Coronavirus precautions: Has the world gone mad?

[Bikeman78]

Here's my contribution to the "world's gone mad with coronavirus precautions" topic. May I present the gents toilets at Wakefield Westgate station?

View attachment 79483

Now I can kind of understand why, if you're exceptionally paranoid you might lock one of the cubicles out of use but why on earth is there any need to block off the urinals????

The virus can now jump through walls? I agree about the urinals. Makes no sense to block both off.

 

[sheff1]

We don’t all feel that way down here however, and most of us that have any sense fully know that a lot of our income (not mine actually but plenty of people I know) comes from tourism.

If that is the case they need to do something about Visit Cornwall as it was their very rude prouncements which made me (and others, it would seem) decide to avoid the county once restrictions are lifted and spend my money in places who politely asked that we keep away in the short term but were welcome later.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The tourist trade is hard won and easily lost and a bit of humility from those that were putting out statements back then wouldn’t have gone amiss really.

It was all the eff-offing and the likes that really got my goat.

 

[Bikeman78]

The precautions just negate the purpose.

I think your last sentence neatly sums up almost every aspect of life at the moment.

 

[trebor79]

I also believe that some patients should be treated as 'intelligent' patients. In this I mean that some people know about ther condition, know when to intervene, know what medication or treatment works or doesn't work for them, and should be allowed to have quick access to secondary or tertiary care (i.e. hospital consultants or specialist nurses in local or specialist hospitals) without having to go via their GP. The problem is who decides who is an 'intelligent' and 'non-intelligent' patient.

It would be good if that happened. I used to suffer from recurrent uveitis. For a time I had a piece of paper that allowed me to go straight to the eye casualty at the local hospital without having a GP referral. But when I moved to a different area the local services don't have such an arrangement. It's a huge waste if everybodys time to have to get a GP referral, and I once had to point blank refuse to accept a prescription for antibiotic drops and insist it wasn't just conjunctivitis.

The abandonment of education for six months (at least) is a national disgrace. If you want an answer to the OP's question just consider that, together with the picture provided by Captain Haddock in post #72.

Indeed. The loss of education opportunity is tragic and a disgrace. Other parents on a WhatsApp group are saying things like "I'm not sending mind back till September at the earliest". School attendance needs to be made compulsory again from September.
And the nation needs to get back to work and real life. I suspect the race riots are being exacerbated by 3 months of boredom and listening to social media echo chambers.

 

[MotCO]

I suspect the race riots are being exacerbated by 3 months of boredom and listening to social media echo chambers.

I tend to agree. I've stopped listening to the radio and tv for news because it is all about Coronvirus, and I've got bored with it. (Not that I am condoning the violence.) But part of it is probably an anti-government protest - if they weren't protesting about the unfortunate death of a suspected criminal in a foreign country, they would be probably be protesting about Brexit.

 

[BJames]

Indeed. The loss of education opportunity is tragic and a disgrace. Other parents on a WhatsApp group are saying things like "I'm not sending mind back till September at the earliest". School attendance needs to be made compulsory again from September.
And the nation needs to get back to work and real life. I suspect the race riots are being exacerbated by 3 months of boredom and listening to social media echo chambers.

I agree. We can't have a situation like in the Philippines where the PM has decided nobody should go back to school until there's a vaccine (unbelievable but he really did decide this). Having some people attend and some not helps for the time being with social distancing and the like but kids can't still be having predominantly online lessons from September, it's just not the same.

 

[Ianno87]

I agree. We can't have a situation like in the Philippines where the PM has decided nobody should go back to school until there's a vaccine (unbelievable but he really did decide this). Having some people attend and some not helps for the time being with social distancing and the like but kids can't still be having predominantly online lessons from September, it's just not the same.

Even if that were in place in the UK, I bet some parents would (misguidedly in my view) *still* refuse to send their kids in.

 

[Cowley]

It was all the eff-offing and the likes that really got my goat.

Yep. Not just yours...

