Coronavirus (3 Viewers)

  • Thread starter Thread starter AGinAg (37)
  • Start date Start date

Are you worried about contracting coronavirus?

  • Yes, I am absolutely terrified

    Votes: 12 15.6%

  • Yes, I am slightly concerned

    Votes: 35 45.5%

  • I am neither concerned or unconcerned

    Votes: 7 9.1%

  • No, I am slightly unconcerned

    Votes: 6 7.8%

  • No, I am totally unconcerned

    Votes: 6 7.8%

  • Bring back the old poll

    Votes: 3 3.9%

  • Charlotte Awbrey tits out doing the Macarena

    Votes: 2 2.6%

  • I believe VoR is evil

    Votes: 11 14.3%
  • Total voters
    77
It will definitely be interesting to see. I really can’t see us ( The Uk) going back in to a nationwide lockdown, although I was very sceptical before we went in to the first one...
 
Alex said:
Well i wonder if they’ll quarantine the whole of London if the rate gets higher than desired in a couple of places like they did with Manchester
Click to expand...

I think they would have to simply because I don’t see how they could lockdown individual London boroughs.

I’m actually not totally hostile to a local lockdown model because it absolutely doesn’t make sense to lock down the entire country if the infection rate is only rising significantly in one area. For example, Aberdeen has seen a rise in cases - it is in the same country but also over 150 miles from where I am in the Borders and therefore I don’t think it makes sense to lock down here where infection rates are comparatively very low.

I think doing it really successfully relies on competence and compliance though - neither of which we have. Compliance in particular is a difficult one because people in local lockdowns can still see people in other parts of the country enjoying not being in lockdown via social media, etc. It is easier if everyone is in the same boat.
 
Last edited:
I don't know if it's had much of an effect on cases, but my experience of Manchester's local lockdown is that its... Well... Not happening.

Pubs are full of large groups who clearly don't live together, and staff on the door of some places are encouraging people to lie ("you do live together, don't you? *wink*), so I can't imagine the rules about not going around to people's houses are being stuck to.
 
What they are doing simply does not work. I do agree that a local lockdown is better than a mass UK lockdown but it really needs to be policed better. As to how that is done, I have no clue. Ask Dominic Cummings, as he seems to have an explanation to everything.
 
Gangsta Nancy Lam said:
I don't know if it's had much of an effect on cases, but my experience of Manchester's local lockdown is that its... Well... Not happening.

Pubs are full of large groups who clearly don't live together, and staff on the door of some places are encouraging people to lie ("you do live together, don't you? *wink*), so I can't imagine the rules about not going around to people's houses are being stuck to.
Click to expand...

I mean, I think what is happening in Manchester can barely be considered a lockdown. I guess what i’m meaning is a full lockdown, at least to the degree that the country was locked down in March.
 
Tetris-Rock said:
I think they would have to simply because I don’t see how they could lockdown individual London boroughs.

I’m actually not totally hostile to a local lockdown model because it absolutely doesn’t make sense to lock down the entire country if the infection rate is only rising significantly in one area. For example, Aberdeen has seen a rise in cases - it is in the same country but also over 150 miles from where I am in the Borders and therefore I don’t think it makes sense to lock down here where infection rates are comparatively very low.

I think doing it really successfully relies on competence and compliance though - neither of which we have. Compliance in particular is a difficult one because people in local lockdowns can still see people in other parts of the country enjoying not being in lockdown via social media, etc. It is easier if everyone is in the same boat.
Click to expand...
It really should be local and if people see the stats they would be more understanding. Wigan has never been a high level and they got dragged in with everyone else, just not fair. Now my area, Bury, is green but still under same rules as Oldham where it has skyrocketed. It’s this country and its ridiculous centralisation coming into play as ever
 
Last edited:
Tetris-Rock said:
I mean, I think what is happening in Manchester can barely be considered a lockdown. I guess what i’m meaning is a full lockdown, at least to the degree that the country was locked down in March.
Click to expand...
It is a lockdown. i think depriving people of seeing friends and families In their own houses and gardens is harsher than closing pubs and gyms.
 
Last edited:
So my local pub has just announced on social media that it has had to close because some local wanker went there, got ill, got tested, was positive, didn’t tell the pub but told their mates, the mates didn’t mention it but carried on going the pub, and eventually word got around and the pub found out.

I ate there on Friday. But the rules around self isolating are so vague. We sat outside, the only interaction I had with the staff was behind a Perspex screen and the waiter who brought our food, so no different to absolutely everyone else who was there. Does that require me to stay indoors for 14 days? I’m one of those people that washes their hands after touching a door handle now. Surely I’m not the sort of person the government should be worried about, given what’s going on?
 
Alex said:
It is a lockdown. i think depriving people of seeing friends and families In their own houses and gardens is harsher than closing pubs and gyms.
Click to expand...

What I mean is that my understanding of a lockdown is that it would close things like pubs in addition to limiting other types of social contact. Otherwise, it just feels like a farce.

I agree that not seeing family and friends at home is harsher than not being to go to the pub. What i’m saying is that the credibility of the lockdown is undermined while you can still go and see those people in a pub or restaurant.
 
funky said:
So my local pub has just announced on social media that it has had to close because some local wanker went there, got ill, got tested, was positive, didn’t tell the pub but told their mates, the mates didn’t mention it but carried on going the pub, and eventually word got around and the pub found out.

I ate there on Friday. But the rules around self isolating are so vague. We sat outside, the only interaction I had with the staff was behind a Perspex screen and the waiter who brought our food, so no different to absolutely everyone else who was there. Does that require me to stay indoors for 14 days? I’m one of those people that washes their hands after touching a door handle now. Surely I’m not the sort of person the government should be worried about, given what’s going on?
Click to expand...

