 Poster: A snowHead
|
| colinstone wrote: |
| Nadenoodlee wrote: |
@colinstone, from
BAG:
A negative test result does not exempt you from the mandatory quarantine requirement or shorten the quarantine period. This is because a negative test result does not rule out an infection with the new coronavirus. |
This is getting tedious by armchair warriors, probably in UK. ... |
She lives in CH. Why make an assumption at all?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| holidayloverxx wrote: |
| colinstone wrote: |
| Nadenoodlee wrote: |
@colinstone, from
BAG:
A negative test result does not exempt you from the mandatory quarantine requirement or shorten the quarantine period. This is because a negative test result does not rule out an infection with the new coronavirus. |
This is getting tedious by armchair warriors, probably in UK. ... |
She lives in CH. Why make an assumption at all? |
OK, in CH, so she should know better?? But still behaving like an armchair warrior. And I accept that using possibly would be more accurate. And she perhaps could disclose some hint of location, helpful, which would mean more FACTs and then less assuming. All I stated was a FACT. "My chum was released from Q a day early after a negative test!!!" I'm currently being released 3 days early coming from France:
Good day Mr. Colin Stone
You entered Switzerland on Saturday, December 26, 2020 indirectly from a country or area with an increased risk of transmission of the new coronavirus. It is possible that you have been infected. According to the Federal Council Ordinance (SR 818.101.27), you must remain in quarantine for 10 days after entering from a risk area.
You are ordered into quarantine with immediate effect. The quarantine lasts - provided that no symptoms have appeared until then - ten days (00:00 to 23:59 hrs) from the day of entry into Switzerland. The Office of the Cantonal Chief Medical Officer will notify you of the end of the quarantine by e-mail.
Your quarantine will therefore probably end on Monday, January 4, 2021 at 23:59 hrs.
A negative test result neither lifts the requirement to go into quarantine nor does it shorten the required quarantine period (see also the FOPH’s “Frequently Asked Questions”).
During the quarantine you must stay at home in your apartment, and may not receive any visitors. This also means not attending any events.
You must follow the following measures:
1. Carefully study the FOPH's instructions on self-quarantine and act accordingly.
2. Watch the FOPH's video on self-isolation.
3. Under no circumstances are you allowed to attend meetings of people. Nor should you use public transport.
4. Monitor your state of health daily and call your doctor if you have any symptoms (e.g. sore throat, cough, shortness of breath, chest pain, fever, sudden loss of sense of smell and/or taste, headache, malaise, muscle aches, gastrointestinal symptoms, skin rashes) These can be signs of infection with the new coronavirus.
5. In emergencies, contact the emergency medical services (telephone number 144).
We thank you for your cooperation. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. You can reach us by e-mail at corona.ct@be.ch or by phone at +41 31 636 80 00 (daily between 09:00 and 19:00 hrs).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
@colinstone, all I asked was a question Colin and challenged your interpretation. It seems from
Your cut and paste that although there is anecdotal ‘friends being allowed out early’ news- it’s quite clear that’s still
Not the official line.
The reason I asked, from my home in Zurich where I live, is because I have Corona and I’m self isolating. Away from my husband and two children aged 1 and 4, who have to quarantine (despite negative tests so far).
So apologies for asking a question and challenging your interpretation. I wondered if there had been some change/ test I was not aware of that would mean I can hug my children any earlier than next Tuesday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| LaForet wrote: |
@Dravot its easier to isolate and protect the most vulnerable than it is to half-arsedly shut the country down
I agree that the Tiering and containment by district doesn't seem to work, especially for the new variant. But the only alternative is to fully lock down. |
I'm not sure the difference between T4 and full lockdown?
| LaForet wrote: |
15 million covid-vulnerable people cannot be isolated to leave everyone else free to mingle as before. Only 12% of groceries can be delivered through online supermarkets according to their trade association. 88% still involve people going into shops. |
I call BS on this - we've not been into a supermarket since 2013. More like supermarkets know people spend more in person due to marketing and impulsive shops.
