Coronavirus precautions: Has the world gone mad?

[MikeWM]

there are various references in these posts to "seats taped off". Does anyone know what Southern are doing and whether there are any measures to control the number of prospective passengers?
As far as I can see from my (allowed) daily exercise every train travelling eastwards from Brighton is almost completely empty.

I've seen nothing like 'seats taped off' over the past few weeks - that includes GN, GA, Thameslink, Southern and a few tube lines. The only irritating thing on Southern was the ex-guard (can't remember what they're supposed to call themselves nowadays) going off on a very long irritating spiel about precautions, anti-social distancing and so forth.

Brighton has a rather tedious one-way 'system' put in place but no controls when I was there last Sunday, other than the gateline itself and a lot of staff milling around but not seeming to be doing much. Probably because there were only a handful of passengers (on a sunner summer Sunday afternoon

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The only seats I have seen taped off on Southern is a double bench of six at Sutton - and only those because they are close to the bottom of some stairs. All the others are available for use.

 

[MikeWM]

The only seats I have seen taped off on Southern is a double bench of six at Sutton - and only those because they are close to the bottom of some stairs. All the others are available for use.

Ah, well GA do seem to have used up many years' worth of supply of tape on *platform* seats, regrettably. But they haven't taped off seats on their trains.

GN and Thameslink seem 'best', so far. Their legendary laziness to do anything seems an advantage in this case - other than some 'keep your distance' signs, their trains look and feel exactly as before.

 

[Darandio]

Pretty much had my Waterstones moment this morning. My nearest charity shop has reopened but they are only allowing two people in at a time, there is capability for much more than that but it's their rule so fair enough. One of my hobbies is collecting older video games and they always have a decent selection, this morning was no different but one aspect is having to inspect each game case to make sure what is supposed to be in there is actually in there and that is no longer allowed, I cannot afford to take the whole lot away and chance my arm so i'm afraid I cannot support them right now.

 

[johnnychips]

Pretty much had my Waterstones moment this morning. My nearest charity shop has reopened but they are only allowing two people in at a time, there is capability for much more than that but it's their rule so fair enough. One of my hobbies is collecting older video games and they always have a decent selection, this morning was no different but one aspect is having to inspect each game case to make sure what is supposed to be in there is actually in there and that is no longer allowed, I cannot afford to take the whole lot away and chance my arm so i'm afraid I cannot support them right now.

This is bizarre. If they were thinking logically, which many people aren’t at the moment, they would provide hand sanitizer for you when you came in, so when you touched the game, the 1 in 1700 chance you had it couldn’t be passed on, then they could ask you to use it again when you went out in case someone with the virus had touched it in the last three days. If they did this policy for three days, the latter step could be eliminated. It would still be paranoid, but logically paranoid.

 

[LAX54]

This is bizarre. If they were thinking logically, which many people aren’t at the moment, they would provide hand sanitizer for you when you came in, so when you touched the game, the 1 in 1700 chance you had it couldn’t be passed on, then they could ask you to use it again when you went out in case someone with the virus had touched it in the last three days. If they did this policy for three days, the latter step could be eliminated. It would still be paranoid, but logically paranoid.

Noy sure whey everyone does not have a small 'handbag size' bottle of gel with them, a squirt after leaving each shop, or touching an ATM etc, and you (and everyone else ) is sorted ! we have been doing it for some years now, must admit did think originally that the wife was a bit OCD....but soon followed suit ! and it protetcs you from all the other little nasties that hang around on ATM's / Keypads / Clothes / Books etc etc
If you couple that with a shop that provides a hand sanitizer on the way in, doubly sorted !

 

[DelayRepay]

Noy sure whey everyone does not have a small 'handbag size' bottle of gel with them, a squirt after leaving each shop, or touching an ATM etc, and you (and everyone else ) is sorted ! we have been doing it for some years now, must admit did think originally that the wife was a bit OCD....but soon followed suit ! and it protetcs you from all the other little nasties that hang around on ATM's / Keypads / Clothes / Books etc etc
If you couple that with a shop that provides a hand sanitizer on the way in, doubly sorted !

