19th July Lockdown Easing - Observations and Compliance

[DustyBin]

It is far from an echo chamber here; but it sounds like you might prefer the comfort of your own one?

Why not constructively challenge something, with evidence. You might be surprised.

Yes @CentralTrainer do feel free to add something constructive to the discussion!

We don't all agree with each other in here believe me. Isn't that right @35B?!

 

[Segedunum]

Currently aboard a Northern service and having clocked that not only was absolutely nobody wearing a face covering, the conductor wasn't either, so mine came straight off.

First maskless journey in over a year. Feels very nice indeed.

 

[NorthKent1989]

It’s like GB News or an edition of the Daily Express in here…

I’ll leave you to your echo chamber

Do feel free to read the Guardian, another echo chamber…we can all generalise

 

[35B]

Yes @CentralTrainer do feel free to add something constructive to the discussion!

We don't all agree with each other in here believe me. Isn't that right @35B?!

Indeed. Even if I do sometimes feel my role is to provide a sounding board for the echoes…

 

[haggishunter]

Scotland hasn't done that much better than England in terms of deaths per 100k of population, despite its more draconian restrictions. Something the SNP don't ever mention. They failed in similar areas (letting it go in care homes the big one)

The difference according to the number crunching on Travelling Tabby is 146 deaths per 100,000 vs 202 over the pandemic for Scotland vs England. It equates to around 3700 less deaths in Scotland than if the figures were equal, and if the fatality rate had been the same in England as it has been in Scotland there would have been somewhere in the region of 36,000 fewer deaths. Given the median population age in Scotland is around 2 years older with life expectancy approximately 2 years less, arguably if everything else had been equal the mortality rate could have been reasonably expected to be slightly worse in Scotland than England, the opposite of what actually has occurred so far.

To be honest I really don't get why masks seem to be such a big deal, it's appears to have been jumped on and twisted into some sort of culture war battle. Maybe it's because having been involved in mountain sports in winter since a young age there isn't anything alien or unusual in having my nose and face covered, but I just don't get the drama over face coverings?

 

[farleigh]

It’s like GB News or an edition of the Daily Express in here…

I’ll leave you to your echo chamber

That post says a lot.

A poster is incapable of arguing rationally and politely so the dummy goes flying.

I think most of the debate has been civil in this thread and it is interesting to hear different viewpoints and have your own views challenged.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Aug 2021 ==

The difference according to the number crunching on Travelling Tabby is 146 deaths per 100,000 vs 202 over the pandemic for Scotland vs England. It equates to around 3700 less deaths in Scotland than if the figures were equal, and if the fatality rate had been the same in England as it has been in Scotland there would have been somewhere in the region of 36,000 fewer deaths. Given the median population age in Scotland is around 2 years older with life expectancy approximately 2 years less, arguably if everything else had been equal the mortality rate could have been reasonably expected to be slightly worse in Scotland than England, the opposite of what actually has occurred so far.

To be honest I really don't get why masks seem to be such a big deal, it's appears to have been jumped on and twisted into some sort of culture war battle. Maybe it's because having been involved in mountain sports in winter since a young age there isn't anything alien or unusual in having my nose and face covered, but I just don't get the drama over face coverings?

I agree totally that it has become something of a culture war.

I believe that the root cause of this has been the style of messaging that has been used by the government at times.

 

[johnnychips]

I keep on going on about this, but where are these deadly stares and tut-tutting for those who aren’t wearing masks? OK this is anecdote, but I have never, ever experienced this, and I’ve been doing a lot of travel in the north of England and the north midlands recently, in both rural and urban areas, on buses and trains full of mask wearers, and ones with none. Once again is this a southern thing?

 

[takno]

The difference according to the number crunching on Travelling Tabby is 146 deaths per 100,000 vs 202 over the pandemic for Scotland vs England. It equates to around 3700 less deaths in Scotland than if the figures were equal, and if the fatality rate had been the same in England as it has been in Scotland there would have been somewhere in the region of 36,000 fewer deaths. Given the median population age in Scotland is around 2 years older with life expectancy approximately 2 years less, arguably if everything else had been equal the mortality rate could have been reasonably expected to be slightly worse in Scotland than England, the opposite of what actually has occurred so far.

To be honest I really don't get why masks seem to be such a big deal, it's appears to have been jumped on and twisted into some sort of culture war battle. Maybe it's because having been involved in mountain sports in winter since a young age there isn't anything alien or unusual in having my nose and face covered, but I just don't get the drama over face coverings?