| LaForet wrote: |
| Anyone the subject of care interacts with a carer, and these have been and remain a major vector of transmission. Many of those at risk are in multi-generational households, where it's impossible to isolate. These are just a few example of why the attractive idea of 'isolate and protect the most vulnerable' is impractical. |
these people need protecting - at the minute their kids are going to the shops and the grandkids are going to school
| LaForet wrote: |
| The 'isolate and protect the most vulnerable' strategy has been compared to gathering all your valuables into one room as a strategy against a house fire. It may work for a while but eventually the fire gets in, |
or the fire burns out, starved of fuel, heat or oxygen
| LaForet wrote: |
| And remember we're not talking just about deaths: it's the impact on the NHS - any one of us may need urgent A&E treatment and many people need non-urgent but vital longer-term elective treatments and surgery. And when 'isolate and protect' fails, there's a certain and massive impact on the NHS, and on the economy too. |
erm yeah, exactly. the NHS has been screwed this year, as has the economy.
| LaForet wrote: |
| you start looking at who is at risk and who you can practically confine, it underlines the limitations even further. In the NHS, around 44% of the clinical staff are BAME, notably a much higher proportion than in the general population. For non-medical staff, it's about 18%. . |
That applies now too
| LaForet wrote: |
| 42% of NHS clinical staff and 20% of Consultants are over the age of 55. |
380 under 65s died all year "with" Covid
These are all groups that in one way or another are at greater risk of long-term health problems should they contract COVID19. It's hardly practical to take all these people (or even, say a minority of them) into isolation. Carry on with this exercise and you are pretty much left with people in care homes being the only ones you can practically isolate if you really try hard - 418,000 by unofficial estimates, 291,000 at the last census in 2011.
| LaForet wrote: |
I'm not arguing against being sensible and isolating everyone who can do so as extensively as is practical. It's just that we're already doing that. What I'm arguing against is the idea that if only some (generally other) people were prepared to isolate in some more responsible way, the rest of the population could carry on working as before and we'd be economically pretty OK. It's a nice idea but it will never happen because it's impractical. In a pandemic the only tool to significantly restrain recurrent outbreaks and massive NHS and economic impact, especially as viruses mutate, is a national lockdown. It's not until there is widespread immunisation that outbreaks will reduce and eventually stop.
The UK has dodged the Pandemic/Epidemic bullet 4-5 times in the last 50 years. This is what epidemiologists and the WHO have been warning about. And when Governments in the UK And the USA analysed their preparedness, they felt fairly comfortable they were ready. Unfortunately, such analyses were undertaken by logical scientists, not irrational politicians or public, and in a pre-Web age. So it turns out we actually weren't very well prepared after all. And even now, politicians are pushing out false hope and setting impossible expectations. We'll get through it, but it's cost us a lot lot more than it needed to. And in the process, most people have come to believe that our politicial leaders were ill-suited to the challenge of an opponent who can't be overcome by soundbites, headlines or PR propaganda. |
I don't necessarily disagree. My problem is that the current punitive measures aren't working, and haven't worked. Fit & healthy people are barely affected by this but the debt being incurred will be beyond astronomical. If you think public services are bad now, how do you think we're going to fund schools & hospitals in the future?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@Dravot, interesting counterpoints. Regarding your last statement above, I would contend that hard lockdowns in many countries have been very successful. What hasn't worked is soft lockdowns. We in Ireland are perplexed and confused by UK approach with rapidly changing tiers, safe countries, curfews (if pubs are high risk just close them altogether), etc. (However we are no one to talk now, after a very successful 6 weeks and becoming the lowest incidence country in EU, our ill-timed release of restrictions has put us up S-creek rightly)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Actually what really works is super fast compulsory contact tracing through a mandatory app. As in Taiwan.
