Messageboard
Notes and Queries permalink
clarries problems
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by debsylou (U14968004) on Wednesday, 24th August 2011
I am wondering why the origin of Clarries ecoli hasnt been followed up? It doesnt just jump out of thin air. I am sure the HPA would have been looking, I seem to remember some dodgy sausages???
-
Message 2
Posted by Spartacus (U38364) on Wednesday, 24th August 2011
I'm wondering why they keep going on about her coming back to work a day too soon. She obviously didn't /look/ ill when she went back, so the next day she would still have looked fine, but as the later tests proved she would /still/ have had the eColi infection. So, all that would have changed perhaps was the insurance situation - the people would still have been infected and hospitalised.
-
Message 3
Posted by Reggie Trentham (U2746099) on Friday, 26th August 2011
I am wondering why the origin of Clarries ecoli hasnt been followed up?Â
Possibly because it would have been irrelevant to the plot line, taken up valuable airtime unecessarily and been very boring. -
Message 4
Posted by Seveek (U13636812) on Friday, 26th August 2011
‘Possibly because it would have been irrelevant to the plot line, taken up valuable airtime unecessarily and been very boring.’
Presumably you are having a bad day, otherwise I can see no reason for such a rude and dismissive post when the person was simply asking the production team for clarification of something which has been discussed much elsewhere on this medium. The question interests many of us.
I find it boring when people spell unnecessarily unnecessarily incorrectly as it really is unnecessarily boring. And, of course, unnecessarily irrelevant. -
Message 5
Posted by Sallyruth (U14589711) on Saturday, 27th August 2011
I wonder how the ecoli got from the "source" (Clarrie) to the ice-cream?
That eeds explaining.
Coming back too soon would not, in itself, pass the ecoli to the ice cream, would it? -
Message 6
Posted by Dippergirl (U13652679) on Saturday, 27th August 2011
Was the ice-cream actually made the day Clarrie came back? If not, the 48-hour rule shouldn't be relevant as by next day it was more than 48 hours. Whichever day it was made, Clarrie must have been guilty of lack of hygiene for it to be her that infected it, which is a different matter. -
Message 7
Posted by Sallyruth (U14589711) on Saturday, 27th August 2011
Yes, Pat left Clarrie & Susan to make the special batch for the gymkhana.
Why was the hygiene at this time not told us? If the source is Clarrie, HOW did she get the e coli in to the ice cream? -
Message 8
Posted by cath (U2234232) on Saturday, 27th August 2011
My guess is she went to the toilet, got some poop on her hand as she wiped her bottom and didn't wash her hands properly afterwards. Gloves or not, that poop-ette fell into the ice cream.
I think it would be quite hard to have heard all that on the radio. First the idea of listening to Clarrie pooping and parping away in an echoing cubicle would have been quite uncomfortable. Then, she would have needed to have given us a running commentary (oh drat, another bit of poop.... can't be bothered to wash my hands.... oops.... that poop went in with a plop didn't it! ... never mind it adds to the vanilla flavouring ... merrily stirring...). But if she'd realised what was happening then she wouldn't have done it.
I think there are limits to radio drama and this is probably one of those cases where you need to use your imagination. -
Message 9
Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Saturday, 27th August 2011
I find the whole thing completely unbelievable! The fact that Clarrie who'd worked there FIFTEEN YEARS would
(1) fail to wash her hands after the toilet
(2) AGAIN failed to wash her hands after entering the dairy
and additionally - that Susan would fail to notice (2).
Also - if Clarrie had failed to wash her hands - there would have been e-coli all over the dairy, the dairy door handle, the toilet door handle, everything. Susan would have been infected from contact after she left the dairy. So would everyone who handled things Clarrie had handled
JPBS -
Message 10
Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Saturday, 27th August 2011
But they have to wash their hands AFTER THEY ENTER THE DAIRY.
So that's twice she'd have failed to wash them .. I think susan would have noticed that omission - she is so nosey. And that is NOT in a cubicle but in the same room
JPBS -
Message 11
Posted by cath (U2234232) on Sunday, 28th August 2011
So she didn't wash her hands PROPERLY TWICE then. How hard is that? Quite hard. But NOT IMPOSSIBLE. Susan WASN'T WATCHING*.
