Lockdown in England from Thursday 5 November until Wednesday 2 December

[35B]

Why wouldn't they ?

The evidence isn't provided by secret agents whose lives would be at risk if it were shared. It won't be commercially sensitive. The only plausible reason is that the "evidence" that does exist, is infact the shakey, out of date modelling that has been shared.

Really? Are all clustered outbreaks shared publicly? I’d not noticed.

There’s a long way from the absence of a decision to publish to inferring a decision to withhold information. Given that the government are sharing the figures and modelling you’re so impressed by, why would they specifically withhold those figures?

 

[yorkie]

Just seen a 12 year old boy whose shoe has started to disintegrate while playing football in PE; do children's shoes count as "essential" during this lockdown?

And if not, do the people who think they are not essential have enough money to ensure their children have loads of spare shoes for every occasion by any chance?

 

[DB]

Really? Are all clustered outbreaks shared publicly? I’d not noticed.

There’s a long way from the absence of a decision to publish to inferring a decision to withhold information. Given that the government are sharing the figures and modelling you’re so impressed by, why would they specifically withhold those figures?

But why wouldn't the government publish data if it supported their narrative?

 

[RT4038]

I am not sure that there will be a full lockdown until the end of March (as we have in England at the moment), as for one thing that would be more than people can bear physically and mentally, and it would absolutely destroy the economy for years to come.

What is more likely is that there will be some form of restrictions until the end of March, which will mean that employers are cautious about bringing back staff full time.



Absolute rubbish.

I was born in 1963 and therefore qualify as a baby boomer.

During my lifetime there has been:-

• the miners strike and the three day week at the end of 1973
• 25% inflation and the government being bailed out by the IMF in 1976/1977
• a deep recession in 1981- 1983
• another recession in 1991 - 1993 (where I was nearly made redundant six weeks after taking out a mortgage on a flat in London)
• the dotcom crash in 2000 - 2003
• the financial crisis of 2007- 2009
• and a recession in the early 2010s
• my state pension age being raised twice

So to say that the world has always been in out favour is utterly wrong.

And don't think all of us "boomers" are in favour of the current lockdown either. I know that we are eventually going to have to pay for all of this, and some of the tax and welfare changes are going to affect me just as much as the younger generation.

The younger generations are more likely than baby boomers to have grown up with own bedroom / centrally heated house / ferried about in 'Moms taxi' / / Licence & car in teens / University education / more and foreign holidays / more variety of food / mobile telephone / TV / no manual work job / inheritance / better medical etc provided by the hard work of the baby boomer and later generations. And baby boomers were generally better off than their parents and the same for previous generations. The generation born 1890-1900 had a particularly hard time at the hand of their elders, compared to this lockdown. Not everyone, I grant, but as a general rule.

I just don't buy this setting up of divisions between the generations. This kind of arguing does no good at all. As has been shown in the past, the young are resilient and overcome early setbacks.

 

[yorksrob]

I can’t really see any other reason for doing it, unless there’s some reason why it could leave them open to claims of unfair treatment from the devolved institutions.

The whole point of the November extension was supposedly to cover this lockdown, so it’s hard to see for what other reason it would need to be extended, in England at least as naturally we don’t know what delights Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster may be planning.

It seems quite premature to be coming up with an extension, especially with a quite specific date when it now ends, being essentially the end of what most would regard as the winter months. I’d say that’s quite telling.

I’d say one course is that we all go into tier 3 come December, tapering down for the bare bones of Christmas, then notching up again, perhaps with another full lockdown during the January or February period. Having said that, this assumes there’s actually any planning going on. Another possibility is Sunak thought it makes a nice splash just at the time Boris is pretty certain to be going, in other words early next year.

There would barely be much point in going into tier 3 over xmas, sandwiched by full lockdown.

One dreads to think.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Nov 2020 ==

Really? Are all clustered outbreaks shared publicly? I’d not noticed.

There’s a long way from the absence of a decision to publish to inferring a decision to withhold information. Given that the government are sharing the figures and modelling you’re so impressed by, why would they specifically withhold those figures?

Obviously, they wouldn't share individual clusters, as that would be against data protection.

I suppose we do get it aggregated into what settings clusters generally arise - however those usually contradict the actions the Government actually takes, so not much use for explaining them.

 

[35B]

But why wouldn't the government publish data if it supported their narrative?

Because they hadn't thought to provide that dataset? Or perhaps they'd just decided to publish aggregate data, perhaps being mindful of the implications for the personal data of the individuals affected if they published locations?

