6 weeks in jail, mental

[Annoymouse]

18 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

What is unintelligent about going to the pub this weekend?

The risk of a second wave? All it takes is one person within a public venue such as a pub to be asymptomatic and the whole rollercoaster starts off again, good luck trying to do any contract tracing with a load of pissheads.

 

[Neil Down]

1 minute ago, Annoymouse said:

The risk of a second wave? All it takes is one person within a public venue such as a pub to be asymptomatic and the whole rollercoaster starts off again, good luck trying to do any contract tracing with a load of pissheads.

 

Is that why your mum couldn't find your dad...

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

50 minutes ago, Annoymouse said:

The risk of a second wave? All it takes is one person within a public venue such as a pub to be asymptomatic and the whole rollercoaster starts off again, good luck trying to do any contract tracing with a load of pissheads.

 

Totally delusional. 

[hissingsid]

Neil agree, Dogs Dangly agree.  I have used up all my comments apparently for today what a load of bollocks.

 

[cHarlie Grant]

How many comments are allowed on the forum daily?.

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

I think he meant likes etc.

[HeliX]

22 hours ago, Annoymouse said:

The risk of a second wave? All it takes is one person within a public venue such as a pub to be asymptomatic and the whole rollercoaster starts off again, good luck trying to do any contract tracing with a load of pissheads.

 

30 days with no new cases would imply either exceptionally few, or no asymptomatic cases.

[hissingsid]

I did mean likes, or dislikes 

[Roger Mexico]

4 hours ago, HeliX said:

30 days with no new cases would imply either exceptionally few, or no asymptomatic cases.

But the problem is you don't even need 'exceptionally few', you just need one.  There are plenty of cases where have been dozens infections known to be from a single person and in somewhere like a busy pub when a lot of those who might catch it could be those most likely to have no/few symptoms (ie the young), it's possible that the virus could continue to spread for a while without being noticed.

[HeliX]

Just now, Roger Mexico said:

But the problem is you don't even need 'exceptionally few', you just need one.  There are plenty of cases where have been dozens infections known to be from a single person and in somewhere like a busy pub when a lot of those who might catch it could be those most likely to have no/few symptoms (ie the young), it's possible that the virus could continue to spread for a while without being noticed.

I said "exceptionally few" for the same reason Dettol say "kills 99.9%". I strongly believe it's 0. If there was any spread you'd expect to have seen a symptomatic case somewhere in the last 30odd days. But we haven't.

[Neil Down]

Just now, HeliX said:

I said "exceptionally few" for the same reason Dettol say "kills 99.9%". I strongly believe it's 0. If there was any spread you'd expect to have seen a symptomatic case somewhere in the last 30odd days. But we haven't.

Not sure that's true. There is a possibility that somebody may have it and putting it down to cold/flu rather than calling 111 and go into 14 day quarantine

[HeliX]

2 minutes ago, Neil Down said:

Not sure that's true. There is a possibility that somebody may have it and putting it down to cold/flu rather than calling 111 and go into 14 day quarantine

Yes, maybe. But then you'd expect that they would have given it to someone else who may well have called 111. We've been several times longer than the incubation period without any new cases.

[TheTeapot]

4 minutes ago, HeliX said:

I said "exceptionally few" for the same reason Dettol say "kills 99.9%". I strongly believe it's 0. If there was any spread you'd expect to have seen a symptomatic case somewhere in the last 30odd days. But we haven't.

You're right, it's zero now.

I think the point Roger is making is that it only takes one of the people travelling over to ignore the rules and go to the pub for things to fire up again.

[HeliX]

3 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

You're right, it's zero now.

I think the point Roger is making is that it only takes one of the people travelling over to ignore the rules and go to the pub for things to fire up again.

It does. That's a small enough risk for me to be OK with going to less crowded (ideally with outside space) pubs though. I think we're in a spot where people can do their own risk assessments really.

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, HeliX said:

I said "exceptionally few" for the same reason Dettol say "kills 99.9%". I strongly believe it's 0. If there was any spread you'd expect to have seen a symptomatic case somewhere in the last 30odd days. But we haven't.

Well I certainly hope that is the case, but I'm worried by the comparatively low number of tests we've done.  If you compare us with somewhere like Malta who also have a similar island situation, they're currently getting around one or two new cases a day.  But they're doing many more tests a day and so have a chance of picking more up[1].

There's also the problem that stupid protocols about automatic isolation, as discussed, may discourage people from getting tested unless they are really ill.  So even the 50 tests or so we are doing per day may be concentrated on those who are less likely to be infected.  For example those needing urgent hospital admission may already be self-isolating.

Of course our lower (and less densely-living)  population would also help with eliminating the virus completely - assuming that that one of those Terribly Important People who have to be brought in without quarantine doesn't start the whole thing over again.

 

[1]  Of course once you do pick a case up, you're then likely to pick up more through contact tracing, so there's also a multiplier effect and it explains why you then get mini-spikes for particular days.