Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It is deeply irresponsible to be posting patient related information that could identify them, including institutions they may or may not have connections with on social media.


How would you feel if it was you or a family member?


Do us all a favour and get deleting.

For the vast majority (80% +) of patients the virus is mild - no worse than a heavy cold or flu - fewer need hospitalisation and those that are very ill tend to be older, male and with underlying illness apart from Covid 19. At least that is the epidemiology so far, although the sex bias may reflect Chinese experience - where older Chinese men are more likely to be smokers. The death rate figures (which are worrying, and worse than seasonal flu) may have been distorted by earlier under reporting of infection. Let's hope the local cases are (a) mild and (b) that self isolation has reduced the spread. People who are legitimate contacts have probably now been traced and alerted. Speculation as to identities seems pointless. Actually, those who have been identified aren't really the problem, it's those who are symptom-less with the disease who are.

If a member of my family was tested positive I would inform friends and neighbours and would have no problem with any local institutions we were linked to being open and honest about the situation, in fact I would expect them to.


There are many families within the Crofton Road and Shenley Road area with parents who work at the hospital and who have children at both schools so I don't think there is any need to be precious about this.


If the numbers do rise then I would hope neighbours come together to help each other with food deliveries, prescription collections etc rather than feeling they need to keep the fact they have tested positive a secret because of how people will react.

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Quickly, buy toilet roll!!!!!!

>

> Well, if you're using it to blow your nose into,

> or dry your hands having thoroughly washed them,

> well, I suppose, yes!


Prefer kitchen roll for that - it's a better size and slightly thicker (or seems to be)


edit: but maybe a bit more expensive (unsure) ?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased 😆) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built. 
    • I am looking for 1 unit which is working for £50 cash. Thank you
    • Can’t recommend the company enough, great service. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...