 

[adc82140]

I'm fortunate enough to live on the edge of the New Forest. The eff off nature of some of the locals here is depressing, including from some local business owners. Do they not understand that you can't just throw a switch and expect the holidaymakers and day trippers to come back when you've abused them in this way. I've basically been chucked off a local Facebook group because I took issue with a post from a local shop owner referring to "outsiders" not being welcome. This was after the mid May lockdown easing. This whole attitude makes me uneasy. What next? Flaming torches and toothless yokels on pickup trucks chasing anyone without a local numberplate out?

 

[al78]

Yes - the world has gone mad.

What’s saddened me the most about the last few months is just how happy people are to see their freedoms curtailed. All it takes is a little scaremongering by the government and much of the population is content to live in a police state, to be placed into a state of house arrest for weeks on end, and to see the economy driven off a cliff.

We’ve seen the same sort of thing before, most notably in relation to terrorism, but this is on a completely different scale. Fear - especially when it’s largely irrational - is a very powerful tool which can be used to justify virtually anything, and to shut down any dissent.

I'm not sure we are at a police state, or if the government really wants that, after all, a right wing government would normally advocate freedom of the individual with minimal state interference. The big problem is we have got into a situation fueled by very powerful appeals to emotion (Think of the NHS, Think of the old people) to the point where people are blinded to anything else. It is as if people cannot see that there are destructive side effects to these ongoing restrictions, and the impacts on the futures and lives of people with families, people in employment, and children growing up actually do matter. Appeals to emotion are illogical, but are also hard to fight against, especially if those appeals to emption are being shouted from the rooftops on a large scale. Somebody has mentioned it could be a sunk cost, the government are trying to do more and more they think might work, and it just keeps harming people. The cycle needs to be broken somehow, maybe we need some protests on the scale of black lives matter (how about young peoples lives matter).

I think the worm will turn on the approach to Christmas at the latest. I can't see people being told they can't meet up with friends and family, and socialise over the festive season being acceptable on a population scale.

 

[al78]

If you want full control of your environment, a touring caravan or camper van is probably the way. Or a tent, if comfort isn't as important - by far the cheapest form of holiday going!

I am hoping to do some backpacking in Scotland next year, but up in the highlands, they are still saying KEEP AWAY, and heaven only knows how long that is going to go on for, plus the additional difficulty in getting a train or the sleeper up there.

 

[al78]

For many, simple steps can be taken - it is all about washing your hands, don't touch your face (transmitting germs via mouth, nose or eyes), keeping your distance and being vigillant. We do need to get back to a state of normality for our mental and physical state, as well as the economy; however, the new 'normal' will be different from the old normal. There will still be queueing at shops and supermarkets, High Streets will suffer with only 'personal services' being offered, i.e. restaurants, hairdressers, banks, etc.

I can't see this being viable with the will of the people. We have managed it so far because we have just gone through a spectacular Spring of warmth, sunshine, and very low rainfall. Do you think people are going to tolerate having to queue for an hour outside a supermarket if we have another autumn or winter month of record breaking rainfall a few months from now? Somehow I doubt it.

 

[Busaholic]

The fear of it, and thus the precautions being taken to eliminate all possibilities of contracting it, have long passed being absurd and will assuredly see so much of what we've built up, however imperfectly, being either destroyed or slowly eliminated, and I'm not just talking in economic terms.We already know of the health problems being stored up by the effective ignoring of symptoms that would normally be treated reasonably quickly, of which cancer treatment is the most obvious one, so the number of 'excess deaths' that already accompany Covid death figures on a weekly basis will continue to rise regardless of what happens with Covid. I wouldn't say the government has lost the plot, because they were never in command of it in the first place.

 

[MotCO]

I wouldn't say the government has lost the plot, because they were never in command of it in the first place.

