|
Post by Tringa on Sept 15, 2020 8:30:39 GMT
That does sound intrusive, Ian but perhaps it is to help in the study the only recently found or suggested long term effects of COVID19. If so, then this should have been made public up front rather than attaching it as T&Cs when you do the test.
Dave
|
|
|
Post by Psamathe on Sept 15, 2020 9:11:06 GMT
Interesting how the Government keeps up with the "We're following the science". I'd love to see the science that told them they should:
And you have to feel a bit sorry for the Government's Scietific Adviser after his "telling off" as discovered from FOI requests for previously withheld info
So scientific adviser says "do x ..." Government instead of "following the science" just gives him a "telling off". Not what I'd call "following the science".
One thing about the way the Government handles "science" that really frustrates me is that they fail to appreciate discipline. If you had a ready to burst appendix you would not want to be referred to a dentist; both medically qualified but with different knowledge and capabilities. Government Vet knows about veterinary things NOT spread of disease through wild animal population - so what is Government doing listening to a vet beyond their experience and ignoring the scientists who are specialised (vet says to give the NFU their badger slaughter and specialist scientists say "it wont work"). Same with Chief Medical Officer who is a medic not an epidemiologist. Next we'll be having the Chief Government Chiropodist determining Band of England Interest Rates.
Ian
|
|
|
Post by Psamathe on Sept 19, 2020 11:40:19 GMT
One thing I find interesting (bit tangential maybe) is how some ideas (however daft) can take hold in a population and "survive" despite widespread rejection by authorities/science. e.g. www.amazon.com/Chlorine-Dioxide-Treatment-Liquid-Classic/dp/B07TN8PNQX/ which is not being advertised as a cure but, it is classed as a bleach and look at some of the "reviews" etc. Also, I find it interesting how the 2nd "review" I posted can be published. Whilst it is (supposedly) a customer review, there must be some line where a "review" becomes an "instruction" and that line must vary according to the likely audience. I don't use social media so don't tend to see much of these dafter views so I'm probably being surprised by something that is an everyday occurrence to active Twitterati. When Trump made his "bleach" comment I had a laugh but in our real world who would think that people have died from it Taking toxic bleach MMS has killed 7 people in the USIan
|
|
|
Post by Psamathe on Sept 22, 2020 19:43:05 GMT
Amazing statistic highlighting how US authorities have allowed their pandemic to spread out of control:
Sort of puts what they've not been doing in perspective. That said UK's handling has not much to be proud about (largely down to our politicians even though they now seem to want to blame the public).
Ian
|
|
|
Post by Tringa on Sept 24, 2020 7:29:12 GMT
It seems Trump's view is he is almost personally responsible for everything in the US as long as it is going well. Anything else is caused by someone else(usually any Democrat) or he comes up with an explanation based on little more than he as actually stated it, and with COVID19 it is very sad.
The response of our government to an admittedly unprecedented crisis has been woefully inadequate but some of the public are responsible for increases in cases. This I think, was caused by some just being bloody minded('nobody is going to tell me what to do') and/or unable to accept that their normal activities in life should be changed in any way, but also by a government who until the most recent announcements would not say to the populace -"You MUST do ......"
It seems they have just realised that tougher measures, such as the closing of pubs and restaurant at 10pm, need more policing and we do not have the resources to do it.
Dave
|
|
|
Post by Psamathe on Sept 28, 2020 13:11:24 GMT
One aspect that is really frustrating me now is the UK Government forcing UK residents to stay in the UK. To clarify ...
I'm certainly not one of those dismissing the risks of C-19. I'm now thoroughly fed-up with being in the UK (nothing to do with C-19 or lockdowns). Bolivia (a country I love) has opened-up, currently their infection rate is less than a third of that in the UK meaning I'd be far safer being in Bolivia than in the UK. Cheap flights are available - avoiding countries with entry bans and avoiding flying into La Paz a bad idea to fly from months sea level straight into La Paz/El Alto. The only thing stopping me is UK Foreign Office who are sticking to the "Avoid all but essential travel ..." which means you can't get insurance which in reality means you would be daft going.
I've even got a job I could go to in Bolivia (avoiding or rather justifying a residents permit) so I'd not even need to do border runs or move on to other riskier countries.
Why is the Government Foreign Office determined to keep people in the far more dangerous UK that allowing them to travel to far safer countries?
