Shut the supermarkets ?

[mcq10]

What the report fails to account for is that the test and trace app has a consent age of 16. In a school environment it’s not monitoring transmission or infection amongst children under 16, i.e the vast vast majority of them. Adjust the figures to take this into account and schools would be the major course of transmission by a distance. It’s so obvious but it doesn’t fit the government rhetoric of schools must stay open regardless.

I’m against any more loss of education for kids personally.

We lose one Christmas piss up for the sake of the education of the youth is a happy trade off for me.

 

[Roker Mackem]

Many people suggest that working from home will become a permanent feature of life for many people, so perhaps it would be advantageous to give children an insight into what that will be like. Government would need to ensure every household has wi-fi and a laptop though. Not sure if the ship has sailed for that to be put in place.

That wouldnt work long term. More to do with peoples homes not being suitable. Ive got three all different ages in a house too small for us. Was absolute chaos in the Spring.. Others will have it far worse than us too.

 

[DaveH]

No, the article specifically states people who had tested positive between the 9th and the 15th and where'd they'd been in 'the days' leading up to that positive test. Days would suggest not weeks, so in terms of point of where'd they'd been starting on the 3rd November.

Supermarkets is not a surprise at all. I would say at least 1 in 5 of the population visits a supermarket during a week, probably a lot higher, far higher than the 18% who were there during the week prior to a confirmed infection. There's no way on earth people are picking it up in numbers at supermarkets otherwise we'd all have it: most of us go and then we go back to families.

Pubs is an interesting one as they shut on the 4th so that would suggest a day to cause that number of infections.

Schools is the stand out. I would never have guessed as high as 23%. There is no way on this earth that almost 1 in every 4 people is in a school during a week, which would suggest that transmission in schools is far in excess of the other places where the average person visits during a week, which doesn't look good for the coming months given that schools are staying open.

A decent sample size, too, 128,000. 'Very useful information.

That is what I was thinking. The report is not particularly saying people caught it in the supermarket, just that more people went to a supermarket. It is not a bit like saying 98% of people ate bread?

There is a second table further down the document which seems to suggest the most common cause of spreading is in households. i think it is that, two sets of data, one the most frequent visited place and one the most likely transmission cause. A few weeks ago, pubs and the likes were much higher, but as they are now shut, it is going to be lower. I think the cases reported there are people who caught it before lockdown started.

 

[GordonMuchallNo1Fan]

They need to get back to how it was before. More social distancing, limited capacity, and one way systems. It worked well but since the mask rule was brought in, supermarkets are wacky races.

 

[daveydavey]

I bet some people say supermarkets as not to admit they have been visiting people and not sticking to rules

Exactly, and not putting pubs / gyms / friends etc as they don't want them shut down or friends pinged by T&T.

 

[SAFCOldie]

You csn't stop a seasonal bug, that is the long and the short.

 

[Locke's SAFC]

Fair enough. Bit of a weird thing to publish then really.

I think it's useful.

All it is saying is where infected people have been in the week up to a positive test result. From there, people can draw their own conclusions.

Clearly, it needs to be weighed up when considering where people normally go. Supermarkets are possibly the most visited indoor space in any given week, outside of households, so you would expect people to say I'd been in a supermarket because most of us do go there in a week. So, in terms of supermarkets it doesn't tell us anything except nearly 1 in 5 people had been in a supermarket which is entirely expected because during any average week at least 1 in 5 of us is in a supermarket. You could have asked that question to any group of people, infected or not, and 1 in every 5 people would have said I'd been in a supermarket that week.

Schools is the stand out. I've just had a quick look and there are 11.7 million schoolchildren in England, so say 1 in 6 of the population. But 1 in 4 of people testing positive had been in a school that week, which suggests to me schools is a cause of the spread more than your average place. It's useful information because it confirms what a lot of people thought about schools, although I wasn't one of them, and school children will obviously take it back to their families who will be in the sample group of positive tests but won't have been in a school and won't be recorded as such. The reason it is useful information is because you can gauge how much we can limit the spread by shutting everything and keeping schools open.

