UK Politics - It's a bit glitchy

[Heartofice]

16 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Where did these numbers come from and how was gym defined? Honest to goodness, and not to get into a fight with you, but this sounds at best wishful thinking and at worst a load of crap.

Just a quick search on a case in Calgary that I remembered, from June or July, a fitness club had at least 42 cases, and now a spin gym in Hamilton, ON is up to 51 cases with another 90 in self-isolation to see if they develop symptoms. That's at least 93 cases from a country a little more than half the size of the UK, and I'm pretty sure I remember reading about cases from other provinces related to gyms but I can't be bothered trying to find them.

You've talked about your place and it certainly sounds like a gym that likely is safer than other fitness gyms. Honestly, you should be able to ask for an exemption but governments in this pandemic aren't interested.

https://www.ukactive.com/news/fitness-and-leisure-sector-reports-covid-rate-of-0-34-per-100000-visits-since-reopening-in-england/

[A wilding]

4 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

After getting caught up over the last page, my question is, doesn’t the government give a breakdown of who is being newly infected? Do they not tell you where clusters and outbreaks are? Is this a silly question?

Bottom line is that they don't really know,

The test and trace system in this country is a real mess. We have counts of positive tests by region and that is pretty much it. We should have been using the time gained from the last lockdown to set up a decent system, but instead the government just threw money at an assortment of favoured outsourcing companies (instead of building up the in house and NHS resources available) and has very little to show from doing so. Personally I am seriously concerned about what is likely to happen now (and with Brexit disruption coming up fast as well), despite being personally at low risk and not worried about my job.

Far from untypical anecdote: A friend's daughter was sent home from school with a cough. The family went into isolation for a few days before they could get her tested. The test was negative, so they sent her back to school. A few days after that they got a message to say there had been an error and the test was invalid. So they have pulled her out of school again and are isolating again until they can get her tested again. And how many people would have even bothered to do that?

 

[williamjm]

12 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Is it even about teaching? Surely the greater issue is that Students gather together, touch each other a lot ( cos it’s fun) and hang around in big groups and mix. The teaching bit seems rather irrelevant.

I was reading a couple of weeks ago about the outbreak at Pollock Halls of Residence in Edinburgh where I lived for a year when I was at University. I mostly liked it at the time but it does seem like one of the worst possible places to be in a pandemic, almost 2000 students away from home for the first time in small rooms with shared bathrooms and common areas and a single location serving food for the entire halls. Even if they weren't organising parties (and at least some of them apparently have been) or going to lectures it still seems perfect conditions for the virus spreading.

At least some Universities seem to have taken an approach of trying to carry on pretty much as usual and hoping for the best (to be fair, some may be doing things better since we probably hear mostly about the failures).

[HexMachina]

3 hours ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

Shielding still not been renewed for those particularly vulnerable.

Trchnically I’m still in that category even though I stopped the inmune suppressants in March per GP guidance (and my consultant agreed with my suggestion to stay off them indefinitely to see if my condition was manageable without). If it flares up, I’ll need to go back on them, not that it makes much difference as I’ll be working from home until march next year (unless covid’s still a big problem).

A friend of mine on Crohn’s medication was asked to shield when all of this started. She had just been allowed back but fortunately her workplace has stepped up and said she can continue to work from home for her safety. I think at least some employers are seeing that they can allow protective measures for their employees to continue without detriment to themselves.

1 hour ago, williamjm said:

I was reading a couple of weeks ago about the outbreak at Pollock Halls of Residence in Edinburgh where I lived for a year when I was at University. I mostly liked it at the time but it does seem like one of the worst possible places to be in a pandemic, almost 2000 students away from home for the first time in small rooms with shared bathrooms and common areas and a single location serving food for the entire halls. Even if they weren't organising parties (and at least some of them apparently have been) or going to lectures it still seems perfect conditions for the virus spreading.

At least some Universities seem to have taken an approach of trying to carry on pretty much as usual and hoping for the best (to be fair, some may be doing things better since we probably hear mostly about the failures).

I have stopped in Pollock Halls before (not as a student, but the rooms are let out for a decent price over the summer and I used it as a base for the Commonwealth games back in 2014). Compared to the other Halls of Residence I have stayed in its actually pretty well spaced out and such (apart from the dining area, as all of mine have been self catering anyway). A lot of those in Newcastle are just endless corridors of rooms opening directly onto the street or small courtyards for the smokers. Its really unsurprising the universities had such massive outbreaks.

