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

[DustyBin]

I think there’s still too many “terrified” types at the moment. I see there was a story on the news about how it might be better to wear *two* masks, which needless to say some people on social media seem to be latching on to.

I suppose it’s a good way to double the amount of virtue signalled!

I think Fauci was advocating it....

Slightly OT but I see Ireland have extended level 5 restrictions (lockdown) until after Easter!

 

[MikeWM]

It does strike me that Sage and assorted other "experts" are going in to overdrive in fear that there prophecies of doom might be starting to be ignored by decisions makers.

This is the last tough hurdle in their bizarre scheme to keep the population under their control forever. The idea that even with the vaccine we need to keep restrictions until some unspecified point (ie. forever) is the final bait-and-switch they are trying on us. I'm really not sure why so many scientists seem so keen on this (politicians, I can understand) but it is very clear now that this is what they want.

Dr Susan Hopkins told Sky News some measures may have to stay in place beyond that, until more is known about COVID-19 transmission

she admitted it was "difficult to say" if rules this summer could be tighter than they were during the same period last year.

Time for the penny to drop for those who haven't already realised the path these people want us to go down. If rules are tighter with a decent amount of immunity in the population and most people vaccinated, why would they ever be loosened again?

"One of the things we've learned is that when people go on holiday, perhaps they drop their guard a bit, perhaps they mingle a bit closer and they mingle in groups," Dr Hopkins said.

I'm glad she has 'learned' that. I'm not sure how detached from the real world she has to have been to have not 'learned' that already.

"So I think we are going to have to have some measures in place until the whole population is vaccinated, at least all of the adult population.

"And even then I think we'll need to know more about transmission before we can release everything

Why? Is anyone going to ever ask one of these people why? Doesn't sound like she's confident the vaccines are up to much.

SAGE experts yesterday suggested that some restrictions like the Rule of Six and face masks in public places might need to remain in place 'forever' because Covid will become endemic.

Yes, there you have it.

But he warned some of the less-restrictive curbs, like social distancing or occasional mask-use, could be here 'forever'.

Again, how detacted from the real world is someone who says that these things are 'less restrictive'? Can we put him in a room with some pub and nightclub owners and see what they would like to tell him about his opinions?

And, again, why? Doesn't sound like he has any confidence in the vaccines either.

Neil Ferguson, the Imperial College London epidemiologist whose grim modelling spooked No10 into the first lockdown last March, said cases are falling faster than expected and there is 'some bandwidth' for opening schools. But he added that even by the summer, restrictions in the UK should only be back where they were in October.

Another one who apparently has no confidence in the vaccines.

These 'scientists' are just embarassing now.

 

[yorkie]

Neil Ferguson is bonkers; given he is in disgrace (for multiple reasons) I really don't think we should be listening to him.

As for Ireland, this is consistent with their pro-lockdown approach. They have always had harsher restrictions and this means that any easing will result in an even bigger spike (due to lack of immunity in the population); I am not at all surprised they are planning to remain locked down until at least Easter. There is a myth that locking down longer and harder reduces the need for further lockdowns, which Ireland fell for. The reality is that the harsher restrictions over the Summer resulted in them having the highest case rate in Europe a few weeks ago, and they are going to find it very difficult to unlock again while we remain in Winter. People who advocate the Irish approach are deluded.

 

[Bantamzen]

It does strike me that Sage and assorted other "experts" are going in to overdrive in fear that there prophecies of doom might be starting to be ignored by decisions makers.

Today we have:


COVID-19: Some restrictions should last until all adults have been vaccinated, senior health official says | UK News | Sky News



And...





Social distancing and mask rules will have to last until at least AUTUMN | Daily Mail Online


And....



Claims social distancing could stay until the END of 2021 | Daily Mail Online



However on a slightly positive note, that indicates that the government may be starting to think of a route which doesn't blindly follow what these scientists and "experts" say...



COVID-19: Some restrictions should last until all adults have been vaccinated, senior health official says | UK News | Sky News

These people need to give their heads a wobble. Perhaps they are concerned that their moments in the sun are coming to an end? Maybe we ought to have a Thursday night clap to "Save SAGE's Limelight"?

 

[bramling]

You may have noticed that the term "new normal" isn't used anything like as widely as it was last Spring. It has quietly been dropped, probably because our glorious leaders have realised that the definition of "new normal" is subjective & certainly won't pay the bills.

