Covid - coming out of Lockdown 3 - no politics, less opinion and more facts and information.

[Hobby]

58 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

They aren’t there to “agree among themselves”, and would fail us all miserably if they did, because it would imply a worrying degree of “group-think”.

 

I could say more about the “scientists can’t agree among themselves” nonsense that gets wheeled out all the time, but would probably cause offence if I did.

 

I suspect you have quoted me out of context. I was simply using the example of scientists not being able to agree amongst themselves how things should/would pan out, which then leads to many different decisions having to be taken and not by the scientists themselves. Sometimes scientists will agree on certain things, we wouldn't have many things used in chemistry or physics if they didn't, but in this case it's clear that it's not simple (wrong word I know, but you get the meaning!) and differing scientist's views are simply proof of that. The point I was making is that it's not just about science, there's a lot more at play than that, many people on social media seem to think it's an open and shut case. Oh, if only things were so simple!

[Nick C]

2 hours ago, Neil said:

Looks like the travel industry has won out over caution; also worrying that the head of the Joint Biosecurity Centre (the body which advised on the amber watchlist) had resigned and not been replaced.

The amber watchlist seemed like a very sensible idea to me - giving you a bit of forewarning as to whether you were at risk of having the expensive hotel quarantine, and giving a bit more confidance to people booking visits to other amber countries. 

[alastairq]

All I can say is, how long does it take sterilised barge poles to arrive from ebay China??

 

I now find myself considering 'outings', socialsing, etc...then asking myself, is it 'worth' it?  What am I going to get out of my socialsing? Is that temporary feel-good thing really worth the candle?  Who do I trust to have taken their own precautions? [Nobody!]

I note regarding the decency of wearing a mask so as not to spread our own diseases..[covid might be the least of our worries?]....that folk in my local Lidl seem more considerate than folk in a near-local Morrisons.

Yet another reason why Morrisons, Tesco, Sainsbury, etc..even Aldi, don't get my custom, or a share of my income!

Oh, the arrogance of claiming one's freedoms?

[Neil]

2 hours ago, ikcdab said:

To be honest, you can be too cautious. .....

 

I think we've strayed into the realms of opinion here but I'm happy to go too.

 

We wear seat belts when we drive even though we do so in the expectation that we won't crash. If we did expect we'd have an accident then we'd stay at home that day. I'm old enough to remember when seatbelts weren't mandatory but their wearing was almost universal. Doing something to make yourself safer is always a good idea.

 

With Covid experience shows that high infection rates, hospitalisations and deaths are what properly stuffs the economy of a country. Precautions while having an impact have less of an impact than the effects of Covid itself.

[Neil]

2 hours ago, Neil said:

Looks like the travel industry has won out over caution; also worrying that the head of the Joint Biosecurity Centre (the body which advised on the amber watchlist) had resigned and not been replaced.

 

2 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

Went back in June and I guess with modern HR requirements the post has to be offered to all and sundry under employment rules. Gone are the days when you could pick the person you wanted to do the job ...

 

True, but notice will have to be given some time in advance of the post becoming vacant; time enough to go through the selection process. In these times leaving such an important role vacant seems unwise.

[Reorte]

2 hours ago, Hobby said:

 

They are, but that's their job. There was a programme very early on in the pandemic where they had a discussion which was made up of scientific experts and several of them were honest enough to admit that they wouldn't want to job of the politicians who had to make the final decision. At the end of the day, like everything else in life, it's a question of how much risk is taken, nothing comes without some risk... So if this case where the experts can't even agree between themselves what the outcome will be it's left to someone else to make the decision, bearing in mind it's not just Covid that kills and ruins people's lives.

I don't think it's their job to be risk averse to be honest. It's not their job to make policy and decisions, but to inform those who do. From that they should be producing a range of possible scenarios and their likelihoods, and estimating the impact of various measures on those, but not saying which we should choose, or pushing the worst case scenarios unless they're highly probable.

 

An assessment of what the risks are doesn't require any particular attitude towards risk, "risk averse" only comes in to play when deciding what to do about them.

[Reorte]

38 minutes ago, Neil said:

 

I think we've strayed into the realms of opinion here but I'm happy to go too.

 

We wear seat belts when we drive even though we do so in the expectation that we won't crash. If we did expect we'd have an accident then we'd stay at home that day. I'm old enough to remember when seatbelts weren't mandatory but their wearing was almost universal. Doing something to make yourself safer is always a good idea.

