• 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 lockdown in England, including school closures, announced by Johnson, 4/1/21

Status
Not open for further replies.

Silverlinky

Member
Joined
3 Feb 2012
Messages
876
The US basically "let it rip"......because they decided they didn't want to lock the economy down.

US Case figures 64,072 per million of the population
UK Case figures 39,866 per million of the population
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

roversfan2001

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2016
Messages
1,666
Location
Lancashire
The US basically "let it rip"......because they decided they didn't want to lock the economy down.

US Case figures 64,072 per million of the population
UK Case figures 39,866 per million of the population
Sweden didn't lock down; how have they coped since March?
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
The US basically "let it rip"......because they decided they didn't want to lock the economy down.

US Case figures 64,072 per million of the population
UK Case figures 39,866 per million of the population

Now compare Sweden (minimal restrictions) with Italy (draconian restriction)

A comparison across the world shows that there is literally no demonstrable link between restrictions and number of cases.

The US also has a lot of very unhealthy people, which might be a factor.
 

FQ

Established Member
Associate Staff
Quizmaster
Joined
4 Oct 2013
Messages
6,645
Location
-
I’m quite worried about my A Levels now actually. A lot of progress can be made in the 6 months between December and June, and a lower grade from my previous assessments is not fair.

I speak for all students not just myself
This exactly.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
7,245
Location
UK

Silverlinky

Member
Joined
3 Feb 2012
Messages
876
Sweden didn't lock down; how have they coped since March?
43,171 per million.....

Really should compare Sweden to next door neighbours Denmark, Finalnd and Norway though, all of whom did have lockdown measures, and all of whom have experienced cases numbers and death numbers a fraction of Swedens.

Sweden deaths per million of population: 861
Denmark..... 239
Finland...... 102
Norway....... 82

I honestly thought that the myth that Sweden had done alright out of the way they managed things had been debunked many months ago.....

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

And yet the death rates are about 5% lower in the US...

US- 1050
UK- 1105
Sweden- 864
WHO Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Dashboard | WHO Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Dashboard
The US certainly do not have a method of reporting every death "where a positive Covid diagnosis has been given in the last 28 days" as an actual Covid death. It seems it is still possible to die from the flu in the US.....
 

Butts

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Jan 2011
Messages
11,849
Location
Stirlingshire
He is convinced he's right so I imagine he sleeps very soundly indeed. Put the dampeners on the economy and you create unemployment letting you drive down living standards and working conditions. We've already undone a lot of the hard work by changing a few words in a job contract.

In a recession the richest always do well. They get businesses for pennies on the pound. He's probably salivating at the chance to cut back the public sector and increase privatisation all whilst his buddies in the press don't say anything bad or challenge him

Calm down Brother, have you been binge reading Marx and Engels during the lockdown.

Do the richest include your hero Villans and other Premiership Footballers or are they excluded ?
 

initiation

Member
Joined
10 Nov 2014
Messages
432
No matter how damaging these restrictions are, the damage caused by allowing the virus to spread uncontrolled would be much greater.

Please could you provide evidence to support your assertion? Perhaps a cost-benefit analysis that the Government might have done to support their decision making?
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
43,171 per million.....

Really should compare Sweden to next door neighbours Denmark, Finalnd and Norway though, all of whom did have lockdown measures, and all of whom have experienced cases numbers and death numbers a fraction of Swedens.

Sweden deaths per million of population: 861
Denmark..... 239
Finland...... 102
Norway....... 82

I honestly thought that the myth that Sweden had done alright out of the way they managed things had been debunked many months ago.....

Ah, the usual fallacy!

Countries close together are often quite different - reasons not clear but probably including social factors.

E.g. compare Northern Ireland with England.

Or look at Belgium - with a death rate of 1695 per million it's the highest in Europe, despite following measures similar to its neghbours which had considerably lower rates.

Or France (1001) compared to Germany (425)

There are basically no conclusions which can be drawn - a lot of people would like there to be a nice clear relationship which shows more restrictions = fewer deaths, but no such relationship exists.
 
