Coronavirus precautions: Has the world gone mad?

[Skimpot flyer]

Clearly the virus has mutated to gain the ability to use firearms!

Everyone be even more afraid.

You might want to view the video that sparked the comment, in this thread

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/media-coverage-of-covid-19.204152/page-3

 

[island]

I am correct in thinking that pubs, restaurants and shops do not legally have to follow any of the Covid-19 guidance such as one way systems, getting people to fill in contact details and keeping tables 2 metres apart. However if they do not follow the guidance and a patron gets Covid-19 at the pub that patron can subsequently sue the landlord for not following guidance?

Your thinking is correct as respects England.

Whether any such civil case would be successful, I would have my doubts.

 

[CrispyUK]

Nor will any business that asks me to wear a mask or touch their sanitiser bottle. I mean why would you touch something that everyone else has touched if there's a risk of catching a deadly virus???

You’ll be touching it, but then seconds later rubbing hand sanitiser all over your hands.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not if specifically restricted to this virus (though I'd agree there is a troubling tendancy for things like this to get mission creep).

Unless a business is specifically hiring people to go around coughing in people's faces, I'm not sure there are any circumstances it seems desirable to hold a business responsible for customers or staff catching a virus. It's just something that happens.

I don't think you'd want to go quite that far, but I would hold them responsible for putting in place basic measures as recommended by the Government. If they do that and someone still gets it, then I wouldn't hold them responsible.

 

[Freightmaster]

Clearly the virus has mutated to gain the ability to use firearms!

Just exercising its second amendment rights - nothing to worry about...





MARK

 

[Busaholic]

Just exercising its second amendment rights - nothing to worry about...





MARK

Brilliant!!

 

[Scrotnig]

We are now being pushed towards face coverings in all public places including outdoors.

Coronavirus: Wear masks in crowded public spaces, says science body

The UK is "way behind" on covering faces to limit the spread of Covid-19, says the Royal Society.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Bantamzen]

We are now being pushed towards face coverings in all public places including outdoors.

Coronavirus: Wear masks in crowded public spaces, says science body

The UK is "way behind" on covering faces to limit the spread of Covid-19, says the Royal Society.

www.bbc.co.uk

Ugh, the fanatics are at it again I see:

Not wearing a face covering should be regarded as "anti-social" in the same way as drink driving or failing to wear a seatbelt, Prof Ramakrishnan said.
"Not doing so increases the risk for everyone, from NHS workers to your grandmother," he said

Yes, don't go out outside without covering up, you'll kill someone. Isn't this where we started with the messaging 4 months ago? I am really starting to lose my patience with these experts.

 

[westv]

We are now being pushed towards face coverings in all public places including outdoors.

Coronavirus: Wear masks in crowded public spaces, says science body

The UK is "way behind" on covering faces to limit the spread of Covid-19, says the Royal Society.

www.bbc.co.uk

I read that too. So he is effectively saying you should have a mask on virtually all day every day! Thankfully no European country has brought in anything so draconian - yet.

 

[johntea]

Several pubs have closed down again due to a single person reporting they've suddenly decided to have a test and came back positive...

Coronavirus: Three England pubs close after positive tests

At least three pubs in England announce they have closed just days after opening their doors again.

www.bbc.co.uk

So they're going to lose money again whilst their doors are shut, lose money having to deep clean the place again, no wonder many have not yet bothered opening back up!

 

[SJN]

Yes I posted this on the media thread. I was very annoyed listening to BBC Breakfast this morning. They didn’t point out at all that the pubs weren’t the cause of the people getting it so a lot of people are just going to see the headline and panic about pubs. Realistically though it’s very unlikely you would go the pub Saturday, wake up with symptoms Sunday then get tested and results by Monday. Just stupid people going out whilst either waiting for a test or the results of one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes I posted this on the media thread. I was very annoyed listening to BBC Breakfast this morning. They didn’t point out at all that the pubs weren’t the cause of the people getting it so a lot of people are just going to see the headline and panic about pubs. Realistically though it’s very unlikely you would go the pub Saturday, wake up with symptoms Sunday then get tested and results by Monday. Just stupid people going out whilst either waiting for a test or the results of one.

