Covid-19 - 'New Science? (UK)'

[SugarBuzz]

Hi.

I'm a bit confused. With regards to transmission of the virus. I've just seen the UK government briefing (live on BBC) where the Prime Minister Boris Johnson basically made out that
'It's perfectly okay to sit for several hours in a car with someone that is showing Covid-19 symptoms' YET, and here's the thing
'It's not okay to be outside in an open space within 2 metres of anybody including all those who aren't even showing any symptoms at all'.
As per the government guidelines.

As the UK government continue to state they are following the science. So, did I miss the scientific report on this? Is the virus actually more likely to be passed on in large outdoor spaces even when passing people for just a split second? Is the virus lingering in the outside air particles and this is somehow suppressed inside a confined space?

It just seems a bit strange? I have been self isolating for 3 months already and have literally not been out to any kind of indoors area like a shops etc during that time. But what the PM said more or less says that 'you are more likely to get the virus in an outdoors space than in a confined space'.
By that, he insinuated that my chances of picking up the virus are actually greater if I go running in the park than if I go on any public transport, inside a shop or even a pub (if they were open) etc.

I've had enough of staying in already and from what has just been said it seems that initially everything we've previously been told is a load of baloney and us diabetics (and everyone else) shouldn't be worrying at all?
I'm due to go on holiday in July (abroad). I was thinking of cancelling, but now it looks like I'll be ok? As the aeroplane is a confined space, so it seems i'll be at minimal risk according to the PM of Great Britain that is following the science.

What do other people think?

 

[Mr_Pot]

Hi.

I'm a bit confused. With regards to transmission of the virus. I've just seen the UK government briefing (live on BBC) where the Prime Minister Boris Johnson basically made out that
'It's perfectly okay to sit for several hours in a car with someone that is showing Covid-19 symptoms' YET, and here's the thing
'It's not okay to be outside in an open space within 2 metres of anybody including all those who aren't even showing any symptoms at all'.
As per the government guidelines.

As the UK government continue to state they are following the science. So, did I miss the scientific report on this? Is the virus actually more likely to be passed on in large outdoor spaces even when passing people for just a split second? Is the virus lingering in the outside air particles and this is somehow suppressed inside a confined space?

It just seems a bit strange? I have been self isolating for 3 months already and have literally not been out to any kind of indoors area like a shops etc during that time. But what the PM said more or less says that 'you are more likely to get the virus in an outdoors space than in a confined space'.
By that, he insinuated that my chances of picking up the virus are actually greater if I go running in the park than if I go on any public transport, inside a shop or even a pub (if they were open) etc.

I've had enough of staying in already and from what has just been said it seems that initially everything we've previously been told is a load of baloney and us diabetics (and everyone else) shouldn't be worrying at all?
I'm due to go on holiday in July (abroad). I was thinking of cancelling, but now it looks like I'll be ok? As the aeroplane is a confined space, so it seems i'll be at minimal risk according to the PM of Great Britain that is following the science.

What do other people think?

You can self isolate with someone of the same household, so presumably if you charter a plane and fill it with members of your own household you should be ok.

 

[SugarBuzz]

You can self isolate with someone of the same household, so presumably if you charter a plane and fill it with members of your own household you should be ok.

So let's say, you have symptoms of the virus: To protect a vulnerable family member (a child in this case) it's perfectly okay to immediately sit in a confined space with them for several hours?
This is the bit I don't get.That's basically what Boris Johnson and The Government inferred.

Surely that's contradictory to the advice we were given re immediately self isolating? And why people have literally been living in tents and caravans and going to other extreme measures in order to protect family members and others, no?

 

[Mr_Pot]

So let's say, you have symptoms of the virus: To protect a vulnerable family member (a child in this case) it's perfectly okay to immediately sit in a confined space with them for several hours?
This is the bit I don't get. That's basically what Boris Johnson and The Government inferred.

I didn't realise you were being serious...
The protection of the child they were arguing was not from the virus but because he couldn't look after himself if both parents were ill.
Of course it is all rubbish, Dominic Cummings was caught out and now they are trying to justify his actions.

 

[DotsDots]

I wonder how many stops they had to get fuel or toilet breaks! Deplorable.

 

[kev-w]

I'm unable to criticise as my hour exercises lasted up to 2.5 hours and I don't wear a mask when shopping, but missed a cheap digital drum set 14 miles away that I didn't travel for in the 2nd week of the lock down as I was following the rules, I could have made £75+ on it if I didn't like it/got bored with it so reading the news did make me feel a little resentful.