I do, now that they are back in stock at the shops (although I note they seem more expensive than they used to be!). I have one in my car, one in my coat pocket and one that I keep by my front door to pick up on the way out if I'm not wearing my coat or using the car. This is a sensible precaution and I've always tried to keep one handy in case I wasn't able to wash my hands properly (long before Covid).

I think shops making sanitizer available is a sensible step, not an over-reaction. The problem with it though is that quite a few shops seem to have it on a table in the middle of the entrance, set up in a way that only one person can sanitize at a time and the next person cannot enter the store until they've moved out of the way. It makes far more sense than the trend for wearing disposable gloves, anyway.

 

[Bantamzen]

Noy sure whey everyone does not have a small 'handbag size' bottle of gel with them, a squirt after leaving each shop, or touching an ATM etc, and you (and everyone else ) is sorted ! we have been doing it for some years now, must admit did think originally that the wife was a bit OCD....but soon followed suit ! and it protetcs you from all the other little nasties that hang around on ATM's / Keypads / Clothes / Books etc etc
If you couple that with a shop that provides a hand sanitizer on the way in, doubly sorted !

Unfortunately, nature isn't going to be defeated by small bottles of chemicals. Environmental issues aside, if everyone constantly tried to fight of viruses & bacteria with sanitisers then these organisms will start to react. This is what has been happening for as long as single celled organisms came into being in the primordial mix of chemicals that was the early Earth.

Sanitisers don't just target the organisms that might make you ill, they will create a vacuum destroying every organism that we might be otherwise exposed to, including some that we have symbiotic relationships with. And that will have repercussions on our immune system, because our immune system is largely reactive, adapting all the time to anything that enters our bodies. Without these constant exposures, we potentially risk mutations of previously common viruses & bacteria invading us without our immune systems having at least reacted to similar types. Not only that but it also may reduce our exposure, especially in early life, to some of the viruses and bacteria that are normally common but cause us little problems.

As a short term measure to get things back on track I am prepared to accept that entering some stores might need measures such as sanitisers, but like everything else it has to be a short term method. If we go down the ultra-cautious, risk adverse, and dare I say it neurotic route of splashing sanitiser around after every interaction in life we risk a lot more I fear. Of course this isn't to say we shouldn't maintain good hygiene, regular washing of hands & faces is vital in keeping our good health. And soap & water is more than adequate in protecting ourselves from most of the worst of what is out there, without creating a micro-organism vacuum that nature will quickly seek to fill, probably with stronger & nastier variants.

 

[nedchester]

This is bizarre. If they were thinking logically, which many people aren’t at the moment, they would provide hand sanitizer for you when you came in, so when you touched the game, the 1 in 1700 chance you had it couldn’t be passed on, then they could ask you to use it again when you went out in case someone with the virus had touched it in the last three days. If they did this policy for three days, the latter step could be eliminated. It would still be paranoid, but logically paranoid.

Meanwhile you can go into Tesco touch any item you like without this ridiculous paranoia.

 

[MattA7]

Apparently the restrictions on public toilets are Causing problems for some especially those with medical conditions

 

[Scrotnig]

Apparently the restrictions on public toilets are Causing problems for some especially those with medical conditions

Unless those medical conditions are related directly to the virus - government and society has decided it does not care, so hard luck from them I'm afraid.

See also, a multitude of other medical conditions - some of them fatal - that we've also now decided don't matter.

 

[Steveoh]

Just received an email complete with handy pictograms of how the school crossing patrol will operate with social distancing.

 

[Yew]

Just received an email complete with handy pictograms of how the school crossing patrol will operate with social distancing.

Insanity prevails yet again..

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Unfortunately, nature isn't going to be defeated by small bottles of chemicals. Environmental issues aside, if everyone constantly tried to fight of viruses & bacteria with sanitisers then these organisms will start to react. This is what has been happening for as long as single celled organisms came into being in the primordial mix of chemicals that was the early Earth.

Sanitisers don't just target the organisms that might make you ill, they will create a vacuum destroying every organism that we might be otherwise exposed to, including some that we have symbiotic relationships with. And that will have repercussions on our immune system, because our immune system is largely reactive, adapting all the time to anything that enters our bodies. Without these constant exposures, we potentially risk mutations of previously common viruses & bacteria invading us without our immune systems having at least reacted to similar types. Not only that but it also may reduce our exposure, especially in early life, to some of the viruses and bacteria that are normally common but cause us little problems.

