MissRiaElaine wrote:
Lockdown or no lockdown, the thing that worries me the most is how many
of the small businesses and one-man bands will survive after all this..?
Charities which rely on shops for a good proportion if not the majority
of their income may go under.

I'm retired so I'm reasonably ok in that I don't have to go out to work,
although I'm by no means well off. But I do know many small traders and
they are very, very worried.


Yes, there will be far more economic casualties from Covid-19 than those
who get sick. The international travel industry will be among the hardest
hit, from cruise ships to airlines to resorts. Just about all the world's
seaferers and most airline crew are currently not working, and many will
soon be laid off.

For example, Emirates will be laying off thousands of air crew who will not
only lose their jobs, but their residence in Dubai:

Emirates, the state-owned carrier based in Dubai, has laid off about 180
pilots on May 31, as part of its larger plan to reduce costs after being
low because of COVID-19.

Sources told Moneycontrol that the 180 pilots were first officers who were
under training for type-rating on the A380. These pilots were on probation.

"This is the first phase of the layoffs. These pilots were called to the
office and given the letters," a senior executive said. "More announcements
are expected tomorrow," the executive added.

Moneycontrol has seen a copy of one of these letters.

While the notice period for those on probation is seven days, the airline
said that it is extending this to 14 days, as a 'gesture of goodwill.' The
letter added:
"Your last day of service would, therefore, be June 15, and you will
continue to receive your usual company medical benefits... should you be
unable to repatriate due to travel restrictions, your visa will be extended
being your last day of service."

The news comes weeks after reports emerged that the airline will lay off 30
percent of its crew and pilots. This will translate to about 30,000
employees.

On 2 Jun 2020 15:30:08 GMT
Jeremy Double wrote:
Recliner wrote:
David Jones wrote:
Robin wrote:

On 01/06/2020 14:39, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 01/06/2020 10:07, wrote:

Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are
forcing their decisions on other people.* I'm fed up with the
lycras around here who've decided social distancing is
unnecessary.

But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or
Harry to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.

And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social
distancing" will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your
distance..?


As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage
from them - starting many years ago.

Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than
2m*.

*or possibly not if you are an Audi driver

No. "Social distancing" allows one to be close to anyone of the same
housewhold, while at leasat 2m from anyoned else


In the UK. In most other countries, it's 1.5m or 1m, or 6' in the US. The
WHO recommends at least 1m.

This article, looking at scientific studies, says the virus will be passed
on more if the social distancing distance is reduced from 2m:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ould-double-if
-2-metre-rule-reduced-study-finds

Using that logic lets make the social distance 10m. No wait, lets make it
100m! Or better yet lets just lock people up in their houses until they're
given a booked date and time to come out and go shopping.

Life is full of compromises and if the government persist with this 2m
nonsense even against the advice of the WHO then they are going to utterly kill
the economy of this country. Not just in retail, leisure and travel but in
factories that can't operate efficiently - if at all - with 2m distancing of
their employees.

I'm sure Bozo the Clown knows this but he's too in thrall to a bunch of
"experts" whose expertise seems to be based on little more than suck-it-and-see
statistics.

Am 02.06.2020 um 17:30 schrieb Jeremy Double:
Recliner wrote:
David Jones wrote:
Robin wrote:

On 01/06/2020 14:39, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 01/06/2020 10:07, wrote:

Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are
forcing their decisions on other people.Â* I'm fed up with the
lycras around here who've decided social distancing is
unnecessary.

But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or
Harry to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.

And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social
distancing" will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your
distance..?


As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage
from them - starting many years ago.

Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than
2m*.

*or possibly not if you are an Audi driver

No. "Social distancing" allows one to be close to anyone of the same
housewhold, while at leasat 2m from anyoned else


In the UK. In most other countries, it's 1.5m or 1m, or 6' in the US. The
WHO recommends at least 1m.

This article, looking at scientific studies, says the virus will be passed
on more if the social distancing distance is reduced from 2m:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ed-study-finds

Actually, the article says that only 3m would be a "safe distance", that
anything below 1m would be dangerous and that any distance between 1m
and 3m is some kind of compromise between safety and getting a normal
life.

As the UK was very late in starting social distancing, it is meaningful
to be more cautious until your infection nubmers are significantly down.

On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 18:03:24 +0200
Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 02.06.2020 um 17:30 schrieb Jeremy Double:
Recliner wrote:
David Jones wrote:
Robin wrote:

On 01/06/2020 14:39, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 01/06/2020 10:07, wrote:

Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are
forcing their decisions on other people.Â* I'm fed up with the
lycras around here who've decided social distancing is
unnecessary.