And, it's always been the case that you're relying on people to recount where they've been to get an indication of where they've picked it up. That won't change because there is no scientific apparatus to tell you exactly where someone was infected, so these sorts of studies are the best we have and are going to have.

That is what I was thinking. The report is not particularly saying people caught it in the supermarket, just that more people went to a supermarket. It is not a bit like saying 98% of people ate bread?

There is a second table further down the document which seems to suggest the most common cause of spreading is in households. i think it is that, two sets of data, one the most frequent visited place and one the most likely transmission cause. A few weeks ago, pubs and the likes were much higher, but as they are now shut, it is going to be lower. I think the cases reported there are people who caught it before lockdown started.

That wouldn't surprise me because people are together in households sharing everything in confined spaces. But, it has to picked up somewhere to take into someone's home.

I don't think anyone needs data to know that any indoor space where people are at close quarters for prolonged periods of time, will pass it around. That's just obvious. In the same way the flu gets passed around. The longer you're in that space, the more people who are in it and the closer you are to people - then there's more chance of it being passed around. So, you would expect a busy town centre pub with no social distancing to pass it around but then you wouldn't expect much transmission in a pub out the way following all of the guidelines with punters respecting those guidelines.

 

[ATS]

They need to get back to how it was before. More social distancing, limited capacity, and one way systems. It worked well but since the mask rule was brought in, supermarkets are wacky races.

Imagine trying to get people to queue outside Sainsbury’s when it is -2 degrees and gale force winds/rain/snow. Nowhere near as easy to do in the winter as it was in the spring.

 

[BrumBlue]

My store is going back to 24/7 for christmas. With no mention of any ques outside. It's going to be carnage.

 

[Fletch]

Many people suggest that working from home will become a permanent feature of life for many people, so perhaps it would be advantageous to give children an insight into what that will be like. Government would need to ensure every household has wi-fi and a laptop though. Not sure if the ship has sailed for that to be put in place.

It’s mainly skivers and cross dressers who are desperate for full time home working

Imagine trying to get people to queue outside Sainsbury’s when it is -2 degrees and gale force winds/rain/snow. Nowhere near as easy to do in the winter as it was in the spring.

Surely though a barrier to stop people entering unless they clean hands would help slightly . They will get chocka on run up to Xmas

 

[AC Mack]

Schools is the stand out. I've just had a quick look and there are 11.7 million schoolchildren in England, so say 1 in 6 of the population. But 1 in 4 of people testing positive had been in a school that week, which suggests to me schools is a cause of the spread more than your average place. It's useful information because it confirms what a lot of people thought about schools, although I wasn't one of them, and school children will obviously take it back to their families who will be in the sample group of positive tests but won't have been in a school and won't be recorded as such. The reason it is useful information is because you can gauge how much we can limit the spread by shutting everything and keeping schools open.

That wouldn't surprise me because people are together in households sharing everything in confined spaces. But, it has to picked up somewhere to take into someone's home.

I don't think anyone needs data to know that any indoor space where people are at close quarters for prolonged periods of time, will pass it around. That's just obvious. In the same way the flu gets passed around. The longer you're in that space, the more people who are in it and the closer you are to people - then there's more chance of it being passed around. So, you would expect a busy town centre pub with no social distancing to pass it around but then you wouldn't expect much transmission in a pub out the way following all of the guidelines with punters respecting those guidelines.

It's interesting that you make these observations in the same post. What do you think is happening in school classrooms?

 

[The Cheat]

My store is going back to 24/7 for christmas. With no mention of any ques outside. It's going to be carnage.

Surely going 24/7 will help as it'll spread the load?

 

[Mackem DJ]

You csn't stop a seasonal bug, that is the long and the short.

Hows he still here ^^^ anyone ????

