You were under the impression that if you had more than two confirmed cases of coronavirus you were supposed to report it as an outbreak, but when you look at the guidance it’s not nearly so specific. What are the rules?
Developing area
Back at the start of the pandemic in 2020 there was a requirement for outbreaks of two or more cases of coronavirus to be reported. However, we find ourselves at the beginning of 2021 with a very high prevalence of the virus in recent months, and the bar for reporting has been set higher to ensure that public services are not overwhelmed. Another factor is that each country has its own take on its requirements. They are similar in their approach but below details relates to England.
New guidance
Information, on the Gov.uk website, about early outbreak management has been created to make sure that people who run businesses or organisations: (1) know how to recognise and report an incident of coronavirus; and (2) are aware of measures local health protection teams may advise to contain it. This information is contained within “action cards” that have been designed for specific situations. You can find more information on this by going to COVID-19 early outbreak management – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).
Tip. Download the action card which is most relevant to your type of business and familiarise yourself with the contents.
Tip. In the event of a suspected or confirmed case of coronavirus linked to your premises or activities, re-check the website for the most recent version of the action card. It is best not to rely on one that you have on file in case the advice has moved on.
What’s expected of you?
Although Public Health England has gone to some lengths to produce industry-specific action cards, they mostly say the same things.
The general principles of what to do are:
Confirm if the case or cases are in fact coronavirus. Review symptoms, the testimony of those affected, and ask if personnel involved have had a positive test.
Identify any close contacts of the confirmed cases in your setting. Do this by talking to the confirmed case where possible and making a list.
Review your coronavirus risk assessment, considering whether your investigations have identified weaknesses in your risk control measures which need to be corrected.
Consider whether you need to contact the Public Health Protection Team.
Examples of when to call for help are:
(1) more cases are arising despite the action taken.
(2) the premises or business may need to close due to the numbers affected.
(3) someone in your workplace has been admitted to hospital; or
(4) media interest has become significant.
Some industries have an extra reporting criterion: five cases over a two-week period, but there are quite limited situations where this applies, such as public venues. Check the action card for your sector to identify if this applies to you.
Note. A “close contact” is defined on the action cards and includes those who have been close to someone now known to be suffering with coronavirus any time from two days before the person was symptomatic and up to ten days from the onset of symptoms.
Image Source: Pixabay
Membership
Client Registration
Client Login
E-Learning
Video E-Learning
E-Learning Login
Get A FREE Trial Of Our Training Portal
News
First Aid Training In The Workplace
Potential Risks In The Workplace And How To Avoid Them
How To Ensure Directors’ Duties Are Met
What Does A Health And Safety Officer Do In The Workplace?
Fire Safety In The Workplace
Resources
Free Guidance
Members Resources
Privacy
Privacy Policy
GDPR
Join our mailing list. Enter your email address:*
Phone
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Copyright © Safety Aide Limited. 10 Midhurst Way. Nottingham. Nottinghamshire. NG11 8DY. T: 08000 806 801. E: info@safetyaide.com


Australians have lost over $8.8 million to threat based scams so far this year, and young people are reporting the highest losses.
26 Oct 2020
Rental scams targeting more Australians during pandemic
Australians have lost over $300,000 to rental and accommodation scams this year, an increase of 76 per cent compared to the same time last year.
21 Sep 2020
National Scams Awareness Week: 'This is Not Your Life'
The ACCC has launched a podcast series for this year’s National Scams Awareness Week to provide Australians with tips on how to protect their personal and financial details from scammers.
17 Aug 2020
Government impersonation scams on the rise
… been an increase in scams reported during tax time such as text messages claiming to be from myGov or from agencies … financial difficulties and uncertainty generated from the COVID-19 pandemic to trick unsuspecting Australians,” ACCC … or even identity theft.” In a fake government threat scam, victims receive a robocall pretending to be from a …
21 Jul 2020
Scams target all sections of Australian society including CALD and Indigenous communities
Data from the ACCC’s annual Targeting Scams report, released this week, indicates scammers don’t discriminate and are targeting a range of different communities in Australia.
25 Jun 2020
Business email compromise scams cost Australians $132 million
Business email compromise scams caused the highest losses across all scam types in 2019 costing businesses $132 million, according to the ACCC’s Targeting Scams report.