As for ignoring restrictions, so far most people & businesses have complied. But a lot of people & businesses are racking up some serious financial woes, and there is nothing like the threat of going broke or out of business to motivate folk. And those signs are happening already, for example a number of cannabis farms have been found in closed businesses in West Yorkshire recently, a sign that people are already getting desperate.

It’s also interesting to note that at my place there’s been a sharp increase in crime and anti-social behaviour. Just in the last couple of weeks we’ve had a number of robberies either on train or stations, including some at knife-point.

If the lid is going to pop off the bottle it may well be money that’s the trigger.

 

[Bantamzen]

It’s also interesting to note that at my place there’s been a sharp increase in crime and anti-social behaviour. Just in the last couple of weeks we’ve had a number of robberies either on train or stations, including some at knife-point.

If the lid is going to pop off the bottle it may well be money that’s the trigger.

Money & lack of social inclusion are often the primary triggers for crime / unrest.

 

[yorksrob]

This is the last tough hurdle in their bizarre scheme to keep the population under their control forever. The idea that even with the vaccine we need to keep restrictions until some unspecified point (ie. forever) is the final bait-and-switch they are trying on us. I'm really not sure why so many scientists seem so keen on this (politicians, I can understand) but it is very clear now that this is what they want.



Time for the penny to drop for those who haven't already realised the path these people want us to go down. If rules are tighter with a decent amount of immunity in the population and most people vaccinated, why would they ever be loosened again?



I'm glad she has 'learned' that. I'm not sure how detached from the real world she has to have been to have not 'learned' that already.



Why? Is anyone going to ever ask one of these people why? Doesn't sound like she's confident the vaccines are up to much.



Yes, there you have it.



Again, how detacted from the real world is someone who says that these things are 'less restrictive'? Can we put him in a room with some pub and nightclub owners and see what they would like to tell him about his opinions?

And, again, why? Doesn't sound like he has any confidence in the vaccines either.



Another one who apparently has no confidence in the vaccines.

These 'scientists' are just embarassing now.

(With regard to permanent restrictions) Until someone in authority grows a backbone and directly contradicts these SAGE "experts" openly, they will keep on pronouncing this nonsense.

 

[NorthOxonian]

Neil Ferguson is bonkers; given he is in disgrace (for multiple reasons) I really don't think we should be listening to him.

Agreed, but there may be one reason to listen to him. I've just read that even he expects true normality before this time next year, the equivalent of Tier 2 by May and the equivalent of Tier 1 by June.

If a crazy pessimist like him expects those dates, then I think we can at least be pretty confident that it won't be any worse than that.

 

[kristiang85]

(With regard to permanent restrictions) Until someone in authority grows a backbone and directly contradicts these SAGE "experts" openly, they will keep on pronouncing this nonsense.

The problem is, they tend to get switched off broadcast due to 'ofcom rules'.

 

[DB]

I was going to post this on the Sweden thread but it’s not really about Sweden per say. This graph (stolen from another forum) shows the number of deaths per million people in Sweden and the UK throughout the pandemic. Ignore the actual numbers and look at the two lines. I’m less and less convinced that lockdowns work.

View attachment 90454

Very clear! Basically, the rise and decline trajectories are obviously not affected by any of the draconian measures.

I doubt many Locktivists will accept it though...

 

[yorksrob]

I was going to post this on the Sweden thread but it’s not really about Sweden per say. This graph (stolen from another forum) shows the number of deaths per million people in Sweden and the UK throughout the pandemic. Ignore the actual numbers and look at the two lines. I’m less and less convinced that lockdowns work.

View attachment 90454

I note that not only is this a per capita comparison and that Sweden has more or less outperformed the UK in spite of not having lockdown. I also notice that both countries follow a similar seasonal pattern.

This is proof enough for me that the Swedish approach is superior to lockdown.

 

[kristiang85]

Slightly OT but I see Ireland have extended level 5 restrictions (lockdown) until after Easter!

I just read their exit plan from it only begins once cases get to 100 per day. That's mad.

 

[35B]

Absolutely!

Labour are very pro-lockdowns

You could use that as justification for extending the lockdown indefinitely; it is a fallacy and disingenuous to suggest that we should lock down for as long as necessary to avoid any possibility of the Government choosing to impose another lockdown.

