Can we cruise again?

[Momac]

47 minutes ago, Ianws said:

Which makes you think any extended cruising (after navigation reopens), without a very good plan, could be problematic. Where might you be if things are suddenly locked down again?

Other than people who are retired and don't really mind where they might be stuck think it would be wise to avoid going too far this year .

I have certainly curtailed my plans and hope for a little more freedom later in the year .

 

I must confess to being very surprised at the decision to allow day trips by boat.

 

55 minutes ago, MoominPapa said:

 

It's pretty clear to me that there's nothing to stop a second wave in a few weeks, who knows what will happen then

 

Terrifying as it may seem this is of course  the underlying plan, the idea being to spread the virus in a controlled fashion while not overwhelming the NHS . Worst case scenario is the infection rate drops off completely and people stop the social  distancing which will create a repeat performance. Better to introduce freedoms gradually. We must behave ourselves , not exceed the limits advised , and keep apart from people who are not living in the same household. 

 

 

 

[trane]

1 hour ago, MoominPapa said:

scrolled back to find your original posting. Given your circumstances, I can't see any reason why you shouldn't become a liveboard boater and work under the rules for such. I certainly see the point of banning nights away from home, but what you are proposing, I think, is that you'd move onto the boat _and_stay_there_, not returning to your current abode for the foreseeable future. That seems sensible to me.

Thanks for the response. I think you're right, I would be better becoming a liveaboard boater from 1st June. The alternative would be to stay at home until "leisure boaters" are allowed back cruising. If I go to the boat on the 1st June I would have spent the previous weeks decorating, cutting grass with visits to the supermarket every 2 weeks being the only risk. If I return later when the lockdown is lifted I will have spent weeks sharing a house with someone who has been in everyday contact with a school full of children. aside from any risk to myself, I could be asymptomatic and a far greater risk to others if I wait.Of course the advice is highly likely to change over the next few weeks but I have a general idea what I might do pending any updates

It helps sometimes to bounce ideas off others. thanks for taking the time to reply

[LadyG]

A bit of activity today on the Aire and Calder, commercial, and leisure.

A few boats with social distancing is not going to spread disease, it is the people who disregard hygiene protocols who will spread it.

I can't emphasise enough, those who are vulnerable, must be prepared to take strict precautions for the next three months, and -assess the situation month by month after that, forget about rumours about vaccines and other drugs, keep healthy as best you can.

No I am not a doctor, I just know that I need to keep the virus out of my home.

[MoominPapa]

2 minutes ago, trane said:

Thanks for the response. I think you're right, I would be better becoming a liveaboard boater from 1st June. The alternative would be to stay at home until "leisure boaters" are allowed back cruising. If I go to the boat on the 1st June I would have spent the previous weeks decorating, cutting grass with visits to the supermarket every 2 weeks being the only risk. If I return later when the lockdown is lifted I will have spent weeks sharing a house with someone who has been in everyday contact with a school full of children. aside from any risk to myself, I could be asymptomatic and a far greater risk to others if I wait.Of course the advice is highly likely to change over the next few weeks but I have a general idea what I might do pending any updates

It helps sometimes to bounce ideas off others. thanks for taking the time to reply

The only  thing I'd add to that is that if you are going to come down with the virus, living alone on a boat is not a good place to do it. Even if you're not seriously ill, you may not be well enough to provide yourself with power, water, food and sewage disposal, and certainly it's not easy to do those things without risking infecting others. As liveaboards ourselves, we've tried to think through what we do if one or both become ill, and the answers tend to involve the one who isn't ill getting the boat to within very easy reach of services before they succumb too. That's not a very satisfactory answer, and it's obviously even worse if you're solo. If you can be as sure as possible that you're not already exposed when you go to the boat, that will help.

 

 MP.

 

[restlessnomad]

do you ever think of something that is not good for general public but good enough for you? gloves is one of those things.

I understand as a policy if you encourage people to wear gloves, they will wash their hands less.

but I am not 'ordinary people', I am me, and I will wash hands. I hate the smell and touch of gloves on my face, so its unlikely that I will infect myself.

yes, I am a texbook hypocrite.

[Ex Brummie]

1 hour ago, The Gravy Boater said:

We will not have left the EU until we have WTO or a real free trade deal with the EU... the latter won't happen because unlike all the other countries the EU has made a free trade deal with without strings we are a 'special case'.   For 'special case' read 'canary in the coal mine'.  Oh... I did a politics thing... my bad.

If no agreement is reached then WTO is the default; job done !!!

[Sir Nibble]

35 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Other than people who are retired and don't really mind where they might be stuck think it would be wise to avoid going too far this year .

I have certainly curtailed my plans and hope for a little more freedom later in the year .

 

I must confess to being very surprised at the decision to allow day trips by boat.

 

 

Terrifying as it may seem this is of course  the underlying plan, the idea being to spread the virus in a controlled fashion while not overwhelming the NHS . Worst case scenario is the infection rate drops off completely and people stop the social  distancing which will create a repeat performance. Better to introduce freedoms gradually. We must behave ourselves , not exceed the limits advised , and keep apart from people who are not living in the same household. 