 

[SugarBuzz]

I didn't realise you were being serious...
The protection of the child they were arguing was not from the virus but because he couldn't look after himself if both parents were ill.
Of course it is all rubbish, Dominic Cummings was caught out and now they are trying to justify his actions.

I understand that Mr Cummings could have spread the virus from the hot-spot of London 260 miles all the way up to Durham (including any stops) which is bad enough in itself, but I was trying to get to the factual science of what the UK Government is now saying.

If they are trying to use the child as an excuse for Dominic Cummings breaking the lockdown, then unless the science says that being in a confined space with someone (for several hours) is safer than even being outside for several seconds with someone then what Dominic Cummings did was actually putting his own child (and his partner) in grave danger and could be considered negligent in itself, even discounting the whole breaking of the rules and travelling so far etc. etc.

I understand that it was difficult in the press briefing, as Johnson kept cutting people off so they couldn't come back at him when he avoided their questions. But someone should ask about the science behind this sudden contradictory change of thinking and the government should be held to account. Publish the science. And if it stands up then we can question why indoor venues need to remain closed - surely they can look at opening the pubs (just corner off the beer gardens). Let the indoor concerts and festivals go ahead, but keep Reading and Leeds outdoor festivals cancelled. The airline industry should be able to operate at full capacity - as long as they can guarantee their planes will all be bridged onto and off the planes via the airport upon take off and landing - so they don't get exposed to the virus laden air on the runways.
If there isn't science to back them up then they should be held to account for lies and Trumpisms. They can't have it both ways.

We're all waiting to get on with our lives. Unless they are going to back things up by publishing scientific facts we can all assume that it's one rule for us and another rule for Government MPs all confidence will be lost and that the summer BBQ season starts from tomorrow (Bank Holiday Monday) as people will rightly be pretty ****** off!.

Edited by moderator for language

 

[Dr Snoddy]

Personally I just find it easier to not believe most of what Boris says as he changes his mind so often.

 

[NicoleC1971]

I'm unable to criticise as my hour exercises lasted up to 2.5 hours and I don't wear a mask when shopping, but missed a cheap digital drum set 14 miles away that I didn't travel for in the 2nd week of the lock down as I was following the rules, I could have made £75+ on it if I didn't like it/got bored with it so reading the news did make me feel a little resentful.

As far as I understand we were permitted to travel in a car IF it was to care for someone vulnerable. I am surprised that they could not find a more local person to do so...Sorry you missed out a drumset and I would not have judged you for driving 14 miles in your car to get it.
Nor do I judge Neil Ferguson for being human just for producing a wildly inaccurate model which our politicians panicked at. Anyone who talks about The Science should be treated with extreme scepticism.

 

[NicoleC1971]

So let's say, you have symptoms of the virus: To protect a vulnerable family member (a child in this case) it's perfectly okay to immediately sit in a confined space with them for several hours?
This is the bit I don't get.That's basically what Boris Johnson and The Government inferred.

Surely that's contradictory to the advice we were given re immediately self isolating? And why people have literally been living in tents and caravans and going to other extreme measures in order to protect family members and others, no?

I think you need to un self-isolate and get out into the sun more unless you are vulnerable in some other way than type 1?

 

[Mr_Pot]

I think you are reading too much into this @SugarBuzz . Probably the parents and child had been sitting next to each other watching the tv or eating prior to the journey. What was wrong was that they traveled when they should have stayed at home. The rules/advice has not changed, they disobeyed the rules and are trying to justify their action. Apart from DC I think the Attorney General should resign, she implied that the covid-19 rules can be broken if you can think of a good excuse. That undermines the hardship some people much less fortunate than DC have suffered in doing the decent thing and staying at home.

 

[SugarBuzz]

I think you need to un self-isolate and get out into the sun more unless you are vulnerable in some other way than type 1?

I might just organise a mass Dominic Cummings fancy dress BBQ party in the park. Summer is back on Folks!

.

 

[hankjam]

As far as I understand we were permitted to travel in a car IF it was to care for someone vulnerable. I am surprised that they could not find a more local person to do so...Sorry you missed out a drumset and I would not have judged you for driving 14 miles in your car to get it.
Nor do I judge Neil Ferguson for being human just for producing a wildly inaccurate model which our politicians panicked at. Anyone who talks about The Science should be treated with extreme scepticism.

