[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Cherie

completely agree, I think we are total underestimating how quickly young kids adapt, and as for Miss or Sir wearing a visor they would find it funny rather than scary

I don't think they'd struggle to adapt to masks I just think young kids would fiddle with them / stick their hands under them / forget to put them on / absentmindedly take them off. It's more the social distancing aspect that I think is totally unrealistic for young kids. You're expecting them to not only remember that it's a thing at all times, but also to accurately be able to assess what a 2m distance is. You could have it as a "loose" rule to try to remember to keep some distance from people but you couldn't enforce it strictly or punitively, it just wouldn't be a reasonable expectation.

I also think there's a strong potential for psychological harm in refusing to allow children to have physical contact with each other for a prolonged period of time, but that's (sort of) another debate.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It's the same black-and-white thinking though, that we have "safety" on one hand and "economy/other stuff" on the other hand. Essentially the idea that has swept the world that the only danger out there any more is Covid. Simply saying "we're just not going to do education any more for the foreseeable future, because people might catch covid" is NOT safe at all for children. Saying "we'll just all stay home and not think about the economy for now, because people might catch Covid" is NOT safe at all - for anyone. We already know that there have been 16,000 excess deaths caused by Covid lockdown that are otherwise absolutely nothing to do with Covid and in the years to come, we're going to find out the hard way that this is the absolute tip of the iceberg.

I've been saying from the beginning that it's not a black and white matter of "economy vs safety". An economic collapse will kill more people than Covid. Shutting down the schools indefinitely will affect more lives than Covid and in ways we can't even predict yet, as well as having a drastic economic knock-on effect. These huge, sweeping social experiments are NOT safe AT ALL, it's an illusion, and one that people buy into because they understand the simplicities of "a virus being dangerous" but not the complex structures that are keeping us all alive day-to-day... the ones we take for granted and assume we can just pop aside for a while and not be flirting with catastrophe.

Which brings me full circle to why we need to resume the necessities - medical and health services, schools, higher education, shops, general workplaces - and to mitigate SOME of that it would be sensible to accept that we can't have some of the indoor luxuries and leisure for a while - pubs & clubs, dining-in, cinemas, other leisure activities. We don't need them. People WANT them - there is a huge difference. There are countless alternatives. There is no realistic or reasonable alternative to kids being at school.

I've been accused of this coming from a place of "what's best for me" but that's not the case at all either. I have no practical necessity for the kids being out of the house, I'm here anyway. I've gotten used to them being around, for ME I'd happily keep them here. I have a TONNE of various anxieties about them going back but the options are non-existent... education is one of the fundamental pillars of society. Up there with the absolute basics like food production and healthcare. It's that simple.

Yet you talk up the importance of the economy while also saying that some of the biggest employment sectors in this country are luxuries we can do without. Millions and millions of jobs and livelihoods depend on these things that we don't 'need'.

It seems to have just been assumed that we can't have x without forsaking y when there is little evidence to say that's the case or little thought given to alternative solutions. Its a false dichotomy

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...but no one ever expected an either/or though, TS...no one I know, did...and school staff..(...for the most part..)...want to be back doing what they love with full capacity schools...but it can’t be at the ‘sacrifice’ of safety...how is that okay and yet pubs/restaurants etc aren’t okay because they can’t offer that safety...I mean that’s just hugely flawed from the off and never, ever going to get the economy going again ...because no workplace through this has continued to operate with disregarding safety procedures that we all know are working...(..or so we’ve been told...)...

I don't know how to be clearer other than to say that there's a balance of safety concerns for both, but that pubs/restaurants etc. aren't OK simply because they are completely unnecessary. Opening schools is a necessary risk because education is essential. Opening pubs and restaurants is flawed there's no need to take any risk at all with them. They're nice to have but they are leisure activities - they are ENTIRELY non-essential and could be economically propped up by other means.

[arista]

Some Great news for Strong Jess.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Yet you talk up the importance of the economy while also saying that some of the biggest employment sectors in this country are luxuries we can do without. Millions and millions of jobs and livelihoods depend on these things that we don't 'need'.

It seems to have just been assumed that we can't have x without forsaking y when there is little evidence to say that's the case or little thought given to alternative solutions. Its a false dichotomy

Optional leisure sectors could (and should) be financially secured by the government for as long as necessary. The solution there isn't complicated at all. The Tories will pretend that doing that would not be financially viable, but that is a flat out lie, the bulk of GDP is not dependent on the service sector at all, individual livelihoods are but they could be supported more or less indefinitely.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I don't know how to be clearer other than to say that there's a balance of safety concerns for both, but that pubs/restaurants etc. aren't OK simply because they are completely unnecessary. Opening schools is a necessary risk because education is essential. Opening pubs and restaurants is flawed there's no need to take any risk at all with them. They're nice to have but they are leisure activities - they are ENTIRELY non-essential and could be economically propped up by other means.

