|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Oct 18, 2020 16:47:04 GMT
How can you safely social distance when you have more people clustered together on main roads, it is as daft as a 10pm curfew time. The madness I have seen at nights when bars, pubs, take-away's, restaurants close is madness. It is like a mini rush hour on the streets. And if pubs closed at 11pm you would have the same scenario one hour later, the only difference would be that people would be even more intoxicated and behaving even more irresponsibly. And of course there is nothing to stop people using their own common sense and leaving the pub at 9 or 9.30 to avoid this 'mini rush hour'. From a personal point of view I'm not particularly happy about it but the situation is what it is and we're all going to have to accept some inconvenience. . There are even more draconian rules elsewhere, in Paris for example there is a curfew between 9pm and 6am, you can't even go out other than to or from work. Let's hope we don't get to that situation here but there are too many 'covidiots' about as we saw in Liverpool the other night. But I did never advocate for them to close 11. For me it would be just leave the normal times or shut them completely 24/7. It makes no sense at all. Its the age old chestnut that people get drunk at closing time, but this is far from true. It also makes no sense, because for take-aways to shut at 10 and restaurants, even if they do not serve alcohol shows there is no common sense in this 10pm shutdown time. This 10pm is encouraging covidiots more than anything else. The same way forcing people to put their kids back in school, only for them to be now the key transmitters of the virus. I'm beginning to wonder if Matt Hancock deliberately wants it to spread.
|
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Oct 18, 2020 16:55:22 GMT
So the boy racers as you call them are the ones doing rat runs??? seriously!!! So are LTN's now only set up to stop 'boy racers' It's no worse than you calling people nimbys.......I can't be the only one who has noticed more people walking in the road because social distancing isn't possible on narrow footpaths? As I said in my previous post, we're all going to have to accept some inconvenience during this awful pandemic. You possibly may be the only one, I have not noticed people walking in the road to social distance. There was never any evidence of social distancing solving anything and was purely created certain governments that did not want to believe in face masks. Or was more concerned if everyone went for them it would have the health service suffer due to lack of PPE.
Cycling on side roads isn't the major problem, it is the main roads and encouraging more traffic on the main roads is further making it unsafer.
|
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Oct 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT
It's called social distancing ... and how exactly does it differ between 10:00 and 10:01 to make it so much more dangerous. 10:00 is an arbitrary limit, without any thought or reasoning. So like the politician's you are totally disregarding the scientific report, that was written for them. The more alcohol people consume the more irresponsible their behavior. That is the general consensious, but doesn't apply to everyone. There are people that can drink a lot of alcohol and their behaviour is no different. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 18, 2020 17:08:29 GMT
And if pubs closed at 11pm you would have the same scenario one hour later, the only difference would be that people would be even more intoxicated and behaving even more irresponsibly. And of course there is nothing to stop people using their own common sense and leaving the pub at 9 or 9.30 to avoid this 'mini rush hour'. From a personal point of view I'm not particularly happy about it but the situation is what it is and we're all going to have to accept some inconvenience. . There are even more draconian rules elsewhere, in Paris for example there is a curfew between 9pm and 6am, you can't even go out other than to or from work. Let's hope we don't get to that situation here but there are too many 'covidiots' about as we saw in Liverpool the other night. But I did never advocate for them to close 11. For me it would be just leave the normal times or shut them completely 24/7. It makes no sense at all. Its the age old chestnut that people get drunk at closing time, but this is far from true. It also makes no sense, because for take-aways to shut at 10 and restaurants, even if they do not serve alcohol shows there is no common sense in this 10pm shutdown time. This 10pm is encouraging covidiots more than anything else. The same way forcing people to put their kids back in school, only for them to be now the key transmitters of the virus. I'm beginning to wonder if Matt Hancock deliberately wants it to spread.
Whatever time they close there will be the same problem, as I said before I'm no happier with 10pm closing than anybody else is but I can live with it, I'd rather that than pubs closing completely. In fact I think people need to be careful what they wish for, there are far more onerous restrictions in place in France at the moment. Children's education is obviously more important than people going to the pub. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 18, 2020 21:18:11 GMT
It's no worse than you calling people nimbys.......I can't be the only one who has noticed more people walking in the road because social distancing isn't possible on narrow footpaths? As I said in my previous post, we're all going to have to accept some inconvenience during this awful pandemic. You possibly may be the only one, I have not noticed people walking in the road to social distance. There was never any evidence of social distancing solving anything and was purely created certain governments that did not want to believe in face masks. Or was more concerned if everyone went for them it would have the health service suffer due to lack of PPE.
Cycling on side roads isn't the major problem, it is the main roads and encouraging more traffic on the main roads is further making it unsafer.
Social distancing isn't a cure but obviously by social distancing, you dramatically reduce your chances of coming into contact or by spreading it others especially now the idea of catching it from contaminated surfaces is almost 0% according to a recent study |
|
|
|
Post by bus12451 on Oct 19, 2020 16:10:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Oct 19, 2020 17:14:21 GMT
Costa Coffee inside the Tesco at Welling has signs detailing Welsh government rules. Oh dear. DA16 in lockdown 😂 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2020 19:11:00 GMT
Costa Coffee inside the Tesco at Welling has signs detailing Welsh government rules. Oh dear. DA16 in lockdown 😂 Welling sounds better when pronounced with a Welsh accent. |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Oct 21, 2020 7:56:23 GMT
Costa Coffee inside the Tesco at Welling has signs detailing Welsh government rules. Oh dear. DA16 in lockdown 😂 Welling sounds better when pronounced with a Welsh accent. Y Weli |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Oct 22, 2020 7:05:30 GMT
Interesting England & Wales death stats issued today especially for flu and pneumonia.
