Further Restrictions Announced by Johnson (22/09)

[Huntergreed]

No, the Government needs to tell them what they want. There is no room for devolution of policy in this, it just causes confusion and inconsistency.

I would argue this should be taken a step further and that this situation would be much easier if we just had one government to listen to, not Johnson saying one thing, Sturgeon trying to get one-up on him with a household limit, Drakeford trying to get one-up on them with a 5 mile rule etc... We're a single island, it seems logical to follow a single strategy.

 

[DB]

No, the Government needs to tell them what they want. There is no room for devolution of policy in this, it just causes confusion and inconsistency.

I agree with this - it needs consistency and there's no way that will happen if local authorities are allowed to go off and make up their own rules.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Sep 2020 ==

You forgot

• Compulsory face masks when having sex, after which you must register details of your partner via the NHS App.

Afraid the Chief Public Health Officer in Canada got there first with this one:

"The lowest risk sexual activity during Covid-19 involves yourself alone," Tam advises. But for Canadians choosing to "engage in an in-person sexual encounter" outside their bubble, she suggests a number of steps to reduce risk including "avoiding face-to-face contact or closeness."
A trusting relationship should first be established and partners should also consider using a mask that covers the nose and mouth, Tam says.

From: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/03/health/coronavirus-masks-sex-canada-trnd/index.html

 

[Richard Scott]

Or "..keeping people safe.."

I swear if I hear once more that some jobsworth is implementing a completely nonsensical rule or restriction, which has no evidence to back it up, in order to "..keep me safe..." I shall go stark raving bonkers and lose the will to live.

Agree, I'm totally fed up with it, they seem to think it's a marketing tool. Well not for me, the more they harp on about it less likely I am to visit that establishment.

 

[trebor79]

Not particularly. Some of the recent surges have actually been in the Sunday figures.

It wouldn't be surprising if it goes up a bit today, the last three days have all been down and it rarely goes for more than three days in the same direction. As long as it's less than 4,926 then the 7-day average will still go down.

Big rise in Scotland today. Likely all the well publicised asymptomatic students making their way into the stats, so expect similar for England. Some suggestions it might be a "record" day.
Hence the press conference tomorrow...

Agree, I'm totally fed up with it, they seem to think it's a marketing tool. Well not for me, the more they harp on about it less likely I am to visit that establishment.

Ditto. Spent most of my time in Norwich market this morning, primarily because people were acting normally, without dirty bits of cloth on their face, and no stupid signs about this that and the other. There was a nominal one way system with arrows on the floor but nobody was paying any notice of that.
I even paid with cash!

 

[DelayRepay]

You forgot

• Compulsory face masks when having sex, after which you must register details of your partner via the NHS App.
• Only jokes from the COVID-19 Approved Joke Book allowed to be told, as these are all so awful that no-one could possibly laugh at them, thus releasing deadly quantities of the big bad virus. 5 years in prison for anyone who tells a funny joke.
• Compulsory house arrest between December 24th and January 2nd, lest anyone dare to celebrate Christmas and New Year.
• All cash transactions to be abolished, as contactless payments are so much "..safer.."
• Anyone who is caught without a face mask on public transport should be put in the stocks so that people can throw rotten tomatoes at them. Summary execution for a second offence.
• Churches to be closed until the second coming of Christ.
• GPs surgeries to be closed every day except February 29th. (Will anyone notice any difference?)

If those are the English restrictions, I wonder what Nicola will come up with in her attempt to go one step further?

 

[duncanp]

If those are the English restrictions, I wonder what Nicola will come up with in her attempt to go one step further?

• No-one allowed into Murrayfield Stadium to watch a six nations game until Scotland win the Grand Slam
• No-one allowed into Hampden Park to watch Scotland play until Scotland qualify for the World Cup Finals
• No-one allowed to watch any other football match in Scotland until someone other than Celtic or Rangers win the championship.

 

[kristiang85]

Not particularly. Some of the recent surges have actually been in the Sunday figures.

It wouldn't be surprising if it goes up a bit today, the last three days have all been down and it rarely goes for more than three days in the same direction. As long as it's less than 4,926 then the 7-day average will still go down.

