Shut the supermarkets ?



Because that is speculation and no evidence to back it up. Granted it will be playing a part, but to pin the blame on kids is crazy.
The reports I posted above used to contact the test and trace data. That showed confirmed transmission in many other areas when they did publish it regularly. Given the source on Sky has extracts from those reports, they must be somewhere different.
"This sounds right to me, it is obvious" is not a thing to make judgement on. The next person along might feel it is obvious to them for a different reason.

For starters, education is already number 1 on that list by miles. They've just separated the age groups to make primary #3 and secondary '2 on the list. So "School" is #1 by a mile.

Secondly, we know that kids rarely have symptoms. But nobody is testing them routinely to see how prevalent it is in their age groups. For obvious reasons that its not nice to ram swabs down 7 year olds' throats.

But assuming the covid virus does a quick age-verification before settling in on a new host is absolutely laughable. Of course kids are catching it, its just that their immune system is pretty good at killing it quickly. But they're very very likely to be infectious for a short while, and they're all mixing, all the time and bringing it home.

Its really really obvious. I'm not "blaming kids" though, this isn't their decision or their fault. It just is what it is. Trying to pretend its not (by splitting schools by ages on lists etc) isn't helping anyone.
 
Busiest I’ve seen it for a long time at Morrison’s at Doxford Park this morning. I suppose it is a Friday. Everyone wearing masks but as others have said this simply leads to less distancing
 
No!
Kids are the most asymptomic group. By and large, they don't even know they've had it - therefore very little testing.
But they are infectious, and that's how its being spread around.

This seems utterly obvious to me. Why is nobody getting this?
Been said over and over by many scientists. Most research shows the less symptoms the less spreading.

So it may seem obvious to you but its wrong.
 
Been said over and over by many scientists. Most research shows the less symptoms the less spreading.

So it may seem obvious to you but its wrong.
Less viral shedding, absolutely.
But how much less. 50% less? But absolutely loads of cases and mobility.

Less spreading? I doubt that very much. There's no coincidence that cases rocketed the second the schools went back
 
Busiest I’ve seen it for a long time at Morrison’s at Doxford Park this morning. I suppose it is a Friday. Everyone wearing masks but as others have said this simply leads to less distancing
I was in there last Saturday morning and the ones causing the problems were the staff doing the click and collect orders. They had just about every aisle blocked. There was an owld gadgie doing his nut.
 
.
Some quotes:
" The reopening of schools was associated with a "large" increase in the R number, according to new research published in the Lancet "

"Children’s return to classrooms was followed by an average 24-per-cent rise in the R transmission number, University of Edinburgh researchers found after analysing data from 131 countries.
The only other measure linked to a higher increase in the rate is lifting a ban on groups gathering, which led to a 25-per-cent rise in R"


So, basically, kids gathering in schools has the exact same effect as adults gathering in general.


" the most comprehensive package – similar to a lockdown – would lead to a 52 per cent reduction. "


And schools being open has the effect of negating the entire lockdown by half!


I'm not claiming I have all the evidence, but some things are absolutely obvious. And it seems, are backed up by the science too.
 
Less viral shedding, absolutely.
But how much less. 50% less? But absolutely loads of cases and mobility.

Less spreading? I doubt that very much. There's no coincidence that cases rocketed the second the schools went back
:lol: okay....

asymptomatic means you dont have symptoms.

that means you dont sneeze. You dont cough. You dont have runny nose

by virtue of having no symptoms you arent releasing hardly any viral load into the air or on surfaces.

therefore it is less likely to spread.

Thats why they say those that are asymptomatic are less likely to spread it.
 
.
Some quotes:
" The reopening of schools was associated with a "large" increase in the R number, according to new research published in the Lancet "

"Children’s return to classrooms was followed by an average 24-per-cent rise in the R transmission number, University of Edinburgh researchers found after analysing data from 131 countries.
The only other measure linked to a higher increase in the rate is lifting a ban on groups gathering, which led to a 25-per-cent rise in R"


So, basically, kids gathering in schools has the exact same effect as adults gathering in general.


" the most comprehensive package – similar to a lockdown – would lead to a 52 per cent reduction. "

And schools being open has the effect of negating the entire lockdown by half!


I'm not claiming I have all the evidence, but some things are absolutely obvious. And it seems, are backed up by the science too.
So you go on to say exactly what I have been saying, lots of things are playing a part. You can’t just blame schools, like you finally admit, adult gatherings and other things are also big contributers.
 
This. I think you'd have to be really unlucky to get it in a Supermarket. You aren't in close proximity to a person for a long period of time.
Wankers not wearing masks and who don't keep their distance, who would then cough or sneeze without intervention would probably give you a dose of the virus.
 
All the reports are published weekly at:

I was going from memory of the week 45 or 46 report. The latest week 47 report has the 4 age groups 20-59 significantly ahead of 10-19 year olds.

Cheers for that, mate. I've had a look, and it doesn't make a great deal of sense to me (pillar 1, pillar 2 and so on), and I don't draw the same conclusion as you from that document.

But, I have had a look at the ONS website/data (link below):

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey - Office for National Statistics

What their testing has found, between the period 3rd May to 14th November, as a % of total infections by age group, and it excludes hospitals and care homes, i.e. just your average person going about his or her business in the community is:

17-24 year olds were pretty much consistently more likely to catch it week by week, 25-34 year old age group didn't change much throughout that period as a % of total infections, all age groups over 34 saw a marked decrease as a % of the total infections by age group from mid-August, and the biggest growth from August was 11-16 years olds (6% of total infections between May and mid-August and 16% after that).

And, from the beginning of September, around the time schools reopened, 2-16 years olds make up 28%, almost 1 in 3, of the total infections from then to the 14th November. And, that's come as a surprise to me. I've no agenda whatsoever and wouldn't have guessed that.
 
