Coronavirus - Part Two.

[Longcol]

14 minutes ago, Thirsty Relic said:

I'm not sure about all this talk about the law.  Perhaps we ought to look at it from the point of view of Company Policy.  If a company decides it wants all its workers to wear a uniform, surely it can - it is a sensible request under their terms of employment.  If they also say that, especially in this crisis, a mask is part of that uniform, then that too seems fair and reasonable.  Logically, therefore,  it could even discipline staff if it chose to for not adhering to that policy.

Concur - it's about terms and conditions of service.

[Pettytom]

1 hour ago, onewheeldave said:

Masks aren't uniforms. 

Why not?

[Dardandec]

4 hours ago, Baron99 said:

Yes the big stores are apparently temperature checking their staff every morning.  If anyone's running a high temperature, they're supposed to go home. 

We're temp checked at work everyday and I am surprised it is not mandatory in the work place. We would then have to self isolate and be tested as to company policy. Even if it only picked up a small amount of infections, it's a small amount of infections less out there spreading it. 

[Baron99]

Regarding the police not really deciding to get involved in enforcement of face coverings, only attendeding any incident if things turn a bit nasty with such as threats made to shop staff? 

 

Saw both a spokesman for SY Police & Dr Alan Billings, SY Police Commissioner on tv yesterday, confirming as much as it wouldn't be feasible to have police officers outside every store as they are busy doing other police work? 

 

One question?  What happened to the PCSO's that were regularly seen patrolling places such as The Moor, pre-lockdown?   

 

Surely you don't need that many PCSO's. or even that many proper police officers to be closely on hand to help?  A couple sited in the middle of The Moor between Sainsbury's & The Moor Market might help 'encourage' the stubborn shoppers, (the urban warriors, fighting back against 'The Man'; fighting to protect our democratic freedom by refusing to wear a covering - or as I call them, the selfish & stupid), to wear a covering? 

Edited July 25, 2020 by Baron99

[DerbyTup]

Did those big crowds a month ago lead to a significant increase in infections?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/53519668  

 

 

[Baron99]

1 hour ago, DerbyTup said:

Did those big crowds a month ago lead to a significant increase in infections?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/53519668  

 

 

Reading the BBC story, where they highlight the fact that there was no specific increase in the Bournemouth area with a comparison with places such as Leicester, I remember the BBC reports at the time & a few individuals who they interviewed who had travelled to Bournemouth & it was stated that a large number of tourists had actually travelled from the Midlands. 

 

The locals probably stayed away from the beaches but the tourists, from all over the place, were probably responsible for spreading COVID-19 amongst themselves & taking it back to their communities? 

Edited July 25, 2020 by Baron99

[onewheeldave]

35 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

Reading the BBC story, where they highlight the fact that there was no specific increase in the Bournemouth area with a comparison with places such as Leicester, I remember the BBC reports at the time & a few individuals who they interviewed who had travelled to Bournemouth & it was stated that a large number of tourists had actually travelled from the Midlands. 

 

The locals probably stayed away from the beaches but the tourists, from all over the place, were probably responsible for spreading COVID-19 amongst themselves & taking it back to their communities? 

 

1 hour ago, DerbyTup said:

Did those big crowds a month ago lead to a significant increase in infections?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/53519668  

 

 

No.

 

""Outside activities are known to be much safer. This is one of the few facts on Covid-19 that is virtually universally agreed," says Prof Keith Neil, a professor in infectious diseases at the University of Nottingham."

 

 

[Baron99]

32 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

 

No.

 

""Outside activities are known to be much safer. This is one of the few facts on Covid-19 that is virtually universally agreed," says Prof Keith Neil, a professor in infectious diseases at the University of Nottingham."

 

 

Being outside reduces your chances of catching COVID-19 but it doesn't eliminate them.   Neither does sitting in a vehicle with someone, possibly asymptomatic, for hours on end travelling to & from a beach hours away or touching possible contaminated surfaces others have touched. 

[onewheeldave]

18 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

Being outside reduces your chances of catching COVID-19 but it doesn't eliminate them.   Neither does sitting in a vehicle with someone, possibly asymptomatic, for hours on end travelling to & from a beach hours away or touching possible contaminated surfaces others have touched. 

It doesn't eliminate it, it's very rare that any risk management of any kind will 100% eliminate the issue.

 

But being outside does more than reduce chances of catching COVID-19, it makes it very unlikely indeed. 

[Baron99]

26 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

It doesn't eliminate it, it's very rare that any risk management of any kind will 100% eliminate the issue.

 

But being outside does more than reduce chances of catching COVID-19, it makes it very unlikely indeed. 

You still have to couple it with social distancing.  There was little evidence of that in the reports from a few weeks ago.   You've only got to look at the photo in the link posted by DerbyTup this morning for evidence of that. 

Edited July 25, 2020 by Baron99