23 Jun 2020
Scams cost Australians over $630 million
Australians lost over $634 million to scams in 2019, according to the latest figures in the ACCC’s Targeting Scams report released today.
22 Jun 2020
แก๊งต้มตุ๋นตั้งเป้าไปที่เงินเกษียณในวิกฤตกาลโควิด-19
เดี๋ยวนี้ แก๊งต้มตุ๋นกำลังพยายามหาประโยชน์กับคนออสเตรเลียที่ได้รับผลกระทบทางการเงินจากวิกฤตกาลโควิด–19 โดยมีรายงานเกี่ยวกับการต้มตุ๋นเงินเกษียณใหม่ ๆ ไปที่สแกมวอท์ช (Scamwatch) ในระยะไม่กี่สัปดาห์ที่ผ
17 Apr 2020
Scammers targeting superannuation in COVID-19 crisis
Scammers are now trying to exploit Australians financially impacted by the COVID-19 crisis with new superannuation scams being reported to Scamwatch in recent weeks.
6 Apr 2020
Warning on COVID-19 scams
Australians should be aware scammers are adapting existing technology to play on people’s fears around coronavirus and selling products claiming to prevent or cure the virus.


Responsible for the contents in accordance with Section (§) 55, Paragraph 2 of the German Interstate Broadcasting Treaty (RStV):
Matthias Schulze
Implementation:
Concept & design:
barbara kuberczyk Kommunikationsdesign, www.barbara-kuberczyk.de
Text:
Christina Schwarz, www.christina-schwarz.com
Photography:
Roland Sigwart, www.sigwart-photo.de
Programming:
Philipp Kuhlmann, www.edvart.de
Disclaimer
Liability for contents
As service provider, we are responsible according to Section (§) 7 paragraph 1 of the German Telemedia Act (TMG) for our own contents on these pages under general law. However, according to Sections (§) 8 to 10 of the German Telemedia Act we, as a service provider, are not obliged to monitor information transmitted or stored by third parties, or to investigate circumstances that may suggest an illegal activity. Obligations to remove or block the use of information shall remain unaffected under general law. However, any liability in this respect is only possible from the moment of knowledge of a specific infringement. Should any legal infringements of this nature become known, the contents concerned shall be removed immediately.
Liability for links
Our website contains links to external third-party websites, and we have no influence on their contents. Therefore, we are also unable to assume any liability for these external contents. The respective provider or operator of these websites is always responsible for the contents of the linked pages. The pages linked were checked for possible legal infringements at the time the link was established. No illegal contents could be recognised at the time of linking. However, the permanently checking of the linked pages without concrete evidence of unlawful content shall not be considered reasonable. We shall remove such links immediately as soon as we become aware of a legal violation.
Copyright
The contents and works on these pages, created by the site operators, are subject to copyright law of Germany. The reproduction, editing, distribution and any kind of exploitation outside the limits of copyright law shall require the written consent of the respective author or creator.
Downloads and copies of this site are only permitted for private, non-commercial use. Insofar as the contents on this site have not been created by the operator, the copyright of third parties shall be respected. In particular, the contents of third parties shall be indicated as such. Should you nevertheless become aware of a copyright infringement, we would ask you to inform us accordingly. We shall remove such contents immediately as soon as we become aware of any legal violation.
Privacy statement:
Data protection
The operators of these sites take the protection of personal data very seriously. We shall treat your personal data confidentially and in accordance with the data protection legislation and with this privacy policy.
As a rule, the use of our website is possible without providing any personal information. In as far as personal data (such as names, addresses or e-mail addresses) is collected on our webpages, this shall be performed, as far as is possible, on a voluntary basis. This data shall not be passed on to third parties without your explicit consent. We point out that data transmission via the Internet (e.g. communication via e-mail) may be accompanied by security risks. The absolute protection of data against unauthorised access by third parties is impossible.
Source: http://www.e-recht24.de
Contact
Schulze & Schulze GmbH . Plastics engineering
Lupfenstraße 65 . 78056 Villingen-Schwenningen
Telephone: +49 (0)7720 99505-0
info@schulze-schulze.com
www.schulze-schulze.com
Schulze & Schulze GmbH
Plastics engineering
Lupfenstraße 65
78056 Villingen-Schwenningen
Tel. +49 (0)7720 99505-0
info@schulze-schulze.com
Plastic injection moulding
Precision parts plastic
Plastics engineering
Precision injection moulding technology
Tool making
Plastic rollers
Quality assurance
Logistics
Furniture fittings
Electrical engineering
Automotive
Building services
We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.


