RoundTable

fishbiscuits Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Penguin68 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > If the parents/ carers are keeping a 2 metre > > distance, in the open, that is likely to be > fine, > > mask wearing or not. > > But they are not... > > If we can keep our child away from playground, > finding other things (indoors and outdoors) to do, > then I don't see why others can't. It is not easy, > but it's the sensible thing to do. It's not just > about our personal health/safety, it's about > controlling the spread. > > > For most people of child bearing age, and/ or > > children, the disease even when caught is mild, > > and may not even be noticeable. > > It's mild in kids. But in young or middle-aged > adults, it can be pretty bad. Of my work > colleagues (pool of around 40), 3 have had Covid > this year. Two of them (25 yr old and 40-ish yr > old) were very ill for over two weeks. One of > their girlfriends required hospital treatment. My > wife also has a colleague in his 30s, who caught > covid and had to call an ambulance because he > could not breathe. I really think people are not > taking the severity of this virus seriously > enough. I know of people who grumble of kids in playground but who they themselves took advantage of low flight prices to travel abroad. So go figure.

Yes, an astonishing feat despite hosting The Great British Market Of North Cross Road with thousands of people descending weekly for their pork buns, not to mention having the whole of Hollywood filming here too.

Foxy, I sympathise with your plight, I really do, and nobody is saying that COVID is not a reality. My point is that the food stalls in NX market are no more dangerous than the narrow aisles in supermarkets or local food shops, and that it?s actually better to shop outside than indoors, so dońt point the finger at an outdoor market when the local shops are crammed. Even when only a few people are allowed at a time the aisles are still very narrow. I was in the greengrocer this morning and only 4 people were allowed in at a time, but I still brushed against people because it is just a small shop as are many of the smaller shops. Even in the supermarkets, often ?m surrounded by people less than 2m away. If you consider NX market dangerous enough, then you should also worry about the local indoor shops. The problem of COVID spread is not people going to the markets for food. The problem is a very complicated mixture of socioeconomic factors, seasonality, general poor pupulation health, chronic NHS underfunding, cramped multigenerational living arrangements, poverty, etc. But this is for a different thread.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But it is NOT just about what "you" want to do. > The fact that others are disregarding medical > advice/regulations and meeting up for social light > bites, keeping close to one another, etc. does > have an impact on others, an impact that could > copromiise somebody's health badly. So it is > entirely invalid to say "don't go there and then > all is fine". If the non-compliant people's > actions had no impact at all on those who decide > to stay inside or shop alone, masked and quickly, > it would be fair to criticise them but this is the > opposite of what is correct, namely that all of us > a potential vectors to a new variant of an already > easily transmissable and possibly deadly virus. > Sheesh, nobody needs a pulled pork sandwich and > weekend catch up au marche that much! But the argument is about the market being busy. It seems it is busy because folks go to gawk. By your logic, nobody needs M&S that much that they are prepared to stand in a queue. In fact, plenty supermarkets are busier than north cross road AND they are indoor. So if folks are so worried about the impact of north cross market, why are they not as worried about the impact of supermarkets? It is because of having options that risk spreads out. It is when people are forced down to one specific shop that crowds happen. I would not be having this conversation if the argument was against ALL types of shops that encourage crowds, not just selectively a food market that is near their doorstop. It was a slight pong of ?not in my back garden? attitude.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > KidKruger Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Foxy, the quickest route to LL for you is down > > Whateley Rd. > > Only when you want to arrive on LL further > North > > does the market street (NX) feature as a viable > > route (when no Covid). > > > Whateley is Not quicker. It is longer by 200 > steps. North Cross has shops which is a nicer > route, > Not a problem when the Market is not open. the > market IS a problem. > > There was a Snow ball fight in a Field 50 odd > people.. Loads of space.. > The organiser was fine ?10,000 > > Market in a congested area with 100's of people > Why aren't Market organisers being fined. ? > > Cannot give an example at the mo but I'm sure I > have read/heard from somewhere that other markets > have had to close. > East Dulwich seems to be outside the law. People > with a lot of clout. Friends in the right places. > > > Foxy > > ETA > > Broadway Market in Hackney forced to close due to > lack of social distancing as shoppers flout > rules. > > Covid-19: Bovingdon Market 'closed indefinitely' > over safety fears > > Shuttered by Covid: The end of Dagenham Sunday > Market > > A Christmas market in Nottingham has been shut > down for the > rest of the year after criticism over a lack of > social distancing. > > Cambridge Market shut down as Covid spreads > rapidly through city > > Just a few examples I have Found. > > What do they have in common ? > Responsible Councils.. > > Southwark does nothing. Those 200 extra steps to avoid north cross roads will do you the world of good during lockdown. Plus anyway you are not supposed to go into non-essential shops so the ?nice? shops in north cross road should be shut. So no reason to have to go through north cross road really.

