Anyone living in new lock down areas?

[reohn2]

prejudice

But no worse than yours

[Jdsk]

And just wondered if you could be malnourished and over-weight at the same time.

Yes. Most common in the UK at the moment would probably be micronutrient deficiency: vitamin D in just about everybody and folate and iron in important subgroups.

That's "most common" if you don't include alcohol in nutrition!

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

Today's letter on hunger and malnutrition from a lot of paediatricians.
https://www.rcpch.ac.uk/news-events/new ... xtend-free
includes:
"Every day, we see the impact of hunger and malnutrition in our work as paediatricians. It is not unusual for us to care for children who don’t have enough to eat or who don’t have access to a substantial meal outside of what is provided in school. Good nutrition is at the heart of health, wellbeing and development for children and young people. Without it, children’s health outcomes worsen, and with that, so do their life chances"

Jonathan

[reohn2]

Today's letter on hunger and malnutrition from a lot of paediatricians.
https://www.rcpch.ac.uk/news-events/new ... xtend-free
includes:
"Every day, we see the impact of hunger and malnutrition in our work as paediatricians. It is not unusual for us to care for children who don’t have enough to eat or who don’t have access to a substantial meal outside of what is provided in school. Good nutrition is at the heart of health, wellbeing and development for children and young people. Without it, children’s health outcomes worsen, and with that, so do their life chances"

Jonathan

And crap in crap out!
It's why we stopped eating meat 20 odd years ago the crap ie;growth homones,antibiotics by routine,and ground up other animals,fed to animals is what meat eater eat.
It's the same with other cheap processed suger and fat filled food with little nourishment other than to produce obese people.
Capitalism works yeah?

[Oldjohnw]

OTOH, my niece thinks she has the climate sorted because she is vegan.

Doesn't matter that she flies half round the world for holidays twice a year at least. And not bothered that the veg she buys is grown in ways that are as destructive as meat.

[mercalia]

[Tangled Metal]

We're in a low infection rate area of Lancashire but are in tier 3 restrictions. If I've understood the restrictions on the government website correctly then it's advised not to travel from high risk to low risk areas. I'm officially high risk tier 3 but low risk in terms of infection rate if official figures are correct. I'm on the border with Cumbria which is tier 1. Over the border they have the same levels of infection rate as where I live.

My question to you is if there's no "must" in tier 3 restrictions and travelling to lower tier areas only advisable is it right or wrong for me to pass over the border for a socially distanced visit to an outside location? A visit to a national trust garden just over the border from me. I believe the infection rate similarity means there's the same risk of infection whether visitors come from the part of Lancashire we do or the part of Cumbria were visiting. There's a risk by anyone visiting such a place with others outside their bubble being present but there's no increased risk by us being their from where we come from.

There is no legal consequence if caught, advisory not compulsory. No increased risk of infection, same infection rate. Is there any reason not too go?

[Jdsk]

What's your own general approach to decreasing transmission of the virus: obey the law, follow the guidance, or reduce transmission further than that?

Jonathan

[Tangled Metal]

My general approach is to distance, wear masks, wash/hand alcohol gel and avoid high infection areas as much as possible. I ignore the pointless boundary between two areas with the same levels of infection rates. I do create my own boundaries with areas of high infection rates.

What's your general approach as what I assume is a medical professional? In my position would you follow restriction boundaries based on actual infection rates in other areas or would you take the advisory wording as a get out to allow a more commonsense personal approach of sticking to areas with similar infection rates irrespective of government imposed tiers?

Obviously I don't have all the expert advice government has but it seems to me that if you want to reduce infection it makes sense to not allow high infection rate populations to travel to low infection rate areas. But another action to avoid is forcing lower infection rate areas to go to higher infection rate areas because of irrational, imposed boundaries. For example, if I need to buy stuff from say a DIY store to maintain our house I have to go towards a higher infection rate area because the shops in the same infection rate areas as ours is rated tier 1.

[Jdsk]

What's your general approach as what I assume is a medical professional? In my position would you follow restriction boundaries based on actual infection rates in other areas or would you take the advisory wording as a get out to allow a more commonsense personal approach of sticking to areas with similar infection rates irrespective of government imposed tiers?

I think that you're putting too much emphasis on areas with lower or higher rates and the boundaries between them.

My personal approach is to get my volume and closeness and nature of contacts way below the guidance, let alone the law. The lower the better.