But steps on "civil liberties" so doesn't work in wishy washy piffle poffle whiff whaff Boris country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
360 under 65s deaths all year with Covid is, I think, just plain wrong: a quick sum from https://www.ons.gov.uk/datasets/weekly-deaths-age-sex?%3Auri=weekly-deaths-age-sex%2F gives me 7,844.
There is a stat like doing the rounds of about that number deaths without underlying conditions below a particular age, but anyone relying on that ought to cite it alongside the (long) list of conditions and proportion of people with at least one (over 40%, I think)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| colinstone wrote: |
Actually what really works is super fast compulsory contact tracing through a mandatory app. As in Taiwan.
But steps on "civil liberties" so doesn't work in wishy washy piffle poffle whiff whaff Boris country. |
Or in wishy washy piffle poffle whiff whaff Keir country.
Or in wishy washy piffle poffle whiff whaff Nicola country.
Or in wishy washy piffle poffle whiff whaff Foster country.
Or in wishy washy piffle poffle whiff whaff Drakeford country.
Or in democratic countries generally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
Although Adhern or McGowan seem to have managed.... with a head-start (which we had) and good leadership (which we didn’t) it was possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| achilles wrote: |
| colinstone wrote: |
Actually what really works is super fast compulsory contact tracing through a mandatory app. As in Taiwan.
But steps on "civil liberties" so doesn't work in wishy washy piffle poffle whiff whaff Boris country. |
Or in wishy washy piffle poffle whiff whaff Keir country.
Or in wishy washy piffle poffle whiff whaff Nicola country.
Or in wishy washy piffle poffle whiff whaff Foster country.
Or in wishy washy piffle poffle whiff whaff Drakeford country.
Or in democratic countries generally. |
You are spouting cobblers. Within 2 minutes of arriving in CH telecoms coverage mid afternoon 29 Dec with UK phone I received a text with instructions.
After following those instructions and registering in evening, I received 2 emails next morning from Canton Bern Contact Tracing. I had a query and called the number. Answered in less than a minute. C19 test arranged am 31 Dec in local surgery less than 5 mins walk away.
Don't think Johnson/Hancock system works that quickly??
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
I wouldn't bother arguing with BoJo's chief cheerleader he's probably a bit squiffy given what a stonkin year the Bozster has just delivered ( while everyone else recognises him as a reckless BSer)
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
@Nadenoodlee, Thanks for the clarification and apology for abruptness but difficult to work out what angle you were coming from.
Since about September, I've trying to plan 2 trips - pre Xmas to AT and FR and post Xmas to CH and all by car for max isolation. Since then I had been going round and round the reopen.eu website and all the national Foreign Office links to their guidance as the situation changes and countries allow/do not allow entry with/without test or transits not allowed/ allowed as long as only xx hours and only if there is a R in the month or an A in the days etc etc etc.
IT and D FO pages were the worst with all departments having their own rules. Just working out if I could transit through Italy from Tux to Chamonix was not easy!!
Pre Xmas all cancelled all that, so determined to make post Xmas work hook or by crook.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| paulo wrote: |
| Although Adhern or McGowan seem to have managed.... with a head-start (which we had) and good leadership (which we didn’t) it was possible. |
Comparing apples and skateboards...Aus & NZ are 10 times the land mass of UK with 50% of the population. Neither are global hubs, they are at the end of the line, so are advantaged by physical and human geography. Comparing the UK to France, Italy or Spain would be more accurate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
I agree with @colinstone inasmuch as we've all simply got inured to the outrageous cost and complete incompetence of the Track+Trace solution, including the App. To the extent that most people probably feel that the whole idea is discredited. Except that it can work well, especially with a supporting app that works and mandatory inclusion of the app in everyone's mobile. Having worked for the security services I'm constantly amazed that people think any of their online activities are in the least 'private' - if the state want to intrude into what you're doing online it's a cinch for them to do so and they already do. Adding a mandatory covid app to your mobile is at least socially beneficial. But I know, the libertarian zealots in the HoC would never allow it. Unless there was a benefit to their outsourcing chums, of course.