Just 394 deaths recorded flu as a cause of death, when 5 year average is in excess of 20,000.
13,619 deaths recorded pneumonia as cause of death when every one of the previous 5 years has been in excess of 30,000
So have over 37,000 lives really been saved, or just transfered to a different column?
|
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Oct 22, 2020 8:57:45 GMT
Interesting England & Wales death stats issued today especially for flu and pneumonia. Just 394 deaths recorded flu as a cause of death, when 5 year average is in excess of 20,000. 13,619 deaths recorded pneumonia as cause of death when every one of the previous 5 years has been in excess of 30,000 So have over 37,000 lives really been saved, or just transfered to a different column? It's worth remembering that social distancing measures and enhanced hand hygiene will impact on other illnesses besides covid-19. There probably won't be so many colds and sniffles this winter either. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Oct 22, 2020 9:33:13 GMT
Interesting England & Wales death stats issued today especially for flu and pneumonia. Just 394 deaths recorded flu as a cause of death, when 5 year average is in excess of 20,000. 13,619 deaths recorded pneumonia as cause of death when every one of the previous 5 years has been in excess of 30,000 So have over 37,000 lives really been saved, or just transfered to a different column? It's worth remembering that social distancing measures and enhanced hand hygiene will impact on other illnesses besides covid-19. There probably won't be so many colds and sniffles this winter either. Quite remarkable if you are saying we can prevent 75% of these deaths ... which is getting on for the same number of people that have died from COVID, and symptoms bear a lot of similarities. If you are old and have the flu, you are susceptible to pneumonia and then sepsis (which i have not looked up the figures for yet), if it also makes you susceptible to COVID, it goes down as a COVID death and not one of the other two. Is the real death count as high as the numbers supplied by the various governments |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2020 9:39:34 GMT
It's worth remembering that social distancing measures and enhanced hand hygiene will impact on other illnesses besides covid-19. There probably won't be so many colds and sniffles this winter either. Quite remarkable if you are saying we can prevent 75% of these deaths ... which is getting on for the same number of people that have died from COVID, and symptoms bear a lot of similarities. If you are old and have the flu, you are susceptible to pneumonia and then sepsis (which i have not looked up the figures for yet), if it also makes you susceptible to COVID, it goes down as a COVID death and not one of the other two. Is the real death count as high as the numbers supplied by the various governments Your logic is clearly flawed.. I take it you wouldn't expect a 3 month lockdown, followed by social distancing measures, mask wearing and limits on social contact and interactions to prevent most of these deaths. Flu is a virus which reproduces through person to person transmission, so it is quite clear that the numbers of deaths from flu would decrease as the rate of transmission is substantially lower than in previous years! I think you also need to remember the criteria for recording a death as coronavirus - A positive test within the 28 days before death. These are people who have died who have tested positive for coronavirus within the past 28 days. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Oct 22, 2020 10:10:12 GMT
Quite remarkable if you are saying we can prevent 75% of these deaths ... which is getting on for the same number of people that have died from COVID, and symptoms bear a lot of similarities. If you are old and have the flu, you are susceptible to pneumonia and then sepsis (which i have not looked up the figures for yet), if it also makes you susceptible to COVID, it goes down as a COVID death and not one of the other two. Is the real death count as high as the numbers supplied by the various governments Your logic is clearly flawed.. I take it you wouldn't expect a 3 month lockdown, followed by social distancing measures, mask wearing and limits on social contact and interactions to prevent most of these deaths. Flu is a virus which reproduces through person to person transmission, so it is quite clear that the numbers of deaths from flu would decrease as the rate of transmission is substantially lower than in previous years! I think you also need to remember the criteria for recording a death as coronavirus - A positive test within the 28 days before death. These are people who have died who have tested positive for coronavirus within the past 28 days. No my logic is good ... Not the one that's flawed. If the majority that have died have underlying conditions, and the deaths by underlying condition drop ... Logic says there is a connection, suddenly all the other problems in the world have become less fatal is what you are saying? Yes it is within 28 days of being positive, that does not mean COVID kills them, the underlying condition was probably the cause ... just the underlying cause makes them more susceptible to COVID. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2020 10:14:20 GMT
Your logic is clearly flawed.. I take it you wouldn't expect a 3 month lockdown, followed by social distancing measures, mask wearing and limits on social contact and interactions to prevent most of these deaths. Flu is a virus which reproduces through person to person transmission, so it is quite clear that the numbers of deaths from flu would decrease as the rate of transmission is substantially lower than in previous years! I think you also need to remember the criteria for recording a death as coronavirus - A positive test within the 28 days before death. These are people who have died who have tested positive for coronavirus within the past 28 days. No my logic is good ... Not the one that's flawed. If the majority that have died have underlying conditions, and the deaths by underlying condition drop ... Logic says there is a connection, suddenly all the other problems in the world have become less fatal is what you are saying? So what's your argument, they were dying anyway so who cares if they die sooner? Not all underlying health conditions cause death you know... Besides, perhaps you should take a look at the excess mortality figures, showing we've had more than 60,000 more deaths than the 5 year average this year. Besides, in response to your previous point, are you saying flu and pneumonia are underlying conditions now! |
|
