Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

[Fruitloop]

Isn't most infrastructure supposed to be enabling

 

[Fruitloop]

I would not trust whoever came up with all of that twaddle to make me a cheese sandwich

 

[Supine]

Didn't it take NASA eleven attempts to get to the moon?

 

[Chilli.s]

Didn't it take NASA eleven attempts to get to the moon?

And about 10 years

 

[two sheds]

With the first ten leaving wreckage all over the place?

 

[retribution]

This is one of the funniest things i've seen all morning.

It sets us all up for an excellent mockumentary, in which a group of civil service misfits battle their management consultant colleagues. A design team stuck forever in the divergent thinking of "discovery" comes up with increasingly zany ideas of how to deliver millions of tests a day. Meanwhile, frequent visits from The Boss - Alan Partridge meets Paddington Bear meets Work Experience Kid - are met with false reports of progress.
The Boss keenly takes up Yoga "so he can be more agile", and adopts the phrase "validated learning and blueprinting" when speaking to journalists. Always together. Not because he knows what it means, but because it sounds fancy, and because the public love education.

 

[Ax^]

With the first ten leaving wreckage all over the place?

even Boris cannot have that many more kids surely

 

[Cloo]

I find this infuriating. Why can't they just say no more than 6 people to gather at any one time and make it a simple clear mesage?

Or even better, make it 8 seeing as families and households, which often consist of 4 will all break this rule anyway so they can meet up with one another. And our neighbours with 4 kids will have to break if they want to see anyone as a whole group.

 

[SpookyFrank]

This is one of the funniest things i've seen all morning.

We probably paid some consultant five million quid for that venn diagram though.

 

[Buddy Bradley]

I completely understand the "rule of 6", which means every time I socialise with 5 friends, one of them has to be Kevin Bacon.

 

[Mrs Miggins]

Or even better, make it 8 seeing as families and households, which often consist of 4 will all break this rule anyway so they can meet up with one another. And our neighbours with 4 kids will have to break if they want to see anyone as a whole group.

Yes why not 8? I just wish they would make these statements without a load of exceptions attached because that's what makes it confusing.

 

[2hats]

Shoot for the moon lads

Operation Moneyshot - Johnson spaffing up a wall yet again.

 

[teuchter]

Or even better, make it 8 seeing as families and households, which often consist of 4 will all break this rule anyway so they can meet up with one another. And our neighbours with 4 kids will have to break if they want to see anyone as a whole group.

Or maybe just make it 10 or 200, so that even larger groups can meet without breaking the rules. It's almost as if it's designed to stop loads of people from different households meeting up. Ridiculous.

 

[Chilli.s]

We probably paid some consultant five million quid for that venn diagram though.

That's it really, all those silly labels are offices full of old etonians getting big salaries for something that part time minimum wage employers are going to have to do (test and trace, lab work and telecoms). Giving a contract out for something that hasn't been invented yet just means that there will be no refunds.

I wonder how the tendering process is going to work.

 

[Cloo]

Or maybe just make it 10 or 200, so that even larger groups can meet without breaking the rules. It's almost as if it's designed to stop loads of people from different households meeting up. Ridiculous.

I get that, but if it would make more sense to make it a less 'awkward' number then people would stick to it more and be less likely to go 'Oh fuck it, we're breaking it anyway, lets; have 16 people over'

 

[Looby]

I get that, but if it would make more sense to make it a less 'awkward' number then people would stick to it more and be less likely to go 'Oh fuck it, we're breaking it anyway, lets; have 16 people over'

But whatever number they chose, there will be people that doesn’t work for and I guess the smaller the number the better. Not defending the shit show btw but I can see why 6.

 

[wtfftw]

It's also a number people should already be familiar with. It's 6 people to a restaurant table isn't it? and there was a 6 people meeting up outside restriction at some point iirc.

 

[andysays]

I get that, but if it would make more sense to make it a less 'awkward' number then people would stick to it more and be less likely to go 'Oh fuck it, we're breaking it anyway, lets; have 16 people over'

If there was any clearly stated reason why 6 was medically more justified than 8, for example, then I'd argue that it was important to follow the rules to the letter, and ignore what might be 'convenient' - we should all be prepared to experience a certain amount of individual inconvenience to get us through this together.

But given that the figure of 6 appears to have been plucked from the ether, and that there are so many anomalies and (economic driven) exceptions anyway, many people will probably conclude it doesn't matter than much.

 

[existentialist]

That's it really, all those silly labels are offices full of old etonians getting big salaries for something that part time minimum wage employers are going to have to do (test and trace, lab work and telecoms). Giving a contract out for something that hasn't been invented yet just means that there will be no refunds.

I wonder how the tendering process is going to work.

What tendering process?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If there was any clearly stated reason why 6 was medically more justified than 8, for example, then I'd argue that it was important to follow the rules to the letter, and ignore what might be 'convenient' - we should all be prepared to experience a certain amount of individual inconvenience to get us through this together.