I suspect that a lot of what I and @Dravot think overlaps substantially. And I can understand how this all looks to someone who is in the what, 50%? of the population whom a covid infection won't seriously affect - that surely there's some way to circumscribe the fallout from countermeasures? I'd be the first to quarantine completely if it meant my children's jobs were secured. But where we differ is that once you get down to practicalities, this isn't achievable to the extent needed for 'the rest' to go back as before. Just putting kids back into school took R above 0.
Perhaps the one upside of all of this is that we'll be better prepared Next Time. Next time, the libertarians won't be able to stonewall mandatory download of a T&T app.; Next time, we'll manage to use local T&T services from day#1 instead of wasting 9 months giving the task to failed chums in failed outsourcing businesses with zero experience; next time, we'll have a system of immunisation passports that is accepted internationally; next time, we wont' send infected elderly patients back from hispotal straight into their care homes; and so on. Because there will be a Next Time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| LaForet wrote: |
I agree with @colinstone inasmuch as we've all simply got inured to the outrageous cost and complete incompetence of the Track+Trace solution, including the App. To the extent that most people probably feel that the whole idea is discredited. Except that it can work well, especially with a supporting app that works and mandatory inclusion of the app in everyone's mobile. Having worked for the security services I'm constantly amazed that people think any of their online activities are in the least 'private' - if the state want to intrude into what you're doing online it's a cinch for them to do so and they already do. Adding a mandatory covid app to your mobile is at least socially beneficial. But I know, the libertarian zealots in the HoC would never allow it. Unless there was a benefit to their outsourcing chums, of course.
I suspect that a lot of what I and @Dravot think overlaps substantially. And I can understand how this all looks to someone who is in the what, 50%? of the population whom a covid infection won't seriously affect - that surely there's some way to circumscribe the fallout from countermeasures? I'd be the first to quarantine completely if it meant my children's jobs were secured. But where we differ is that once you get down to practicalities, this isn't achievable to the extent needed for 'the rest' to go back as before. Just putting kids back into school took R above 0.
Perhaps the one upside of all of this is that we'll be better prepared Next Time. Next time, the libertarians won't be able to stonewall mandatory download of a T&T app.; Next time, we'll manage to use local T&T services from day#1 instead of wasting 9 months giving the task to failed chums in failed outsourcing businesses with zero experience; next time, we'll have a system of immunisation passports that is accepted internationally; next time, we wont' send infected elderly patients back from hispotal straight into their care homes; and so on. Because there will be a Next Time. |
Given the level of bed-wetting when it was suggested that we should have a national ID card, I suspect that a mandatory T&T app would never work. Coincidently 15% of UK don't own/access a smart phone, I suspect that there is a correlation between the 15% covid most vulnerable and the 15% of non-smart phone owners.
I suspect reasons that UK has really struggled with containment is a complete lack of social responsibility and social compliance from millions of people. You could argue that mass-migration and 13% population growth over a decade have contributed to this. Probably one for a different forum though....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Dravot wrote: |
| You could argue that mass-migration and 13% population growth over a decade have contributed to this. Probably one for a different forum though.... |
I don't think I would agree that immigrants are the reason for the COVID epidemic. Other than that the 10,000 migrant EU nurses and clinicians who went home early in 2017-18 (N&MC & BMJ) and mostly weren't replaced would have been very useful in the current crisis. But given it's now 1.1.21 and any problem related to 'mass' migration (why is it always prefixed 'mass'?) are apparently all going to be solved, it shouldn't be an issue for the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| LaForet wrote: |
| Dravot wrote: |
| You could argue that mass-migration and 13% population growth over a decade have contributed to this. Probably one for a different forum though.... |
I don't think I would agree that immigrants are the reason for the COVID epidemic. Other than that the 10,000 migrant EU nurses and clinicians who went home early in 2017-18 (N&MC & BMJ) and mostly weren't replaced would have been very useful in the current crisis. But given it's now 1.1.21 and any problem related to 'mass' migration (why is it always prefixed 'mass'?) are apparently all going to be solved, it shouldn't be an issue for the future. |
That wasn't my point. My point was that mass migration and significant population growth has weakened the social contract and social compliance [for all] in the UK. And there is clearly a connection between lack of social compliance and covid transmission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Dravot wrote: |
I suspect reasons that UK has really struggled with containment is a complete lack of social responsibility and social compliance from millions of people. You could argue that mass-migration and 13% population growth over a decade have contributed to this. Probably one for a different forum though.... |
I wondered about this myself - to what extent is the spread of disease influenced by social behaviours versus government regulation? In a pandemic, when disease prevalance is roughly the same everywhere, to what extent do long distance links (i.e. travelling from the UK to Switzerland) matter compared to short distance links (families and friends gathering)?