redjam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blimey, from the way everyone's reacting it's as > if North Cross Road Market is a heaving mass of > bodies. It's not. It's no more than a dozen stalls > that were well spaced last time I was there, with > marshalls at either end asking people to wear > masks. In recent weeks it hasn't been that busy > and it's EXTREMELY easy to avoid if you don't want > to go through it - either by taking a slightly > different route to bypass that short stretch of > road or, y'know, avoiding going through it between > 11am and 3pm on a Saturday. Do you really think > it's safer to go to M&S or Co-op to get your lunch > ingredients rather than buying something in the > open air? And I'd far rather support a local > business through these hard times. Well said!

Yes I agree so much advertising is an eyesore. I?d happily get rid of the fried chicken shops that spring up every 20 metres too, there should be rules that you cannot have more than 1 fried chicken shop in a 3 mile radius.

DulwichFox, what were you doing in the market? Was it an essential trip? How long did you stand there witnessing contraventions? If half of east dulwich go to north street every day to ?see? what is was like and and spent 15 minutes wondering around looking for rule breakers, then no wonder it was busy! Seems to me the market is more full with gawkers than customers! Pot kettle black I?ll shut up if you are a market inspector or a policeman.

Well, there is simple answer to your question: it is called capitalism. The local infrastructure belongs to a person/group/company/local council/government. To exploit that property, they take money to allow advertisers. This is why you see advertising. Even the gov and local authority are known to make ????? from leasing their infrastructure to advertisers. When you are at home and you block ads, you are able to do that because your laptop/computer/phone/whatever is your private property and therefore you have the right to control what you see. Unfortunately you do not have the right to control what advertising gets put on infrastructure that you do not own. If you go to North Korea, I believe that you see minimal corporate advertising because everything belongs to the estate, so all you see is state advertising. Some call this estate propaganda. This is what happen often in communism. You are more likely to not be subject to street advertising in a communist country. This is not going to happen in a capitalist country. You have good sentiments, but unrealistic for capitalist countries. The UK is densely populated, so very attractive to advertisers, and infrastructure owners can make a lot of money from this.

Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know a couple of people who are film/magazine > support (make up artist/stylists etc). From > everything they say and what I've seen on their > social media, the organisations they work with > take current shoots extremely seriously. One of > them was scheduled to do an all day magazine shoot > last week, all of the (reduced) team were tested > at the client's expense 24 hours before, then > tested again on the day of the shoot, and when one > person tested positive on the day (having tested > negative a day earlier), the shoot was immediately > shut down and postponed for five days in case any > one who attended the morning test on the day of > the shoot then tested positive. > > I'm sure that there are variations in compliance > in this industry - like there are across all > industries and sectors - but we are all still > watching TV, demanding new content not repeats, > and companies are still trying to sell products, > and bring new products to market, which requires > advertising, so I don't see that shutting this > activity down entirely is realistic. Well said. It's not just about keeping us entertained though. There are thousands of people scrambling trying to make a living in dire circumstances with no safety net, doing the best they can with the very limited options they have. Ultimately, people need to eat and not everybody has a guaranteed monthly income.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I doubt that any operating protocol would negate > the basics, especially when the offender was off > site and amongst non-staff members. And did the offender have a big sign around his/her/their neck saying 'I am part of the film crew' for you to know that he/she/they are off site and therefore mingling with non-staff members? And did the people he was amongst have a sign around their neck saying 'we are non-staff members'?

