On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 17:05:07 +0100, "Clive D.W. Feather"
wrote:

In article , MissRiaElaine
writes
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.

In the case of the government, that's what we elected them to do.

FSVO "We".

On 03/06/2020 09:17, wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 19:38:16 +0100
wrote:
On 02/06/2020 17:00, wrote:
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?


I couldn't give a toss about the R number or any of this bloody nonsense
any more. The medics the government are listening to at exclusion of
EVERYONE else can only see one side of a very large equation.


And you know better of course.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 03/06/2020 09:24, wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:29 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jun 2020 07:04:37 -0500
Arthur Conan Doyle wrote:
wrote:

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.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/swed...-herd-immunity

Wired? Give me a break. As for well and truly failed - how can a herd
immunity approach that has less deaths per million than belgium, UK, spain
and
italy and only slight more than france which all had tight lockdowns be said
to
have failed exactly?


Default behaviours in different countries/regions differ, and therefore
affect their 'default' transmission rates. It appears that Sweden's
'default' death rate is around the same as our lockdown death rate,
presumably because they do stuff like not hugging random strangers as a

We don't tend to hug random strangers here in the UK, nor do they do that
much in Belgium AFAIK. You're clutching at straws.

greeting. Their transmission rate is around eight times their
presumably-comparable neighbours; therefore, without lockdown, would our

Why does everyone assume NOrway and Denmark are equivalent to Sweden? Just
because they all speak dialects of the same language?


Sweden's Tegnell admits too many died:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52903717

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 03/06/2020 17:32, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 03.06.2020 um 16:14 schrieb Anna Noyd-Dryver:
There was a thing on the news the other day about bookshops reopening,
the
suggestion being that any item touched by a customer would need to be
wiped
down and also quarantined for 72 hours. Presumably the same would
apply to
shoes? (Genuine question: presumably large supermarkets still have their
clothing departments open, how are they managing?)

In Germany where all shops are open again, H&M have a "try on at home"
policy, so what's advantage is left compared to mail order?

M&S did that many years ago.



--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 03/06/2020 10:51, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On 03/06/2020 10:23, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On 03/06/2020 08:44, Recliner wrote:
Sam Wilson wrote:
Recliner wrote:
MissRiaElaine wrote:
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.

Yes, I think a growing number of people feel the same. Most people now
realise that the risk to them personally is extremely low, and they're
prepared to risk it, just as we (collectively) risk eating out, crossing
the road, eating unhealthily, drinking and/or smoking, using public
transport, climbing mountains, winter sports, etc, etc.

Then I’ll be staying home while the second wave happens.

Well, that's the big question that may shortly be answered: will it be a
big wave, comparable to the first, or just a much smaller ripple?

Clearly, most younger people expect just a ripple, while the scientists are
undecided. Personally, I think it'll just be a ripple, but we need to be
alert for a second wave. It would help if our test and trace capabilities
were as good as Hapless Hancock keeps telling us they are.

At least in London and the southeast, I think enough people are either not
susceptible, or now immune, that there will not be a big second wave, even
if all lockdown restrictions are lifted, and all businesses allowed to
reopen with some basic social distancing. Other parts of the country are a
few weeks further behind, and may want to wait a little longer. And, of
course, vulnerable people should continue to avoid crowded places.

I have two friends who're nurses and the best way to describe them is
knackered. They need a few weeks R&R before the next onslaught, not a
week, a few weeks R&R so the ability of medial professionals to cope
should be a consideration. I fear Cummings' government regards them as
expendable collateral damage.


The Cummings era is at an end, and temporarily, Johnson has taken over from
him until the new Downing Street CEO, Simon Case, gets up to speed.
Cummings may hang around for a few months before slinking off to a think
tank, but his power has gone. He's morphed from consiglieri to clown in a
matter of days.
Following Johnson's blind support for Cummings they've both got similar
support, or perhaps I should say contempt.

Yes, I don't know if Johnson realised that by not immediately sacking the
Dom, he's now inherited Cummings' guilt. That will remain long after
Cummings has gone.

Presumably he was acting on advice from Cummings?

It shows the weakness of the Johnson team: a second-tier cabinet and only
one adviser that he listened to. Most previous PMs have been surrounded by
several key cabinet ministers, a good press secretary, and useful political
advisers.


I suspect his current press secretary is still banging his head against
the wall.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 03/06/2020 11:06, wrote:
On 03/06/2020 10:51, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On 03/06/2020 10:23, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On 03/06/2020 08:44, Recliner wrote:
Sam Wilson wrote:
Recliner wrote:
MissRiaElaine wrote:
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
democraticÂ* 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.

Yes, I think a growing number of people feel the same. Most
people now
realise that the risk to them personally is extremely low, and
they're
prepared to risk it, just as we (collectively) risk eating out,
crossing
the road, eating unhealthily, drinking and/or smoking, using public
transport, climbing mountains, winter sports, etc, etc.

