Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[jfgw]

I heard that they were organising a clap for delivery drivers as well!
It's tomorrow sometime between 10 and 5


- sd

I will be in the toilet at the exact time that it is announced so I will leave a card. They can collect it the next day.

Julian F. G. W.

[simsqu]

Then again this is a pub, so stories are told for effect and to entertain, not to tell the literal truth.

Exactly so

[Lootman]

Giving a slightly different example, imagine if we had a really long, harsh winter, with lots of deep snow for weeks on end....

If I was outside clearing snow off my car, having to stand in 18-inch deep snow whilst doing so, and my postman came struggling up the drive with my post, fighting to get through the deep snow so that he was able to deliver my letters, I suppose I could choose to respond to seeing him by doing either one of the following -

• Simply taking my post off him, turning away without comment, and carrying on with my car-cleaning task - after all, he's just 'doing his job'...

• Take my post off him and thank him profusely for the effort he's putting in to providing his service during those terrible and abnormal weather conditions

I don't think there's many right-minded people who, in the above situation, wouldn't go the extra mile and make a bit of a fuss in showing their distinct gratitude in that situation, is there?

The unofficial motto of the US Postal Service is:

""Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... vice_creed

[Itsallaguess]

But now here we are eight weeks later, and I am still happy to applaud, but there is a whiff of obligation in the air.

I am sure I am not saying anything particularly new, but I'm wondering, how do we ever get out of this or perhaps we never do?

Well it seems that the actual founder of 'the NHS clap' agrees with you -

Clap for carers founder suggests end to weekly celebration -

Annemarie Plas, cited as the person who helped start the weekly clap for carers initiative in the UK, suggests next Thursday's celebration should be the last.

Speaking on Radio Two's Jeremy Vine show, she said: "Next week will be the tenth time and I think that that would be a beautiful end to the series.

"Perhaps then we move to maybe an annual moment, because I also feel the mood slowly shifting and other opinions start to rise to the surface. I feel like this has had its moment and after that we can continue to something else."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52765196

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[orchard101]

I could weep. Have just watched a documentary focused on older people with much greater problems than me.
I have no children, no grandchildren and no close relatives and not a large coterie of friends. Watching the pain of people unable to actually see, in the flesh, their loved ones was painful. I don't think I could ever understand totally their pain because I have never experienced it but it does not stop my empathy.
Also, I am happy to be on my own, if fact I prefer it, but it does not stop me sympathising with those who hate it.
I am not an emotional person and my response to this programme slightly surprised me.
Getting soft in my old age

[UncleEbenezer]

Seems that the actual founder of 'the NHS clap' agrees with you -

Clap for carers founder suggests end to weekly celebration -

<Ministry of Truth> Hmm, should've found someone more reliable with a similar idea to promote. Still, it's planted nicely in their consciousness how much we worship our NHS and state.

(No, I'm absolutely not accusing her of any nefarious motives. Indeed, it's best for the Ministry if their nominal figureheads are entirely genuine and independent so there's no exposure to risk. Just noting that a call like that from a private individual wouldn't normally get widely heard).

[Bubblesofearth]

The unofficial motto of the US Postal Service is:

""Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds"

10 points if you can identify the song that incorporates this line.

BoE

[SalvorHardin]

10 points if you can identify the song that incorporates this line.

"O Superman" by Laurie Anderson.

A weird piece of information that has stuck in my brain, from a conversation years ago in the pub about the US Postal Cycling Team. Someone mentioned this and said that it might come up in a pub quiz one day. Though the words "nor heat" isn't in the song.

Starting at 4 minutes 10 seconds (I had to look at YouTube to get the time).

[zico]

The unofficial motto of the US Postal Service is:

""Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds"

10 points if you can identify the song that incorporates this line.

BoE

World in Motion?

[XFool]

Coronavirus: Acting earlier would have saved lives, says Sage member

BBC News

One of the government's scientific advisers has said he would have liked ministers to have acted "a week or two weeks earlier" in the virus pandemic.

[zico]

More sage guidance from SAGE on opening up schools for a range of scenarios. Full link below.
Summary - "hey, early days, who knows, maybe it's safe, maybe it isn't. Maybe kids are at less risk than adults, but then again, maybe not. But safer options are safer than riskier options, which are riskier than safe options. Hope that helps."


https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... sage30.pdf

[Bubblesofearth]

"O Superman" by Laurie Anderson.

A weird piece of information that has stuck in my brain, from a conversation years ago in the pub about the US Postal Cycling Team. Someone mentioned this and said that it might come up in a pub quiz one day. Though the words "nor heat" isn't in the song.

Starting at 4 minutes 10 seconds (I had to look at YouTube to get the time).

Yep, a song I first heard on the radio and liked enough to buy the single. Vinyl so a while ago. Seems to be one of those songs that polarises opinion as I know a few folk who hate it!