I don’t think the influx of students deciding to proceed with their “Fresher’s” experience as if all were as normal really helped things either. And the curfew did nothing, except make people go out earlier (and hence clog the streets as people tried to get home from work...)

[Zorral]

7 hours ago, Heartofice said:

https://www.ukactive.com/news/fitness-and-leisure-sector-reports-covid-rate-of-0-34-per-100000-visits-since-reopening-in-england/

Plus this, just today -- 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/13/world/spinco-canada-covid-19-outbreak-trnd/index.html

The studio did everything right yet 61 cases out this one studio because a single client didn't follow the rules.

Which is why I won't go to restaurant of any kind, because -- not the servers, etc. -- it's the other customers, of whom story after story is told that they behave like assholes -- and that's the best.  Go indoors with those people?  You gotta be kidding.

 

[Fragile Bird]

7 hours ago, Heartofice said:

https://www.ukactive.com/news/fitness-and-leisure-sector-reports-covid-rate-of-0-34-per-100000-visits-since-reopening-in-england/

I am very suspicous of those numbers, largely because of the case count in Canada. The story Zorral linked is the Hamilton facility that I mentioned, which I see has gone from 51 linked cases to 61, so at least 93 to 103. The Canadian case numbers include gym employees because, ya know, you really can't unlink them from the gym members. So the UK number is at least 73 + 38 emloyees who have been infected, so that goes up to 111, not 73.

I watch the business channel CNBC all the time, and the analysts who follow the airlines keep bleating that "only 19 covid cases have been linked to passengers". So flight crew isn't being counted, first of all, and secondly, do you believe that's accurate, and thirdly, so why aren't you flying?

[lessthanluke]

4 hours ago, Zorral said:

Plus this, just today -- 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/13/world/spinco-canada-covid-19-outbreak-trnd/index.html

The studio did everything right yet 61 cases out this one studio because a single client didn't follow the rules.

Which is why I won't go to restaurant of any kind, because -- not the servers, etc. -- it's the other customers, of whom story after story is told that they behave like assholes -- and that's the best.  Go indoors with those people?  You gotta be kidding.

 

So one case in Canada means the UK numbers are bullshit? Rightttt.

They probably aren't completely accurate but if we aren't going off the numbers we have to make decisions what's the fucking point of collecting any data at all?! 

 

[Heartofice]

Even SAGE says the risk coming out of gyms is low

[Raja]

I have total sympathy for Luke given that he owns a gym, if there is no help for the industry, then what are people supposed to do? Every SAGE intervention highlights the fact that any closure must be given adequate support by the government, especially if we go into the kind of lockdown that was there in March and April.

A couple of things regarding the data though - I think Luke is correct in that we need to look at the data, but we have to dig a little deeper. The data presented covers the period of 25th July to 13th September and as is correctly pointed out, the result was 0.34 per 100,000 incidence of COVID cases. However, there are two caveats here;

1. The data presented covers a period where community transmission was low in England ( 25th July to 13th September)-  if you have low community transmission, you're going to have a low incidence, so whilst those numbers are low, it's important to note that it's during a time where overall community transmission was low. We are currently not in a phase where community transmission in England is low - for example, 25th July had 700ish new cases, but right now, we have 17,000 new cases. Community transmission is high. The only way to be certain about those numbers is to conduct a further study during a high period of community transmission, i.e. right now.

2. The SAGE evidence highlights the fact that the risks in gyms *can* be higher given the number of touch surfaces and that aerobic activity will generate higher aerosols and breathing rates. In addition, they state in the data that precise estimation is extremely difficult. It would be interesting to look at data at gyms/ yoga classes during periods of high community transmission, but this is tough to do given that they will likely close if that is the case.

Do we take the risk given the high community transmission right now and that we have a Test and Trace system that SAGE recommends needs to be overhauled?

These aren't easy decisions to make - if we had a functioning track and trace system, more things could be open, but given how botched the system is at the moment we can't safely open places and we probably shouldn't take that risk. If a closure is to happen, like it is happening with Liverpool, there needs to be significant local and government support for the staff and a track and trace system that works - Do I trust that we will get there? Probably not given the last few months.

[DaveSumm]

13 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Where are these happening would be my question. If we are supposedly protecting the elderly then this should be impossible. Are infections happening in hospitals or care homes, if so then that is an absolute disgrace, those are 2 places where there should be zero infections now.

