Coronavirus

[Long slender neck]

That is a good idea, but what I meant is that apart from work they do not go out.

Haha - right, that'd work. Better start building those accommodation wings in the Hospitals & Homes pretty sharpish then. Not a prob as I'm sure DC has a contact or two he could give the contracts to.

In the interim, no care-workers, NHS staff who meet the public to go out eh? Of course you'd have to add in all their family members living at home to Lockdown as well because they could infect the care-workers/NHS staff too. Hmm, this is spiralling out of control a little isn't it.

Seems quite simple to me. If a care worker wouldn't abide by the rules then they shouldn't be in the job. Is it fairer to just lock everybody down?

[Currywurst and Chips]

Haha - right, that'd work. Better start building those accommodation wings in the Hospitals & Homes pretty sharpish then. Not a prob as I'm sure DC has a contact or two he could give the contracts to.

In the interim, no care-workers, NHS staff who meet the public to go out eh? Of course you'd have to add in all their family members living at home to Lockdown as well because they could infect the care-workers/NHS staff too. Hmm, this is spiralling out of control a little isn't it.

So WTF don’t we get serious. Masks should be compulsory outdoors. The old bill should be hot on this.

It's a mystery isn't it? Given the clear guidance issued over the last months by the government, and the sensible ways these unchanging rules have been enforced I'm at a loss to understand why compliance to the rules is not 100%. I mean it's not as if the rules keep changing, or that Ministers themselves are confused by the rules and/or reluctant to/incapable of enforcing them. I'm sure the government is doing it's best (to help support the over-privileged in our Society). The Police, and Lord knows they aren't perfect, (what's left of them) have even stated that some of the rules can't be enforced. Now surely that can't be correct. No sane Government would issue rules & regulations that were so unclear/ambiguous that the Police were unable to enforce them. It really is a complete mystery to me why we find ourselves up sh*t creek without a paddle!

The police can enforce the guidelines (although the presumption is only to fine as a last resort)

The reason achieving 100% compliance through enforcement isn't possible is because you can't have a police officer in every business and on every form of transport and checking on every person told to self isolate.

A solution you might suggested would be for businesses and transport operators to self police this? Then you'd require not only the will but the use of force powers and enforcement to be bestowed on shelf stackers. Ultimately you'd require Sainsburys shelf to be given the power of arrest.

[BoniO]

That is a good idea, but what I meant is that apart from work they do not go out.

Haha - right, that'd work. Better start building those accommodation wings in the Hospitals & Homes pretty sharpish then. Not a prob as I'm sure DC has a contact or two he could give the contracts to.

In the interim, no care-workers, NHS staff who meet the public to go out eh? Of course you'd have to add in all their family members living at home to Lockdown as well because they could infect the care-workers/NHS staff too. Hmm, this is spiralling out of control a little isn't it.

Seems quite simple to me. If a care worker wouldn't abide by the rules then they shouldn't be in the job. Is it fairer to just lock everybody down?

Well let's think about this then. The NHS employs about 1,500,000 people. There are about the same number involved in adult care. So that's about 3,000,000 people. Most will have family members at home. The average UK family is 2.4 people. So 2.4 times 3,000,000 is 7,200,000 (7.2 million for those who lose count of all those zero's). How about how many of us are over 65 - about 12,000,000. Is 65 the right age to lockdown - it should probably be younger.

Anyway, so we have 7.2 million NHS/Care-workers & family.
Then we have 12 million over 65's. Many of the over 65's can't isolate in Lockdown without some familial contact/support so being very conservative let's say just one other family member per over 65. So this bring the number up to 24 million.
Equals 31.2 million (so far - approaching a half of the population)

Oh but what about all the vulnerable of any age? Well as of July 2020 approx 2.2 million people were shielding due to being CEV (Clinically Extremely Vulnerable). Clearly there will be overlap here with the over 65's but hopefully you're getting my drift here. Those in this category, who don't fall into any of the other groups will need support from family or care-workers but this is hard to quantify.

So, in summary, probably about half of the adult population would have to go into Lockdown anyway in your scenario, and you're not the only one to suggest it. It just won't work. It cannot work no matter how you spin it.

Finally, in answer to your question, "is it fairer to lock everybody down" - it's not about fairness, it's about effectiveness. Total lockdown, as opposed to trying to isolate and lockdown the old or vulnerable, is the only option.

[Clive Evans]

Prestige Worlwide...My cousin was treated because of a suspicious spider bite. But this was a false diagnosis. He probably had myeloma . They took weeks to pick this up. Was transferred to Carshalton Hospital where he caught Covid 19 which quickly bumped him off.
My point about people who have Covid !9 & no symptoms passing on the virus. By definition: if symptom free, no coughing or sneezing! How do they pass it on? Can't think they are singing and shouting or kissing all the time. Still waiting for an explanation.