Ian
|
|
|
Post by accipiter on Sept 29, 2020 10:48:23 GMT
One aspect that is really frustrating me now is the UK Government forcing UK residents to stay in the UK. To clarify ... I'm certainly not one of those dismissing the risks of C-19. I'm now thoroughly fed-up with being in the UK (nothing to do with C-19 or lockdowns). Bolivia (a country I love) has opened-up, currently their infection rate is less than a third of that in the UK meaning I'd be far safer being in Bolivia than in the UK. Cheap flights are available - avoiding countries with entry bans and avoiding flying into La Paz a bad idea to fly from months sea level straight into La Paz/El Alto. The only thing stopping me is UK Foreign Office who are sticking to the "Avoid all but essential travel ..." which means you can't get insurance which in reality means you would be daft going. I've even got a job I could go to in Bolivia (avoiding or rather justifying a residents permit) so I'd not even need to do border runs or move on to other riskier countries. Why is the Government Foreign Office determined to keep people in the far more dangerous UK that allowing them to travel to far safer countries? Ian That sounds fine on the face of it but I think I’m right in saying this is a totally new virus which has already mutated with different strains being brought in from other countries. The consequents meaning no one knows what could happen in the future, e. g. my eldest brother was made infertile from contracting mumps as an adult. Not to mention one could catch this virus simply by visiting airports and traveling from A to B which could cause failure of vital organs exactly when no one knows yet. Alan
|
|
|
Post by Psamathe on Sept 29, 2020 11:01:46 GMT
One aspect that is really frustrating me now is the UK Government forcing UK residents to stay in the UK. To clarify ... I'm certainly not one of those dismissing the risks of C-19. I'm now thoroughly fed-up with being in the UK (nothing to do with C-19 or lockdowns). Bolivia (a country I love) has opened-up, currently their infection rate is less than a third of that in the UK meaning I'd be far safer being in Bolivia than in the UK. Cheap flights are available - avoiding countries with entry bans and avoiding flying into La Paz a bad idea to fly from months sea level straight into La Paz/El Alto. The only thing stopping me is UK Foreign Office who are sticking to the "Avoid all but essential travel ..." which means you can't get insurance which in reality means you would be daft going. I've even got a job I could go to in Bolivia (avoiding or rather justifying a residents permit) so I'd not even need to do border runs or move on to other riskier countries. Why is the Government Foreign Office determined to keep people in the far more dangerous UK that allowing them to travel to far safer countries? Ian That sounds fine on the face of it but I think I’m right in saying this is a totally new virus which has already mutated with different strains being brought in from other countries. The consequents meaning no one knows what could happen in the future, e. g. my eldest brother was made infertile from contracting mumps as an adult. Not to mention one could catch this virus simply by visiting airports and traveling from A to B which could cause failure of vital organs exactly when no one knows yet. Alan I appreciate that even the travel means risk but the same Government that is blocking travel to open countries (with far lower risk that in the UK) is allowing travel to other "friendly" countries (e.g. holidaying in France, Spain, Italy, etc.). Independent travel/work in Bolivia is likely far safer than crowding to holiday resorts in tourist destinations. So I'm beginning to suspect alternative agendas or just incompetence (failing to apply guidance in a balanced manner. For example, Sweden exempt from UK Government blocks on travel yet Bolivia completely blocked by UK Government even though Bolivia has half the infection rate than Sweden i.e. You are much safer in Bolivia than in Sweden (from C-19) yet UK blocks Bolivia but allows Sweden. Although nobody can do the math (because figures for airport acquired infection don't exist) given the far lower infection rate in Bolivia I'd be overall safer spending a year in Bolivia (as the travel risks averaged out over 365 days) than regular visits to supermarkets, etc. in the far higher (and rapidly worsening) UK. Edit: In effect if the risk of airports and flights is the reason for the block on Bolivia then the same block should apply to Sweden (and all other countries) or close the airports rather than just close selected safer countries. If it is the risk of you catching C-19 then stopping you going to safer countries is counterproductive (forcing you to stay in a more dangerous country (the UK)). Ian
|
|
|
Post by Psamathe on Oct 16, 2020 15:07:16 GMT
