Spartacus

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Simplistic calculation: > > So if vaccine efficacy is 90% and we had a death > rate of 1700 at the last peak > > If cases go up to the last peak can we expect > about 170 per day at this peak ? Is it as simple as that ? With vaccination it breaks the chain of infection (but doesn't eliminate it) Reducing infection reduces the number of people who each infected person can also infect Vaccination assists in reducing the chance of serious hospital admissions and the need for ventilation So whilst there will be an uptick in deaths, I think the calculation of 170 above needs to be taken with caution but still a worrying number of people will die that shouldn't have. However nothing will be true if the next variant gets through anti bodies / vaccinations then we will be back at the start of the pandemic again 😱

WTF ? /forum/read.php?30,2218307

Whilst it may be genuine (the jury's still out in my head) it's unsolicited mail that many will push to their spam folder and with both parts of the security code being sent out to an email address that hasn't been verified as exclusive (not a shared inbox) or secure (password cracked or device infected) then there is a risk of data being breached. Maybe the council should have sent an email out in advance asking if you want to receive your form via email or post rather than the way they have done it.🤔

There's an interesting question over what's going to cause more resistance to following the rules. A politician having an affair or the images of sports people at events like the euros and Wimbledon hugging and shaking hands and the proximity of crowd members to each other? Basically both are as bad as each other and as seabag said people are getting mask fatigue. It's not being helped with infections going up and Javid saying that "there's a compelling argument for easing covid restrictions" and "we also need to be clear that cases are going to rise significantly" It's giving the green light to ignore restrictions now and it's going to end with more tears than Gazza during italia 90.

Tonight I received an email entitled "London Borough of Southwark ? Electoral Register Canvass 2021" From : [email protected] It contains "You must take action so we can check who is eligible to register to vote at your address. It only takes just a few minutes online. You cannot reply directly to this email. To check the details we hold for your household on the Electoral Register, please go to: https: //householdresponse.com/southwark On the login screen, please enter your unique security code: And contains what appears to be part 1 and part 2 of my security code. It looks genuine but coming out of the blue and with no information that I can find on southwarks website I am more than suspicious. Has anyone else received one and why in the days of phishing does stuff like this get emailed out with both parts of my security code. If it's real and intercepted then it allows someone to see my private data (make address, dob ...) Someone really hasn't thought this through.

I think BB did say it's not a holiday notimpressed It does lead to a mute point that those isolating and doing the test day 5 are having to travel to test centre , possibly by public transport or taxi, to do it. Kind of defeats the objective 😱

Otto No one is saying anything against (as you said) "This is not an argument in favour of the current LTNs but why would we not aim high on encouraging and facilitating active travel." It's horses for courses, some people rely on a car, others like to walk or cycle and the problem is the LTNs are like using an atom bomb to crack a walnut. The fallout is felt far and wide after. If active travel allowed fairer shared use of the road network by all (not excluding one group in favour of the other) then that is the way forward. But the council seems to want to paint cars as demon machines and banish them to the forbidden zone which is where the issue comes from. If only councils talked and listened to residents and businesses then a fairer scheme might just be implemented.

I bet the council would still find an excuse to put in traffic measures if George Jetson was around

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > This is just silly, and classic "pub bore knows > more than entire highway engineering and urban > planning professions" waffle. > Never a truer word spoken in jest Billy, never a truer word Most people who live and work in an area know more then highway engineers who possibly commute in from outside the borough. Remember highway engineers need to justify their role when new roads aren't being built so they seem to constantly tinker with existing roads to keep themselves busy. Maybe we should get rid of them all and just call in a consultant when new roads / estates are built. But that's my opinion and perception

Fishbiscuits, I think you are right about needing to wear masks for a lot longer. Although a lot of people who do bother to wear them where required seem to pay "lip service" to the concept by leaving their noses exposed or wearing the mask as a chin guard only. This includes on public transport and strangely when walking around in hospitals. The other weird thing is people who remove masks to talk loudly on their phone. It doesn't make a difference to the call quality but does spread droplets as they jabber away. They seem to forget that the mask isn't only there to protect them, but those around them too.

I wonder if there are mixed messages being presented by some businesses in their advertising. For example the new Tesco advert where the lady zooms around zapping prices with her club card, not a single person in the supermarket is wearing a mask which could normalise non compliance in some people's eyes. Whilst we hope not to need them soon, over the past year why haven't advertisers modified adverts to help reinforce the mask indoors rules ?

