Penguin68

and I'd say that all the cyclists I know would far prefer to be on tarmac and actively avoid grass. If you just mean people with bikes People with bikes aren't cyclists then? - who I assume are a special breed above. I do hope people with bikes don't get in your way when you are using your (obviously exclusive to you and fellow Lycra addicts) cycle lanes. If only they just called them people with bikes lanes they could have been democratised.

Either mad or a pest. I'm afraid this sort of situation will bring out the mavens. It doesn't help that some reports of intrusive police activity will get people thinking we are living with the Stasi and start acting as if we were. It is up to us to police ourselves, certainly, but not to police other people in this way. It's strange (and sad) that we get a story like this in amidst the very heartening ones of neighbours calling on each other to ask if help is needed and to offer it.

William rose, mons and moxtons all have a great queuing process. My ED butcher only allows one person in the shop at a time - the queue is maintained at about 6-10ft separation outside the shop. Glad the weather is improving.

As a previous poster mentioned, it would be helpful if walkers/those on the pavement also made an effort to move also! People who are running are, by definition, likely to be fit and relatively agile. Some people who are walking are not. They may be elderly (around me they may also be blind or partially sighted, as there is a home for such locally) - they may also find it difficult to make sudden or extreme movements. They are walkers, walking on pavements. But they still need, indeed you could argue they may be in more need, of exercise at a time when normal 'just walking about, shopping etc.' isn't such an option. We pavement walkers try to keep a distance from everyone, including even those we are walking with (walking in single file to present a narrower front). Runners pounding down the middle of suburban pavements (and some certainly do) are a selfish menace.

The government directive is about avoiding crowds, so cremations have to be attended by immediate family only, and ideally those sharing the household only. No attended services. No burials either, I think, except for Moslems and I think orthodox Jews for whom cremation is not religiously acceptable. This is about avoiding crowds at ceremonies. As most 'gardening' work in cemeteries can be undertaken (sorry) with full social distancing there is no reason to stop that, I would have thought. Our local cemeteries are all small parks, but with a surprising number of paths (to get to all the grave sites) and hence a lot of walking space to allow social distancing. Many more paths per area than in a 'normal' park, in fact. Closing them is all about social control - like the Derbyshire Police drones - and not actually about social distancing. It's quite a Stalinist approach - so no surprises there.

Penguin68 - I will look into this matter for you. Thank you

Please see the thread started by your fellow councillor Renata Hamvas on the (frankly, unprecedented and unjustified) closure of all cemeteries in Southwark. I would ask you and your fellow councillors to protest strongly to the Tooley St apparat on this, there is NO government requirement to close cemeteries (only crematoria to mass funerals) - the cemeteries locally offer alternative walking spaces to the parks, thus helping relieve and dangers of congestion and providing a vital outlet for those otherwise cooped up for 24 hours a day in social isolation. Additionally for those recently grieving it allows some opportunity to visit loved-ones - a very necessary psychological prop for some. Other boroughs are not following this wilful misinterpretation - we look to our elected representatives to fight our cause over this.

I walk with my wife but we tend to walk single file to allow easy passing - indeed we tend to walk about 10 ft apart as well, so that passers by can 'weave' through us. People will become more thoughtful I'm sure, and of course very young children will need to have their hands held often, thus creating a wider profile. At least with reduced traffic stepping off into the road when passing is that less risky!

I think the situation needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis. A nanny working for a banker is very different in terms of what they can contribute to a nanny working for a couple of doctors or nurses, for instance. Obviously nannies have to consider their own risks, and what 'going to work' could do for a wider society - and employers should also be considerate and thoughtful; and clearly a nanny/ child carer who is visiting multiple homes is placing him/herself at greater risk, as they are the homes they are visiting. When I employed (live-in) nannies (a quarter of a century ago) providing a car for the nanny's use was part of the deal. Which would allow public transport to be avoided. But clearly a non-essential worker family insisting their nanny travel on public transport to relieve them of child care responsibility is not very defensible, unless there are other issues e.g. of disability.

Comparing mortality to cases presenting themselves for treatment however, IS, how mortality is calculated. This is not what is happening - only the most serious cases, those needing hospitalisation, are being let through the 111 net - so this is not a measure of cases but of very serious cases. Flu figures are not in fact kept by anyone, it's not a notifiable disease unlike Covid-19 - and flu is rarely given as a cause of death, more frequently pneumonia. Flu and Covid-19 figures are generated using entirely different criteria, the flu 'totals' tend to be statistical assessments following the end of a flu season. Running flu totals are not given (or even available). Because Covid-19 is known to be symptomless in number of cases, particularly the young, these would never be 'presented' for treatment anyway. The mortality rates are accurate as regards very serious cases (hospitalised) - by definition, but if these are running at what many consider to be 10% or less of all cases a very different pattern emerges.

If you do not believe the data, that's your choice, but the data is what it is. And the data is statistically so flawed - if you are trying to derive an overall mortality rate - as to be completely useless. The data you show are most close to the mortality rate of those presenting to hospital (i.e. already very ill) and who are shown to be infected with Covid-19. That could be as few as 10% of those with symptoms, and possibly 5% or less of those who are both with, and without symptoms, but who have the infection. We know there are symptomless individuals from many other studies. What you are doing is intentionally scaring people by quoting flawed figures - HMG publish both 'tested positive' and 'death' figures but DO NOT then produce a mortality rate from that - because they know it wouldn't be true or accurate. You are doing, quite statistically wrongly, that last bit of maths on your own, and your constant need to post this scary and inaccurate analysis of HMG figures does suggest a desire to troll this thread.