What would you have done differently? This was very much the unknown and travelling in unchartered waters, and the NHS could not have coped at the outset, until sufficient capacity was built up which could not happen in a matter of days. There is an argument that the NHS should have been better prepared, but we were where we were. Likewise, we did not have sufficient antiseptic wipes, soap, etc in the shops. So I think a lockdown was inevitable, but what say you?

 

[Huntergreed]

After some deep thought, I feel I can provide a more developed opinion on the question posed in the title of the thread.

The world has not 'gone mad', this virus has simply highlighted one of the key issues with today's modern society.

As a species, throughout history we have always had a fear of death and mortality. . We have been conditioned as a species through psychological evolution to fear death and to not think about it until the time is near, when we are finally forced to accept the eventual end to life that we face as mortal human beings. As society has developed throughout the centuries, society in general has deemed death as 'the worst possible thing ever'. Death has for centuries been used as the main deterrent to try and prevent people from doing things deemed by those in power as 'wrong' or 'unacceptable' through capital punishment. For centuries one of the things we have worked hardest on and devoted the most time to are those which prevent or delay death, this includes permanently locking away or even executing those who may cause someone to die and developing vaccines and medicines to try and slow down or prevent death from occurring through diseases prematurely. This is, in my opinion, a very positive fact for the most part, however it has some perhaps lesser known societal impacts.

Due to the fact that, essentially throughout history death has been our main enemy as a species, we have been conditioned to think that it is the worst possible outcome in life, and must be avoided at all costs. This is, for the most part a good thing as it allows us to live a long life without worrying about whether we'll die from a disease or get killed around the corner. However, what has happened here has highlighted one thing to us (or at least those of us that are able to take a step back and look at the wider picture), we have become so afraid of death, that it completely diminishes our perception of other risks and aspects of society. This pandemic has perfectly highlighted this fact. As soon as a virus that might cause preventable deaths, we as a species are programmed to immediately intervene as this has, in the culture and society we have developed, been conditioned as the 'right' thing to do. This is essentially what has happened here, and we have stopped almost all aspects of society to combat the one thing in society we are collectively all programmed to fear. This is arguably human nature, and this motivation to intervene and stop any preventable deaths from occurring has, throughout history, created some fantastic work. As a species we have created vaccines, medicines and healthcare systems dedicated to this cause, and this has allowed us to extend our life expectancy to avoid the one thing we as a species fear most for as long as possible. This psychological conditioning has however, in this situation, had an previously unseen side effect. Our fear of death has grown so great, it has blinded us to any other damage that may impact the society we have constructed or that may impact anything else in our lives.

Nations across the world have 'locked down' in order to save lives and stop any preventable deaths from occurring through this virus. This has been with good intent to save lives and follows the instincts of the human species. However, we are now at a point where we are starting to see the problems of being so 'afraid' of death as a society. We are now at a point where, in order to allow society to continue to function and to allow for the best outcome for the greatest majority (my beliefs are mostly utilitarian as you can probably tell), we now have to do the one thing that throughout history we have been conditioned to never do. We need to accept death, and that in order for us to continue as a functional society, we are going to have to allow some preventable deaths to occur. The issue with this situation is that modern human culture, which is essentially a product of historical and social beliefs, deems allowing any preventable deaths as 'wrong', so we are now at a point where we either do the 'right' thing and actually hinder the development (benefitting the minority, hindering the majority) of the society we have constructed due to a historical belief, or we do the 'wrong' thing and we allow us as a species to continue developing and shaping the society we live in (benefitting the majority, hindering the small minority). In my personal opinion, it would be better to accept that there will be some preventable deaths and that this is a small price to pay to allow our species to continue living in a functional society. If we do not accept this, then we face the situation that until we are able to prevent the preventable deaths through other means, society will be paused, freedoms restricted, and livelihoods (another construct of society) will be lost. It seems that our government, alongside many others in the world, are afraid to admit that we will have to accept preventable deaths, and understandably so as it goes against our psychological construct as a species, however it is, in my opinion for the greater good and the sooner we are able to accept that this is a unique situation and that, whilst it is extremely sad we will lose people to this virus, it's not worth sacrificing the economy, the education of our children, our livelihoods, our mental wellbeing, our freedoms, and many more aspects of our current society.

