Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
....And They Wonder Why They Are Being Locked Down!
70 Answers
Answers
There seems to be this widespread idea that in city centres all pubs and bars kick out at the same time. They don't. Some close by midnight but many continue into the early hours. This means a continual trickle of people leaving when they run out of money/can no longer stand/are fed up with the company they are with/need to get home to bed to get up in the morning...
12:18 Wed 14th Oct 2020
There seems to be this widespread idea that in city centres all pubs and bars kick out at the same time. They don't. Some close by midnight but many continue into the early hours. This means a continual trickle of people leaving when they run out of money/can no longer stand/are fed up with the company they are with/need to get home to bed to get up in the morning etc. If you are in central London late into the evening you will see this and I imagine it's similar in other large cities. Transport home is staggered (though many people are constrained by the last train home). Now everyone is on the street at 10:01pm, many are not really ready to go home so they remain there and then they tend to travel home near enough all at the same time.
A "circuit breaker" (or whatever nonsensical name they give for a short-term national lockdown) will probably reduce the spread for its duration. But as soon as it is lifted the spread will resume. It seems many people just don't get it. This country is simply not geared up to lock everybody away long term - many of them would die of starvation. The only answer is targeted protection for those who need it and want it. Everybody else should take simple but practical precautions to keep themselves as safe as they can provided they want to do so. It is ludicrous that 100% of the population face house arrest to "protect" the small percentage most at risk. That small percentage need proper protection. The rest can take protective measures if they like so long as they do not expect to remain at home and be paid by the taxpayer. Most important of all they can protect the economy because if they don't there will be no NHS left to protect.
A "circuit breaker" (or whatever nonsensical name they give for a short-term national lockdown) will probably reduce the spread for its duration. But as soon as it is lifted the spread will resume. It seems many people just don't get it. This country is simply not geared up to lock everybody away long term - many of them would die of starvation. The only answer is targeted protection for those who need it and want it. Everybody else should take simple but practical precautions to keep themselves as safe as they can provided they want to do so. It is ludicrous that 100% of the population face house arrest to "protect" the small percentage most at risk. That small percentage need proper protection. The rest can take protective measures if they like so long as they do not expect to remain at home and be paid by the taxpayer. Most important of all they can protect the economy because if they don't there will be no NHS left to protect.
//dave50 - why the hell do you keep blaming the elderly??//
I also don't think dave is doing that at all. It is an absolute fact (despite it being dismissed with a pain "nope" by one of our regular posters a few days ago) that the virus presents by far and away the greatest risk to older people - as do most diseases. Many people se no symptoms at all, many see only mild symptoms and can readily recover. It therefore makes absolutely no sense at all to constrain those people. It also makes no sense to apportion so much blame on to the hospitality industry. The ONS calculates that hospitality venues are responsible for just 5% of infections yet it is being portrayed as if every pub, bar and restaurant is a hotbed of the disease and is responsible for spreading it to the vulnerable.
I also don't think dave is doing that at all. It is an absolute fact (despite it being dismissed with a pain "nope" by one of our regular posters a few days ago) that the virus presents by far and away the greatest risk to older people - as do most diseases. Many people se no symptoms at all, many see only mild symptoms and can readily recover. It therefore makes absolutely no sense at all to constrain those people. It also makes no sense to apportion so much blame on to the hospitality industry. The ONS calculates that hospitality venues are responsible for just 5% of infections yet it is being portrayed as if every pub, bar and restaurant is a hotbed of the disease and is responsible for spreading it to the vulnerable.
Nothing to do with 10 pm curfew, people can easily make their way gone if they choose to do so.
This was just pure idiocy, a last chance to flout the rules, just because they can.....well it ain’t big and it ain’t clever.
This pathetic behaviour will continue until properly addressed.
Do that in a Paris suburb and they’d have probably(and rightly so) been water-cannoned off the street.
This was just pure idiocy, a last chance to flout the rules, just because they can.....well it ain’t big and it ain’t clever.
This pathetic behaviour will continue until properly addressed.
Do that in a Paris suburb and they’d have probably(and rightly so) been water-cannoned off the street.
My wife, son and I are shielding because we had contact with my daughter in law who has tested positive.
My wife and I both have one of the three main symptoms.
Just finished ordering home testing kits.
With my health conditions, it's a bit worrying.
(I've hardly had time to wear the new coat my wife bought me!)
Learned last night, the silly blue masks stop particles only as small as 1.25 microns, and the covid virus is 0.003 microns.
Useless!
My wife and I both have one of the three main symptoms.
Just finished ordering home testing kits.
With my health conditions, it's a bit worrying.
(I've hardly had time to wear the new coat my wife bought me!)
Learned last night, the silly blue masks stop particles only as small as 1.25 microns, and the covid virus is 0.003 microns.
Useless!