Jonathan

[mercalia]

When is a SAGE not a SAGE? When its S.A.G.E

But some in the Department of Health are scarred by Sage advice from the first wave and think that any modelling that looks more than two weeks into the future has vast error margins. Health officials were told on 1 March that 90,000 ventilator beds could be needed for Covid patients — use peaked at 3,300 beds. Later advice — dated 17 March — suggested 138,000 beds, 40 times the peak figure. At one stage, the NHS was told to prepare for two million Covid patients needing hospital care — ten times more than the eventual figure.

The big question is whether these assumptions are, as Sage says, ‘reasonable’. And if not, who is likely to say so? ..... There is no ‘red team’ of experts in No. 10 challenging the assumptions; and there can be no debate about them in public when they are being kept secret.......During the 2009 swine flu outbreak, the ‘reasonable worse-case scenario’ from Sage envisaged 65,000 deaths. There was no lockdown. Just 457 died. The subsequent inquiry had plenty to say about the wisdom of planning around an unlikely, gloomy scenario: better to plan for the most likely scenario, it suggested, while ‘monitoring events closely and changing tack as necessary’.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-long-winter-why-covid-restrictions-could-last-until-april?

[Jdsk]

If you're criticising advice from SAGE how about citing which piece of advice and when it was produced? Rather than a paywalled article in a politically motivated magazine?

Then we can all check whether they were predictions of what would actually happen or what-if outputs from models. The two are quite different.

Jonathan

[kwackers]

Prepare for the worst case, try for the best case.
A good result doesn't mean the preparations were wrong though no matter what the internet says.

(Some very entertaining theories out there though. They walk amongst us...)

[Carlton green]

Eacxh day I find people who are simply not keeping theier distance/breaching the rules etc, from people in supermarkets not using the spacing markers and refusing to distance when asked, to people on the pavement.

Case(s) in point - visited Stratford a few days ago (on Avon). Local coubcil has effectivley widened footpaths by imposing traffic restrictions, using barriers and adding tarmac to widen the pavements and putting markers down. Even so

A queue of people outside an in-cream shop were all bunched up together, even those that were clearly from different groups
While my wife went into a shop I waited outside on a very wide stretch of widened footpath, standing against a building - groups of people walked past 3 or 4 abreast almost brushing shoulders with me as they went
People in a hurry or messing with mobiles instead of "staying alert" simply ignoring people walking in the opposite direction

Whatever various reports say about distance/outdoors blah blah blah this creeping complacency does seem to coincide with a rise in infection rates

I haven’t read the full thread and don’t intend to, the first page was enough for me. Murphy195 and a few others point out the nature of the problem here and it’s fundamentally not particularly poor government (here or anywhere else) but rather the stupidity of people and their unwillingness to take responsibility for their actions. Many people do take this virus seriously but plonkers we have within our communities stuff things up for the rest of us.

The first wave was bad enough and we were a bit late getting to grips with things, this second wave was avoidable and is entirely due to human nature - CV19 could have been stamped out within the U.K. over the summer but the British Public didn’t have the guts and grim determination required. There’s only so much that Government can do folks and the rest is down to (sadly lacking in this case) people power.

What's your general approach as what I assume is a medical professional? In my position would you follow restriction boundaries based on actual infection rates in other areas or would you take the advisory wording as a get out to allow a more commonsense personal approach of sticking to areas with similar infection rates irrespective of government imposed tiers?

I think that you're putting too much emphasis on areas with lower or higher rates and the boundaries between them.

My personal approach is to get my volume and closeness and nature of contacts way below the guidance, let alone the law. The lower the better.

Jonathan

That’s about the ‘top and tail of it’. Anyone with any sense has to really watch what they’re up to and live a hermit like existence. It never needed to be this way but the general population has some right ‘Dicks’ in it and hence we are where we are.

[mercalia]

If you're criticising advice from SAGE how about citing which piece of advice and when it was produced? Rather than a paywalled article in a politically motivated magazine?

Then we can all check whether they were predictions of what would actually happen or what-if outputs from models. The two are quite different.

Jonathan

The poor old Spectator cant win can it. Some say here it is ultra right wing, so what are you claiming it to be, since here it is criticising the govt? I suggest you sign up to their newsletters then you can read more for free it seems as I dont pay to read them. There are still some that get flagged as sub only but not that one. The excerpt gives the gist of the article( I think ). Agree with it or not I dont really care, it is offered for you or any one else to read if they want for alternative viewpoints. Stop your ad hominem way of arguing it dont impress me. its cheap.

Here apparantly is SAGEs worst point case for the winter for any one who cares to read it ( which I anyway can read without subscribing to the Spectator, but as 1 of 2 for free in this case)
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/classified-covid-in-winter-2020-a-worst-case-scenario?