I think that your first paragraph does a disservice to those scientists at WHO, several of which are British. How do you know that the “ very best scientist” as you call them are not also drawing both on their expert knowledge and the provenance of the data that they have access to. Some of which especially in WHO may well have inputs from UK scientists on SAGE or the myriad of panels, groups or individuals that input into SAGE. I think part of your problem is the very short sound bite interviews permitted on news bulletins.
Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies
The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) provides scientific and technical advice to support government decision makers during emergencies.
Last edited:
My sister in law got the message to have jab and my Brother who is in the 70s asked if he could have it at same time which they said yes , so he is a happy bunny as well.
Dusty, I fully accept they have got things wrong, as have the government. But the alternative is:.........
John
Sadly, there is no alternative. They are the alleged experts but it struck me they too were on a massive learning curve ,not really sure which way to turn. Thank our lucky stars we have Pfizer and Oxford AZ
I think that your first paragraph does a disservice to those scientists at WHO, several of which are British. How do you know that the “ very best scientist” as you call them are not also drawing both on their expert knowledge and the provenance of the data that they have access to. Some of which especially in WHO may well have inputs from UK scientists on SAGE or the myriad of panels, groups or individuals that input into SAGE. I think part of your problem is the very short sound bite interviews permitted on news bulletins.
Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies
The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) provides scientific and technical advice to support government decision makers during emergencies.www.gov.uk
I do not believe I did them a disservice at all, quite the opposite in fact. Until something is proven conclusively, even the experts are just guessing. What I said was, I am happy to accept what is said by those experts in SAGE etc. In the full knowledge that they are not perfect. As they are the experts with access to the the data and systems to interpret it.
However all the other pundits I take with a pinch of salt.
re ‘my problem’. I totally disagree. Yes I do hate the quality of much of the reporting and the weak attempts to sensationalise at every attempt. Just today. All channels talked about the inevitability that at today’s briefing there will be more restrictions announced. Then a full analyses of what they may be. And they were all wrong.
Then there’s those two Derbyshire women fined for driving 5 miles for a walk and having a ‘picnic’. They said at interview the police questioned them at the car. Newspapers show pictures of them on the walk with their drinks. One even had snow while another did not! And the papers said they were ”surrounded” by police.
Yes there are short sound bites on bulletins, but they are edited. Being offended by that editing, is, I believe, a problem for us all. And frankly, we deserve better.
John
I think that is a good decision. A warning would have been appropriate. But the girls were pushing the limits in my opinion.
TV have just been discussing the ‘confusion’ with staying local. After lambasting the term, the reporter then stated that local means different things in urban and countryfied areas. And in so doing we’re supporting the term. Me. Thinks that it is the reporter that is confused.
John
The rules are straightforward, it is just people trying to be clever or who do not care about the safety of the rest of us who try to find fault in the detail. Those who believe it is a hoax need to be locked up with the other mentally dangerous people.
I hear all this about "stay local"... If I walk around my village on the ONLY footpath which is around a metre wide, I am exposed to cyclists (illegally cycling on a public footpath) and other walkers not prepared to make any effort to socially distance. If I drive to a location 8 miles away, I can walk in glorious isolation where other people are totally aware of social distancing on a 4m wide walkway. Which would you do?
It is confusing as the Met Chief and government spokes persons say as long as it’s under your own steam and starts and finishes at your door it’s okay. Scotland allows you to go a certain distance beyond your authority boundary. So on that basis in England I could cycle from north to south of Wiltshire and into Hampshire. Yet another spokesman defines local as stay in your village, or area of town/city.
In your case the latter seems the best option. (Beware incoming)
Concerning the expertise available at both the WHO and SAGE, it has often been the case that give the same data to two equally qualified "specialists" and you will frequently get differing opinions on what to do, So I'm not surprised there are differing opinions.
But there are some significant differences between the role of the WHO and the UK's SAGE committees, and that might also explain some of the differences.
The role of the WHO is to monitor and advise on the basis health needs. SAGE advised the English Government, however the Gov often has to consider other matters such as financial and political issues, which might mean the science may not be followed to the letter.
But there are some significant differences between the role of the WHO and the UK's SAGE committees, and that might also explain some of the differences.
