Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Original poster

Are they really going to cancel Christmas?

718 replies

fedupfrances · 15/12/2020 13:59

And if they do, will loads of people just break the rules anyway?

It’s sodding ridiculous - myself and DP have barely left the house last week and won’t be going out this week either, other than walks in our local park. My parents have also been at home pretty much constantly. None of us has Covid 19 and the risk of catching it if we get together at Christmas is practically zero. So fed up with this shite!

OP posts:
DonnaDonna01 · 15/12/2020 20:28

Why are the scientists and experts just now saying about the ease on restrictions at Christmas when it was announced weeks ago? Is it because London have been moved to tier 3 so everyone has to suffer, they haven’t said beep till this happened yesterday.

stovetopespresso · 15/12/2020 20:28

@fedupfrances sigh. here is the quote from your article. again.
Explaining the data, Isabel Oliver, director of the National Infection Service at PHE, said: “Suggestions that supermarkets are causing COVID-19 to spread are inaccurate. Common exposure data does not prove where people are contracting COVID-19.

“It simply shows where people who have tested positive have been in the days leading up to their test and it is used to help identify possible outbreaks,” she added.
do you understand now? some people who were covid+ went to a supermarket. they didn't necessarily get it there. I'm not saying they don't but please read the quote above from the article you linked. I took the time to out of respect for you.

herecomesthsun · 15/12/2020 20:28

[quote fedupfrances]**@fedupfrances I literally just quoted the article you linked. read. it. all. before posting. you really obviously haven't. sorry that's just waste of time at best and irresponsible misinformation if anyone believes you.

As I said before, the article says that supermarkets are the “most common location for Covid exposure in England”. Are you actually disputing that?

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/covid-supermarkets-uk-exposure-nhs-b1748906.html[/quote]
Supermarkets are NOT the commonest location for exposure according to that article. Education settings are.

Supermarkets 18.3%
Schools 22.8%
If you add in other settings, nurseries, universities and colleges, education comes to 28.4%. By far the highest group.

IdblowJonSnow · 15/12/2020 20:28

I doubt they'll cancel it. Maybe a few tweaks. I think the scaremongering will deter a lot of people which may be the government's hope.
If they cancel it half the population will hate them. If they don't the other half will.

Really wish we'd had a short lockdown in September, maybe we wouldn't be in this situation now.

TheWichitaWineOne · 15/12/2020 20:29

anything that comes before the word “but” in a sentence is generally meaningless anyway. Which is why I didn’t bother quoting that bit

What total rubbish Grin

It's a quick way to ignore context, but crack on then - what was your point about 'short memories?

Original poster
fedupfrances · 15/12/2020 20:32

Sigh - you really don’t get it do you @stovetopespresso?

do you understand now? some people who were covid+ went to a supermarket. they didn't necessarily get it there.

You say it yourself here FFS - why would I want to go to a supermarket where lots of people who are Covid positive are ALSO going?

It really isn’t rocket science, geez Hmm But hey, if you want to go to the supermarket and surround yourself with lots of Covid positive folk then by all means crack on!

OP posts:
hopefulhalf · 15/12/2020 20:32

Nobody goes out in January and it’s a very quiet time for businesses anyway, so that would make sense

January lockdown will be too late for the hospitals in the SE. (Medway Maritime and Conquest Hastings specifically).

Original poster
fedupfrances · 15/12/2020 20:34

What total rubbish

Hardly. Like I say, short memories...

www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/15/jeremy-hunt-dismal-legacy-in-the-nhs-and-social-care

OP posts:
stovetopespresso · 15/12/2020 20:36

@fedupfrances charming

Ontopofthesunset · 15/12/2020 20:36

The article about exposure doesn't say or imply that people went to the supermarket when they were positive. It says that people who test positive have frequently been to a supermarket in the days preceding their positive test. They have also frequently been to school or work. This makes sense as most people go to supermarkets, and school and work will also be very common places to go.

BeansBehindMyKnees · 15/12/2020 20:36

Totally unrelated question: are there ANY threads left on mn that haven't decended into bickering?

timeforanewstart · 15/12/2020 20:38

@BeansBehindMyKnees no doubtfull

Original poster
fedupfrances · 15/12/2020 20:39

Supermarkets are NOT the commonest location for exposure according to that article. Education settings are.