 

 

 

That's how I understand it. The virus is here now and only herd immunity will stop it. We can't hide until a vaccine arrives so have to control the rate of infection at manageable levels to achieve the same result, or to minimise the human suffering pending the achievement of herd immunity by vaccination.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

1 hour ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

We shouldn't forget that the main purpose of the lockdown, as 'sold' to the public was to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed. It wasn't introduced to stop all deaths from the virus. To do so would be impossible. To get close to 'no deaths' would require limitations on freedoms that would be unacceptable in our culture. If by chance these limitations were accepted, and widely adhered to by the vast majority of the population, the economy would be left in a state as unpalatable to the British people as would have been the limitations to 'achieve' this.

 

So I'm afraid the path is still to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed until such a time as some kind of 'herd immunity' is established and/ or a successful vaccine is developed.

No-one is suggesting 'no deaths' but it is, shall we say, 'basic commonsense' that if you start to emerge from lockdown with a higher rate of infections than other countries have when they emerge, and the expected increase in infections/deaths is represented as a percentage, then you are going to end up with a bigger number of deaths/infections. When that occurs you have a far greater chance of it spiralling out of control again and a second total lockdown would be economic suicide, which is why I don't trust the Government to do it unless absolutely forced.

7 minutes ago, Ex Brummie said:

If no agreement is reached then WTO is the default; job done !!!

Given the impending recession due to the virus, that has now become an irrelevant sideshow and frankly I'm past caring.

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, LadyG said:

just buy a dozen pairs of washable gloves and re-cycle.

Imagine your skin to be a sticky substrate covered in dods of virus. Until you can do that you will not understand how to stop the spread. 

So, you will put on your gloves and open the lock gates, take them off and bag them before getting back on your boat. Move the boat into the lock and put another pair of gloves on, Close the gate and open the paddles at the other end. once equalised open the gates, take your gloves off and bag them, get on the boat and take it out of the lock. Put on another clean pair of gloves and close the gates. Remove and bag gloves  . If or course you need to handle your ropes while in the lock another pair of gloves would be required. Obviously you have the skills to remove and bag these gloves without contaminating yourself.
Maybe a safer and easier way would be a bowl of disinfected water on the roof of the boat and just wash your hands

 

[Sir Nibble]

2 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

So, you will put on your gloves and open the lock gates, take them off and bag them before getting back on your boat. Move the boat into the lock and put another pair of gloves on, Close the gate and open the paddles at the other end. once equalised open the gates, take your gloves off and bag them, get on the boat and take it out of the lock. Put on another clean pair of gloves and close the gates. Remove and bag gloves  . If or course you need to handle your ropes while in the lock another pair of gloves would be required. Obviously you have the skills to remove and bag these gloves without contaminating yourself.
Maybe a safer and easier way would be a bowl of disinfected water on the roof of the boat and just wash your hands

 

Alternatively you put on a pair of gloves and work your boat through the lock then bin them and wash your hands content in the knowledge that if you are incubating the disease you haven't left it lying around for anyone else to catch. Everyone does that and Bob's your uncle.

[Paddle]

36 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

 We can't hide until a vaccine arrives 

And a vaccine may *never* arrive. The common cold is a coronavirus and no vaccine has ever been found for it.

[frangar]

Just now, Sir Nibble said:

Alternatively you put on a pair of gloves and work your boat through the lock then bin them and wash your hands content in the knowledge that if you are incubating the disease you haven't left it lying around for anyone else to catch. Everyone does that and Bob's your uncle.

Tardebigge will take a few pairs of gloves then......just get some sanitiser and carry on as normal

[Sir Nibble]

Just now, Paddle said:

And a vaccine may *never* arrive. The common cold is a coronavirus and no vaccine has ever been found for it.

Indeed, although several groups of scientists think they have one so let's look on the bright side for a change.

[frangar]

1 minute ago, Paddle said:

And a vaccine may *never* arrive. The common cold is a coronavirus and no vaccine has ever been found for it.

Indeed!!...its all about risk assessment...and Im not living my life in a locked down bubble for any longer than I have to!

 

[Wanderer Vagabond]

6 minutes ago, Paddle said:

And a vaccine may *never* arrive. The common cold is a coronavirus and no vaccine has ever been found for it.

 But you never catch the same strain of cold twice, so immunity it possible provided that this virus doesn't keep mutating, like a cold virus does.

[Paddle]

Frangar if you're under 40 it's pointless, under 50 there's no need, under 60 there should be no need and under 70 you're likely to be OK. It's a big error of judgement that we're going to be paying for over many decades.

[frangar]

Just now, Wanderer Vagabond said:

 But you never catch the same strain of cold twice, so immunity it possible provided that this virus doesn't keep mutating, like a cold virus does.

