No Holidays abroad Allowed (1 Viewer)

[jongood]

Of all the lorry drivers blockaded by Macron at xmas very few tested positive. Imo its because its a fairly insular occupation- a lot like motorhomes but without your own ablutions

Ive found the figures 15000 lorry drivers 36 positive.

 

[MITHRANDIR]

Ive found the figures 15000 lorry drivers 36 positive.

That is 0.24% i think, not a lot, not including false positive tests if applicable

 

[pandas]

There is a huge danger here of the whole population becoming germaphobics. Where are we as a United Kingdom taking this now? Even when you can travel and with inevitable further micro control of our lives do we get to a stage where you get tested for every known virus at the border, there are plenty of cases of people bringing back all sorts of viruses when returning from holiday....clamidia, syphilis from a week of clubbing in Magaluf, Benidorm, Ibiza, Canaries etc as a start.

Lets just open up....else this will never end...get on with life

sounds like you go to different holiday destinations than me and have different experiences. Just as well I am thinking.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[The Wino]

That is 0.24% i think, not a lot, not including false positive tests if applicable

Isn't that 240 per 100,000. Thats a fairly high rate not some insignificant number. If you were using that as evidence that its safe to travel out of the UK and return I think you might shoot yourself in the foot!

 

[MITHRANDIR]

No i didn't say it was insignificant just not a lot in terms of less than a quarter of 1%, i would have guessed that figure to be higher.
I have already said for me 75/100,000/14 day "safe"
Nor was i presenting it as evidence of any kind.
But that works for domestic travel too, IF you think that 240/100,000 is not safe for travel out of the uk, then why do you think it is safe for travel to different regions in the uk?

 

[jongood]

Isn't that 240 per 100,000. Thats a fairly high rate not some insignificant number. If you were using that as evidence that its safe to travel out of the UK and return I think you might shoot yourself in the foot!

If you don't consider 99.76% a high enough safety margin you re going to have some problems.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[MITHRANDIR]

If you don't consider 99.76% a high enough safety margin you re going to have some problems.

Very,very,very, good point there, although the naysayers will be along shortly.............

 

[The Wino]

Very,very,very, good point there, although the naysayers will be along shortly.............

So what is an"acceptable safety margin" . Lets say 95% of travellers returning were covid free is that ok? How about you jongood what's your figure?

 

[jongood]

So what is an"acceptable safety margin" . Lets say 95% of travellers returning were covid free is that ok? How about you jongood what's your figure?

Nice try mate, I'm not biting. I'm really struggling to think whats safer than 99.76% though

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[MITHRANDIR]

So what is an"acceptable safety margin" . Lets say 95% of travellers returning were covid free is that ok? How about you jongood what's your figure?

Your question is clearly barbed, i won't be drawn.....

 

[The Wino]

Your question is clearly barbed, i won't be drawn.....

Nice try mate, I'm not biting. I'm really struggling to think whats safer than 99.76% though

I am tempted to say all mouth and no trousers!!!. On the face of it small capitals percetages make it sound safe but when you think in the first wave "only" 10% at most were infected and 40k died it does put a slightly different slant on it. I would have thought given the chance of new variants being higher it would make sense to only allow travel to places with a lower infection rate than here and with testing/ isolation on return on the current evidence.

 

[jongood]

Just to put a little more meat on this; these were lorry drivers who had been forced to camp out on the M20 and Manston Airport for up to a week and share no doubt very few ablutions, so surely tha only 0.24% got it is all the more surprising.

edit, this is when the Kent/dunkirk variant was at its first flush and they were right in the middle of it.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[jongood]

I am tempted to say all mouth and no trousers!!!. On the face of it small capitals percetages make it sound safe but when you think in the first wave "only" 10% at most were infected and 40k died it does put a slightly different slant on it. I would have thought given the chance of new variants being higher it would make sense to only allow travel to places with a lower infection rate than here and with testing/ isolation on return on the current evidence.

Can you think of anything that is 99.76% safe? falling over while putting said trousers on is probably more common than that.

 

[MITHRANDIR]

No i didn't say it was insignificant just not a lot in terms of less than a quarter of 1%, i would have guessed that figure to be higher.
I have already said for me 75/100,000/14 day "safe"
Nor was i presenting it as evidence of any kind.
But that works for domestic travel too, IF you think that 240/100,000 is not safe for travel out of the uk, then why do you think it is safe for travel to different regions in the uk

I am tempted to say all mouth and no trousers!!!. On the face of it small capitals percetages make it sound safe but when you think in the first wave "only" 10% at most were infected and 40k died it does put a slightly different slant on it. I would have thought given the chance of new variants being higher it would make sense to only allow travel to places with a lower infection rate than here and with testing/ isolation on return on the current evidence.