Due to the current COVID-19 Virus situation, our 8" plates and 8oz bowls orders are taking longer than usual. We will automatically update those orders to a 10" plate and 12oz bowls
Home
Gifts by Design
To Celebrate
Princesses
Sweet Little Princess Pillowcase Cover
See 5 more pictures
Add to Wishlist
SKU:
03-PICST-1400-83
Availability:
Ships within 5-7 business days
Related Products
Sweet Butterfly Pillowcase Cover
$40.00
Choose Options
Wish Lists
Three Sweet Little Bugs Pillowcase Cover
$40.00
Choose Options
Wish Lists
Sweet Carousel Pillowcase Cover
$40.00
Choose Options
Wish Lists
Sweet Mermaid Pillowcase Cover
$40.00
Choose Options
Wish Lists
Cute Princess Pillowcase Cover
$40.00
Choose Options
Wish Lists
You Recently Viewed...
Sweet Little Princess Pillowcase Cover
$40.00
Add To Cart
Sweet Little Princess Pillowcase Cover
Write A Preview
$40.00
Minimum Quantity:
unit(s)
Maximum Purchase:
unit(s)
:
Gift Wrapping:
* Ethnicity:
Please choose an option to add this product to your cart.	Blonde Brunette Black Hair African American Asian Red Hair
* Name or Initial(s):
Would you like to order a proof?
-- None -- Yes ( $3.00 ) No
Special Instructions:
Size chart
Buy in bulk and save
Qty:
Product Description
Add a splash of fun and color to your kids bedroom decor with our soft and personalized kids pillowcases. The perfect personalized touch to that beautiful nursery or kids room. Don't miss to send one with your kid to their camp this summer!
Our pillows are made with a soft finish. The pillows are machine washable and dryable. The pillow opening is on the left side.
What's included in the price: One pillowcase cover that fits a standard size pillow (Pillow not included). Printing on the front side only. Back side has a solid white color.
Material: White, soft polyester microfiber.
Size: 30 inches wide x 20" inches high.
Care Instructions: Machine wash warm, no chlorine bleach, tumble dry low heat, do not iron.
Reviews
Write Review
Write Your Own Review
How do you rate this product?
5 stars (best) 4 stars 3 stars (average) 2 stars 1 star (worst)
Write a headline for your review here:
Write your review here:
Your email:
We promise to never spam you, and just use your email address to identify you as a valid customer.
Enter your name: (optional)
Enter the code below:
This product hasn't received any reviews yet. Be the first to review this product!
Return & Cancellations
For Non-Personalized Items
We want our customers to be 100% satisfied with their order. If the items you purchased are not exactly what you expected, call us within 30 days and we will issue a full refund (minus shipping and handling costs). All returns must be new, unused, and contain all original packaging and accessories. We cannot accept returns of products that have been used or altered in any way. To initiate a return, contact us at 1-800-720-0197 or customerservice@sparkandspark.com to obtain a return authorization number. Make sure to indicate your customer name, order#, reasons for return and a way to reach you.
If any item(s) on you order is damaged, defective, incorrect or missing parts, you must contact us at 1-800-720-0197 or customerservice@sparkandspark.com within 5-7 business days after delivery so we can issue an RMA number. We will ask that you please return the order in its original form and packaging (a return shipping label will be provided). Spark & Spark will promptly send replacements or issue a credit towards future purchase as soon as we receive the items back from you. We regret that we will not be able to accept damaged, or wrong item claims after 5-7 business days from the delivery date.
For Personalized Items
Due to the personalization and unique name on these products, we cannot offer refunds or exchanges on any personalized item sold in our store. If something is wrong with your personalized order, please contact us within 5-7 business days of the delivery date at 1-1800-720-0197 or customerservice@sparkandspark.com.
All sales on personalized items are final and we cannot accept any returns, specifically if it is based on customer input errors (e.g., typographical errors). If there is a customer input error and it is overseen when reviewing and approving the digital proof, the customer accepts all responsibility and a refund or store credit cannot be given. In this case, the customer can request for a reprint of the order with a 15% discount. Order reprints will be shipped within 5-7 business days.