I just question the unthinking assumption that if a particular piece of information isn't available, it implies either that the information doesn't exist or that we're somehow being misled.

 

[43066]

It must be remembered, however, that the extent of any strain on resources, and potentially the more limited ability to perform some types of emergency care, will undoubtedly impact on this analysis.

Certainly an interesting case, but the above sentence from the article you’ve quoted is particularly relevant. A failure to diagnose somebody with swine flu at a time when it wasn’t anywhere near as prevalent as Covid is now, and the NHS wasn’t under significant pressure, can be distinguished from a situation where someone is given sub-optimal treatment during a pandemic, when resources are far more stretched. That would be taken into account by the courts when assessing any alleged breach of duty of care.

Organ transplants are a scarce resource which are indeed allocated to those patients who have the most clinical need and/or the best chance of recovery. But those who do not receive them are not then able to turn around and sue to NHS trust for malpractice.

From a medical negligence perspective, “we’ve misdiagnosed you” is very different to, “we don’t have the resources to treat you”.

 

[DustyBin]

The younger generations are more likely than baby boomers to have grown up with own bedroom / centrally heated house / ferried about in 'Moms taxi' / / Licence & car in teens / University education / more and foreign holidays / more variety of food / mobile telephone / TV / no manual work job / inheritance / better medical etc provided by the hard work of the baby boomer and later generations. And baby boomers were generally better off than their parents and the same for previous generations. The generation born 1890-1900 had a particularly hard time at the hand of their elders, compared to this lockdown. Not everyone, I grant, but as a general rule.

I just don't buy this setting up of divisions between the generations. This kind of arguing does no good at all. As has been shown in the past, the young are resilient and overcome early setbacks.

I agree with you here, it does't help us at all. As some of the others have said though, it distracts people from what the government are up to which I'm sure suits them. The whole thing has been divisive, young vs old, north vs south, masks vs no masks etc. etc. and I'm not sure it's all coincidental to be honest.

 

[Scotrail12]

Got told I should get a head examination on Twitter for suggesting that all of the economic costs incurred as a result of lockdown should be paid by the MPs who voted for it.

Don't care what some random person on Twitter says but what's with the total societal division and resorting to cheap insults - I think 2020 Twitter really brings out the worst in some people.

EDIT: Also been called an "inhumane cretin" for pointing out the survival rate. Hope these people enjoy their block.

 

[43066]

Got told I should get a head examination on Twitter for suggesting that all of the economic costs incurred as a result of lockdown should be paid by the MPs who voted for it.

Don't care what some random person on Twitter says but what's with the total societal division and resorting to cheap insults - I think 2020 Twitter really brings out the worst in some people.

Ha! On a variation of the old saying: If you owe the bank £35,000, that’s your problem. If you owe the bank £350bn, that’s the bank’s problem.

Substitute “bank” for “tax payer”.

It’s our own fault, though, we elected these people to make sensible decisions on our behalf. They say “we get the politicians we deserve”. I’m not sure what that says about us as a country at the moment.

 

[35B]

Got told I should get a head examination on Twitter for suggesting that all of the economic costs incurred as a result of lockdown should be paid by the MPs who voted for it.

Don't care what some random person on Twitter says but what's with the total societal division and resorting to cheap insults - I think 2020 Twitter really brings out the worst in some people.

EDIT: Also been called an "inhumane cretin" for pointing out the survival rate. Hope these people enjoy their block.

The question is, if your preferred alternative is chosen by MPs, are you willing to indemnify MPs if it goes wrong? Not through your taxes, but against your personal wealth.

 

[DB]

Because they hadn't thought to provide that dataset? Or perhaps they'd just decided to publish aggregate data, perhaps being mindful of the implications for the personal data of the individuals affected if they published locations?

I just question the unthinking assumption that if a particular piece of information isn't available, it implies either that the information doesn't exist or that we're somehow being misled.

Sorry, but I cannot see why any government would fail to publish such data - they have a weak case for closing shops, and would be delighted to be able to show some actual justification.

 

[Mag_seven]

EDIT: Also been called an "inhumane cretin" for pointing out the survival rate. Hope these people enjoy their block.

Thats the problem - some people are completely irrational. Apparently it doesn't matter how many people die of cancer because they can't get appointments, it doesn't matter how many people commit suicide because of lockdown. Provided one life is saved due to avoiding COVID that is all that matters.

 

[DB]

It’s our own fault, though, we elected these people to make sensible decisions on our behalf. They say “we get the politicians we deserve”. I’m not sure what that says about us as a country at the moment.