A really interesting paper was published about these questions in 2012, well before this particular pandemic was a consideration. It's here if you'd like to read it. The authors create a statistical model to look at the impact of various factors on the spread of a hypothetical disease. They showed two really interesting things relevant to this thread.
(1) Lockdowns should either be done early and aggressively or they should not be done at all. There is no effective middle ground, even when societies are mostly compliant with the rules. The LSE had a blog post this year here which makes the same point specifically for Covid lockdowns. The countries that have done the best had the most aggressive early government involvement. None of these researchers felt that social compliance (and certainly not immigration) made much of a difference. Policy matters most.
(2) The Maharaj paper models long distance travel and it's pretty clear that this doesn't matter much. Intuitively that makes sense - when the prevalance of a disease is about the same everywhere, what matters is how often people gather in groups. It doesn't matter whether those groups are close neighbors or distant foreigners, it's just the size and proximity of the group that counts. As the prevalance rates start to vary more significantly (for example, if some countries were to get their Covid case rates under control while others did not) then long distance travel matters more.
I do think it's admirable that so many people on Snowheads put a big emphasis on personal responsibility, even though I've reacted with annoyance about that sometimes! But in my (limited) reading of the literature, pandemic management is a function of government, and individual decision-making plays a very small role. I hope that citizens around the world hold their governments to task for management, rather than blaming each other for differences in their choices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| diaphon wrote: |
(2) The Maharaj paper models long distance travel and it's pretty clear that this doesn't matter much. Intuitively that makes sense - when the prevalance of a disease is about the same everywhere, what matters is how often people gather in groups. It doesn't matter whether those groups are close neighbors or distant foreigners, it's just the size and proximity of the group that counts. As the prevalance rates start to vary more significantly (for example, if some countries were to get their Covid case rates under control while others did not) then long distance travel matters more.
I do think it's admirable that so many people on Snowheads put a big emphasis on personal responsibility, even though I've reacted with annoyance about that sometimes! But in my (limited) reading of the literature, pandemic management is a function of government, and individual decision-making plays a very small role. I hope that citizens around the world hold their governments to task for management, rather than blaming each other for differences in their choices. |
Social compliance is at the heart of the points you make. People are struggling with following simple rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Much is made of using common sense and personal responsibility by politicians.
But when the population can't manage putting picnic / takeaway / plastic water bottle rubbish in bins, then how are they going to cope with Covid19 rules/guidance/advice??
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| colinstone wrote: |
Much is made of using common sense and personal responsibility by politicians.
But when the population can't manage putting picnic / takeaway / plastic water bottle rubbish in bins, then how are they going to cope with Covid19 rules/guidance/advice?? |
That's kind of my point - I lived in Germany for 6 years 20 odd years ago - social responsibility was a serious issue, whether it was household waste, clearing snow from your path or not mowing your lawn on Sundays. The [liberal] parts of the Far East are the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, lessons identified from quarantine. One has to take it really slowly and has to pace it carefully, one job each day, otherwise burn out!!. After 2 days of rushing around doing medical stuff for Bern Contact Tracing, I unpacked my suitcase today. Boot bag tomorrow, domestics/laundry on Sun and rucksack on Monday. So, I might be ready to ski on Tuesday.