If Spark & Spark is responsible for an error (i.e. your card looks different from what you review on the digital proof), you must notify us within 5-7 business days and we will reprint your order and resend it to you within 3-5 business days.
CANCELLATIONS
Should you cancel your order before a digital proof is produced, we will not charge any fee to do so. Cancelling an order once a proof is produced, but prior to customer approval, will result in a $25 processing fee per order. If you cancel the order after the proof is approved, we will charge 100% of the order.
Find Similar Products by Category
Gifts by Design
To Celebrate
Princesses
Due to the current COVID-19 Virus situation, our 8" plates and 8oz bowls orders are taking longer than usual. We will automatically update those orders to a 10" plate and 12oz bowls.


Please read the following legal statement. By using this website, you are agreeing to the terms below. These policies may change without notice:
A. The content contained in this website is provided by Fort Bend County Emergency Services District No. 2, (the “entity”) as a service to the public. This website and the information contained herein should not be relied upon or used as information for the purposes of securities disclosure about the entity or its financial condition. Persons should not rely upon this information when considering whether to buy, sell, or hold bonds issued by the entity. All information contained herein speaks only as of the date indicated. The entity assumes no duty to update any information contained herein.
B. Linked sites are not under the control of this entity, and the entity is not responsible for the contents of any linked site. Links are provided only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any link does not imply the endorsement by the entity of the site.
C. This entity does not warrant or make representations or endorsements as to the quality, content, accuracy, or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links and other items contained on this website or any other website. Such materials have been compiled from a variety of sources, and are subject to change without notice from the entity as a result of updates and corrections.
D. To the extent allowed by Texas law, communications made through e-mail or other messaging system shall in no way be deemed to constitute legal notice to the entity or any of its officers, employees, agents, or representatives, with respect to any existing or potential claim or cause of action against the entity or any of its officers, employees, agents, or representatives, where notice to the entity is required by any state or local laws, rules, or regulations.
E. Any use of this website shall be deemed made in the state of Texas, U.S.A., regardless of the location of the user. The user agrees that any dispute with the entity shall be brought by the user exclusively in the state or federal court in which the entity is principally located. The user hereby agrees that such venue is appropriate. Any use of this website is governed by the laws in force in the state of Texas. The user hereby agrees that applying Texas law to the use of this website is appropriate.


Political leaks will always happen but basic email protocols can make them less likely. A group of leak finders say the UK government could make some technical changes to protect civil servants and politicians from embarrassing disclosures
Facebook
Twitter
Email
Facebook
Twitter
Email
Niall Carson/PA Wire/PA Images
Last week, British ambassador to the United States Kim Darroch joined former defence secretary Gavin Williamson in the gallery of people who have lost their jobs as a result of leaks. Documents obtained The Mail on Sunday revealed Darroch’s scathing assessment of president Donald Trump, who reacted by saying that he wouldn’t deal with Darroch anymore.
The diplomat announced he would step down after Conservative leadership candidate Boris Johnson refused four times to back him. He likely won’t be the last senior official to fall victim to leaks of confidential information.
British civil servants flout basic security protocols making leaks such as the one that embarrassed Darroch inevitable, according to an intelligence firm brought in to investigate a separate leak of sensitive information from a government department last year.
Intelligent Protection International Limited, a private security firm, was asked to conduct an investigation to pinpoint the source of a leak of commercial information – allegedly perpetrated by a staff member– to a company working with the department. “We were gobsmacked when we did our investigation,” says Alex Bomberg, chief executive officer of Intelligent Protection International.
Bomberg’s company produced a 300-page report – a redacted version of the recommendations of which we have seen – laying bare the issues with how the civil service handles sensitive data such as diplomatic briefings and cables. All routine public service information is classed as “Official” – one of three security classifications set out by the government. Official documents can include “routine international relations and diplomatic activities.
However, particularly delicate information can be labelled “Official – Sensitive”, which is meant to involve additional measures to limit the “need to know”. That additional marking is deployed to head off the risk of such information being stolen, lost or published by journalists because it “could have more damaging consequences,” official advice on classification explains.
According to The Mail on Sunday, which first reported the contents of Darroch’s diplomatic cables, the documents leaked last week were labelled “Official – Sensitive”.
It turns out that these labels are expected to do a lot of work. One of the main concerns Intelligent Protection International raised in its report was the principle of “delegated access” to email accounts of the highest-ranking officials in the civil service.