Last edited:
Cheers for that, mate. I've had a look, and it doesn't make a great deal of sense to me (pillar 1, pillar 2 and so on), and I don't draw the same conclusion as you from that document.

But, I have had a look at the ONS website/data (link below):

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey - Office for National Statistics

What their testing has found, between the period 3rd May to 14th November, as a % of total infections by age group, and it excludes hospitals and care homes, i.e. just your average person going about his or her business in the community is:

17-24 year olds were pretty much consistently more likely to catch it week by week, 25-34 year old age group didn't change much throughout that period as a % of total infections, all age groups over 34 saw a marked decrease as a % of the total infections by age group from mid-August, and the biggest growth from August was 11-16 years olds (6% of total infections between May and mid-August and 16% after that).

And, from the beginning of September, around the time schools reopened, 2-16 years olds make up 28%, almost 1 in 3, of the total infections from then to the 14th November. And, that's come as a surprise to me. I've no agenda whatsoever and wouldn't have guessed that.
Or the other way of looking at it is that almost three quarters of those tested at random were not school kids.
 
Hopefully with all this data being collected about Covid we will learn some lessons for future pandemics but it with a vaccine on the horizon, touch wood, looks like it will be too late for this one.
 
:lol: okay....
asymptomatic means you dont have symptoms.
that means you dont sneeze. You dont cough. You dont have runny nose
by virtue of having no symptoms you arent releasing hardly any viral load into the air or on surfaces.
therefore it is less likely to spread.
Thats why they say those that are asymptomatic are less likely to spread it.
Less likely, correct.
Still quite likely though. Kids touch things, have their fingers in their mouths, all that stuff.

The data shows it, I'm not making this up. The science AND the data say schools are the biggest thing here.


But you seem to know better?
So you go on to say exactly what I have been saying, lots of things are playing a part. You can’t just blame schools, like you finally admit, adult gatherings and other things are also big contributers.
Absolutely. Gatherings are the crux. Wherever people gather is the big problem.

Including when hundreds of kids gather in schools for 6 hours, 5 days a week.

Its likely a smaller risk, but the frequency is 100x more. That's why we see what we do.
And, from the beginning of September, around the time schools reopened, 2-16 years olds make up 28%, almost 1 in 3, of the total infections from then to the 14th November. And, that's come as a surprise to me. I've no agenda whatsoever and wouldn't have guessed that.
Because "they" keep telling us the virus doesn't affect young people. That's largely true.
But it does not mean they don't catch it!
They do!
And because they don't show signs of having it, they move around freely infecting others. Its bloody obvious!
 
Last edited:
What do you mean? It's a sample. No one would dispute that, but that's how you get a picture unless you have the time and resources to go 'round testing everyone.
What I mean is some people want it to be simple, point to one group, say that is the problem, I’m not part of that, someone can go and sort it, then demonise that group.

Take those figures you give (Its not helping that different sets of figures paint different pictures). You say 28% is one in three and is a big proportion. 28% is closer to a quarter than a third for starters, so there is swayed bias there making it into an easy fraction but inflating by 5%. you can look and say 28% is a sizable chunk, it sounds like we have found our cause. But, you can also say that 72% of affected people found in the link you posted were not school children.

Whichever set of data you use, there is not one area that is anywhere near a majority. You have a few locally isolated cases where when you restrict the time period and geography, you can pull out a majority, e.g. a couple of University cities in early October. But, overall, there is not one single cause. It is spreading everywhere and everywhere needs to take precautions. Not one type of place or person can wash their hands of it as someone elses problem.
 
Or the other way of looking at it is that almost three quarters of those tested at random were not school kids.
The point of this thread is that the school kids are the people carrying it between everyone.
If 1/3 of all infected people are school kids, and they don't have symptoms, then they move around into the rest of the community, spreading it!

Why is this so hard to grasp?
What do you mean? It's a sample. No one would dispute that, but that's how you get a picture unless you have the time and resources to go 'round testing everyone.
This is what they did in Liverpool, isn't it? Test as many people as possible.
But as said before, not many will want to subject their seemingly-healthy kids to an invasive/horrible test. I've done it, it is horrible tbh.
 
Last edited:
What I mean is some people want it to be simple, point to one group, say that is the problem, I’m not part of that, someone can go and sort it, then demonise that group.

Take those figures you give (Its not helping that different sets of figures paint different pictures). You say 28% is one in three and is a big proportion. 28% is closer to a quarter than a third for starters, so there is swayed bias there making it into an easy fraction but inflating by 5%. you can look and say 28% is a sizable chunk, it sounds like we have found our cause. But, you can also say that 72% of affected people found in the link you posted were not school children.

Whichever set of data you use, there is not one area that is anywhere near a majority. You have a few locally isolated cases where when you restrict the time period and geography, you can pull out a majority, e.g. a couple of University cities in early October. But, overall, there is not one single cause. It is spreading everywhere and everywhere needs to take precautions. Not one type of place or person can wash their hands of it as someone elses problem.

I'd agree that it's not just spreading in one particular group. Actually, I was quite surprised by how there wasn't a great deal of difference between age groups when you looked at total infections for the period May to November, except 17-24 year olds which was clearly the stand out age group when looking at that time period as a whole.

But, it was also noticeable that while there was a big drop off from August in people infected over 34 years old as a percentage of the total age groups, there was a big increase in 2-16 years olds.

It's not a case of blame; it's a case of understanding where the problems lie and putting measures in place.

And, these are the ONS figures based on an appropriate sample size, so they're pretty authoritative by anyone's standards, although I would like to see exactly whom was tested and from which parts of the country before betting my life that it's a representative sample.
 

Back
Top