1, we are in a very different place now than the first wave in terms of vaccines, treatment etc
2, New variants can occur anywhere
You don't seem to want to answer my question, which i think is valid, what about uk travel?
is that because it doesn't fit your narrative??

 

[The Wino]

1, we are in a very different place now than the first wave in terms of vaccines, treatment etc
2, New variants can occur anywhere
You don't seem to want to answer my question, which i think is valid, what about uk travel?
is that because it doesn't fit your narrative??

I think UK travel is different in the new variant situation were in at the moment. Yes new variants can occur anywhere in fact one already has here. I think the rate here to allow travel needs monitoring at present the national average is just under 60 with lower numbers of new variants.
I did see some chat the other day about new cases they do seem to have flattened off even increased a bit. Some were saying the fact that hospital admissions aren't increasing means were fine I think its way too early to say that. The hospital admissions will lag new cases by a couple of weeks and if they do increase it's going to be fairly slow at first. I think the current roadmap seems fine when we get to mid May we will know a lot more about how cases have changed with relaxations inside GB. If cases have risen but hospital admissions haven't and we have similar cases to Europe with a similar profile of covid types I see no reason why travel abroad shouldn't be allowed as freely as travel at home. But there are a few conditions in there that at the moment don't seem likely to happen quickly. Our July trip therefore looks less than a 50/50. I would like to take it because I would like us to be in a place where all the conditions are met.
By the way on the new treatments front it would be nice to see the figures I suspect that the death rate for people hospitalised has reduced a fair bit from the start of the pandemic but not to the point where it's become an easily treated illness.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[MITHRANDIR]

How is uk travel different?
Please explain.

 

[suavecarve]

Ive found the figures 15000 lorry drivers 36 positive.

So if that were a country of 15,000, and they were the figures for a fortnight, their rate would be twice the rate of the highest in Europe at any stage at 3,306 (on the presumption they tested everyone)
Dependant upon what percentage they tested would decrease the rate.
eg if there were 150,000 lorry drivers who went through but they tested 10 per cent of them then the rate would be 330.6 and 324 of them would have entered the country with coronavirus and not knowing about it.

That is 0.24% i think, not a lot, not including false positive tests if applicable

Or pretty much exactly the same positivity rate in the country

 

[MitchandJenny]

Protests are our right, BUT. PEACEFULLY !!
Mitch

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[The Wino]

How is uk travel different?
Please explain.

UK travel is different at the moment in that we have lower rates ,lower rates for variants more control over which way the pandemic is heading less chance of fast increases in cases due to the level of vaccination. Allowing overseas travel results in more close mixing in airports often with people not just from Europe but all over the world travelling in confined spaces herded into busses at many stages etc. Now you could say that ok stop air travel still but allow surface travel but how would the airline lobby react.
When I hear the pubs at the moment complaining about non essential shops opening indoors saying pubs ought to be allowed to do the same what no-one ever points out is that the idea is probably to allow a controlled amount of mixing not necessarily that shops are safer than pubs but that both together is not a sensible option (although it could be argued that people in pubs at the end of the evening might be less likely to remain spaced and careful than shoppers).
What don't you agree with in the criteria I mentioned before?

 

[marchie]

No i didn't say it was insignificant just not a lot in terms of less than a quarter of 1%, i would have guessed that figure to be higher.
I have already said for me 75/100,000/14 day "safe"
Nor was i presenting it as evidence of any kind.
But that works for domestic travel too, IF you think that 240/100,000 is not safe for travel out of the uk, then why do you think it is safe for travel to different regions in the uk?

I think yesterday's figures for the UK component countries were reported yesterday with Scotland peaking at 240 per 100k of population; Engalnd around 350 per 100k of population; and Wales at over 400 per 100k of population. I can't remember whether a figure was reported for N. Ireland, but Scotland's high infection rate, rising steadily over the last 10 days or so, has raised a few eyebrows/anxieties. Scotland has, though, undertaken more testing of late and has picked up a decent number of asymptomatic cases, so possible that many have been wandering around, blissfully unaware that they could be spreading the virus rather than the word ...
IIRC, Germany had set an infection rate of 50 cases per 100k of population as the criterion for reopening its economy, but had decided to slow the pace because its rate was sitting at just over 100 about 2 weeks ago [just before the '3rd wave in Europe' fears surfaced].