In short, that means that staff would be allowed to access an official’s inbox in order to triage emails and deal with problems. But the free flow of sensitive information and reports via email means people who shouldn’t read those documents can often squirrel them away without detection.
The report produced by Bomberg flagged up a lackadaisical culture of trust permeating UK government departments, according to which every one of the 414,390 full-time equivalent employees of the civil service should be trusted. It highlighted that delegated access meant that those without the requisite security clearances were simply trusted not to read emails marked as “Private and Confidential” without any checks.
“People are getting access to essentially secret documents or more sensitive material because of delegated access,” Bomberg says. “An email that could pass between three people could end up with 20 people seeing it.”
Delegated access to emails is one of the key problems facing the civil service, reckons Bomberg. “There’s lots of presumption going on that things should be this way – a certain way – when they just shouldn’t,” he says. “A lot of people were not aware about the whole delegated access issue, and how much of a risk that actually is. I personally think it all needs looking at. There’s a huge, huge issue in British government with that.” Another major issue the 2018 investigation found was that many civil servants disregard official advice on keeping information secure. “We were taken aback at how lax they’d become,” says Bomberg.
“Information security controls rely as much on culture as they do on process and technology," says Rowenna Fielding, senior data protection lead at data protection consultants Protecture.
"Policies and procedures within government environments tend to be somewhat user-hostile, being lengthy documents full of highly formal language or jargon, and difficult to navigate for ‘just in time’ answers, with the result that security is often viewed as a hurdle to getting the job done rather than a form of support to work safely and efficiently,” she adds.
The issue was prevalent on a dep artmental-wide level, and even on an individual level, according to Bomberg: of the roughly 30 people his company investigated for the 2018 data leak, he established around a quarter used their official mobile phones for both business and personal use – despite not being meant to. Some civil servants told Bomberg they didn’t even have a private cell phone they could use for personal calls and messages.
These behaviours would be in breach of several of the key principles of government security. The principles include ensuring all government business has “an appropriate degree of protection”, that everyone working in government has a duty of confidentiality and safeguarding responsibility and ought to be trained to protect information. The principles also dictate that sensitive information should only be provided on a need-to-know basis.
In a statement, the Cabinet Office said that “robust security measures and strict protocols are in place for the handling of sensitive government information.”
Updated July 16, 2019, 11:25: The piece was edited to include comment from the Cabinet Office
More great stories from WIRED
🕵🏿 It's time you ditched Chrome for a privacy-first web browser
🚕 London's minicabs have a cunning plan to beat Uber
🎉 A vaccine for Alzheimer's is on the verge of reality
🤦🏽 Reddit’s ‘Am I the Asshole’ is your new guilty pleasure
📧 Get the best tech deals and gadget news in your inbox
Chris Stokel-Walker is a freelance journalist and regular WIRED contributor. His work has also appeared in New Scientist, the BBC, and The Economist. He is the author of two books: YouTubers, about the rise of YouTube and the creator economy, and TikTok Boom, about how TikTok is shaping the future... Read more
Freelance journalist
Twitter
TopicsPrivacyPolitics
WIRED is where tomorrow is realised. It is the essential source of information and ideas that make sense of a world in constant transformation. The WIRED conversation illuminates how technology is changing every aspect of our lives—from culture to business, science to design. The breakthroughs and innovations that we uncover lead to new ways of thinking, new connections, and new industries.


The CDC's early coronavirus test was poorly designed, and it also came with problematic instructions, NPR has learned.
A flawed coronavirus test distributed by government scientists early in the pandemic was poorly designed and came with erroneous instructions that made it doubly difficult for labs to rely on the test's results, new records show. The shortcomings of the test kits cost the nation precious weeks as officials sought to detect virus hot spots and manage the outbreak.
The new details are in an internal report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that explored why the agency's original coronavirus test kit failed. Some of the initial tests sent to the nation's labs back in February 2020 delivered "inconclusive" readings — further delaying the ability for the nation to identify COVID-19 cases. The kits were developed so states could conduct their own testing and get test results faster than shipping samples to the CDC in Atlanta.
NPR obtained a copy of the report after suing the CDC under the Freedom of Information Act. The initial review, known as a "root-cause analysis," was conducted by the agency in March 2020 to determine why an early coronavirus test didn't work properly. The review was updated in October with new details of what the investigation found.
