Covid-19 Pandemic Thread

[Rutabaga]

No one around here clapped for Boris tonight. I'm so proud.

[LowlifeDes]

Your mistake, if you you don't mind me saying so, was to engage with her.

On reflection, I never gave you the option so, if you do mind, my apologies.

[LowlifeDes]

No one around here clapped for Boris tonight. I'm so proud.

Same here, unsurprisingly with a tank top wearing bumboy as MP.

[Joan]

Same here, unsurprisingly with a tank top wearing bumboy as MP.

Thanks for the reminder.

I'm worrying about him a little less now.

[Rutabaga]

Let's consult Stewart Lee for the full version, shall we?

"Is our prime minister, Boris Piccaninny Watermelon Letterbox Cake Bumboys Vampires Haircut Wall-Spaffer Spunk-Burster Fuck-Business Fuck-the-Families Get-Off-My-Fucking-Laptop Girly-Swot Big-Girl’s-Blouse Chicken-frit Hulk-Smash Noseringed-Crusties Death-Humbug Technology-Lessons Surrender-Bullshit French-Turds Dog-Whistle Get-Stuffed FactcheckUK@CCHQ 88%-lies Get-Brexit-Done Bung-a-Bob-for-Big-Ben’s-Bongs Cocaine-Event Spiritual-Worth Three-Men-and-a-Dog Whatever-It-Takes Johnson, up to the coronavirus crisis?"

[Regulator]

I was asked by work if I fancied a 4 week rotation at NHS Nightingale. It appears NHS England are desperate for staff there. I declined the offer - but remain open to going on to the front line at one of our hospitals or a local NHS trust.

[JohnToo]

I was asked by work if I fancied a 4 week rotation at NHS Nightingale. It appears NHS England are desperate for staff there. I declined the offer - but remain open to going on to the front line at one of our hospitals or a local NHS trust.

I know a couple of people who are exploring working at the Nightingale. In what role would you work in whatever hospital you end up in?

[Regulator]

I know a couple of people who are exploring working at the Nightingale. In what role would you work in whatever hospital you end up in?

I'm not sure. I'm willing to fill in where required. Either on the management side of things (and dealing with the NHS at the moment takes even more effort than usual) or doing something a bit more 'front line' - be it cleaning, and HCA role or the like.

[Rutabaga]

One of my volunteer colleagues who was just finishing her cabin crew training, a role that is suspended for her now, has volunteered to go and work at the London Nightingale. Very brave of her I think.

[Regulator]

One of my volunteer colleagues who was just finishing her cabin crew training, a role that is suspended for her now, has volunteered to go and work at the London Nightingale. Very brave of her I think.

I have a great deal of respect for the non-medics who are volunteering for the Nightingale - although I do feel that their roles will be somewhat limited. I am also concerned about a lack of proper support being given to people - particularly those who don't have experience of dealing with the dying and the personal issues that raises.

[Mister Paul]

From the other thread...

Funny you're talking about this. I had a long conversation with our minister last night about live streaming. We had a risk assessment in place based on original government guidance saying that up to 5 people could take part in a live stream of a service. I'm challenging it now, mainly on the basis that it's not essential and that there's an alternative (doing stuff from home, multitracking music individually and sharing I've the internet so that it can be mixed etc).

The problem is that thing have changed over the last couple of weeks. The number 5, which I believe came from the minimum number required for a wedding, has now disappeared as weddings aren't happening. Funerals have no set number. But because the government seems to be taking a more informal approach to guidance the ambiguity is there.

I know the CofE have clamped right down now, but I can't find any .gov guidance that reflects the tightening that the government wants. It seems that individual organisations have tightened their own permissions in response to a government desire that the government aren't being prescriptive enough about.

The bottom line is that I'm not happy sending 4 musicians to a building for recording when at work (Social Work) we're only doing absolutely essential visits (2 in 3 weeks rather than the norm of about 15 a day and when we do send people out they're in PPE).

Does anyone know of any guidance that I'm missing? The government site seems to just say that a minister or worship leader can travel to a place of worship and that organisations can live stream.

[Rutabaga]

I have a great deal of respect for the non-medics who are volunteering for the Nightingale - although I do feel that their roles will be somewhat limited. I am also concerned about a lack of proper support being given to people - particularly those who don't have experience of dealing with the dying and the personal issues that raises.

Yes, that's why I think she is brave. Everyone has to decide what they can and are prepared to do.

[JohnToo]

From the other thread...

Funny you're talking about this. I had a long conversation with our minister last night about live streaming. We had a risk assessment in place based on original government guidance saying that up to 5 people could take part in a live stream of a service. I'm challenging it now, mainly on the basis that it's not essential and that there's an alternative (doing stuff from home, multitracking music individually and sharing I've the internet so that it can be mixed etc).

The problem is that thing have changed over the last couple of weeks. The number 5, which I believe came from the minimum number required for a wedding, has now disappeared as weddings aren't happening. Funerals have no set number. But because the government seems to be taking a more informal approach to guidance the ambiguity is there.