But would any of the alternatives have done it any differently? I'm not convinced (much as I despise Johnson and his sidekicks)!

 

[bramling]

My town currently gridlocked as a result of a supermarket car park overflowing. No appreciable reduction in traffic at all. Couldn’t make this up!

 

[43066]

The question is, if your preferred alternative is chosen by MPs, are you willing to indemnify MPs if it goes wrong? Not through your taxes, but against your personal wealth.

That question spectacularly misses the point that it is we as tax payers who be paying for the ridiculous decisions that these (usually independently wealthy) MPs take.

But would any of the alternatives have done it any differently? I'm not convinced (much as I despise Johnson and his sidekicks)!

Absolutely not. But then you have to ask why these people are the best we can produce, as a country.

Like Trump V Biden, there are no good options, just a range of exceptionally bad ones.

 

[35B]

Sorry, but I cannot see why any government would fail to publish such data - they have a weak case for closing shops, and would be delighted to be able to show some actual justification.

You assume governments know everything and are entirely rational. Given the views you and others have expressed on this thread, that seems an odd assumption.

That question spectacularly misses the point that it is we as tax payers who be paying for the ridiculous decisions that these (usually independently wealthy) MPs take.

Usually independently wealthy? Many are, but looking at the votes yesterday, really?

I stand by my question, too. If as individuals we are to demand that people bear consequences for getting something wrong, then surely it follows that we should be willing to stand the same risk when demanding that they follow our preferred alternative.

 

[Scotrail12]

Thats the problem - some people are completely irrational. Apparently it doesn't matter how many people die of cancer because they can't get appointments, it doesn't matter how many people commit suicide because of lockdown. Provided one life is saved due to avoiding COVID that is all that matters.

These were the tweets sent:

Heart attack and mental health are not caught by hugging your gran. They are going to happen as part of nature. Covid is an additional deadly virus without cure or vaccine causing so much extra preventable death.

The NHS is still very much open. And how many teens have died specifically because of lockdown? Mental health is very important- but covid is a deadly, uncontrollable virus without treatment or cure already killing hundreds a day. Staying home is not a hardship in comparison

No it does not. And by trying to quote stats- you are saying that it’s ok for these thousands of people to die. Despicable. And FYI- based on your fake stats that’s 1000 dead per 10 mil. Inhumane cretin

I get the impression that this person doesn't care at all about the cancer deaths. Tried to point it out but they just kept going on about COVID. Eventually it was like playing chess with a pigeon so they got blocked.

 

[43066]

I stand by my question, too. If as individuals we are to demand that people bear consequences for getting something wrong, then surely it follows that we should be willing to stand the same risk when demanding that they follow our preferred alternative.

And I stand by my statement that it’s a ludicrous question!

Rishi Sunak has written a cheque of other peoples’ money for £350bn, as he is perfectly entitled to do, as per his job title. That’s an amount of money which would dwarf the GDP of many countries. How do you imagine he could ever be made personally liable for that amount?

Unless you think he has £350bn sitting in his bank account?!

 

[duncanp]

I can't help thinking that the government knows more about the progress of a COVID-19 vaccine than they are letting on.

The reason I say this is that I have seen several articles stating that GPs and the NHS have been told to prepare for a major vaccination program from December onwards. I realise that nothing is certain, but I wouldn't have thought that the NHS would be told to prepare for a vaccination program in December if there wasn't a realistic prospect of a vaccinr being available by then.

Consequently I think that the likelihood of having a vaccine is going to be one of the factors that the government uses in determining what restrictions may apply in the new year, after the current restrictions have been relaxed for Christmas.

The government also needs to be honest with itself and admit why Track & Trace has been such a failure, and do whatever it takes to fix it. If this involves sacking certain people and giving the responsibility for Track & Trace to local authorities then so be it.

 

[bramling]

Absolutely not. But then you have to ask why these people are the best we can produce, as a country.

Like Trump V Biden, there are no good options, just a range of exceptionally bad ones.

This is a very interesting, as well as serious, issue - how have both Britain and America ended up in the position where the political choice is so utterly rancid.

Trump versus Clinton
Trump versus Biden
Johnson versus Corbyn

Even watching Mrs May perform in the house recently one realises even she's in a different class to this current lot. Were it not for Brexit and the behaviour of the last parliament I actually don't think she would have been too bad a leader, and I'm warming to the idea that she'd have handled this better - there seems to be some element of forensic mind working away in there. Meanwhile BJ just walked out when she spoke recently, and Hancock sat there looking the picture of a bored schoolboy. It's so utterly depressing.