Last edited:

Silverlinky

Member
Joined
3 Feb 2012
Messages
876
Ah, the usual fallacy!

Countries close together are often quite different - reasons not clear but probably including social factors.

E.g. compare Northern Ireland with England.
Its not a fallacy though is it? The figures stated are "fact"......

You are right though that some countries close together are often very different.....therefore perhaps nobody should compare one country with another..... that goes both ways! We/our media should drop the "worst in Europe" stories, because we shouldn't be comparing...there are such differences as you say.

Just on the point about Sweden though....

 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
8,051
Location
Surrey
Hooray. Someone talking a bit of sense on this thread. No matter how damaging these restrictions are, the damage caused by allowing the virus to spread uncontrolled would be much greater.
BoJo on Marr yesterday morning schools are safe for your kids 36hrs later they aren't - this lack of leadership is what is causing the virus to spread. He would help himself if he had a bit more humility over needing to keep adapting the plan rather than holding back for fear of being criticised or reacting to what others are telling him as complete rubbish then doing it anyhow. Also the press aren't helping either and probably appropriate there was no Q&A tonight as they would have just looked for an angle.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
7,245
Location
UK
43,171 per million.....

Really should compare Sweden to next door neighbours Denmark, Finalnd and Norway though, all of whom did have lockdown measures, and all of whom have experienced cases numbers and death numbers a fraction of Swedens.

Sweden deaths per million of population: 861
Denmark..... 239
Finland...... 102
Norway....... 82

I honestly thought that the myth that Sweden had done alright out of the way they managed things had been debunked many months ago.....

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==


The US certainly do not have a method of reporting every death "where a positive Covid diagnosis has been given in the last 28 days" as an actual Covid death. It seems it is still possible to die from the flu in the US.....
We've rebuked these spurious claims in the Sweden thread, and for the purposes of deciding what is best for the UK, the comparisons to Scandinavian countries are irrelevant.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Its not a fallacy though is it? The figures stated are "fact"......
The figures are, but the comparison is creating a false equivalency, we can only compare Sweden to countries that have had the virus in endemic local circulation.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
You are right though that some countries close together are often very different.....therefore perhaps nobody should compare one country with another..... that goes both ways! We/our media should drop the "worst in Europe" stories, because we shouldn't be comparing...there are such differences as you say.

The point is that everywhere you look there are considerable variations between nearby countries- and if restrictions actually worked there would be a clear relationship here.

And there isn't one.

As regards Sweden, some politicians are getting twitchy and they have increased measures a bit, but they aren't 'abandoning' their policy. A left-wing periodical like the New Statesman is bound to put that slant on it, as the left generally is very pro-restrictions (and the New Statesman is yet another, like the Guardian, which I used to read but don't any more because of this).
 

Silverlinky

Member
Joined
3 Feb 2012
Messages
876
We've rebuked these spurious claims in the Sweden thread, and for the purposes of deciding what is best for the UK, the comparisons to Scandinavian countries are irrelevant.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==


The figures are, but the comparison is creating a false equivalency, we can only compare Sweden to countries that have had the virus in endemic local circulation.
Spurious? In what way?
I've just lifted the figures off the "Worldometer" info database. Are you saying its all wrong?

I did agree that we shouldn't compare one country with another, so therefore we can't really be saying "Sweden never had a lockdown and look at them" either can we?
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
Spurious? In what way?
I've just lifted the figures off the "Worldometer" info database. Are you saying its all wrong?

I did agree that we shouldn't compare one country with another, so therefore we can't really be saying "Sweden never had a lockdown and look at them" either can we?

We can say that there is absolutely no observable relationship between the level of restrictions and the deaths per million though.
 

Silverlinky

Member
Joined
3 Feb 2012
Messages
876
The point is that everywhere you look there are considerable variations between nearby countries- and if restrictions actually worked there would be a clear relationship here.

And there isn't one.