@herecomesthsun well sure, if you group a load of different education settings together versus one type of shop Confused But if you take “education settings” as single entities (like primary schools, secondary schools etc) then supermarkets are the commonest location for exposure.

OP posts:
underneaththeash · 15/12/2020 20:40

@ConcernedAuntie my point was that in the unlikely event he did get COVID from one of us, he wouldn’t accept treatment.

TheWichitaWineOne · 15/12/2020 20:41

Hardly. Like I say, short memories...

OP, wtf are you on about?

I said - after saying that I was absolutely no fan of Jeremy Hunt (that bit you decided you'd leave out) - that he is currently the adult in the room with COVID, as the cabinet is so crap. You decided, in your 'wisdom' that I must therefore have 'forgotten' that he did his best to fuck up the NHS?

Seriously? You're ridiculous. He fucked up the NHS. He is still one of the more reasoned voices right now on COVID policy. Both things can be true at the same time.

Stop lashing out and trying to start fights where there isn't one.

AnyFucker · 15/12/2020 20:42

are there ANY threads left on mn that haven't decended into bickering?

The Style and Beauty threads are generally bicker-free

TheWichitaWineOne · 15/12/2020 20:43

Totally unrelated question: are there ANY threads left on mn that haven't decended into bickering?

This OP is squabbling with more posters than is usually the case, to be fair. It suppresses any meaningful debate.

Original poster
fedupfrances · 15/12/2020 20:44

The article about exposure doesn't say or imply that people went to the supermarket when they were positive. It says that people who test positive have frequently been to a supermarket in the days preceding their positive test. They have also frequently been to school or work. This makes sense as most people go to supermarkets, and school and work will also be very common places to go.

The article does imply that with the use or the words “exposure setting”, here:

“Supermarkets are the most frequent common exposure setting for Covid-19 in England, new government data have shown.”

That sentence implies that supermarkets are the most common place in which to be exposed to Covid.

OP posts:
hopefulhalf · 15/12/2020 20:44

ConcernedAuntiemy point was that in the unlikely event he did get COVID from one of us, he wouldn’t accept treatment.

What not even oxygen ? You wouldn't call an ambulance ? I understand it is a horrible death with no drugs to ease the pain. Very few of us in the developed world have either the experience or the skills to nurse a loved one through their final days without making any demands at all on the health service.

Original poster
fedupfrances · 15/12/2020 20:44

use of* the words...

OP posts:
hopefulhalf · 15/12/2020 20:46

BTW I have witnessed many deaths (some at home) but without exception there has been some medical or nursing input.

Original poster
fedupfrances · 15/12/2020 20:46

This OP is squabbling with more posters than is usually the case, to be fair. It suppresses any meaningful debate.

Squabbling with more posters than is usually the case - AKA disagreeing with YOU Hmm

Anyway, you carry on singing the praises of Jeremy Hunt Hmm

OP posts:
OhDearMuriel · 15/12/2020 20:51

@OhDearMuriel oh don’t be so ridiculous. We’ve been at home for the past week and will be for the next, only leaving to get some exercise in the local park. The chances of us catching the virus are slim to none.

@fedupfrances
You come across as a complete imbecile on the entire thread - go and look-up the meaning of asymptomatic (probably a step too far for you).

If you don't like the educated responses on here - the clue is not to post in the first place.

Ontopofthesunset · 15/12/2020 20:52

You are right in that the use of the phrase 'exposure settings' could suggest that that is where exposure actually occurred, but if you read the article fully it's clear that what it really means is 'places where exposure could have occurred'. It doesn't mean that exposure did occur in supermarkets in 18% percent of cases - it means that 18% of people who subsequently tested positive had been in a supermarket in the days before their positive test and therefore it is possible that they were exposed to it there. This doesn't mean that no one is getting COVID in supermarkets but many of them will have been exposed elsewhere; for example, my husband got COVID at home from me and he had been in the supermarket the day before my symptoms. He didn't get it in the supermarket.

Hellotheresweet · 15/12/2020 20:53

Wow
Just selected all of OP’s posts on this thread

Do you have a phone addiction? A mumsnet addiction? You have been on your phone all day!!