I know the CofE have clamped right down now, but I can't find any .gov guidance that reflects the tightening that the government wants. It seems that individual organisations have tightened their own permissions in response to a government desire that the government aren't being prescriptive enough about.

The bottom line is that I'm not happy sending 4 musicians to a building for recording when at work (Social Work) we're only doing absolutely essential visits (2 in 3 weeks rather than the norm of about 15 a day and when we do send people out they're in PPE).

Does anyone know of any guidance that I'm missing? The government site seems to just say that a minister or worship leader can travel to a place of worship and that organisations can live stream.

The official, or public, government advice is still that one of the acceptable reasons to leave home is for a minister of religion to go to their place of worship to livestream worship.

Many religions or denominations are taking advantage of this. Several Mosques are livestreaming Friday prayers, the RCs are livestreaming from multiple churches/cathedrals, and the Church in Wales are allowing discretion. But the CofE decided to be stricter, and to ban livestreaming from churches, limiting livestreaming to homes only. Initially, two Dioceses, London and Chichester, were being more relaxed, allowing priests who lived contiguously to their church still to visit it, but London at least have now fallen into line.

Initially, the Archbishops (Welby and Sentamu) presented this restriction as being about public health (not visiting churches reduces the risk of transmission). When it was pointed out how unscientific this was, they invented a post-hoc rationalisation about "solidarity" - we are showing how we stand alongside everyone else who is not able to go about their normal activities. They have also said that they received advice from Government different to the public government advice, but when challenged as to what this was and from whom, they failed to give any substantiating details.

There is a separate debate about whether the Archbishops exceeded their power in issuing this edict (Archbishops are not Popes!), and whether, indeed, even a Diocesan Bishop has the legal power to prevent an incumbent entering their church. Rochester Diocese have threatened any clergy who do with action under the Clergy Discipline Measure.

The ban on funerals in churches does have some scientific justification - it would be harder to sanitise a church after each funeral than a crematorium, and easier for crematoriums to enforce the restriction on numbers than for a priest at a church. The ban on livestreaming worship from a church has very limited if any scientific justification. Whether or not you think it has any merit depends on what you think about the "solidarity" argument, versus the comfort given to parishioners to view worship from their familiar and sacred space.

[Mister Paul]

Thanks. What's the view on bringing together a number of people from different households to livestream?

The missing bit seems to be that it's clearly low-risk for one person to turn up at a church and press a couple of buttons before streaming. Some churches in America are ignoring the guidance and having meetings of 1100 people. No-one seems to be talking about what's reasonable in terms of how many are involved in the streaming. I've been scouring around FB and churches in the main seem to be preaching from a sofa, with a pre-recorded band clip thworn in, or doing things in ones and twos. There's the odd broadcast with 4 musicians explicitly spread out.

[Regulator]

The official, or public, government advice is still that one of the acceptable reasons to leave home is for a minister of religion to go to their place of worship to livestream worship.

Many religions or denominations are taking advantage of this. Several Mosques are livestreaming Friday prayers, the RCs are livestreaming from multiple churches/cathedrals, and the Church in Wales are allowing discretion. But the CofE decided to be stricter, and to ban livestreaming from churches, limiting livestreaming to homes only. Initially, two Dioceses, London and Chichester, were being more relaxed, allowing priests who lived contiguously to their church still to visit it, but London at least have now fallen into line.

Initially, the Archbishops (Welby and Sentamu) presented this restriction as being about public health (not visiting churches reduces the risk of transmission). When it was pointed out how unscientific this was, they invented a post-hoc rationalisation about "solidarity" - we are showing how we stand alongside everyone else who is not able to go about their normal activities. They have also said that they received advice from Government different to the public government advice, but when challenged as to what this was and from whom, they failed to give any substantiating details.

There is a separate debate about whether the Archbishops exceeded their power in issuing this edict (Archbishops are not Popes!), and whether, indeed, even a Diocesan Bishop has the legal power to prevent an incumbent entering their church. Rochester Diocese have threatened any clergy who do with action under the Clergy Discipline Measure.

The ban on funerals in churches does have some scientific justification - it would be harder to sanitise a church after each funeral than a crematorium, and easier for crematoriums to enforce the restriction on numbers than for a priest at a church. The ban on livestreaming worship from a church has very limited if any scientific justification. Whether or not you think it has any merit depends on what you think about the "solidarity" argument, versus the comfort given to parishioners to view worship from their familiar and sacred space.

My mother's parish priest livestreams Mass (I believe from the church) but it is him on his own - and he lives next door to the church. The church itself has been closed to parishioners for some weeks.

Personally, I don't believe there is a significant issue with priests/pastors/ministers/Imams livestreaming services/prayers from churches/chapels/mosques, etc. as long as they are not having to travel significant distances to do so.

That said, I know several priests who are streaming services from their homes/home chapels.