My father in law has care 4 times a day in his home, and it’s different care workers on a rota going to dozens of other homes. He had a temperature the other day, which has now gone, but because we’d seen him recently his GP told us we need to isolate until he can get a negative test. So I have the following absurd situation; the care team don’t have a policy of administering Covid tests, but are continuing to visit (he’d be dead if they didn’t so we have no choice there). He can’t do the test himself, so I have to break the self isolating rules and go there, get fuel on the way, help him with the test and take it to a postbox. All while the care team, who wear masks and other protective clothing but ultimately have to help him on and off the toilet so are in very close contact, are in and out of dozens of other vulnerable peoples homes. 

Shielding sounds great on paper but this whole experience makes me realise it doesn’t survive contact with reality. We told the care team about the situation but the impression I got was that they’d long ago realised that there’s nothing they can do, they can’t stop visiting and they can’t isolate their entire staff every time someone has a temperature. 

I’m gonna try and find a petrol station that does pay at the pump, but even that I’m pretty sure isn’t allowed. No idea what I’m supposed to do to be honest.

[Heartofice]

That does sound absurd. At the same time, if the correct measures were put into place, hand washing + mask wearing + PPE + regular testing as well as any helpers with symptoms not coming into work, then actually it should be quite hard to infect the vulnerable that way.

I still need to find out where exactly these deaths are happening, as I said, at this point the virus simply shouldn’t be able to get into care homes.. but maybe it is.

However if the deaths are at home, it could be an issue of everyday adherence not being followed. We know there is a problem with multi generational families, one of the reasons it hits certain communities harder. I also saw a stat today that they think only 18% of those with symptoms self isolate.. which is head bangingly stupid 

[mormont]

The gym situation seems to me the same basic complaint as pubs and restaurants have been making, which is both very valid and at the same time, almost irrelevant.

Gyms, and most pubs, have been responsible and done everything they were asked to do to operate safely and I can 100% appreciate that it's not fair to be shut down after that. I work in a student union, after all: we can't open our bar after 6pm at the moment. So it's not an academic point to me. It's about my livelihood and that of my colleagues.

But 'fair' left town months ago. The fact is, we need to reduce transmission right now. And maybe for every one case in a well run pub, there are 100 caused by people visiting each other at home when they've been told not to. But still, closing the pub stops that one case. And unless someone has a really bright idea about how we stop those other 100 cases caused by idiots, better to stop one case than just do nothing,

The government are going to do everything they can before closing schools again, and they're more or less powerless to stop the idiots who keep flouting the rules. But they can't do nothing. It's not fair. But it's how it is.

[lessthanluke]

24 minutes ago, mormont said:

The gym situation seems to me the same basic complaint as pubs and restaurants have been making, which is both very valid and at the same time, almost irrelevant.

Gyms, and most pubs, have been responsible and done everything they were asked to do to operate safely and I can 100% appreciate that it's not fair to be shut down after that. I work in a student union, after all: we can't open our bar after 6pm at the moment. So it's not an academic point to me. It's about my livelihood and that of my colleagues.

But 'fair' left town months ago. The fact is, we need to reduce transmission right now. And maybe for every one case in a well run pub, there are 100 caused by people visiting each other at home when they've been told not to. But still, closing the pub stops that one case. And unless someone has a really bright idea about how we stop those other 100 cases caused by idiots, better to stop one case than just do nothing,

The government are going to do everything they can before closing schools again, and they're more or less powerless to stop the idiots who keep flouting the rules. But they can't do nothing. It's not fair. But it's how it is.

We'll see what happens in Liverpool today. 

I'm part of a gym owners group and the consensus is that around 90% of gyms in Liverpool are opening today regardless of the new rules. I doubt it'll make the news though.

[Heartofice]

26 minutes ago, mormont said:

The gym situation seems to me the same basic complaint as pubs and restaurants have been making, which is both very valid and at the same time, almost irrelevant.

Gyms, and most pubs, have been responsible and done everything they were asked to do to operate safely and I can 100% appreciate that it's not fair to be shut down after that. I work in a student union, after all: we can't open our bar after 6pm at the moment. So it's not an academic point to me. It's about my livelihood and that of my colleagues.

