AllisonAdler

Very vexing!

Ha! It was a Dulwich mummy who parked for nearly three hours, who has blocked our drive before, and pretended not to have noticed that she’d parked across the drive. Really!

As someone who would never even think to park across someone else's drive, I find it very trying that this person has not only done so, but is nowhere to be found, is out of earshot, and after over thirty minutes, still has not moved!! Very poor.

Wow, that's possibly a bit of a harsh attitude for those whose children either do or don't eat depending on whether or not they have 'a few extra quid' in their pockets. This is the biggest problem with areas of privilege like Dulwich--affluent inhabitants vote for councillors who share their 'progressive' views, and then said councillors feel entitled to impose all kinds of legislation on their constituencies without any real thought for those who are less well off, less prone to feelings of entitlement, and who are generally disregarded by ruling élites. I speak as someone who is indeed incredibly fortunate, a lifelong progressive, and a passionate advocate of caring for our environment, but I am massively dismayed by the blithe authoritarianism of those who purport to share my values.

Also SMBS on Lordship Lane--really good

We had Daniel and team over to put in new flooring, to board our entire loft, and to rebuild our front steps and walkways. A great job all together, and Daniel is always really helpful, imaginative, and responsive. Highly recommended! 07552504190

How utterly depressing. It's not really a suitable place for a care home facility, being on a major junction, and it's sad not to have the nice pub that once flourished there. Can't really get my head around the willingness to leave a hideously ugly eyesore in the middle of a really nice part of our neighbourhood (with the woods right across the road and the lovely church on the corner (albeit itself in need of some attention to the outbuildings). It would also be nice if Lewisham and Southwark got a grip on the rampant graffiti that seems suddenly to be everywhere. Gosh.

That's really good to hear, and thank you very much for letting us know! I hope you are recovering from what must be quite a traumatic experience.

Thank you for the update, James, but could you perhaps give us a little more information? The woman who was attacked said the perpetrator was a young man in his 20s or 30s, so the arrest of a woman in her 50s is not very reassuring. Many thanks for any further details you might be able to give. I walk down Wood Vale most days, but have been avoiding it entirely since the attacks were reported.

Second dose AZ about 48 hours ago. Very slight ache in arm yesterday and today, very slight fatigue yesterday evening. Otherwise fine, and rather milder effects than on first dose.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm guessing the CDC is saying that you can't > catch Covid from a dog that might have it. But > thinking of a dog as a collection of surfaces on > which the virus can rest you clearly can. You're > just catching Covid from a person via a dog, as > you might via a door handle. Physics, not biology. The science doesn't seem to support this (from WebMD based on studies published in the New England Jo of Medicine and The Lancet): Researchers have found that the coronavirus can stay alive on surfaces. A New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) study from April showed that the new coronavirus can survive on plastic and stainless steel for up to 3 days, and on cardboard for up to 1 day. Another study from China found that the virus can travel on the soles of shoes. But the results of studies like this one have led some people to exaggerate the risk of COVID-19 transmission, says Emanuel Goldman, PhD, a professor of microbiology, biochemistry, and molecular genetics at the New Jersey Medical School of Rutgers University. In a response published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases this past May, he wrote that the NEJM study used much higher concentrations of the virus than people would find in the real world. "In my opinion, the chance of transmission through inanimate surfaces is very small, and only in instances where an infected person coughs or sneezes on the surface, and someone else touches that surface soon after the cough or sneeze (within 1-2 hours)," Goldman wrote. Basically, it would take the perfect combination of events Blumberg described to get sick from touching something contaminated with the virus. Also, studies have only proved that the virus stays alive on surfaces -- not that you can catch it from touching those surfaces. "They don't prove that just because it can survive on a surface, it can be transmitted that way," Blumberg says. Backup from another study in The Lancet https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30678-2/fulltext) The press was all over this a bit ago, too, e.g.: https://www.itv.com/news/2020-10-06/chance-of-catching-covid-19-from-surfaces-less-than-previously-thought-scientists-claim

Sally Eva Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > AllisonAdler Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Just as a public service announcement, there is > > absolutely no evidence that dogs can carry > COVID > > on fur. > > The Kennel Club accepts that dogs can carry Covid > on their fur -- just like any other surface > really > > https://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/health-and-dog-ca > re/health/health-and-care/a-z-of-health-and-care-i > ssues/coronavirus/ > > "There have been a very small number of reports of > dogs testing positive for the novel coronavirus > following contact with infected humans. However, > those animals didn?t show signs of the disease and > it is believed they tested positive due to > breathing in contaminated air from infected humans > or carrying the disease on their fur. > > As with any surface, if someone with Covid-19 > touches, sneezes or coughs on a dog, the virus > could temporarily contaminate them. Although we > don?t know how long Covid-19 can survive on > surfaces, scientists think that it could range > from a few hours to several days, depending on the > type of surface, how warm it is and levels of > humidity." Not according to the CDC, which is probably more authoritative: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/pets.html Interestingly, they do suggest keeping pets away from others entirely to prevent pets from contracting Covid from humans.

