Fuck this fucking virus with a fucking farm implement.

13739414243

Comments

  • My point is that no-one has a right to make money at the expense of other people's health.

    What about "feed themselves and their kids and avoid being evicted at the expense of risking other people's health"? Because we're not talking about people who are working in order to fill a pool with coins a la Scrooge McDuck.
  • My point is that no-one has a right to make money at the expense of other people's health.

    What about "feed themselves and their kids and avoid being evicted at the expense of risking other people's health"? Because we're not talking about people who are working in order to fill a pool with coins a la Scrooge McDuck.

    See the rest of my edited version. But my point still stands. We can't go on allowing economic imperatives to drive everything; we have to find another way rather than just waving this sort of utter bullshit through.
  • I know someone who was studying for a Masters and to make ends meet worked part-time in a shop. He slipped on ice walking home and broke his leg, as a part time employee he couldn't get sick pay and needed to claim Universal Credit - for which he needed to apply in person (leaving his flat, a few flights of stairs and a mile or so walk ... on a broken leg).
  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    edited November 2021
    My point is that no-one has a right to make money at the expense of other people's health.

    No-one.
    The so-called exceptions people have been all to ready to justify simply have to be ironed out, so that people can afford to live without putting other people's health in danger.
    Nobody is defending the exceptions. What we think is that you are misallocating the blame, and thereby making it harder to solve the problem.
    The people who are making money at the expense of other people's health are in the vast majority of cases the employers not the employees. Now you are sort of kind of acknowledging that point when you say the exceptions have to be ironed out; however, the general tenor of your posts is that it is the employees who would rather kill their fellow workers than acknowledge support rather than the employers who would rather their staff die than offer support.

    This matters because what we need as our societies to do to iron out the exceptions depends a lot on whose fault we think they are. Talking about the selfishness of employees won't solve the problem if the problem is inadequate sick pay.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    My point is that no-one has a right to make money at the expense of other people's health.

    No-one.
    The so-called exceptions people have been all to ready to justify simply have to be ironed out, so that people can afford to live without putting other people's health in danger.
    Nobody is defending the exceptions. What we think is that you are misallocating the blame, and thereby making it harder to solve the problem.
    The people who are making money at the expense of other people's health are in the vast majority of cases the employers not the employees. Now you are sort of kind of acknowledging that point when you say the exceptions have to be ironed out; however, the general tenor of your posts is that it is the employees who would rather kill their fellow workers than acknowledge support rather than the employers who would rather their staff die than offer support.

    This matters because what we need as our societies to do to iron out the exceptions depends a lot on whose fault we think they are. Talking about the selfishness of employees won't solve the problem if the problem is inadequate sick pay.

    Yes, you are of course in part right. But observing colleagues', and indeed my own behaviour to an extent, as precautions have fallen away and the desire to force the virus from consciousness has overwhelmed so many people's reason, only in part.

    It is the line of least resistance to collude with one's bosses' desire to have one in work. Ignoring one's own sickness, when that is one's practiced, ingrained reaction, is also simply a matter of following the ruts already made. It is also the line of least resistance for line managers, if not for the organisation as a whole, to have the people they think will be in work in work, even if they are not healthy. Overall, of course, productivity and morale both suffer more than they would as a result of an individual absence, but the line manager doesn't see that as clearly as they do the disruption of actual absence.

    The additional effort required by individuals is organisation to oppose the bosses' wishes. The additional work required by employers is to see the loss of morale and productivity, and indeed of staff altogether (not necessarily through mortality - it could just be a general place that theirs is no longer a good place to work) as overriding the increased inconvenience of individual absence, and the cost of sick pay. Once it is less convenient for them to carry on with their carefully practiced oblivion, things will change, but this requires effort from and inconvenience for everyone, which seems to be the ultimate taboo at the moment.