The role of the WHO is to monitor and advise on the basis health needs. SAGE advised the English Government, however the Gov often has to consider other matters such as financial and political issues, which might mean the science may not be followed to the letter.
We are the same Guzzilazz-if not worse-our village is trapped by the a57 and the A1133-both fast and dangerous roads-and without any footpath what so ever-so we have to walk on the verge with the consequent risk or walk within the village-since we have a dog that really isn't going to please him-other than that we have farmer 's fields. However we take a mile drive down to the Trent and see no one-for a bit of variety however I do confess we drive around 10miles to an alternative walk and see no one or maybe the occasional fisherman on the bank. We walk on the tow path well away. Yet by the girl's actions we could be fined. Sorry I'll risk it since we have to drive further for petrol or a supermarket, than either walk! I was severely scolded on another website for doing this btw-however cyclists seem to be able to travel miles on their rides out and are at far greater risk of injury imo than me in our car but who am i to judge. Oh and we are looking to move-and we can go and see houses for sale whereever we deem fit!mmmm
Common sense is needed. No doubt the majority of people and those policing this apply this well.
But it’s not just the immediate area that dictates how we might expertise. If I chose to cycle. (Difficult, as my current bike is static). I would manage less than 1 mile. An old school friend and his wife, both over 70, regularly do 50 miles per day. They also climb mountains for fun.
I really don’t think that their activities necessarily put them or others at any greater risk.
John
But it’s not just the immediate area that dictates how we might expertise. If I chose to cycle. (Difficult, as my current bike is static). I would manage less than 1 mile. An old school friend and his wife, both over 70, regularly do 50 miles per day. They also climb mountains for fun.
I really don’t think that their activities necessarily put them or others at any greater risk.
John
I agree, but others will see them doing it and try and go a step further and that is where the problem starts.
Exercising a goodly distanced from home could add to the overall risk in that in the event of an accident or breakdown assistance from third parties may be required. Thus increasing contact time. A short distance from home would reduce this contact time and hence the risk.
Of course. And I feel sure my friends use common sense in this respect. But I was only attempting to show that common sense in applying deliberately loose rules can work. As opposed to specifying actions which cannot suit all situations either by geographical restrictions or levels of fitness they are trying to maintain.
To police prescribed rules would no doubt be much easier, but it does not follow that that makes sense.
John
Gov briefing just now. No change in restrictions or rules. But clearly clamping down much harder on offenders.
Summary
John
Summary
- Home Secretary Priti Patel uses the Downing Street briefing to say she will back police who enforce England's coronavirus lockdown
- Martin Hewitt, chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, says the rules "are clear and we need to abide by them to protect the NHS and save lives"
- Last year saw the largest increase in UK deaths in a single year since 1940, according to provisional ONS figures
- In 2020, nearly 697,000 deaths were registered, compared with an average of nearly 606,000 each year between 2015 and 2019
- UK police chiefs are under increasing pressure to enforce the lockdown laws
- Health Secretary Matt Hancock has said tighter measures in England cannot be ruled out
- Scotland and Wales have both passed 5,000 deaths since the start of the pandemic
- In the US, two Congress members have tested positive after hiding in a crowded room during the Capitol riot
- Malaysia has declared a nationwide state of emergency to combat a rise in cases
- Globally, almost two million people have died with Covid-19, according to Johns Hopkins University
John
"Staying local" is more about reducing the risk of transmitting mutant strains into or from other areas.
But they aren't saying you can go any distance if the area you go to is deserted. He'd go to our favourite beach 50miles away if so occasionally but we won't because they want traffic off roads to minimise risk etc too surely?
Staying local is all about trying to impress on people that it’s better to be around your home and to discourage mixing.between households. I don’t think that it’s really anything to do with preventing further evolution of the virus strains as nothing was said on that count during lockdown 1 or 2. In fact there is a view that if it becomes too difficult for a virus to transmit it could evolve to aid further transmission. So locking it into an area could lead to such an evolution. But it was only one report that I read.
Given the rapid rise in the south of the county and also in care home cases our daughter will be starting more shifts on the mental health unit which now has Covid patients. So our granddaughter is being “ shipped” over to stay with our son in Wales. She’s quite happy with that as she can do her school work on line and give him a hand in his woodland. A spot of “ green bathing” is supposed to be therapeutic.
Last edited:
Facebook
Twitter