Are Large, multi-Generational Families More Likely to Spread Coronavirus?

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Because I see them. I see them at the supermarket, I see the kids/youngsters at the packed pubs near me, I see large families with grannie eat at a restaurant near me, I see them at the garden centre as a family day out.

Life in the UK has been nearly normal for weeks.

You have absolutely no evidence to suggest that the multi-generational family gatherings that you see are genuine multi-generational households.
In fact, logic would suggest that there is a high probability that these multi-generational family gatherings are indeed different households and not genuine multi-generational households. My reason for that explanation is, IIRC, there was a time when different households were allowed to meet outside the houses, but not inside either family's house. Additionally, why would multi-generational households find the need for family gatherings outside the house, when it occurs all the time within the house? I do fully understand the concept of family days out, but I am also aware that vulnerable grandparents (or any vulnerable relatives) are not likely to participate in such family outings.

On the basis of your anecdotal evidence alone, if I apply it to my own experience, I know of not one person who has contracted the coronavirus, let alone been seriously ill with it. On my anecdotal evidence alone, I could argue that the whole thing is some kind of conspiratorial hoax.

So as an abridged response to your comment, (for those that don't read the whole post), it is the irresponsibility of individuals, that facilitate the spread of the virus, not multi-generational households.
The fact that my abridged response comes at the end of my post, and therefore is unlikely to be read by those that don't read the whole post has not escaped me. If these posts were serious academic discussions I would put my abridged conclusions at the beginning.

 

[IT Minion]

http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/free-guides.html

 

[Ihavenojob]

A question to mask wearers on here, why do you wear a mask, is it to protect you, protect others or because you have to ?

 

[Deleted2797112]

A question to mask wearers on here, why do you wear a mask, is it to protect you, protect others or because you have to ?

I started wearing face coverings before the regulations required it. Not because I have to and not really to protect others or myself but to help limit the spread of the virus and enable the lifting of restrictions. Selfish, really I suppose. I want my life to be back as close to normal as possible. It's one of the tools available like social distancing and hand hygiene and it's easy to do. For me, it's a no-brainer.

That said, the science on face coverings has been emerging over the months and it appears now that they might offer some protection to the wearer.

https://royalsociety.org/-/media/po...a=en-GB&hash=A22A87CB28F7D6AD9BD93BBCBFC2BB24

 

[sodthisforfun]

Thanks for that link, Vinty.
Like sodthisforfun, you must have searched far and wide for any supporting evidence, to substantiate your opinion, and yet found none.
.

At least we put some up. Where's yours?

I would respectfully suggest that if you want to posit contrary opinions, you ought to have the wisdom to read the whole of a brief hypothesis.
If it had been a serious piece of academic research, I certainly would have included an abridged conclusion, etc, but that would have made the post phenomenally longer, including terms of reference, methodology, results, etc.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

I not-so respectfully suggest that you have jumped to your conclusion that you're correct without evidence, without reason and convinced yourself that what you write is true. I wonder why you bothered starting this thread at all? . Oh, I know, because of what Vinty said

 

[sodthisforfun]

You have absolutely no evidence to suggest that the multi-generational family gatherings that you see are genuine multi-generational households.
In fact, logic would suggest that there is a high probability that these multi-generational family gatherings are indeed different households and not genuine multi-generational households. My reason for that explanation is, IIRC, there was a time when different households were allowed to meet outside the houses, but not inside either family's house. Additionally, why would multi-generational households find the need for family gatherings outside the house, when it occurs all the time within the house? I do fully understand the concept of family days out, but I am also aware that vulnerable grandparents (or any vulnerable relatives) are not likely to participate in such family outings.

On the basis of your anecdotal evidence alone, if I apply it to my own experience, I know of not one person who has contracted the coronavirus, let alone been seriously ill with it. On my anecdotal evidence alone, I could argue that the whole thing is some kind of conspiratorial hoax.

So as an abridged response to your comment, (for those that don't read the whole post), it is the irresponsibility of individuals, that facilitate the spread of the virus, not multi-generational households.
The fact that my abridged response comes at the end of my post, and therefore is unlikely to be read by those that don't read the whole post has not escaped me. If these posts were serious academic discussions I would put my abridged conclusions at the beginning.

You do waffle some. Glad you're now realising it.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

At least we put some up. Where's yours?

Like sodthisforfun, you must have searched far and wide for any supporting evidence, to substantiate your opinion, and yet found none.