How would you even define such a thing?!

This sort of nonsense really needs to stop.

We need to agree to disagree on whether lockdown measures are or are not necessary; the scale of impact over the last couple of months due to the failure to check the spread of Covid in good time clearly demonstrates to me that they have an important place in public health policy. When even a libertarian writer from the IEA like Christopher Snowdon writes in support of the current lockdown (see "Do Lockdowns work" for his core argument, which I won't try to reduce here), I tend to think the case in principle against is pretty darn weak.

I want vaccination to work, I want to be back to leading a normal life doing things as I naturally would - and did before March last year. I believe we're most likely to get that quickly and sustainably if the unwinding of current measures is done carefully following the dictum "measure twice, cut once". This isn't about mitigating the risk that government will "choose to impose another lockdown", but as a way of getting to a society that has Covid transmission and illness at a level that is, if not at full herd immunity, a level that society at large can live with in the long run.

If the government get that wrong, and we see a repeat of circumstances with rapid growth in case numbers, hospitalisations, and deaths, then experience shows that they will use the hammer of lockdown measures as a containment strategy. My judgment is that the damage that will cause - economically, psychologically, medically - is far greater than the damage that will be caused by a more cautious relaxation of current measures.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Feb 2021 ==

The problem is, they tend to get switched off broadcast due to 'ofcom rules'.

So what's the basis of their expertise then?

 

[DB]

We need to agree to disagree on whether lockdown measures are or are not necessary; the scale of impact over the last couple of months due to the failure to check the spread of Covid in good time clearly demonstrates to me that they have an important place in public health policy.

Not looked at the Sweden graph above, then?

If lockdowns work, how do you explain the fact that the decrease trajectory there is pretty much the same as in this country, despite them not having engaged in lockdowns at any point?

 

[Gadget88]

When Neil Ferguson wants to open up you know we are in trouble when Boris doesn’t want to.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

I want vaccination to work, I want to be back to leading a normal life doing things as I naturally would - and did before March last year. I believe we're most likely to get that quickly and sustainably if the unwinding of current measures is done carefully following the dictum "measure twice, cut once". This isn't about mitigating the risk that government will "choose to impose another lockdown", but as a way of getting to a society that has Covid transmission and illness at a level that is, if not at full herd immunity, a level that society at large can live with in the long run.

If the government get that wrong, and we see a repeat of circumstances with rapid growth in case numbers, hospitalisations, and deaths, then experience shows that they will use the hammer of lockdown measures as a containment strategy. My judgment is that the damage that will cause - economically, psychologically, medically - is far greater than the damage that will be caused by a more cautious relaxation of current measures.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Feb 2021 ==

I don't fundamentally disagree with this, BUT....

We have to have targets and goals for that to work. At the moment we don't. The targets and goals are wishy washy and seem to change from week to week. I'm not meaning dates I mean specific and identifiable and measurable and importantly realistic targets for levels of infection, for example. 'When X happens then we can do Y' for example.

And we certainly don't need a load of 'just in case' scenarios. Lots of what the experts are currently calling for are 'just in case' scenarios - i.e. 'we need to keep measures and partial lockdown just in case of new variants'. There will always be new variants of one sort or another so that policy is flawed as ultimately lockdown and restrictions will never end if that is the goal.

 

[yorksrob]

So what's the basis of their expertise then?

They have a basic understanding of human nature and how society works ? (in that you cannot ban normal socialising and gathering indefinately).

 

[kristiang85]

This is a long read (mainly based on the Irish context), but it makes good points. However, I will leave this first paragraph here, which is quite pertinent to this discussion:

Letters From Lockdown 1 – Everyone else can’t have gone crazy, therefore have I?

(Please note due to a reluctance to push certain media for reasons you’ll see below, and their refusal to allow for any balance that doesn’t scare for sales, I’m doing this indepe…

ewanmackenna.wordpress.com

Back in March, a virologist that lectures at a major UK university muttered a stark warning. They asked to remain anonymous based on what they were suggesting around those they work alongside, but the message should’ve been clear and should’ve set off warning lights.

“My concern is that they will give medical scientists control. You have to understand that medical scientists are well meaning but they have no concept of real life. They don’t socialise, they are obsessed with germs, they think the world lives a grossly unhealthy lifestyle, they don’t think people should be in large groups ever. If a kid at their kid’s school has a cold, they keep their own kid off school for two weeks. So, if you let medical scientists have control, they will shut this country down for two years. It’s just in their nature. They won’t understand the problems that go with that thus they will carry on regardless.”