The fundamental problem with the test, the report said, was "inadequate document control." What that means is there were various versions of instructions and protocols circulating around the lab that developed the test kits so there was an inconsistency in the way they performed. "In particular, the absence or ineffectiveness of good document control resulted in multiple different versions of quality control (QC) procedures being applied," the report said.
The review bears out reporting from NPR in November that revealed a small infectious disease lab at the CDC was aware the coronavirus test kit it had developed could fail 33% of the time but released it anyway. Under normal circumstances, that kind of failure rate would stop a test in its tracks.
The October report also indicates that in addition to ignoring the test could fail a third of the time, the instructions that the nation's public laboratories were supposed to follow to replicate the test in their own labs was problematic.
A chart in the report shows that concentrations of various chemicals used in building the test were inconsistent. And while the differences indicated in a table in the report are minor enough that they wouldn't necessarily affect the overall performance of the test, lab officials told NPR they are an indication of a more fundamental problem: Outdated procedures for running tests were floating around the lab.
The inconsistency laid out in the report is much like using slightly less flour in a recipe for a cake, except in this case it was part of a very sensitive test. "If you have different copies of the recipe, you're performing slightly different versions of the protocol, and that's not what we want," said one lab official who had seen the table in the report.
Copyright 2021 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.
Tags
NPR News
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email
Dina Temple-Raston
Dina Temple-Raston is a correspondent on NPR's Investigations team focusing on breaking news stories and national security, technology and social justice.


What goes into a blog post? Helpful, industry-specific content that: 1) gives readers a useful takeaway, and 2) shows you’re an industry expert.
Use your company’s blog posts to opine on current industry topics, humanize your company, and show how your products and services can help people.
1 thought on “Blog Post Title”
Mr WordPress says:
June 18, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Hi, this is a comment.
To delete a comment, just log in and view the post's comments. There you will have the option to edit or delete them.


To me there's one card that's really stood out in all the pre-M12 previews and hype, one card that I've heard more people speculate about, one card that has me personally most excited. From the title of this article, it should not be a surprise to the astute reader that the card is Goblin Grenade I must confess that I'm quite bias. I like goblins. In my 17 year on again off again love affair with Magic the Gathering, I've played many types of decks, but I always seem to come back to the good old mono red goblin deck. It seems to be ideally suited to my situation. First off goblins are cool, they really have their own unique flavor. Yes, there are other races that get played. I've seen covens of vampires skulking about in tournaments lately, and packs of elves sometimes frolicked about in blocks past, but it seems to me other races just get played because a block comes through that makes them competitive I've played goblins even when they really weren't, just because they're cool. Secondly goblin decks are cheap, the mono redness means you don't need a bunch of pricey dual land, and the bulk of the other cards are usually common or uncommon. Thirdly, they are fast, which means you almost always get to swarm in for a little combat before some annoying control deck changes the game to 'Mother May I', and your matches are usually quick enough that you can relax a bit between rounds. The main draw back to the goblin decks is that though they come out fast and furious, they tend to run out of steam quickly. This is why the return of Goblin Grenade has me so excited, it adds some real punch to the deck, maybe enough to push it over the top. There are a lot of flavors of goblin decks. In this article I'm just going to look at one. My criteria for this deck are:
1) Simple - Easy to build easy to run. No complex combos or timing to worry about.
2) Fast - This deck is all about doing damage as fast as possible.
3) Cheap - I don't expect to win the pro tour with it, so I don't look at it as an investment towards future winnings.
4) Mono Red - You can take a beating from a good sideboard, but its simple, fast, and cheap.
5) Uses Goblin Grenade - That's kind of the point of this article.
So what goes into a goblin deck? Well first off, goblins, of course, and there is quite a cast of characters to choose from in post M12 standard. So lets walk through the lineup.
Battle-Rattle Shaman - A nice ability but 4 mana is just too much.
Blisterstick Shaman - Real tempting, there are some cases where that one damage comes in real handy, put him down as maybe.
Bloodcrazed Goblin - I really want to like this guy, and teamed with the new Goblin Fireslinger I might give him a try.
Bloodshot Trainee - Could be great in a specialized deck designed to pump up your goblins, but I'm looking to blow them up not pump them up, so no.
Ember Hauler - A 2/2 for 2, plus a nice ability should make him a first round draft pick. My only hesitation is that using his special ability means he's no longer a available as grenade fodder.