Also it is essential to continue to keep testing for covid. One early symptom is loss of smell and taste. So those have to be checked, and are quite easy to do at home. And could be much cheaper than a PCR or a rapid LFT test - CHF 170 and 70 respectively in Lauterbrunnen.
An easy way is with a beer, wine or whisky. I chose wine after my rapid test yesterday. I poured a glass and had a smell - if I could smell the wine, I probably didn't have covid. But just to make sure I had to taste it. If I could still taste it, then probably certainly didn't have covid.
But as the WHO says, one has to keep checking for covid symptoms with repeated testing. So a while later, I did another smell and taste test. Both were OK, so I was probably still covid free.
So, last night I did 45 tests, with different wines, and I was fine all evening and felt really good and able to smell and taste.
But this morning I woke up feeling really rough, with a bit of head and a little hot, flushed and sweaty with the odd shake. Covid possibly??
I thought I'd better check for smell and taste again, which I've been doing all day. After the first few tests, and I could smell and taste the wine, so I certainly probably didn't have covid, the shakes stopped, the head cleared and I felt a lot chirpier. Phew, I thought, I haven't picked up covid in the night.
Anyway, I've got three days quarantine left, so I'd better keep up the regular testing. My landlady and lord helped out earlier this evening by breaking the quarantine monotony with a bottle of New Year bubbly, which we all shared outside on the verandah at a good safe distance. UK guidelines is over 2m, which we stuck to rather than the Swiss 1.5m. Bloody cold though. My smell and taste still seemed to be fine, so hopefully no covid. And everyone else's smell and taste were also fine, which is good news. She is happy to pop out and get more testing supplies if needed.
Hope I'll be capable of skiing on Tuesday??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Dravot wrote: |
| LaForet wrote: |
| Dravot wrote: |
| You could argue that mass-migration and 13% population growth over a decade have contributed to this. Probably one for a different forum though.... |
I don't think I would agree that immigrants are the reason for the COVID epidemic. Other than that the 10,000 migrant EU nurses and clinicians who went home early in 2017-18 (N&MC & BMJ) and mostly weren't replaced would have been very useful in the current crisis. But given it's now 1.1.21 and any problem related to 'mass' migration (why is it always prefixed 'mass'?) are apparently all going to be solved, it shouldn't be an issue for the future. |
That wasn't my point. My point was that mass migration and significant population growth has weakened the social contract and social compliance [for all] in the UK. And there is clearly a connection between lack of social compliance and covid transmission. |
Sorry, but I just can't parse what you're saying. I still don't understand what you mean by migration and the prefix 'mass'. Migration of whom to and from where? What is 'normal' migration and what is 'mass'? What is the timescale for your comparison? 10 years? 25? 100? Why is population growth 'significant'? Again, in comparison to what, over what period, and why does this affect pandemic behaviour? I see no linkage between the movement of people or the population changes vs the behavioural response to covid. And I see no proven linkage between covid infection rates and migration and population. All these seem unrelated.
You could just as readily cite increased car ownership combined with higher levels of home shopping as underlying factors: they correlate, but there's no proof they're causal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| LaForet wrote: |
| Dravot wrote: |
| LaForet wrote: |
| Dravot wrote: |
| You could argue that mass-migration and 13% population growth over a decade have contributed to this. Probably one for a different forum though.... |
I don't think I would agree that immigrants are the reason for the COVID epidemic. Other than that the 10,000 migrant EU nurses and clinicians who went home early in 2017-18 (N&MC & BMJ) and mostly weren't replaced would have been very useful in the current crisis. But given it's now 1.1.21 and any problem related to 'mass' migration (why is it always prefixed 'mass'?) are apparently all going to be solved, it shouldn't be an issue for the future. |
That wasn't my point. My point was that mass migration and significant population growth has weakened the social contract and social compliance [for all] in the UK. And there is clearly a connection between lack of social compliance and covid transmission. |
Sorry, but I just can't parse what you're saying. I still don't understand what you mean by migration and the prefix 'mass'. Migration of whom to and from where? What is 'normal' migration and what is 'mass'? What is the timescale for your comparison? 10 years? 25? 100? Why is population growth 'significant'? Again, in comparison to what, over what period, and why does this affect pandemic behaviour? I see no linkage between the movement of people or the population changes vs the behavioural response to covid. And I see no proven linkage between covid infection rates and migration and population. All these seem unrelated.