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I just passed a film crew at Dulwich Picture > Gallery. Unfortunately, Penguin68, at least one > was not adhering to the basics, which supports my > thoughts. It is human nature to want to break > free, to not mask all the time, and to think that > the rules don't apply to you if you are one of the > few groups of people that are being allowed to > work in groups and teams, much like they did > before the restrictions were in place. 'I just accidentally passed through the filming site which may or may not have been a necessary journey but since my curtain doesn't twitch that far and it is a hot topic on the forum I just couldn't help myself from going over to see if I can catch somebody out so I can rush back and report on it'. There, I fixed that for you.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree with RoundTable and am glad they are > earning and paying taxes but would add that the > very fact that they are being allowed to work in > this way, when many are not, may suggest they are > somehow special and that could, unconsciously, > lead to their not wearing masks, getting too > close, being excited to be seeing colleagues, etc. > I fear that complacency can easily set in in such > circumstances though choose to give them the > benefit of the doubt because I have no evidence > that this is the case. (This applies to all of us > - laxness is easy to slip into: just look at how > many people are out and about this time compared > to the first lockdown, when we had a less > transmissable strain and good weather. We stayed > in in our droves, unlike now...) By your logic supermarkets should be closed too. The whole point is that the crew can form a work bubble because they have the same fixed number of people day in day out. Supermarkets cannot do this (yet they are but then we do need to eat), neither can hotels, pubs, restaurants, concert venues, sport stadiums...see?

I?m pleased for the filming crew and actors that they are working. Their industry has been decimated, and most of them probably work as freelancers and rely on the gig economy. So good on whoever has decided to carry on with the filing and provide an income to the crew. If they are observing all the safety requirements then they are probably safer to be around than the people who roam the streets and parks looking to see how many people are out and about so that they can post about it here.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "The Test to Release scheme is for people coming > from countries not in the safe corridor area > therefore likely arriving from high covid areas" > > True BUT the infection rate is generally lower in > the "high risk" countries than it is in the UK. Is that correct? https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/coronavirus/2020/10/how-does-uk-s-second-wave-covid-19-compare-those-other-countries Throughout the pandemic the UK has featured high up on the risk list.

The Test to Release scheme is for people coming from countries not in the safe corridor area therefore likely arriving from high covid areas. Most flights are longer than 15 minutes and people sit closer than 1m, which is how transmission happens, according to the scientist. So I would have thought that being in a sealed aeroplane higher risk than in a bubble of 250 children where you may have been more than 10m for a few minutes in the same outdoor playground where somebody who has tested positive. I just think that neither scenario is covid-proof, but if the scientists are ok for plane passengers to stop isolation after 5 days then I?d be interested for hearing their arguments for insisting 14 days in other cases.

I?ve read that from next week, international travellers can pay to have a private test after 5 days isolation and if it comes back negative then the self-isolation period is cut from 14 days to 5 days. Any scientists/medics/public health people on the forum can explain how people have to self isolate for 14 days because medics say that?s how long the incubation period is, but for international travellers if after 5 days there are no symptoms and a negative test then the virus will not develop? If the Test to Release acknowledges, indirectly, that if after 5 days you test negative then you are unlikely to develop it, where did the 14 days isolation figure come from? Renata, are there plans to introduce this scheme to school children so that they don?t have to isolate for the whole 14 days if they are negative? Is this what Boris meant when he said there there are enough tests to keep schools open? His comment would make sense then. If so, is Southwark going to implement this? It would be great PR for the borough, wouldn?t it, if Southwark adopted this scheme to stop/shorten the endless rounds of prolonged self-isolation that is so harmful to children, particularly those children who do not have access to outside space or are in vulnerable situations. Renata, I am addressing this to you because you reply to comments, and it is greatly appreciated.

motorbird83 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If I've understood your post correctly, your son > found completely isolating difficult when a case > occurred in his bubble. > > School isn't the only reason your son may have to > isolate before things return to normal-- any > contact could cause it via the tracing system. > > Home schooling seems quite extreme as a solution > to reduce this possibility. If his class has to > isolate again due to someone in the bubble having > Covid-19, perhaps next time opt for a private test > so that you can still leave the house etc even > while he is remote learning to reduce the impact > on him. That way, any isolating periods would > just be like homeschooling anyhow rather than > being totally shut in. This may not be an option > because of the cost but ultimately it might be > cheaper than investing in all of the books, > equipment etc you'd need to properly homeschool. By the way, we don?t mix with anybody else, or go to cafes, sjus go outdoor stuff, so school is the only place where he could be ?traced?.

motorbird83 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If I've understood your post correctly, your son > found completely isolating difficult when a case > occurred in his bubble. > > School isn't the only reason your son may have to > isolate before things return to normal-- any > contact could cause it via the tracing system. > > Home schooling seems quite extreme as a solution > to reduce this possibility. If his class has to > isolate again due to someone in the bubble having > Covid-19, perhaps next time opt for a private test > so that you can still leave the house etc even > while he is remote learning to reduce the impact > on him. That way, any isolating periods would > just be like homeschooling anyhow rather than > being totally shut in. This may not be an option > because of the cost but ultimately it might be > cheaper than investing in all of the books, > equipment etc you'd need to properly homeschool. That would be ideal but the school guidance is to stay at home and there is no mention of private testing. I?m not bothered about the schooling - there is more to life than being in the top set! I?m worried about mental health. Last night Boris Johnson said that there are enough tests for schools to stay open, so does this mean children in the bugle would have the option of getting a test and if they test negative they can go back? If so, why are schools/councils not doing this? Or maybe Boris is sprouting made up nonsense again. I know of somebody who had 3 lots of isolation periods, that feels pretty extreme to me.

I?m considering homeschooling my kid for the next few months because he has had to self-isolate for 2 weeks for a positive case, and with winter upon us I can imagine that this is going to happen several more times. Is there anybody here homeschooling who could give me some idea of the pros and cons, and how homeschooling during lockdown has worked out? My main worry is the social interaction, but the 2 weeks isolation were so difficult that I?m not sure how homeschooling would be any worse and at least he would be able to go for walks?

This is an excellent idea. Would be great too for kids getting to see a wider range of films not just whatever is trendy at the time. And make the tickets affordable. I looked up a ticket for the cinema in Victoria and it is ?18 per adult, so I declined. For families who have seen a reduced income ?18 a ticket is bonkers (it is bonkers anyway but even more so now). Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The rules affecting the creative industries are > awful but I think for cinemas the biggest issue is > the lack of films being released to draw customers > in. It's a vicious circle as movie companies don't > want to release anything as they fear it won't > recoup the revenue - Bond being the classic > example - they need packed cinemas to get a return > on investment.

Apparently it is OK for 150-300 people be crammed into a narrow sealed metal tube with wings for hours as long as they are wearing a mask, but must sit 200m apart in theatres and cinemas for 90 minutes thus making them unviable. (Yes the 200m is an exaggeration but I?m trying to make a point) I?m all for social distancing, but the double standards considering what the creative industries are going through is shocking. The airline lobby has deeper pockets of course.

I went on a Kingsdale tour this week and whilst I loved the variety of subjects and their results, it felt very big and with 2,000 pupils that atrium could potentially get very very noisy! It was raining too on the day which made it worse. I?d love to send my DS there but I?m worried that he is going to come back every day with a headache from the noise! Anybody with kids already there have found this an issue?