//A good idea but ,as it has already been shown, you cannot trust people to do that.//
Then that's their choice, danny. I cannot countenance this idea that everybody must take precautions to protect everybody else. The only person that can prevent you contracting the virus is you. You have to accept that it is widespread, you don't know who has it and who hasn't and if you keep your distance from everybody else, don't go out boozing in crowded venues, avoid busy public transport, practice good sanitizing and anything else you believe to be appropriate that's the best you can do. To expect everybody else to take measures so that they don't contract it and possibly pass it on to you is too much to expect. It's why "targeted protection" is needed and if you feel the need you can take advantage of it.
//There will always be the naysayers who think that Covid 19 does not affect them.//
They are not naysayers. A sizeable proportion of them will see little or no symptoms. I am also not a naysayer though if I contract it the chances are I will see quite severe symptoms. But I have taken the decision that I am not going to spend what's left of my life hiding behind the sofa. I take what reasonable precautions I think fit but I still live my life normally as far as I can. I go out; I travel on public transport; I frequent shops, pubs and restaurants. I would do a lot more (like travel abroad) if I were allowed to but I have has two holidays cancelled this year which I would have willingly taken. It's a matter of balance for what suits you and I've decided what suits me. I don't expect everybody else to do the same as me but I don't want to be accused of being selfish because I'm not sufficiently locking myself away so that nobody else contracts the virus. It is not possible to prevent it spreading and the sooner that is accepted the sooner we can move forward with a strategy that does not depend on thinking that it is.
Then that's their choice, danny. I cannot countenance this idea that everybody must take precautions to protect everybody else. The only person that can prevent you contracting the virus is you. You have to accept that it is widespread, you don't know who has it and who hasn't and if you keep your distance from everybody else, don't go out boozing in crowded venues, avoid busy public transport, practice good sanitizing and anything else you believe to be appropriate that's the best you can do. To expect everybody else to take measures so that they don't contract it and possibly pass it on to you is too much to expect. It's why "targeted protection" is needed and if you feel the need you can take advantage of it.
//There will always be the naysayers who think that Covid 19 does not affect them.//
They are not naysayers. A sizeable proportion of them will see little or no symptoms. I am also not a naysayer though if I contract it the chances are I will see quite severe symptoms. But I have taken the decision that I am not going to spend what's left of my life hiding behind the sofa. I take what reasonable precautions I think fit but I still live my life normally as far as I can. I go out; I travel on public transport; I frequent shops, pubs and restaurants. I would do a lot more (like travel abroad) if I were allowed to but I have has two holidays cancelled this year which I would have willingly taken. It's a matter of balance for what suits you and I've decided what suits me. I don't expect everybody else to do the same as me but I don't want to be accused of being selfish because I'm not sufficiently locking myself away so that nobody else contracts the virus. It is not possible to prevent it spreading and the sooner that is accepted the sooner we can move forward with a strategy that does not depend on thinking that it is.
\\ Theland, as has been said many times the masks do not protect the wearer.They are there to protect others from getting Covid 19 from anyone who might have it.//
If I'm wearing a mask that doesn't protect me and the other person is wearing a mask that doesn't protect him, where does the protection start?
If I'm wearing a mask that doesn't protect me and the other person is wearing a mask that doesn't protect him, where does the protection start?
//Learned last night, the silly blue masks stop particles only as small as 1.25 microns, and the covid virus is 0.003 microns.
Useless!//
Sorry to learn of your troubles, Theland. Hope you are OK.
It was well known when the whole face covering debate was aired that the normal masks available are all but useless in preventing the virus being expelled. If you have holes four hundred times bigger than the virus (even though it is said the virus is carried on larger "droplets") then the fabric will have minimal effect. Couple this with the fact the density of face coverings is not defined (a "celeb" was seen the other day wearing one made of what looked like net curtain material) and it adds to the farce. Then, of course, there is the matter of self-contamination by the wearer, which I have mentioned often.
Useless!//
Sorry to learn of your troubles, Theland. Hope you are OK.
It was well known when the whole face covering debate was aired that the normal masks available are all but useless in preventing the virus being expelled. If you have holes four hundred times bigger than the virus (even though it is said the virus is carried on larger "droplets") then the fabric will have minimal effect. Couple this with the fact the density of face coverings is not defined (a "celeb" was seen the other day wearing one made of what looked like net curtain material) and it adds to the farce. Then, of course, there is the matter of self-contamination by the wearer, which I have mentioned often.
//Then what would you call anyone who believes that they are immune from catching Covid 19 ?//
I've never met anybody with that opinion, danny. I have met people who believe that they stand a very small chance of contracting it and that if they do it will, in all likelihood, not have a serious effect on them. I would call them pragmatists.
I've never met anybody with that opinion, danny. I have met people who believe that they stand a very small chance of contracting it and that if they do it will, in all likelihood, not have a serious effect on them. I would call them pragmatists.
