Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
New Zealand? Oh yes the lockdown masters that killed off the virus... Execpt they didn't, it just bubbled along under the surface before starting to re-emerge again. And then they've got the little quandary on how to ever open up their country to the rest of the world.
Australia? Yeah, about that. You might want to catch up with the news in some territories....
Erm, sorry but that's not the question I was asked. I was asked for the evidence where stricter measures had resulted in lower deaths/incidences. Not where it was eradicated!!!
Perhaps you need to "catch up" with what was actually said? Do you understand?
As a country we're all in this together. Could argue it isn't fair that people abiding by rules in cities with high case rates are having restrictions placed on their lives.
New Zealand? Oh yes the lockdown masters that killed off the virus... Execpt they didn't, it just bubbled along under the surface before starting to re-emerge again. And then they've got the little quandary on how to ever open up their country to the rest of the world.
Australia? Yeah, about that. You might want to catch up with the news in some territories....
Indeed. Some of them might have delayed it, but that just means it'll keep on coming back over a longer time period (as parts of Australia are certainly seeing).
And for the opposite, Sweden where the light-touch restrictions seem to have been overall at least as successful as the more stringent ones elsewhere in Europe.
Incidentally, on Radio 3 news this morning they were claiming that the England government is considering closing hospitality venues across the country again for a couple of weeks. You couldn't make this up - spaff a billon quid on half-price troughing to supposedly help such businesses, then three weeks later threaten them with temporary closure yet again. The purpose was of course stated as 'to slow the spread' - it now seems to be taken as a given that it's imperative we do this, although nobody can explain why given that the NHS currently has plenty of capacity, and it's also unclear as to how much of a role hospitality venues are playing in this anyway.
Fair enough - But that part of the regulations no longer exists. It was revoked some time ago when the requirement to have a "reasonable excuse" to leave your home was removed.
Obviously it is a completely different situation when there were rules about why you might leave your house - But we are not in that space anymore
Erm, sorry but that's not the question I was asked. I was asked for the evidence where stricter measures had resulted in lower deaths/incidences. Not where it was eradicated!!!
OK, let's reword my original question slightly then as it wasn't entirely clear. Where is the eividence that eventually the number of deaths won't be pretty much the same, just dragged out over a longer time period?
Fair enough - But that part of the regulations no longer exists. It was revoked some time ago when the requirement to have a "reasonable excuse" to leave your home was removed.
Obviously it is a completely different situation when there were rules about why you might leave your house - But we are not in that space anymore
No - the legislation has not been revoked. That legislation is a framework, almost like a menu of options; those measures can be reintroduced and indeed, that is what is happening on a local basis. Hence why you can't go to Caerphilly!
And for the opposite, Sweden where the light-touch restrictions seem to have been overall at least as successful as the more stringent ones elsewhere in Europe.
OK, let's reword my original question slightly then as it wasn't entirely clear. Where is the eividence that eventually the number of deaths won't be pretty much the same, just dragged out over a longer time period?
Because quite simply, it reduces the impact on critical care treatment. Hospitals aren't overwhelmed. It also provides a bit of breathing space to potentially obtain a vaccine.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
As a country we're all in this together. Could argue it isn't fair that people abiding by rules in cities with high case rates are having restrictions placed on their lives.
We all know that there are two issues at play in determining spread
How dense the population is?
How dense the population is?
There will be massive variations on a local basis, even by postcode. I visited Hebden Bridge just before the Calderdale restrictions were introduced. I'd bet that the rising number in Calderdale had much more to do with certain areas of Halifax than the leafier and more affluent, less densely populated Calder Valley.
It's the same in the North East. The spikes are places with the higher population concentrations - so it'll be Derwentside (Consett, Annfield Plain, Stanley) and not Stanhope and Wolsingham!
Firstly, it's deaths which matter, not cases. And secondly, Sweden (as with the UK) got care homes wrong, where a large number of the deaths occurred - and they have admitted that, unlike the UK government who never admit to getting anything wrong.
The fact remains that the death rate per capita in Sweden is still lower than in many European countries (including the UK) which have introduced loads of restrictions.
Because quite simply, it reduces the impact on critical care treatment. Hospitals aren't overwhelmed. It also provides a bit of breathing space to potentially obtain a vaccine.
But it is still unproven that hospitals would ever have been overwhelmed. The original restrictions were stated as being to allow the NHS to build up capacty, which may have been justifiable. But they did that, the capacity is still there, and they are miles off being overwhelmed.
Sweden also seemingly (time will tell for sure) got it out of the way over the summer, whereas in other countries it is now going to come back again over the winter period when respiratory infections of all types increase.
The whole vaccine thing is a fallacy - it is lunacy to cause so much damage to the country in terms of healthcare, society and economy on the basis of something which might not happen, might not work very well if it does, and for which there can be no timescale proposed with even a reasonable level of confidence.