Just as a public service announcement, there is absolutely no evidence that dogs can carry COVID on fur.

The problem with Penguin68's argument (and I usually agree with you on other things, Penguin), is that people do have dogs, and they owe them a duty of care in exactly the same way that we owe or fellow humans a duty of care. I don't think it's right to prioritise one creature over another, to be perfectly honest, and I think the human presumption that we are somehow more important is a fairly big reason for the world's being in the troubled state that it is (environmentally especially). There is no Covid risk to humans from dogs, so there isn't any need for conflict on that score. It is indeed the case that dogs have evolved with humans, thousands of years before the advent of selective breeding, to participate in human domesticity. There is a lot of scientific material out there about it if anyone cares to look. Anyway, one of my dogs is always on a lead in the park because she doesn't have great recall (even though she loves people, never jumps up on them, and is very gentle). She's not hugely keen on running around (indolence on her part), but she's allowed to in the woods if she likes. My other one has excellent recall (and is also friendly), but I have had her on lead a bit more in the park where there are crowds just to avoid causing distress. She does really need time off lead, though, and it wouldn't be right to have her on all the time, whatever is happening in our world. I think KidKruger is exactly right in this instance.

Thank you, Brian, and for all the brilliant work LWT do. And indeed, if there is any help needed, there are many of us (me included) who would be more than happy to provide assistance.

Many of us contacted LWT, Southwark Council, and some of our local councillors immediately. Just saw this kind response from Andy Simmons on Twitter: Replying to @SaveOaks @wildlondon_SHW and 5 others Thanks for flagging this up. Council officers report this was not the action of the council or its? contractors and is being re-opened. Lots of problems with illegal events in recent days in the area so both the police and LWT have been notified.

I really don't think it's the Council--apparently the Wood Crescent gate has also been padlocked, which has nothing to do with the current Council plans. It also wouldn't have anything to do with NYE revellers as it was all locked on the morning of 2 January, not before (I'm there everyday). I think it's rogue action as we had at the kissing gate in March, so, anyone with lock cutters might want to sally forth and help us all out (or in).

I find it baffling that people take issue with my saying that those of us who normally walk through Cox's Walk to avoid the South Circular will be exposed to quite a bit more to pollution while it is closed off.

The Mayor's Office has decided to extend the ULEZ Zone because the South Circular is so polluted (lots of studies around and about online talking about that), and the same road has been found to be so polluted that it contributed to a young girl's death: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-55352247 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/16/girls-death-contributed-to-by-air-pollution-coroner-rules-in-landmark-case You only have to cross it briefly for most of the routes I would normally take, but with the bridge closure, I've been spending quite a lot of time everyday on it, and will have to spend even more now with the closure at the bottom. There is slightly less traffic, but really only slightly less. I can say with certainty that the pollution levels are still so high that it's actually quite uncomfortable to take in the air along it (goodness knows what it's doing to one's lungs).

Please could you have the bottom of Cox's Walk reopened asap?

Is locked at the bottom. Since work can't begin on the bridge until sometime after 10 January, this seems rather ill-advised. People are being forced to walk along the most polluted road in all of London. Cox's Walk is also the only lighted, safe, wooded area to walk on dark winter afternoons, so shutting it is very unfortunate indeed, especially in these times.

I've been going to William Rose for the past seven years, and think they are lovely, friendly, and that their meats and game are better than any of the other butchers in the area by quite a stretch. Hope everyone there is alright.

I completely agree about keeping dogs on leads in the areas of the cemetery that are in current use. The Southwark Park info, however, that is quoted above is out of date and there is no current restriction on entering wooded areas. The newest signs, though, suggest that dogs are meant to be on lead in the old parts as well, so I've erred on the side of caution and kept mine on even in the disused bits. No one else has, but...

Jenny did an absolutely wonderful set of bouquets for our wedding yesterday, and at very short notice! We highly recommend her!

When did it close?! It's still showing as open on the Sainsbury's website...