|
ZurdoDev wrote: dating is now illegal
No, nothing's changed since the start of lockdown there. You must maintain social distancing with people outside of your household. Not hard to understand, not inconsistent. What's changed is that you can now meet up to 5 others from outside your househould in an outdoor setting. As for on-site support, that's always been allowed if it's classified as "essential" - so just as plumbers have been allowed into your home to fix your pipework, an IT tech can come in to fix your network - so long as you stay 6' apart.
In reality, people are increasingly ignoring social distancing, wherever it may be. Increasingly large groups are gathering for parties, demonstrations and relaxation. The beaches are full because there's nowhere else to go. Bizarrely, your kids can now go back to school and mix indoors with a dozen or more households but their friends cannot come home with them. I can travel 150 miles to the beach for the day, but I can't visit my second home there to check its security.
There are some anomalies but as things relax here they will get ironed out. Unless the ignoring of social distancing results in a significant increase in cases, which I fear it will, and a further lockdown is imposed. The biggest problem as I see it is that the "wash your hands" message has got totally drowned out in arguments about which political "celeb" went to see who and why.
Anyway, have you never heard of e-dating? 
|
|
|
|
|
DerekT-P wrote: nothing's changed since the start of lockdown there.
Legally, yes it has. It was just passed on Monday. No indoors groups of 2 or more (so groups basically) unless they are from the same household. That is new.
DerekT-P wrote: results in a significant increase in cases, which I fear it will,
I doubt it. We've had large gatherings in places and the numbers have not gone up significantly. I think most people were likely already exposed to this virus before lock downs even happened. History will laugh at us.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
It all down to R-Naught: if it's less than 1, there won't be another spike. If it's greater than 1, there will. People getting together in groups will increase R-Naught becuase one person with it - but displaying no symptoms (or deliberatly ignoring the symptoms they do have) - can infect many very easily. This thing is ridiculously easy to catch!
History will not laugh at us: it will shake it's head and sadly say "Why did they let so many people die when they could have done something?"
The world wide estimated death count is 383,109, but that's a very low estimate: the UK for example has 60,000 Excess Deaths (the number of deaths above what is expected during the same time period in a "normal year") compared to an "official figure" of 40,000 COVID related deaths. And in a "normal year" many, many people die of car- and work- related accidents which just haven;t been happening during lockdown, so that's probably higher as well ...
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: This thing is ridiculously easy to catch!
Not from my experience. We're out in public every single day and never worn a mask. In fact, 66% of Hospitalizations Statewide Are People Staying Home[^]
OriginalGriff wrote: but that's a very low estimate:
Actually, it's a very high estimate. Nearly every day there is a new report of how cases are not being counted correctly. Just one example, Washington health officials: Gunshot victims counted as COVID-19 deaths[^]
The counts are being intentionally inflated to get funding and to make people believe this is worse than it really is. Especially since the numbers are magnitudes less than what they were supposed to be.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
ZurdoDev wrote: Actually, it's a very high estimate. Nearly every day there is a new report of how cases are not being counted correctly. Just one example, Washington health officials: Gunshot victims counted as COVID-19 deaths[^]
As I understood OriginalGriff, he did not at all refer to classification of deaths as Covid-related or not, but the total number of deaths, regardless of cause. If a country experiences a million deaths a year (that's within the right magnitude for GB), a figure that has been stable for many years, but when 2020 comes to an end, 1.1 million people have died, you look around to find an explanation of it.
It could be a dramatic increase in traffic deaths, or people drowning, or from the seasonal flu. But fact is that for some of these "classical" (and reliably logged) death causes, the figures have been significantly lower, due to less road traffic, less boating activity, and social distancing reducing even the annal flu.
If GB after five months have 60,000 more deaths than in the first five months of earlier years, and ascribe 40,000 of those to Covid-19, then we should search for the special circumstances causing the remaining 20,000 "extra" deaths. (Pluss some more, if GB, like many other countries, have seen a marked reduction in certain other kinds of deaths.) If it is true that the 40,000 figure is "intentionally inflated", a "correct" value would give you even more unexplained excess deaths that must be caused by something else. Or claim that the next few years, we must be prepared for 10% higher death counts as being the norm, even after the corona virus has been killed off.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I understood what he was saying. My point is the actual numbers are not right, they are too high. And once you start trying to fill in the blanks, you're just guessing, which is a different topic.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
The additional deaths are not limited to those directly killed by coronavirus. For example, do you believe that the stress caused by job loss and bankruptcies, or neglect of one's health caused by fear of going to the doctor or the hospital, have had no effect on the death rate?
I suspect that the number of deaths caused by side-effects of the measures taken to stop the plague may actually be higher than the number of deaths directly attributable to the coronavirus. For that matter, some of these deaths have yet to occur (for example, the NHS's budget will be cut because the UK's economy cannot support the current budget, leading to further deaths).
It may yet turn out that we destroyed the economy in order to save it. 
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
As OriginalGriff points out: The effect of covid-19 is most clearly seen by counting the total death count in a year with covid-19, compared to the death count another year without covid-19.