...I can’t agree with you..(..regarding your stance on pubs/restaurants etc...)...and I doubt it’s something we’ll ever agree on because I think it’s all linked....safety/economy etc and everything has a place in that chain linking because without a huge chunk of it, the economy is already falling...to try to make it work, that’s the whole point, we have to make it work...adaptions, yes...closures, no...

[Ammi]

...see, I don’t know how to make it clearer either, TS.....I completely don’t agree with you...

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Optional leisure sectors could (and should) be financially secured by the government for as long as necessary. The solution there isn't complicated at all. The Tories will pretend that doing that would not be financially viable, but that is a flat out lie, the bulk of GDP is not dependent on the service sector at all, individual livelihoods are but they could be supported more or less indefinitely.

Disagree, I think the idea of indefinitely financing a dormant sector and keeping millions of people on permanent furlough really would cripple the economy and most likely mean the death of hundreds of establishments. The knock on effect would be massive beyond hospitality and also affect agriculture, food and drink production, tourism, general retail etc. and for what? Because apparently we can't have hospitality and education at the same time even though schools might not even increase the transmission of the virus. Even though in many areas of the UK community transmission is incredibly low. Local measures have been put in place effectively in the last few weeks to combat spikes but now we should go back to one size fits all slapdash policies because we don't really need leisure activities and can all stay inside watching telly in our free time instead

[lime]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I actually drove through Kildare a few days ago, we were staying in Wicklow for a few days staycation

My husband and myself love Bray Co Wicklow.The food and athmosphere is great..had plans to go on Sunday..I love Seaworld and my husband loves the casinos.

To my shame I couldn't understand Irish folk" using the word "Lokdown"

Thought how can so many spell it wrong?Then I hrs later copped on...The L ..O and K stand for Laois 'Offaly and Kildare

[arista]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...see, I don’t know how to make it clearer either, TS.....I completely don’t agree with you...

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by lime

My husband and myself love Bray Co Wicklow.The food and athmosphere is great..had plans to go on Sunday..I love Seaworld and my husband loves the casinos.

To my shame I couldn't understand Irish folk" using the word "Lokdown"

Thought how can so many spell it wrong?Then I hrs later copped on...The L ..O and K stand for Laois 'Offaly and Kildare

Very good I hadn't seen that

Yeah Bray is lovely, as is Greystones

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by arista

...did I hit, did I get him, Arista...my archery isn’t that polished atm and TS is a slippery little devil...

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Optional leisure sectors could (and should) be financially secured by the government for as long as necessary. The solution there isn't complicated at all. The Tories will pretend that doing that would not be financially viable, but that is a flat out lie, the bulk of GDP is not dependent on the service sector at all, individual livelihoods are but they could be supported more or less indefinitely.

I don't think they would do well with the surgical type mask but with a visor type they could customise, make it a fun task (oh I am sounding like Nicky , I think most would be fine

[bitontheslide]

Some 97,000 American children tested positive with Covid-19 in the last two weeks of July, according to a new study and The New York Times.

The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association, who conducted the research, said at least 338,000 children have tested positive since the pandemic began.

It means that more than a quarter tested positive in the last two weeks of July, alone.

That comes after Donald Trump claimed last week that "Children are almost, and I would almost say definitely, but almost immune from this disease".

Those comments - which he posted on Facebook and Twitter - were later labelled as "Covid misinformation".

[lime]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Very good I hadn't seen that

Yeah Bray is lovely, as is Greystones

Glendalough,

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by lime

Glendalough,

We actually stayed just outside Blessington, beautiful place

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by lime

Glendalough,

Georgeous neck of the woods Lime

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Disagree, I think the idea of indefinitely financing a dormant sector and keeping millions of people on permanent furlough really would cripple the economy and most likely mean the death of hundreds of establishments. The knock on effect would be massive beyond hospitality and also affect agriculture, food and drink production, tourism, general retail etc. and for what? Because apparently we can't have hospitality and education at the same time even though schools might not even increase the transmission of the virus. Even though in many areas of the UK community transmission is incredibly low. Local measures have been put in place effectively in the last few weeks to combat spikes but now we should go back to one size fits all slapdash policies because we don't really need leisure activities and can all stay inside watching telly in our free time instead

If your imagination for keeping entertained is limited to "telly or pub" then I suppose I can understand your resistance to them staying closed.