Maybe the pub should be able to sue the customer for their losses if they attend the pub having taken a test (so this is formally recorded) but not yet received the result?

Maybe it should be a criminal offence to be outside the home in the time between taking a test and receiving a negative result? That would make more sense! A test is only taken via the Government if there is a suspicion of being infected, after all, and if there is a suspicion of infection you have to assume you ARE infected until you know otherwise.

 

[AdamWW]

Maybe the pub should be able to sue the customer for their losses if they attend the pub having taken a test (so this is formally recorded) but not yet received the result?

Maybe it should be a criminal offence to be outside the home in the time between taking a test and receiving a negative result? That would make more sense! A test is only taken via the Government if there is a suspicion of being infected, after all, and if there is a suspicion of infection you have to assume you ARE infected until you know otherwise.

Well if you have a test it will be either some kind of screening programme (in which case no you don't stay at home) or because you have had symptoms, in which case yes of course you shouldn't be going out.

 

[AdamWW]

I am correct in thinking that pubs, restaurants and shops do not legally have to follow any of the Covid-19 guidance such as one way systems, getting people to fill in contact details and keeping tables 2 metres apart. However if they do not follow the guidance and a patron gets Covid-19 at the pub that patron can subsequently sue the landlord for not following guidance?

I have read that the HSE can take action if guidance isn't followed.

 

[AdamWW]

There are many sceptics who, like myself, are inclined to disbelieve the official statistics on Coronavirus deaths. If a person dies and shows symptoms of coronavirus, a doctor can record - without a confirmatory test - coronavirus on the death certificate.
Many people are now starting to fully understand the distinct difference between dying with coronavirus, and dying from coronavirus.
Here’s a comment under a YouTube video of a Sky Australia broadcaster, who did a piece questioning the ‘party line’:
‘I read a report of a man who died from Covid19 in the US, eventually it was pointed out that his death may have had something to do with the two large gunshot wounds through his chest”

Putting anecdotes like this aside, it's clearly a minefield to attribute deaths to or not to coronavirus.
Which is why the best measure is almost certainly to look at excess deaths, rather than which are or aren't supposedly due to coronavirus.
This will have some uncertainty because of course excess deaths vary from year to year, but still probably better than anything else.

It also includes deaths indirectly related to coronavirus, of course, e.g. people not getting treatment for other things that they needed, or not being diagnoised with something else.

 

[AdamWW]

Spot on. The idea that businesses should be responsible for trying to stop someone catching a virus on their premises is bonkers.

There's two aspects to this.

One is the direct risk to customers.

But the other one is the current aim to keep the transmission rate down so we don't end up with exponential growth again.

Whether you think that's the right approach or not, it's the one the government is taking and so I think it doesn't help to look at their guidance as if its only goal was to reduce the direct risk to, for example, individual customers in a pub.

If it was just individual risk then you could reasonably leave pubs to decide what to do, and let potential customers choose whether to come in or not.

But such an approach potentially affects everyone.

 

[LAX54]

Ugh, the fanatics are at it again I see:



Yes, don't go out outside without covering up, you'll kill someone. Isn't this where we started with the messaging 4 months ago? I am really starting to lose my patience with these experts.

The longer we 'hide away' the longer it will last ! God help us with next years flu season !

 

[Bantamzen]

The longer we 'hide away' the longer it will last ! God help us with next years flu season !

Yep, as other countries are starting to find out. I wonder if next winter will be a frenzy of on-off-on-off local lockdowns, a fair proportion of the population hiding away for months, and the media literally melting with apocalyptic covid-flu-cold scares.... I might go and hide away in Spain for a bit....

 

[Peter Mugridge]

We are now being pushed towards face coverings in all public places including outdoors.

Coronavirus: Wear masks in crowded public spaces, says science body

The UK is "way behind" on covering faces to limit the spread of Covid-19, says the Royal Society.

www.bbc.co.uk

That would be a very good way of guaranteeing that the entire population very quickly becomes completely immuno-suppressed. Our immune systems depend on a constant low level exposure to all the various everyday germs that we come across and can lose that vital "memory" frighteningly quickly in some cases.