Bic The following link may help as there are plans afoot to add lifts for disabled people so the ability for them to actually get to the station is important https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/our-routes/kent/kent-and-south-east-london-railway-upgrade-plan/peckham-rye-station-redevelopment/ The comments about delivery lorries blocking the lane can easily be solved by moving the bus gate from Dulwich village to Rye Lane thus restricting when deliveries can happen but allowing buses access

Wow Legal Your counter argument has actually been useful in highlighting the solution It's not street closures or LTNs It's simply to relocate schools away from the area thus dumping traffic on other boroughs and driving away the parents who moved here to be within the catchment area further reducing car usage and congestion Of course it's all tongue in cheek but an interesting alternative to LTNs

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cycling is in the reach of most people (especially > with electric bikes). But it's scary cycling on > busy roads. If you're a 'normal' (non-lycra) > person, it's not appealing It's the Lycra cyclists that make it scary for normal cyclists 😱😂

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Rockets no comment on Spartacus comparing > Southwark Council to the Nazis though Your words not mine, as pointed out they are using children to try and drive their agenda, which history shows us has happened before. Not once did I actually compare them to or use the word you posted above so it's your perception here and trying to put words in my post. What I brought up is that it's a technique that's been used before, not always for good! Or are you actually supporting a one sided influence on our young to get them to complete a survey without bring given both sides of the argument ? I hope not as that makes you complicit of this sedition of young minds by turning a blind eye or condemning those who speak out about it.

Yes I did and I make no apologies for it. The council went beyond a point by ignoring views of locals, trying to push their agenda on young minds to influence a consultation that they know isn't going in their favour and pushing pollution and issues out onto other roads all whilst raking it in with ANPR cameras. Did I compare it to an ideology that's condemned, no I didn't all I did was pick out that one of the tactics being used by the council has been used in the past and based on influencing young minds to a cause or idea. In my mind the council using the young to get a decision they want is far worse then questioning if they are doing it. Engaging children needs to be done with a non biased agenda, has anyone been invited to talk to schools about the disadvantages of the current schemes? If not then it does smack of biased influencing and coercion to an ideal of the council. Take that how you will but the council started by underhand playing and if you are offended by it being called out but not do anything to make sure the consultation isn't unduly influenced or biased then we will obviously never see eye to eye.

That's worrying as it smacks of influencing young minds to be the councils voice. Last time I heard of this sort of behaviour was pre 1939 in Germany where school children were used to report non conformation to the party line ... Can't wait till the leader of the council publishes his book "My Fight"

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So who knew the Council had designed a special > consultation survey for schoolchildren? Please elaborate further

Just done the online survey As others have said, it's a bit like the council are leading a bull by a ring through its nose as it all seems very biased towards "rate how successful the scheme is" and if you disagree with any of the aims then it's off to the Fray Bentos pie factory for you (other brands of tinned meat pies are of course also available !) I can see why people are saying "return to the original state" I especially love the question about has the scheme "created a good trading environment for local businesses ?" 😱

Everything else aside, back to the original question raised When ?

Bet your bottom dollar that they are related to to high street recovery fund https://www.southwark.gov.uk/business/support-for-high-streets?chapter=2 Which if they are, means some bright spark has spent some of the money destined to help high streets improve , on banners ! Hopefully the funding will be used for something good and not more street art / wacky painting schemes.

Keep digging that hole Nigello \ / \ / \/ China's down this way

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, I agree tehre are few things to consider but > it is all about the greater good, don't you think? > I think preventing build up of traffic and an > increase in noxious fumes at a narrowed section of > the road trumps the occasional inconvenience to a > much smaller number of people. It's a truism, but > you really can't have it all. Also, is your > statement about elderly or disabled people based > on your own experience or that of a person you are > close to, or are you conjecturing how every such > person would think? I know a few disabled people > and they have a variety of views on many different > things and don't like to be seen as a unit. The > wheelchair user is also highly mobile and would > not balk at an extra two minutes' wheeling, so > that is a concrete example of someone who would > not be inconvenienced despite their body's > limitations. Personal experience using a wheelchair! With the closure of Rye Lane stopping me accessing the cinema there as buses no longer go up Rye Lane , and the closure of this bus stop I am no longer able to get to either of my local cinemas. Not wanting it all but I do want the same equal opportunity to see a film like you do and why should I and others be forced to "wheel" a bit further because you don't think it's an inconvenience? Frankly your statement about "the greater good" smacks off disability discrimination on your behalf.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think it is needed, to be honest. It is a > very narrow footpath and the next stop is really > not that far away. Faster journeys help everyone > so a little bit of inconvenience for the few will > help more - you know, community spirit, greater > good, etc. Similarly, the two stops very close > togetehr on Peckham Rye are an oddity. The stop allows disabled and elderly people to easily access the picture house. Whilst the stop outside the post office isn't far for an able bodied person, think how much of a challenge it is for someone in a wheelchair or with mobility issues. It could make the difference between staying home or going out to see a movie and being social for some Walk a few feet in their wheelchair tracks rather than make such a bold statement that it's a bit of inconvenience !!!

Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Now I feel old.... > > "Renew, Renew" Is this sanctuary Siduhe