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

[RomeoCharlie71]

The Full Whitty! .... it was bad enough seeing him on the ads first time round, what will be different? Full blown scaremongering followed by hands face space?

"Act like you have it" is what I've seen so far

 

[bramling]

"Act like you have it" is what I've seen so far

Does that mean we should all self-isolate indefinitely?!

 

[Richard Scott]

Apparently Chris Whitty is to feature in government information adverts giving safety advice during the current lockdown.

I'm sure that's the last think you want to see on the box before you turn in for the night - Whitty's grim boat race giving everyone the willies.

What was it Nick Ross always said at the end of Crimewatch - ''Don't have nightmares''.

CJ

Something else to turn off when it comes on. Why are the government still wasting money on this, if we don't know about this after 10months chances are we never will.

 

[kez19]

"Act like you have it" is what I've seen so far

How can someone act like they have it? Comes across pretty much as .... faking it!

 

[takno]

Does that mean we should all self-isolate indefinitely?!

I *think* he means we should all start eating brains, which frankly is a big ask for vegetarians.

 

[greyman42]

York city centre was quite busy at 1400. All the benches were taken up by families, complete with dogs, having picnics. I failed to see the attraction of it myself as it was freezing.

 

[johntea]

The independent bar in my town chanced click and collect, surprise surprise someone reported them and now they've had to switch to 'delivery' only but they checked with the council and found the customers can literally wait outside the front door of the place and that is classified as 'delivery'!

Yet you can walk in the supermarket a few doors down and stick a few beers in your basket, madness!

 

[Bayum]

Let's be honest they're roughly same age as parents or younger. There may be some slightly older. Can't keep finding excuses. Currently anyone who is vulnerable shouldn't be working in a school so that's covered too. Need to start getting on with life rather than finding reasons to ruin everyone else's.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jan 2021 ==


So we're talking about one place? Need to look countywide before quoting statistics like that. Sure there's plenty of pockets of high and low transmission. What's the average across the country? Poor use of statistics by TES to try and make a point, thought they were better than that? Shame.

Three local authorities with Leeds being one of them, Greenwich and Birmingham being the other two. I don’t know why you think identifying one place as having a massively increased risk of contracting COVID when it is exactly what the government do by placing authorities into tiers.

 

[brad465]

I am wondering if all the constant new messaging with the simple "stay at home" and/or other things we should be doing is actually going to be counterproductive to the apparent purposes of this latest lockdown. This is going by the fact when I hear and see it all it gets on my nerves and makes me want to rebel against it. It's not in my nature to blatantly do so, although if that's how I'm feeling I suspect there will be people less resistant and when bombarded with orders like this they will rebel.

 

[Richard Scott]

Three local authorities with Leeds being one of them, Greenwich and Birmingham being the other two. I don’t know why you think identifying one place as having a massively increased risk of contracting COVID when it is exactly what the government do by placing authorities into tiers.

Sorry, can't see how your point is related to what I said.

 

[kevin_roche]

"Act like you have it" is what I've seen so far

I'm thinking of faking a hacking cough whenever someone comes within 2m of me in the supermarket.

 

[yorkie]

I am wondering if all the constant new messaging with the simple "stay at home" and/or other things we should be doing is actually going to be counterproductive to the apparent purposes of this latest lockdown. This is going by the fact when I hear and see it all it gets on my nerves and makes me want to rebel against it. It's not in my nature to blatantly do so, although if that's how I'm feeling I suspect there will be people less resistant and when bombarded with orders like this they will rebel.

I feel the same way.

My local council is now closing parks too; things are getting out of hand and we are heading for an authoritarian, police state.

 

[typefish]

we are heading for an authoritarian, police state

We're pretty much there

 

[DB]

I feel the same way.

My local council is now closing parks too; things are getting out of hand and we are heading for an authoritarian, police state.

Yes, likewise. Absolutely sick of the bullying, patronising approach from the government - and the complete inconsistency as they lurch from one set of convoluted restrictions to another on a regular basis. It should come as no surprise that cases of a respiratory virus increase during a cold spell in January, but it seems to have caught them completely unaware and the only response they seem capable of is coming up with endless petty variations of the things which have clearly not been working.

I think they assumed that correlation=causation when cases declined in April/May, ignoring the fact that the time of year was likely to be the most significant factor. Despite trying the same thing repeatedly since about September to one level or another, it still appears not to have occurred to them that it simply isn't working.

 

[Yew]

Even then most people dont get out alive.

It's out of control? My he's certainly on the ball.

I must admit, I am a bit worried about the coming week or two in terms of hospital admissions. I'm also worried how we will cope given that this virus is not going away and will flare up especially in winter.

I wish there had been a lull over the summer, where we could have relaxed and built up some community immunity to help limit the spread. Oh, we chose not to do that?