Inevitably, if we do not want to stay in this societal limbo until we obtain a vaccination for this virus, we have no choice but to accept that a small number of preventable deaths will occur, and that this is, whilst very sad, a necessary fact to face in order to benefit the vast majority and to prevent many aspects of our current society, including the economy and our level of education (school/unis closing) from being lost due to not being willing to expose a very small number of those in society to the one thing that as a species we are conditioned to fear most.

 

[ashkeba]

I'm wondering if anyone commenting on this thread has any graduate, or postgraduate, qualification in the management and control of infectious diseases? Or perhaps it's speculation without knowledge?

More importantly, does anyone in the cabinet? Seriously.

 

[Huntergreed]

More importantly, does anyone in the cabinet? Seriously.

Nope. Chris Whitty does, so they simply do what he says because they know they're clueless and that if they listen to him then they are being 'guided by the science' and will be okay. It's very concerning.

 

[Cowley]

After some deep thought, I feel I can provide a more developed opinion on the question posed in the title of the thread.

The world has not 'gone mad', this virus has simply highlighted one of the key issues with today's modern society.

As a species, throughout history we have always had a fear of death and mortality. . We have been conditioned as a species through psychological evolution to fear death and to not think about it until the time is near, when we are finally forced to accept the eventual end to life that we face as mortal human beings. As society has developed throughout the centuries, society in general has deemed death as 'the worst possible thing ever'. Death has for centuries been used as the main deterrent to try and prevent people from doing things deemed by those in power as 'wrong' or 'unacceptable' through capital punishment. For centuries one of the things we have worked hardest on and devoted the most time to are those which prevent or delay death, this includes permanently locking away or even executing those who may cause someone to die and developing vaccines and medicines to try and slow down or prevent death from occurring through diseases prematurely. This is, in my opinion, a very positive fact for the most part, however it has some perhaps lesser known societal impacts.

Due to the fact that, essentially throughout history death has been our main enemy as a species, we have been conditioned to think that it is the worst possible outcome in life, and must be avoided at all costs. This is, for the most part a good thing as it allows us to live a long life without worrying about whether we'll die from a disease or get killed around the corner. However, what has happened here has highlighted one thing to us (or at least those of us that are able to take a step back and look at the wider picture), we have become so afraid of death, that it completely diminishes our perception of other risks and aspects of society. This pandemic has perfectly highlighted this fact. As soon as a virus that might cause preventable deaths, we as a species are programmed to immediately intervene as this has, in the culture and society we have developed, been conditioned as the 'right' thing to do. This is essentially what has happened here, and we have stopped almost all aspects of society to combat the one thing in society we are collectively all programmed to fear. This is arguably human nature, and this motivation to intervene and stop any preventable deaths from occurring has, throughout history, created some fantastic work. As a species we have created vaccines, medicines and healthcare systems dedicated to this cause, and this has allowed us to extend our life expectancy to avoid the one thing we as a species fear most for as long as possible. This psychological conditioning has however, in this situation, had an previously unseen side effect. Our fear of death has grown so great, it has blinded us to any other damage that may impact the society we have constructed or that may impact anything else in our lives.