I have explained the logical and rational reasons for my deductions numerous times.
If you wish to ignore them instead of addressing them, your choice.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
I not-so respectfully suggest that you have jumped to your conclusion that you're correct without evidence, without reason and convinced yourself that what you write is true. I wonder why you bothered starting this thread at all? . Oh, I know, because of what Vinty said

You do waffle some. Glad you're now realising it.

Similarly, if you wish to resort to silly insults instead of sensible discussion, your choice.
As usual, it serves to demonstrate the fragility of your arguments.

 

[sodthisforfun]

I have explained the logical and rational reasons for my deductions numerous times.
If you wish to ignore them instead of addressing them, your choice.






Similarly, if you wish to resort to silly insults instead of sensible discussion, your choice.
As usual, it serves to demonstrate the fragility of your arguments.

Hang on, you first of all tell me that your logic, which we all know can be 'off' at times, is all the evidence you need THEN you tell me that you want a sensible discussion?

Can you not see the flaw?

 

[Brigadier]

Hang on, you first of all tell me that your logic, which we all know can be 'off' at times, is all the evidence you need THEN you tell me that you want a sensible discussion?

Can you not see the flaw?

You're not actually reading all of Himmy's drivel are you, @sodthisforfun?

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

As the discussion has descended into the usual insults and attacks against the person, I'll sum up.

My conclusion is that large and multi-generational families do not facilitate the spread of coronavirus. Quite the opposite, there is a strong possibility that they

a) reduce the number of people in circulation anyway because the older relatives would tend not go out to expose themselves to risk and because there is no need for them to go out. Indeed extended family outings are not necessary because the extended family meet every day and all day.
b) have a positive influence on younger members of the household to not go out unnecessarily and to practice good hygiene regimes in the home which will naturally extend to their outings when necessary, in genuine concern for their older relatives.
c) have a natural positive effect in detecting and isolating families when and if infections are detected, because younger potentially infected, asymptomatic people will invariably pass the infection to their older relatives but this would then be detected and the whole family required to isolate. In younger families, the whole family could be infected and the whole family asymptomatic and spreading the virus within the community.
​

To address notch7's points about BAME families more likely to be in multi-generational households, I agree, but the above points still hold true.

The fact that BAME people are more likely to be in multi-generational households is more to do with structural inequality, causing the BAME community to be more likely key workers, with lower wages, and in lower quality housing .
But because they are key workers suggests that it is they who will do the shopping, and other necessary outings, etc.
It also suggests that they may be more aware of the risks to their elder relatives and more likely to be practising good hygiene regimes.

Moreover, JohnD's succinct point, that it is the irresponsibility of people that facilitates the spread of the virus, and I would add that this irresponsibility is more likely in smaller families that do not need to have concern for older, more vulnerable relatives.

Therefore any notion that it is the large multi-generational families that are responsible for the spread of coronavirus is pure speculative, and preconceived conjecture.

Finally, the very fact that some have descended into ad hominem attacks suggests that a) they have no sensible or substantive argument, and b) they refuse to consider and accept the arguments posited for my conclusion without fair exploration.

But I do hope that this discussion has provided an opportunity to explore the issues and perhaps for some to reflect on their preconceived conjecture.

 

[Deleted2797112]

But I do hope that this discussion has provided an opportunity to explore the issues and perhaps for some to reflect on their preconceived conjecture.

But not your preconceived conjecture.

https://www.npi.org.uk/files/2115/8...e_variation_in_Covid_cases_across_England.pdf

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

But not your preconceived conjecture.

https://www.npi.org.uk/files/2115/8...e_variation_in_Covid_cases_across_England.pdf

Thanks for your contribution, ceres.
The report that you linked to discusses the a) the additional cases of elderly relatives infected with coronavirus who have to share accommodation with younger relatives, and b) the difficulties associated with self-isolation within such domestic situations.
It does not address, or discuss the possibility of large, multi-generational households facilitating the spread of coronavirus.
It does not address the spread of coronavirus in the community at all.

My points still hold true, especially that younger asymptomatic infected people who do not share accommodation with older relatives will continue to spread the virus within the community unchecked.
However if the live with an elderly relative, they will quickly be detected and required to self-isolate.

 

[sodthisforfun]

You're not actually reading all of Himmy's drivel are you, @sodthisforfun?

Christ no, I have a bit of a life. Not much, granted!

It's amusing, another thread where he asks people to give proof that the inner workings of his logic-less mind are not true. He then just ignores anything he doesn't want to read anyway!

 

[sodthisforfun]

But I do hope that this discussion has provided an opportunity to explore the issues and perhaps for some to reflect on their preconceived conjecture.

You wonder why you get called a tosser.