Firstly, it's deaths which matter, not cases. And secondly, Sweden (as with the UK) got care homes wrong, where a large number of the deaths occurred - and they have admitted that, unlike the UK government who never admit to getting anything wrong.
The fact remains that the death rate per capita in Sweden is still lower than in many European countries (including the UK) which have introduced loads of restrictions.
But it is still unproven that hospitals would ever have been overwhelmed. The original restrictions were stated as being to allow the NHS to build up capacty, which may have been justifiable. But they did that, the capacity is still there, and they are miles off being overwhelmed.
Sweden also seemingly (time will tell for sure) got it out of the way over the summer, whereas in other countries it is now going to come back again over the winter period when respiratory infections of all types increase.
The whole vaccine thing is a fallacy - it is lunacy to cause so much damage to the country in terms of healthcare, society and economy on the basis of something which might not happen, might not work very well if it does, and for which there can be no timescale proposed with even a reasonable level of confidence.
I'm sorry but if you're asking for cast iron, incontrovertible evidence of what would have happened had X or Y been done instead of Z, well it's impossible to provide that evidence. You might as well pose that question about what Britain would have been like had we not been invaded by the Normans, or what would Britain be like had it never joined the EEC. It's Sliding Doors and you know that.
As for "The fact remains that the death rate per capita in Sweden is still lower than in many European countries (including the UK) which have introduced loads of restrictions". Not true. Sweden is the fifth worst country by capita in Europe behind Belgium, Spain, UK and Italy, and nowhere near its Scandinavian peers which is arguably a better comparison in terms of social cohesision and if you look at population density, it is much lower than Denmark and comparable to Finland (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/).
In terms of the "whole vaccine thing" being a fallacy, I am pleased that such an eminent virologist has come onto the forum and explained this, despite the huge effort being globally undertaken to research and find one.
I'm sorry but if you're asking for cast iron, incontrovertible evidence of what would have happened had X or Y been done instead of Z, well it's impossible to provide that evidence. You might as well pose that question about what Britain would have been like had we not been invaded by the Normans, or what would Britain be like had it never joined the EEC. It's Sliding Doors and you know that.
As for "The fact remains that the death rate per capita in Sweden is still lower than in many European countries (including the UK) which have introduced loads of restrictions". Not true. Sweden is the fifth worst country by capita in Europe behind Belgium, Spain, UK and Italy, and nowhere near its Scandinavian peers which is arguably a better comparison in terms of social cohesision and if you look at population density, it is much lower than Denmark and comparable to Finland (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/).
In terms of the "whole vaccine thing" being a fallacy, I am pleased that such an eminent virologist has come onto the forum and explained this, despite the huge effort being globally undertaken to research and find one.
I think we're really asking for a bit of currency in your arguments. You float around quoting Australia as somewhere where a lockdown has eliminated the virus, you're still determined that Sweden is in dire straits, you are quoting legislation that hasn't been in force for months.
You're essentially further behind on what's going on that Matt Hancock, which is fine but isn't adding a lot to the debate
As a country we're all in this together. Could argue it isn't fair that people abiding by rules in cities with high case rates are having restrictions placed on their lives.
Life isn't fair, unfortunately. The virus spreads based on proximity, not obedience to rules - it's like the horrid days of secondary school where a whole class is given detention because of the acts of a few people but it's the decision that's been taken by the teacher.
We definitely DON'T need another full national lockdown! If indeed that happens, Boris will say that it's to be reviewed in 2 or 3 weeks. And then come 2 or 3 weeks, he'll probably decide to extend it again for another 2 or 3 weeks again, like what happened in April. And then this will all then drag out for at least several months again with gradual easing of the lockdown measures, non-essential shops and the hospitality industry will be shut again for months, and social distancing and mask wearing laws still dragging on with no end in sight of being scrapped. It will be DREADFUL. We'll basically be RESETTING back to the first lockdown of 23rd March again! Really hoping like mad this does not happen. But it seems Chris Whitty is pressuring Boris for a 2 or 3 week full national lockdown. Hope Boris sees some sense and refuses to implement such destructive action.
It's on it's way...https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8745475/Lancashire-placed-Covid-curfew-TOMORROW.html
Matt Hancock today admitted that a new national crackdown is on the cards as he warned infections are 'accelerating across the country' and more people will die.
The Health Secretary pleaded with the public to 'come together to tackle this virus' as ministers consider imposing draconian restrictions for a fortnight in a 'circuit break' to stop the spread.
The move could come as soon as next week, with pubs, restaurants and hotels facing being shut to prevent 'significant' casualties.
How on Earth do they justify this?? Deaths are still very very low, and elimination is impossible. I don’t see how we can possibly go on like this for much longer
I think we're really asking for a bit of currency in your arguments. You float around quoting Australia as somewhere where a lockdown has eliminated the virus, you're still determined that Sweden is in dire straits, you are quoting legislation that hasn't been in force for months.
