Penguin68

Although some of the traditional bowling demographic has clearly been hit by Covid 19, it is still a good way to get outside, meet people, socialise (safely) and demonstrate skills. Bowling greens are essentially civilised and welcoming places for older people (although I also used to bowl at University many years ago - crown green bowling). Apart from rolling and mowing (and I suppose some re-seeding, on occasion) greens need little upkeep (bowlers tend to treat them with respect). It would be a great shame to see the green re-purposed. There are other spaces where different recreational pursuits could be established. The low level of current usage are a function, I would suggest, of the green being put out of use at the height of the epidemic (possibly wrongly) and it taking time for bowlers to return.

which are the best ones for protecting ourselves against getting Covid which are available to the general public? The ones being worn by people in your vicinity. You are less likely to inhale Covid-19 particles than you are to transfer them to you on your hands - hence the emphasis on hand washing. Doctors and nurses in full PPE were still catching the virus - suggesting that even the best PPE may not be sufficient. Social distancing, hand-washing and others wearing masks (as well as you, for them) are the 'best' methods. Staying 2 metres from people indoors, and ensuring if you can that there is good ventilation (but autumn and winter are close upon us) is your best defence. Doctors and nurses even with PPE couldn't social distance with their patients - and wards are generally poorly ventilated (air conditioning is no good for this).

I hate to be remotely fair to the Tooley St apparst, but at least one, and previously the most communicative of our local councillors is a teacher - September is always a busy time for this profession and immeasurably more so I would guess in the Covid return to school.

I walk where I can (but I'm over 70 and that isn't that far - more than 2 miles there and back again is definitely too far) - I live on a hill so cycling (which has to start and end on that hill) is not for me an attractive option - and I'm no longer that good a cyclist - I take public transport when it's a quicker/ easier option than driving (which, for many east/ West local journeys it certainly isn't) - and I still rely on my car (or an Uber) to do (much) of what I want to do. Our area (ED) is very poorly served by public transport - over the whole of August the Orange line though us was suspended every weekend, and tube stations are now shut early as well - so relying on public transport to get into London isn't always a runner - unless you have many hours to spare (and at my age, I don't). I'm not unique in East Dulwich, I'm guessing. I'm sure the millennial mavens will now be suggesting that old people like me shouldn't be living in London. If we can't run and cycle everywhere, get lost. All I can say is - 'you'll be me one day - pray you don't meet you round the next corner'

Ultimately, if you want to reduce pollution, you have to reduce the number of car journeys. That simply isn't true. You need to reduce the polluting effects of motor vehicles - already starting to be addressed through Ulez and the increasing number of electric and hybrid cars - hydrogen powered cars (when and if they come) have water as their 'pollutant' exhaust. Putting aside the diesel cheats - cars are now vastly cleaner than they were - and the trajectory is for further improvement. I wonder how the anti-car lobby would respond if all vehicles in Southwark were electric or hydrogen powered? What would their stick be to beat the motorist then? Air quality in London is dramatically better already than it used to be in the past - and the quite recent past (not in those streets with standing traffic from the road closures, of course, now). I am in favour of people exercising their free will to cycle and walk, and to do so in safety, but not, I think, at the expense of those people wishing to exercise their free will in another way.

There seem to be two interpretations of 'healthy streets' being made. One is about street use making you more healthy - so the emphasis on walking and cycling (fine for shorter journeys and for the young(er) and fit, not so good for the old(er), disabled etc etc. and for long journeys or journeys where you need to take stuff like buggies or heavy shopping). The other interpretation is about removing polluting traffic from residential roads (which should not mean moving polluting traffic to other residential roads). One way of doing this is to reduce (as the ULEZ is meant to do) the pollution capability of traffic - and of course this is what the use of electric vehicles is meant to do. But the actions of Southwark, and others, confuses and conflates these two interpretations into - 'punish people in cars' - actually 'punish people in cars and milk them if they try to park.' With, I've noted, a number of class warriors waving their red flags over the issue. And in the mean time some clever folks have created effectively gated communities for themselves - actually enabled by our elected class warriors - what are the odds?