You only have to isolate if you have symptoms or are contacted by test and trace and told to do so.
 
There’s a pub very close to where my friends and I hang out that has had to close because someone tested positive after being on holiday.

I think what this is showing is that it is maybe a bit too early for pubs to be open indoors. Ive only been in a couple of pubs but I’m probably going to avoid and just go to the park for the time being. At least while the weather is still okay anyway.
 
You have 6-8 weeks of unreliable but still decent weather for the outdoors. Whatever happens once early sunsets and single digit night temperatures kick in is anyone's guess.
 
The second wave truly kicking in over the winter is kind of inevitable, as people thought it was right from the start of course but for the additional reason that so many more people will be socialising inside.
 
Tetris-Rock said:
What I mean is that my understanding of a lockdown is that it would close things like pubs in addition to limiting other types of social contact. Otherwise, it just feels like a farce.

I agree that not seeing family and friends at home is harsher than not being to go to the pub. What i’m saying is that the credibility of the lockdown is undermined while you can still go and see those people in a pub or restaurant.
Click to expand...
You can’t go and see people outside of your household in a pub or restaurant unless you are sat outside (and even then, only two households can sit at the same table).
 
Nancy said:
You can’t go and see people outside of your household in a pub or restaurant unless you are sat outside (and even then, only two households can sit at the same table).
Click to expand...
I've no idea how much that rule is actually understood.

I haven't been to a pub or restaurant, for anyone who has, did they do any checking of who was in your group and whether it had more than two households?
 
David_5000 said:
I've no idea how much that rule is actually understood.

I haven't been to a pub or restaurant, for anyone who has, did they do any checking of who was in your group and whether it had more than two households?
Click to expand...
They ask for details from one of you for test and trace, but no checks whatsoever as to households. I’ve been out the last couple of fridays, and there are gangs of lads cheerfully standing around chatting who quite clearly aren’t from the same household.
 
David_5000 said:
I've no idea how much that rule is actually understood.

I haven't been to a pub or restaurant, for anyone who has, did they do any checking of who was in your group and whether it had more than two households?
Click to expand...

Absolutely none. A bit like with shops and face masks, it probably isn't up to the pubs to be policing it, but rather assume that everyone there is obeying the rules in good faith which of course is nonsense.

Surely the vast majority of groups in pubs are from separate households, and the rules in all of the country (not just in lockdown areas) are still that these people should be socially distanced... everyone has been a bit hush hush about that though because of course it's in everybody's interest just to pretend that what's happening in pubs is completely fine.
 
Nancy said:
You can’t go and see people outside of your household in a pub or restaurant unless you are sat outside (and even then, only two households can sit at the same table).
Click to expand...

I thought you could if you had formed a bubble with them? And you’re allowed two separate households as a bubble?
 
Suomi said:
I thought you could if you had formed a bubble with them? And you’re allowed two separate households as a bubble?
Click to expand...

My understanding was that two separate households could form a bubble if one of them was a one-person household, although that might be a hangover from a previous stage of lockdown.
 
The support bubble thing still only applies if one household is a single person household.

To be honest it’s probably also fine if it’s two couples or what have you, it just makes it more tricky when it comes to making sure everyone is bubbling with the same people etc.
 
I have without doubt broken it several times. I mostly knew they were wrong. I still did them anyway, based on a rationalised and I think sensible weighing up of the situation.
 
Nancy said:
You can’t go and see people outside of your household in a pub or restaurant unless you are sat outside (and even then, only two households can sit at the same table).
Click to expand...

I had absolutely no idea about this as a rule, as I'm sure MANY MANY others don't either :D

Everywhere I've been just refer to everything as "your bubble" and push responsibility onto the customer. If anything, it's been hard BOOKING a table with the eat out thing in place, as everybody is desperate to eat at nice restaurants with their friends and barely have to pay for it :D
 
I only booked a table for 6 for my birthday as that was the biggest table the pub was allowed to take, however the happily sat a walk-in table of 11 people whilst I was there!
 
  • Like
Reactions: SDF
Lucille said:
I only booked a table for 6 for my birthday as that was the biggest table the pub was allowed to take, however the happily sat a walk-in table of 11 people whilst I was there!
Click to expand...
Getting a pub table for my birthday was a nightmare. One place was going to take my card details and charge me £25 a head for non attendance. Otherwise we were just limited to six.
 
Nancy said:
You can’t go and see people outside of your household in a pub or restaurant unless you are sat outside (and even then, only two households can sit at the same table).
Click to expand...

You mean for Manchester etc, right?

I don’t think that’s the specific rule for everyone, but the fact remains that wherever people are, and whatever the iteration of the rule, there is meant to be social distancing between households.

I think that’s the fundamental crux of it and if people want to break that so they can eat out to help out with their friends, then that’s fair enough. But I don’t buy it when people play the confusion card.
 
Ag said:
I have without doubt broken it several times. I mostly knew they were wrong. I still did them anyway, based on a rationalised and I think sensible weighing up of the situation.
Click to expand...

Frankly I think it’s either this or going INSANE
 
Yeah - I get to spend time with a group of people with whom I share exactly nothing except an employer and basically no-one else. I know there's worse but it's still not ideal.
 
Can we have a stat check? Where does this stand in the chart of biggest topics ever on Moopy?
 
A few local schools (not my sons school) have had children with positive cases. Only single cases at the moment, so will be interesting to see if it blows up which I think it definitely will. What a WORRY. :(
 
Concerning, seeing as the food factory cases seem to blow up to high double and triple figures before anything's even detected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Back
Top Bottom