Also, let's say you are correct, and a huge proportion of our economy and general way of life and being hinges on bars and pubs. To me, that's a fairly damning & depressing reflection on our society and "traditions" and maybe you're right that we need to keep that afloat as a "necessary evil". For me personally, it's not something to be proud of or to uphold as something that we should maintain at all costs. Pubs being the dominant source of all adult leisure activity in the UK is not unexpected but it is extremely bleak. I am aware that you disagree, but... really.

Leisure expenditure is of excess income and if people aren't spending it at the pub they will be spending it in other areas of the economy. It doesn't evaporate.

[Ammi]

....gosh TS...I really hadn’t got you as a snob but that’s how it’s appearing...all for academics/education and down with those pub dwellers, they’re a bit low in the pecking order of humans...I’m going to leave this because these conversations rarely get anywhere other than where it seems headed...(...some and many pubs...)...are a huge part of a community...both economically and socially...I need to get out into the sun, I think...

[Ammi]

...might go to the pub actually...I can do that...

[lime]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

We actually stayed just outside Blessington, beautiful place

love the lakes in Blessington...so peacefull

[lime]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Georgeous neck of the woods Lime

True Cherie

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Ammi

....gosh TS...I really hadn’t got you as a snob but that’s how it’s appearing...all for academics/education and down with those pub dwellers, they’re a bit low in the pecking order of humans...I’m going to leave this because these conversations rarely get anywhere other than where it seems headed...(...some and many pubs...)...are a huge part of a community...both economically and socially...I need to get out into the sun, I think...

Prioritising education and academics over pubs is the bar for snobbery now? Seriously?

If so then yes I am a snob. With all other factors out of the equation I have no problem with people enjoying pubs or any other leisure activity they happen to enjoy; I do think it lacks imagination if people can't think of an alternative.

But if we're talking "pecking order" and choices/prioritisation then yes, education comes above (far, far above) ANY optional adult leisure activity of any kind and I'm flabberghasted that anyone would imagine there's a decent argument to the contrary. I've yet to see one offered up other than "that's offensive" and "but I like the pub". That it's a heavily populated employment industry IS a half-decent argument but really does not play into this "pecking order" argument.

Schools are above pubs in the pecking order. Yes. 100%. ffs.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

If your imagination for keeping entertained is limited to "telly or pub" then I suppose I can understand your resistance to them staying closed.

Also, let's say you are correct, and a huge proportion of our economy and general way of life and being hinges on bars and pubs. To me, that's a fairly damning & depressing reflection on our society and "traditions" and maybe you're right that we need to keep that afloat as a "necessary evil". For me personally, it's not something to be proud of or to uphold as something that we should maintain at all costs. Pubs being the dominant source of all adult leisure activity in the UK is not unexpected but it is extremely bleak. I am aware that you disagree, but... really.

Leisure expenditure is of excess income and if people aren't spending it at the pub they will be spending it in other areas of the economy. It doesn't evaporate.

I didn't actually mention pubs once in my post as I was talking about an entire sector which you have dismissed as 'unnecessary' which includes cafes, restaurants, cinema, entertainment venues, presumably theatres, museums and any number of other things that are just 'leisure'. I'm not sure why spending on non-essential retail is worthwhile and necessary but spending on hospitality is not

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by MTVN

I didn't actually mention pubs once in my post as I was talking about an entire sector which you have dismissed as 'unnecessary' which includes cafes, restaurants, cinema, entertainment venues, presumably theatres, museums and any number of other things that are just 'leisure'. I'm not sure why spending on non-essential retail is worthwhile and necessary but spending on hospitality is not

There is persistent and increasing evidence that people in a pub environment allow essential things like social distancing and hand hygiene to slip once alcohol starts to come into the equation, and we also know that staff are powerless to enforce compliance. We can keep ignoring that and pretending that this is not the case, that there's no difference between pubs and bars and other places where precautions can be taken, but it would take a lot to convince me that it isn't largely cognitive dissonance from people who don't want it to be the case. It's not that non-essential retail, or cafes, theatres, museums are more worthwhile than pubs but the question is "worthwhile vs risk". If people were getting too relaxed, letting their guard down, getting physically close and forgetting to wash their hands after three pints at the museum then yes that would be a problem too but it isn't the case. It IS the case in pubs whether people like that or not. It is the case whether you and your friends are being careful or not. A large enough proportion of patrons are letting the protective measures slip and that's enough.