As a short term measure to get things back on track I am prepared to accept that entering some stores might need measures such as sanitisers, but like everything else it has to be a short term method. If we go down the ultra-cautious, risk adverse, and dare I say it neurotic route of splashing sanitiser around after every interaction in life we risk a lot more I fear. Of course this isn't to say we shouldn't maintain good hygiene, regular washing of hands & faces is vital in keeping our good health. And soap & water is more than adequate in protecting ourselves from most of the worst of what is out there, without creating a micro-organism vacuum that nature will quickly seek to fill, probably with stronger & nastier variants.

I'm thinking we should head towards sheep-dips at the entrance to every premises, after all Putin has his disinfectant fog tunnel. The shop assistant forcing your head underwater to ensure full coverage. That should make leaving the house even more appealing and get the economy moving (not).

A reduction of furlough generosity, followed by a dose of high unemployment and a high rate of business failures, will quickly sort things out. Hopefully the ones made unemployed will be those loudly clamouring to be kept in their homes 24/7 forever - they might then understand economics a little bit more.

 

[Scrotnig]

Just received an email complete with handy pictograms of how the school crossing patrol will operate with social distancing.

Wouldn't at all surprise me if it recommended letting yourself get hit by a car if the alternative was getting too close to someone else.

That is the level of insanity we have reached.

 

[43066]

A reduction of furlough generosity, followed by a dose of high unemployment and a high rate of business failures, will quickly sort things out. Hopefully the ones made unemployed will be those loudly clamouring to be kept in their homes 24/7 forever - they might then understand economics a little bit more.

While I wouldn’t wish peoples’ jobs away, I’m increasingly coming around to this way of thinking.

I suspect there are two distinct groups: some people are clearly irrationally terrified of the virus to the point where they have lost all perspective; others are simply rather enjoying being paid by the government to stay at home!

I have a lot more sympathy for the former group since their fear might well be tied in with anxiety/mental health issues etc., but both groups need a dose of reality. The government simply cannot continue to pay for vast swathes of the population to sit idle!

 

[Richard Scott]

While I wouldn’t wish peoples’ jobs away, I’m increasingly coming around to this way of thinking.

I suspect there are two distinct groups: some people are clearly irrationally terrified of the virus to the point where they have lost all perspective; others are simply rather enjoying being paid by the government to stay at home!

I have a lot more sympathy for the former group since their fear might well be tied in with anxiety/mental health issues etc., but both groups need a dose of reality. The government simply cannot continue to pay for vast swathes of the population to sit idle!

There's also the group that's just had enough of this and have realised that we are just going to have to get on with life. Shame no politicians have the guts to say so. I know this comes with consequences but so does doing nothing and carrying on as we are. Life has risks and is unfair, we are just going to have to come to terms with this.

 

[43066]

There's also the group that's just had enough of this and have realised that we are just going to have to get on with life. Shame no politicians have the guts to say so. I know this comes with consequences but so does doing nothing and carrying on as we are. Life has risks and is unfair, we are just going to have to come to terms with this.

Yes quite - I’m in that group myself!

Sorry I should have been clearer - I meant two distinct groups amongst those who are baying for lockdown to continue into perpetuity.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes quite - I’m in that group myself!

Sorry I should have been clearer - I meant two distinct groups amongst those who are baying for lockdown to continue into perpetuity.

Unless we move to "herd immunity" as a strategy, some form of social distancing will have to continue indefinitely.

Unfortunately, herd immunity will most likely result in over 200,000 deaths, do you support that?

 

[Scrotnig]

Unfortunately, herd immunity will most likely result in over 200,000 deaths, do you support that?

We don't remotely know that.

 

[MikeWM]

Life has risks and is unfair, we are just going to have to come to terms with this.

We desperately need to understand this ('life has risks and is unfair') as a society, which it appears over the last 20 years or so we've been increasingly unable to do. We can't be protected from everything bad by governments, or indeed by anyone. 'S*** happens', we have to learn to accept that again.

 

[Bantamzen]

Unless we move to "herd immunity" as a strategy, some form of social distancing will have to continue indefinitely.