It's up to 7,143 today - I can't believe that's not due to any lag.

But the good news is that hospital admissions for COVID are down for the 4th day straight. However, I don't expect Boris to concentrate on that kind of statistic tomorrow - he will concentrate on this 7k rise and unleash lockdown fire and brimstone on us all.

 

[Dent]

It's up to 7,143 today - I can't believe that's not due to any lag.

But the good news is that hospital admissions for COVID are down for the 4th day straight. However, I don't expect Boris to concentrate on that kind of statistic tomorrow - he will concentrate on this 7k rise and unleash lockdown fire and brimstone on us all.

It is due to a lag, looking at the graph by specimen date shows that. The point I made is that there is not a "weekend lag" - ie. a lag which happens consistently every weekend - in cases but there is for deaths.

 

[kez19]

• No-one allowed into Murrayfield Stadium to watch a six nations game until Scotland win the Grand Slam
• No-one allowed into Hampden Park to watch Scotland play until Scotland qualify for the World Cup Finals
• No-one allowed to watch any other football match in Scotland until someone other than Celtic or Rangers win the championship.

You forgot we must cheer Andy Murray on!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Sep 2020 ==

It's up to 7,143 today - I can't believe that's not due to any lag.

But the good news is that hospital admissions for COVID are down for the 4th day straight. However, I don't expect Boris to concentrate on that kind of statistic tomorrow - he will concentrate on this 7k rise and unleash lockdown fire and brimstone on us all.

Expect Sturgeon to follow, apart from the west coast and Lothian area to still be given a slapped wrist but the rest of Scotland tighter restrictions

 

[Yew]

It seems to me that the prime ministers portrayal of herd immunity as "surrendering" is baseless rhetoric. Though it perhaps shows an increasing growth in support for other options.

 

[Huntergreed]

Agreed, it’s just to justify the current measures as if they admit herd immunity is correct, they’re admitting having failed for 6 months and trashed the economy for nothing, which needless to say wouldn’t look great on any politicians track record.

 

[Yew]

Agreed, it’s just to justify the current measures as if they admit herd immunity is correct, they’re admitting having failed for 6 months and trashed the economy for nothing, which needless to say wouldn’t look great on any politicians track record.

I think the term is Organisational Inertia, the bigger and more expensive the mistake, the harder it is to change course from it.

 

[CW2]

Herd immunity can be achieved either by lots of people getting infected (some of whom will die or become seriously ill as a result) or by vaccination (which doesn't exist yet).
Boris is having to tread a very careful path between the health professionals who urge caution, and the libertarian wing within the Conservative party who utterly detest any restriction of personal liberties for any reason.
The most libertarian country of all is the USA. Frankly the Trump administration's response has been disastrous and deadly. We must not follow their lead.
We are heading towards a second lockdown unless people start behaving with a greater sense of responsibility and respect towards others.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Was I mistaken, or did Johnson say that more "regular" press conferences would be held - without announcing when the next one would be?

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Bo(dge) Jo(b) needs to go...

 

[DustyBin]

Herd immunity can be achieved either by lots of people getting infected (some of whom will die or become seriously ill as a result) or by vaccination (which doesn't exist yet).
Boris is having to tread a very careful path between the health professionals who urge caution, and the libertarian wing within the Conservative party who utterly detest any restriction of personal liberties for any reason.
The most libertarian country of all is the USA. Frankly the Trump administration's response has been disastrous and deadly. We must not follow their lead.
We are heading towards a second lockdown unless people start behaving with a greater sense of responsibility and respect towards others.

It's fine asking people to behave responsibly but in doing so the government expect the public to follow rules which have little scientific justification and demonstrably aren't having the desired effect. Nobody wants to see serious illness or death, but as well as the general fatigue now being felt by a lot of people, I think there is an increasing realisation that restrictions come at a cost.

 

[MotCO]

It's fine asking people to behave responsibly but in doing so the government expect the public to follow rules which have little scientific justification and demonstrably aren't having the desired effect. Nobody wants to see serious illness or death, but as well as the general fatigue now being felt by a lot of people, I think there is an increasing realisation that restrictions come at a cost.