 

[DB]

I wish there had been a lull over the summer, where we could have relaxed and built up some community immunity to help limit the spread. Oh, we chose not to do that?

Not to mention building up hospital capacity as well, and re-registering and inducting all those former NHS staff who had volunteered to work. And putting stronger measures in place at care homes.

But no - half-price Big Macs it took precedence...

 

[yorksrob]

Not to mention building up hospital capacity as well, and re-registering and inducting all those former NHS staff who had volunteered to work. And putting stronger measures in place at care homes.

But no - half-price Big Macs it took precedence...

They could have done all that with Eat Out to Help Out (which I thought was a good scheme)

 

[brad465]

Can anyone comprehend what stance/view Krishnan Guru-Murthy is taking here with this tweet:

https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/1348006942187401216

80,868 lives. 80868 funerals. It’s an extraordinary number. Yet most of us still don’t know one of them. At what point do enough people die for all of us to feel it? To notice what has actually happened? Disaster is the wrong word. I don’t know what is the right one.

To me it sounds like he is trying to play down the severity of it all (which seems to be the view shared by a lot of users on here), but it doesn't sound like the sort of opinion he might express, which is why I'm confused.

 

[3141]

I wish there had been a lull over the summer, where we could have relaxed and built up some community immunity to help limit the spread. Oh, we chose not to do that?

What's "community immunity"? If you mean letting enough people get infected and subsequently immune to make it more difficult for the virus to spread from person to person, then you need up to 65% of the population to have had it, which is hardly "limit the spread". It would mean over 130,000 deaths.

 

[Bayum]

Sorry, can't see how your point is related to what I said.

How is it not? You’re complaining about their use of statistics - I said they only had three local authorities to get their figures from. The government have been using data in the same way to identify hotspots and plunge people into tiers.

 

[Richard Scott]

How is it not? You’re complaining about their use of statistics - I said they only had three local authorities to get their figures from. The government have been using data in the same way to identify hotspots and plunge people into tiers.

But you didn't use that quote, the one you used said nothing about this, hence my reply.

 

[takno]

What's "community immunity"? If you mean letting enough people get infected and subsequently immune to make it more difficult for the virus to spread from person to person, then you need up to 65% of the population to have had it, which is hardly "limit the spread". It would mean over 130,000 deaths.

It's not a binary thing. If 10% of people have it then the pool of people able to catch it is 10% smaller, and it becomes more than 10% harder to spread, so the R value drops a little. In terms of the 130k deaths, that's a pretty high-end estimate, and 80k people have died anyway.

The primary point about the summer though is that the people who would have got it over the summer will likely get it now anyway before a vaccine gets near them. If they had been getting it over the summer they would have been able to fit in hospitals, and their immune systems would have been in better shape, so the death rates would have been lower

 

[3141]

Not even sure what point you're trying to make with that statement (what do you mean by retirement and beyond?), what I was saying is almost all teachers are not going to have any issues with the virus, most retire around 60, and any who are vulnerable will be shielding. I maintain that schools should be open as the risk is very very low. My point was we keep going on about this virus, children are having their education ruined which is a disproportionate response to the issue.

You introduced the idea of “teaching age” in #435, when you said that the chance of Covid causing someone of teaching age any effect is miniscule. I pointed out that “teaching age” is from when people start teaching, the youngest being about 22, up to retirement for some, and even longer for those who come back and continue in the job after retirement. Among those older people the risk is more than miniscule.

In #442 you said you’d been in the profession for 23 years so you knew a little about it, so I asked you if that meant you were disagreeing with how I’d defined “teaching age”.

In addition to any risk to staff, including support staff, there is the issue of the spread of the virus by anyone who is in a school.

As I taught for 14 years and helped to run education services for 26, including staffing, special needs and the provision of school places, I probably know a bit about it as well.

 

[Bayum]

Can anyone comprehend what stance/view Krishnan Guru-Murthy is taking here with this tweet:

https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/1348006942187401216

View attachment 88427
To me it sounds like he is trying to play down the severity of it all (which seems to be the view shared by a lot of users on here), but it doesn't sound like the sort of opinion he might express, which is why I'm confused.

He’s making the point that all of these deaths is an incomprehensible number - at what point do we as humanity recognise how big a number that is? We aren’t connected to these people in anyway, so what will it take for us to be able to comprehend the severity of this.

 

[3141]

It's not a binary thing. If 10% of people have it then the pool of people able to catch it is 10% smaller, and it becomes more than 10% harder to spread, so the R value drops a little. In terms of the 130k deaths, that's a pretty high-end estimate, and 80k people have died anyway.