Goblin Arsonist - The grenade takes this guy from a third string wannabe to a stone cold killer. Give him a grenade and he can take out a titan.
Goblin Balloon Brigade - These guys and I go way back, so I'm real tempted to throw them in, and against some fast flying infect decks they can be a life saver, but there's a lot of competition for one mana slot goblins now, so I'm torn.
Goblin Bangchuckers - If they were two mana I'd probably throw them in and save their special ability for emergencies. But for four mana, you've got to have some really mad coin flipping skills to run these guys.
Goblin Bushwhacker - I thought this guy was only so so when I first saw him, but after running him a few times he became my new best friend, and the grenade makes him even better, because after his initial kick he becomes a great candidate for grenade duty. But you have to figure him as a two mana slot filler because you almost never want to play him without the kick.
Goblin Chieftain - Yes he comes into play with a huge target on him, but in the unlikely event he survives he's great and at least he distracts your opponent from your other goblins. For three mana I've got to think hard about it but I'd probably put him in as a matter of principle if nothing else.
Goblin Firesliger - I really like the look of this guy, he seems so gobliny. Hide him in the bushes and ping for a damage each turn. Not a big threat, but so annoying your opponent may feel compelled to deal with him. Combines real nice with Bloodcrazed Goblin so I may run them for the short time they're in rotation together.
Goblin Gaveleer - I really wanted to like this guy. There is so much good equipment in standard now, but try as I might I couldn't get a goblin equipment deck to work, it was just too slow, so for now at least I'm going to pass.
Goblin Guide - This guys been getting a lot of good press, but I don't like him. 2/2 with haste for one mana is awfully tempting but there's a lot of land heavy decks around right now so there's a good chance each attack that you'll wind up giving your opponent card advantage. Besides I don't have any and I'm too cheap to pay out $24 dollars or so for a play set of a card that will rotate out in a few months. Plus I don't like the floppy eared goblin look.
Goblin Piker - Not bad, but just too many better choices for the two mana slots.
Goblin Roughrider - Back in the old days a 3/2 for 3 would have been great on it's own, now days the expectations for creatures are much higher. I still might throw one in because I like the art so much.
Goblin Ruinblaster - Side board for sure with Valakut decks on the rise. Too slow for main deck though.
Goblin Shortcutter - I'm on the fence with this guy. Every so often he's really handy, but normally you should be blowing up any creatures that get in your way. The art is cool though so maybe.
Goblin Tunneler - Nice for some trick decks, but too specialized for this kind of deck.
Goblin Wardriver - Oh yeah, this guy just screams goblin hoard, maybe a tad less useful with grenade since you'll be blowing some of your troupes, but still yes.
Grotag Siege-Runner - Maybe a candidate for the side board, if you fear walls.
Kuldotha Rebirth - This is a tough call. It can slow you down a little early game since you've got to throw down some expendable artifacts for it to chew on. But three creatures for one card is great, particularly since the main weakness of this kind of deck is running out of steam (in the form of cards). My personal favorite artifact to use with this is the Perilous Myr, it can join the horde if you don't end up with a Rebirth in hand and if you do sacrifice it you get a bonus 2 non-red damage to deal out, great for those pro red creatures opponents will sideboard in. I've had some luck with Tumble Magnets as well. There's no shortage of good artifacts in standard now, picking the right ones for this card is a careful balancing act and probably too complicated for this article.
Lavafume Invoker - Lets face it, with this kind of deck you're either going to win or loose long before you get to eight mana. That makes the special ability a non issue, so there are better picks
Oxidda Daredevil - If you've got expendable artifacts use Kuldotha Rebirth instead.
Slavering Nulls - Not in a mono red deck.
Spikeshot Elder - Tempting, but again more for a pump up than a blow up deck.
Torch Slinger - Nice, but it takes five mana before it really shines and there are many better things to do with five mana.
Tuktuk Grunts - Too expensive and too specialized.
Tuktuk Scrapper - Maybe sideboard, but probably too much mana even there.
Tuktuk the Explorer - I want to like this guy, but he's just too easy for your opponent to ignore.
Warren Instigator - Oh come on, mythic rare, who's idea was that? If I had any I might well play them, but alas no.
So those are the goblins, how many do you use? There's a lot of good creature removal in standard right now so you have to expect to loose a bunch of your troupes and you still need to have some left to carry in the grenades, so I'd put in at least 20. Personally I love creatures so I'll probably put in a bit more.