30 people in an area with a population density like ours is nothing. We literally have nothing to fear except fear itself, sadly fear is winning. 'East Dulwich' (the concept, not the ward) probably has about 40,000 people living in it (the ward had 12,500 in it and the area is probably 3-4 wards big). 30 deaths is a fatality rate of 0.01% - which is pretty much the UK run-rate for this. So, based on past history - our fear should be the equivalent (no more nor less) than anywhere else in the UK - indeed in the World, as 0.01% is also broadly the run-rate for any country where Covid-19 has been active. For some of the vulnerable (perm any from 'older', 'over-weight', 'with underlying health issues') this can be a devastating disease, even where it is not fatal. For others, younger, fitter etc. it is mild and indeed amongst the very young often unnoticeable. So, if I was a fit teenager (I'm not) I would be being very, very relaxed about the whole thing, on my own account. If I was a fit teenager living with parents and grandparents I might be worried about them, and 'giving' them something - but, If I can remember my own teenage years, probably not that much. It is probably up to the vulnerable to protect themselves - and some of those may very reasonably be very worried. What we live in is a (sort of) nanny state that wants to worry on our behalves - and probably more so because they will be blamed for the stupidity and carelessness of others. Caution - 'wear masks' - 'wear masks in more circumstances' - 'don't mix with people' - 'keep schools closed until there's a vaccine' - is all about 'I'll be blamed if someone dies on my watch'. The precautionary principle becomes about covering your own back. But in our blame culture is that surprising? Although the majority of the country probably doesn't have anything (much) to fear, there is a minority which really does. So acting as if there's nothing to worry about at all, isn't quite that simple, even where it may be generally true.

This week (Underhill, south of the Cemetery) I received a weekly and fortnightly periodical on the correct days. And something delivered today as expected. Previous weeks have been very patchy. The service is not consistently bad - but numbers of people away (Covid-19 and leave) have taken their toll. The guys (in my area, we have no women posties) I see out are generally laden down with stuff. I have gone days without any delivery (back in 'normality pre-Covid and pre the move to Peckham I got post every day) but there are still good days (and weeks).

Lets also look at the deaths. From what I can make out, since May, 3 people have died in the Dulwich area of COVID. Thats not exactly a reason to panic. Actually, the site you linked to shows deaths from March to June 2020. In September the map will be updated to July. In those 4 months, in 'Dulwich Hill', 4 people died of or with Covid-19 - with no deaths after April. In 'East Dulwich' there were 5 deaths. in 'Peckham Rye Common' there were 9 deaths. In 'Herne Hill and Dulwich Park' there were 3. In 'North Dulwich' 5, in 'Sydenham Hill' 3 and in 'Forest Hill West' 1. So in the broad area we probably think of as 'East Dulwich' and its environs there were 30 deaths linked to Covid 19 in the first 4 months of the pandemic (since the beginning of March). The bulk of the deaths were early on - in all of the locales listed there have been none in June, in most not in May either.

Totally agree, vilifying Labour Southwark Council to detract from Tory central Government who introduced the policy. Sorry, the policy may be a Tory one (it's also a Labour one, as it happens, and rather more so) but the choice of roads is the Labour Council's - and they are choosing schemes which they favoured but, in many cases, the local residents didn't - so they are using Tory legislation to push through their own chosen road closure policies escaping public scrutiny or complaint by diktat. If you look at all their proposals to manage away cars well before the Tories came up with anything (which they are now implementing, and in spades) you see a clear continuity of thinking and planning. All the Tories have done is give them the big guns to railroad through their ideas.

The enforced working from home has greatly surprised many employers by being, broadly, as effective productivity-wise as working from an office. Many had felt (from private studies undertaken for a telecoms firm) that people would not work effectively unless supervised and 'over-seen' by management. This has proved, more generally than had been anticipated, to be wrong. However there are clear benefits to office working for some and at some times - it is much easier for new staff to be integrated into a physical office than a virtual one - and team working, seen as a great business process advance in the two decades which straddled the century, is clearly more difficult remotely - when team building for instance is contemplated. Again for some, although their work could be performed from home, their own home circumstances may militate against this. And some are temperamentally ill-suited to lone working. I'm guessing that even when we are 'over' Covid-19 office occupancy may continue round today's equivalent of 50% with numbers working permanently from a home office, and others going in perhaps 1-3 days a week. There are good business reasons for that - why pay for office accommodation you don't really need? Over time this will have a significant impact on building use in city centres, and in support service provision (including catering) locations - with fewer in the centre of towns and perhaps more vibrant suburbs. There will undoubtedly be pain to come before we enter a new normal.