As regards Sweden, some politicians are getting twitchy and they have increased measures a bit, but they aren't 'abandoning' their policy. A left-wing periodical like the New Statesman is bound to put that slant on it, as the left generally is very pro-restrictions (and the New Statesman is yet another, like the Guardian, which I used to read but don't any more because of this).
But again, we'll never be comparing like with like...... our lockdowns have been less harsh than Italy or France to name but two.......so how will we ever know if restrictions "worked or not"? And for sure we will never know what would have happened had we taken a different course to the one we have......we can all speculate.....but we'll never know for sure.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
But again, we'll never be comparing like with like...... our lockdowns have been less harsh than Italy or France to name but two.......so how will we ever know if restrictions "worked or not"? And for sure we will never know what would have happened had we taken a different course to the one we have......we can all speculate.....but we'll never know for sure.

But to reiterate again - if restrictions and lockdowns worked, there would be expected to be a direct relationship between the level of restrictions and the deaths per million (more restrictions would equal fewer deaths). No such relationship exists.
 

Silverlinky

Member
Joined
3 Feb 2012
Messages
876
But to reiterate again - if restrictions and lockdowns worked, there would be expected to be a direct relationship between the level of restrictions and the deaths per million (more restrictions would equal fewer deaths). No such relationship exists.
But would there...if the demographics were different?

We've mentioned Sweden......but tell me, is there another country in Europe that hasn't imposed a lockdown of some sort? Serious question as I don't know the answer.

Are you saying that every European Leader is/has been wrong in what they've done?
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
20,460
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
BoJo on Marr yesterday morning schools are safe for your kids 36hrs later they aren't - this lack of leadership is what is causing the virus to spread. He would help himself if he had a bit more humility over needing to keep adapting the plan rather than holding back for fear of being criticised or reacting to what others are telling him as complete rubbish then doing it anyhow. Also the press aren't helping either and probably appropriate there was no Q&A tonight as they would have just looked for an angle.

The constant u-turns are just ridiculous. This appalling leadership is the reason why I think he is highly unlikely to last 2021. I can completely understand that circumstances may change with this situation, but even making allowance for that the flip-flopping has been excessive by any reasonably yardstick.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
7,245
Location
UK
Spurious? In what way?
I've just lifted the figures off the "Worldometer" info database. Are you saying its all wrong?

I did agree that we shouldn't compare one country with another, so therefore we can't really be saying "Sweden never had a lockdown and look at them" either can we?
You can compare them for certain things, just like how you can compare apples and oranges as long as we ask the right questions ("Which fruit has the highest Vitamin C content per gram").

What's dishonest is making the comparison between a contry without endemic circulation, and one that does have the virus in endemic circulation; and then assuming that result is valid when comparing two countries with the virus in endemic circulation.
 

Silverlinky

Member
Joined
3 Feb 2012
Messages
876
The constant u-turns are just ridiculous. This appalling leadership is the reason why I think he is highly unlikely to last 2021. I can completely understand that circumstances may change with this situation, but even making allowance for that the flip-flopping has been excessive by any reasonably yardstick.
He strikes me as trying to be too "nice" and not impose the restrictions, trying to keep things open for as long as possible. its a fine line between that and being seen to be "dithering"....

Lets be honest here though, Schools are safe for the kids, the numbers of kids who contract Covid is very low, the number of kids affected is minute. The pressure was put on by the unions as they believed that the schools were not safe for the teachers and indeed urged teachers not to go into work....they didn't urge parents not to send their kids to school!

Schools will close.....the kids will be out on the streets, playing with their mates rather than being in a controlled environment for the day. I don't believe that keeping kids off school is "safer" than sending them to school.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
But would there...if the demographics were different?

We've mentioned Sweden......but tell me, is there another country in Europe that hasn't imposed a lockdown of some sort? Serious question as I don't know the answer.

Are you saying that every European Leader is/has been wrong in what they've done?

Demographics certainly may make a difference between one country and another, but nevertheless if restrictions worked this would be expected to be visible when looked at across a large dataset, such as all countries.
 

pacer89

Member
Joined
4 Jan 2021
Messages
5
Location
Northallerton
The constant u-turns are just ridiculous. This appalling leadership is the reason why I think he is highly unlikely to last 2021. I can completely understand that circumstances may change with this situation, but even making allowance for that the flip-flopping has been excessive by any reasonably yardstick.
I agree
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
He strikes me as trying to be too "nice" and not impose the restrictions, trying to keep things open for as long as possible. its a fine line between that and being seen to be "dithering"....