You could just as readily cite increased car ownership combined with higher levels of home shopping as underlying factors: they correlate, but there's no proof they're causal. |
I posted earlier, that the UK has seen c13% population growth since 2000. Demographically, this is statistically significant.
Over this period, the natural change (births/deaths) in population is calculated at increase of c100K per annum, so c2m over 20yrs with c7m (c75%) from migration.
Regarding the correlation between such an aggressive increase in (urban) population over a short epoch and that of viral transmission, factors such as overcrowding in housing, public transport and schools could be a causal link. Of course, there may be others. But the fact is our population has expanded unsustainably over the past 20 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Ah this is the big ‘unspoken’ of the last forty years - excessive population growth. And whether it is excessive (those who calculate ‘unit planets needed to support population’ argue we are three times over); what it will top out at (currently estimated at 10bn); and just which parts of the world need reduced population (the big ‘developed versus less developed’ moral and political argument). I have tried to raise this in political circles but it was a ‘no go area’ for the last four decades - now it seems we can at least raise it over a meal without being shouted at. But what public policy should look like in order to REDUCE global population - when we have ‘drill baby drill’ voices in the States and lobbying from industry that NEEDS growing populations to continue operating - is a big issue. I like the attitude of the Coatina chocolate company in CH. Lovely new plant a few years ago, family owned, market almost exclusively to CH. Advised by bank - borrow more and your high quality product could be sold globally and then you could expand hugely and borrow more - their response was ‘why would we want to do that? We don’t want to increase sales, just be a going concern and carry on doing what we love....’.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
@valais2, https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
Global population is the root cause of "human activity" aspects affecting planetary warming.
But this is off-topic, apart from your Swiss Chocolate Coatina ditty.
EDIT TO ADD ........ Only one European country in the top 20 most populous countries on the planet. Do a Google Image search on "half the world population live in this circle"
Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Sat 2-01-21 16:46; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think we all have time to go off topic for a while...but back to the going to CH thing.
I am sitting here with one part of my brain screaming at the moment - saying ‘why am I not skiing on the hill’ and another busily suppressing that and making do with interesting jobs like felling big trees, stacking wood, mountain biking and building bikes for the Spring. And a small part of my brain managing comms with CH friends to see WTF is happening, and whether Feb half term looks possible (driving) and Easter (post vaccine with a certificate enabling travel). CH ethos is to keep lifts running to help village finances (Vercorin needs the income on the back of all their borrowing for the newish gondola) - the big hit will most likely come when people don’t renew their annual passes in March-April.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
1900 1bn, 2021 7.5bn. Can't be sustained. Easy to see why. 2 parents, 4 children and then end up with many grandchildren - more then I have fingers!!
