The %$%&£$ idiots

that insist on breaking lockdown to travel to "holiday homes"......

should they have those homes confiscated and given at below market price to the local folk in those holiday areas......

They should be banged up.

Why do they insist on a two rule structure, rules apply to all or to none!!

inmyopinion wrote:Why do they insist on a two rule structure, rules apply to all or to none!!

Because they think they are above the law.

Star24 wrote:

inmyopinion wrote:Why do they insist on a two rule structure, rules apply to all or to none!!

Because they think they are above the law.

the problem is they are!!

I'm not sure which holiday home I'll be traveling to this weekend.

Ocean or mountains?

My penthouse in Manhatten is out of the question. Too many people with the virus there.

It must be frustrating to have a holiday home you cant get to, but these are frustrating times.
Everyone is making sacrifices,  the NHS staff, the front line people who are keeping the country running....and the thousands who have died and will die.

Not being able to spend time in a second home seems a small price to pay in comparison.

Just seen a video on Sky news of parks in London. Full of asshats. They just don’t get it.

Went to the shops today for us and mum. I had on a scarf as a mask and gloves. Far too many people without. Also got some dumb ass comments about it being a bank robbers convention. Hargh hargh hargh. This from an old guy in a motorized cart with no protection.

It took me 3 shops to get everything needed. At the third I’m following the stickers on the floor to provide the distance, waiting my turn for the self checkout and a young girl comes right up behind me. Again no protection. Oblivious of the markets, the tape, the signs. I asked her to step back, got a nasty look. Whatever you silly cow.

Cass wrote:Just seen a video on Sky news of parks in London. Full of asshats. They just don’t get it.

Went to the shops today for us and mum. I had on a scarf as a mask and gloves. Far too many people without. Also got some dumb ass comments about it being a bank robbers convention. Hargh hargh hargh. This from an old guy in a motorized cart with no protection.

It took me 3 shops to get everything needed. At the third I’m following the stickers on the floor to provide the distance, waiting my turn for the self checkout and a young girl comes right up behind me. Again no protection. Oblivious of the markets, the tape, the signs. I asked her to step back, got a nasty look. Whatever you silly cow.

We are being fed different advice to you Cass re face masks and gloves.
Mostly the advice is they offer little protection and touching them or adjusting them could spread germs from your hands to your face.

Either way people who dont follow the social distancing rule of 2 metres apart....are just stupid.

What if all this locking down isn't really necessary.

I'm not saying it isn't. The Swedes sort of are, but that's another topic.

I am a little concerned that everyone just lock step assumes that this is required.

No questioning, no skepticism?

I understand people are afraid.

But compared to what we are doing here, it's a bit draconian.

At one point to folks step back and ask if this is really working?

Or is questioning any of this considered unpatriotic?

Didn't some British fella write 1984?

There seems to be a lot of judgement directed towards those in society that are not following government orders to the T.

Creeps me out a little, but i understand I'm an odd cat in most Western countries, in 2020.

Maddog wrote:What if all this locking down isn't really necessary.

I'm not saying it isn't. The Swedes sort of are, but that's another topic.

I am a little concerned that everyone just lock step assumes that this is required.

No questioning, no skepticism?

I understand people are afraid.
     
But compared to what we are doing here, it's a bit draconian.

At one point to folks step back and ask if this is really working?

Or is questioning any of this considered unpatriotic?

Sweden is definately the country to watch.

We in the UK have had lockdown for 3 weeks now. We are told it has worked by preventing the virus from peaking suddenly, thus enabling the NHS to cope.

When the lockdown ends and the people who have been totally self isolating for weeks/months start to go out again, it's not clear if there will be a second wave....to me it seems inevitable there will be.

People cant stay locked in their homes indefinately....and God knows how long it'll be before a vacine is available.

Maddog wrote:Didn't some British fella write 1984?

There seems to be a lot of judgement directed towards those in society that are not following government orders to the T.

Creeps me out a little, but i understand I'm an odd cat in most Western countries, in 2020.

It's not folliwing mindless orders though is it.

It's a fact that infectious diseases thrive with close contact, and this virus seems to be far more infectious than most.

The majority of people know this, the minority who ignore the rules are putting themselves ...but more importantly others in danger of catching a virus that could well kill them.

Syl wrote:

Cass wrote:Just seen a video on Sky news of parks in London. Full of asshats. They just don’t get it.

Went to the shops today for us and mum. I had on a scarf as a mask and gloves. Far too many people without. Also got some dumb ass comments about it being a bank robbers convention. Hargh hargh hargh. This from an old guy in a motorized cart with no protection.