  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate
    edited November 2021
    The problem is that there are certain situations, like teaching or care, when not being in puts pressure on others, because the whole point of the role is dealing with people face to face. The only way of avoiding putting pressure on colleagues is if the employer is prepared to pay for cover. Which used to be the case in teaching, but is not so much now as cover is so expensive and school budgets have been cut to the bone.

    When I was a governor, a decade or so ago, the school gambled on not having to pay much cover and discontinued paying the very expensive cover insurance. Which was a bad call as one of the teachers was off long term - car crash or cancer or some such. And that totally blew the budget for the year.

    Recently it has been cheaper to have an untrained cover supervisor as a permanent member of staff, sometimes an ex-squaddie or copper, who can stand over classes as they complete work sent in, or hurriedly put together by the head of department. Cover supervisors are much cheaper than teachers. But that's assuming traditional school and teaching. And the latest rounds of cuts will have meant that cover supervisors are under threat, along with learning support staff, as expensive dispensable luxuries.

    And in care, if people don't go in, the care doesn't happen. No money for cover there either, as it's part of the social care budget that is well known to being miserly.
  • My point is that no-one has a right to make money at the expense of other people's health.

    No-one.

    If we haven't learned that over the last 18 months, then we are even more dedicatedly stupid as a society than I thought. And I thought I was a pessimist.

    The so-called exceptions people have been all to ready to justify simply have to be ironed out, so that people can afford to live without putting other people's health in danger. I have an unpleasant suspicion that some people would rather kill their fellow workers or customers than rely on support, but that just has to be tough shit.

    I mean, I think most people would prefer not to have to work while sick in order to afford food and shelter. The problem is that the current UK government is ideologically opposed to that idea. I think it's disingenuous to talk about 'the right to make money' rather than 'the right to be able to afford the basic necessities of life' - most people in this position survive paycheck to paycheck and are not making huge sums of money. They are also disproportionately people of colour and migrant workers, and especially women of colour. They're cleaners and care workers, not investment bankers.

    You talk about these issues being 'simply ironed out' as if they a) aren't due to structural inequalities in society, and b) TPTB had any interest at all in removing those structural inequalities when they personally benefit from them.
  • @Curiosity killed hospitality and retail, too. I think a huge problem is the divide between people who work in offices and people who don't - issues around working when ill are SO different in those two situations. Assuming that everyone works in an office environment has done a lot of harm.
  • But that is my point. There is obviously a fine line between realism and fatalism, and I think we have strayed far too far towards the latter. It also seems to me that corporate welfare - the profits of large organisations - still are allowed far too great a call on our collective energies and resources, and this has to be re-examined. I think the uncomfortable part of what I am seeing is something like Stockholm syndrome, in that there is rather more comfort with reinforcing corporate welfare, in the name of the right to be unobservant of our own needs or those of others, than has been noted or acknowledged. This is not an entirely developed thesis that I am setting out - it's a feeling that there has to be some other answer than the resumption of a profoundly disordered "normal service", and that we have to both demand it and, as appropriate, do our bit to supply it.
  • ThunderBunkThunderBunk Shipmate
    edited November 2021
    Sorry for the double post, but I think there is a bit of clarification I need to give.

    First, as I think I have made clear elsewhere, I am no fan of our government of boosterists, chancers and grifters. My problem with the current situation as I sense it is that there are far more people who are comfortable with their regime than there should be, or at least far too few who see it as their job to change things. I have a nasty suspicion that the current shower are more than happy to keep everyone stretched to the nth degree, so that they can't stop and think, or organise to change things.

    Things do not change on their own. The current system of bank workers contributed considerably to the hideous situation in care homes last year, but I don't see anyone agitating for that to change. Nor do I see much agitation to address the ridiculous situaiton in schools where every improvement in pay or conditions comes at the expense of - something - because budgets are never adjusted. These things are intolerable, but tolerated. Last year showed that things can be done differently, given the will, and we need, collectively, to find the will again.