Lets be honest here though, Schools are safe for the kids, the numbers of kids who contract Covid is very low, the number of kids affected is minute. The pressure was put on by the unions as they believed that the schools were not safe for the teachers and indeed urged teachers not to go into work....they didn't urge parents not to send their kids to school!

Schools will close.....the kids will be out on the streets, playing with their mates rather than being in a controlled environment for the day. I don't believe that keeping kids off school is "safer" than sending them to school.

Not sure that I agree about him being 'nice' - it was just his usual incompetent dithering.

Agree with your other points though, which is why closing schools is probably fairly futile even if they are the cause of a lot of transmission (which is still unclear) - the kids will just be hanging around in groups somewhere else if they aren't at school. If the government thinks they can turn back the clock to March and every family unit will hide behind the sofa together then they are going to be disappointed.
 

brick60000

Member
Joined
18 Apr 2013
Messages
463
In reality, how many people are out having a picnic in January and February? Seems a very odd choice of leisure activity to include, indicative of the rushed nature of the guidance.

I would be willing to bet money on the lockdown continuing until March 23rd, ready to be lifted for the anniversary of the first lockdown... :(

Agreed, Boris blustering on the TV about squashing the virus and inviting us all to enjoy tea and crumpets next to a bonfire of muzzles.

To be fair, I was being a bit facetious here - but the guidance does imply that any form of outdoor recreation, other than exercise, is banned. I guess an example would be sitting on a bench drinking a takeaway coffee in a nice warm coat & scarf.

That's something I've never managed to get my head around. You can only leave the house for essential purposes - if anybody can explain how getting a McDonalds or a coffee is essential, I'm all ears! Not that I'm advocating that these should be closed - of course they shouldn't! I've just never understood the contradiction there.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
To be fair, I was being a bit facetious here - but the guidance does imply that any form of outdoor recreation, other than exercise, is banned. I guess an example would be sitting on a bench drinking a takeaway coffee in a nice warm coat & scarf.

That's something I've never managed to get my head around. You can only leave the house for essential purposes - if anybody can explain how getting a McDonalds or a coffee is essential, I'm all ears! Not that I'm advocating that these should be closed - of course they shouldn't! I've just never understood the contradiction there.

I see your mistake - you are expecting consistency!

The various statutory instruments, and guidance, which has appeared throughout this year demonstrates either an intention to be as confusing as possible, or complete incompetence at drafting them. I'm still not sure which it is.
 

Bertie the bus

Established Member
Joined
15 Aug 2014
Messages
3,216
Lets be honest here though, Schools are safe for the kids, the numbers of kids who contract Covid is very low, the number of kids affected is minute. The pressure was put on by the unions as they believed that the schools were not safe for the teachers and indeed urged teachers not to go into work....they didn't urge parents not to send their kids to school!

Schools will close.....the kids will be out on the streets, playing with their mates rather than being in a controlled environment for the day. I don't believe that keeping kids off school is "safer" than sending them to school.
Both of those points are completely untrue. It is true kids very rarely have serious symptoms but it certainly isn't true the number of kids infected is very low. This whole second wave has been driven by students at university and children at school.

As for kids will be on the streets. No they won't. The vast majority will be in their homes.
 

Silverlinky

Member
Joined
3 Feb 2012
Messages
876
Not sure that I agree about him being 'nice' - it was just his usual incompetent dithering.

Agree with your other points though, which is why closing schools is probably fairly futile even if they are the cause of a lot of transmission (which is still unclear) - the kids will just be hanging around in groups somewhere else if they aren't at school. If the government thinks they can turn back the clock to March and every family unit will hide behind the sofa together then they are going to be disappointed.
Perhaps "nice" was the wrong word to use..... it just strikes me as though he's never really "wanted" to impose the restrictions, possibly because he is too worried that he'll be seen as the bad guy, the bloke who cancelled Christmas etc etc..... but when the pressure builds he backs down and does it anyway!

