Also with this virus, you do need to be very close to somebody for a prolonged period to catch this virus, plus as it's around 1 in 1600 that statistically have it, it's a very low risk, especially outdoors.
Not sure the highlighted section is quite correct. Probably true in terms of direct transmission through the air, as it were, but transmission via surface contamination doesn't need physical proximity to anyone. And yes, it would appear that only 1 in 1,600 are currently infected at any one time. Unfortunately there's no way of knowing who is infectious at any time - you could chat to 5,000 people without risk, or it could be the first person you meet.
Unlikely anything magical will happen to remove virus. We therefore have to decide for ourselves how to live going forward. Under 45 years old are at very low risk. Aged and underlying health conditions will be at risk for foreseeable future. For total world economy to continue, most of us need to evaluate our personal risk, and carry on.
Twycross Zoo CEO Dr Sharon Redrobe has given a speech to MPs outlining the financial crisis hitting UK zoos Security Check Required
She summed it up very well, from what I read on the sub-titles as the sound wouldn't play. One thing she ignored, has been ignored on here every time I mentioned it, and everyone appears to have forgotten. Maybe it was a dream, I am beginning to wonder if I am the only person to have heard Dominic Raab announce in the House of Commons a Zoo Fund of £100m, Boris was ill, but by the time he recovered £86m had evaporated - if it is not just me, why has no-one asked where it went...?
Zoo bosses welcome announcement of Government support for wildlife attractions 'Endangered' Twycross Zoo might need Government cash to survive Wildlife attractions say emergency fund can't come soon enough Zoos and aquariums to get emergency help to avert financial disaster None of these links specify 100m being stated by Raab, but one of the reports does say that 100m was being sought by a group of zoos.
Thanks LRP - just scanned them. As you say none mention the amount. I am sure Raab announced £100m? Were the media, even from the very start, instructed to erase this figure from history...? The final £14m always struck me as an odd figure, and the media again never raised this ...
Yes - it was me I just dug out the clip from an email as you posted this. Wishful thinking.... 100 was the 'asked for figure' & 14 was the final one. Dr Redrobe is quite right about the uselessness of this eventual fund with a cap of £100k.
The 100 million seems to have been announced again, perhaps this time for real. £100 million rescue package for England’s zoos and aquariums
Bristol Zoo have expressed concern for the new funding, which seems to be capped at £800,000 per collection, and only available once all other funding streams have been exhausted BZS welcomes additional funding for zoos, but with disappointing likely limits | Bristol Zoo
This is a really well written piece and I appreciate the fact it talks about ‘other’ charitable zoos, rather than focusing on itself.
This is kind of understandable when the fund is only £14 million - however, it's stupid when it's £100 million. 800k per collection is an absolutely tiny amount for some UK zoos - that's the minimum monthly running costs for large zoos. And from the way it's phrased, it seems collections can't make repeat applications. You have the 800k, you can't ask for more. They've put together a £100 million package... that's designed in such a way that, probably, only about £10 million, max, ends up actually helping. EDIT: I did not realise that these were EU state aid rules. That's still ridiculous, however - surely these are special circumstances.
If it is indeed the fault of the EU, could you post us some links or more detail? - especially as other countries have (apparently) helped their zoos already... £100m and/or £800,000 is quite a lot! It presumably has to be borrowed by the country and paid back or owed by our children and grand-children. These figures, and some of those from the the large zoos might not sit so well with the public, many of whom will have lost their jobs, and their businesses. Six figure salaries for directors, and mega-million pound exhibits; are a world away from the personal experience of the man in the street, and very many in the zoo world too. Before the ink is even dry, they are saying 'it is not enough'...
Not disagreeing, but just to make a point, BIAZA seem concerned about eligibility - when informed on that issue, they said eligibility was an important point they were going to discuss in the coming week. Since all zoos have been affected equally, they should all benefit from this fund - and, not all zoos are equal in the terms of budget. This shouldn't be a "one-size-fits-all" thing - ideally, every zoo that needs the money should get as much money as it needs.
The coronavirus has affected various organisations, not just zoos, and many people have lost their jobs or will lose them. If every organisation got as much as it needed or wanted (which can be difficult to verify), the UK could never recover from the debt. How many zoos would go for £100 million and not bother about competitors? Surely zoos should be co-ordinating their collections and the allocation of money should be done objectively, not subjectively.
This has always been my major gripe with being and EU Member. We (UK) think rules are binding and are to be followed and the rest of the EU members think they are advisory and optional.