It took me 3 shops to get everything needed. At the third I’m following the stickers on the floor to provide the distance, waiting my turn for the self checkout and a young girl comes right up behind me. Again no protection. Oblivious of the markets, the tape, the signs. I asked her to step back, got a nasty look. Whatever you silly cow.

We are being fed different advice to you Cass re face masks and gloves.
Mostly the advice is they offer little protection and touching them or adjusting them could spread germs from your hands to your face.

Either way people who dont follow the social distancing rule of 2 metres apart....are just stupid.

The advice seems to change from day to day. I’m compromised so it’s more for my own protection than anything. I have a list and know what I’m getting and I grab it. Like with fruit and veg, I have a quick look then grab it, not touch every single damn one with hands that have just touched my face ( as I saw lots of times today). If my avocado is mushy so be it. New pair of gloves for new store. Washing scarf tonight. If anything the scarf stopped me from touching my face even when my glasses got a bit foggy. The shopping comes into the garage and gets sprayed with a disinfectant and so does the car boot. Rubbed hand sanitizer on my card before putting it back in my purse.

I drop mum’s shopping off on her porch. We talk through her glass screen door. She puts on gloves once I’ve buggered off and sprays her stuff too before taking it in the house.

It may seem silly and OTT to some but I just can’t risk it. I’ve trained Me. C to come in through the garage now, strip off outer clothing and shoes and put it strait into the washer and then washes his face/arms/hands. He is still coming into contact with too many people at his work for my comfort. He’s fine about it because he saw how sick I had gotten in January and February and we don’t want to go down that road again.

Maddog wrote:What if all this locking down isn't really necessary.

I'm not saying it isn't. The Swedes sort of are, but that's another topic.

I am a little concerned that everyone just lock step assumes that this is required.

No questioning, no skepticism?

I understand people are afraid.
     
But compared to what we are doing here, it's a bit draconian.

At one point to folks step back and ask if this is really working?

Or is questioning any of this considered unpatriotic?

yeah not following is working well for your lot innit......

Victorismyhero wrote:

Maddog wrote:What if all this locking down isn't really necessary.

I'm not saying it isn't. The Swedes sort of are, but that's another topic.

I am a little concerned that everyone just lock step assumes that this is required.

No questioning, no skepticism?

I understand people are afraid.
     
But compared to what we are doing here, it's a bit draconian.

At one point to folks step back and ask if this is really working?

Or is questioning any of this considered unpatriotic?

yeah not following is working well for your lot innit......

My lot is Texas. 28 million people and about 240 deaths since this started.

And I'm not saying precautions shouldn't be taken.

It's the anger some folks have against others not following the rules to a T.

It's just not in my DNA to get all worked about how folks are handling this.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:Didn't some British fella write 1984?

There seems to be a lot of judgement directed towards those in society that are not following government orders to the T.

Creeps me out a little, but i understand I'm an odd cat in most Western countries, in 2020.

It's not folliwing mindless orders though is it.

It's a fact that infectious diseases thrive with close contact, and this virus seems to be far more infectious than most.

The majority of people know this, the minority who ignore the rules are putting themselves ...but more importantly others in danger of catching a virus that could well kill them.

I think people should stay away from each other. Nothing that allows for folks getting closer than 6 feet.

I also know that people need to be scared to follow directions sometimes.

We see it with tornado sirens here. Used to be a siren meant a tornado has been spotted. Now they go off when there is a bad storm that could produce a tornado. I think it has the opposite effect now and people ignore it instead of taking cover.

I don't know what the right balance of security and freedom is, but I'm getting uncomfortable with how easily people are led based on fear.

I'll bet you could easily pack folks into boxcars if you told them you were taking them some place to get them away from the virus.

Maddog wrote:I also know that people need to be scared to follow directions...

Interesting philosophy. Government is fear and punishment. No wonder you follow the anarchist-libertarian path.

Just flicked through this thread and want to say to Cass, a scarf across your face will NOT protect you at all. They have a Q&A on Sky news every day and this question comes up to the virologists and Drs all the time. Their answers are an emphatic no. They don’t even advise masks (unless they’re the correct PPE as in the case of nurses etc).

eddie wrote:Just flicked through this thread and want to say to Cass, a scarf across your face will NOT protect you at all. They have a Q&A on Sky news every day and this question comes up to the virologists and Drs all the time. Their answers are an emphatic no. They don’t even advise masks (unless they’re the correct PPE as in the case of nurses etc).