Nations across the world have 'locked down' in order to save lives and stop any preventable deaths from occurring through this virus. This has been with good intent to save lives and follows the instincts of the human species. However, we are now at a point where we are starting to see the problems of being so 'afraid' of death as a society. We are now at a point where, in order to allow society to continue to function and to allow for the best outcome for the greatest majority (my beliefs are mostly utilitarian as you can probably tell), we now have to do the one thing that throughout history we have been conditioned to never do. We need to accept death, and that in order for us to continue as a functional society, we are going to have to allow some preventable deaths to occur. The issue with this situation is that modern human culture, which is essentially a product of historical and social beliefs, deems allowing any preventable deaths as 'wrong', so we are now at a point where we either do the 'right' thing and actually hinder the development (benefitting the minority, hindering the majority) of the society we have constructed due to a historical belief, or we do the 'wrong' thing and we allow us as a species to continue developing and shaping the society we live in (benefitting the majority, hindering the small minority). In my personal opinion, it would be better to accept that there will be some preventable deaths and that this is a small price to pay to allow our species to continue living in a functional society. If we do not accept this, then we face the situation that until we are able to prevent the preventable deaths through other means, society will be paused, freedoms restricted, and livelihoods (another construct of society) will be lost. It seems that our government, alongside many others in the world, are afraid to admit that we will have to accept preventable deaths, and understandably so as it goes against our psychological construct as a species, however it is, in my opinion for the greater good and the sooner we are able to accept that this is a unique situation and that, whilst it is extremely sad we will lose people to this virus, it's not worth sacrificing the economy, the education of our children, our livelihoods, our mental wellbeing, our freedoms, and many more aspects of our current society.

Inevitably, if we do not want to stay in this societal limbo until we obtain a vaccination for this virus, we have no choice but to accept that a small number of preventable deaths will occur, and that this is, whilst very sad, a necessary fact to face in order to benefit the vast majority and to prevent many aspects of our current society, including the economy and our level of education (school/unis closing) from being lost due to not being willing to expose a very small number of those in society to the one thing that as a species we are conditioned to fear most.

I think you’ve summed that up pretty well @Huntergreed.
I spent an hour on the phone to my Dad and Stepmother this afternoon who are both in their 70s (although my Stepmother would kick my backside if I ever said that publicly , oops...) and I know that they’d rather take the risk than carry on with this absolute shambles where they haven’t been able to see any of their grandchildren for months.
That generation have seen a lot of life and from what I’ve seen they seem less scared of what’s happening than a lot of people that are younger than them...

 

[Busaholic]

What would you have done differently? This was very much the unknown and travelling in unchartered waters, and the NHS could not have coped at the outset, until sufficient capacity was built up which could not happen in a matter of days. There is an argument that the NHS should have been better prepared, but we were where we were. Likewise, we did not have sufficient antiseptic wipes, soap, etc in the shops. So I think a lockdown was inevitable, but what say you?

Don't know whether that was rhetorical, but on the assumption it wasn't I'll list a few, and none of these with hindsight either: in fact, I posted some at the time. Firstly, TEST TEST TEST as soon as we knew the Italian outbreak was a precursor to the spread throughout Europe of the disease,then take up all those offers of making PPE from manufacturers here that were ignored for weeks and restrict passenger air traffic other than Brits returning home from wherever.
Even then insist on quarantining.
New Zealand escaped almost unscathed through closing their borders immediately.
The kneejerk quarantining now is laughable and counter-productive. It was obvious Matt Halfcock wasn't up to the job from the start, with the deadly consequences we now see.
The presence of Pritti Patel hardly radiated confidence either, and Raabid's takeover during Johnson's enforced absence was a total disaster, with so many decisions left unmade (and now, of course, we also know that the real Svengali was absent too as he couldn't find a Specsavers within 250 miles, and the government was apparently being conducted via the medium of carrier pigeon.)
Much though I hate the principle of lockdown, I thought it should have come a little sooner and, actually, been MORE stringent for a limited time so as to make the likelihood of it continuing ad nauseam and ruining the economy permanently a little less, though I'm happy to admit that I was as conflicted as many others about the latter.

Oh, and finally, it seemed to me that within a couple of weeks that the 2 metre social distancing was going to cause more problems than a lesser distance would,but the time to change was left way too late, probably because the government would see it as an admission of being wrong, heaven forfend.