    ETA: I'm far from comfortable with my own place in all of this, but neither do I have any kind of clear sense what I can really effectively do to change things. Certainly the Labour party seems to be an entirely busted flush, being too timid to challenge this sense of utterly inapprorpriate comfort.
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Purgatory Host, Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    FWIW the investment bankers also haul themselves in when they're unwell, but for entirely different reasons. It's because they believe themselves to be so utterly irreplaceable that they can't possibly stay at home and keep their microbes to themselves.

    When I worked in finance, one lady dragged herself in despite coughing so much you could hear her from the other end of the corridor. I was pregnant at the time and when I caught her lurgy I couldn't take any of my usual medications and was very unwell. I'm still mad at her.

    I have considerably more sympathy for people who force themselves to go to work so that they can buy food.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    edited November 2021
    @ThunderBunk lots of people are agitating for change in eg care work and education. It's not really shocking that the media doesn't focus on those people unless it's to criticise them.

    You also haven't explained why you think everyone works in an office and can work from home, or can afford to stay at home with no sick pay.
  • ThunderBunkThunderBunk Shipmate
    edited November 2021
    Pomona wrote: »
    @ThunderBunk lots of people are agitating for change in eg care work and education. It's not really shocking that the media doesn't focus on those people unless it's to criticise them.

    You also haven't explained why you think everyone works in an office and can work from home, or can afford to stay at home with no sick pay.

    But I don't. Nor have I said that. Please don't put words in my mouth.
  • In church today we prayed for the family of the pastor of the local Riverside Church, who has died of Covid. His assistant pastor died of it too a couple of weeks ago. 😕😪🙏. No, I don’t know if they were vaccinated, but I would expect so: they were not of the weird Christian variety. And whether or not, it is so sad.
  • DooneDoone Shipmate
    🕯
  • CattyishCattyish Shipmate Posts: 23
    I'm so sorry Cathcats. It's horrific. I hope their families are getting what they need right now.
    Cattyish, praying.
  • Meanwhile, the Guardian reports what some scientists are warning re Christmas this year:
    https://theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/22/another-covid-christmas-britons-urged-delay-festive-plans

    What's the betting the *government* doesn't take any notice?
  • Pomona wrote: »
    @Curiosity killed hospitality and retail, too. I think a huge problem is the divide between people who work in offices and people who don't - issues around working when ill are SO different in those two situations. Assuming that everyone works in an office environment has done a lot of harm.

    Even for office folk, there are some times when the work seems more important than others. I'll acknowledge @la vie en rouge's point about bankers who think they're indispensable, but there are days when this is your one and only chance to pitch your big idea to some visitor from abroad, or to make the big presentation you've been planning.

    The quadrennial conference you've been invited to speak at.

    Or, perhaps, to bring things to a more mundane level, suppose you have a child getting married or something.

    Sorry - your Dad has a bit of a runny nose, so he's not coming to your wedding?

    There are days in my own job where I'll push myself to go in, even if I'm not feeling very good, because today is my chance to do that thing I've been waiting to do, and I won't get another chance for six months, or a year, or whatever.

  • That's when you put the plague carrier at least ten feet away from every other human being, masked, with plexiglass if possible around him/her--and an aircleaner at his/her feet. Seriously. The wedding, I mean.

    For work, you switch to Zoom and you suck it up.
  • That's when you put the plague carrier at least ten feet away from every other human being, masked, with plexiglass if possible around him/her--and an aircleaner at his/her feet. Seriously. The wedding, I mean.

    For work, you switch to Zoom and you suck it up.

    For clarity, my comments were addressing the pre-plague situation where what was at risk was sharing your cold, or your low-grade 'flu, with someone else. And in an environment where having a cold in the winter was normal.

    Between what the kids bring home and what I pick up from the unwashed masses in shops and on buses, I'd say I had a low-grade cold about 50% of the time in a normal year during the winter months.

    That's a rather different prospect from Covid.
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Purgatory Host, Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    I think (hope) that's going to get harder to defend given the rising popularity of remote working.