But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or
Harry to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.

And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social
distancing" will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your
distance..?


As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage
from them - starting many years ago.

Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than
2m*.

*or possibly not if you are an Audi driver

No. "Social distancing" allows one to be close to anyone of the same
housewhold, while at leasat 2m from anyoned else


In the UK. In most other countries, it's 1.5m or 1m, or 6' in the US. The
WHO recommends at least 1m.

This article, looking at scientific studies, says the virus will be passed
on more if the social distancing distance is reduced from 2m:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ould-double-if
-2-metre-rule-reduced-study-finds

Actually, the article says that only 3m would be a "safe distance", that

3m isn't a safe distance when a sneeze can go up to 8m and a cough 5m.

On 02/06/2020 17:00, wrote:
On 2 Jun 2020 15:30:08 GMT
Jeremy Double wrote:
Recliner wrote:
David Jones wrote:
Robin wrote:

On 01/06/2020 14:39, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 01/06/2020 10:07, wrote:

Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are
forcing their decisions on other people.Â* I'm fed up with the
lycras around here who've decided social distancing is
unnecessary.

But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or
Harry to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.

And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social
distancing" will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your
distance..?


As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage
from them - starting many years ago.

Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than
2m*.

*or possibly not if you are an Audi driver

No. "Social distancing" allows one to be close to anyone of the same
housewhold, while at leasat 2m from anyoned else


In the UK. In most other countries, it's 1.5m or 1m, or 6' in the US. The
WHO recommends at least 1m.

This article, looking at scientific studies, says the virus will be passed
on more if the social distancing distance is reduced from 2m:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ould-double-if
-2-metre-rule-reduced-study-finds

Using that logic lets make the social distance 10m. No wait, lets make it
100m! Or better yet lets just lock people up in their houses until they're
given a booked date and time to come out and go shopping.

Life is full of compromises and if the government persist with this 2m
nonsense even against the advice of the WHO then they are going to utterly kill
the economy of this country. Not just in retail, leisure and travel but in
factories that can't operate efficiently - if at all - with 2m distancing of
their employees.

I'm sure Bozo the Clown knows this but he's too in thrall to a bunch of
"experts" whose expertise seems to be based on little more than suck-it-and-see
statistics.

OK. So we reduce the 2m distancing to 1m. This will increase the R
number a little. What are you going to restrict instead to compensate
and bring the R number back to what it would otherwise be?

On 02/06/2020 17:00, wrote:
On 2 Jun 2020 15:30:08 GMT
Jeremy Double wrote:
Recliner wrote:
David Jones wrote:
Robin wrote:

On 01/06/2020 14:39, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 01/06/2020 10:07, wrote:

Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are
forcing their decisions on other people.Â* I'm fed up with the
lycras around here who've decided social distancing is
unnecessary.

But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or
Harry to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.

And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social
distancing" will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your
distance..?


As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage
from them - starting many years ago.

Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than
2m*.

*or possibly not if you are an Audi driver

No. "Social distancing" allows one to be close to anyone of the same
housewhold, while at leasat 2m from anyoned else


In the UK. In most other countries, it's 1.5m or 1m, or 6' in the US. The
WHO recommends at least 1m.

This article, looking at scientific studies, says the virus will be passed
on more if the social distancing distance is reduced from 2m:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ould-double-if
-2-metre-rule-reduced-study-finds

Using that logic lets make the social distance 10m. No wait, lets make it
100m! Or better yet lets just lock people up in their houses until they're
given a booked date and time to come out and go shopping.

Life is full of compromises and if the government persist with this 2m
nonsense even against the advice of the WHO then they are going to utterly kill
the economy of this country. Not just in retail, leisure and travel but in
factories that can't operate efficiently - if at all - with 2m distancing of
their employees.

I'm sure Bozo the Clown knows this but he's too in thrall to a bunch of
"experts" whose expertise seems to be based on little more than suck-it-and-see
statistics.

So little is known about the virus that suck it and see is the best we
have at the moment. However we are learning and presumably the
modelling is getting better.

wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 10:04:38 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 02/06/2020 09:37, wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100
Robin wrote:
On 01/06/2020 14:39, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 01/06/2020 10:07, wrote:

Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.ÂÂ* I'm fed up with the lycras around
here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.

But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.

And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"
will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..?


As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from
them - starting many years ago.

Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.

Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring
the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people
afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not -

so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method
of
governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have
no
time for it.


