Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just wondering... lots of our neighbours are having friends and family over, one set of neighbours is packing their kids off to grandparents for a few days and the parks are heaving. Don't blame anyone for being fed up with it all... but can't help but think they're relying on the rest of us to keep to the rules to stop a second-wave. (Or I am just being a sucker - if Dominic Cummings can do, why can't we all? Arggh)

If you feel ill with flu like symptoms you should self isolate, for 7-14 days.


If you feel fine, and meet people outside, then following the underlying 'rules' - maintain a 2 metre distance, don't share e.g. food and wash hands thoroughly (avoiding touching your face) and you and the people you meet will actually be OK - however many you 'meet' with. The difficulty is remembering the basics, which is why the government's advice is overly cautious.


But the number of new infections in London is very low - so your chances of being infected in London are also low.


And for the vast majority of those infected - 80% - infection is not that bad - no worse than mild flu (or no symptoms at all). A further 10% will suffer, in effect, a very bad dose of flu, but not bad enough to go to hospital, but the remaining 10% may well be so seriously ill that their life is threatened.


But if you 'relax' whilst following the basic advice, then things should be OK. And not 'relaxing' may in itself lead to mental strains which are or could be equally damaging.


If you're living OK with lockdown, then continue it; if not then follow the underlying 'rules' and stay alert.


And avoid FONMO (Fear of NOT missing out).

Yeah We?re sticking with our housebound regime - barring dog walks and evening trips to Khans twice a week.

Everything in media we take with pinch of salt.

If you can?t make head nor tail of the situation best own it yourself innit !


Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Agreed KK. We'really continuing to keep safe. Hope

> you are too

teddyboy23 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Thousands of people all over the country have

> ignored the rules from day one


Yes- that was my impression too. I was dismayed to see a puffing and panting jogger on the pavement running towards an elderly lady and a couple with a small child on a bike on the pavement. Did he go into the road (there were no parked cars and no traffic)? No - I was in the road as I could see them coming and him puffing and panting behind me..he mad no attempt to avoid them...this has been going on since day 1 too!

>

> @Penguin68 - is that official advice your giving ?



Some of it,like handwashing and social distancing is taken from official advice, but no, of course not, I'm not an official and this is not an organ of government information. But, broadly, my advice is consistent with the medical science as currently promulgated. Meeting more than one person, in the open air and with distance etc. provisos is likely to be as safe as meeting only one. Which is what current official advice stipulates.

I've been sticking to the guidelines only leaving home for shopping and walks and keeping 2m distance as well as wearing mask.

However Its frustrating how many people dont seem to take this seriously.

Just today I was queuing to buy some food and a car drove by close to the kerb windows down and someone leaned out of the window and sneezed really loudly straight at us then everyone in the car laughed just as loudly as the the sneeze.

2nd thing that happened today...a young female jogger on pavement brushed alongside my arm running on a narrow stretch of pavement -As this is not the 1st time someone has done this (weirdly its young white female joggers who seem to consistently run into the back of me or brush alongside me, perhaps men are more specially aware?) I shouted loudly as she ran in front "IDIOT ITS 2 METERS YOURE SUPPOSED TO DISTANCE!" she didn't even turn round or hear me oblivious with her headphones on (also goes with the profile-always young white female headphones)

I really do despair tbh

I have to agree with Penguin68.


I'd rather see people stick more literally to the rules (particularly those damn runners who put their 'Personal Best' over 'Personal Safety') but there has been little interest from the government in enforcing or even following their own'advice' thus relying on public co-operation.


But we the public are not all that totally reliable when it comes to following advice. We have to accept that, assess the risks (quite low at the moment in London) and act in a way that keeps us feeling as safe as we can be. It's a bit like that driving advice...drive as if everyone else are idiots!


Penguin68's words are a fair approach for the reality of how people are acting and how little there is of any enforcement.



Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you feel ill with flu like symptoms you should

> self isolate, for 7-14 days.

>

> If you feel fine, and meet people outside, then

> following the underlying 'rules' - maintain a 2

> metre distance, don't share e.g. food and wash

> hands thoroughly (avoiding touching your face) and

> you and the people you meet will actually be OK -

> however many you 'meet' with. The difficulty is

> remembering the basics, which is why the

> government's advice is overly cautious.

>

> But the number of new infections in London is very

> low - so your chances of being infected in London

> are also low.

>

> And for the vast majority of those infected - 80%

> - infection is not that bad - no worse than mild

> flu (or no symptoms at all). A further 10% will

> suffer, in effect, a very bad dose of flu, but not

> bad enough to go to hospital, but the remaining

> 10% may well be so seriously ill that their life

> is threatened.

>

> But if you 'relax' whilst following the basic

> advice, then things should be OK. And not

> 'relaxing' may in itself lead to mental strains

> which are or could be equally damaging.

>

> If you're living OK with lockdown, then continue

> it; if not then follow the underlying 'rules' and

> stay alert.

>

> And avoid FONMO (Fear of NOT missing out).

We?re continuing to keep safe as are our friends and family and will not be sending our daughter back to school. My parents in law - who are sticking to the rules religiously and being laughed at by their neighbours and ?friends? for doing so - are very sad not to see their grandchildren. Cummings?s and Johnson?s impossibly entitled behaviour are another kick in the teeth for them. Forget the joggers and look at what?s happening at the top.

Shaggy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes, lockdown is over, because after today the

> ?rules? have become more of a set of guidelines

> that you should break if you love your children

> enough.