A generalisation to prove the point for sure.

Hyperbolic to ram that point home too.

But the point still sadly fell on my deaf ears.

We cannot keep basing policy on the whims of a very narrow band of scientists. Science is about looking at all angles and inputs, and making decisions based on all the facts available. Right now when half of the debate is completely disregarded, it is downright dangerous.

 

[Bikeman78]

Absolutely!

Labour are very pro-lockdowns

You could use that as justification for extending the lockdown indefinitely; it is a fallacy and disingenuous to suggest that we should lock down for as long as necessary to avoid any possibility of the Government choosing to impose another lockdown.

How would you even define such a thing?!

This sort of nonsense really needs to stop.

Indeed. No one seems to be able to come up with a number that is acceptable. Zero Covid is no more likely than zero road deaths. We accept 1700 deaths on the roads every year, and many more flu deaths in a typical year. So what is an 'acceptable' number of Covid deaths?

 

[philosopher]

(With regard to permanent restrictions) Until someone in authority grows a backbone and directly contradicts these SAGE "experts" openly, they will keep on pronouncing this nonsense.

To be fair the government between June and October generally did not completely follow SAGE’s advice. If they had, there would have been no support bubbles, no Eat Out to Help Out, no encouraging people back to offices and a circuit breaker lockdown in September.

Since the start of November however they seemed to have followed SAGE’s advice almost to the letter. The thing is I am not sure following SAGE’s advice to the letter has even helped reduce cases. While the new variant probably is partly to blame, the huge spike in cases in late December must also partly be due to pent up social mixing occurring as as result of the November lockdown.

 

[Кряква]

I am currently on a train to go for a walk on the beach.

I'm done with this stuff now. I can afford to pay the fines essentially indefinitely, I feel sorry for people who aren't able to do so.

Discussing this in the abstract is getting silly, whining achieves nothing.

Maybe I should buy a pub, whack my assets offshore and see how long I can hold out.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Science is about looking at all angles and inputs, and making decisions based on all the facts available.

No it isn't. Science isn't about looking at economics and there is no such thing as a general scientist. Scientists specialise in often very narrow fields. Those are the areas they are interested in. Others should look at the wider implications but you cannot argue scientists who specialise in viruses should consider economic or other health factors.

None of this is even new. There have been stories in the press for as long as I can remember about some scientist or medic saying something should be banned or we must alter our lifestyles or society to prevent or reduce the effect of something they specialise in. The only difference now is it isn't just an article in a newspaper that everybody ignores.

 

[kristiang85]

No it isn't. Science isn't about looking at economics and there is no such thing as a general scientist. Scientists specialise in often very narrow fields. Those are the areas they are interested in. Others should look at the wider implications but you cannot argue scientists who specialise in viruses should consider economic or other health factors.

None of this is even new. There have been stories in the press for as long as I can remember about some scientist or medic saying something should be banned or we must alter our lifestyles or society to prevent or reduce the effect of something they specialise in. The only difference now is it isn't just an article in a newspaper that everybody ignores.

If you quoted my whole post rather than just that one sentence you would see I agree with you - my point is exactly that we are only asking certain scientists and going on their recommendations, and ignoring all the other specialists, which as you say is important. By bringing them all together you get the broader picture, which we are sorely missing.

 

[35B]

I don't fundamentally disagree with this, BUT....

We have to have targets and goals for that to work. At the moment we don't. The targets and goals are wishy washy and seem to change from week to week. I'm not meaning dates I mean specific and identifiable and measurable and importantly realistic targets for levels of infection, for example. 'When X happens then we can do Y' for example.

And we certainly don't need a load of 'just in case' scenarios. Lots of what the experts are currently calling for are 'just in case' scenarios - i.e. 'we need to keep measures and partial lockdown just in case of new variants'. There will always be new variants of one sort or another so that policy is flawed as ultimately lockdown and restrictions will never end if that is the goal.

I completely agree - and those targets have to be, like my performance review objectives, SMART - Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timebound.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Feb 2021 ==

They have a basic understanding of human nature and how society works ? (in that you cannot ban normal socialising and gathering indefinately).

