We are trialing a dedicated East Dulwich COVID-19 Area on the forum here - please keep it useful.

Forum Sponsors

www.dulwichcarpetcompany.co.uk

www.takeflightacademy.co.uk

www.fabbeautelondon.com

Advertise here

The East Dulwich Forum
Which pubs, bars, restaurants and take-aways do you avoid?
messageSocial distancing /self isolation rules
Posted by AylwardS September 08, 11:35AM

This may be a waste of time but I thought this article might be of interest to some


[www.bbc.co.uk]

Given the changing advice and now schools and universities are back Iím waiting for pubs to be closed or other measures from lockdown reintroduced. I hope Iím wrong but the government action so far hasnít filled me with confidence.

It makes sense the more restrictions are lifted the more people we meet and the opportunities for transmission increase.

We all need to do what we can so we donít go back to lockdown. Worryingly the average age for reported cases has gone down. If you are younger you might not get too ill but you could pass it to someone who isnít as resilient as you.

Itís been said those worried should stay home and let the younger generation go out if they want. I think the figures by age group show that was what was happening but cases have still risen and there are now more than 10 times as many cases in the 20-29 age group as in the 70-79 age group. In certain places you tend to come into contact mainly with your age group but at some point you come into contact with other age groups.

The virus doesnít respect age groups so we all need to work together to manage the spread so we can have something like a normal life.

messageRe: Social distancing /self isolation rules
Posted by seenbeen September 08, 02:45PM

Letting the young do what they want is fraught with problems
1) Many of them are symptomless but contagious
2) They will carry on as normal and congregate in crowds etc ( which many have been doing anyway)
3) They will pass the virus on to other young or other people who will go home to older parents or grandparents or sick people.

People need to go to work. People need to go to school. A hard core of people - as witnessed at the Piers Corbyn rally etc. will do just as they like- regardless of what the government and its scientific advisers prescribe.

The virus is going to mutate if it hasn't already done so- then we are back to square one.
Also young people are not going to read the EDF- they are out doing what they want.

messageRe: Social distancing /self isolation rules
Posted by Penguin68 September 09, 08:29AM

The virus is going to mutate if it hasn't already done so- then we are back to square one.

It is not in the virus' best interest to kill its host - so many viruses mutate to become less lethal (as syphilis did, originally a killer over a few days it changed to something which offered its hosts a much longer life).

So a mutating virus isn't necessarily a bad thing. Actually, the version which is asymptomatic to its host is ideal, in terms of spread and ubiquity.

It is also worth noting that it is most unlikely that this virus will ever be wholly eradicated - its close cousins, those coronaviruses which carry the common cold, certainly haven't. Covid-20 may already be out there, and Covid-21 and Covid-22 lurking to make their New Year appearances.

It may be up to the old and vulnerable to protect themselves from the young - stressing to those in multi-generational households the risks they present and even (where they can) social distancing from them. Despite 'bolshie teenager' images I believe the young will respond better to 'encouragement' from within their own families than heavy handed government moralising, sloganising or police enforcement.

messageRe: Social distancing /self isolation rules
Posted by seenbeen September 09, 06:56PM

Penguin68 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The virus is going to mutate if it hasn't already
> done so- then we are back to square one.
>
> It is not in the virus' best interest to kill its
> host - so many viruses mutate to become less
> lethal (as syphilis did, originally a killer over
> a few days it changed to something which offered
> its hosts a much longer life).
>
> So a mutating virus isn't necessarily a bad thing.
> Actually, the version which is asymptomatic to its
> host is ideal, in terms of spread and ubiquity.
>
> It is also worth noting that it is most unlikely
> that this virus will ever be wholly eradicated -
> its close cousins, those coronaviruses which carry
> the common cold, certainly haven't. Covid-20 may
> already be out there, and Covid-21 and Covid-22
> lurking to make their New Year appearances.
>
> It may be up to the old and vulnerable to protect
> themselves from the young - stressing to those in
> multi-generational households the risks they
> present and even (where they can) social
> distancing from them. Despite 'bolshie teenager'
> images I believe the young will respond better to
> 'encouragement' from within their own families
> than heavy handed government moralising,
> sloganising or police enforcement.

Syphilis is a bacterium (not a virus) and only the less virulent strains got passed on because people infected with the virulent strains were covered in sores, they smelled, and they were physically disabled....hardly attractive to sexual partners.
Most virus (any virus) carriers and spreaders are infectious before they know they are sick anyway so everyone needs to take precautions.
I was in a large shopping centre today- signs up everywhere to wear a mask or face covering and about 30% were NOT wearing them or had them on under the chinquestion mark or not covering the nose. The vast majority were under 35 as myself and my companions noted.

messageRe: Social distancing /self isolation rules
Posted by Blah Blah September 12, 02:20AM

Seenbeen is quite right. Syphilis is not a good comparison. Even comparison to the common cold is a poor analogy because that is caused by a human rhinovirus (HRV) which is not a coronavirus.

You are absolutely right about complacency leading to a rise in infection rates and there is no way of protecting older people simply by telling them not to mix with younger people. Firstly, many won't do that, but also, if infection rates rise enough, the virus will be transmitted on door handles, from the postman, delivery drivers, and a multitude of other ways that do not require close human contact. This is something we all have to do together, as a society. Making the world a no-go for older people, just so that younger people can do as they please is not the answer.

messageRe: Social distancing /self isolation rules
Posted by JohnL September 13, 01:56PM

Penguin68 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The virus is going to mutate if it hasn't already
> done so- then we are back to square one.
>
> It is not in the virus' best interest to kill its
> host - so many viruses mutate to become less
> lethal (as syphilis did, originally a killer over
> a few days it changed to something which offered
> its hosts a much longer life).
>

Surely that's because ill people stay in or don't have sex if they're ill and look ill BUT with COVID-19 we have a long period of activity when people are infectious with this and still go out and don't change behaviour.

