Hancock's Half Hour

[user 26575]

I think I saw a pic of yours (or at least a detail) a while back, Lons. If I had one of those I'd be happy to travel in it now, I think. When the kids were young we were so close to buying one, taking a year off and travelling Europe. Never did, maybe one day...

 

[Blackswanwood]

Not really in general terms Blackswanwood from what I see happening around here, maybe not as much in your area but I can only speak for what I see but of course it is just my opinion.

Holidaying in a van can mean pretty much anything you want it to from a tiny ancient caravan or battered old transit to top of the range large motorhomes or twin axle caravans that have all mod cons which are expensive enough to need a mortgage.
Ours is 7.5m and very comfortable indeed and as I tow a little car as well we have full mobility if we want it with the benefit of being able to go away at very short notice for just a few days or a few weeks. We've done a fair amount of travelling to far flung places by the usual methods so have plenty of experience to compare with however it very definitely isn't for everyone, especially those who like to just go and lie on a beach in the sun which I personally find more than a little boring.

Going back to those flocking to sites it isn't safe as the majority will use the site toilet block facilities rather than their own, if they have them and if that isn't risky then what is? Many will also flock to the shops and the pubs with similar risks. If they maintain social distancing and wear masks when appropriate then fair enough but I very much doubt it from comments made on the relevant media groups leading up to this re opening.

Apologies Lons - I should have just said I've no experience of caravan or motorhome holidays - I wasn't seeking to imply there is anything wrong with it - I'm just a big fan of a proper bed. (I hope I've not just dug a bigger hole for myself and you'll tell me motorhomes have them!)

I'm in North Yorkshire (so we have our fair share of tourists and day trippers) and have probably seen a few instances of stupidity from people but on balance think behaviour is much more weighted towards common sense being applied to stick to the spirit of the rules/how we have been asked to behave.

Another factor that influences the way I am looking at things is what I've seen through work. I'm responsible for some major sites across the UK that have stayed open providing a key service as not all staff can work form home for either their own or business operational reasons. Back in March I expected we were going to have a nightmare getting employees to stick to the rules. Not so, they self police and to a large extent have made it easy. I'd add to that they've also shown great empathy for those less fortunate through things like donating to charity the money they save through not commuting if working from home.

The other side of the coin - my son is in the police and he can tell some interesting stories based on the way the less responsible have behaved. Some relate to the less fortunate but there are others that just show how arrogant and self centred some people are.

I know from your posts (and respect that) you have concerns about us unlocking too early - while far from comfortable with it my view is that we cannot stay as we have been. I don't dispute though that we need people to be thoughtful of how their actions may impact others.

Apologies again if you felt I was being disparaging of caravans and motorhomes - that wasn't my intent.

Cheers.

 

[Lons]

Blackswanwood, you have absolutely no reason to apologise for anything whatsoever, I read your post correctly I think and understood what you were saying. We live in a rural location as well but are within easy striking distance of large conurbations where without question the way I described people is there in plain view for all to see, unfortunately.

I don't really think lockdown should or could be continued as I'm realistic enough to realise there's got to be a way forward, I do however believe it should have been implemented sooner and enforced better then perhaps we could have been out of it more quickly, I'm just frustrated at the way it's been handled and at the apparent lack of concern for the vulnerable by some people and expecting a rise in infection rates.

We love North Yorks and have been around the area many times, I have family close to Kirbymoorside as well.
BTW our motorhome has 2 electrically operated drop down double beds, memory foam mattresses and everything :lol:

 

[Phil Pascoe]

You're welcome to the memory foam mattresses. I rejoiced the day I persuaded my loved one to get rid of ours. Memory foam pillows lasted one night. I'd sooner sleep on the ground.

 

[Lons]

You're welcome to the memory foam mattresses. I rejoiced the day I persuaded my loved one to get rid of ours. Memory foam pillows lasted one night. I'd sooner sleep on the ground.

:lol: :lol: We're all different.

We're very happy with ours Phil, they've improved over the years, the one at home is layers of sprung base and other foams just zipped together and much cooler than our previous one, we even have an extra layer we can change if we wanted a firmer mattress. The ones in the motorhome are composite as well. I prefer an ordinary pillow to memory foam but the missus swears by hers.