    If you're well enough to get some work done but still highly contagious, it seems much better to stay at home with your microbes and call in.
  • Yes - whether you have Covid, or just a cold...
  • I think (hope) that's going to get harder to defend given the rising popularity of remote working.

    If you're well enough to get some work done but still highly contagious, it seems much better to stay at home with your microbes and call in.

    That's kind of hard for anyone whose job involves touching something (or someone). If you can work from home effectively, then of course you should. We're addressing various cases where people can't do that. Your plumber can't phone it in.

    I don't think, for example, that we're at the point where a prospective employer would tell you "thanks for telling us you have a cold. We'll interview the other four candidates in person, but we'll talk to you over zoom" and you could feel that you've been given an equal chance.

    And you might think to yourself "it's just a bit of a sniffle - I'm not that sick", take a couple of decongestants and get on with it.
  • Two Omicron cases have been found in England:
    https://theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/27/two-cases-of-omicron-covid-variant-identified-in-uk

    Beloved Leader is due to give a press conference shortly. I hope he doesn't witter on about Peppa Pig...
    :grimace:
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    edited November 2021
    No I think he will move on to Teletubbies and then he Tidlytubbies (his cabinet)
  • O well - with any luck, Noo Noo the Hoover will come along and suck them all away to their very own La-La-Land...
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited November 2021
    Be ready, everyone in Blessed England, for social distancing to be reintroduced very soon:
    https://theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/28/sajid-javid-were-nowhere-near-imposing-social-distancing-covid-rules
  • Meh. This fucking virus has caught one of my son's roommates, so now we're back to Stressville. Not so much for me, as for my son, who is prone to anxiety though fully vaxxed on top of a case of his own last November, and who has other people freaking out around him.

    I wonder if he caught it over Thanksgiving. The timing is right.
  • Pursuing this tangent from the Scottish thread over here. @Arethosemyfeet
    This isn't like radiation, where if you and the source stay together for a length of time you can calculate amount of damage based on a steady rate of emissions. This is more like one of those toys they used to fit onto hoses in the garden for children in the summer--the head rises up and squirts people randomly, but not predictably--so by the time you know, it's too late to avoid. In the meantime, your neighbor stays completely dry. About the only thing you DO know is that the longer you hang around in the vicinity, the more likely jt is that the bloody thing will catch you fair and square.

    It's more like that than you think.

    The probability that you will be infected depends on the amount of possibly virus-laden droplets you inhale. Small exposure, small risk. Larger exposure, larger risk.

    Roll a fair die, and you're going to get a 6 one sixth of the time, on average. You can't predict when you'll roll a 6, but you know exactly what the chances of getting a 6 in 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on rolls of the dice are.

    And there comes a point where you're basically guaranteed to have rolled a 6. If you're rolling a normal die, then after 13 rolls, you're 90% certain to have rolled at least one 6. 17 rolls, and you're more than 95% certain to have rolled a 6.

    The situation you're in with the virus is that you're rolling dice and trying not to get a 6, but only some of the dice have sixes on them. If you've got a die numbered 1,2,3,4,5,5 then the chance of throwing a six is zero.

    So by the time you've rolled the dice a couple of dozen times, your incremental risk of getting a six with additional rolls is very small indeed. If you haven't got a six yet, you're basically guaranteed to have a die with no six on it, in which case, you can roll it any number of times. And if you have rolled a six already, is there any harm in carrying on rolling?
    The old fifteen minute cutoff had less to do with additive exposure and more to do with additive risk balanced off against the annoyance of calling and tracing and confining everybody. Where is the maximum ROI? They pegged it at 15 minutes then, but with delta and omicron, they may be recalculating.

    Back at the beginning of Covid, there were those cases of Covid-infected hairdressers wearing masks, and failing to infect any of their clients. That tells you that the length-of-a-haircut contact with a Covid-positive mask-wearer was pretty safe. There were also plenty of cases of length-of-a-meal and length-of-a-choir-practice contact with covid-positive maskless people that more or less guaranteed infection. Which says to me that 15 minutes is roughly the right scale.