If Clarrie had been giving a running commentary then I would have expected Susan to have noticed and done something about it so the icecream wouldn't have been infected and there would've been no SL so no need to have heard them preparing the icecream in the first place. Or to consider Clarrie's personal hygiene.
*I assume you don't mind me shouting at you as you're always shouting at me -
Message 12
Posted by Sallyruth (U14589711) on Sunday, 28th August 2011
I didn't want to hear it, old.
I wanted to hear SBOUT it, instead of the continual harping on and on and on about the 48 hour rule, someone saying, "She must have neglected to wash her hands."
IF that was the case.
I just feel the Environmental Health people expect me to believe by listening to this crap, that e coli can be put into ice cream if I fail to tell my employer I have had the squitts. -
Message 13
Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Sunday, 28th August 2011
I didn't want to hear it, old.
I wanted to hear SBOUT it, instead of the continual harping on and on and on about the 48 hour rule, someone saying, "She must have neglected to wash her hands."
IF that was the case.
I just feel the Environmental Health people expect me to believe by listening to this crap, that e coli can be put into ice cream if I fail to tell my employer I have had the squitts. Hear hear SallyRuth!
In fact Pat said `I stressed hygiene but not the 48hr rule' as though hygiene was not involved in any way!
The SWs must think we are all thick ..
JPBS -
Message 14
Posted by cath (U2234232) on Sunday, 28th August 2011
Well, there seem to be plenty of MBers who consider the infection was wholly Pat's fault.
The point about the 48 hour rule is that if Clarrie hadn't known about or understood it then there are potential grounds for Pat to be considered as negligent. So that /if/ Clarrie /had/ told Pat about her illness Pat could have told her to go home/get a test from the GP (given the length of Clarrie's illness).
Clarrie's lack of hygiene is taken for granted because, I suppose, the sws assumed people would know a bit about 0157, especially given the German outbreak or at least do a bit of googling. They got that wrong. -
Message 15
Posted by patricia jardine (U14971776) on Tuesday, 30th August 2011
I've been wondering the same thing for ages. It would make a good storyline to take up the investigation, especially if the outcome was a total shock and exposed someone who thought they were above such a scandal.
-
Message 16
Posted by Sallyruth (U14589711) on Tuesday, 30th August 2011
What is o157, please?
-
Message 17
Posted by Mabel Bagshawe (U2222589) on Tuesday, 30th August 2011
< What is o157, please? >
Ecoli comes in many different strains - O157 is the nomenclature of one of them, which is particularly nasty to humans, especially the young and elderly, and regularly gives rise to long term with kidney issues -
Message 18
Posted by Sallyruth (U14589711) on Tuesday, 30th August 2011
Thanks.
And if you've never come across this, are you meant to know it is spread by the ignoring of the 48 hour rule? -
Message 19
Posted by cath (U2234232) on Tuesday, 30th August 2011
Hopefully not sr, as it's spread through faeco-oral transmission. That's eating poo.
Something one hopes everyone handling food would realise is a bit of a no-no.
The 48 hour rule seems to be a much more general rule meant - I guess - to help prevent other nasty bugs that are also spread through faeco-oral means. It doesn't seem to particularly help against E coli 0157 except to the extent (I assume again) that it alerts the employer to something very nasty having happened to the employee that is worth checking out out by the GP /before/ they get back to handling food and possibly having an unfortunate accident. -
Message 20
Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Tuesday, 30th August 2011
And the SWs got the 48hr rule wrong anyway ...
Sorry to be specific - but it's 48hrs since a normal poo and *NOT* 48hrs since the last abnormal poo . These are different things
JPBS -
Message 21
Posted by cath (U2234232) on Tuesday, 30th August 2011
Did they? I thought it was Clarrie's assumption that that she hadn't been ill for at least 48 hours (wrongly) that was wrong? She seemed to be pretty confused from what I can understand - and had to be, to make the SL work, to prove it was her fault that she hadn't told Pat about her illness.
So why are you saying the sws got it wrong? -
Message 22
Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Tuesday, 30th August 2011
Because they told Clarrie it had to be 48hrs after D and V finished. She assumed it was 48hrs since `runs'. Eddie also assumed this and I did too.