(Sorry), our Government (or the 3 stooges at the top) completely beggar belief. It having been made clear to them how people are just confused, they introduce an alert system. So, late-Sept we moved from Alert Level 3 to Alert Level 4 (yes, there are 5 Alert Levels) Except now some areas are being moved between levels on the new 3 level "medium/high/very high) Alert System www.gov.uk/guidance/local-covid-alert-levels-what-you-need-to-know. Seems, as it turns out we now have two parallel but very different Alert Systems. One runs from Level 1 (C-19 no longer present in the UK) to Level 5 (Risk of NHS being overwhelmed) - better described www.bbc.com/news/explainers-52634739 - the report late Sept of our move Level 3 to Level 4. But now we also have a new parallel 3 Level Alert System, levels with different meanings and restrictions levels seem to be "Medium", "High" and "Very High". And just so nobody gets confused they'd decided to call one a "National Alert Level" and the other a "Local Alert Level", each using a different scale with different impacts and different meanings! And to avoid anybody not being 100% clear we also have a Tier system where Tiers are numbered 1 to 3 ... or is that the same as the Local Alert system (which does not have any numbers in it's levels) ... But then if you happen to be in Wales, NI or Scotland ... (probably) none or some of the above? But that was midday 16th and it's now 16:00 so probably something new or different ... Ian
|
|
|
Post by rowanberry on Oct 16, 2020 21:38:51 GMT
I think I've moved into a tier one level up from confused!
|
|
|
Post by Psamathe on Oct 16, 2020 21:52:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ianr on Oct 17, 2020 7:10:04 GMT
It is all very confusing it's even more confusing if you take any notice of the papers and news channels, they mix it all up spin it all around to suit their own political axe grinding agendas. I think there revelling in the confusion there selling, so bloody irresponsible. They'll tell you this is happening here and there and it might happen over there too, although it's not happening down south and somewhere else in the world dogs and cats can catch it but don't worry cause the Scottish woman has all the right answers. The opposition can't remember if they oppose or agree or is it agree at the weekend and oppose from Wednesday onwards and not sure for the rest of the week I GET IT the government doesn't know whether it's on it's head or it's arse I suspect none around the world do. Except for the second most famous man in the world But people are dying and differences from all parties should be put aside. Don't even get me started on Burnham If you need to clarify things go to the government web site it'll confuse you enough but it just might be a little nearer to what's going on........ maybe!!! ian
|
|
|
Post by Psamathe on Oct 17, 2020 9:03:03 GMT
.... I GET IT the government doesn't know whether it's on it's head or it's arse I suspect none around the world do..... One of my concerns is that many other Governments around the world do seem to be coping rather better under rather worse pressures. e.g. Thailand (as of a week of so ago) had no human-human transmission for 100 days. New Zealand back to life as normal But research published the other day into how the UK coped a few examples (deaths per million from www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/Singapore | 5 | New Zealand | 5 | S Korea | 9 | Japan | 13 | Bangladesh | 34 | Norway | 52 | India | 82 | Denmark | 117 | Germany | 117 | ... |
| UK | 650 |
Of all the countries in the world we are 10th worse (most of those above us face difficult challenges e.g. underdeveloped healthcare systems, migratory populations, or factors like Trump/Bolsonaro i.e. they have understandable reasons, we in the UK don't). Ian
|
|
|
Post by Tringa on Nov 6, 2020 9:34:59 GMT
I read the Army are going to be involved in the mass testing In Liverpool. Perhaps it would have been better to involve the army from the start of the nationwide.
While some training would be needed to do the tests wouldn't it have been better to train army personnel than to pay millions to SERCO?
Dave
|
|
|
Post by Psamathe on Nov 6, 2020 10:33:04 GMT
An interesting article about the test being used for the Liverpool Mass Testing Experiment.
I tend to regard the Guardian as (moderately) reliable i.e. not a source of conspiracy theories, etc. but I have no appreciation of the standing of those commenting on the test reliability. But I do note that the Department of Health and Social Care has not released the data from the trials and needless lack of transparency does make one wonder why?
I'm not one for conspiracy theories but do like to ask myself if there could be other factors and pressures in play and in a situation (are we being "played"). I do wonder if the political need to give people some hope as we go into another lockdown and the need for the PM to mollify his mutinous backbenchers might be playing a larger part in overlooking shortcomings? Easiest way to quickly dismiss such concerns is to publish the data (which is hardly "state secrets" stuff).
Ian
|
|