    And also suggests to me that if I've just had a leisurely Christmas dinner with someone, then if they've got the virus, I've caught it by the end of the dinner anyway.

    Except that it appears there is a difference between infected and highly infectious. The former may last for days but the latter may be a window of a few hours. It then becomes less about how long and more about whether that time overlapped with maximal shedding of viral particles.

    Additionally, there is some evidence that greater exposure (i.e. you inhale more viral particles) correlates with more severe disease, so while 20 minutes in a broken lift with an infected person hacking their lungs out in your face may be a near-certain infection there is still benefit from getting away from them ASAP.

    The thing about people being superspreaders for a few hours is a fair point, which is why the timescales are important. Suppose you eat dinner with an infected, but not highly infectious, person. How long, on average, do you have to sit with them to catch Covid from them? If you can sit for a couple of hours with a modestly infectious person and only have say a 20% chance of catching Covid, then your optimal behaviour looks different from if you can only sit with them for 20 minutes.

    If Covid transmits in 20 minutes, then my optimum strategy looks more like have an enjoyable Christmas dinner, hang out on the sofa together, and plan for a couple of days isolation and testing after the festivities.

    If the timescale is more like hours, then having a short dinner together, returning home, and playing games over zoom looks like a more reasonable strategy.


  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited December 2021
    Dude. It's more complicated than that. Is this person breathing directly into your face? Does their mask fit properly, or are there big gaps on the side which may form a source of virus to the people on the side? What is the room ventilation like? Are the air currents taking it toward you or away, or possibly in some complicated swirly pattern that gets every soul present?

    That was the point of my hose toy illustration on the other (wrong) thread. Nobody emits COVID viruses in all directions equally at once. Someone might be quite close to the Viral Emitter™ in terms of distance and escape while a person on the other side of the room gets a major dose of viruses (virii? whatever). It all depends on how things are flowing. Did you not see that Chinese restaurant diagram from about a year ago of how it spread--or the one with the grocery store aisles? Very unpredictable.

    And it's unlikely that you have such a clear, well-defined and strong airflow in the spot where you plan to spend time that you can count yourself safe because you know where to sit.

    But hey, you do you.
  • If at all possible, self-isolating for a few days (and take tests) after a family get together (or other large gathering) is a sensible idea regardless. Especially for a time like Christmas where lots of people gather in groups at more or less the same time - your self isolation not only protects others in the event that you got the virus at your family gathering, it also isolates you from lots of other people who have been at their own family gatherings and may have got the virus there.

    What is totally stupid is to gather for a family gathering, and then mix with lots of people unrelated to you (say, go to shops which have a sale) giving a chance for everyone who just picked up the virus to pass it on. Christmas Day can be a problem, combine that with Boxing Day sales and you've a potential disaster (similar argument for Thanksgiving and Black Friday/Cyber Monday).
  • And it's unlikely that you have such a clear, well-defined and strong airflow in the spot where you plan to spend time that you can count yourself safe because you know where to sit.

    That is almost exactly the opposite of my point.

    If just sitting down to Christmas dinner is almost certainly going to infect me, if one of the people I want to eat with has Covid, then it seems to me that there's no significant advantage gained by making it a shorter dinner, because I'll be getting infected anyway, and so my rational choices are either stay away from the dinner (because I think the risk of one of the diners having Covid is too high) or decide that my dining companions are low risk, and enjoy the dinner.
  • All or nothing, then?

    As I read it, you were complaining that nobody had calculated the time you could safely stay at a dinner in the presence of a COVID victim. I endeavored to show why this was not a realistic thing to expect of anybody, authorities though they might be. No such calculation is possible.

    The 15 minute thing was only ever a blunt instrument for governments to use in deciding when it was economically sensible to expect potential exposees to 'fess up and isolate themselves. It was never intended to serve as a personal planning guideline for how much of an infected person's presence was safe. The answer to that always was, and still is, "none," as any doctor will tell you. Above "zero" there are only ever-increasing odds of a poor outcome.