No children

No parents


But I still keep to the rules. Didn't realise that Cummings was aristocracy but not surprised. Let us eat rather nice sour dough bread.

I feel your pain NewWave but I have to say in my experience it's precisely the opposite experience. I have witnessed plenty of female joggers running in the road to give space to pedestrians and not many male joggers. Perhaps it's 50/50 after all. I also try and step aside for courteous runners as they are trying to keep fit which should be seen as a decent thing to do. Totally understand some won't find that as easy especially with the stealth runners that suddenly appear from behind.

I looked into this and found the youtube video from 24th March

At about 8:25 the ITV news reporter asks the EXACT question about a small child. Then at about 10:35 Jenny Harries explains what can be done



I also had a look at the Government leaflet sent out and it is clear on page 2 that you are allowed to care for a vulnerable child....


I am sure all the people in ED who do what they do- even if it is against the advice of SAGE- justify it to themselves.

Surely Jenny Harries was talking about vulnerable children whose parents were hospitalised because of Corona? Cummings could drive up and down the width of England several times - clearly not the indication of a man on his deathbed.




seenbeen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I looked into this and found the youtube video

> from 24th March

> At about 8:25 the ITV news reporter asks the EXACT

> question about a small child. Then at about 10:35

> Jenny Harries explains what can be done

>


>

> I also had a look at the Government leaflet sent

> out and it is clear on page 2 that you are allowed

> to care for a vulnerable child....

>

> I am sure all the people in ED who do what they

> do- even if it is against the advice of SAGE-

> justify it to themselves.

He says the reason for leaving was because his wife felt her ability to look after their child was compromised because she felt so unwell (having vomited)and yet she was able to endure a 250 mile journey, presumably feeling nauseous? Their car also magically had a full tank, enabling them to drive the distance straight without stopping.


He says he left London because of threats of violence but surely the govt?s top adviser would have protection?


As for the ?test? drive To Barnard Castle. Bizarre.

klove Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Surely Jenny Harries was talking about vulnerable

> children whose parents were hospitalised because

> of Corona? Cummings could drive up and down the

> width of England several times - clearly not the

> indication of a man on his deathbed.

>

>

>

> seenbeen Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I looked into this and found the youtube video

> > from 24th March

> > At about 8:25 the ITV news reporter asks the

> EXACT

> > question about a small child. Then at about

> 10:35

> > Jenny Harries explains what can be done

> >


> >

> > I also had a look at the Government leaflet

> sent

> > out and it is clear on page 2 that you are

> allowed

> > to care for a vulnerable child....

> >

> > I am sure all the people in ED who do what they

> > do- even if it is against the advice of SAGE-

> > justify it to themselves.


He obviously preempted being ill- I was on holiday in Dorset one year and I felt grotty one morning with a scratchy, swollen throat. I could tell I was going to be ill and possibly too ill to drive home on the designated day, so we packed up and went then and there.

The actual quote from the pamphlet sent out to ever household is

'You should only leave the house for very limited reasons:


Any Medical Need. including to donate blood, avoid risk of harm, provide care or help a vulnerable person.'


It also says more detail is available online...not that anyone bothered to read it obviously.


The actions of the, pretty much useless, media is abhorrent. This pandemic has certainly brought out the vilest in society.

Seenbeen, there are many, many parents in London and luckily we didn?t all panic and fled London, spreading coronavirus. I expect politicians to have more of a backbone especially when they show very little compassion themselves. Of course, there?s always the possibility he didn?t panic and just went on a jolly...

first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> He says the reason for leaving was because his

> wife felt her ability to look after their child

> was compromised because she felt so unwell (having

> vomited)and yet she was able to endure a 250 mile

> journey, presumably feeling nauseous? Their car

> also magically had a full tank, enabling them to

> drive the distance straight without stopping.

>

> He says he left London because of threats of

> violence but surely the govt?s top adviser would

> have protection?

>

> As for the ?test? drive To Barnard Castle.

> Bizarre.


GlaxoSmithKline headquarters in Barnard Castle. Just saying..

I'm not sure the lockdown ever really began for my neighbours. They have had a nanny going in to look after their children every week day since the beginning of the lockdown, despite neither of them being key workers. They've had yet another gathering today, with several other couples inside the house and in the garden, with several young children playing closely together in the garden and also going off inside. To make things worse, I saw some of the adults picking up and hugging other people's children. When they catch the virus in the second wave, which I am sure will come, I suppose these same selfish idiots will expect to be treated by the doctors and nurses who have put their own lives on the line for months now to save people who have been infected.

Monkey Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Seenbeen, there are many, many parents in London

> and luckily we didn?t all panic and fled London,

> spreading coronavirus. I expect politicians to

> have more of a backbone especially when they show

> very little compassion themselves. Of course,

> there?s always the possibility he didn?t panic and

> just went on a jolly...


and what was he supposed to do had he and his wife become too ill to look after their child? Put him into care?


And because of the press obsession with DC which they have had since the Guardian accused him of having a War on Whitehall, today's PM briefing was a waste of time- why didn't they ask about the track and trace...the fact that the Isle of Wight pilot track and trace was ruined because people from the mainland downloaded it. Wasted.

And as GrowlyBear has pointed out about his neighbours- and I have witnessed every day- MANY people have carried on regardless..this harassment of Dominic Cummings is pathetic- he didn't even go near any other people- unlike the hundreds of joggers and cyclists in ED.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Absolute mugs. That's what they take you for.  
    • Trossachs definitely have one! 
    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...