But 'fair' left town months ago. The fact is, we need to reduce transmission right now. And maybe for every one case in a well run pub, there are 100 caused by people visiting each other at home when they've been told not to. But still, closing the pub stops that one case. And unless someone has a really bright idea about how we stop those other 100 cases caused by idiots, better to stop one case than just do nothing,

The government are going to do everything they can before closing schools again, and they're more or less powerless to stop the idiots who keep flouting the rules. But they can't do nothing. It's not fair. But it's how it is.

Not really.

The point is the get the R0 number down to a reasonable level, and to do that there are a number of levers you can pull. Closing gyms would have a very small impact on transmission but would have a greater impact elsewhere, in terms of livelihoods and overall health. 
 

[mormont]

41 minutes ago, lessthanluke said:

We'll see what happens in Liverpool today. 

I'm part of a gym owners group and the consensus is that around 90% of gyms in Liverpool are opening today regardless of the new rules. I doubt it'll make the news though.

Yeah, I can understand why. As I say, the frustration is valid. It's your livelihood at stake and you've not done anything to deserve this: it's not fair.

But at the same time... none of this is fair. That's my point.

 

ETA - new restrictions in NI:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-54533643

Hospitality limited to takeaways for four weeks, schools closed for two weeks, unis to teach online unless no alternative, hairdressers closed, but gyms open for individual training!

[Which Tyler]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-54535481

Almost as idiotic as it was preictable.

FTR, Liverpool's ICU beds are above 90% capacity before this

 

[Chaircat Meow]

On 10/13/2020 at 2:14 PM, mormont said:

Fair question, and it's worth noting we don't (AFAIK) have the advice given to Scottish ministers.

It would clearly have been extremely difficult to have a different policy in Scotland given the significant cross-border flow of students at many unis, but not impossible.

I think the bigger issue would be money. I actually don't see why cross-border flows would be a huge problem. If universities can't rent properties out though they are going to be in a big hole. And it seems no one, either in London or Edinburgh, wanted to give the sector the support it needed to enable students to be allowed to stay at home. 

Even supposing Edinburgh couldn't have afforded this themselves and needed to ask London, afaik they never even proposed a bailout to save students from paying pointless rent and they are not shy about flagging Westminster failures. 

[Which Tyler]

https://metro.co.uk/2020/10/14/students-handed-coronavirus-test-kits-that-had-already-been-used-13419886/
Students handed coronavirus test kits that had already been used

[mormont]

21 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I think the bigger issue would be money. I actually don't see why cross-border flows would be a huge problem. If universities can't rent properties out though they are going to be in a big hole.

The problem with this argument, though it has some validity, is that most universities don't need anything like the numbers they currently have attending in person to fill their halls of residence, etc. It would have been relatively easy for them to cut down the numbers and insist that students attending in person had to be in halls (if you need an excuse for that, just talk about limiting spread to the local population). 

I'm not saying this isn't correct, just that if I'd been running a university, these things would have occurred to me.

It may be more about fees, tbqh: I know a lot of unis are insisting that there will be some face-to-face teaching and that this justifies the full fee. It may also, from the point of view of the governments involved, be about protecting the private rented sector, which would have been in real trouble in many places without the student market. Rents would have cratered. (Not a bad thing, in fact long overdue in my view.)

21 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Even supposing Edinburgh couldn't have afforded this themselves and needed to ask London, afaik they never even proposed a bailout to save students from paying pointless rent and they are not shy about flagging Westminster failures. 

Well, they did pass legislation to allow students to opt out of what were previously watertight, year-long contracts in halls of residence owned by universities and private providers.

[Chaircat Meow]

35 minutes ago, mormont said:

The problem with this argument, though it has some validity, is that most universities don't need anything like the numbers they currently have attending in person to fill their halls of residence, etc. It would have been relatively easy for them to cut down the numbers and insist that students attending in person had to be in halls (if you need an excuse for that, just talk about limiting spread to the local population). 

I'm not saying this isn't correct, just that if I'd been running a university, these things would have occurred to me.

It may be more about fees, tbqh: I know a lot of unis are insisting that there will be some face-to-face teaching and that this justifies the full fee. It may also, from the point of view of the governments involved, be about protecting the private rented sector, which would have been in real trouble in many places without the student market. Rents would have cratered. (Not a bad thing, in fact long overdue in my view.)

Not sure it would have been easy to have just the number you needed in your halls staying. Presumably, if you tell people it is OK to attend from home you have to give a reason, which would be university life isn't really viable under Covid-19. And once you've admitted that you can't control how many would turn up and the halls would be empty. 

Rents and fees were likely considerations too, good point.