 

[Busaholic]

I think you’ve summed that up pretty well @Huntergreed.
I spent an hour on the phone to my Dad and Stepmother this afternoon who are both in their 70s (although my Stepmother would kick my backside if I ever said that publicly , oops...) and I know that they’d rather take the risk than carry on with this absolute shambles where they haven’t been able to see any of their grandchildren for months.
That generation have seen a lot of life and from what I’ve seen they seem less scared of what’s happening than a lot of people that are younger than them...

I'm of that generation too and I'll take the risk, thank you, though I'd not take obviously unnecessary risks, and I will keep on washing my hands.

 

[adc82140]

Nope. Chris Whitty does, so they simply do what he says because they know they're clueless and that if they listen to him then they are being 'guided by the science' and will be okay. It's very concerning.

The likes of Chris Whitty et al give a very narrow outlook. To them the virus matters, and nothing else. This isn't a criticism of them, it's their job to do that. It's the job of the politicians to then put some context into what they say and look at the wider picture. They have failed to do this.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Flaming torches and toothless yokels on pickup trucks chasing anyone without a local numberplate out?

There have certainly been incidents of vehicle vandalism. No doubt these people are also too thick to realise that the plate on a given vehicle is based on original registration, and cars move around all the time, so you don't necessarily get a local one - my previous car had a Welsh registration (C) and my current one a West of England (W) one.

 

[Bayum]

The worst thing is that these things that would improve patient convenience would also save the NHS money (e.g. in this case by downstaffing the hospital pharmacy[1]), but they still won't do it.

Similarly, a phone call to discuss results and arrange a prescription from them wouldn't really take an appointment slot in the same way, it could be squeezed in between other work or when someone inevitably doesn't show up. You only really need to see a doctor in person if they are going to need to take blood[2] or if they need to see something. Perhaps everyone should have a telephone consultation as the first line for everything? I can see a strong case.

[1] You probably couldn't abolish it entirely, as there's some stuff, e.g. strong opiates and methadone, that you don't want knocking around the community unless you want people raiding pharmacies at gunpoint/knifepoint.

[2] Depending on how much is needed, there are ways to do a home sample and to use home test kits which are widely available privately but guess what, the NHS won't use them.

Methadone is regularly prescribed and delivered in the community. They visit the pharmacy and the pharmacist sets it up and supervised them taking the dose. Same with strong opiates. The GP will usually get the say so from the hospital consultant and prescribe it that way round. There are many different drugs that are a lot stronger than your Codeine - fentanyl, buprenoprhine (dermal and buccal).

Couldn't agree more. Even more stupid is that the haematology department won't authorise my local practice to add my meds to my repeat prescription list. This means I have to have them dispensed at the hospital. A phone consultation followed by a message to my GP regarding any change of dosage would save me time and money but the convenience of the patient seems to be a low priority.

I know there’s been a fair few drugs in my 26 years or so involvement with hospital consultants that can only be prescribed by the consultant and picked up at the hospital pharmacy unless there are very specific circumstances. Some retinoids (I know this doesn’t apply to you) can only be prescribed by a dermatologist consultant/someone with specialist knowledge with the drug. As such, they can only be picked up at the hospital pharmacy. I know you mention later that a patient before you managed to get a prescription to pick up at their local chemist which is interesting, as most hospitals don’t have the prescription pads to do that.

 

[MotCO]

I know you mention later that a patient before you managed to get a prescription to pick up at their local chemist which is interesting, as most hospitals don’t have the prescription pads to do that.

Could that have been a private prescription?