NF and his team were looking at a very specific aspect.... how well will remain to be seen.... unfortunately no one else was modelling the consequences of a partial lockdown on, for example, cancer treatments and the like...
so to conclude...
not particularly well joined up.

With this:
acted responsibly, legally and with integrity

I can do what I like when I like.

 

[Robinredbreast]

Hi.

I'm a bit confused. With regards to transmission of the virus. I've just seen the UK government briefing (live on BBC) where the Prime Minister Boris Johnson basically made out that
'It's perfectly okay to sit for several hours in a car with someone that is showing Covid-19 symptoms' YET, and here's the thing
'It's not okay to be outside in an open space within 2 metres of anybody including all those who aren't even showing any symptoms at all'.
As per the government guidelines.

As the UK government continue to state they are following the science. So, did I miss the scientific report on this? Is the virus actually more likely to be passed on in large outdoor spaces even when passing people for just a split second? Is the virus lingering in the outside air particles and this is somehow suppressed inside a confined space?

It just seems a bit strange? I have been self isolating for 3 months already and have literally not been out to any kind of indoors area like a shops etc during that time. But what the PM said more or less says that 'you are more likely to get the virus in an outdoors space than in a confined space'.
By that, he insinuated that my chances of picking up the virus are actually greater if I go running in the park than if I go on any public transport, inside a shop or even a pub (if they were open) etc.

I've had enough of staying in already and from what has just been said it seems that initially everything we've previously been told is a load of baloney and us diabetics (and everyone else) shouldn't be worrying at all?
I'm due to go on holiday in July (abroad). I was thinking of cancelling, but now it looks like I'll be ok? As the aeroplane is a confined space, so it seems i'll be at minimal risk according to the PM of Great Britain that is following the science.

What do other people think?

Politicians can not be trusted. Do as I say, not as I do, meaning "don't imitate my behaviour but obey my instructions."

 

[jjraak]

I didn't realise you were being serious...
The protection of the child they were arguing was not from the virus but because he couldn't look after himself if both parents were ill.
Of course it is all rubbish, Dominic Cummings was caught out and now they are trying to justify his actions.

So my take.

I live in london.
we might have wanted to bolt but didn't
Like millions of others we sacrificed for the greater good.

Cummings was part of the planning for the Govt response.
HE never expected to get sick.
when he did, he soiled himself and ran away.
risking the spread of covid to other areas of the UK just as the Message hammered home
which he may have been part of, was meant to STOP us doing that very thing.

so he ran away.
broke lockdown.
And now consigned a large majority to ignore the govt advice from now on.

the police's task is now mammoth.
they won't be able to contain the summer crowds that will kick back if pushed to stop congregating.

Major problems coming our way from this, as if we haven't already got enough.
and all because of ONE man who ran away from danger.

TL;dr
we sacrificed 62 thousand people.
who obviously do not count.
but HE does,
and now we KNOW.

 

[southamptonsteve1959]

Moan moan moan....

 

[Goonergal]

Interesting analysis of the ‘science’ around social distancing by Zoe Harcombe:

https://www.zoeharcombe.com/2020/06/social-distancing-the-evidence/

 

[lindisfel]

I wonder how many stops they had to get fuel or toilet breaks! Deplorable.

He said they didnt stop on way coming up from London!

They all apparently wore baby grows and nappies.

 

[lindisfel]

So my take.

I live in london.
we might have wanted to bolt but didn't
Like millions of others we sacrificed for the greater good.

Cummings was part of the planning for the Govt response.
HE never expected to get sick.
when he did, he soiled himself and ran away.
risking the spread of covid to other areas of the UK just as the Message hammered home
which he may have been part of, was meant to STOP us doing that very thing.

so he ran away.
broke lockdown.
And now consigned a large majority to ignore the govt advice from now on.

the police's task is now mammoth.
they won't be able to contain the summer crowds that will kick back if pushed to stop congregating.

Major problems coming our way from this, as if we haven't already got enough.
and all because of ONE man who ran away from danger.

TL;dr
we sacrificed 62 thousand people.
who obviously do not count.
but HE does,
and now we KNOW.

Sad thing is, if we listen to the vested interests we'll be in the fertiliser again.

Trumpland is in a real mess.
I hope we dont go down that route.

This farm with 70+ cases obviously haven't been social distancing.
I hope you all wash your hands after cutting up the broccoli!
D.