I understand there is already mutation of the Covid 19 strain....and the flu vaccine is just developed on the guess of how that might mutate....and a surprisingly high number of people still die of "normal" flu

[Paddle]

Just now, Wanderer Vagabond said:

 But you never catch the same strain of cold twice, so immunity it possible provided that this virus doesn't keep mutating, like a cold virus does.

We already know this has mutated. There are different strains on the West and East coasts of America, etc. The question is, how far has it mutated.

 

Don't forget that the tribes of the Amazon die like flies if they get 'flu. We all have an element of immunity such that we are generally mostly fine, this immunity having been inherited. On this level Covid is much less vicious than 'flu. Nobody has any sort of immunity yet 99.9?% survive,

 

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Just now, frangar said:

I understand there is already mutation of the Covid 19 strain....and the flu vaccine is just developed on the guess of how that might mutate....and a surprisingly high number of people still die of "normal" flu

What is 'normal' flu? The annual flu vaccine isn't developed on a guess, it is based on the prevalent strain of flu in a given year. For a flu vaccine they are able to develop one in a fairly short space of time, this virus is however novel so they have no previous experience of it, hence developing a vaccine will take longer.

[churchward]

2 minutes ago, frangar said:

I understand there is already mutation of the Covid 19 strain....and the flu vaccine is just developed on the guess of how that might mutate....and a surprisingly high number of people still die of "normal" flu

It is also true to say  that a large number of people per year are protected from a range of flu virus strains every year by the  careful selection of vaccines in the "Flu jab" many people receive.  The trend is that on the whole each year the deaths from flu is lessoning as we are able to apply faster development of vaccines and better at predicting which flu strains will be in circulation.  The 5 year average is diminishing.

 

I doubt that it can be reduced to zero anytime soon but it is getting better. 

[frangar]

1 minute ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

What is 'normal' flu? The annual flu vaccine isn't developed on a guess, it is based on the prevalent strain of flu in a given year. For a flu vaccine they are able to develop one in a fairly short space of time, this virus is however novel so they have no previous experience of it, hence developing a vaccine will take longer.

I would be very wary of any vaccine which by the nature of this will have been rushed through testing with little real experience.

[MoominPapa]

15 minutes ago, Paddle said:

Frangar if you're under 40 it's pointless, under 50 there's no need, under 60 there should be no need and under 70 you're likely to be OK. It's a big error of judgement that we're going to be paying for over many decades.

It doesn't matter what you think the result of catching the virus will be for you personally, the one thing you can know for sure is that if you catch it your body will make billions of new virus particles and distribute them into the world, where they may well cause great harm to others. The best way to protect the vulnerable is NOT TO CATCH THE DAMN DISEASE even if you hardly notice it yourself.

 

MP.

[MoominPapa]

18 minutes ago, frangar said:

I understand there is already mutation of the Covid 19 strain....and the flu vaccine is just developed on the guess of how that might mutate....and a surprisingly high number of people still die of "normal" flu

The flu virus and the coronavirus have significant structural differences, the net effect of which is that if someone is simultaneously infected with two strains of 'flu, the body can make easily make new virus particles which mix-and-match genes from both strains, thus leading to very high rates of evolution. Because coronavirus encodes all it's genes in one strand of RNA which gets transcribed as one action, mixing of genes is much less likely. This means that coronavirus evolution happens more slowly: new mutations have to happen serially rather than in parallel. 

 

MP.

 

[The Welsh Cruiser]

48 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

No-one is suggesting 'no deaths' but it is, shall we say, 'basic commonsense' that if you start to emerge from lockdown with a higher rate of infections than other countries have when they emerge, and the expected increase in infections/deaths is represented as a percentage, then you are going to end up with a bigger number of deaths/infections. When that occurs you have a far greater chance of it spiralling out of control again and a second total lockdown would be economic suicide, which is why I don't trust the Government to do it unless absolutely forced.

 

I'm not sure who is going to absolutely force the government to do anything?

 

Yes, lots more people are going to die. Most healthy people will survive. If the NHS were to be overwhelmed it would be a disaster, let's hope the calculations that have been made are accurate. The government can't continue to confine healthy people to their homes indefinitely while their futures are destroyed, in order that a minority of people who have health issues are better protected. The government has already suggested that those at greatest risk should take special precautions, I'd imagine they'd reinforce this message as more things are opened up.

 

Perhaps you are one of the type that believe the government should pay its citizens indefinitely, with money it hasn't got, so that those who already have a relatively short life expectancy can maintain this. There are 10's of millions of people whose futures are being destroyed, 100's of thousands of businesses at risk of failure.

 

It's not sustainable.   

[MoominPapa]

18 minutes ago, frangar said:

I would be very wary of any vaccine which by the nature of this will have been rushed through testing with little real experience.

Can you imagine having the responsibility of signing the final safety test?

 

As a small proposal, can I suggest that anyone wishing to refuse a vaccine for Covid-19 should of course have their right to do that respected, but they should be electronically tagged and confined to the house forthwith and forever (unless they relent).

 

MP.