 

[MotCO]

Don't know whether that was rhetorical, but on the assumption it wasn't I'll list a few, and none of these with hindsight either: in fact, I posted some at the time. Firstly, TEST TEST TEST as soon as we knew the Italian outbreak was a precursor to the spread throughout Europe of the disease,then take up all those offers of making PPE from manufacturers here that were ignored for weeks and restrict passenger air traffic other than Brits returning home from wherever.
Even then insist on quarantining.
New Zealand escaped almost unscathed through closing their borders immediately.
The kneejerk quarantining now is laughable and counter-productive. It was obvious Matt Halfcock wasn't up to the job from the start, with the deadly consequences we now see.
The presence of Pritti Patel hardly radiated confidence either, and Raabid's takeover during Johnson's enforced absence was a total disaster, with so many decisions left unmade (and now, of course, we also know that the real Svengali was absent too as he couldn't find a Specsavers within 250 miles, and the government was apparently being conducted via the medium of carrier pigeon.)
Much though I hate the principle of lockdown, I thought it should have come a little sooner and, actually, been MORE stringent for a limited time so as to make the likelihood of it continuing ad nauseam and ruining the economy permanently a little less, though I'm happy to admit that I was as conflicted as many others about the latter.

Oh, and finally, it seemed to me that within a couple of weeks that the 2 metre social distancing was going to cause more problems than a lesser distance would,but the time to change was left way too late, probably because the government would see it as an admission of being wrong, heaven forfend.

No, it wasn't rhetorical. I do agree that we should have shut our borders, despite the medical experts saying otherwise. Even if it is it not effective, at least it sends a strong message that the Government was taking this very seriously. Their excuse was that the disease was already in the country and spreading was not tenable - we did not want any more disease coming into the country. However, I think that the Government's policy was to establish herd immunity, and that can't happen until much of the population has been exposed to Covid-19. I suspect the Government, as always, is being economical with the truth about their intentions - the issue is, is it in the people's best interests or the Government's best interests?

TEST, TEST, TEST: as I said in my post, the NHS did not have sufficient capacity at the outset, and may not have had sufficient kits available. It was a new disease and presumably a new test was required. Should the NHS have read the tea leaves? Definitely yes, but we don't know that the NHS had not taken early steps, but you cannot create the additional capacity and testing overnight - it would have taken a couple of months by the time the various working parties had been established and contracts signed. The NHS is bureaucratic, and is not known for being fleet of foot, so maybe that's another area which could be improved.

Boris's enforced absence from the helm was another factor, but it shouldn't have been a problem. Maybe Boris is a one-man band and doesn't share his thoughts, or have universal agreement within the Cabinet. That would not be good news, and maybe that is the cause of that problem.

The reference to Cummings was not unique - several high profile people felt the rules did not apply to them, but that is due to their egos. (However, in fairness, whether Cummings did or did not break the rules is far from clear - for a start, the police are taking no action.)

 

[317 forever]

Yes. I'm sick and tired of being hounded round supermarkets, with their silly one way systems. You are simply not going to pick up coronavirus by passing another person going the other way. In fact there is a higher (although still negligible) risk with everyone going round in a procession. It seems to have been forgotten that you have to be within 2 metres of someone for 15 minutes to pick it up. This is why healthcare professionals are at risk. This is why care home staff are at risk. This is why people passing in shops are not.

On the plus side, the one-way system has speedened up the flow of customers picking up their shopping, reducing their time there, and therefore reducing or in some cases eliminating any queueing time now.

 

[Ianno87]

On the plus side, the one-way system has speedened up the flow of customers picking up their shopping, reducing their time there, and therefore reducing or in some cases eliminating any queueing time now.

Went to IKEA that other day. In and out in record time (albeit 30 minute wait to get in). Minded to think that it's better like that!

 

[317 forever]

Went to IKEA that other day. In and out in record time (albeit 30 minute wait to get in). Minded to think that it's better like that!

For IKEA even 30 minutes is less than a few days ago. I guess there was some pent-up demand for goods from IKEA given that they were inevitably closed for a couple of months.

 

[al78]

On the plus side, the one-way system has speedened up the flow of customers picking up their shopping, reducing their time there, and therefore reducing or in some cases eliminating any queueing time now.

I'm not sure it has sped people up (impossible in Horsham), it could be more to do with the supermarket being far less busy because the staff are restricting the numbers inside the store, so it is easier to move around.

I follow the one way system except where it would be irrational to do so. I'm not walking 60 meters to go a net distance of three meters for example.