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

[35B]

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?

At the time I wrote, no. More generally, I am not sure how relevant that comparison is, or whether it proves anything about what would or would not have worked in the UK. As there has been severe criticism on here for those who've compared Sweden's performance to that of it's neighbours because one country can't meaningfully be compared with another, the use of that comparison makes many massive assumptions. My understanding is also that Sweden, though resisting lockdowns or some measures like mask wearing for a long time, had advice in place, voluntarily complied with, that amounted to a significant level of distancing.

 

[WelshBluebird]

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

Are Sweden and Florida holding music festivals and other large scale events where 20k plus people attend with no social distancing or anti covid measures?
I've not seen any examples of them doing so, while I have seen examples of that in countries who pursued zero covid.
Even the superbowl held in Florida the other day had a hugely reduced attendance where you had to socially distance and a large percentage of the capacity was reserved for people who had been vaccinated. Very different to what say NZ has been able to do.

 

[MikeWM]

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.

Read the quotes - it is quite explicitly what they are saying! They may well not get their way, but you can't deny these are actual quotes from the people involved, and what is mad about pointing them out? How else are you interpreting a quote like 'some restrictions like the Rule of Six and face masks in public places might need to remain in place 'forever''? That sounds rather explicitly like 'forever' to me.

 

[Bikeman78]

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.

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


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.

It may have worked for New Zealand but I don't think we can ever reach that point now. Same goes for most other countries in the world. As I've already said, 1700 road deaths per year is acceptable so why wouldn't 1700 Covid deaths be as well? Shall we stop all road vehicles to try and reduce deaths to zero?

 

[yorkie]

Are Sweden and Florida holding music festivals and other large scale events where 20k plus people attend with no social distancing or anti covid measures?

I'm not sure how relevant this is; places like Sweden are doing sensible measures which do not infringe on our civil liberties.

I've not seen any examples of them doing so, while I have seen examples of that in countries who pursued zero covid.

I'd far rather be in Sweden, with its consistent approach than in a place that can call an instant lockdown at any time with no notice, as Zero Covid Australia is doing.

Zero Covid means extensive isolation for a long time but is not applicable to the UK for reasons stated many times before.

Even the superbowl held in Florida the other day had a hugely reduced attendance where you had to socially distance and a large percentage of the capacity was reserved for people who had been vaccinated. Very different to what say NZ has been able to do.

Neither Florida nor the UK could have done what NZ did because we were in a very different situation right from the start. I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

 

[Yew]

Are Sweden and Florida holding music festivals and other large scale events where 20k plus people attend with no social distancing or anti covid measures?
I've not seen any examples of them doing so, while I have seen examples of that in countries who pursued zero covid.
Even the superbowl held in Florida the other day had a hugely reduced attendance where you had to socially distance and a large percentage of the capacity was reserved for people who had been vaccinated. Very different to what say NZ has been able to do.

They're also not locking down over a state having a single case.

 

[35B]

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...

To recap, one poster said that there were expert voices who are being denied airtime, to which another said that they're being denied because of Ofcom rules. I asked what the expertise was that is being denied airtime, and haven't had an answer.

I completely agree with the rest of what I've quoted from your post, and am very well aware that combining expertise across a number of areas is essential to get a balanced view. I would, however, suggest that some of the anti-lockdown scientific voices have not exactly covered themselves in glory in the last year with what they've said in public, or who they've chosen to ally with, which may be part of why they're falling foul of Ofcom rules.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Read the quotes - it is quite explicitly what they are saying! They may well not get their way, but you can't deny these are actual quotes from the people involved, and what is mad about pointing them out? How else are you interpreting a quote like 'some restrictions like the Rule of Six and face masks in public places might need to remain in place 'forever''? That sounds rather explicitly like 'forever' to me.

First of all, I think you are making a massive leap from taking a quote about what someone things is a good idea from a very limited scientific "what would help against COVID" point of view and assuming that they are suggesting that is what they want for all eternity.