Masks are not for personal protection. They protect others from you, in the event you are a carrier. It's protection against the spread.

eddie wrote:Just flicked through this thread and want to say to Cass, a scarf across your face will NOT protect you at all. They have a Q&A on Sky news every day and this question comes up to the virologists and Drs all the time. Their answers are an emphatic no. They don’t even advise masks (unless they’re the correct PPE as in the case of nurses etc).

I know Eds. It’s more to stop me touching my face after touching other things as well as what Quill mentioned. As I said Mr. C is in contact with a lot of people so we just never know. Also over here we have been advised and at Mr.C’s work is now mandatory to wear a mask or face covering of some sort whenever you go out if you cannot maintain 6 feet social distancing which is exactly the case in the supermarket.. That’s why I said the directives change almost on a daily basis.

Also people, don’t forget to wipe down petroleum/gas pumps, PIN pads, and any cards that you might use. The US lags woefully behind in contactless payment. Be wary of newspapers or magazines as the virus can live up to 72 hours on paper. Don’t know about the UK but lots of grocery stores are stopping people from using their recyclable bags.

eddie wrote:Just flicked through this thread and want to say to Cass, a scarf across your face will NOT protect you at all. They have a Q&A on Sky news every day and this question comes up to the virologists and Drs all the time. Their answers are an emphatic no. They don’t even advise masks (unless they’re the correct PPE as in the case of nurses etc).

And they are recommending them here.

It wasn't that long ago that the WHO said this virus cant pass from human to human.

This is why I don't have problems with people being skeptical.

The WHO, together with the UN , are not fit for purpose "

nicko wrote:The WHO, together with the UN , are not fit for purpose "

Disagree, nick.  They have no authoritarian powers, so they have to do things diplomatically.  They have to work twice as hard...especially when idiots like Trump are killing their funding.

Not only did Trumpster kill our own Pandemic Response Team, and defund the CDC and Department of Health, but he killed a lot of funding for WHO.  Now, he is looking for a scapegoat in a situation where he is likely the worst contributor to Trumpvirus spread.  He started blaming Obama, but people know Obama was a genius at containing pandemics (eg, ebola).  He tried blaming China--even tagged it the China virus--but people know enough about viruses to understand you don't blame a single link in a chain.

So, now Trump is trying to sound out the WHO as the scapegoat.  The WHO was as unknowing as anyone at the start--that might be due in part to Trump's cut-backs.  But at least the WHO is pursuing science.  Trump is pursuing election, and makes up lies and scapegoats, just as with any challenge he faces.

eddie wrote:Just flicked through this thread and want to say to Cass, a scarf across your face will NOT protect you at all. They have a Q&A on Sky news every day and this question comes up to the virologists and Drs all the time. Their answers are an emphatic no. They don’t even advise masks (unless they’re the correct PPE as in the case of nurses etc).

Come on Eddie... the USA CDC are advising the use of face coverings of any kind.. eg facemasks, scarfs, even t shirts or other fabrics are better than nothing... Not just to act as a barrier to the virus getting into your nose/mouth via droplets and causing infection to yourself, but also to reduce the chance of an infectious person passing it on to others by the barrier catching any droplets released by the infected person in the same way as coughing/sneezing into a tissue would do, but I would think that a face covering would be much more effective in this...


Plus it is a physical barrier preventing the touching of nose/mouth by hands... Which is often done without realising a lot of the time... And we all know that the virus can easily be spread by touching an infected surface and then inadvertently touching your nose/mouth...


Also... It is wise to have some sort of eye protection too... To prevent any airborne droplets getting into eyes and infecting you that way too... A regular pair of glasses would obviously give more protection than nothing at all... Even sun glasses would be a barrier of sorts... Or safety goggles... But I reckon the best would be swimming goggles or ski goggles...

No Tommy, they are not, unless it’s to stop you touching your face. It has been said many, many times, that scarves etc (unless it’s proper PPE) will NOT protect you from this virus.

Tommy Monk wrote:

eddie wrote:Just flicked through this thread and want to say to Cass, a scarf across your face will NOT protect you at all. They have a Q&A on Sky news every day and this question comes up to the virologists and Drs all the time. Their answers are an emphatic no. They don’t even advise masks (unless they’re the correct PPE as in the case of nurses etc).

Come on Eddie... the USA CDC are advising the use of face coverings of any kind.. eg facemasks, scarfs, even t shirts or other fabrics are better than nothing... Not just to act as a barrier to the virus getting into your nose/mouth via droplets and causing infection to yourself, but also to reduce the chance of an infectious person passing it on to others by the barrier catching any droplets released by the infected person in the same way as coughing/sneezing into a tissue would do, but I would think that a face covering would be much more effective in this...