Unfortunately, herd immunity will most likely result in over 200,000 deaths, do you support that?

It's been mentioned before, but the human race needs some human interaction to reproduce. So no, social distancing will not go on indefinitely, no matter what the circumstances.

 

[Ianno87]

Unless we move to "herd immunity" as a strategy, some form of social distancing will have to continue indefinitely.

Unfortunately, herd immunity will most likely result in over 200,000 deaths, do you support that?

Herd immunity is the only strategy at this point. Perpetual social distancing will eliminate the human race.

 

[MikeWM]

Unless we move to "herd immunity" as a strategy, some form of social distancing will have to continue indefinitely.

Unfortunately, herd immunity will most likely result in over 200,000 deaths, do you support that?

I'm not sure the evidence from eg. Sweden bears out anything like those numbers.

But in the end, if the price of herd immunity is 200,000 deaths, we'll have to pay it. I don't say that because I don't think the loss of 200,000 lives is a tragedy - clearly it is - but because it is what it is. The only difference is whether we get to herd immunity 'naturally', along the lines of Sweden (which would be fairly quick and then we can get back to proper normal), or drag it out endlessly and add hundreds of thousands more deaths though suicide, other avoidable/treatable diseases, poverty, etc. etc.

This is why we need good leadership, which it appears we very much don't have.

 

[Yew]

Unless we move to "herd immunity" as a strategy, some form of social distancing will have to continue indefinitely.

Unfortunately, herd immunity will most likely result in over 200,000 deaths, do you support that?

I don't think there's clear evidence of that. However there is clear evidence that we're seeing systemic infringements on our most basic human rights and freedoms, and economic ruination that I'm going to have to pay for what is most likely the rest of my life. All so that some almost-dead pensioners can cheat death for a few more months.

It turns out, that I don't owe them anything, and between destroying the housing market, shifting the burden of 2008 onto my generation, and three months of authoritarian restrictions on my life, they're significantly overdrawn.

 

[43066]

Unless we move to "herd immunity" as a strategy, some form of social distancing will have to continue indefinitely.

Unfortunately, herd immunity will most likely result in over 200,000 deaths, do you support that?

Of course not but, equally, I’m not convinced it would result in 200,000 deaths. Wasn’t that prediction based on Ferguson’s discredited forecast?

Let’s face it, the only thing that has increased the COVID 19 death toll markedly beyond that of a bad flu season, is the fact it has been able to run rampant in care homes - 50%ish of all deaths occur in care homes.

I also *don’t* support:

- the worst economic recession for 300 years, leading to the prospect of enormous unemployment, and friends and family members of mine who are worried about paying their mortgages;

- thousands (tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands?) of premature deaths from cancers, and other causes, as a direct result of focusing solely on reducing deaths from COVID 19;

- a generation of young people having their education severely compromised, and their prospects damaged;

- the government borrowing tens of billions to pay the wages of people who are sitting idle when they could (and should!) be working;

- illiberal and sinister “social distancing” measures, which have lead to the complete suspension of normal life in the UK, and have devastated the mental health of millions.

Frankly this country has started to resemble a police state over the last few months, and is a place I increasingly no longer recognise as the benign, free country, I thought I lived in.

 

[Ianno87]

Re the "200,000 deaths"

How many lives would be saved over the next 50 years if we banned private car travel immediately, right now? So why don't we do that?

 

[Domh245]

Also bear in mind that in an average year some 530,000 people die in the UK..

 

[Huntergreed]

Also bear in mind that in an average year some 530,000 people die in the UK..

And the vast majority of Covid deaths are those with conditions that would potentially have resulted in death within the next year of two anyway...

 

[43066]

And the vast majority of Covid deaths are those with conditions that would potentially have resulted in death within the next year of two anyway...

That’s the elephant in the room - even putting the economic side of things aside.

We needed to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed but, beyond that, a choice needs to be made. It sounds callous, and we have an aversion to talking about death in this country, but these kinds of choices are made every day by the health service.

Should we prioritise extending the lives of those who are, in the vast majority of cases, close to the end of their natural lives and/or terminally ill already, over and above treating those who might have decades more high quality life if their cancer/heart condition etc. is treated promptly?

Because, at the moment, we seem to be doing the former.