On 03/06/2020 00:08, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
MissRiaElaine wrote:

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?

Of course they are, but they'll invariably take two weeks to arrive, and
when they don't fit, as the first pair you try on never do, you have to
go through the rigmarole of sending them back and then the next pair
that takes another 2 weeks to arrive and stand an equal chance of not
fitting then that's a month gone and we still have no shoes.

There are many things that can easily be bought online, but clothes and
shoes are not in that camp.


--
Ria in Aberdeen

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

On 03/06/2020 10:23, Recliner wrote:
Charles Ellson wrote:

You leave your shoes until the last available pair falls apart ?


Yes, that's what surprised me: a woman with only one pair of shoes!

When you're on a low income, then food and gas/electricity bills take
priority.

--
Ria in Aberdeen

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

On 03/06/2020 15:24, wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 13:43:11 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:

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.

There's also the issue that a shoe size or a clothes size number is
arbitrary and not consistent between manufacturers. One shoe maker's
size 7 may well be another's size 6.

Dress sizes are even worse. One brand's size 14 could well be the same
physical size as another's size 12 or size 16. You *have* to try things
on before you buy, and doing it online is too much hassle.

As to the reason why she is down to only 1 pair of shoes, blame Sod and
his infernal law. All the pairs she had seemed to fail at the same time
or thereabouts.

Oh yes, the shoe repairer is closed and may well never re-open, being a
sole (groan) trader.


--
Ria in Aberdeen

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

On 03/06/2020 17:17, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:

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.

It's achievable. Just time consuming, and something we don't have the
time to indulge in.

There is also a social aspect to retail shopping. Chatting to the
assistant/cashier is, to us, an enjoyable part of the experience.



--
Ria in Aberdeen

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

On 03/06/2020 15:14, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
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?


I would expect any online shoe retailer to have a system for sending back
things which don't fit, just as online and catalogue retailers of other
clothing items do.

Time. Not everybody wants to wait days or even weeks for items to be
returned, another one sent out, that one sent back as well when it
doesn't fit. I want shoes or clothes that fit now, not in 4 weeks time.


--
Ria in Aberdeen

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

MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 03/06/2020 15:24, wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 13:43:11 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:

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.

There's also the issue that a shoe size or a clothes size number is
arbitrary and not consistent between manufacturers. One shoe maker's
size 7 may well be another's size 6.

Dress sizes are even worse. One brand's size 14 could well be the same
physical size as another's size 12 or size 16. You *have* to try things
on before you buy, and doing it online is too much hassle.

As to the reason why she is down to only 1 pair of shoes, blame Sod and
his infernal law. All the pairs she had seemed to fail at the same time
or thereabouts.

Oh yes, the shoe repairer is closed and may well never re-open, being a
sole (groan) trader.



Are there no large supermarkets you can get to which have a clothing
department still open? (Eg George at Asda, Tesco Extra, large Sainsbury's
etc)


Anna Noyd-Dryver

Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
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?


I remember when I was younger, being surprised that M&S in Bolton didn't
have rooms to try on clothes (because you were expected to take things home
to try them on) but M&S in Llandudno did (because people generally
travelled further to get there).

Weren't changing rooms a dangerous innovation for ever-conservative M&S?

Graeme Wall 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 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.


He's so low key, I had to look up who it was: one Rob Oxley, who appears to
be a real lightweight, appointed mainly for his right-wing Brexit
credentials, rather than any senior press experience. He's certainly no
Bernard Ingham, Alastair Campbell, Damian McBride or Andy Coulson.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Oxley

So, in effect, that's been another role performed by the Dom, who's known
to regularly leak policies and bad news about ministers to the press. I'm
sure he's the one who's been bad-mouthing Hapless Hancock, who looks a lot
more confident now.

On 03/06/2020 21:15, Recliner wrote:
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
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?


I remember when I was younger, being surprised that M&S in Bolton didn't
have rooms to try on clothes (because you were expected to take things home
to try them on) but M&S in Llandudno did (because people generally
travelled further to get there).

Weren't changing rooms a dangerous innovation for ever-conservative M&S?


Made them more susceptible to shop-lifters.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 03/06/2020 17:17, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:

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.

It's achievable. Just time consuming, and something we don't have the
time to indulge in.

There is also a social aspect to retail shopping. Chatting to the
assistant/cashier is, to us, an enjoyable part of the experience.

I suspect that you're in a very small minority (of one?) in this group.
Most blokes regard shopping for clothes or shoes as slightly less fun than
refuelling the car, but at least it's less frequent.