ROTFL

Roll all you like. Governments have been playing the fear card for months now
but as Sweden and Japan have shown, this virus isn't nearly as contagious
or deadly as they would have us believe.



Except for eight times higher death rate in Sweden than in its
otherwise-comparable neighbours.

And various articles about how Japan are very reluctant to put
Coronavirus/Covid designation even on people who are blatantly displaying
all the symptoms.

Oh and South Korea have gone back into partial lockdown.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100
Robin wrote:
On 01/06/2020 14:39, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 01/06/2020 10:07, wrote:

Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.Â* I'm fed up with the lycras around
here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.

But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.

And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"
will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..?


As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from
them - starting many years ago.

Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.

Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring
the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people
afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not -
so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method of
governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have no
time for it.



Apparently K is the new number to be concerned about.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/k-number-what-is-coronavirus-metric-crucial-lockdown-eases

K sheds light on the variation behind R. “Some [infectious] people might
generate a lot of secondary cases because of the event they attend, for
example, and other people may not generate many secondary cases at all,�
said Dr Adam Kucharski, an expert in the dynamics of infectious diseases at
the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

“K is the statistical value that tells us how much variation there is in
that distribution.�

But unlike R, K numbers are not intuitive. “The general rule is that the
smaller the K value is, the more transmission comes from a smaller number
of infectious people,� said Kucharski.

“Once K is above about five or 10 it tells you most people are generating
pretty similar numbers [of secondary cases], you are not getting these
super-spreading events. Once K is below one, you have got the potential for
super-spreading.�

Is K fixed, or does it fluctuate with public health measures, like R does?
As with the rate of transmission, there is a K value that relates to
transmission when you do not have any control measures in place. Once
measures are implemented, however, the distribution in transmission
changes. “It is unlikely that with lockdown measures in place you’d see a
lot of super-spreading events simply because there aren’t any opportunities
for them,� said Kucharski. “So if you were to analyse that data, you’d
probably calculate a different K value because you have got those control
measures changing the dynamics of interactions.�

What is the K number for Covid-19?
In the absence of public health measures, “the values that are coming out
for Covid-19 seems to be between about 0.1 and 0.5,� said Kucharski. That,
he says, means that in the early stages of an outbreak about 10-20% of
infections probably generate about 80% of the transmission.

In other words, super-spreading matters – a reality highlighted by reports
such as that from South Korea where one individual is thought to have
infected dozens of others by attending church.

But Kucharski cautioned against the use of the term super-spreader. “I
think we do have to be really careful about blaming people because often it
is not really much about the person, it is much more about the environment
they happened to be in while they were infectious,� he said.

Why is K important?
Knowing the K value helps to inform what sort of public health measures may
help to reduce R.

“If we can identify and reduce the situations that are disproportionately
driving transmission, then that suggests that we could actually have
potentially quite a lot less disruptive measures in place, but still keep
the reproduction number low,� said Kucharski.

But it could also be important for test-and-trace measures, he said. “If
cases occur at random, it’s very hard to track down and stop every chain of
transmission. But if cases cluster together, and we can identify those
clusters, testing and tracing directed at these situations could have a
disproportionate effect on reducing transmission.�

How might the relaxation of the lockdown affect K?
Lockdown reduces the chances of a single infectious person spreading the
disease to others. “Obviously if you start to allow larger gatherings, have
larger workplaces, if you have other types of interaction starting, then
that does increase the chance that one infection could spread to more
people than it would have been able to a couple of weeks ago,� said
Kucharski. “It could decrease the K, but it could also increase the R.�

On 02/06/2020 19:40, wrote:
On 02/06/2020 17:00, wrote:
On 2 Jun 2020 15:30:08 GMT
Jeremy Double wrote:
Recliner wrote:
David Jones wrote:
Robin wrote:

On 01/06/2020 14:39, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 01/06/2020 10:07, wrote:

Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are
forcingÂ* their decisions on other people.Â* I'm fed up with the
lycras aroundÂ* here who've decided social distancing is
unnecessary.

But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or
HarryÂ* to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.

And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social
distancing"Â* will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your
distance..?


As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage
from them - starting many years ago.

Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than
2m*.

*or possibly not if you are an Audi driver

No. "Social distancing" allows one to be close to anyone of the same
housewhold, while at leasat 2m from anyoned else


In the UK. In most other countries, it's 1.5m or 1m, or 6' in the
US. The
WHO recommends at least 1m.

This article, looking at scientific studies, says the virus will be
passed
on more if the social distancing distance is reduced from 2m:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ould-double-if

-2-metre-rule-reduced-study-finds

Using that logic lets make the social distance 10m. No wait, lets make it
100m! Or better yet lets just lock people up in their houses until
they're
given a booked date and time to come out and go shopping.

Life is full of compromises and if the government persist with this 2m
nonsense even against the advice of the WHO then they are going to
utterly kill
the economy of this country. Not just in retail, leisure and travel
but in
factories that can't operate efficiently - if at all - with 2m
distancing of
their employees.

I'm sure Bozo the Clown knows this but he's too in thrall to a bunch of
"experts" whose expertise seems to be based on little more than
suck-it-and-see
statistics.

So little is known about the virus that suck it and see is the best we
have at the moment.Â* However we are learning and presumably the
modelling is getting better.

At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are
not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or
later, people will say enough is enough.

My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday
in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..?
When will the shops reopen..? How many will reopen, how many will go to
the wall..?

Personally, I have just about had enough. In one food shop today the
cashier peremptorily ordered me back over the "social distance" line
marked on the floor because I was rather anxious to put down the heavy
basket I was carrying before I dropped it. The previous customer had
already paid and was well over "2m" (ye gods it's 6ft) away from me,
finishing packing and 5 seconds later had left. Who was going to infect
who, and does the dreaded virus know what the line marked on the floor
is for..?

Heaven preserve us, because nobody else is going to.



--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

On 02/06/2020 20:58, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100
Robin wrote:
On 01/06/2020 14:39, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 01/06/2020 10:07, wrote:

Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.Â* I'm fed up with the lycras around
here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.

But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.

And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"
will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..?


As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from
them - starting many years ago.

Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.

Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring
the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people
afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not -
so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method of
governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have no
time for it.



Apparently K is the new number to be concerned about.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/k-number-what-is-coronavirus-metric-crucial-lockdown-eases

K sheds light on the variation behind R. “Some [infectious] people might
generate a lot of secondary cases because of the event they attend, for
example, and other people may not generate many secondary cases at all,�
said Dr Adam Kucharski, an expert in the dynamics of infectious diseases at
the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

“K is the statistical value that tells us how much variation there is in
that distribution.�

But unlike R, K numbers are not intuitive. “The general rule is that the
smaller the K value is, the more transmission comes from a smaller number
of infectious people,� said Kucharski.

“Once K is above about five or 10 it tells you most people are generating
pretty similar numbers [of secondary cases], you are not getting these
super-spreading events. Once K is below one, you have got the potential for
super-spreading.�

Is K fixed, or does it fluctuate with public health measures, like R does?
As with the rate of transmission, there is a K value that relates to
transmission when you do not have any control measures in place. Once
measures are implemented, however, the distribution in transmission
changes. “It is unlikely that with lockdown measures in place you’d see a
lot of super-spreading events simply because there aren’t any opportunities
for them,� said Kucharski. “So if you were to analyse that data, you’d
probably calculate a different K value because you have got those control
measures changing the dynamics of interactions.�

What is the K number for Covid-19?
In the absence of public health measures, “the values that are coming out
for Covid-19 seems to be between about 0.1 and 0.5,� said Kucharski. That,
he says, means that in the early stages of an outbreak about 10-20% of
infections probably generate about 80% of the transmission.

In other words, super-spreading matters – a reality highlighted by reports
such as that from South Korea where one individual is thought to have
infected dozens of others by attending church.

But Kucharski cautioned against the use of the term super-spreader. “I
think we do have to be really careful about blaming people because often it
is not really much about the person, it is much more about the environment
they happened to be in while they were infectious,� he said.

Why is K important?
Knowing the K value helps to inform what sort of public health measures may
help to reduce R.

“If we can identify and reduce the situations that are disproportionately
driving transmission, then that suggests that we could actually have
potentially quite a lot less disruptive measures in place, but still keep
the reproduction number low,� said Kucharski.

But it could also be important for test-and-trace measures, he said. “If
cases occur at random, it’s very hard to track down and stop every chain of
transmission. But if cases cluster together, and we can identify those
clusters, testing and tracing directed at these situations could have a
disproportionate effect on reducing transmission.�

How might the relaxation of the lockdown affect K?
Lockdown reduces the chances of a single infectious person spreading the
disease to others. “Obviously if you start to allow larger gatherings, have
larger workplaces, if you have other types of interaction starting, then
that does increase the chance that one infection could spread to more
people than it would have been able to a couple of weeks ago,� said
Kucharski. “It could decrease the K, but it could also increase the R.�


R numbers, K numbers, X Y and Z numbers, I don't care, I've had enough.
I want my life back.


--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]