snowychap

6 minutes ago, bickster said:

Not my place to comment really but if you could just quietly bin Elliott Daly, that would be great

Yes, not your place. I see what you're doing...

4 minutes ago, Genie said:

Ah alright mate, thanks for the quality input (again).

Erm, sorry.

I don't think it's, er, my fault.

Just now, Genie said:

What nonsense?

 

The nonsense you posted.

1 minute ago, Genie said:

Why do people care about other people not obeying the stay at home orders during a pandemic? Is that what you meant?

Why do people care about nonsense is what I meant.

That you appear to care about these 'orders' rather underlines my point, yes.

4 minutes ago, Genie said:

Which one?

I’ve seen dozens of posts about shops being rammed today. Apparently people had to queue to get out of ASDA. Kingsbury water park was turning people away as it was packed. 50+ people queuing outside the Range.

Why do people care?

1 hour ago, Genie said:

People don’t follow advice, this is why we had to have rules written into law

This is rubbish. The guidance/the advice was different from the law and pretty much always has been. All of it (but without making any sense) could be called 'the rules'.

It's a real disappointment that this still fails to hit home.

51 minutes ago, Jonesy7211 said:

Time for some of the players to be moved out of the squad to make room for some seriously exciting talent.

Name names?

Other than binning Farrell and Ford, where might you be going?

Edit:

 Not a challenge, btw. Just interest in suggestions.

53 minutes ago, JB said:

He’s got to go. Immediately. There is so, so much wrong with this side  

An England loss was very predictable to anybody who’s watched them in recent times. Welsh mentality was far superior. Even allowing for some of the worst refereeing I’ve ever seen in a rugby match, they got what they deserved. 

And yet we should have won. Therein lies Jones's utter failure: he can make really superb players in to a team of dross.

1 minute ago, bickster said:

He can stay forever as far as I'm concerned

Can someone at the RFU step up and sack Eddie **** Jones, please!!!!

Someone ought to be checking telephone calls to bookmakers...

9 minutes ago, AlwaysAVFC said:

My wife got the call last week to have her vaccination (today). She questioned her eligibility as she is 33. It was because she had gestational diabetes, while pregnant and they strongly recommend she did it now rather than wait. Which is fine and makes sense, they are doing some of the most vaccinations in the country here so getting well through the priority list.

Today however she also got a letter to tell her to shield. Just seems strange nearly a year after people started shielding, they have now decided she should shield, even allowing for the fact we moved and changed doctors 6 months ago.

I know it's just the wording you've used but the shielding letters are advice (the new ones are based on an updated risk assessment though, as per my post earlier, not on the most up to date data about patients) and it does say 'this means you can make an informed choice yourself'. It could and should, however, have that line much more prominently than it does (at the end of paragraph 5).

6 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Famously high correlation between *smartphone users* and *the elderly, who have received both vaccine doses*.

I don't think it's going to be about what might be the most sensible or most practical thing to do - or the safest or most secure (wrt to actual public health or data security and accuracy).

It's just going to be the thing that happens and I think businesses will drive it. And a lot of it will be for little more than psychological reassurance for their workers and customers - see 'covid secure'.

15 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

The app that’s shit at its original purpose could be reworked as a form of I.D. Yep, can’t see anything that could possibly go wrong there. Absolutely no chance of the app not working, or somebody not having a smartphone, or somebody borrowing someone else’s phone, or sharing a screen grab...

Fool proof.

As long as a tory chum gets to pocket a few tens of millions off this then I’m happy with the idea.

Indeed. The main purpose of the review is quite possibly who gets the keys to this particular chest of gold.

4 minutes ago, veloman said:

Take your point but  ... are either of them really consistent ? Would you agree Stokes is rather out of form ? 

As consistent as Bell ever was. And, yes, Stokes probably is out of form.

Form is temporary...

Grauniad:

Quote

People could use a revamped NHS app to prove their Covid status on entering pubs or theatres in England under plans being considered by ministers, as one major care provider said staff have two months to get jabbed or lose their jobs.