In Southwark many young adults live in the same household as other adults, typically parents and sometimes grandparents. That is true, and it is those people who need to be most careful when socialising with other young people. But equally there are numbers of young people who live with other young people (in shared accommodation) and they offer less risk to the vulnerable in the community - if they have gone to parties they need not to be visiting their parents and grandparents until they feel they can do so safely. We cannot expect young people to continue to live like Trappist monks indefinitely - if we refuse them outlets for their natural exuberance we will build up real problems - with their mental well-being amongst other things.

so i'm not sure that anyone with informed knowledge is suggesting herd immunity is a good strategy - you got a credible source? Of course herd immunity is a good strategy - it is precisely what a vaccination programme tries to create - on the basis that some people cannot be vaccinated because of other conditions - what you are challenging is the creation of herd immunity through infection - which in general may be a poor idea (although Sweden's figures, who followed this course) are not much worse (indeed on some measures better) than ours. I am suggesting that, before a vaccine is available, if those who are little troubled by the virus do become immune to it (or if their next infection is very much less troublesome than their first, possibly including the level to which they can infect others) then they will create, for the winter months when we might expect Covid-19 to be worse, some sort of wall which may reduce the impact of the next wave. I'd far rather they understood their risk - and the risk they might pose to others - get infected now, get over it (avoiding exposure to the vulnerable) and create that wall which may make the second wave spread less damaging. We almost certainly are going to have to live with Covid-19 in the population for the foreseeable future - we cannot continue as we are - damping down all fun and all economic activity. We cannot expect the young to continue to protect the old, with nothing in it for them. Far better we let them have some enjoyment whilst continuing to be careful of the vulnerable.

..

but people have been reinfected in much less than the 6-12 months that you (randomly) guesstimate I don't believe there is any evidence of re-infection anywhere - some early cases were re-interpreted as testing failures. Can you cite any authority for this? - I would be happy to stand corrected.

I'm not sure how this is a scam - of course encouraging people to eat 'for cheap' is misleading (and false advertising) if it isn't, and if they were both charging full price and indenting the government for the 50% up to ?10 that's clearly wrong, but they wouldn't have the invoice paperwork to back this up - but if they're simply not offering the deal then they gain nothing (they receive for the meal only what they would have received, but all from the punter and not some from the government). So they make no more money. Clearly the punter isn't getting what they thought they should - but the outlet isn't then making any additional money or profit. So it's misleading and false advertising but they are not profiting from it. Indeed they are losing goodwill by so doing. I can understand why you would think that they weren't dealing fairly - you were conned - but I'm not sure it's, as such, a scam (unless they are charging full price but in some way getting additional funds from the government).

The number of new cases has nearly doubled in Southwark in the last week and numbers are rising across London. From a low base, of course. In terms of real impact, it is the numbers being admitted to hospital, of those, those moving to ICU, of those, those being ventilated which are the important figures. And these still seem low. The young seem admirably fitted to throw off this virus with little real impact on their health. For many, it is no more alarming than a common cold, for some even less so. So long as they stay away from the elderly and vulnerable the more young people who get it, the better, frankly, if they do gain some immunity (6 months to a year?) which is now being suggested. In effect, they are being inoculated against the virus - and will start to build the numbers that herd immunity would require. I would suggest to the young - go out and party, rub together, enjoy life - but stay away from the vulnerable - social distance when you are not partying, wear masks on public transport and in enclosed spaces. And if the vulnerable keep up the hand washing, mask wearing and social distancing we may get through this OK.

where a forwarding server is blocking i.e. not forwarding, our emails. It's worth checking whether people with problems (sending or receiving) are using VPNs. Sometimes VPN usage can cause problems where IP addresses aren't as anticipated, or may even be overseas.

