Blah Blah

That isn't just a problem during the pandemic John but a problem at the best of times as you would probably agree. There is a lack or resources for combating isolation and loneliness, especially in age groups outside of the elderly and much of what does exist, like buddy schemes, are led by volunteers. Southwark does have various schemes for helping those isolating during this pandemic but they do not have enough people and reources to cope with demand, so switched to only tracking those who are elderly/ vulnerable and/or self isolating some time ago. I would argue that much more could be done to help people socialise, even if that is only online, or via phone, at this time, that isn't being done. There is an assumption that everyone has family, or friends, or neighbours, they can connect with and just a distinct lack of understanding of how isolation comes about and how interconnected that is with mental wellbeing and the ability to connect with others. And the longer this pandemic goes on, the more this is going to need to be addressed imo.

Admittedly, we are trying to get all our xmas shopping done before Thursday (from the shops that will have to close for lockdown), in case the lockdown goes into December.

A higher than average turnout is always bad for the Republicans.

The 1 in 20 figure comes from a range of western countries with equitable health resources. But even 1 in 40 would be too high. This is why I expressly ask how many have to die before that is too many? It is all very well criticising restrictions, lockdowns etc, but the one thing detractors never address is the inevitable rise in infections and death when restrictions are relaxed, and when enough people will not comply with known methods of mitigation. All mortality figures are based from known cases and deaths. They are then adjusted for estimations of wider infection. This is as true for flu as it is for covid. The main difference between flu and covid however, is that flu symptoms appear 2-3 days after contracting the virus, whereas with covid it can be up to 14 days. THIS is what makes it a much harder virus to track. The other big unknown at this stage is the impact and rate of reinfection. Data on that front is likely to emerge over the Winter. Most epidemiologists are pretty pragmatic about the challenge of epidemics, because they understand that viruses, like bacteria, will sadly kill some people. That is just a fact of life. Politicians however, have other considerations, because they are elected and want to be re-elected. Providing health care that prevents death where it can, is part of that contract they have with the public. Doctors and nurses depend on those politicians to provide the resources they need to prevent as much death as possible. In reality, none of this is an easy debate to have. We all know that people are dying, just as we can all see the livelihoods being destroyed around us too. If we argue that we should let the virus run its course and take the death figures 'on the chin', that is insensitive to all those people who have lost parents, partners and loved ones, often unable to say goodbye or have the funeral they would have wanted to have. Their pain is real. Similarly, locking everything down, without regard to how people will survive in other ways, financially and mentally, is insensitive to all those people who are going to have to rebuild their lives when and if this is ever all over. None of if is easy to balance, and I suspect the world is going to have to change, starting by changing the fractional reserve banking system we use and cancelling a lot of debt. But that is another debate for another time.

They seem to be still striving for a deal though, so I'm not convinced they really are prepared to go no deal on Brexit. They backed themselves into a corner on both Brexit and the Pandemic, by promising things that can not be delivered. It is their mess to sort, but it won't be them who pay for it sadly.

0.3 per cent is still 30 times the mortality rate of Influenza A, and if half those over 70 years of age contract the virus (there are 9 million of those people in the UK), there could be as many as 400,000+ deaths, as current stats show that 1 in 20 in that age group die if they contract the virus. That is the reality of a highly infectious virus that has no vaccine. These are not unfounded projections, They are based on the real data that we now have. How many would have to die in your mind before you begin to understand the risks?

The point still remains though that where people comply with the social distancing, mask wearing and hand washing, infection rates are mitigated. The mistake the government made was in underestimating the extent to which people would comply when pubs opened for example, and protests restarted, and households were allowed to mix again etc. Now they are learning the hard way. Today at 4pm Boris will once again address the nation with an announcement of a national lockdown, starting at some point next week, and lasting for all of November probably, with only schools, essential shops and essential workplaces remaining open. The failure to get a working track and trace system going, with a high rate of compliance is also a failure. Instead, government ministers and advisors have ignored the rules they set, and got away with it, and they have failed to enforce the rules they set elsewhere. Meanwhile, bonkers conspiracy theories have taken hold and little has been done to mitigate that either. All entirely predictable.

Press conference from Boris at 4pm today. National Tier 3 lockdown or higher to be announced from either midweek or the end of the week, for probably the whole of November.

Corbyn has never won a Nobel peace prize, but Alfred Nobel himself was prone to a bit of antisemitism ;)

China is the other end of the spectrum. What do you say about all the countries in between where people are better at doing as asked Penguin? Nothing to say about that?

Bunnybarrow, you like so many are missing the point here. It was Corbyn's response to the report that has got him into trouble. He could have shown contrition, he didn't. He could have addressed the findings on unlawful activity, he didn't. Instead he doubled down, with the typical mantra that has defined the harder left, that it is always someone else's fault. Do I think he will or should be expelled? No, and I don't think the rules even say he should be. His suspension is about sending a message to the electorate, that the leadership who lost Labour the last election so badly, is not going to be allowed to repeat the exercise next time round. Who cares where the membership stand, or what Len says from his NEC throne? It is the electorate that matters and if Corbyn had paid more attention to that instead of pandering to harder left niche ideals, he may not be sitting where he is now.