But given that the figure of 6 appears to have been plucked from the ether, and that there are so many anomalies and (economic driven) exceptions anyway, many people will probably conclude it doesn't matter than much.

Well of course it would be nice if they were to show us their workings, but picking a particular number might not be quite so arbitrary. I can see a way of working it out in light of the evidence of 'superspreader events' - ie you estimate the frequency of these and the numbers of people that are being infected at them, and if you can limit most of them to, say, four or five infections rather than nine or ten, then you might be able to put a massive dent in the overall 'R number'. That there are anomalies and economically driven exceptions doesn't necessarily matter in this regard - it doesn't have to be 100% in eliminating the bigger events in order to be effective.

I don't know if they have done those kinds of numbers, but they might have done. Good example of how the lack of transparency, and the general holding of people in contempt, is damaging.

 

[LDC]

If there was any clearly stated reason why 6 was medically more justified than 8, for example, then I'd argue that it was important to follow the rules to the letter, and ignore what might be 'convenient' - we should all be prepared to experience a certain amount of individual inconvenience to get us through this together.

But given that the figure of 6 appears to have been plucked from the ether, and that there are so many anomalies and (economic driven) exceptions anyway, many people will probably conclude it doesn't matter than much.

Six is an infectious risk and social psychology (or whatever the term would) justifiable number from what I have heard. I agree they should publish the justification, but it is important to follow these rules, even if you personally don't understand them.

 

[LDC]

And people really need to stop doing this looking for anomalies and 'what ifs'. Whatever the rules are for 60 million people socialising there's going to be some area of confusion and difficulties, and just looking for them increases the problems with confusion and then people bending the rules. The media are terrible for this, looking for some 'human angle' where someone can moan about not meeting up with granny with their six children or something ffs.

 

[maomao]

And people really need to stop doing this looking for anomalies and 'what ifs'. Whatever the rules are for 60 million people socialising there's going to be some area of confusion and difficulties, and just looking for them increases the problems with confusion and then people bending the rules. The media are terrible for this, looking for some 'human angle' where someone can moan about not meeting up with granny with their six children or something ffs.

Rules aren't neutral and they're not just following science. They've prioritised business over family and people are entitled to have an opinion that.

 

[quimcunx]

From a behavioural pov people are more likely to do something if they understand the reasons for doing it. Or alternatively less likely to do something if they dont understand why they need to.

 

[Mrs Miggins]

And people really need to stop doing this looking for anomalies and 'what ifs'. Whatever the rules are for 60 million people socialising there's going to be some area of confusion and difficulties, and just looking for them increases the problems with confusion and then people bending the rules. The media are terrible for this, looking for some 'human angle' where someone can moan about not meeting up with granny with their six children or something ffs.

It's been like this from the start. Whatever rules are announced, there's always people going "but what about my special set of circumstances?". Which is why I think a much clearer e.g. "only 6 people at any one time" without any exceptions would make it easier for everyone. 6 people. No more. No messing about.

 

[maomao]

From a behavioural pov people are more likely to do something if they understand the reasons for doing it. Or alternatively less likely to do something if they dont understand why they need to.

And even less if they're told things without explanation by proven liars and incompetents.

 

[LDC]

Rules aren't neutral and they're not just following science. They've prioritised business over family and people are entitled to have an opinion that.

I agree they're prioritizing the economy, but people saying 6 is an 'awkward number' and why couldn't it be 8 or 16 is ridiculous. If it was 8 or 16 it feels like they'd be moaning it wasn't 10 or 18.

Given how the next six or so months are looking like going the least of our worries is this number 6 tbh.

 

[Chilli.s]

People are unable or reluctant or just beligerant about following rules on a floating scale from compliant to not. London in the blitz required wardens to ensure the simple task of covering lights was held. Ultimately we are all going to position ourselves somewhere on that scale according to how we feel at the time.

Heavy handed policing of this should have been carried out at the first opportunity to reinforce how important it was/is. D cummings trip to the castle should of been the event to do this, insted it was the "suit yourself" moment when it was shown it's every person for themselves.

 

[teuchter]

I've just been in the north of Scotland for a week or so. It's very noticeable how differently people are behaving in certain contexts, compared to London or at least the part where I live. Up there absolutely everyone in the supermarket was wearing a mask, largely following the one way system and edging around each other slightly nervously in the aisles. In south london you are lucky if half the people have a mask on and there's pretty minimal performance of distancing. There are lots of potential reasons for this difference but it was pretty stark to see it.

Track and trace taking of details seemed to be being taken rather more seriously too.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Track and trace taking of details seemed to be being taken rather more seriously too.

That's because it was mandatory in Scotland, but for some reason not in England.

Although that is changing from next Friday, 18th.

Venues required by law to record contact details

Premises and venues across England must have a system in place to record contact details of their customers, visitors and staff in the latest move to break the chains of transmission of coronavirus.

www.gov.uk