Some of the excess may of course have other causes, and it is up to whoever is digging up the figures to justify the splitting of excess deaths into covid-19 caused and other-exceptional-conditions caused ones.
If you feel comfortable with tunnel vision, you could limit yourself to a few specific death causes, observing e.g. that when covid-19 was raging, there were significantly fewer deaths on the road. So if we want to reduce traffic deaths, promotong covid-19 for all it is worth might be a great strategy. Or you could point out that in Sweden, covid-19 has reduced the number of elderly people in constant need of care by a few thousand - the overall health of elderly people has improved significantly. It is the same old "lies, damned lies, and then, statistics" all over.
By looking at the totality, you are less subject to statistical manipulations.
|
|
|
|
|
ZurdoDev wrote: That is new
No, it's been like that since the start.
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: No, it's been like that since the start.
Not according to the state media, Coronavirus: New laws come into force as England lockdown eases - BBC News[^]
June 1, Quote: It is now a crime to stay at someone else's home overnight, or to hold gatherings of two or more people indoors or more than six people outdoors, under new legislation.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
That's just them paraphrasing, the updates are actually making things less restrictive rather than more. The legislation used to say that you were not allowed to be somewhere you didn't live, the updates now say you can't stay overnight. Similarly the legislation used to say that no outdoor meetings were allowed (apart from same household), that has been amended to no more than six and they added that no social gatherings were allowed in private, but that was the case anyway. They had to add that because now you are allowed to be somewhere else, just not overnight, so they tightened up the bit about social gatherings in private as that scenario was previously covered in the bit that they changed to "overnight".
So before;
Can't be anywhere you don't live (so you can't have a social gathering at someone else's house)
after;
Can't stay overnight where you don't live (so now you *can* socialise at someone else's house if you don't stay overnight?)
Nope, can't have a social gathering in private at all
|
|
|
|
|
Remember that media is reliable and trustworthy when they report something that you like and agree with.
If ZurdoDev got this through media, I am sure they are of the reiliable class.
|
|
|
|
|
ZurdoDev wrote: Legally, yes it has. It was just passed on Monday. No indoors groups of 2 or more (so groups basically) unless they are from the same household. That is new.
That was actually an easing of the rules. Until Monday, there was no 'cross-household' contact allowed.
ZurdoDev wrote: I doubt it. We've had large gatherings in places and the numbers have not gone up significantly. I think most people were likely already exposed to this virus before lock downs even happened. History will laugh at us.
I think you should wait a couple of weeks (which is how long it takes for an increase to be evident), before declaring an "all clear".
Right now, I'm planning on sitting it out. Just because some people (Cummings, etc.) have been stupid, doesn't mean the rest of us should be. Although the media seems to believe that Dom taking a trip to Durham, is going to convince everyone in the country to start partying!
|
|
|
|
|
5teveH wrote: That was actually an easing of the rules.
 
5teveH wrote: I think you should wait a couple of weeks (which is how long it takes for an increase to be evident), before declaring an "all clear".
Obviously. But I wasn't calling "all clear." And we've had large group gatherings going back over a month and still no increase in numbers.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
5teveH wrote: That was actually an easing of the rules.
Not according to BBC,
Coronavirus: New laws come into force as England lockdown eases - BBC News[^]
Quote: It is now a crime to stay at someone else's home overnight, or to hold gatherings of two or more people indoors or more than six people outdoors, under new legislation.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, you are right, it was made legally enforceable on Monday - as opposed to just being 'lockdown rule/guidance'. But the rules/guidance was at the same time eased a little.
So we are now under more relaxed rules/guidance, but they are now Law.
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
5teveH wrote: That was actually an easing of the rules.
Just to be clear: from Monday you were allowed to go through someone's home to access the back garden, use the toilet, wash your hands, etc. Not to gather.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: The Windows 10 May 2020 Update is on its way. We’re offering this update to compatible devices, but your device isn’t quite ready for it. Once your device is ready, you’ll see the update available on this page. There’s nothing you need to do at this time.
Hitting 'Learn more...':
Quote: Windows 10, version 2004 is available for users with devices running Windows 10, versions 1903 and 1909 who manually seek to “Check for updates” via Windows Update.
And I have 1909 and did "Check for updates"
It is a Catch 22 game?
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Not Catch-22. You need to upgrade your disk to 2TB.
|
|
|
|
|
Even I have over 800 GB free on the current one?
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
|
Same here, on two different computers. I'm waiting to see whether my brand-new work computer that's supposed to be arriving within the next week or so gets the same message. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Reading about it around, it is not our computer, but problems with the update (10 of them) that made MS to hold back the update for computers didn't do it automatically...
Only instead to state that they gone mysterious...
It remember me the old - communist Hungary era - TV screen, stating that the 'Problem is with your receiver' - even it was able to receive that screen without any problem...
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: It remember me the old ... TV screen, stating that the 'Problem is with your receiver' - even it was able to receive that screen without any problem...
Quote: There is nothing wrong with your television. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are now controlling the transmission. We control the horizontal, and the vertical. We can deluge you with a thousand channels, or expand one single image to crystal clarity... and beyond. We can shape your vision to anything our imagination can conceive.
 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