 

[Tomp94]

My local hospital currently has THREE COVID patients in it, and I live among an elderly population

 

[yorkie]

Got told I should get a head examination on Twitter for suggesting that all of the economic costs incurred as a result of lockdown should be paid by the MPs who voted for it.

Don't care what some random person on Twitter says but what's with the total societal division and resorting to cheap insults - I think 2020 Twitter really brings out the worst in some people.

EDIT: Also been called an "inhumane cretin" for pointing out the survival rate. Hope these people enjoy their block.

There are thousands of narrow minded hysterical lockdown enthusiasts on Twitter; they would not be happy unless we locked down with really hard measures until everyone seemed vulnerable has been given the vaccine, with absolutely no regard for livelihoods , mental health or literally anything else.

Meanwhile...

Covid: Regulator criticises data used to justify lockdown

Government used out-of-date model predicting 4,000 deaths a day in TV briefing.

www.bbc.co.uk

The government has been criticised by the official statistics watchdog for the way it presented data to justify England's second lockdown.

The projection was made weeks ago and had forecast there would be 1,000 deaths a day by the end of October when the average was actually four times less than that - a fact that was known at the time of Saturday's TV briefing.
What is more, the model had already been updated to predict a lower estimate, but this was not used in the briefing fronted by chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance and chief medical officer Prof Chris Whitty, alongside Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
It is understood the graph was used by the two senior advisers in meetings last week where the decision to impose a nationwide lockdown in England was made.

They were out by a factor of four!

 

[HSTEd]

Any why would they want to do that? You make it sound like there could be an ulterior motive for having a lockdown (i.e nothing to do with Covid)? This seems very unlikely.

It's fairly clear that the lockdown kills the young and poor, and ruins the survivor's future prospects, whilst protecting the rich and old.

Given that the political classes and the rich and old are at lesat partially synonymous.....

The likes of Whitty and Valance will always want lockdown because not locking down kills people like them or that they might know personally, whereas it is unlikely many have that many contacts who are in positions where there lives can be seriously impacted by the eternal war on coronavirus.

 

[DB]

The government also needs to be honest with itself and admit why Track & Trace has been such a failure, and do whatever it takes to fix it. If this involves sacking certain people and giving the responsibility for Track & Trace to local authorities then so be it.

Not sure that I would trust local authorities to be any better!

 

[PeterY]

My town currently gridlocked as a result of a supermarket car park overflowing. No appreciable reduction in traffic at all. Couldn’t make this up!

I avoid driving during the school run. Yes the roads were just as busy as yesterday, today .

I'm sure if I were to go into Hemel Hempstead town centre tomorrow, with the likes Wilko's, Poundland, B&M, supermarket express shops, Gregg's Wenzels and takeaways etc still open, I can imagine it'll be just as crowded.

Sometimes I despair at the utter lunacy of the rules.

I can't buy any vaping products but I can go next door and buy fags.

I can't go into anyone's garden but I can stand on the street outside their house and chat.

I can't go into Clintons and buy a birthday card but I can in my local news agent.

I can buy a non fiction novel from a supermarket but I can't go into Waterstones.

I can buy clothes from Asda but not Primark.

I can almost buy anything from Amazon.

I'm sure peoples mental health, including mine, will suffer.

RANT OVER

 

[DB]

Are markets still allowed?

 

[35B]

And I stand by my statement that it’s a ludicrous question!

Rishi Sunak has written a cheque of other peoples’ money for £350bn, as he is perfectly entitled to do, as per his job title. That’s an amount of money which would dwarf the GDP of many countries. How do you imagine he could ever be made personally liable for that amount?

Unless you think he has £350bn sitting in his bank account?!

I quite agree, he couldn't bear that cost and shouldn't be asked to be liable for it. But it's equally ludicrous for @Scotrail12 to have suggested that MPs voting for measures should be. But if he's asking that they bear that jeopardy, he should also be willing to expose himself to similar - which is why I asked if he'd be willing to carry that risk (in practice, I agree, of personal bankruptcy) himself.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Nov 2020 ==

Are markets still allowed?

Livestock markets, stalls selling food and "any other retailer listed as being allowed to remain open".

 

[greyman42]

Are markets still allowed?

York market was open today but only the stalls selling food and strangely, flowers.

 

[DB]

Livestock markets, stalls selling food and "any other retailer listed as being allowed to remain open".

Thanks. Yet more lack of logic, and discriminatory against certain traders in the same way as against certain shops.