I agree. Actual cases could easily be 10x the official confirmed cases. The mortality rate is nothing like 6%. Well, the mortality rate for those testing positive on admission to hospital is around 6% - but this of course is not the overall mortality rate, which is unknown. Estimates of 1.0%-0.1% are based on guesses around the (probably 90%) of people with symptoms but who have not been hospitalised and the maybe many more entirely asymptomatic - which may include many children. What does seem clear is that those who become really ill are really, really ill - the death rate of those in intensive care is reported at 50% - seasonal flu intensive care mortality is reported at about 33%. Of course many of those who do die may well have died if they had got flu, as opposed to Covid 19 - so it is quite possible that the overall 'death rate' over this time will broadly match the anticipated rate. The other thing to say is that reports of e.g. sex bias in deaths need to be taken carefully. Although in China and Italy more men have died (proportionately) than women this correlation does not in and of itself imply causation. (Statistics 101). For instance Italian and Chinese men are reported to be heavier smokers than women, and in a respiratory disease this may be significant. What I am saying is that unless and until we have properly sampled national statistics, where the sample is not skewed through sampling bias (as it clearly was when virtually only those reporting to hospital sick were being tested) we will not know either infection, or death or recovery rates. And although we will now be seeing NHS staff tested (which changes the sampling basis) we are of course now only testing those most likely to have been exposed (and exposed on a high frequency basis). So not 'national population' figures either. It is good practice to challenge any published statistic to see how it was derived and what inherent errors are in it, but it is particularly important if 'headline' statistics seem scary (or indeed overly re-assuring - some countries are publishing 'death in hospital' figures but not deaths in other institutions such as care homes for the elderly).

If you have a smart phone there's an Evening Standard ap which will download the whole edition onto your phone. Guess it will also work on tablets (though possibly not Amazon Fires as they don't accept all android aps.)

There seems to be a general shortage of eggs all around, don't know why as they have limited shelf life I suspect that many people, perhaps not used to a lot of self-catering, find cooking eggs relatively simple and broadly nourishing. People working from home may suddenly want breakfasts, often egg based. So a run on eggs may not be wholly surprising.

Underhill South of Langton Rise went reasonably wild.

The point I was making (and it is one also made during a PM briefing) is that the virus has only been in the human population for 4 months or so - so no woman has come to term having suffered the virus in the first or most of the second trimester - which is when some viruses, of which Zika is a prime example, may do most damage. There is as I understood it, again from the PMs briefing, no evidence of any Covid-19 related issues with pregnancy, the warnings are on the precautionary principle that it's still too early to be sure. Certainly there is a lot of evidence that the impact of Covid-19 on children seems mild, and may frequently be symptomless. I was not advocating anything but care, I was trying to reassure the OPs that they shouldn't be massively over concerned - a very different position if they had been over 70 and with existing pre-conditions.

That would be, stop housebuilding as not necessary at this time, but keep on punishing car owners. And lucky man has got off the election hook for a year. Rejoice!

whilst the heir to the throne seems to have be able to be tested? Prince Charles is over 70 and was presenting symptoms - he is in a risk group (and the people he might regularly see, including the Head of State definitely are) - so testing isn't abnormal in these circumstances. I would also expect the (much younger) PM to have access to Covid testing as well.

I wonder if the rest of the Royal household has also been tested? Including the younger ones. I bet we will never know. And your medical details, tests and results of tests are readily available to the inquisitive public, are they Louisa? And I imagine you mean the Royal Family, not the Royal Household - which includes grooms and maids.

My guess is that there was a mass posting 3 weeks or so after they made the announcement, once enough people had responded to the flyer and paid up.

This is the start of the 'hayfever' (actually at this time tree pollen) season - which means that those susceptible (as I am) will start having symptoms not unlike some elements of Covid-19 - particularly breathing difficulties if your histamine response triggers asthma. Obviously don't panic - but also remember that other symptoms will include sneezing and watery eyes - all of which will bring your hands to your face more frequently than for others (and make you an annoying disperser if by chance you do have Covid-19). In Japan, where 50% of the population appears allergic to red cedar pollen - one of the iconic Japanese trees - many wear face masks to protect them from the pollen (quite large particles). Although simple face masks are not particularly encouraged as far as Covid-19 protection is concerned, they may help you if you are a tree pollen sufferer. And will help others if you are suffering both a pollen-triggered histamine response and Covid-19.

Thanks for posting and locking up the resources link.

Somebody on twitter did say (and I'm not sure if it's true) that the COVID-19 stats are collected in the same way annual flu figures are collected. I think, happy to stand corrected, that annual flu figures are also based on reports from GPs - but GPs are not involved in Covid-19 - which is handled through 111 and hospitals. GPs do treat flu, they don't treat Covid-19. I don't think there has been any attempt to collate self-reporting (or indeed just questions) posed to 111 - save where they have moved to testing in case of severe cases. There are a lot of 'worried well', I know, ringing or contacting 111.

Admin - since you have decided (quite reasonably) to place business posts in their own section and not in the Covid-19 special section, would it be possible to create yet another (I know, I'm sorry) Covid-19 Business section so that business posts specifically and only relevant to Covid 19 - i.e. about openings, stock, delivery, special services etc. could be included there. I've spent some time trawling through the business section looking for something specific and related to the current lock-down emergency. Again, hopefully this section could be locked down and closed before the end of the year (and would act, with the non business Covid-19 section, curiously, as a useful research resource for those who will be writing up, (for government or academia) responses to this crisis eventually (I write as a former trained historian!)).

The non-recyclable (green bin) waste was collected as normal on Underhill (south of Langton Rise) this morning.