No, not always. That implies that it's impossible to be over-cautious, that you can't go too far. We could reduce risks to ourselves by wearing helmets when we just go out for a walk for example, but we pretty much all decide the risk isn't high enough to worry about. You could argue that that's heading in to absurd territory but there's no hard dividing line between the sensible and absurd, they're just two points on a continuum where we have to decide where to put an essentially arbitrary line.

 

If the odds of a seatbelt saving your life sometime during your lifetime were extremely low then people wouldn't wear one. It's not just because they reduce the risk at all that they're worn, it's because people decide that the risk of not doing so is sufficiently high for concern. The odds of an unexpected knock - maybe not enough to kill, but certainly enough to hurt without a seatbelt, some time during your lifetime if you drive regularly are probably fairly high. Even more so for passengers (think if the driver has to step on the brakes suddenly - they'll be braced against the wheel and prepared, a passenger won't be).

Edited August 3, 2021 by Reorte

[Hobby]

Also its the law to wear seat belts, it's main benefit to reduce deaths and hospitalisations, same as mask wearing earlier in the pandemic, but now the Gov has decided it's not something they want to continue with, either because it's too difficult to enforce or not necessary...

 

Haven't we had this discussion before when comparing mask wearing to seat belts?!!

Edited August 3, 2021 by Hobby

[Reorte]

7 minutes ago, Hobby said:

Also its the law to wear seat belts, it's main benefit to reduce deaths and hospitalisations, same as mask wearing earlier in the pandemic, but now the Gov has decided it's not something they want to continue with, either because it's too difficult to enforce or not necessary...

 

Haven't we had this discussion before when comparing mask wearing to seat belts?!!

Although I suspect most people wear seatbelts because it's the law the law should reflect rather than define what's an accepted level of risk. It should remain the law not because it's the law but because enough people agree with it; I always get irritated when someone uses "it's the law" to justify their position if it's a discussion about the general pros and cons (obviously it's entirely relevant if it's a response on what the legal situation is).

 

Probably discussed masks and seatbelts before, but it seems to crop up everywhere

[Andy Hayter]

1 hour ago, Nick C said:

The amber watchlist seemed like a very sensible idea to me - giving you a bit of forewarning as to whether you were at risk of having the expensive hotel quarantine, and giving a bit more confidance to people booking visits to other amber countries. 

 

In theory the amber watch list sounds easy and should be a good idea.

 

In practice however it is far less simple.  I found this example without really looking for a good example of how using today's data as the basis of the future is so difficult (and so links to scientists modelling).

 

Suppose at the end of June you had suddenly had the confidence to book a 2 week holiday at short notice.  Spain is a popular choice and on 29th June, Spain was declaring 7100 cases per day compared with 16000 in the UK, so even allowing for possible differences in the way numbers are declared Spain does not look like an unsafe choice.

 

By July 13th (two weeks later) Spain was declaring 44000 cases per day - 600% of the declaration just 14 days earlier.  Such rapid changes in numbers mean quite simply that nowhere (well nowhere that will let you in for a 2 week holiday) can really be considered as "safe".  Rankings and views of resorts will change very rapidly and for that reason alone any system pretending to forecast what will happen by the time you return is built on sand.

 

 

Edited August 3, 2021 by Andy Hayter
typo

[3rd Rail Exile]

11 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

In theory the amber watch list sounds easy and should be a good idea.

 

In practice however it is far less simple.  I found this example without really looking for a good example of how using today's data as the basis of the future is so difficult (and so links to scientists modelling).

 

Suppose at the end of June you had suddenly had the confidence to book a 2 week holiday at short notice.  Spain is a popular choice and on 29th June, Spain was declaring 7100 cases per day compared with 16000 in the UK, so even allowing for possible differences in the way numbers are declared Spain does not look like an unsafe choice.

 

By July 13th (two weeks later) Spain was declaring 44000 cases per day - 600% of the declaration just 14 days earlier.  Such rapid changes in numbers mean quite simply that nowhere (well nowhere that will let you in for a 2 week holiday) can really be considered as "safe".  Rankings and views of resorts will change very rapidly and for that reason alone any system pretending to forecast what will happen by the time you return is built on sand.

 

 

Agree totally!  To me, it beggars belief that anyone would consider travelling abroad at the moment unless they really had to - things are just too uncertain. 

 

Is a week or two in the sun really that vital for some?  We had a short spell of hot weather in the UK recently, and loads of people were complaining about the heat...