Even more worrying it seems to go to some animals and back again. I've no idea what that could lead to but no chances being taken in this tale of mink (all slaughtered)

[news.sky.com]

messageRe: Social distancing /self isolation rules
Posted by Blah Blah September 13, 03:25PM

It is indeed the longish incubation period that is the problem. And that is the idea behind track and trace, to mitigate that when someone presents with symptoms. But that track and trace system has to be comprehensive to work. You can't be half hearted about it, and everyone has to comply. At present, about a quarter of people don't or won't.

messageRe: Social distancing /self isolation rules
Posted by Peckhampam September 13, 03:28PM

or can't be traced

messageRe: Social distancing /self isolation rules
Posted by JohnL September 21, 01:11PM

Listening to the CMO and CSO today it seems immunity doesn't last that long and that's the received wisdom now. I get the feeling they were talking about immunity from infection lasting less than a year.

Bad news as without a vaccine we can get Covid again and again.

Good news at present is that treatment appears to be improving.

messageRe: Social distancing /self isolation rules
Posted by Blah Blah September 21, 02:51PM

It is a mixed picture at the moment. Immunity appears to significantly drop off after a few months. But we have this with influenza and rhinoviruses, so this is not an unprecedented scenario. We have just become used to having vaccines for everything that was an epidemic problem until the recent past.

The good news is that so much more is understood than six months ago. The two antiviral drugs that seem to have a significant impact are reducing deaths by 20-40 percent and there are better processes for managing ICU patients.

BUT an here is the but, there are aspects to this virus that are particularly challenging for management. The long incubation period for example. Influenza shows symptoms with 2-3 days of infection by comparison. Another area of ongoing research is the damage done in those who recover. People who have genuine flu or pneumonia and recover, often struggle with things like ongoing fatigue for months afterwards as it takes much longer for the body to repair the damage done after the immune system defeats the virus. Covid is looking to behave in the same way, but covid attacks more than just the respiratory system because those ACE2 receptors are everywhere. So there is still a lot to be understood, that will take time to understand, and this can have other consequences for longer term public health resources.

At some point though, we have to learn to live with it. And this is where the difficult decisions for government lie. As individuals however, we can do a lot of things for ourselves, to stay healthy and minimise the risks of infection.

messageRe: Social distancing /self isolation rules
Posted by AylwardS September 22, 10:23AM

As blah blah said we, as individuals, can do things to protect ourselves.

After the threat level increased from 3-4 yesterday Iíve decided to wear a mask any time Iím outside. Donít know about anyone else but as level 5 would mean going back to lockdown anything I can do to help avoid that seems a no brainer.

Things could have been clearer along the way but I think its now clear that washing hands, covering your face, social distancing and limiting the number of people you come into contact with reduce opportunities for the virus to transmit. Maybe action could have been taken by the government sooner but there is nothing to stop us, as individuals, doing something before they say or more than they say. The sooner the majority do the sooner weíll be able to go back to a more normal life as the virus growth rate will meet their measures whether you think they are right or wrong.

The increased penalties the government is introducing show theyíve recognised this will not go away if left to unenforceable guidance.

To those who say we should be able to do what we want that will happen sooner the more people who take action. Look at the bigger picture.

messageRe: Social distancing /self isolation rules
Posted by JohnL September 22, 12:59PM

Most frightening thing today - at least 6 months (remember he said 3 weeks back in march)

Pub curfew at 10pm - if everywhere had closed at 12 pm over the summer we wouldn't have to see this - too many places staying open until 4am still (I don't know how as clubs aren't open).

Masks more compulsory but not compulsory

Masks in taxis and masks compulsory for pub and restaurant staff.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was september 22, 01:00pm by JohnL.

messageRe: Social distancing /self isolation rules
Posted by DulwichFox September 22, 01:41PM

Pubs and restaurants:-

Customers will need to wear masks whilst being seated or visiting the loo.
£100 fine for not wearing one.. (First Offence)

Masks not needed when seated.

New regulations issued by the government say fines of £1,000 can be issued if tables are not 2 metres apart, or 1 metre if other measures such as protective screens are in place.

[www.theguardian.com]

DulwichFox



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was september 22, 06:05pm by DulwichFox.

messageRe: Social distancing /self isolation rules
Posted by JohnL September 22, 06:27PM

Thanks DF

It's still not really a pub if you can't wander around with your drink.

But not sure if I can continue to stay away for the rest of the year (and beyond). I'm beginning to have vivid dreams smiling smiley

messageRe: Social distancing /self isolation rules
Posted by n dulwich northerner September 22, 07:15PM

JohnL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's still not really a pub if you can't wander
> around with your drink.

Yes, and being shown to a table in the Half Moon and then waiting for my pint made me quite sad for that reason. Nothing against them, and I've no problem giving my contact details, but I've not been back since. The Prince Regent's bar has a plastic barrier so you can get your pint and sit down outside, but for how long now?

messageRe: Social distancing /self isolation rules
Posted by Blah Blah September 23, 01:20AM

The key as always is going to be enforcement. I cycled home along Rye Lane a few nights ago and could see at least three restaurants not observing either the distancing or the capacity rules. Who is going to police that stuff? The same is true of mask wearing. Half the passengers on the buses aren't wearing one, or are not wearing it correctly. Until someone is responsible for enforcing these things, they will all fail to prevent the inevitable Winter spike.


Back to top of page
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Donate                   Terms of use                  Help & FAQs                   Advertise               RSS rss feed               Copyright 2006 - 2018 East Dulwich Forum