It is obvious to me (am I alone?) that the more people get together and mix, the greater the chance of the virus is of being spread. The previous lockdown reduced the transmission rate and incidence of the disease: was this a coincidence?

Also, something else which is not often mentioned is the long-term consequences of Covid-19. The outcomes are not just death or recovery (as if it was flu), but there are some unfortunate people who suffer long term health issues, mostly lung and respiratory-related. Some do recovery eventually, but do you want to gamble?

 

[Steveoh]

Also, something else which is not often mentioned is the long-term consequences of Covid-19. The outcomes are not just death or recovery (as if it was flu), but there are some unfortunate people who suffer long term health issues, mostly lung and respiratory-related. Some do recovery eventually, but do you want to gamble?

What makes you think people don't have long term issues with flu or other viruses for that matter?

 

[Richard Scott]

Also, something else which is not often mentioned is the long-term consequences of Covid-19. The outcomes are not just death or recovery (as if it was flu), but there are some unfortunate people who suffer long term health issues, mostly lung and respiratory-related. Some do recovery eventually, but do you want to gamble?

Same is true of flu as has been alluded to in other posts.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Sep 2020 ==

It is obvious to me (am I alone?) that the more people get together and mix, the greater the chance of the virus is of being spread. The previous lockdown reduced the transmission rate and incidence of the disease: was this a coincidence?

Coincidence is a possibility but let's assume lockdown did reduce cases, what's your strategy for getting on with normal life as nowhere near all the population have had it?

 

[MotCO]

What makes you think people don't have long term issues with flu or other viruses for that matter?

I don't recall hospitals running out of ICU capacity during 'normal' flu. (I used to be on-call for a Strategic Health Authority, and would have been alerted if ICU capacity was critical, and I never was.) I would expect most patients suffering long term effects of Covid-19 were treated in ICUs, so I think that it is the sheer numbers affected which makes it different from 'normal flu'.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Sep 2020 ==

Coincidence is a possibility but let's assume lockdown did reduce cases, what's your strategy for getting on with normal life as nowhere near all the population have had it?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. A the outset, we did not know a) how the pandemic would pan out, and b) how closely the general population would follow the guidance from the professionals. Therefore the strategy at the outset was untested, but so was any other approach. The worst thing would be to do nothing*. I would accept that the strategy was wrong with regard to care homes, but as I say, it was untested and mistakes would be made.

With regards to point b), as an example I have heard of an instance where someone was tested positive for Covid, but carried on as usual and did not self-isolate, putting many more at risk of catching it. If people treated the virus with the seriousness it deserves, then we might be in a better position of containing it and letting people get on with their lives. The strategy depends on the general population abiding by it.

* Before anyone quotes Sweden, I read an article describing life under Covid-19 in Sweden. Whilst there was no official lockdown, people took it upon themselves to self-isolate, and work from home. That, plus their low population density, got Sweden to where it is.

 

[Richard Scott]

I don't recall hospitals running out of ICU capacity during 'normal' flu. (I used to be on-call for a Strategic Health Authority, and would have been alerted if ICU capacity was critical, and I never was.) I would expect most patients suffering long term effects of Covid-19 were treated in ICUs, so I think that it is the sheer numbers affected which makes it different from 'normal flu'.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Sep 2020 ==



Hindsight is a wonderful thing. A the outset, we did not know a) how the pandemic would pan out, and b) how closely the general population would follow the guidance from the professionals. Therefore the strategy at the outset was untested, but so was any other approach. The worst thing would be to do nothing*. I would accept that the strategy was wrong with regard to care homes, but as I say, it was untested and mistakes would be made.

With regards to point b), as an example I have heard of an instance where someone was tested positive for Covid, but carried on as usual and did not self-isolate, putting many more at risk of catching it. If people treated the virus with the seriousness it deserves, then we might be in a better position of containing it and letting people get on with their lives. The strategy depends on the general population abiding by it.

* Before anyone quotes Sweden, I read an article describing life under Covid-19 in Sweden. Whilst there was no official lockdown, people took it upon themselves to self-isolate, and work from home. That, plus their low population density, got Sweden to where it is.