Secondly, I'd actually like to see a quote where a scientist who is an expert in the field who is advising the government is saying those things should exist forever. Because so far I've only seen those statements in hyperbolic comments like yours.

It may have worked for New Zealand but I don't think we can ever reach that point now. Same goes for most other countries in the world. As I've already said, 1700 road deaths per year is acceptable so why wouldn't 1700 Covid deaths be as well? Shall we stop all road vehicles to try and reduce deaths to zero?

I haven't said it can work for us now (it could have had we acted early enough though). What I was saying is that zero covid can be a successful strategy if you get it right and it isn't some lunatic scheme like some people on here are acting like it is.

As for road deaths - we do try to reduce those as close to zero as we can. It is why we have driving licenses and heavy penalties for breaking the law, and why cars continue to get safer and safer every year. To suggest we aren't trying to reduce road deaths to zero is pretty naive.

 

[brad465]

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.

I agree with your points about financial hardship and resultant problems, however are you sure those cannabis farms weren't found because of the classic heat escaping through the roof and melting snow, and/or because the police went on a specific drugs busting spree at the time?

 

[WelshBluebird]

I'm not sure how relevant this is; places like Sweden are doing sensible measures which do not infringe on our civil liberties.

I mean - would you rather be in a country that has taken a policy against COVID that has allowed them to hold mass events (like NZ) or one that hasn't (like us or Sweden).

I'd far rather be in Sweden, with its consistent approach than in a place that can call an instant lockdown at any time with no notice, as Zero Covid Australia is doing.

And yet, it is Australia and NZ who are able to safely hold mass events that us or Sweden are not able to hold right now.

Zero Covid means extensive isolation for a long time but is not applicable to the UK for reasons stated many times before.

Extensive isolation for a small number of people would be much preferable for me than the current scenario thanks.

Neither Florida nor the UK could have done what NZ did because we were in a very different situation right from the start. I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Lets disagree about "right from the start". Had we acted earlier we could have been in the same position. But obviously that doesn't help now.
My point was just that zero covid isn't a mad strategy. It has worked for some countries. The only reason it isn't an option for us is that we acted too late.

 

[takno]

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.

I strongly suspect it's operating in the minds of a significant number of the scientists making a lot of the calls though. Things like the demonisation of alcohol, or suggestions that social distancing and masks can stay forever because they aren't really any trouble, suggest that they have a very particular mental image of how people do or should live their lives, and very little empathy. Basically a lot of them are quite likely more comfortable now that people are finally doing what they're told.

As to the government, I doubt it. They are too lazy to do anything with that kind of power anyway. Plus at least half the cabinet must be bright enough to realise that, from a historical perspective, keeping this level of control forever doesn't look like the actions of the good guys. No doubt there are a few swivel eyed back benchers and home secretaries who genuinely would like to lock us all down forever, but they wouldn't be able to take any of the major parties with them, let alone the voters.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I strongly suspect it's operating in the minds of a significant number of the scientists making a lot of the calls though.

Come on. No it isn't. They do not want to restrict gatherings to 6 people or ban socialising altogether for all eternity.
Suggesting that is the case really is making me think this forum is turning people mad.

Sure, there may be opinions of thinking harsher restrictions would help for the short to medium to maybe even longer term. But nobody involved in making advice to government is wanting the things you are claiming forever and ever amen.

Can people please step back into reality for a second. People are not wanting to ban socialising or implement things like limitations on gatherings for the rest of time.

 

[yorksrob]

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.

And frankly I think they did better post lockdown 1, than later on in the year.

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

With respect, is an understanding of human nature and how society works not a type of expertise ?

 

[takno]

Lets disagree about "right from the start". Had we acted earlier we could have been in the same position. But obviously that doesn't help now.
My point was just that zero covid isn't a mad strategy. It has worked for some countries. The only reason it isn't an option for us is that we acted too late.