According to what I've read - rules are it's 48hrs after normal poo.
Quite different - and obvious really that system is back to normal.
An EHO poster has ascertained other things that the SWs also got wrong - Pat wouldn't tell her about infection. Her GP would be told ASAP and would tell her.
Also wrong in that after an `outbreak' such as at gymkhana there would be a proper investigation, meetings of EHOs etc. It would be a long time before anything was decided and letter sent
And no -one (so far) has heard of a`record' of an employee which would be `marked'
JPBS -
Message 23
Posted by Sallyruth (U14589711) on Wednesday, 31st August 2011
But all they tell us on the programme, is that Clattie passes on this telephone number by ignoring the 48 hour rule. Not that she eats poo.
-
Message 24
Posted by cath (U2234232) on Wednesday, 31st August 2011
Well I don't doubt the sws have changed minor details around eg on EHO telling Pat about Clarrie's infection first. But the major details seem to be intact. On disputing those I think you're clutching at straws.
> and obvious really that system is back to normal. <
Clarrie didn't even know when she was over the runs so to expect her to judge the normality of her stools would be an even greater hurdle for her. But the 48 hour rule was in any case only relevant if it enabled Pat to tell her not to work. Clarrie didn't give Pat a chance.
>Also wrong in that after an `outbreak' such as at gymkhana there would be a proper investigation, meetings of EHOs etc. It would be a long time before anything was decided and letter sent<
It was 5 weeks or so between the gymkhana and the letter. What makes you think the EHOs were doing nothing between their appearance on the first epi and the writing of the letter? What makes you think that you have heard everything about the investigation? What makes you think you could possibly hear everything even if every single 13 minute epi over 5 weeks was all about the EHO?
>And no -one (so far) has heard of a`record' of an employee which would be `marked'<
So are you saying that a letter wouldn't be held on record? This is one of those absolute issues and saying that no one on ML has heard of it simply won't do. You need to explain precisely /why/ it's /actually/ wrong if you're going to assert with any credibility that the sws got it wrong. -
Message 25
Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Wednesday, 31st August 2011
If you look at what the EHO poster said - then you will see that a *lot* more time would be taken - and there would be a proper formal enquiry. This would have been local - now this was never mentioned on TA
`Clarries record' wasn't hers at all - as is explained on N and Q - but on EHO's.
And certainly her GP would be told - Pat would *not* be left to tell her..
As for Clarrie - she *thought* she'd obeyed the rule. Re-training was at least part of the issue .. one version of the rule says `48 hours from normal stool' - a much better version.
and as for her disobeying the hygiene regulations - then this is against what we know of Clarrie.
Easy to think she could have caught it - that could have been Eddie leaving cow poo on door handles etc.
JPBS -
Message 26
Posted by Reggie Trentham (U2746099) on Thursday, 1st September 2011
I've read this thread very carefully and I'm yet to be convinced that an exploration of the source of Clarries's E. Coli would have had any relevance to the current Bridge Farm plot line in particular and would have been anything other than an irrelevant waste of air time excluding much more interesting story lines on the programme in general.
-
Message 27
Posted by Spartacus (U38364) on Thursday, 1st September 2011
I'm not looking for an exploration, just a single throwaway line of explanation.
-
Message 28
Posted by cath (U2234232) on Thursday, 1st September 2011
I don't see how, assuming that Clarrie was the cause of the infection (and it's certainly been written that way, all other avenues have been blocked off), that it's possible to have an explanation.
The only person who could have any idea about what happened is Clarrie. If Clarrie had any idea of what had happened then something must have penetrated her consciousness for her to be aware that something might have happened. If Clarrie had been aware of something off key she wouldn't have gone ahead with things, she would have done something different and the SL simply wouldn't haven't happened in the way it did.
We're in Schrodinger's cat territory here. If you know or try to find out what's going on then something different will happen. The only way that this SL could work is if Clarrie doesn't know what happened. She's too conscientious for it to have happened in any other way because if she'd had an inkling of something wrong she would have picked up on it. and changed her behaviour. And if she doesn't know then no one else can possibly know.
About this Board
Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
This messageboard is now closed.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú iD
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú navigation
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú links
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú © 2014 The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.