I just cant reconcile the image that he is a clueless buffoon, yet at the same time he is the one making all the decisions alone. Perhaps him more than anyone has needed guidance from plenty of advisors as he is pretty incapable of making a decision on his own.

He's the figurehead....I just don't think he's ever really been "in charge".......wasn't Cummins running the country for a good few months? :D

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Both of those points are completely untrue. It is true kids very rarely have serious symptoms but it certainly isn't true the number of kids infected is very low. This whole second wave has been driven by students at university and children at school.

As for kids will be on the streets. No they won't. The vast majority will be in their homes.
Students at University I completely get, but that was as much about the way they were acting as it was about them being at University. Then the younger kids were the less of a risk it was thought to be, hence the staggered starts for secondary schools yet primary schools carrying on as normal...and now its primary schools closed yet nursery schools stay open.

I hope you're right about your second point...unfortunately the four month closure March to July suggested different, at least to me in my area. The saving grace this time may be that it is cold and the weather is worse and the evenings are darker, that alone should keep more of them indoors this time!
 

takno

Verified Rep - Traksy
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,606
But would there...if the demographics were different?

We've mentioned Sweden......but tell me, is there another country in Europe that hasn't imposed a lockdown of some sort? Serious question as I don't know the answer.

Are you saying that every European Leader is/has been wrong in what they've done?
Virtually all countries imposed a lockdown in March. Quite a lot of them managed to lock down their care homes and then throw in a Covid bomb like we did. Whilst that was stupid, even in March, it was understandable when faced with limited knowledge and a hysterical press across Europe. Far fewer countries have locked down in the same way this winter, and the countries which have done "best" are largely the ones with a less-developed health service where we don't have to protect the doctors from hard decisions, and where nobody was bullied into creating a "world beating" testing system to pointlessly scare the hell out of the population.

Where we are now is that over half of the vulnerable population will have had the disease by the time the vaccines are in them, and literally all we are left protecting is the NHS. If we had left lockdown earlier in May and let the disease trundle on through the summer we'd be better off now, but we had to lockdown all the way into the foolish elimination fantasy. And we complain about the impossibility of finding new intensive care nurses whilst ignoring that intensive care is a hail Mary effort which makes minimal difference to the stats. We could have been working on a proper outpatient care system and keeping the disease out of hospitals altogether - things like getting steroids, oxygen clips and care advice out into the community, and potentially even pushing out HPAP into the wider community.

In terms of lockdown I can see the logic at this point of having a 3 week heavy lockdown now, because we've pig-headedly failed to prepare in any useful way, and instead caved into the indecent, arbitrary and useless ideas of a rather loud clique of clueless scientists and their cheerleaders in the press and tediously woke "left". The trouble is that even with the schools closing, which is essential to achieving anything, it's not going to have the level of success that's already being pinned on it, and it will be extended for at least 3 times as long as it's useful, until we lose all respect for government, science and the NHS.

We're setting ourselves up for a situation in the next generation where not only have we lost our economy, but we've also lost our respect for science and the power of communal action. I suspect that suits Boris rather well, but it's not where I want to be
 

Bertie the bus

Established Member
Joined
15 Aug 2014
Messages
3,216
Students at University I completely get, but that was as much about the way they were acting as it was about them being at University. Then the younger kids were the less of a risk it was thought to be, hence the staggered starts for secondary schools yet primary schools carrying on as normal...and now its primary schools closed yet nursery schools stay open.
No, students at university wasn't due to their behaviour. The media highlighted some indiscretions, because people love to judge others and blame them for what is happening, but they weren't the main cause. As for school children - look at the ONS data. School children have had an infection rate of 4 or 5 times that of older adults. It spreads in schools, kids then give it to their parents and it then gets out into the wider community. In the very early days they did say they didn't know if kids could spread it to adults but that was just stupidity. Denmark were so confident mink could spread the virus to humans they slaughtered several million of them but nobody knew little people could infect big people?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top