Meanwhile, on the BBC News website:

'Horrible' offices look to tempt back workers

Landlords are hoping cleaner, more convenient and more intelligent offices will tempt back workers.

www.bbc.co.uk

Staff will go to great lengths to avoid touching buttons - this lift in Iran has been kitted out with small sticks for people to use

Tell me please - what is the greater risk there? The virus, or the risk of falling against the stick holder with many dozens of sticks pointing outwards into the lift at just below head height?

 

[takno]

Meanwhile, on the BBC News website:

'Horrible' offices look to tempt back workers

Landlords are hoping cleaner, more convenient and more intelligent offices will tempt back workers.

www.bbc.co.uk

Tell me please - what is the greater risk there? The virus, or the risk of falling against the stick holder with many dozens of sticks pointing outwards into the lift at just below head height?

I think the biggest risk is that the BBC website descends into a complete farce which wastes the modicum of public money and respect it retains by blindly writing up press releases from Snake-oil tech companies. Weirdly the board of nails in the lift was probably the least unpleasant and dystopian idea listed in that article.

 

[MikeWM]

That would be a very good way of guaranteeing that the entire population very quickly becomes completely immuno-suppressed. Our immune systems depend on a constant low level exposure to all the various everyday germs that we come across and can lose that vital "memory" frighteningly quickly in some cases.

You'd hope the Royal Society would actually know that already. What exactly is the agenda here?

Meanwhile, on the BBC News website:

Ah, well there is part of it, increased employee surveillance by employers. With the excuse that the employees demand it, of course.

I think that's the one part pretty much all the 'dystopian future' predictions missed out on - that we'd *actively* clamour to be dehumanised, and demand monitoring and surveillance everywhere. They all assumed we'd have to be forced into it!

 

[MikeWM]

There's two aspects to this.

One is the direct risk to customers.

But the other one is the current aim to keep the transmission rate down so we don't end up with exponential growth again.

I agree that there are two issues. I continue to think that it is absolutely nothing to do with business as to whether people catch a virus on their premises or not (eg. for legal liability). But yes, whether businesses should put mechanisms in place to be able to track such a thing happening is a more wide-ranging question, and depends on how important it is to do so, and how effective those mechanisms could be.

 

[kylemore]

Indeed. Which in turn demonstrates track and trace is pointless in environments such as pubs. It will merely end up trying to confine people without proof that they need to be confined. And without verification, the data has the potential to be totally unreliable and incomplete anyway.


View attachment 80472

"And all three Dominic Cummingses….."

 

[Enthusiast]

I continue to think that it is absolutely nothing to do with business as to whether people catch a virus on their premises or not

Absolutely agree. "Ordinary" 'flu kills tens of thousands of people in the UK and worldwide most years. The WHO estimates that most years there are 3-5m cases which involve serious symptoms and deaths of 250,000 to 750,000. It is an infectious disease but one that normally has serious consequences only for the elderly or those with other health problems (rather like Covid). Yes, young and/or healthy people do occasionally succumb to it but principally deaths and serious symptoms are the province of the vulnerable groups (rather like Covid). But nobody has ever suggested that businesses must mitigate against their customers contracting 'flu every winter. Staff don't roam around in facemasks every January; seats are not spaced 2m apart; perspex screens are not erected at bars and counters; shops don't have one way systems. People who are worried about catching 'flu take precautions. I accept that a 'flu vaccine is available but it is by no means 100% taken up and nor is it 100% effective (hence the continuing high infection rate). But my point is that businesses are not expected to protect their customers from 'flu (and they couldn't even if they wanted to). The customers must make their own arrangements. So why are they expected to keep them "safe" from Covid (when they can't even if they want to)?