Not asking for hindsight, if lockdown did/didn't work is in the past but what's your plan for moving forward now? We can't keep carrying on like this as it's destroying the economy, people's wellbeing (including older people) amongst others things. This is not a one horse race where the virus is the only thing that matters but some people think it is. Until they realise otherwise we'll continue to move in circles whilst our country disintegrates around us.

 

[DustyBin]

It is obvious to me (am I alone?) that the more people get together and mix, the greater the chance of the virus is of being spread. The previous lockdown reduced the transmission rate and incidence of the disease: was this a coincidence?

Also, something else which is not often mentioned is the long-term consequences of Covid-19. The outcomes are not just death or recovery (as if it was flu), but there are some unfortunate people who suffer long term health issues, mostly lung and respiratory-related. Some do recovery eventually, but do you want to gamble?

The consenus does indeed seem to be that airbourne particles are the primary route of transmission. Therefore, reducing social contact will reduce the spread. My issue in this regard is that the government are quite happy to allow people to mix in some settings but not others, and have mandated mask wearing which seems to have replaced effective social distancing. As the previous lockdown has proven we can, through hugely damaging restrictive measures, reduce the spread of the virus, but we can't eliminate it. It's here to stay so I strongly believe that we need to concentrate on protecting the vulnerable (unlike last time) and allow the majority to return to normal. You simply can't expect the population as a whole to live under under permanent restrictions in order to protect them from a virus that is very very very unlikely to make them seriously ill, let alone kill them, and especially not when the restrictions are no longer merely an inconvenience but are a threat to the livelihoods, physical and mental health of millions of people.

How common is 'long-Covid' really? There do appear to be some outlying cases but again we need to look at the risk; is it significant enough to justify putting milions of peoples lives on hold (or worse) to mitigate against? We 'gamble' everytime we jump in a car or take part in a contact sport or enter a construction site (for example) and yet we do these things because the risk is significantly outweighed by the reward.

 

[brad465]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. A the outset, we did not know a) how the pandemic would pan out, and b) how closely the general population would follow the guidance from the professionals. Therefore the strategy at the outset was untested, but so was any other approach. The worst thing would be to do nothing*. I would accept that the strategy was wrong with regard to care homes, but as I say, it was untested and mistakes would be made.

I agree there was justification to locking down back then on the basis of preventing the NHS being overwhelmed and buying time, but anything to gain from doing so has been squandered by the Government through mixed confusing messaging, privatising a load of important services (like NHS test and Trace) and other dodgy contracts, etc. This "turn the tide in 12 weeks" could very easily have been pursued if they got those things in order, as cases were in a much better place by late June/early July, 12 weeks on from lockdown beginning.

With regards to point b), as an example I have heard of an instance where someone was tested positive for Covid, but carried on as usual and did not self-isolate, putting many more at risk of catching it. If people treated the virus with the seriousness it deserves, then we might be in a better position of containing it and letting people get on with their lives. The strategy depends on the general population abiding by it.

* Before anyone quotes Sweden, I read an article describing life under Covid-19 in Sweden. Whilst there was no official lockdown, people took it upon themselves to self-isolate, and work from home. That, plus their low population density, got Sweden to where it is.

For several decades, certainly since the Thatcher days but especially in the last 10 years, we've had multiple Governments that get their way through tribal politics, divisive tactics and acting only in self-interest. By default the population follows their example, so when it comes to a crisis like Covid, the mentality to look out for others, admit to ones own faults and take a united approach is just not there. I won't dive into this too much but this is why a Proportional representation voting system among other democratic reforms is badly needed.

 

[Class 33]

Not asking for hindsight, if lockdown did/didn't work is in the past but what's your plan for moving forward now? We can't keep carrying on like this as it's destroying the economy, people's wellbeing (including older people) amongst others things. This is not a one horse race where the virus is the only thing that matters but some people think it is. Until they realise otherwise we'll continue to move in circles whilst our country disintegrates around us.