[Hobby]

To those of us who are not bothered about sitting in the sun and getting drunk that's the logical view... Unfortunately far too many of the younger generations, and a fair number of the middle age groups see it as a "right" and get upset about it if they can't... Frankly after seeing the mess these people make of British beauty spots when they can't get away and make a mess of another country the sooner they can go abroad again the better!!

 

The second bit is a bit more complicated... I was talking to one of my colleagues recently about the UK and sun and he made the valid point that when it get's hot over here it tends to be a rather humid hot, even when we have a blue sky, he's from Romania where it gets hotter than here but it's a dry heat, like most of the Med. I noticed the same thing when i went to Slovakia a few years ago in August, whilst it was ruddy hot it wasn't uncomfortable hot like it is over here...

[hayfield]

57 minutes ago, Neil said:

 

 

True, but notice will have to be given some time in advance of the post becoming vacant; time enough to go through the selection process. In these times leaving such an important role vacant seems unwise.

 

Neil

 

When I was at work towards the end of my working life, when someone handed in their notice, nothing was done to replace them until they left, coupled with all recruitment being done centrally, I think with all large HR situations this is the norm.

 

Then you add in to the equation, is this a long term post ? or is the group being altered

 

Then of course is there someone there who is just right for the post so the best solution is to put them in temporary charge whilst they go through the charade of the recruitment process

 

My brother in law was quite high up in one of the government departments, his superior moved to another position but their boss wanted my brother in law to take over the position. Now I cannot see any problem with this if said person is the best replacement. However the Civil Service being what it is (and modern recruitment law) stated the job had to be advertised and suitable candidates interviewed. Even more ridiculous my brother in law owing to his position had to be one of the interviewers

 

I can see this happening with the company I worked for, force everybody into the same straight jacket. What happens is you get a lot of people who are good at interviews but poor at doing the job,

 

40 years ago I worked for a retail company who always approached the best candidate for the job, management positions were never advertised. This company grew to be the dominant force on the high street in its sector and still is. Very rarely was it a job for the boys, and the owners sons started at the bottom and were expected to be better than everyone else. It was promotion initially on probation and I saw quite a few not make the grade at the first time of asking. Promotion was on merit and continued performance was closely monitored. No doubt now its run by accountants and the HR department.

[Nearholmer]

I’ve no desire to do so myself at the moment, but I think I can see why some people are prepared to risk having to self-isolate at home for two weeks: healthy retired people with no commitments, and people who are able to work entirely from home and have no other commitments. Either might suffer zero practical inconvenience from two weeks confined to barracks. And, maybe youngsters who can afford to miss a couple of weeks work because they don’t yet have a stack of bills to pay, or children to worry about.
 

Weather isn’t the only attraction of “abroad” - lots of people (again not me) like the ‘everything done for you’ flavour of certain holidays. And, a change of scenery.

 

Its easy to condemn or sneer, but in terms of differences in virus risk, moving about with the U.K., even going a few miles down the road in some cases, can involve moving between localities with very high, and very low rates.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think the travel industry has pushed our luck too far on occasion, so am not saying ‘let’s all of us go abroad on holiday tomorrow’, but I am saying ‘just because I don’t want to doesn’t necessarily mean nobody else should’.

[Nearholmer]

1 minute ago, hayfield said:

Now I cannot see any problem with this if said person is the best replacement

I can, because it’s a recipe for never actually finding out whether there is somebody even better out there, and for clique-ocracy, bias, and discrimination.

 

There’s nothing stopping an organisation appointing an ‘acting boss’ while it seeks a new permanent one, and nothing stopping an organisation beginning the recruitment process the second a person hands in their notice.

 

What I find strange about the case under discussion is that they haven’t named anyone as ‘acting’, leaving to the appearance  that there is ‘no hand on the tiller’ - ‘el biggo mistako’ for a body of this importance.

[hayfield]

21 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I can, because it’s a recipe for never actually finding out whether there is somebody even better out there, and for clique-ocracy, bias, and discrimination.

 

There’s nothing stopping an organisation appointing an ‘acting boss’ while it seeks a new permanent one, and nothing stopping an organisation beginning the recruitment process the second a person hands in their notice.

 

What I find strange about the case under discussion is that they haven’t named anyone as ‘acting’, leaving to the appearance  that there is ‘no hand on the tiller’ - ‘el biggo mistako’ for a body of this importance.

 

Been here before, claims the government should be doing more etc, in the cold light of the day they were well ahead of the curve.