The primary point about the summer though is that the people who would have got it over the summer will likely get it now anyway before a vaccine gets near them. If they had been getting it over the summer they would have been able to fit in hospitals, and their immune systems would have been in better shape, so the death rates would have been lower

The 130,000 is based on a fatality rate of 0.3%, which was quoted on here a few days ago by somebody on here who's keen to minimise the dangers of Covid, and I've applied it to 65% of the UK population of around 67 million. Back in the summer the number of deaths that would be expected as a result of letting the virus infect the number of people necessary to produce community immunity by now would have be horrifying, and they wouldn't have been able to fit in hospitals.

 

[DB]

The 130,000 is based on a fatality rate of 0.3%, which was quoted on here a few days ago by somebody on here who's keen to minimise the dangers of Covid, and I've applied it to 65% of the UK population of around 67 million. Back in the summer the number of deaths that would be expected as a result of letting the virus infect the number of people necessary to produce community immunity by now would have be horrifying, and they wouldn't have been able to fit in hospitals.

Don't you think it's strange that despite all these claims that lockdowns and restrictions are reducing the number of deaths, there is, worldwide, absolutely no correlation between the number of deaths and the restrictions in place? Once it becomes endemic in a country, it seems to make little difference what measures are taken.

 

[3141]

I think we've had bits of this conversation before! I don't understand your claim that there is no correlation between lockdowns/restrictions and deaths, because I see here and in many other places that there is a correlation. And the relationship continues when restrictions are eased. I think the real purpose of restrictions is to reduce the spread of the virus, and hence the number of infections and of deaths. The degree of success is affected by the degree of co-operation with the restrictions, a country's demographics, climate, seasons, variations in the virus, and more. I don't see on here much honest discussion of the alternatives - just claims that we might protect the vulnerable and let everyone else do as they think fit, with very little detail about how that would actually work, down to some who appear to see no further than the fact they aren't able to go to football matches.

 

[TheBeard]

"'https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55602828'"

project fear gets more unpleasant and laughable.

What really grates here are the 2 "scientists" quoted are on SAGE SPi-B the committee on Behavioural control They are Behavioural Psychologists. Not ones seeing people, but the 7 hours of lectures a week and josticks stereotype would be some i recall at uni! And is coercion lawful even?
It may be the vaccine,if it works will save some 600000 people from dying(1.15% fatality in the West with ageing population, 0.23% in other places(

"https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/207273/covid-19-deaths-infection-fatality-ratio-about/"))

so am not totally hostile, but they are so inept as to fail to consider the damage. Or apologize for it, nor show human empathy about it. At this point you could segregate those needing a vaccine, and let the young free. Perhaps there is motivation, to destabilise the country(London Scientists Lefty Remainists), or write a paper on how well it worked? Have SAGE actually taken over the country via a coup with their political lapdogs?
A plea for compassion and how many are saved would be a far greater incentive to us Brits for a few hard months than all this shenanigans

 

[DB]

I think we've had bits of this conversation before! I don't understand your claim that there is no correlation between lockdowns/restrictions and deaths, because I see here and in many other places that there is a correlation.

Well, have a look at the stats on worldometers or elsewhere, then compare them with the countries with the tightest restrictions. If lockdowns work, as you are claiming, there will be a direct correlation between the tightest lockdowns and lowest case numbers.

That's not what you will find.

If you want to look just at this country since the end of summer, we first had restrictions which were apparently going to reduce cases, but they didn't so we had a lockdown. That then morphed into tiers, which in many areas weren't much different from lockdown. Then we had the cancelling of christmas, then more increases in tiers, then another lockdown because cases were still rising. Not exactly a painting a picture of restrictions achieving their intended aim, is it?

 

[Richard Scott]

You introduced the idea of “teaching age” in #435, when you said that the chance of Covid causing someone of teaching age any effect is miniscule. I pointed out that “teaching age” is from when people start teaching, the youngest being about 22, up to retirement for some, and even longer for those who come back and continue in the job after retirement. Among those older people the risk is more than miniscule.

In #442 you said you’d been in the profession for 23 years so you knew a little about it, so I asked you if that meant you were disagreeing with how I’d defined “teaching age”.

In addition to any risk to staff, including support staff, there is the issue of the spread of the virus by anyone who is in a school.

As I taught for 14 years and helped to run education services for 26, including staffing, special needs and the provision of school places, I probably know a bit about it as well.

Didn't say you didn't so no need for last comment, my original point is that schools don't need to be closed and I still stand by that. Irrespective of age anyone who is vulnerable isn't expected to be at work. The number of teachers who are 60 or over are small in number. If it's such an issue then allow them to stay at home and cover their classes. So assuming you think all schools should stay closed wrecking education for all these children with the effect it's having on their mental well-being, which you'll be aware of being in education as there may be a few staff who may be at risk?