Plough Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > He is only exercising his right to free speech. > Y'all don't have to gang up on him every time he > posts on the forum. And he doesn't have to lace every comment he makes with an underbelly of bigotry. It is a public forum, and if you want to play the FoS card, others have FoS to call him out every time he posts his in predictable tone.

If you can't see the derogatory and inflammatory elements in his comments Plough Man then you are as bad as he is.

Wow indeed.....Uncle just sank to a whole new level.

Yes, it is the lack of contrition that is the problem with his comments. Is that a suspending offence? Not sure it is. We shall see how it plays out but there are times where it feels as though Jeremy hasn't quite returned to the backbenches yet in his mind. He seems more willing to give interviews than he did when he was leader too.

Those racks look pretty good Malumbu. I can see lots of businesses installing those.

That may well be explained by people being able to work from home vs those who have to go to work. Being able to avoid public transport etc. Useful link though.

It is not a mindset to not want to put oneself at risk (whether the risk is real or imagined). It is common sense. No-one wants to be a victim of crime (there have been 41 street robberies in Peckham so far this year, 3 of which were in the vicinity of the canal walk). If you won't engage with the reasons why some people choose not to or can't cycle, then you are not going to create the conditions that may persuade them to do so. Anecdotal examples are just that, anecdotal. The fact is that we need all types of transport in London for all the reasons I alluded to above. I do most journeys by bicyle, but not when the weather is bad. Nor when my destination is too far away. And nor when I am going out to an occasion that means dressing smart, or doing something as a family. For all of those reasons, around 40 per cent of the journeys I personally make, can not be made by bicycle. The things that have made my journeys as a cyclist better though, are dedicated cycle lanes, the cycle boxes at the head of junctions, the cycle hire scheme (which really should be extended throughout all of London imo), integrated cycle routes and better cycle parking in well lit areas. I would also add that events like the annual London Freeride (cancelled this year because of covid) are also excellent ways to encourage people to try cycling in a fun way. So maybe more of those. Cycling takes effort, and it isn't always fun. Before people can get to cycling, they need to get on board with exercise. And that I think is another hurdle to increasing the uptake (but one that electric bicycles will mitigate once the price of them comes down).

And just to add that it is not just rain that makes cycling off putting, it is wind, cold, and sweating or getting oil on nice clothes, and nightime, because yes, a lot of people feel vulnerable at nightime. Be realistic malumbu. Cycling while an option for many people (some of whom do not currently cycle), is not an option for all occasions. So let's talk about integrated transport options instead, ones that reduce all the things we should be looking to reduce. Shaming people because they do not cycle is not one of them.

Weather is not an excuse, it is a reality. Safety is perhaps the best incentive to get people cycling but to pretend there is a limitless ceiling to this just isn't reality. London has seen an abundance of improvements for cycling over the past decades, from blue super highways to cycle boxes at the front of junctions. The cycle hire scheme has also been very successful. So we, as cyclists, can hardly say we are not being catered for. So where do I think focus should be? Well there are still many junctions that are still too tricky for a lot of cyclists and especially those who lack confidence or experience, so I think the focus should be on those, along with adding to cycle safe routes. None of that needs to happen by alienating other vehicles though. If we want a future where cycling becomes the choice of commuters, outside of times where motor vehicles or public transport is absolutely necessary, then it has to start with children. Children who are confident cyclists are probably more likely to be adult cyclists. Electric bicycles and motorbikes are coming though. Electric scooters are already here. It is with the arrival of motorised cycling that we might see a significant shift, but with that comes other challenges of course.

Passport to Pimlico comes to mind ;)

The health benefits may well be well known but we have seasons. Even hardened cyclists like myself do not like cycling in wind and rain and sometimes struggle to cycle in strong wind. Expecting a whole bunch of people to ditch their cars or public transport for that is just unreasonable. I challenge anyone to try arriving at work soaked through and see how their day goes. So, given that it is not practical nor reasonable for a lot of people to cycle, good transport management has to be about incentivising reasonable use of any mode of transport. It is never a binary thing, and I would argue that better investment in electric powered alternatives is probably the better way to go on this, if we want to reduce pollution. As for congestion, London is a city of 8 million people with another estimated 3 million people traveling in for work every day before the lockdown. All of our transport networks are limited by capacity (as anyone traveling at peak hours knows), so the problems are not as simple as saying everyone should ditch their cars and get on a bicycle. Infrastructure isn't keeping up.

That is so funny. But also not surprising. Trump is a narcissistic populist after all :D

Personally I think the design of masks is pretty poor Pugwash. A lot of people have different shaped and size ears, and faces too. As far as I can see, the masks on sale are a one size fits all design and I wonder if this has an impact on the levels of compliance too. Btw, I don't think anyone here is judging you for using a visor over a mask. It is quite clear that you fall into the exemption category and that you still try to do something to mitigate is to be praised. In fact, I think a lot of people with genuine exemption are using visors instead.

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A Dutch journalist got into his Twitter account by > guessing the password was MAGA2020... :) Really? lol