BoE

[Clitheroekid]

It feels far too early to declare Swedens approach either successful or unsuccessful.

I'll agree that it's still early days for this
- but this nugget popped up in front of me today

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11673259/ ... est-world/

'over the last seven days, Sweden had an average of 6.08 deaths per million inhabitants - more than any other country in the world'

- sd

Typical sensationalist Sun cr*p, trying to twist statistics to make something out of nothing.

The recent Swedish death rate in absolute terms is only marginally higher than that in the UK and other countries that have practised lockdown, and it's never been anywhere near the peaks of Spain or Belgium.

In cases per 1m population it’s well down the list, at number 24.

And even The Sun would have to admit that its own chart shows that the Swedish death rate is quite clearly on a downward trend, so that in overall terms it isn't likely to end up significantly different to other countries.

The important difference that they don’t mention is that the Swedes have not taken measures that will cause immense damage to their economy. Even if the Swedish death rate does end up slightly higher (which looks far from certain) I’m pretty sure that the vast majority of people in other countries would have accepted that as the price of avoiding lockdown and its consequences.

Our Government's biggest error is their bone-headed insistence on treating everyone the same, whereas there should be different rules / guidance according to age. It's been crystal clear for some time now that healthy people under 40 are at no significant risk at all from CV, and they could therefore be quite safely released from lockdown immediately, albeit with instructions to avoid contact with old / unwell people. This would enable many bars, shops, restaurants, sports venues etc to re-open, as most of their staff and customers are young anyway.

And this fortunate group probably don’t need to bother about social distancing outdoors at all, as it seems the virus is extremely difficult to transmit in the open air. I also suspect that the social distancing rules could be greatly relaxed for them even indoors. Although such measures may be justified in workplaces, where they have no choice, they could be lifted entirely in places of leisure, where younger people can choose whether or not they want to take the risk.

The same principle should apply to older people. Having been advised as accurately as possible about the statistical risk involved, they should also be allowed to make their own decision as to the level of risk they're willing to accept. I'm sure there are many high risk elderly people who’d prefer to accept that risk in order to re-establish contact with others, and they should be permitted to do so.

Obviously, restrictions might have to be tightened again if hospitals became under pressure, but all the evidence from elsewhere seems to be that relaxing lockdown is not resulting in major problems – quite the opposite.

[swill453]

The important difference that they don’t mention is that the Swedes have not taken measures that will cause immense damage to their economy. Even if the Swedish death rate does end up slightly higher (which looks far from certain) I’m pretty sure that the vast majority of people in other countries would have accepted that as the price of avoiding lockdown and its consequences.

I bet nobody in Germany would agree with that. The difference there is that they locked down earlier in the cycle than we did, so have far fewer deaths and are able to ease it sooner.

We seem to have accepted the level of deaths we've experienced as just the way it goes, when it's becoming clear that if we'd locked down even a week earlier we'd have saved tens of thousands of lives lost. And we'd be much further into unlocking by now as well.

Scott.

[XFool]

Our Government's biggest error is their bone-headed insistence on treating everyone the same, whereas there should be different rules / guidance according to age. It's been crystal clear for some time now that healthy people under 40 are at no significant risk at all from CV, and they could therefore be quite safely released from lockdown immediately, albeit with instructions to avoid contact with old / unwell people. This would enable many bars, shops, restaurants, sports venues etc to re-open, as most of their staff and customers are young anyway.

And this fortunate group probably don’t need to bother about social distancing outdoors at all, as it seems the virus is extremely difficult to transmit in the open air. I also suspect that the social distancing rules could be greatly relaxed for them even indoors. Although such measures may be justified in workplaces, where they have no choice, they could be lifted entirely in places of leisure, where younger people can choose whether or not they want to take the risk.

The same principle should apply to older people. Having been advised as accurately as possible about the statistical risk involved, they should also be allowed to make their own decision as to the level of risk they're willing to accept. I'm sure there are many high risk elderly people who’d prefer to accept that risk in order to re-establish contact with others, and they should be permitted to do so.

This seems to me to illustrate the problem with this POV, which is a commonly held one.

It isn't 'All About You!' - Or all about any particular person or group. COVID-19 is an infectious disease, which means it gets passed from person to person. Think about it. The virus does not ask to see anyone's birth certificate or other means of identification before going on it's way.

An analogy would be the risk of being killed or injured in the street by a bus. Your argument might simply be applied in such a case, where one person being hit by a bus doe not have any obvious bearing on the risk of any other person being hit, whatever their injuries or how old they are. Not so with the virus - a 20 year old may well be less "at risk", but they are presumably just as much at risk (possibly more?) of being infected and thus passing it on to others of their own age or older. And there are more higher risk groups than the aged.

[Lootman]

This seems to me to illustrate the problem with this POV, which is a commonly held one.