 

We are in a new place now, Spain has opened up for tourism and their infection rates are increasing, our own spike is falling away quicker than expected even though we have ended most restrictions. Whilst past performance is no guarantee, on previous results they have done better than most. Lets hope this continues

[Nearholmer]

8 minutes ago, hayfield said:

in the cold light of the day they were well ahead of the curve.

Eh? If they had been, there would be a nominated person ‘acting in post’ right now, while they recruit a permanent successor, and there doesn’t seem to be.

 

Or, have we got two parallel discussions entangled here?

[Oldddudders]

Real organisations have planned succession mapping and head hunting so they can fill senior posts at once. Even BR didn't bother with interviewing too many people for posts above about EG3 or 4. Why would they need to? All potential candidates were known. Perhaps the FDA (First Division) has influence higher than is sensible. 

[monkeysarefun]

1 hour ago, Hobby said:

To those of us who are not bothered about sitting in the sun and getting drunk that's the logical view... Unfortunately far too many of the younger generations, and a fair number of the middle age groups see it as a "right" and get upset about it if they can't... Frankly after seeing the mess these people make of British beauty spots when they can't get away and make a mess of another country the sooner they can go abroad again the better!!

 

The second bit is a bit more complicated... I was talking to one of my colleagues recently about the UK and sun and he made the valid point that when it get's hot over here it tends to be a rather humid hot, even when we have a blue sky, he's from Romania where it gets hotter than here but it's a dry heat, like most of the Med. I noticed the same thing when i went to Slovakia a few years ago in August, whilst it was ruddy hot it wasn't uncomfortable hot like it is over here...

 

Yes Ive worked days  in 42 plus  degrees with an  oil exploration  crew in far west Queensland  with no real issues because it was a dry heat, so dry it made the moisture in my eyes dry up...

 

In comparison 32 degrees in Darwin just before the wet season when its 99% humidity  is completely unbearable.

[Nick C]

2 hours ago, 3rd Rail Exile said:

Agree totally!  To me, it beggars belief that anyone would consider travelling abroad at the moment unless they really had to - things are just too uncertain. 

 

Is a week or two in the sun really that vital for some?  We had a short spell of hot weather in the UK recently, and loads of people were complaining about the heat...

Except for many it's not about a week or two in the sun - my wife hasn't seen her family for nearly two years now. They're in a country with under 100 cases/day, so far safer then here, but currently still on the amber list. We could happily self-isolate here for a fortnight if she needed to (we're virtually doing so anyway!), but the hotel quarantine required for red-list countries isn't feasible.

[D9020 Nimbus]

40 minutes ago, monkeysarefun said:

 

Yes Ive worked days  in 42 plus  degrees with an  oil exploration  crew in far west Queensland  with no real issues because it was a dry heat, so dry it made the moisture in my eyes dry up...

 

In comparison 32 degrees in Darwin just before the wet season when its 99% humidity  is completely unbearable.

Well, my dad met someone from Canada during the Second World War who reckoned he'd never been anywhere so cold — in Surrey! Though the guy did allow that there were some days back home when it was too cold to go out… cold and damp feels worse that cold and dry.

[rocor]

What would be a price worth paying to prevent a possible future much more deadly than Covid worldwide pandemic? An end to international travel?

[Quarryscapes]

On 02/08/2021 at 11:43, Nearholmer said:

Presumably, they didn’t include Welsh in the analysis, because that, to my non-Welsh ears, seems to consist exclusively of aspirated consonants, and would surely beat English in the spreading stakes.

 

Not that old hogwash again. Welsh does not follow any of the ridiculous pronunciation rules of English, has more vowels and is 99% phonetic. 

[hayfield]

2 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

Real organisations have planned succession mapping and head hunting so they can fill senior posts at once. Even BR didn't bother with interviewing too many people for posts above about EG3 or 4. Why would they need to? All potential candidates were known. Perhaps the FDA (First Division) has influence higher than is sensible. 

 

 

I do very much agree with you but seemingly its very much Old School thinking. Having said the if the idea is that the  organisation is changing/being reorganised/ new health secretary with new ideas there may well be a completely different agenda afoot 

[APOLLO]

2 hours ago, rocor said:

What would be a price worth paying to prevent a possible future much more deadly than Covid worldwide pandemic? An end to international travel?

 

 Just what Greeta and the greens (and others) want.

 

I'm beginning to think there is a lot more to the Covid story than public health. Nuff said.

 

Brit15