Indeed. It's insanity and madness continuing like this long term. It's continuing to destroy the economy, ruining people's livelihoods and their mental health, and taking away the good things in life like festivals, concerts, meeting new people, etc.

When we've near enough defeated this second peak - which could be by about January at a rough guess, maybe February, then all restrictions should finally be scrapped once and for all. But even if we defeat this second peak by January/February, the government MAY possibly drag these restrictions on until 31st March(because Sunak said last week these restrictions will last for AT LEAST the next 6 months). Wouldn't be surprised if that was the case, that whatever happens we've still got at least another agonising 6 LONG MONTHS of these restrictions, local lockdowns, etc to put up with. But end of March at the VERY latest, and then these restrictions must be scrapped once and for all, even if god forbid we are then dealing with a third spike/wave. But we just can't continue with all these restrictions very long term/indefinitely. 12 months of all this is just more than enough.

 

[yorkie]

Herd immunity can be achieved either by lots of people getting infected (some of whom will die or become seriously ill as a result) or by vaccination (which doesn't exist yet).
Boris is having to tread a very careful path between the health professionals who urge caution, and the libertarian wing within the Conservative party who utterly detest any restriction of personal liberties for any reason.
The most libertarian country of all is the USA. Frankly the Trump administration's response has been disastrous and deadly. We must not follow their lead.
We are heading towards a second lockdown unless people start behaving with a greater sense of responsibility and respect towards others.

This really demonstrates a lack of understanding on your part.

Covid: Is it time we learned to live with the virus?

Infections are rising and new restrictions being introduced. But is that the right thing to do?

www.bbc.co.uk

...Prof Sunetra Gupta, of Oxford University, believes there may well be more immunity already than we think because of a combination of natural immunity and more exposure than screening suggests - she says the antibody markers that are relied on to identify previous exposure are not so reliable for this particular virus.

She says allowing young and healthy people to be exposed over the winter will be of benefit in the years to come. "This is how we have always managed viruses. Why is this so different? If we keep introducing restrictions and lockdowns while we wait for a vaccine it will be the young that suffer the most, particularly those from more deprived backgrounds. We can't keep doing this - it would be an injustice."

People who should be listened to include people like Prof Senetra Gupta, Prof Karol Sakora, Anders Tegnell and others.

We should not be listening to Whitty or Vallance (is Vallance a liar or incompetent? either is unacceptable; see https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/media-coverage-of-covid-19.204152/page-34#post-4788284 !)

 

[E100]

Herd immunity can be achieved either by lots of people getting infected (some of whom will die or become seriously ill as a result) or by vaccination (which doesn't exist yet).
Boris is having to tread a very careful path between the health professionals who urge caution, and the libertarian wing within the Conservative party who utterly detest any restriction of personal liberties for any reason.
The most libertarian country of all is the USA. Frankly the Trump administration's response has been disastrous and deadly. We must not follow their lead.
We are heading towards a second lockdown unless people start behaving with a greater sense of responsibility and respect towards others.

I agree. In fact, with your last sentence, this has been made very clear that the government is willing to act in this way this evening. Many of these deaths are avoidable.

There would not need to be as nearly authoritarian restrictions, however, had the government actually got it's act together to support those self-isolating properly as other countries do. The levels of self-isolation are shameful. Mixed messages are also a major hindrance. Any sense though of Boris enjoying locking things down though to me makes no sense whatsoever. It is hurting his polling, the case for Brexit is arguably also being harmed in the process too and he has always learned towards the libertarian wing of the party.

Yes, it is causing monumental damage to the economy but what's the point if so many are dead and many more have long term complications, that we are only just starting to see. For me personally as young and fit 20 something, honestly I'll likely be fine. My parents in their 70's who shield due to health reasons and my 96-year-old grandparent much less so. It's them I worry about when I hear herd immunity. Herd immunity to me sounds like you are willing to put those people on the line. Whilst I understand the rationale and logic behind such desires to see an end to the restrictions, that is something I cannot personally get on board with if it means putting them in harm's way.

 

[DB]

I agree. In fact, with your last sentence, this has been made very clear that the government is willing to act in this way this evening. Many of these deaths are avoidable.