It isn't 'All About You!' - Or all about any particular person or group

But that isn't what CK said. Consider this passage:

The same principle should apply to older people. Having been advised as accurately as possible about the statistical risk involved, they should also be allowed to make their own decision as to the level of risk they're willing to accept. I'm sure there are many high risk elderly people who’d prefer to accept that risk in order to re-establish contact with others, and they should be permitted to do so.

What CK asserted allows for the idea that part of the consideration of risk includes the consideration of risk to others. So for instance if I live with elderly sick parents I would take that into account. If everyone I know is younger and healthier than me, I take that into account.

He wasn't arguing for randomness or a lack of consideration for others. He was arguing for people to be allowed to use common sense and judgement based on their own unique situation and risk profile, rather than one size fits all. And I agree with that.

[ursaminortaur]

The unofficial motto of the US Postal Service is:

""Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds"

10 points if you can identify the song that incorporates this line.

BoE

World in Motion?

Originally from the Greek historian Herodotus.

https://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/50/messages/270.html

The original saying was actually "Neither snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor gloom of night stays these courageous couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds" and was said about 2500 years ago by the Greek historian, Herodotus. He said this adage during the war between the Greeks and Persians about 500 B.C. in reference to the Persian mounted postal couriers whom he observed and held in high esteem.

: : : Today many people believe this saying to be the U.S. Postal Service (U.S.P.S.) motto, but, in fact, is not their official slogan. According to the U.S.P.S. they have no slogan at all. The reason it has become identified with the U.S.P.S. is because back in 1896-97 when the New York City General Post Office was being designed, Mitchell Kendal, an employee for the architectural firm, McKim, Mead and White, came up with the idea of engraving Herodotus' saying all around the outside of the building. From that time on the saying has been associated with U.S. postal carriers.

[XFool]

This seems to me to illustrate the problem with this POV, which is a commonly held one.

It isn't 'All About You!' - Or all about any particular person or group

But that isn't what CK said. Consider this passage:

The same principle should apply to older people. Having been advised as accurately as possible about the statistical risk involved, they should also be allowed to make their own decision as to the level of risk they're willing to accept. I'm sure there are many high risk elderly people who’d prefer to accept that risk in order to re-establish contact with others, and they should be permitted to do so.

What CK asserted allows for the idea that part of the consideration of risk includes the consideration of risk to others.

It doesn't read that way at all to me, it seems centred on the risk to the individual and them accepting their own risk.
I don't see how you can calculate somebody else's "risk", particularly if you don't even know who they are. This is my point, the disease is infectious so it gets passed from person to person. Not just to the people you immediately know and can take into consideration. Say, someone passes it to you, you pass it to someone else - even if they are as young as you are - they pass it to someone else, who passes it to who knows who.

Better stop as I think I can feel an 'exponential' coming on again.

[Mike4]

This seems to me to illustrate the problem with this POV, which is a commonly held one.

It isn't 'All About You!' - Or all about any particular person or group

But that isn't what CK said. Consider this passage:

The same principle should apply to older people. Having been advised as accurately as possible about the statistical risk involved, they should also be allowed to make their own decision as to the level of risk they're willing to accept. I'm sure there are many high risk elderly people who’d prefer to accept that risk in order to re-establish contact with others, and they should be permitted to do so.

What CK asserted allows for the idea that part of the consideration of risk includes the consideration of risk to others.

It doesn't read that way at all to me, it seems centred on the risk to the individual and them accepting their own risk.
I don't see how you can calculate somebody else's "risk", particularly if you don't even know who they are. This is my point, the disease is infectious so it gets passed from person to person. Not just to the people you immediately know and can take into consideration. Say, someone passes it to you, you pass it to someone else - even if they are as young as you are - they pass it to someone else, who passes it to who knows who.

Better stop as I think I can feel an 'exponential' coming on again.

As an older person, the freedom of youngsters to infect themselves and propagate infection at near-zero cost to themselves as advocated by CK would impact most heavily on my own personal freedom. As it is with them being constrained, I feel freer to go out and fix a boiler for an appreciative customer once in a while, visit the supermarket/garden centre/B&Q occasionally and generally conduct something approximating to a pale shadow of my Life Before CV-19.

If asymptomatic infection was allowed to become rife in under-40s who (understandably) by and large don't care personally if they catch it, my quality of life would have to take a massive dive. I would feel no option but to fiercely self-isolate in order to avoiding catching it from them all. This I would have to do in order to (hopefully) achieve my previously likely 24 year life expectancy from now.

[servodude]

I would feel no option but to fiercely self-isolate in order to avoiding catching it from them all. This I would have to do in order to (hopefully) achieve my previously likely 24 year life expectancy from now.

That's where everyone ends up eventually if this becomes endemic.

-sd