.... says a  hypertensive fat bloke with a respiratory issue..... but I'm sure you get my drift.

[gingerjon]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

A perfect example is that you are only allowed to go food shopping, yet B&Q is allowed to be open and people are allowed to shop there.

Locally, Argos has been open the whole time.

Which has proven to be very useful.

[redjonn]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

My point about the solutions etc are to be clearer - this can be done without changing anything. 

A perfect example is that you are only allowed to go food shopping, yet B&Q is allowed to be open and people are allowed to shop there. 

I think it is right that people should be allowed to shop there, but for some reason they seem pretty happy to leave the ambiguity there. I suspect this is done so that things can be communicated  in nice bite-sized slogans, but ultimately it is causing confusion. 

The more people get wound up and angry about these things the less effective they will ultimately become.

Look at John M's post here, highlighting Michael Ball meeting that Tom guy as an example.

not totally disagreeing...

but I'm guessing that the key is getting less close social activity, hence less spreading of virus and if that's being achieved then given how difficult it is to cover every circumstance then its being effective to an extent - key is to an extent that is sufficient of course.

At the end of the day I think it is impossible to cover every circumstance. Of course we can all identify if but that but the other circumstance's, and others can squeal that someone is doing some thing that is clearly allowed because they themselves misunderstand or don't make the effort to understood.

Lets not pretend its easy to get a balance...

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Locally, Argos has been open the whole time.

Which has proven to be very useful.

yes, we've used Argos a few times, daughter's birthday next week, so been very useful for bits and bobs!

[gingerjon]

20 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

Absolutely..... we can't just put significant numbers of our population at risk because they are old.... or even with existing medical conditions.... it is inhumane, uncaring and selfish.... says a  hypertensive fat bloke with a respiratory issue..... but I'm sure you get my drift.

It's also ridiculous on an economic level - if that's the implicit reason. We all know people who would fail the unhealthy test or who are just old who also happen to own and run businesses, do actual proper jobs, teach, run community projects, volunteer etc etc.

It's baffling - but quite revealing - how many people equate "underlying health conditions" with "useless and of no value to society".

[Dave T]

12 minutes ago, redjonn said:

not totally disagreeing...

but I'm guessing that the key is getting less close social activity, hence less spreading of virus and if that's being achieved then given how difficult it is to cover every circumstance then its being effective to an extent - key is to an extent that is sufficient of course.

At the end of the day I think it is impossible to cover every circumstance. Of course we can all identify if but that but the other circumstance's, and others can squeal that someone is doing some thing that is clearly allowed because they themselves misunderstand or don't make the effort to understood.

Lets not pretend its easy to get a balance...

That's why in my post I said they have generally done well with lockdown rules, but there are absolutely glaring holes, to be more succinct:

1 - Shopping for food/drink only (in reality you can go to B&Q, Argos and anywhere else open!)

2 - Don't go out and meet people from other households (but the written rules state you can meet someone else).

There isn't much excuse for those gaps, and they aren't really nuances.

[Wolford6]

59 minutes ago, Dave T said:

 

A perfect example is that you are only allowed to go food shopping, yet B&Q is allowed to be open and people are allowed to shop there.

I think B&Q can reasonably be classed as a construction-industry facility.

[Wolford6]

Is Specsavers still open?

It's just that Adele looks stunning in today's Daily Mail.

[Robin Evans]

Shamefully lifted from my mate steve- Lately, this is how my Facebook timeline looks like… A tiger escapes from the zoo. Media: “Zoo Management asks everyone to stay safe, return home immediately and remain indoors till we caught this tiger!” Person 1: “Resistance against dictatorial rules by the zoo management is our citizen’s right! We won’t be dictated to how to live our lives!” Person 2: “This is just scaremongering. Tigers are just slightly bigger cats!” Person 3: “Statistically, hardly anyone dies from cats!" Person 4: "The tiger was deliberately released - they just want to take away our liberties!" Person 5: "With a healthy attitude to life, lots of meditation and some healing crystals, the tiger won't attack me, and fatal bite wounds heal much faster if you take enough vitamin C!" Person 6: "It’s mostly only old and slow zoo visitors who are in poor condition anyway that are endangered by the tigers, and sooner or later they would have been eaten by some cat anyway!" Person 7: "It is not at all clear whether someone has ever died as a result of a tiger attack. The cause of death could have come from an infection by an ingrown toenail…” Person 8: "In the petting zoo you don’t need such big fences, why do they need such tall fences at the tiger enclosure? What are they hiding from us?" Person 9: “Professor Soandso and Doctor Nobody explain on YouTube how tigers are naturally very loving and that their alleged aggressiveness is completely misunderstood. Be sure to check this out and think about it!" Person 10: "What does the zoo get out of it if it warns you, and who profits from it all? We are all being manipulated and lied to! That's my opinion and it’s my right to freedom of expression!" Person 11: "All zoo visitors should be prepared for hungry tigers, and when all the tigers are full, it's all resolved anyway. Plus, it only affects a few. Just look at Swedish zoos, it works very well over there!" Person 12: Yebbut look how nature has returned to the cities *points to circling vultures overhead...

[andyscoot]

23 minutes ago, Wolford6 said:

I think B&Q can reasonably be classed as a construction-industry facility.

Can't imagine many trades/construction companies are getting their stuff from B&Q. That said I have no issue with B&Q being open because for most people that's where they go for their emergency DIY needs and unfortunately things can go, even during a lockdown.

[gingerjon]

Bundesliga football gets the necessary federal and state government permissions to resume behind closed doors later this month.

The team names are easier to pronounce than those in Belarus.

[gingerjon]

You can also buy facemasks in team colours. This is Werder Bremen's. Pleased do not be *too* frightened.

[Wolford6]

8 minutes ago, andyscoot said:

Can't imagine many trades/construction companies are getting their stuff from B&Q. That said I have no issue with B&Q being open because for most people that's where they go for their emergency DIY needs and unfortunately things can go, even during a lockdown.

1. Many if not most builders and decorators get a proportion of their plumbing, guttering pipes, laminate flooring and fence paint etc from the large DIY chains ... because the stuff is cheap and always available.

2. There must be millions of blokes on lockdown who have been nagged into doing some DIY.

[Wolford6]

12 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Bundesliga football gets the necessary federal and state government permissions to resume behind closed doors later this month.

 

Unlike the Germans to miss out on penalties.