    Look, it's like multiplication. If you are doing equations of the form a x b=c, and you want to keep the product more or less the same, then every time you bump up a, you need to decrease b. Let c stand for acceptable risk, a for time spent there by you, and b for all the other variables other people control, such as masklessness, vaccination (or lack of it), number of people present, etc. If either a or b is zero, you're good to do whatever you want. C will always be zero, and you're at no risk. If b (uncontrolled-by-you risk factors) is higher, the time you ought to spend, logically speaking, should be lower. Similarly if b is lower, you can logically stay a bit longer. It doesn't have to be a sheer cliff--either stay at home forever, or spend ten hours at the Black Friday sales. But again, of course, you do you.


  • We are staying away from Christmas gatherings, as we did last year. It doesn't seem such a hardship, and I'm amazed if people are carrying on as normal. My neighbours have gone down with covid, so we are hermit like. Well, my wife is seeing ma, siblings, etc., individually. Boris makes me laugh, yeah but no but.
  • I notice that various right wing pundits are announcing that omicron is "super mild". Isn't there a law against this misinformation?
  • From some of the South African accounts it is super mild if vaccinated, maybe - sadly rather a lot of misinformed people are not vaccinated.

    And according to the last story in this series from the Guardian Lost to the Virus, the one about John Eyers, there's a genetic component. Some people have a genetic tendency to be worse affected by Covid19.

    Personally I don't want to gamble on my genetics keeping me safe.

    We've just had a WhatsApp discussion about taking Guides to the Christingle service. As the CofE can only recommend wearing masks, social distancing, capacity, etc, etc. and not enforce any of it, and we're not entirely convinced that everyone locally is being sensible, the conclusion was nope, not happening.

    It's all down to the Government recommending personal responsibility in crowded spaces, so suggesting mask wearing. Other than public transport and shops there are no legal requirements, leaving everyone unable to enforce anything, other than refusing to run the services at all.
  • That's a libertarian position for you! Completely useless in relation to mass events.
  • From some of the South African accounts it is super mild if vaccinated, maybe - sadly rather a lot of misinformed people are not vaccinated.

    And according to the last story in this series from the Guardian Lost to the Virus, the one about John Eyers, there's a genetic component. Some people have a genetic tendency to be worse affected by Covid19.

    Personally I don't want to gamble on my genetics keeping me safe.

    We've just had a WhatsApp discussion about taking Guides to the Christingle service. As the CofE can only recommend wearing masks, social distancing, capacity, etc, etc. and not enforce any of it, and we're not entirely convinced that everyone locally is being sensible, the conclusion was nope, not happening.

    It's all down to the Government recommending personal responsibility in crowded spaces, so suggesting mask wearing. Other than public transport and shops there are no legal requirements, leaving everyone unable to enforce anything, other than refusing to run the services at all.

    I raised a similar point on the All Saints Coping with Covid thread, and was told quite firmly that mask-wearing in church is enforceable, inasmuch that (as a last resort) a refusenik could be denied entrance to a service.

    I think your Guides group is being Very Sensible And Responsible.
  • I omitted to mention that Our Place is Church of England - and the thought occurs to me that it might (in law) be a public place, being part of the Church as by Law Established, to which access cannot be denied.

    Perhaps a C of E clergyperson Shipmate could comment on that? I may well have got it Wrong...
  • I omitted to mention that Our Place is Church of England - and the thought occurs to me that it might (in law) be a public place, being part of the Church as by Law Established, to which access cannot be denied.

    Perhaps a C of E clergyperson Shipmate could comment on that? I may well have got it Wrong...

    https://www.churchofengland.org/about/leadership-and-governance/legal-services/canons-church-england/section-e
    It would seem to me that maintaining order and decency could cover a multitude of sins.
  • Locally a refusenik has been attending services without a mask since before they were no longer mandatory.
  • I omitted to mention that Our Place is Church of England - and the thought occurs to me that it might (in law) be a public place, being part of the Church as by Law Established, to which access cannot be denied.