Plus it is a physical barrier preventing the touching of nose/mouth by hands... Which is often done without realising a lot of the time... And we all know that the virus can easily be spread by touching an infected surface and then inadvertently touching your nose/mouth...


Also... It is wise to have some sort of eye protection too... To prevent any airborne droplets getting into eyes and infecting you that way too... A regular pair of glasses would obviously give more protection than nothing at all... Even sun glasses would be a barrier of sorts... Or safety goggles... But I reckon the best would be swimming goggles or ski goggles...

Then I expect you think Trump's a dangerous idiot for emphasizing so much how the CDC recommendation is voluntary, and then adding that he probably wouldn't be following it

eddie wrote:No Tommy, they are not, unless it’s to stop you touching your face. It has been said many, many times, that scarves etc (unless it’s proper PPE) will NOT protect you from this virus.

CDC recommends wearing cloth face coverings in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain (e.g., grocery stores and pharmacies), especially in areas of significant community-based transmission.

CDC also advises the use of simple cloth face coverings to slow the spread of the virus and help people who may have the virus and do not know it from transmitting it to others. Cloth face coverings fashioned from household items or made at home from common materials at low cost can be used as an additional, voluntary public health measure.

Cloth face coverings should not be placed on young children under age 2, anyone who has trouble breathing, or is unconscious, incapacitated or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.

The cloth face coverings recommended are not surgical masks or N-95 respirators. Those are critical supplies that must continue to be reserved for healthcare workers and other medical first responders, as recommended by current CDC guidance.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/diy-cloth-face-coverings.html

I'll let you decide if their advice is good or not. It's above my pay grade.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:No Tommy, they are not, unless it’s to stop you touching your face. It has been said many, many times, that scarves etc (unless it’s proper PPE) will NOT protect you from this virus.

CDC recommends wearing cloth face coverings in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain (e.g., grocery stores and pharmacies), especially in areas of significant community-based transmission.

CDC also advises the use of simple cloth face coverings to slow the spread of the virus and help people who may have the virus and do not know it from transmitting it to others.  Cloth face coverings fashioned from household items or made at home from common materials at low cost can be used as an additional, voluntary public health measure.

Cloth face coverings should not be placed on young children under age 2, anyone who has trouble breathing, or is unconscious, incapacitated or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.

The cloth face coverings recommended are not surgical masks or N-95 respirators.  Those are critical supplies that must continue to be reserved for healthcare workers and other medical first responders, as recommended by current CDC guidance.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/diy-cloth-face-coverings.html

I'll let you decide if their advice is good or not. It's above my pay grade.

Awesome, I've always wanted to wear a bandana over my face in public, bandito-style. Now's my excuse!

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

CDC recommends wearing cloth face coverings in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain (e.g., grocery stores and pharmacies), especially in areas of significant community-based transmission.

CDC also advises the use of simple cloth face coverings to slow the spread of the virus and help people who may have the virus and do not know it from transmitting it to others.  Cloth face coverings fashioned from household items or made at home from common materials at low cost can be used as an additional, voluntary public health measure.

Cloth face coverings should not be placed on young children under age 2, anyone who has trouble breathing, or is unconscious, incapacitated or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.

The cloth face coverings recommended are not surgical masks or N-95 respirators.  Those are critical supplies that must continue to be reserved for healthcare workers and other medical first responders, as recommended by current CDC guidance.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/diy-cloth-face-coverings.html

I'll let you decide if their advice is good or not. It's above my pay grade.

Awesome, I've always wanted to wear a bandana over my face in public, bandito-style. Now's my excuse!

People are wearing everything around here right now.

if it stops even some snot gobblets getting up your nose , its gotta be good....

remember "minimum infective dose".......

Not my most attractive look. Mr. C got a cool camouflage one made for him.

eddie wrote:No Tommy, they are not, unless it’s to stop you touching your face. It has been said many, many times, that scarves etc (unless it’s proper PPE) will NOT protect you from this virus.

You might as well be trying to tell me that only an oven glove can be used to protect my hand from being burnt when removing something hot from the oven... And a tea towel or even a cotton socks just would not do as it would offer absolutely no protection whatsoever, as they are not the "correct" items of PPE that should be used...


Well... I've never owned an oven glove... and have always used either a tea towel or a cotton sock instead of an oven glove... And have never had burned hands from doing so...





The "scientists" said that human to human transmission was highly unlikely back in January...


https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/coronavirus-crisis-timeline-100-days-21830366