 

[Lons]

I think I saw a pic of yours (or at least a detail) a while back, Lons. If I had one of those I'd be happy to travel in it now, I think. When the kids were young we were so close to buying one, taking a year off and travelling Europe. Never did, maybe one day...

We had intended taking it to Europe for a month or so this summer but that's on hold for a while. As you'll know it's hardly camping out these days and the weather doesn't matter too much when there's full central heating.
The mutt loves it and panics when we're getting ready to go in case we leave her behind.

 

[Andy Kev.]

With ref. to the discussion on the quality of local councils: I've often wondered whether or not political parties should be banned from contesting council elections. I realise that this will find immediate disfavour with those who are keen on political ideologies but it seems to me that local councils are about keeping things running and working and solving problems in a sensible way as they arise.

I also wonder if the hefty salaries which local government positions attract can be conducive to people who have "vision" (definitely the last thing you need at local level) and so embark on money squandering schemes.

I imagine the optimal state of affairs lies somewhere between the two positions.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Conversely I've known people who've stood in the past as Independents who were basically communist - they knew that if they told the electorate their political persuasions they'd never get elected. (This possibly applies to the other end of the political spectrum as well, but I've not personally know any.) My mother always argued we should vote for Independents in local elections but I prefer to know what I'm voting for.

 

[user 26575]

'It is "crystal clear" that drunk people are unable to socially distance, the chair of the Police Federation said as pubs reopened on Saturday.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53296689

 

[Andy Kev.]

Conversely I've known people who've stood in the past as Independents who were basically communist - they knew that if they told the electorate their political persuasions they'd never get elected. (This possibly applies to the other end of the political spectrum as well, but I've not personally know any.) My mother always argued we should vote for Independents in local elections but I prefer to know what I'm voting for.

I think you could make it a legal requirement for candidates to list any previous political affiliations they may have had. If the rule was, say, that nobody who has been a member of a political party in the last 10 years may stand for election and a candidate declared that he/she had been e.g. a communist in their youth, it would then be up to voters to decide whether that just represented youthful silliness or if a dangerous loony was trying to get elected.

 

[Rorschach]

'It is "crystal clear" that drunk people are unable to socially distance, the chair of the Police Federation said as pubs reopened on Saturday.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53296689

Did anyone honestly think they would be able to?
We have got to let this spread a bit more before the winter flu season kicks in.

 

[user 26575]

'It is "crystal clear" that drunk people are unable to socially distance, the chair of the Police Federation said as pubs reopened on Saturday.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53296689

Did anyone honestly think they would be able to?
We have got to let this spread a bit more before the winter flu season kicks in.

No, you're right - I think it's part of the uk's cunning plan. One most of the rest of the developed world seems to have missed.
Not sure what the advantage of giving the virus a running start into the flu season is tho. The men and women in white coats with pens sticking out their breast pockets seem to keep telling us to avoid the virus, not spread it about.

 

[Andy Kev.]

This may be of general interest: the other day an Italian chap told me what was going on in his home area in northern Italy. It appears that the cases occurring now are less serious than in the first days. This makes sense because if a virus is to be successful as a surviving organism, it is generally a bad evolutionary tactic for it to kill most of its hosts. As a rule the deadlier strains tend to die out as they tend to die with their hosts. It's worth remembering that the virus doesn't care if you die enough, it just needs you as a reproductive facility and if it doesn't kill you, it will do better.

This latter development was probably reinforced by the most serious cases being isolated in hospital. Irrespective of the whether the patient died or was cured, that strain of the virus is not coming out of hospital with them. If the same has happened in the UK, the masses of people happily jostling in each other's company are likely to cause a new spike in the number of cases but we can perhaps be optimistic of a lower rate of lethality and so we will move more in the direction of herd immunity which is obviously desirable in the long run.

 

[Rorschach]

Spreading it now among the young is the best long term strategy IMO. In the winter the hospitals are always full of old people, the last thing we want is more C19 then, it's bad enough now.