Next you need some mana. All you really need are mountains and since a reason to run this deck is it's low cost, that might be all you want. Still Teetering Peaks is awfully nice to give your goblins a little extra punch and is available pretty cheap. The real question is how many lands. Most if not all your spells should cost three or less mana, and you'll have a lot you can do with only one, but getting stuck at one or even two mana really slows the deck down and this deck is all about speed. By turn three (if not two) you really want to be able blast a blocker out of the way attack and still have mana to add another goblin. Also having to mulligan because you have no mana is painful, you're already going to run out of cards in hand soon enough, so you can't go too light on mana. On the other hand there are few things worse than around turn five or so, after you've beat your opponent down to within a point or two of death with your initial onslaught, to watch that lead evaporate as you top deck two or three land in a row, so you don't want too much land. Twenty to twenty-two seems to work pretty well, If you 're using Teetering Peaks probably veer to the high side since they come into play tapped.
Now you need to add the artillery Goblins can hit hard for their size, but they're not all that durable. It doesn't take much of a blocker to really ruin their day, so it's up to you to blast a path for them. Or you can always turn your guns directly on your opponent to really punctuate your charge. Four grenades go in of course and Throw in four lightning bolts (boy, I'm going to miss those come the rotation). Other candidates for the artillery spots would include:
Burst Lightning - Good and cheap with a possible late game kick.
Galvanic Blast - If you're going to go the rebirth route you might want these in case you happen to end up with metalcraft.
Forked Bolt - More versatile but sorcery slow.
Shock - OK, but better options exist for now.
Searing Blaze - A little more pricey at two mana and not always as dependable, but with bonus damage to your opponent
Burn the Impure - Side board, maybe main deck if you play in an infect heavy environment.
Arc Trail - Sorcery slow, but has the potential to give a little card advantage.
Staggershock - Two for one special with this, but three mana is a high price in this deck.
Pyroclasm - This will usually clear the path but leave no left to charge up it. Against some decks it'll be your best friend, but use with extreme caution if at all.
Now you might want to stop there, and you'd have a good solid deck, but if you don't end up getting off a grenade or two you're probably going to end up not able to do damage quite fast enough so you might want to add in just a few late game finishers like these:
Shrine of Burning Rage - If nothing else having an ever growing time bomb ticking away in your opponents face ratchets up the pressure on them, However you have to get it out early for it to really to do much good, which means one less goblin in play or one more enemy blocker not blown up, so you're a little slower for it, but it can really end the game with a bang.
Bloodthirst - This deck is all about doing damage why not capitalize on that with Blood Ogre or Gorehorn Minotaur to beef up your front line.
Act of Treason, Mark of Mutiny, Traitorous Instinct, or Act of Aggression - if you can't beat them, get them to join you. Watch your opponent pale as you barrow their titan. Turning a lone blocker into an attacker can be huge.
B.F.D. (Big Flying Dragon) - There are a bunch of these out there to choose from in standard now, probably too expensive to play and most likely countered, exiled, dismembered, or such as soon as they hit the board, still who doesn't love a dragon and if your opponent has used all their creature removal on your goblins...
Chandra - Either flavor. Alas she's mythic rare, so kind of out of the whole cheap and simple deck theme.
So there are your options. Here's an example of a quick cheap and simple 'Goblins Go BOOM' deck. I kept the list to commons and uncommons (estimated cost for the deck, bought as singles would be around $25, but you probably already have some of these cards and they shouldn't be hard to trade for). Don't expect it to win the pro tour for you, but with some practice and a little luck it should at least make a respectable showing in casual play and maybe serve as a base from which to build better things.
18 Mountains
4 Teetering Peaks
4 Goblin Arsonist
4 Goblin Bushwhacker
4 Goblin Firesliger
4 Goblin Wardriver
4 Ember Hauler
2 Goblin Shortcutter (Chieftain would probably be better here, but it is rare)
4 Goblin Grenades
4 Lightning Bolts
4 Forked Bolt
2 Arc Trail
2 Act of Treason
Sideboard:
4 Goblin Ruinblaster - Replaces the Ember Haulers against Valakut decks
4 Crush - Replaces Forked Bolts against any decks that rely on equipment or other non creature artifacts like Shrine of Burning Rage.