The median age of the population would tend to trend towards higher death rates, but the lower life expectancy actually plays the other way. Because the deaths are exponentially higher amongst the elderly, and the average age of death is above the average life expectancy, you'd probably expect to see lower rates of death in a population the shape of Scotland's.

Add to that our significantly lower levels of testing at key points in the pandemic, and the lack of a huge population centre like London, and Scotland's figures are really very close to what you'd expect from England.

When it comes to all the fuss about masks, it's a combination of things. I think as always I hate the bad science imported from America via the all-knowing hordes of keyboard warriors. I hate the very visible reminders that we've basically decimated our standard of living for years to very little purpose, and Scotland has decided to carry on down the path of self destruction. I hate the fact that the whole things is being left to self destruct because the government is too spineless to make the right decision, and I hate that we're feeding an ever broader culture war across society.

I particularly feel the latter, since as a left wing liberal I'm not incredibly comfortable that people I regard as my people seem to have abandoned a caring liberal position en masse.

From a personal point of view though, what I absolutely can't deal with is the blithe assumption being made by a lot of people that just because it's no trouble for them, it shouldn't be any trouble for other people either.

 

[nlogax]

I keep on going on about this, but where are these deadly stares and tut-tutting for those who aren’t wearing masks?

Good question. Since going maskless in July I've not received anything close to a nasty stare or an accusatory glance. Even in this particularly mask-heavy London suburb.

 

[kristiang85]

Good question. Since going maskless in July I've not received anything close to a nasty stare or an accusatory glance. Even in this particularly mask-heavy London suburb.

Nor me. As I keep saying, much of the hysteria is solely on social media. Most other people are just getting on with their lives.

And even a lot of the hysterical posts on social media are simply bots trying to rile people up.

 

[Green tractor]

From a personal point of view though, what I absolutely can't deal with is the blithe assumption being made by a lot of people that just because it's no trouble for them, it shouldn't be any trouble for other people either.

Are you talking about face masks or covid?

You seem to be advocating letting the virus take its natural course through the population which would of led to thousands more deaths, not just from covid. In the winter people had urgent cancer treatment stopped due to a lack of NHS capacity.

 

[yorkie]

Are you talking about face masks or covid?

I don't understand the second part of your question; it's clearly a reference to (ineffective) face masks.

You seem to be advocating letting the virus take its natural course through the population which would of led to thousands more deaths, not just from covid.

There is no evidence the wearing of standard facemasks has any effect on virus transmission but that's for another thread.

You make very generalised unsubstantiated claims regarding deaths (presumably based on Ferguson's flawed models) but without adding detail regarding what exactly you are saying and where your evidence is, there isn't really much if a debate to be had.

If you wish to make such a claim the onus is on you to explain exactly what you are saying and provide some evidence for it.

In the winter people had urgent cancer treatment stopped due to a lack of NHS capacity.

Doesn't this happen every winter?

And earlier in the year many people had treatments stopped because the NHS didn't want people in the hospitals, due to a desire to reduce transmission of the virus. That isn't right either. And even now some doctors appear to be refusing to see people due to an apparent fear of face to face communications.

If you are claiming the lack of treatments is exclusively down to the NHS being busy with Covid, that's demonstrably false.

I don't really understand what points you are making, but I wonder if that's by design, to make it difficult to argue against?

 

[Green tractor]

I don't understand the second part of your question; it's clearly a reference to (ineffective) face masks.


There is no evidence the wearing of standard facemasks has any effect on virus transmission but that's for another thread.

You make very generalised unsubstantiated claims regarding deaths (presumably based on Ferguson's flawed models) but without adding detail regarding what exactly you are saying and where your evidence is, there isn't really much if a debate to be had.

If you wish to make such a claim the onus is on you to explain exactly what you are saying and provide some evidence for it.


Doesn't this happen every winter?

And earlier in the year many people had treatments stopped because the NHS didn't want people in the hospitals, due to a desire to reduce transmission of the virus. That isn't right either. And even now some doctors appear to be refusing to see people due to an apparent fear of face to face communications.

If you are claiming the lack of treatments is exclusively down to the NHS being busy with Covid, that's demonstrably false.

I don't really understand what points you are making, but I wonder if that's by design, to make it difficult to argue against?