Steve

 

[The Wino]

I think yesterday's figures for the UK component countries were reported yesterday with Scotland peaking at 240 per 100k of population; Engalnd around 350 per 100k of population; and Wales at over 400 per 100k of population. I can't remember whether a figure was reported for N. Ireland, but Scotland's high infection rate, rising steadily over the last 10 days or so, has raised a few eyebrows/anxieties. Scotland has, though, undertaken more testing of late and has picked up a decent number of asymptomatic cases, so possible that many have been wandering around, blissfully unaware that they could be spreading the virus rather than the word ...
IIRC, Germany had set an infection rate of 50 cases per 100k of population as the criterion for reopening its economy, but had decided to slow the pace because its rate was sitting at just over 100 about 2 weeks ago [just before the '3rd wave in Europe' fears surfaced].

Steve

That's what I meant about the cases in the lorry drivers. It does seem odd saying that the number is insignificant when it equates to the peak in Scotland!!
I suspect that anyone looking at the numbers that way is letting hope get in the way of reality.
I don't think it would go down well if the government said they were allowing holidays abroad for a jolly because testing lorry drivers showed they were only infected at the level of the peak in Scotland!

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[MITHRANDIR]

With respect, if you want to make things up as you go

That's what I meant about the cases in the lorry drivers. It does seem odd saying that the number is insignificant when it equates to the peak in Scotland!!
I suspect that anyone looking at the numbers that way is letting hope get in the way of reality.
I don't think it would go down well if the government said they were allowing holidays abroad for a jolly because testing lorry drivers showed they were only infected at the level of the peak in Scotland!

Should have gone to specsavers i think
I NEVER said they were insignificant, i just remarked i thought i thought the figure was "not a lot", as i thought it would be higher.
But misquote if it makes you feel better.

 

[The Wino]

With respect, if you want to make things up as you go

Should have gone to specsavers i think
I NEVER said they were insignificant, i just remarked i thought i thought the figure was "not a lot", as i thought it would be higher.
But misquote if it makes you feel better.

Sorry ok "not a lot". But you did say you thought 75/100,000 was a reasonable level to allow travel but then 240/100,000 was not a lot!. I was struggling to see the logic. I think the way numbers are presented can make a huge difference to how they appear. For example jongood said that 99.76% negative should be safe enough for anyone but your figure of 75/100,000 would require it to be 99.925% safe before allowing travel you are actually way more conservative in what you want than him.

 

[busby]

Protests are our right, BUT. PEACEFULLY !!
Mitch

But not whilst a pandemic is on..thought groups spread it,,BUSBY.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[busby]

What are the chances of catching it IF you always SD,,,or wear a mask if you can't,,always and I mean always wash your hands every time you touch something,,have had vaccine number one,,and never enter a bubble ?? BUSBY.

 

[JJ]

My relentless, exhaustive research on Quinta Majay has come up with an interesting statistic.

Man City supporters do not get the Corona Virus...

JJ

 

[Bluemooner]

My relentless, exhaustive research on Quinta Majay has come up with an interesting statistic.

Man City supporters do not get the Corona Virus...

JJ

That's good to hear

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[gus-lopez]

Sorry ok "not a lot". But you did say you thought 75/100,000 was a reasonable level to allow travel but then 240/100,000 was not a lot!. I was struggling to see the logic. I think the way numbers are presented can make a huge difference to how they appear. For example jongood said that 99.76% negative should be safe enough for anyone but your figure of 75/100,000 would require it to be 99.925% safe before allowing travel you are actually way more conservative in what you want than him.

Unfortunately what that does is the reverse.points out to people that the governments want the rate at 50 or below , which is 99,95%. i.e.
An infintessimal amont to most people.
If you explain that to the general public you will be met with rioting.

 

[jongood]

That's what I meant about the cases in the lorry drivers. It does seem odd saying that the number is insignificant when it equates to the peak in Scotland!!
I suspect that anyone looking at the numbers that way is letting hope get in the way of reality.
I don't think it would go down well if the government said they were allowing holidays abroad for a jolly because testing lorry drivers showed they were only infected at the level of the peak in Scotland!

Whatever the propaganda machine says 0.24% is a very small number.

 

[jongood]

Sorry ok "not a lot". But you did say you thought 75/100,000 was a reasonable level to allow travel but then 240/100,000 was not a lot!. I was struggling to see the logic. I think the way numbers are presented can make a huge difference to how they appear. For example jongood said that 99.76% negative should be safe enough for anyone but your figure of 75/100,000 would require it to be 99.925% safe before allowing travel you are actually way more conservative in what you want than him.

Misquoting me again I see

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}