You're essentially further behind on what's going on that Matt Hancock, which is fine but isn't adding a lot to the debate
No I didn't. I did not quote Australia as being a place where lockdown eliminated the virus. It is where a stricter lockdown has significantly reduced cases and deaths. Australia has had 845 CV deaths in total; the UK had 1172 on one day! That currency enough?
for the opposite, Sweden where the light-touch restrictions seem to have been overall at least as successful as the more stringent ones elsewhere in Europe.
I'm sorry but if you're asking for cast iron, incontrovertible evidence of what would have happened had X or Y been done instead of Z, well it's impossible to provide that evidence. You might as well pose that question about what Britain would have been like had we not been invaded by the Normans, or what would Britain be like had it never joined the EEC. It's Sliding Doors and you know that.
As for "The fact remains that the death rate per capita in Sweden is still lower than in many European countries (including the UK) which have introduced loads of restrictions". Not true. Sweden is the fifth worst country by capita in Europe behind Belgium, Spain, UK and Italy, and nowhere near its Scandinavian peers which is arguably a better comparison in terms of social cohesision and if you look at population density, it is much lower than Denmark and comparable to Finland (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/).
In terms of the "whole vaccine thing" being a fallacy, I am pleased that such an eminent virologist has come onto the forum and explained this, despite the huge effort being globally undertaken to research and find one.
You are missing the point that others may have DELAYED it, but if what's happening in Sweden is what it appears (i.e. herd immunity) then they are far better off now - time will tell.
The whole vaccine thing is a fallacy because it is ludicrous to cause so much damage on the basis of something which is far from guarantted to happen - but I'm sure you feel better for having a good sneer!
You are missing the point that others may have DELAYED it, but if what's happening in Sweden is what it appears (i.e. herd immunity) then they are far better off now - time will tell.
The whole vaccine thing is a fallacy because it is ludicrous to cause so much damage on the basis of something which is far from guarantted to happen - but I'm sure you feel better for having a good sneer!
Can you provide the source material that shows that once you had Covid, you were then automatically protected from reinfection or the ability to transmit it? I mean, Spain was worse in terms of Covid cases and herd immunity doesn't appear to be working for them?
No - the legislation has not been revoked. That legislation is a framework, almost like a menu of options; those measures can be reintroduced and indeed, that is what is happening on a local basis. Hence why you can't go to Caerphilly!
This thread is talking about the North East and in particular someone who wanted to make a "Non-Essential" to pursue a hobby - Under the current set of regulations for the North East that is perfectly permissible and "guidance" from a Council leader does not override the Law of the Land.
If the regs change, and of course these days that could happen at the stroke of Hancocks' pen, then we are in a different situation but for now there is nothing against "Non-Essential" travel and that would only change if the regs were to once again regulate movement instead of just what businesses can operate and who you can mix with.
This thread is talking about the North East and in particular someone who wanted to make a "Non-Essential" to pursue a hobby - Under the current set of regulations for the North East that is perfectly permissible and "guidance" from a Council leader does not override the Law of the Land.
If the regs change, and of course these days that could happen at the stroke of Hancocks' pen, then we are in a different situation but for now there is nothing against "Non-Essential" travel and that would only change if the regs were to once again regulate movement instead of just what businesses can operate and who you can mix with.
That's a fair and well-argued point. There ISN'T a current restriction. The point was that the legislation allows the imposition of travel restrictions, which is why the local council leaders were canvassing the government to make changes. In that respect, I think we're in violent agreement
There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of transmission on public transport, studies in Germany and Spain have shown this, so it seems illogical to further drive people away from public transport into (more dangerous) cars.
To put it in perspective, Today's Railways UK October edition on page 7 mentions an RSSB analysis describing the chance of becoming infected by Covid when travelling by train as about 1 in 11,000 without a face covering or 1 in 19,700 with.
If anyone is wanting to do the diverts over the coming weeks, I’ve done them today and I can confirm that there’s no problem accessing Newcastle. Nobody on the gate line asking for your reason for travel or anything, quite a pleasant journey, at least it would be without the mask. It is notably quiet though
To put it in perspective, Today's Railways UK October edition on page 7 mentions an RSSB analysis describing the chance of becoming infected by Covid when travelling by train as about 1 in 11,000 without a face covering or 1 in 19,700 with.
Much as the chances of getting it on a train are very low, the RSSB analysis was a painfully useless study. It made a large number of wild assumptions, did a bit of pointless crowd modelling, and spat out a completely meaningless number of 1 in 11,000 at the end. The masks number is even worse - they literally just took the 1 in 11,000 and multiplied it by 0.56, which is a more-or-less completely speculative number for the reduction in infection rate for mask wearing taken from the big WHO-funded study.
Even if the analysis was correct, one of the inputs was prevalence of Coronavirus infection in the UK in late August, and we are at well over 3 times that level now. If the analysis was repeated it would come out with a figure in the low thousands at best
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