With respect, that doesn't actually answer my question.

 

[Bertie the bus]

If you quoted my whole post rather than just that one sentence you would see I agree with you - my point is exactly that we are only asking certain scientists and going on their recommendations, and ignoring all the other specialists, which as you say is important. By bringing them all together you get the broader picture, which we are sorely missing.

No, we don't agree at all. Politics is about more than just concentrating on one narrow aspect. Science isn't.

 

[kristiang85]

No, we don't agree at all. Politics is about more than just concentrating on one narrow aspect. Science isn't.

When politics is "following the science" (one of my many hated phrases of this whole thing), it is.

Science is not one subject, but a broad term encompassing all - whether it be medical science, behavioural science, or economic science. When you make decisions based on 'science', you need to look at all aspects of it.

 

[DustyBin]

No, we don't agree at all. Politics is about more than just concentrating on one narrow aspect. Science isn't.

I think the point @kristiang85 is trying to make is that there isn't a consensus even in regard to the narrow aspects. The government however only listen to one side of the debate.

 

[yorkie]

I am currently on a train to go for a walk on the beach.

I'm done with this stuff now. I can afford to pay the fines essentially indefinitely, I feel sorry for people who aren't able to do so.

To be clear, leaving your home for the purpose of exercise isn't a breach of the law; for more on this I suggest reading the recent argument between Adam Wagner and Merseyside Police on Twitter; the police force had to back down, but this thread isn't the place to discuss it further.

Here is the link:

https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1359923891142025229

...It would be much better if @MerseyPolice admitted they made a mistake, that guidance can't be enforced and it isn't illegal ....

Discussing this in the abstract is getting silly, whining achieves nothing.

To be clear, the option of constructive discussion on this forum may be beneficial and/or interesting to some, but it could be having the opposite effect; if it's getting to you, I'd definitely take a break from it. See conversation message elsewhere.

With respect, that doesn't actually answer my question.

With respect, you are again being disingenuous again, in my opinion

What you will find is that epidemiologists will say something about what they think is happening to the virus, virologists will then question that. There are a lot of people in very specific abstract roles that are detached from the bigger picture. Experts in a particular field they may well be, but an expert on the bigger picture, they are not.

Not to mention the focus purely on keeping Covid cases down ignores many of the negative effects of lockdowns...

 

[WelshBluebird]

Indeed. No one seems to be able to come up with a number that is acceptable. Zero Covid is no more likely than zero road deaths. We accept 1700 deaths on the roads every year, and many more flu deaths in a typical year. So what is an 'acceptable' number of Covid deaths?

Regardless of what your feelings are on lockdowns, there are countries that have successfully pursued a zero covid policy and it has meant they have been able to open up their economies much more than we have and have been able to hold large scale events that just haven't been possible here yet. Sure, they may not have literally achieved zero covid cases, but they are near enough there and that fact has allowed people living in those countries to have mostly normal lives over the last few months. I'd say that reality is better than ours right now.

If you quoted my whole post rather than just that one sentence you would see I agree with you - my point is exactly that we are only asking certain scientists and going on their recommendations, and ignoring all the other specialists, which as you say is important. By bringing them all together you get the broader picture, which we are sorely missing.

Isn't that the governments job though?
You can't blame the scientists for just caring about their very specific interest.

This is the last tough hurdle in their bizarre scheme to keep the population under their control forever.

Look, agree or disagree about the policies taken, fine.
But this lunatic theory that seems to be spreading on this forum that there is a specific plan in place to "keep the population under their control forever" or to ban socialising forever (as someone else claimed a week or so ago) is just not reality and claiming it does the argument against lockdowns no help at all because it makes you all look mad.

 

[Yew]

I completely agree - and those targets have to be, like my performance review objectives, SMART - Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timebound.

And presumably, if we don't meet the objectives we try another approach?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Feb 2021 ==

Regardless of what your feelings are on lockdowns, there are countries that have successfully pursued a zero covid policy and it has meant they have been able to open up their economies much more than we have and have been able to hold large scale events that just haven't been possible here yet. Sure, they may not have literally achieved zero covid cases, but they are near enough there and that fact has allowed people living in those countries to have mostly normal lives over the last few months. I'd say that reality is better than ours right now.

So have Sweden and Florida. Opening up is in no way dependent on Zero Covid.