Please point out why neil Fergusons models were so flawed;


https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/im...-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf page 13 is the relevant one. The headline 500,000 deaths the media lept on was if we did nothing. They gave a range of interventions, with a range of possible deaths


In march 2020 the NHS cleared the decks and over reacted, but they just didn't know what was coming their way, we all saw what happened in Italy. In the winter of 2020/21 procedures were cancelled down to a lack of capacity as hospitals (particulally in south wales) just did not have the capacity.

 

[kristiang85]

Please point out why neil Fergusons models were so flawed;


https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/im...-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf page 13 is the relevant one. The headline 500,000 deaths the media lept on was if we did nothing. They gave a range of interventions, with a range of possible deaths


In march 2020 the NHS cleared the decks and over reacted, but they just didn't know what was coming their way, we all saw what happened in Italy. In the winter of 2020/21 procedures were cancelled down to a lack of capacity as hospitals (particulally in south wales) just did not have the capacity.

Please show me evidence that we would have hit 500,000 cases without the interventions though.

Look at Sweden. Minimal intervention (there was some, but nothing that changed day to day life too much), and the epidemic curves are broadly similar.

Ferguson has been proven wrong on the likes of Swine Flu and Foot and Mouth (and his modelling devastated many livelihoods in the UK back then), so the evidence points to his worst case scenarios being wrong here. Though the government and media are just as culpable for basing their narrative on those scenarios, and not the reassuring messaging seen at the very beginning.

 

[Green tractor]

Based on a natural R0 of 2.4, with the interventions that were put in place ICL estimated 39,000 deaths over 2 years, clearly it has been much more than that.

You cannot make too much of a comparison with Sweden, the population density is much lower which obviously affects the spread of the disease. Its a bit like arguing the UK should of closed its borders like New Zealand, New Zealand isn't a major transit hub and doesn't have 1000's of lorry drives arriving from abroad every day with essential goods.

Foot and mouth disease was another government cockup (my family are farmers) the failure to immediately stop all livestock movements and close auction marts on the discovery of the first case, then it all spiralled out of control after that. Just like Covid, there was a well planned response to a foot and mouth outbreak which the government of the day chose to ignore.

 

[kristiang85]

Sweden's urban densities are the same, if not more, than the UK, so it is a very valid comparison.

Whilst many pro restriction people quote the modelling figures for COVID as hard evidence, they don't quote the Bristol study saying 500,000 could die directly from the interventions. Whilst that also might be too many, it shows the fallacy of using modelling as a hard fact.

When you look at real world evidence, all countries pretty much end up at the same point. You cannot stop a virus, you need to learn to live with it. And lockdowns were not even in the WHO pandemic playbook until China did it, and things such as border closures and masks were actively advised against.

 

[Green tractor]

According to worldometer Sweden's population density is 25/sq KM

Uk is 281/sq KM

It is a big difference

You do wonder what would of happened if a vaccine hadn't been developed so quickly, the only solution I can think would of worked then would be suppress the virus with lockdowns etc to buy time to expand the health service.

 

[yorksrob]

According to worldometer Sweden's population density is 25/sq KM

Uk is 281/sq KM

It is a big difference

You do wonder what would of happened if a vaccine hadn't been developed so quickly, the only solution I can think would of worked then would be suppress the virus with lockdowns etc to buy time to expand the health service.

But it takes no account of the level of urbanisation.

 

[Yew]

You cannot make too much of a comparison with Sweden, the population density is much lower which obviously affects the spread of the disease.

Since this is so "obvious", could you provide a peer-reviewed source for it?

 

[Darandio]

According to worldometer Sweden's population density is 25/sq KM

Uk is 281/sq KM

It is a big difference

It isn't because that statistic is meaningless. Not all Swedes live in a log cabin miles from everyone else.

Percentage of people living in urban areas and cities in 2020:

Sweden - 87.98&
UK - 83.9%

Not really a difference at all.

 

[scarby]

According to worldometer Sweden's population density is 25/sq KM

Uk is 281/sq KM

It is a big difference

I live in Sweden, the difference you are presenting is caused by hundreds of miles of uninhabited areas such as forests, especially in the north.

We don't each live spread out dozens of kilometres from each other. Personal interaction in urban areas, which is where people live, is broadly similar to the UK - people live in family groups or have partners, they go to work, the shops, the bars, meet friends and relatives.

Some empty pine forests that make the overall population density so low is utterly, utterly irrelevant to preventing the spread of covid. You might as well say that Britain should be better protected from covid because of the Scottish Highlands or even the Atlantic Ocean.