 

[LAX54]

Absolutely agree. "Ordinary" 'flu kills tens of thousands of people in the UK and worldwide most years. The WHO estimates that most years there are 3-5m cases which involve serious symptoms and deaths of 250,000 to 750,000. It is an infectious disease but one that normally has serious consequences only for the elderly or those with other health problems (rather like Covid). Yes, young and/or healthy people do occasionally succumb to it but principally deaths and serious symptoms are the province of the vulnerable groups (rather like Covid). But nobody has ever suggested that businesses must mitigate against their customers contracting 'flu every winter. Staff don't roam around in facemasks every January; seats are not spaced 2m apart; perspex screens are not erected at bars and counters; shops don't have one way systems. People who are worried about catching 'flu take precautions. I accept that a 'flu vaccine is available but it is by no means 100% taken up and nor is it 100% effective (hence the continuing high infection rate). But my point is that businesses are not expected to protect their customers from 'flu (and they couldn't even if they wanted to). The customers must make their own arrangements. So why are they expected to keep them "safe" from Covid (when they can't even if they want to)?

We have been bombarded with so mich doom and gloom, and 'end of the world' scenarios, there is no way out now, and the after effects will be a thousand times worse than the actual virus, on the local news tonight unemployment was 20,000, but the expect it in Anglia to reach a staggeruing 200,000 ! multiply that by the pop of the UK ! we have also had many more 'suicide attempt' reports, that go unreported in the media/

 

[AdamWW]

Absolutely agree. "Ordinary" 'flu kills tens of thousands of people in the UK and worldwide most years. The WHO estimates that most years there are 3-5m cases which involve serious symptoms and deaths of 250,000 to 750,000. It is an infectious disease but one that normally has serious consequences only for the elderly or those with other health problems (rather like Covid). Yes, young and/or healthy people do occasionally succumb to it but principally deaths and serious symptoms are the province of the vulnerable groups (rather like Covid). But nobody has ever suggested that businesses must mitigate against their customers contracting 'flu every winter. Staff don't roam around in facemasks every January; seats are not spaced 2m apart; perspex screens are not erected at bars and counters; shops don't have one way systems. People who are worried about catching 'flu take precautions. I accept that a 'flu vaccine is available but it is by no means 100% taken up and nor is it 100% effective (hence the continuing high infection rate). But my point is that businesses are not expected to protect their customers from 'flu (and they couldn't even if they wanted to). The customers must make their own arrangements. So why are they expected to keep them "safe" from Covid (when they can't even if they want to)?

Because the rules aren't there (just) to force companies to keep their individual customers safe, they're part of the overall effort to prevent exponential growth of coronavirus from starting again.

Now you can argue as to whether that's the right approach or whether we should just let it rip and accept the consequences, but it currently is the approach and that's why it's logical to make companies behave differently.

 

[LAX54]

We need to stop pussy footing around, and get back to day to day life, the fall out we are heading for will make the virus seem very trivial by comparison ! and worldwide we are still short of the 'bad flu year' estimates of 650,000 deaths.

Did anyone see on both ITV and BBC News last week, that we are currently BELOW the 5 year average for deaths, and have been for a few weeks ?

 

[PHILIPE]

The Welsh Government has not yet made a decision on opening schools fully from September. They are being pressed due to the fact that schools need time to prepare and, despite a letter signed by 50 Health Care Professionals including doctors, teachers and scientists pushing for them to open they are still dithering and saying they are waiting some scientific advice.

 

[bramling]

The Welsh Government has not yet made a decision on opening schools fully from September. They are being pressed due to the fact that schools need time to prepare and, despite a letter signed by 50 Health Care Professionals including doctors, teachers and scientists pushing them to open they are still dithering and saying they are waiting some scientific advice.

There comes a point where they have to bite the bullet with schools. Six months is a long time for children to go with no proper education, and this could have serious consequences for development.

 

[AdamWW]

The Welsh Government has not yet made a decision on opening schools fully from September. They are being pressed due to the fact that schools need time to prepare and, despite a letter signed by 50 Health Care Professionals including doctors, teachers and scientists pushing them to open they are still dithering and saying they are waiting some scientific advice.

Meanwhile there is some frustration from school heads that the first time they hear what the plans actually are will be when they see it in the news...

(And will then no doubt get a deluge of emails from parents asking for more detail, and will have to explain that they know no more than the parents do).