I don't think there was a point when we could realistically have acted. We weren't quick off the mark, but we couldn't really have acted more than 3-4 weeks earlier, and that was basically already too late. New Zealand and Australia both already benefited from significant geographical benefits, not being heavily exposed to the much more infectious European strain, and substantial existing controls on immigration.

In any case, the point is that we are where we are now, and trying to achieve zero Covid from where we are now is a mad strategy. You appear to largely agree with that

 

[35B]

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

Absolutely. Which requires realism and honesty from proponents of all approaches about how policy success should be measured and assessed. I give the benefit of the doubt to the government at present, because the alternative arguments put forward seem focused on denying reality, and devoid of rigour. Which is a pity when there are real discussions to be had about the costs of current policy, and the trade-offs it must involve.

I strongly suspect it's operating in the minds of a significant number of the scientists making a lot of the calls though. Things like the demonisation of alcohol, or suggestions that social distancing and masks can stay forever because they aren't really any trouble, suggest that they have a very particular mental image of how people do or should live their lives, and very little empathy. Basically a lot of them are quite likely more comfortable now that people are finally doing what they're told.

As to the government, I doubt it. They are too lazy to do anything with that kind of power anyway. Plus at least half the cabinet must be bright enough to realise that, from a historical perspective, keeping this level of control forever doesn't look like the actions of the good guys. No doubt there are a few swivel eyed back benchers and home secretaries who genuinely would like to lock us all down forever, but they wouldn't be able to take any of the major parties with them, let alone the voters.

You confuse the desire of people obsessed with a single issue with an overall political objective.

With respect, is an understanding of human nature and how society works not a type of expertise ?

Indeed it is. But I'm still not sure which experts you're saying are blocked, or the basis for their claims as experts.

Surrounding all of this is my grave distrust of what I've seen of the anti-lockdown campaign, and it's descent from serious questioning into partisanship and crankery - one of the key points made by Snowden in his articles. My breaking point over many of those arguments, and protagonists, came with the Danmask study and the transparent and seemingly deliberate misrepresentation of the findings by a scientist I'd previously had a lot of respect for.

 

[WelshBluebird]

And again I'm feeling the need to make a comment about the fact that the SAGE advisers job is not to (and to quote a member above's signature), "balance COVID against other societal ills". That is governments job. That is a government failure if that does not happen. To blame the experts whose job is solely to advise on the health impact and the transmission of the virus is pretty misguided when it is governments responsibility to bring in economists etc etc.

 

[52290]

As much as I want the pubs to reopen I wouldn't want Sweden's crap beer and eye-watering prices.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Surrounding all of this is my grave distrust of what I've seen of the anti-lockdown campaign, and it's descent from serious questioning into partisanship and crankery

Yep - that is what I am seeing too. And you are seeing it here - with people seriously suggesting there is a desire to ban all socialising for ever and ever, which is clearly not the case.

 

[takno]

Come on. No it isn't. They do not want to restrict gatherings to 6 people or ban socialising altogether for all eternity.
Suggesting that is the case really is making me think this forum is turning people mad.

Sure, there may be opinions of thinking harsher restrictions would help for the short to medium to maybe even longer term. But nobody involved in making advice to government is wanting the things you are claiming forever and ever amen.

Can people please step back into reality for a second. People are not wanting to ban socialising or implement things like limitations on gatherings for the rest of time.

I think there's every sign that some of the people advising the various governments, and even more so some of the experts talking to the press, are seriously unhinged. I'm not sure they are operating on a machiavellian plan, just that they are somewhat out of kilter with the way most people operate. Some of them clearly struggle to believe that people actually want to be in a room with more than 5 other people, and are so much more comfortable with a mask on themselves that they can't understand why other people don't learn to like them.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I think there's every sign that some of the people advising the various governments, and even more so some of the experts talking to the press, are seriously unhinged. I'm not sure they are operating on a machiavellian plan, just that they are somewhat out of kilter with the way most people operate. Some of them clearly struggle to believe that people actually want to be in a room with more than 5 other people, and are so much more comfortable with a mask on themselves that they can't understand why other people don't learn to like them.