 

[farleigh]

I live in Sweden, the difference you are presenting is caused by hundreds of miles of uninhabited areas such as forests, especially in the north.

We don't each live spread out dozens of kilometres from each other. Personal interaction in urban areas, which is where people live, is broadly similar to the UK - people live in family groups or have partners, they go to work, the shops, the bars, meet friends and relatives.

Some empty pine forests that make the overall population density so low is utterly, utterly irrelevant to preventing the spread of covid. You might as well say that Britain should be better protected from covid because of the Scottish Highlands or even the Atlantic Ocean.

Informative post. Thank you

 

[yorkie]

You cannot make too much of a comparison with Sweden, the population density is much lower which obviously affects the spread of the disease.

Have you been to Sweden? I suspect not! I went there last year during the pandemic and it's actually a lot more like Britain than people who have not been there might think.

Cases are low in rural Sweden as they are in rural Britain.

However the majority of people in Sweden live in big cities as is the case in Britain; cities such as Malmö, Gothenburg and Stockholm are just as high density as British cities.

Your argument makes absolutely no sense and this argument has been refuted in previous threads on this forum. I refer you to @scarby's post above mine which should clear up the misunderstanding you have regarding the population density of Sweden.

 

[Green tractor]

Compared to its neighbours Sweden's death rate is much higher.

If we still didn't have a vaccine (and in early 2020 it was a fantasy that one would be developed so quickly) the picture would be much different now.

 

[duncanp]

I see that Professor Pantsdown is thrashing about for excuses as to why his prediction of 100,000 cases per day after easing of restrictions on July 19th did not come true.

Professor Neil Ferguson has admitted that his prediction that Britain would face 100,000 Covid cases per day once lockdown restrictions eased on July 19 was wrong.

The Imperial College professor, once known as Professor Lockdown for his support of strict Covid measures, has blamed the Euros 2020 for his predictions being incorrect.

He said that the football championship had created an "artificially inflated level of contact", which led to his predictions in July that the UK would hit such a high number of daily Covid cases following phase four of unlocking.

Professor Ferguson said that cases decreased after the tournament ended, and added that the pingdemic had a "reasonable effect" on making it harder for the virus to spread.

The former member of the Government’s Sage group also raised hopes that the pandemic will largely be under control in Britain by the autumn, due to the vaccines "dramatically" changing the relationship between cases and hospitalisation.

In an interview with the Times, he said that Covid was "going to transition quite quickly in a few months to be more something we live with and manage through vaccination rather than crisis measures".

He also told the newspaper that lockdowns are “unlikely” to be needed to control the pandemic in the UK in future.

 

[Yew]

Compared to its neighbours Sweden's death rate is much higher.

If we still didn't have a vaccine (and in early 2020 it was a fantasy that one would be developed so quickly) the picture would be much different now.

The numbers seem broadly consistent with Denmark and Germany...

 

[yorkie]

Compared to its neighbours Sweden's death rate is much higher.

Sweden's neighbours do not have many cities which are comparable to Malmö, Gothenburg & Stockholm. So how is this relevant?

What relevance does this have? As I said before this argument has been made before and it was debunked before. Do we really have to go through this again?

If we still didn't have a vaccine (and in early 2020 it was a fantasy that one would be developed so quickly) the picture would be much different now.

If we didn't have a vaccine we would just have had to go back to normal anyway, as we did with OC43

 

[greyman42]

On the LNER service I’m on now, the TM has just announced ‘please ensure a face mask is worn, covering your nose & mouth, and that this is worn throughout your journey’….

I was on the 1359 York-London service and had a similar announcement. Then the guard did a ticket check with some sort of rag wrapped round his face. Absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Bikeman78]

Good question. Since going maskless in July I've not received anything close to a nasty stare or an accusatory glance. Even in this particularly mask-heavy London suburb.

Same here. People who want to wear them do, those who don't don't. Going through the Severn tunnel I noticed that no one bothered to put on a mask if they weren't already wearing one. This didn't appear to be a problem for anyone.

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

If we didn't have a vaccine we would just have had to go back to normal anyway, as we did with OC43

Sooner or later there is likely to be a new disease for which there is no vaccine. I hope I'm long gone before that happens. Given what I've seen over the past 18 months I don't think I'd want to live through that scenario.

 

[Green tractor]

If we didn't have a vaccine we would just have had to go back to normal anyway, as we did with OC43

How quickly would you go back to normal, and what would you do about caring for the sick? It would have to be done slowly.