Spread it among the young now while we have space in the hospitals for those that do get a bad case and let us reach herd immunity which will protect everyone come winter time.

 

[Lons]

Spreading it now among the young is the best long term strategy IMO. In the winter the hospitals are always full of old people, the last thing we want is more C19 then, it's bad enough now.

Spread it among the young now while we have space in the hospitals for those that do get a bad case and let us reach herd immunity which will protect everyone come winter time.

Hmm... Don't know where you get that fact from as it seems that there is no evidence to date that those who have had C19 and recovered are immune going forward, plenty of theories but the real fact is that they don't Know. You of course do. :lol: :wink:

 

[Rorschach]

Spreading it now among the young is the best long term strategy IMO. In the winter the hospitals are always full of old people, the last thing we want is more C19 then, it's bad enough now.

Spread it among the young now while we have space in the hospitals for those that do get a bad case and let us reach herd immunity which will protect everyone come winter time.

Hmm... Don't know where you get that fact from as it seems that there is no evidence to date that those who have had C19 and recovered are immune going forward, plenty of theories but the real fact is that they don't Know. You of course do. :lol: :wink:

Has there been a single documented case of reinfection?

 

[Lons]

Has there been a single documented case of reinfection?

Irrelevant!
Where is your evidence that a person is immune. You failed yet again to state it is only your opinion and instead stated as if it is a fact. :roll:
I repeat something I said in response to one of your other statements. THEY DON'T BLOODY KNOW - YET

EDIT:
I'll add something else to that. How do you know that none of those who were infected initially without symptoms didn't later catch it a second time. You don't know,and neither does anyone else

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Thd medical jury is still out as regards infection giving subsequent immunity.

If infection provided no immunity there would be an ever increasing body of evidence (repeat cases) as time passes. There has been the occassional reported reinfection but so small in number that it may be due to testing errors.

As a betting man (I'm not) I would put money on the proposition that infection provided a significant level of immunity, at least for a few months.

Whether immunity is short term or indefinite - months, years or lifelong - we simply don't know.

 

[Rorschach]

Has there been a single documented case of reinfection?

Irrelevant!
Where is your evidence that a person is immune. You failed yet again to state it is only your opinion and instead stated as if it is a fact. :roll:
I repeat something I said in response to one of your other statements. THEY DON'T BLOODY KNOW - YET

EDIT:
I'll add something else to that. How do you know that none of those who were infected initially without symptoms didn't later catch it a second time. You don't know,and neither does anyone else

My evidence that people are immune after catching is that there have been 11.5 million confirmed cases and we zero confirmed cases of re-infection. If that changes and we start to see cases of reinfection then I will change my opinion. As I think you will find I did say it was my opinion in the first post. :mrgreen:

Think about this though, if infection doesn't cause immunity, what do we do? Herd immunity doesn't work then and neither does a vaccine.

 

[Lons]

Has there been a single documented case of reinfection?

Irrelevant!
Where is your evidence that a person is immune. You failed yet again to state it is only your opinion and instead stated as if it is a fact. :roll:
I repeat something I said in response to one of your other statements. THEY DON'T BLOODY KNOW - YET

EDIT:
I'll add something else to that. How do you know that none of those who were infected initially without symptoms didn't later catch it a second time. You don't know,and neither does anyone else

My evidence that people are immune after catching is that there have been 11.5 million confirmed cases and we zero confirmed cases of re-infection. If that changes and we start to see cases of reinfection then I will change my opinion. As I think you will find I did say it was my opinion in the first post. :mrgreen:

Think about this though, if infection doesn't cause immunity, what do we do? Herd immunity doesn't work then and neither does a vaccine.

In the post I responded to you very clearly did not say it was only your opinion and you stated it in a manner that suggested it's a fact when what you have said above is not evidence it's only stats and even those can be questioned as there is every reason to believe they are not accurate. Presumably you had at least a rudimentary education and know how to phrase your sentences accordingly. :wink:

Your last sentence is just deflection tactics, I made no comment whatsoever regarding what could work and won't, I repeat because you seem to have reading or understanding issues - THEY DON'T YET KNOW. If they don't then you don't either, end of! :roll: