1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on May 10, 2020 14:33:28 GMT
As the How Was Your Day? thread was veering off topic, here is one specific to the issue being discussed. Hopefully we can keep it civil and be sympathetic to people with opposing views, no one knows the future all we have are opinions based on our perception of risk and our immediate social circle. Be a lert, your Country needs lerts (old I know) An interesting article for ones who want to be a lert. www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2020 14:39:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on May 10, 2020 14:49:15 GMT
Staying alert was what I used to do at school to stop the bully sneaking up and giving me a wedgie.
People couldn't stay at home when the slogan was Stay At Home so I've no idea who thought this would be a good alternative!
|
|
4,179 posts
|
Post by HereForTheatre on May 10, 2020 14:55:39 GMT
If you are giving more opportunities for people to leave the house and go outside, dropping the stay at home slogan is absolutely the right choice. I do not understand the criticism. It isn't rocket science to see how those two things clash and don't make sense. People talk about the new slogan being confusing but i fail to see how it's more confusing than being told not to do something at the same time as now being allowed to do it.
|
|
5,021 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on May 10, 2020 14:56:31 GMT
People couldn't stay at home when the slogan was Stay At Home so I've no idea who thought this would be a good alternative! People whose job it is to know about effective slogans. Marketing is a much-derided profession but it is as much a science as, say, areas of economics with a great deal of study - some academic - to back it up. Behavioural science too, which inter alia predicted in advance that increasing numbers of people wouldn't stay at home after 4 weeks or so of lockdown. |
|
2,411 posts
|
Post by theatreian on May 10, 2020 15:08:12 GMT
It seems clear to me when you see the new expanded strapline below:
I guess just looking at the stay alert wording isn't as clear as looking at the above in its proper context.
I hope we are all excited for 7pm tonight to finally see the road map!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2020 15:45:50 GMT
It worries me that people are relying on slogans.
It isn't rocket science. Viruses are transmitted from person to person. The more people you come into contact with the greater the risk that (a) you will be infected and (b) you will pass on the infection to others. The fewer people you come into contact with the lower the risk.
How is this difficult to understand? How is a slogan either helpful or confusing?
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on May 10, 2020 15:58:43 GMT
The online twitterbots and their friends are making a huge mountain out of this - the reaction is completely out of proportion to the nature of the change.
The disconnect between the media and the public in all this is staggering. No wonder I am not alone in giving up on news broadcasts of any sort.
|
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on May 10, 2020 16:23:38 GMT
It worries me that people are relying on slogans. It isn't rocket science. Viruses are transmitted from person to person. The more people you come into contact with the greater the risk that (a) you will be infected and (b) you will pass on the infection to others. The fewer people you come into contact with the lower the risk. How is this difficult to understand? How is a slogan either helpful or confusing? Possibly because nothing has changed since lockdown started, if anything the death rate has gone up, and so we should still be in lockdown not relaxing restrictions. They should be much, much tighter. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2020 16:56:57 GMT
The slogan change is just that - a slogan change imo. We will still be encouraged to stay at home, work from home and avoid people. Okay so there’ll be more to it, but I’ll wait to hear it from the man himself tonight rather than reading media commentary on stuff that hasn’t been formally set out yet.
|
|
5,021 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on May 10, 2020 16:59:25 GMT
It worries me that people are relying on slogans. It isn't rocket science. Viruses are transmitted from person to person. The more people you come into contact with the greater the risk that (a) you will be infected and (b) you will pass on the infection to others. The fewer people you come into contact with the lower the risk. How is this difficult to understand? How is a slogan either helpful or confusing? Possibly because nothing has changed since lockdown started, if anything the death rate has gone up, and so we should still be in lockdown not relaxing restrictions. They should be much, much tighter. The death rate peaked in early April. |
|
5,021 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on May 10, 2020 17:01:51 GMT
It worries me that people are relying on slogans. It isn't rocket science. Viruses are transmitted from person to person. The more people you come into contact with the greater the risk that (a) you will be infected and (b) you will pass on the infection to others. The fewer people you come into contact with the lower the risk. How is this difficult to understand? How is a slogan either helpful or confusing? Because you are not representative of the population as a whole. Slogans have always been used as a memorable way to communicate messages. If they weren't useful they wouldn't be used in advertising. |
|
4,179 posts
|
Post by HereForTheatre on May 10, 2020 17:09:46 GMT
"Go out as much as you like for exercise, pop into your local garden centre for a browse on your way back from your newly re opened workplace and don't forget....stay at home!"
That doesn't quite work does it?
|
|
1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on May 10, 2020 17:17:11 GMT
Not sure if the perception in Government is that as the Countries who locked down early are now beginning to ease their restrictions the continuation of the UK lockdown will be a public implication of the failure to react.
We have been consistently 2 to 3 weeks behind the curve and therefore would expect the easing of restrictions to follow the same pattern.
This change in slogan if not significant change in the rules is a high risk distraction technique which will likely prove a costly one in lost lives as there will be part of the population chomping at the bit to be let out and this is the justification they have been waiting for.
We need to remember Politics is by definition the primary driver of all Politicians and implied failure their kryptonite.
We are stuck now with our unfocused testing regime where we do not know the scale, location and status of infection in the general population which will hinder any controlled way out of this situation and most probably outside of the USA put us at most risk of a significant second wave.
|
|
19,788 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on May 10, 2020 17:28:14 GMT
Let’s be honest. Whatever the government does it will be met with derision. If they had locked down earlier there would have been uproar. When they were keeping quiet about the next steps they were criticised for “not having a plan”. When they started indicating what the plan was they were criticised for not being specific enough. Now they’re telling us what the plan is they’re being criticised for letting people ease off the lockdown while at the sam3e time people have been moaning about not being allowed to sunbathe, or see their granny or sit on a park bench. Labour wouldn’t have handled this any better, especially the incompetents involved in JC’s shadow cabinet. It’s the ultimate poisoned chalice.
The new Stay Alert message, now it’s been expanded upon, is perfectly clear. We’re not out of the woods. We’re not back to normal. The world has to turn but we have to be careful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2020 17:47:30 GMT
if anything the death rate has gone up, and so we should still be in lockdown not relaxing restrictions. They should be much, much tighter. Where do you get that idea? It peaked at around 1000 deaths a day, and we're now down at 500. See the "daily death rate" chart about two thirds of the way down this page. There's no cause for complacency — the rate is falling because the current strategy is working but if we go back to how things were we'll be straight into exponential growth again — but the very fact that the current strategy is working means we don't need to strengthen the restrictions. |
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on May 10, 2020 18:22:22 GMT
So stay at home but go out for unlimited picnics but don't go near each other. Get to work unless you can't drive in which case learn to get there by magic. Stay alert in case the virus sneaks up on you. Clear as mud.
|
|
4,179 posts
|
Post by HereForTheatre on May 10, 2020 18:30:33 GMT
So stay at home but go out for unlimited picnics but don't go near each other. Get to work unless you can't drive in which case learn to get there by magic. Stay alert in case the virus sneaks up on you. Clear as mud. No, because the stay at home message is no longer active. Which is the point of this very thread actually. Regarding the actual measures. Well it seems clear enough to me. You can go out for outdoor activity with your household more and use parks whilst maintaining our current social distancing and gathering measures that are standard for us all. You should go to work if that is possible and not use public transport if you have an alternative. Quite simple. These are minute changes and indeed, what a lot of people were already doing or starting to do anyway. I note nothing was mentioned about garden centres, which was thought to be a potential change, so he's actually done less than even predicted. Yet we still get all this faux outrage from people. |
|
1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on May 10, 2020 18:35:01 GMT
Intrigued by the go to work if safe to do so statement. Who determines this, what if you disagree and subsequently get ill, is the employer deficient in their duty of care? Expect a sea of did you catch Covid-19 in work no win no fee adverts, all employers will need to make sure they have appropriate insurance in place or risk a future of litigations if they cannot prove they introduced measures to minimise infection which is nigh on impossible in enclosed places as in my previous link in the opening post. Found a link on the duty of care and safe place of work as stated in Section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 section44.co.uk/ |
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on May 10, 2020 18:37:17 GMT
So stay at home but go out for unlimited picnics but don't go near each other. Get to work unless you can't drive in which case learn to get there by magic. Stay alert in case the virus sneaks up on you. Clear as mud. No, because the stay at home message is no longer active. Which is the point of this very thread actually. Regarding the actual measures. Well it seems clear enough to me. You can go out for outdoor activity with your household more and use parks whilst maintaining our current social distancing and gathering measures that are standard for us all. You should go to work if that is possible and not use public transport if you have an alternative. Quite simple. These are minute changes and indeed, what a lot of people were already doing or starting to do anyway. I note nothing was mentioned about garden centres, which was thought to be a potential change, so he's actually done less than even predicted. Yet we still get all this faux outrage from people. It specifically penalises poor people without transport. Forcing back to work even if not safe to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2020 18:44:24 GMT
Boris said a lot of words for a very little update really. R is going to go up, isn’t it?
|
|
4,179 posts
|
Post by HereForTheatre on May 10, 2020 18:51:45 GMT
Boris said a lot of words for a very little update really. R is going to go up, isn’t it? Yes, which would happen whenever and however we tried to start coming out of lockdown. The alternative is to stay in full lockdown until a vaccine is produced, which is clearly untenable, especially given there is no guarantee one will ever be found. These easings are so small i cannot believe they are causing this much controversy. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2020 18:57:43 GMT
Boris has failed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2020 19:01:45 GMT
Boris said a lot of words for a very little update really. R is going to go up, isn’t it? There's no reason why the reproduction rate should go up, providing people actually think for themselves... Yeah, we're boned. I'm surprised by how obtuse people are being over this. Disease transmission isn't magic, yet people are acting like we need to be given a specific set of essentially arbitrary rules to follow or we won't know how to protect ourselves. People can't really be that stupid, can they? |
|
888 posts
|
Post by longinthetooth on May 10, 2020 19:04:40 GMT
Makes no difference to me. I'm over 70 so I'm staying put. Nowhere to go anyway, shops etc (and obviously theatres) remaining shut.
Can't help noticing, though, a few weeks ago people were up in arms at the thought of everywhere suddenly being closed, no jobs to go to etc, and were desperate to know how quickly they could go back - and now they are up in arms at the thought of actually going back.
|
|