Then I’ll be staying home while the second wave happens.

Well, that's the big question that may shortly be answered: will
it be a
big wave, comparable to the first, or just a much smaller ripple?

Clearly, most younger people expect just a ripple, while the
scientists are
undecided. Personally, I think it'll just be a ripple, but we need
to be
alert for a second wave. It would help if our test and trace
capabilities
were as good as Hapless Hancock keeps telling us they are.

At least in London and the southeast, I think enough people are
either not
susceptible, or now immune, that there will not be a big second
wave, even
if all lockdown restrictions are lifted, and all businesses
allowed to
reopen with some basic social distancing. Other parts of the
country are a
few weeks further behind, and may want to wait a little longer.
And, of
course, vulnerable people should continue to avoid crowded places.

I have two friends who're nurses and the best way to describe them is
knackered.Â* They need a few weeks R&R before the next onslaught, not a
week, a few weeks R&R so the ability of medial professionals to cope
should be a consideration.Â* I fear Cummings' government regards
them as
expendable collateral damage.


The Cummings era is at an end, and temporarily, Johnson has taken
over from
him until the new Downing Street CEO, Simon Case, gets up to speed.
Cummings may hang around for a few months before slinking off to a
think
tank, but his power has gone. He's morphed from consiglieri to clown
in a
matter of days.
Following Johnson's blind support for Cummings they've both got similar
support, or perhaps I should say contempt.

Yes, I don't know if Johnson realised that by not immediately sacking the
Dom, he's now inherited Cummings' guilt. That will remain long after
Cummings has gone.
I've not thought of it that way.Â* Thank you.

Presumably he was acting on advice from Cummings?
The suspicion has to be that they discussed how to deal with it and
Johnson followed his advise.

It shows the weakness of the Johnson team: a second-tier cabinet and only
one adviser that he listened to. Most previous PMs have been
surrounded by
several key cabinet ministers, a good press secretary, and useful
political
advisers.
The government was elected solely to give us Brexit with little or no
regard for anything else.Â* The cabinet members and Johnsons' political
advisers were nominated for their extreme Brexit views above competence.
Â*The government is actually not competent to deal with anything other
than Brexit and we've ended up with the mess we're in.

Unfortunately they are not competent to deal with Brexit either.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message , at 15:19:52 on Wed, 3 Jun
2020, remarked:
If by local one-stop

It's a popular chain of convenience stores M'Lud. Other brands are
available.

Never heard of them.

I'm sure you'll have heard of the other similar stores.

Huh? The point you and others are missing is that with clothes, shoes and
a number of other products , eg cars, its a very VERY good idea to try before
you buy. Or risk serious disappointment.

You buy (hanks to the EU) in effect "on approval", and send things back
which don't fit.

The EU has nothing to do with being able to return goods not fit for purpose.
Thats been british law for decades and I wouldn't be surprised if we gave them
the idea. Nor were they involved in credit card companies refunding customers
for dodgy goods.

Wrong. It's the quite separate Distance Selling Directive which gives
customers the right to send stuff back they've bought "on approval"

Thats up to you. I only order online when I don't have a choice because
shops
don't sell it - eg gym equipment. Otherwise going to a physical shop is a
lot
simpler.

Physical shops have a very limited selection in my size.

Thats unfortunate, but you're clearly a special case. Most people can buy
shoes that fit in shops.

You'd think, wouldn't you, but I know several people (men and women)
with smaller feet, and it's a significant issue. I also really need a
half-size, which are even rarer.

Just wear the next size up and put in a thick insole. Simples.

That's what I sometimes end up doing, but online does at least often
have *some* stock in the half-size.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 16:17:14 on Wed, 3 Jun 2020,
Anna Noyd-Dryver remarked:

Catalogue shopping (order lots, return those which don't fit/suit) was a
thing for many decades before the internet. I don't see why the
introduction of a computer screen into the process should make it any less
achievable.

Because it applies by law to all sellers, not just those volunteering to
do it.
--
Roland Perry

wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
MissRiaElaine wrote:
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..?


Surely shoes are available to purchase online?

Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really?

It’s not something I would do normally, but I did get a new pair of walking
shoes, buying online, in the first week or two of the lockdown. I ordered
exactly the same make, model and size as my existing walking shoes, so I
didn’t think I was taking much of a risk.

--
Jeremy Double

On 03/06/2020 17:05, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
In article , MissRiaElaine
writes
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.

In the case of the government, that's what we elected them to do.

I voted because I consider it my civic duty to do so. I did not vote to
be talked down to like I am 10 years old and on the naughty step.

I will not be told do this do that do the other, I left school in the
70's and I am perfectly capable of weighing up the risks of doing
something or not.


--
Ria in Aberdeen

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