There would not need to be as nearly authoritarian restrictions, however, had the government actually got it's act together to support those self-isolating properly as other countries do. The levels of self-isolation are shameful. Mixed messages are also a major hindrance. Any sense though of Boris enjoying locking things down though to me makes no sense whatsoever. It is hurting his polling, the case for Brexit is arguably also being harmed in the process too and he has always learned towards the libertarian wing of the party.

Yes, it is causing monumental damage to the economy but what's the point if so many are dead and many more have long term complications, that we are only just starting to see. For me personally as young and fit 20 something, honestly I'll likely be fine. My parents in their 70's who shield due to health reasons and my 96-year-old grandparent much less so. It's them I worry about when I hear herd immunity. Herd immunity to me sounds like you are willing to put those people on the line. Whilst I understand the rationale and logic behind such desires to see an end to the restrictions, that is something I cannot personally get on board with if it means putting them in harm's way.

We keep hearing about these alleged long term complications, but looking for any evidence strongly suggests that they are very rare, otherwise there would be a lot more reports out there.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

What about the 1 million screenings for Breast Cancer that have not happened since the NHS became the Covid Health Service?
If only 1% of those people die prematurely from lack of early diagnosis and treatment, that’s 10,000 avoidable deaths coming. Add-in other missed screenings for bowel, prostate and other cancers, and it’s easy to envisage that the deaths caused by the reaction to Covid far outstrip any Covid deaths (a disease that is just the 24th highest cause of death in the UK)

 

[bramling]

What about the 1 million screenings for Breast Cancer that have not happened since the NHS became the Covid Health Service?
If only 1% of those people die prematurely from lack of early diagnosis and treatment, that’s 10,000 avoidable deaths coming. Add-in other missed screenings for bowel, prostate and other cancers, and it’s easy to envisage that the deaths caused by the reaction to Covid far outstrip any Covid deaths (a disease that is just the 24th highest cause of death in the UK)

And of course many of these potential missed or delayed cancer diagnoses would be for people much younger than the median Covid death age.

I see Piffle again mentioned “beat it” on today’s news conference. Is this the best he can do?

 

[DustyBin]

I agree. In fact, with your last sentence, this has been made very clear that the government is willing to act in this way this evening. Many of these deaths are avoidable.

There would not need to be as nearly authoritarian restrictions, however, had the government actually got it's act together to support those self-isolating properly as other countries do. The levels of self-isolation are shameful. Mixed messages are also a major hindrance. Any sense though of Boris enjoying locking things down though to me makes no sense whatsoever. It is hurting his polling, the case for Brexit is arguably also being harmed in the process too and he has always learned towards the libertarian wing of the party.

Yes, it is causing monumental damage to the economy but what's the point if so many are dead and many more have long term complications, that we are only just starting to see. For me personally as young and fit 20 something, honestly I'll likely be fine. My parents in their 70's who shield due to health reasons and my 96-year-old grandparent much less so. It's them I worry about when I hear herd immunity. Herd immunity to me sounds like you are willing to put those people on the line. Whilst I understand the rationale and logic behind such desires to see an end to the restrictions, that is something I cannot personally get on board with if it means putting them in harm's way.

As anti-restriction as I am, I don’t advocate sacrificing the vulnerable, not least because I have loved ones in the vulnerable category myself. We can’t however shut the entire country down to protect them, we need to offer them the required support and protection they need whilst allowing the rest of us to go about our lives and keep the country functioning. The government and their advisors must surely know enough by this stage to be able to come up with a practical solution, if they wanted to. I’m genuinely concerned that young people are going to face a future of limited opportunities, hardship and misery as a result of the economic impact of what we’re doing, and that the not-so-young with mortgages etc. are going to find themselves unable to pay their bills. This isn’t going to be a recession as seen in 2008, this is going to be a complete economic collapse if we’re not careful. This frightens me more than the virus

We keep hearing about these alleged long term complications, but looking for any evidence strongly suggests that they are very rare, otherwise there would be a lot more reports out there.

There do appear to be outlying cases, but it’s another way to scare people so the media have made the most of it. Very rare it would seem, as you say.