[BoniO]

So WTF don’t we get serious. Masks should be compulsory outdoors. The old bill should be hot on this.

It's a mystery isn't it? Given the clear guidance issued over the last months by the government, and the sensible ways these unchanging rules have been enforced I'm at a loss to understand why compliance to the rules is not 100%. I mean it's not as if the rules keep changing, or that Ministers themselves are confused by the rules and/or reluctant to/incapable of enforcing them. I'm sure the government is doing it's best (to help support the over-privileged in our Society). The Police, and Lord knows they aren't perfect, (what's left of them) have even stated that some of the rules can't be enforced. Now surely that can't be correct. No sane Government would issue rules & regulations that were so unclear/ambiguous that the Police were unable to enforce them. It really is a complete mystery to me why we find ourselves up sh*t creek without a paddle!

The police can enforce the guidelines (although the presumption is only to fine as a last resort)

The reason achieving 100% compliance through enforcement isn't possible is because you can't have a police officer in every business and on every form of transport and checking on every person told to self isolate.

A solution you might suggested would be for businesses and transport operators to self police this? Then you'd require not only the will but the use of force powers and enforcement to be bestowed on shelf stackers. Ultimately you'd require Sainsburys shelf to be given the power of arrest.

Nope, I don't agree. With regard to stores and your point about shelf stackers, all large stores could use their security staff to enforce rules/advise public. If the large supermarkets did this, even if it meant taking on one or two extra security staff, then that would send a strong message. Many other stores have been putting someone on the door to ensure masks are worn before entering. It's largely complied with because of this. I get that small one-man businesses couldn't do this but this is easier to enforce by the shop-owner. If someone refuses to comply then the Police should be called.

[A Pedant]

So, in summary, probably about half of the adult population would have to go into Lockdown anyway in your scenario, and you're not the only one to suggest it. It just won't work. It cannot work no matter how you spin it.

You know that, I know that, and deep down I suspect they know that too. But it won't stop them wanting everything back to normal for them, regardless of the consequences for the rest of society.

it's not about fairness, it's about effectiveness

This.

[A Pedant]

My point about people who have Covid !9 & no symptoms passing on the virus. By definition: if symptom free, no coughing or sneezing! How do they pass it on? Can't think they are singing and shouting or kissing all the time. Still waiting for an explanation.

My condolences for your loss. As for passing it on when asymptomatic, it's because people touch their noses and mouths, then touch surfaces, and vice versa, and shake hands, and so on.

[Currywurst and Chips]

It's a mystery isn't it? Given the clear guidance issued over the last months by the government, and the sensible ways these unchanging rules have been enforced I'm at a loss to understand why compliance to the rules is not 100%. I mean it's not as if the rules keep changing, or that Ministers themselves are confused by the rules and/or reluctant to/incapable of enforcing them. I'm sure the government is doing it's best (to help support the over-privileged in our Society). The Police, and Lord knows they aren't perfect, (what's left of them) have even stated that some of the rules can't be enforced. Now surely that can't be correct. No sane Government would issue rules & regulations that were so unclear/ambiguous that the Police were unable to enforce them. It really is a complete mystery to me why we find ourselves up sh*t creek without a paddle!

The police can enforce the guidelines (although the presumption is only to fine as a last resort)

The reason achieving 100% compliance through enforcement isn't possible is because you can't have a police officer in every business and on every form of transport and checking on every person told to self isolate.

A solution you might suggested would be for businesses and transport operators to self police this? Then you'd require not only the will but the use of force powers and enforcement to be bestowed on shelf stackers. Ultimately you'd require Sainsburys shelf to be given the power of arrest.

Nope, I don't agree. With regard to stores and your point about shelf stackers, all large stores could use their security staff to enforce rules/advise public. If the large supermarkets did this, even if it meant taking on one or two extra security staff, then that would send a strong message. Many other stores have been putting someone on the door to ensure masks are worn before entering. It's largely complied with because of this. I get that small one-man businesses couldn't do this but this is easier to enforce by the shop-owner. If someone refuses to comply then the Police should be called.

They are called, indeed they have units dedicated to taking COVID related calls

So plan to deal with non compliance is for people to forcibly eject people that do not comply? This raises tons of issues

This can be done by the larger supermarkets who have security who are trained. I'd suggest these make up a minority of retail outlets.

How is this enforced by every other retail premises and other operators like busses and trains? How do you compel retail/transport staff to act in a physical manner if necessary? What use of force powers are they acting under?

[Clive Evans]

I would like to add my " take " on precautions. I am 72, type 2 diabetic, overweight almost obese, and heart stopped beating 2 plus years ago. But I live at home with my dog, who is mega cute and a magnet to women!. We have at least one hours walk every day, often more, unless raining. We have on average 2-3 chats with passers-by ( not instigated by me, I am at bit retiring ). I have made a good few acquaintances this way. It keeps you sane. All my shopping is delivered: Morrisons, Wilko, eBay, Amazon, Argos etc. Nobody comes in my house except a local friend occasionally to help with outside jobs. They get me odd items when my Morrisons delivery goes tits up. I chat to friends & family on the phone or Facebook. The only risk I take, is taking my friend's daughter to & from Basildon Hospital where she gets admitted for a few nights about once every 3 weeks. Basildon test her at least every other day and so, far she has been Covid free. So I am fairly risk free by avoiding people and keeping my distance from them. Dogs help to keep your sanity. The only thing I miss is travel >number one my bucket list it to take the " Longest Train " from Aberdeen to Penzance. I would like to do that next June. My dog has a big & strong bladder, so she is up for it too!

[Currywurst and Chips]

I would like to add my " take " on precautions. I am 72, type 2 diabetic, overweight almost obese, and heart stopped beating 2 plus years ago. But I live at home with my dog, who is mega cute and a magnet to women!. We have at least one hours walk every day, often more, unless raining. We have on average 2-3 chats with passers-by ( not instigated by me, I am at bit retiring ). I have made a good few acquaintances this way. It keeps you sane. All my shopping is delivered: Morrisons, Wilko, eBay, Amazon, Argos etc. Nobody comes in my house except a local friend occasionally to help with outside jobs. They get me odd items when my Morrisons delivery goes tits up. I chat to friends & family on the phone or Facebook. The only risk I take, is taking my friend's daughter to & from Basildon Hospital where she gets admitted for a few nights about once every 3 weeks. Basildon test her at least every other day and so, far she has been Covid free. So I am fairly risk free by avoiding people and keeping my distance from them. Dogs help to keep your sanity. The only thing I miss is travel >number one my bucket list it to take the " Longest Train " from Aberdeen to Penzance. I would like to do that next June. My dog has a big & strong bladder, so she is up for it too!

Post pictures of your dog

[BoniO]

You can't expect retail/transport staff to act in a physical manner. That would be illegal in itself to my understanding. But many stores are already manning doors and "enforcing" the wearing of masks. From a personal perspective, having been dragged complaining round several trading estates recently. I've seen no issues and almost 100% compliance.

Clearly the Stores need to have the will to do this. Most do but there were the reported issues recently where Sainsbury's, Morrisons, LIDL and B&M in Dagenham & Redbridge wrote to the BEIS to complain that their local council was pressuring them to enforce mask compliance. Unfortunately the BEIS supported the Stores rather than the council. There's a lot of hot air about how difficult is is to enforce mask wearing but some Stores seem to manage it no problem. I think a lot of it is down to the Stores putting profit first.

[Currywurst and Chips]

You can't expect retail/transport staff to act in a physical manner. That would be illegal in itself to my understanding. But many stores are already manning doors and "enforcing" the wearing of masks. From a personal perspective, having been dragged complaining round several trading estates recently. I've seen no issues and almost 100% compliance.

Clearly the Stores need to have the will to do this. Most do but there were the reported issues recently where Sainsbury's, Morrisons, LIDL and B&M in Dagenham & Redbridge wrote to the BEIS to complain that their local council was pressuring them to enforce mask compliance. Unfortunately the BEIS supported the Stores rather than the council. There's a lot of hot air about how difficult is is to enforce mask wearing but some Stores seem to manage it no problem. I think a lot of it is down to the Stores putting profit first.

That's my original point though, 100% compliance is impossible

Not sure it's profit first, more low paid retail staff etc not wanting the added grief

[BoniO]

Sure, 100% compliance is impossible. But getting close as possible has to be the goal.

I wouldn't expect low-paid workers whose role is not security to get involved in any grief. Security staff are, or should be, capable of handling/defusing potential issues though. Like I said, I saw a lot of stores where a member of staff was on the door just to advise about covid practices and saw no trouble.

As for the profit before safety part, it wasn't the staff who petitioned the BEIS. That was big stores, who can afford security, protecting their interests.

[Currywurst and Chips]

Personally think the public policing it would be more effective. You wouldn't accept someone lighting up a fag next to you on the train so why accept someone without a mask?

Unfortunately from my experience commuting and working in London the ones who don't comply also look like the types who will give you grief back

[tuffers#1]

Face mask ‘confrontation’ fears after Herne Bay shop worker attacked

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.kenton ... sk-235137/


I dont see to many being up for dealing
with attacks being carried out on staff

[Clive Evans]

4.JPG (67.63 KiB) Viewed 350 times

My dog when a bit younger

[Currywurst and Chips]

Decent doggo

[tuffers#1]

4.JPG

My dog when a bit younger

They say Dogs grow to look like there owners .
Are you a Willie Rushden lookalike ?

[Long slender neck]

Haha - right, that'd work. Better start building those accommodation wings in the Hospitals & Homes pretty sharpish then. Not a prob as I'm sure DC has a contact or two he could give the contracts to.

In the interim, no care-workers, NHS staff who meet the public to go out eh? Of course you'd have to add in all their family members living at home to Lockdown as well because they could infect the care-workers/NHS staff too. Hmm, this is spiralling out of control a little isn't it.

Seems quite simple to me. If a care worker wouldn't abide by the rules then they shouldn't be in the job. Is it fairer to just lock everybody down?

Well let's think about this then. The NHS employs about 1,500,000 people. There are about the same number involved in adult care. So that's about 3,000,000 people. Most will have family members at home. The average UK family is 2.4 people. So 2.4 times 3,000,000 is 7,200,000 (7.2 million for those who lose count of all those zero's). How about how many of us are over 65 - about 12,000,000. Is 65 the right age to lockdown - it should probably be younger.

Anyway, so we have 7.2 million NHS/Care-workers & family.
Then we have 12 million over 65's. Many of the over 65's can't isolate in Lockdown without some familial contact/support so being very conservative let's say just one other family member per over 65. So this bring the number up to 24 million.
Equals 31.2 million (so far - approaching a half of the population)

Oh but what about all the vulnerable of any age? Well as of July 2020 approx 2.2 million people were shielding due to being CEV (Clinically Extremely Vulnerable). Clearly there will be overlap here with the over 65's but hopefully you're getting my drift here. Those in this category, who don't fall into any of the other groups will need support from family or care-workers but this is hard to quantify.

So, in summary, probably about half of the adult population would have to go into Lockdown anyway in your scenario, and you're not the only one to suggest it. It just won't work. It cannot work no matter how you spin it.

Finally, in answer to your question, "is it fairer to lock everybody down" - it's not about fairness, it's about effectiveness. Total lockdown, as opposed to trying to isolate and lockdown the old or vulnerable, is the only option.

Who said anything about locking down all NHS workers? Anyway, freeing half the population is quite a good result.

[A Pedant]

Who said anything about locking down all NHS workers?

You did. Unless you think it's feasible to replicate a completely separate and isolated NHS for all the vulnerable people, and another one for everyone else?

Anyway, freeing half the population is quite a good result.

Not if you're in the other half, or have family members in the other half.

[Long slender neck]

The NHS is quite a big thing, not everyone has a public facing role.

So lockdown everyone because 'its not fair!'?

[BoniO]

The NHS is quite a big thing, not everyone has a public facing role.

So lockdown everyone because 'its not fair!'?

Agreed that not everyone in the NHS is public facing. But of these, how many work alongside those who are for part of their working day? How many routinely spend time with frontline workers as part of their job and then return to their offices/labs and work alongside others. Where do you draw a line here.

Once again, I know you're on the wind up as per norm, but it's important (to me at least) that people should engage brains before prattling on about "just protect the vulnerable" without giving a moments thought to how this can be accomplished.

And as I said before, it's not about fairness it's about effectiveness.

[Long slender neck]

I'm not on a windup.

It's also important that people can raise ideas and have them challenged.

[BoniO]

I'm not on a windup.

It's also important that people can raise ideas and have them challenged.

OK - so how can we "just protect the vulnerable" then, given all the interactions they will have with others?

What is the definition of vulnerable as a start? I've seen many attempts at this. Is it just people who have certain medical conditions, or people over the age of 65, or people of ethnic groups who are at greater risk or, or.....

A few posts back MM posted a rough plan. There was a lot of sense in that plan, and it minimised actual lockdown time. I've not seen anything better as yet but I'm open to new ideas.

[Long slender neck]

The vulnerable should shield, minimise interactions. This is just common sense when infections are high.

I don't know the exact definition of vulnerable but I believe the NHS has one and most of them got a letter during the first lockdown. It would be a lot of people. If they don't want to then that's up to them, but it should be made clear they're risking their lives.

Or, China have only had 4000 odd deaths allegedly, perhaps we should copy them