 

[Hank Scorpio]

They need to get back to how it was before. More social distancing, limited capacity, and one way systems. It worked well but since the mask rule was brought in, supermarkets are wacky races.

The weather is now a factor though. If it’s freezing cold and pissing down, could you expect an old dear to queue for 20 mins just to buy bread and milk?

 

[BrumBlue]

Surely going 24/7 will help as it'll spread the load?

I work nights and it's the same every year. Everyone has the genius idea of going in the middle of the night because it will be quieter. But in reality it ends up like a saturday afternoon with people fighting over turkeys in their pjs.

Plus people are smart and realise deliverys are on nights. More chance of getting stuff that will sell out in the day time.

 

[Deleted member 22162]

The supermarkets have took the piss during lockdown; selling non essential items while independents have had to close, drawing business relief and laying almost the exact same sums back out in dividends. Shop local if you can. Supermarket meat and fish in particular tastes like rot compared to your average butcher / fishmonger.

 

[themanagersnot2blame]

Not heard of any supermarkets where say they've not been able to open as there has been a huge amount of staff have gone done with covid 1 9 .....

Talking to the staff in Byker Morrisons at the start of summer - not a single case despite mixing with the great unwashed all through the worst of the pandemic. One person isolated but result came back negative.

 

[DaveH]

I think it's useful.

All it is saying is where infected people have been in the week up to a positive test result. From there, people can draw their own conclusions.

Clearly, it needs to be weighed up when considering where people normally go. Supermarkets are possibly the most visited indoor space in any given week, outside of households, so you would expect people to say I'd been in a supermarket because most of us do go there in a week. So, in terms of supermarkets it doesn't tell us anything except nearly 1 in 5 people had been in a supermarket which is entirely expected because during any average week at least 1 in 5 of us is in a supermarket. You could have asked that question to any group of people, infected or not, and 1 in every 5 people would have said I'd been in a supermarket that week.

Schools is the stand out. I've just had a quick look and there are 11.7 million schoolchildren in England, so say 1 in 6 of the population. But 1 in 4 of people testing positive had been in a school that week, which suggests to me schools is a cause of the spread more than your average place. It's useful information because it confirms what a lot of people thought about schools, although I wasn't one of them, and school children will obviously take it back to their families who will be in the sample group of positive tests but won't have been in a school and won't be recorded as such. The reason it is useful information is because you can gauge how much we can limit the spread by shutting everything and keeping schools open.

And, it's always been the case that you're relying on people to recount where they've been to get an indication of where they've picked it up. That won't change because there is no scientific apparatus to tell you exactly where someone was infected, so these sorts of studies are the best we have and are going to have.


That wouldn't surprise me because people are together in households sharing everything in confined spaces. But, it has to picked up somewhere to take into someone's home.

I don't think anyone needs data to know that any indoor space where people are at close quarters for prolonged periods of time, will pass it around. That's just obvious. In the same way the flu gets passed around. The longer you're in that space, the more people who are in it and the closer you are to people - then there's more chance of it being passed around. So, you would expect a busy town centre pub with no social distancing to pass it around but then you wouldn't expect much transmission in a pub out the way following all of the guidelines with punters respecting those guidelines.

Interesting point, though the age groups for high cases has recently been 20-29 year olds top, 30-39 year olds second and 10-19 year olds third. If schools were the major viral hotspot, surely the age group would be well ahead?

 

[Billy Batts]

Not surprised seeing as though hardly anyone sanitizes their hands before they go in anymore. And you still have plenty of folk not wearing masks properly. Need to go back to restrictions imposed when we went into lockdown in the first place. If folk have to queue in the rain, so be it.

 

[scott934]

Not surprised seeing as though hardly anyone sanitizes their hands before they go in anymore. And you still have plenty of folk not wearing masks properly. Need to go back to restrictions imposed when we went into lockdown in the first place. If folk have to queue in the rain, so be it.

You might be right but all the article is saying is that 18% of people tested positive had been to a supermarket in the days leading up to their infection. It proves nothing.