Ministers are expected to give businesses in England the power to check Covid certification – whether people have been vaccinated or the result of recent tests. That will include small-scale venues like restaurants or bars.

However, the equalities watchdog and trade unions have said that any move that relies solely on vaccine certification could be unlawful and that passes must not be used to relax Covid safety measures in workplaces.

One method under consideration in a review being led by Michael Gove is to revise an NHS app, which could be used to prove vaccination status or the result of a recent test. It is unclear whether people could upload the results of self-administered lateral flow tests.

...

Downing Street sources said business were already able to use their discretion on who they served, within discrimination law.

The review is intended to be concluded to allow introduction of the measures before the roadmap reaches its final phase – on 21 June – when the government hopes to lift all social restrictions, though advice on hand-washing, mask-wearing and social distancing could still be in place.

... more

We also have the tail of a dormouse.

2 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

This one doesn't look like it'll last until the weekend does it?

 

Not sure it will last until Friday.

6 minutes ago, Rodders said:

if we can get up to 220-240

I think I may have spotted the flaw in your plan.

6 minutes ago, veloman said:

No one with the ... sheer ability of (Sir) Ian Bell.

Root and Stokes?

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

There needs to be an acknowledgement that creating separate classes of services for people based on their medical history is frankly dystopian.

Along with a possibility that some kind of version of it may well begin to be implemented from June onwards - less likely as some sort of government-led mandatory scheme but bit by bit, sector by sector perhaps as some sort of licencing condition beginning with nightclubs, live events with large crowds, &c..

I was offered a jab at my surgery by text earlier due to out of date data on my weight/BMI.

I understand that it's quite a logistical exercise and I wouldn't be expecting frequent data exchanging but I updated my surgery last summer (and this meant I wasn't offered a free 'flu jab this winter) when I had a telephone appointment asking for some back pain medication so it's a little concerning that it's well over six months out of date. Asked to be marked down as wanting a vaccination but when my actual time comes around (and not now because I'm incorrectly regarded me as high risk) - was assured that this would be the case.

Did they announce what will happen to the self-isolation requirements and the contact-tracing data requirements?

Will they also lapse when the legal restrictions over social contact are due to end or will everyone still be expected to give all of their contact details as per last year for pubs/restaurants/events and be required by law to self-isolate (even if they've had it or have been vaccinated)?

44 minutes ago, Genie said:

Does the study

What 'study'?

As per the article:

Quote

Woolhouse, for his part, has been taken by surprise by the interest in his comments – which he presumed to be a statement of a generally understood fact.

“This is not a subtle picture,” he said. “The published studies were already quite clear at the time

44 minutes ago, Genie said:

part of the issue of thousands flocking to the beaches was impact outside of them

As per the article:

Quote

Nobody disputes that there were some possible knock-on risks during the heatwave, on crowded trains or overused toilets – and the traffic jams and litter the crowds brought had a very real effect on local residents’ quality of life.

..

44 minutes ago, Genie said:

any breakout would unlikely occur in the location of the beach, it would be back at the home town of the people who came from all over to spend the day at the beach

As per the article:

Quote

“We have known for some time that only about 10% of transmission events are linked to outdoor activities,”

I.e. it's about linking an outbreak to a common location where people may have been and not simply to where they live - so it's not about asking people where they 'think' they may have acquired it.

A point here is that yes, there are peripheral issues (some of which I raised myself last year in a discussion with @HanoiVillan) but that the simple event of people being outside even in large numbers is not something that has massive repercussions in terms of the spreading of this virus (or likely any other) unless people in those large numbers are in close proximity for a substantial amount of time in small groups.

The real point is that, even after a year of this pandemic being around, people are still missing the picture about where our attention(s) should lie in order to reduce transmission of this and other viruses - workplaces, indoor spaces, places with no or poor ventilation, &c. and we should stop wringing our hands (and I may have been guilty of that myself, tbh) about people going outside in large numbers, stop getting so obsessed with people sanitising their sodding hands every thirty seconds, cleaning parcels or boxes delivered to your house, leaping back to stay 10 metres away (yes, hyperbole) from someone walking towards you and past you on a pavement, and on and on.