To save me looking it up, can anyone tell me which political party run those Councils which did the semi structured interviews I used to work in, well commission, market research. When we actually wanted to find stuff out, not prove a point. It was very difficult to devise questions which did not lead responses - most political research commissioned by parties - I am generalising but not much - is designed to provide ammunition to sell a particular (political) idea - it is not about striving for truth. You only have to read the questionnaires created for Southwark to realise that. [Which is why at election times, parties, who then actually do need to know which way the wind blows, commission private research which is regularly not published.] My base-line in interpreting any published research results is to ask - 'who benefits?'. It means that research undertaken for political entities which is then published should be treated with hundredweights of salt.

Nothing in over 2 weeks off silvester road The irony!

For the sixth weekend running the Orange line through Honor Oak Park has been fully suspended, and TfL has closed numbers of tube stations daily outside rush hours. And yet we are told to abandon our cars and walk or bicycle anywhere we need to go. Well, nuts to that. Whilst an integrated transport policy isn't apparently possible (as Southwark and TfL operate to entirely different agendas) and whilst we in the south of the borough are so poorly supplied with public transport options (weekend closures of lines are always with us) I find it completely insulting that I should be harangued by the car hating brigade (many of whom do not apparently live locally and may well live in those flat parts of London well supplied with public transport not regularly suspended).

Many of the cases being uncovered follow significant increases in testing and include people generally asymptomatic - the 'false positive' figures are significant once the actual infection rate is very low - roughly 10 in 10,000 will falsely test positive (that is, the test is 99.9% accurate in terms of 'clearing' the non-infected). That means that, if there are 150,000 tests in a day - which is the broad run-rate - you will find 150 false positives. [There are also false negatives, of course, and that figure would be higher] - However, if no one at all had Covid, 150,000 tests would still say the number with Covid was 150. So once the numbers infected get low (as they are at the moment) the 'headline' positive number may be misleading (this isn't an issue with very high infection rates, of course, where false positives are statistical 'noise'). Additionally you need to consider the severity of cases - the numbers being admitted to hospital are not rising significantly (indeed are low) as are those in ICU or ventilators. Flu and non-Covid pneumonia are currently the significant killers in hospital settings, rather than Covid 19. If you are unhappy with social distancing around you - then avoid it. I know some people who remain in voluntary lock-down still, and that is their choice. But for the vast majority of those reading this forum, it is not our job to police social distancing, or to make decisions on other's behalf. I might report rats or mice or cockroaches in places that sell food, but not, I think, behaviour.

I bought this parking barrier for my drive-way - it's not currently available (it was very good value) but there are alternatives. https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B078Z9QJP2?psc=1&ref=ppx_pop_dt_b_product_details

Loss of taste/smell, lung impairment plus sustained organ damage to liver, heart, kidneys and brain. Many of the long-term - and most devastating - effects are the consequence of cytokine storms (when the body's own immune system turns on it). These were certainly also a consequence of the pneumonia's triggered by the Spanish flu - although far fewer people survived this to suffer consequential long term effects. The ability to trigger cytokine storms is by no means unique to Covid-19. So we may be seeing - in 'symptoms' - the results of quite different assaults on the body - for the vast majority of those infected the impacts are quite benign (indeed in perhaps a third of cases unnoticeable) - for a few, where storms are triggered, these can instead be devastating. If this was 'designed' (and I don't remotely think it was) it was very badly designed. Unless by millennials wanting to get their inheritance early and free up the housing market. Or hospital administrators wanting to clear out the bed blockers.

The comflict between scientists is a reality we cannot ignore. I think at this stage 'conflict' is a loaded word. There is still very little known for certain about what appears to be an evolving virus. As, frankly, is 'scientist' (a loaded word). Additionally you have both 'hard' science in operation, and statistical modelling - what we can be absolutely certain about is that we can't at the moment be absolutely certain about anything (and in science that is actually almost a requirement). Governments are driven at the moment by the precautionary principle (with the USA and Brasil clearly outliers here). So they are being very conservative as regards any public health upsides and very open to accepting the possibility of public health downsides. I suspect they will be shown to have been over-cautious - but (in terms of death toll) that's what we might want. Economies can recover, generally, and over time - dead people can't.