Spanish flu took a few years to run its course. Don't think this will be any different even if we have vaccines and treatments - not available in 1918.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
@peanuthead, your lockdowns in ireland have been so successful that another full lockdown has been imposed for a month , well done
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
The UK's population growth is not some march to social chaos - nor is there something intrinsically bad about an urban lifestyle. There's no intrinsic reason why we should all be living in some low-density rural Nirvana. The root cause of many social problems is the big and increasing gap between the elite rich and poor; privileged and underprivileged; and the focus of more and more assets and wealth in fewer and fewer peoples' hands. And internationally, how we in the developed world consume vastly more global resources than the majority of people on the planet, and how we own and control vastly more assets than they do. The problem is not the UK population, 'mass'-migration or urbanisation. This is just a comfortable way of blaming other people when generally, we in the developed world or specifically those of us in UK's elite aren't prepared to make sacrifices ourselves.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Sat 2-01-21 16:10; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Indeed urbanisation represents efficiency and potential protection of the global environment. And it is the latter political issues which are an impediment to a lot of discussion and concerted public policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| valais2 wrote: |
| Ah this is the big ‘unspoken’ of the last forty years - excessive population growth. And whether it is excessive (those who calculate ‘unit planets needed to support population’ argue we are three times over); what it will top out at (currently estimated at 10bn); and just which parts of the world need reduced population (the big ‘developed versus less developed’ moral and political argument). I have tried to raise this in political circles but it was a ‘no go area’ for the last four decades - now it seems we can at least raise it over a meal without being shouted at. But what public policy should look like in order to REDUCE global population - when we have ‘drill baby drill’ voices in the States and lobbying from industry that NEEDS growing populations to continue operating - is a big issue. I like the attitude of the Coatina chocolate company in CH. Lovely new plant a few years ago, family owned, market almost exclusively to CH. Advised by bank - borrow more and your high quality product could be sold globally and then you could expand hugely and borrow more - their response was ‘why would we want to do that? We don’t want to increase sales, just be a going concern and carry on doing what we love....’. |
Nail, head.
Over past 20 years the UK natural population growth would have been c2m. Irrespective of how, where and what the West consumes and no matter of the wealth division or who owns or profits from what, the combined population growth of India, Nigeria and China alone over same period is 462,000,000...which gives population sustainability (and drivers of migration) some perspective.
And to get back on topic, there is a census due this year in the UK, the results of which will be as absurd as aspirations to go skiing this xmas...if people can't follow simple rules to keep them and others safe, its unlikely they'll complete a census properly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
What is 'natural population growth'? Why would it be 2 million? The UK hasn't been self-sufficient in terms of food since 1842 (and that involved famine in Ireland). So just how do you define what is a reasonable population for the UK? All you're saying in essence is that the undeveloped nations should stop breeding so we can sustain our privileged lifestyle. And your original observation still remains in question: how does 'mass'-migration relate in any way to covid infection rates, which is what you claimed.
I can understand someone pointing out that the level of international air travel we had in 2019 was a problem, precisely because of its effect in accelerating epidemics within and between countries. And that we should be worried about 'mass'-travel because of this, and it's environmental impact. But I just can't see the linkage you're making between migration, the UK population size and covid transmission. It would also be more interesting to know what specific policies you think we need to address your perceived problems. Do you want to encourage British people to have smaller families? Do you want the UK to become more self-sufficient in agricultural resources? And if so, what is your target and how would we get there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| LaForet wrote: |
| What is 'natural population growth'? Why would it be 2 million? The UK hasn't been self-sufficient in terms of food since 1842 (and that involved famine in Ireland). So just how do you define what is a reasonable population for the UK? All you're saying in essence is that the undeveloped nations should stop breeding so we can sustain our privileged lifestyle. And your original observation still remains in question: how does 'mass'-migration relate in any way to covid infection rates, which is what you claimed. |
c2m is based on a natural birth/death rate (and extended life expectancy) of c100k per year (as above). Regarding birth rates in developing countries, it's not the UK's place to define what is right or appropriate for other sovereign issues, we can however control our own immigration rates and, if required, implement policies to influence demographics.
I have already explained that aggressive and poorly-uncontrolled immigration has led to urban population congestion. Whether there's any scientific evidence to suggest 8 adults sharing a 3-bed family house is a virus transmission risk factor remains to be seen.
ETA: I've just seen your second paragraph - whilst that's probably relevant at the start of an epidemic, there's been vastly reduced international air traffic since summer yet domestic transmissibility has drastically increased.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They are our favourite chuffing bird in the Alps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