    Perhaps a C of E clergyperson Shipmate could comment on that? I may well have got it Wrong...

    https://www.churchofengland.org/about/leadership-and-governance/legal-services/canons-church-england/section-e
    It would seem to me that maintaining order and decency could cover a multitude of sins.

    Yes, the Churchwarden has (in theory) a lot of clout IYSWIM. Alas, ours (we have only one at the moment - we should have two, but no-one volunteered) is not at all a clouty person...
  • I omitted to mention that Our Place is Church of England - and the thought occurs to me that it might (in law) be a public place, being part of the Church as by Law Established, to which access cannot be denied.

    Perhaps a C of E clergyperson Shipmate could comment on that? I may well have got it Wrong...

    https://www.churchofengland.org/about/leadership-and-governance/legal-services/canons-church-england/section-e
    It would seem to me that maintaining order and decency could cover a multitude of sins.

    Yes, the Churchwarden has (in theory) a lot of clout IYSWIM. Alas, ours (we have only one at the moment - we should have two, but no-one volunteered) is not at all a clouty person...

    I think it's time to find the big stick (usually in a holder at the end of the rear pew), press it into their hand and remind them of their sworn duty.
  • The Big Stick is indeed to hand, as also is Duty...
    :wink:

    Seriously, though, I hope the situation doesn't arise, and that people do show consideration for others.
  • On the bus into town this afternoon a woman (with mask) had just got on when she stood and said very loudly to the two masked people behind her "I hope it's not too cold", as she opened the window, "but he's not wearing a mask" - looking pointedly towards someone further back talking loudly on the phone (which is anti-social in it's own right) - adding "we've all seen the way coronavirus moves around when people don't wear a mask on TV".
  • I'm afraid that's the sort of thing I would say (very loudly indeed) if I were in that situation...though I might omit the bit about TV which in my case I have not got.
  • As I read it, you were complaining that nobody had calculated the time you could safely stay at a dinner in the presence of a COVID victim.

    No, that wasn't the sense of my comment at all. My comment was that if I was, let's say, 90% certain to get Covid after spending an hour eating dinner with an infected person, then the benefit to running home after that hour rather than spending three further hours on the sofa together was small.
    Look, it's like multiplication. If you are doing equations of the form a x b=c, and you want to keep the product more or less the same, then every time you bump up a, you need to decrease b. Let c stand for acceptable risk, a for time spent there by you, and b for all the other variables other people control, such as masklessness, vaccination (or lack of it), number of people present, etc. If either a or b is zero, you're good to do whatever you want. C will always be zero, and you're at no risk. If b (uncontrolled-by-you risk factors) is higher, the time you ought to spend, logically speaking, should be lower. Similarly if b is lower, you can logically stay a bit longer. It doesn't have to be a sheer cliff--either stay at home forever, or spend ten hours at the Black Friday sales. But again, of course, you do you.

    Well, sure, but there's a lot hidden in that "a bit".

    If it takes on average an hour in ordinary indoor social contact with an infected person to get Covid, then modest changes to the length of your exposure can have a significant effect on your risks if that exposure is less than 2-3 hours. But whilst your risks of getting Covid are indeed bigger with 10 hours exposure than 3 hours exposure, they're not very much bigger.

    Spending all day in the Black Friday sales is a completely different proposition - there, you're exposed to a whole bunch of different people. That's not the same as being exposed to the same person for longer.


  • Locally a refusenik has been attending services without a mask since before they were no longer mandatory.

    The document you posted quite clearly says that the priest can make a decision to retain some measures (eg. masks) if they believe it's important for safety, or for making people feel safe.

    Which says to me that your priest has the power to turn your refusenik away, but chooses not to.
Sign In or Register to comment.