I disagree with most of what you say, but fine that is your opinion.
But to take that thought - and then suggest there is a plan to ban socialising or gatherings full stop forever - that is a leap of faith to say the least - and that is what I am having a problem with people about here.

 

[MikeWM]

Come on. No it isn't. They do not want to restrict gatherings to 6 people or ban socialising altogether for all eternity.

Why explicitly say 'forever' then, if that isn't what they mean? I'm saying they mean what they are saying. You seem to be trying to read their mind and saying they don't actually mean what they say. Is there any evidence for that?

I agree it is insane, but what is on the record is on the record.

 

[yorkie]

Here we go again...

First of all, I think you are making a massive leap from taking a quote about what someone things is a good idea from a very limited scientific "what would help against COVID" point of view and assuming that they are suggesting that is what they want for all eternity.

Secondly, I'd actually like to see a quote where a scientist who is an expert in the field who is advising the government is saying those things should exist forever. Because so far I've only seen those statements in hyperbolic comments like yours.

John Edmunds is deemed to be a "scientist" and "expert" (notwithstanding my concerns expressed above) who has said this:

UK should be ‘more or less free of Covid crisis by Christmas'

The Sage expert also said some measures would remain 'probably forever'.

metro.co.uk

Professor John Edmunds, a member of the Government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage), said some measures would remain ‘probably forever’.

We need to push back against this narrative.

I haven't said it can work for us now (it could have had we acted early enough though). What I was saying is that zero covid can be a successful strategy if you get it right and it isn't some lunatic scheme like some people on here are acting like it is.

Again you are twisting the truth.

Zero Covid may have been the best strategy for NZ given their very different situation to us at the start of the pandemic; the argument now is that people like Devi Sridhar and her ilk are calling for Zero Covid policy in the UK.

Did anyone claim that Zero Covid was a "lunatic" policy for NZ specifically, or did you make that up?

As for road deaths - we do try to reduce those as close to zero as we can. It is why we have driving licenses and heavy penalties for breaking the law, and why cars continue to get safer and safer every year. To suggest we aren't trying to reduce road deaths to zero is pretty naive.

If you think that, you are the one who is pretty naive. If we took it to the same extremes, we'd be imposing legislation requiring car journeys to be essential and all sorts of other stuff.

The measures taken to reduce deaths on roads, or indirectly caused by road vehicles, are not in any way comparable to lockdown measures whatsoever and it is highly disingenous for you to suggest we are doing everything we can in the context of drastic lockdown measures. It's on a completely different scale!

I mean - would you rather be in a country that has taken a policy against COVID that has allowed them to hold mass events (like NZ) or one that hasn't (like us or Sweden).

This is one of the most blatant examples of a false dichotomy I've ever seen!

Sweden took the right approach for them. NZ may have taken the right approach for themselves but we were never in a position to do that, and nor were Sweden.

Why explicitly say 'forever' then, if that isn't what they mean? I'm saying they mean what they are saying. You seem to be trying to read their mind and saying they don't actually mean what they say. Is there any evidence for that?

I agree it is insane, but what is on the record is on the record.

John Edmunds is insane. And the really funny thing is, he has alienated people on all sides. Does anyone actually hold him in high regard in terms of his views on the strategy going forward and the bigger picture? I highly doubt it.

He's a classic example of someone in academia who is in a bubble compared to the rest of us. Very good at a very specific job, yes. But awful at seeing the bigger picture. His arguments have been very inconsistent, too. He's unstable, which is absolutely perfect for the media; they love interviewing someone like him, because they know it's going to make a great news story.

And yet, it is Australia and NZ who are able to safely hold mass events that us or Sweden are not able to hold right now.

See above, this is a completely false comparison.

Extensive isolation for a small number of people would be much preferable for me than the current scenario thanks.

But this isn't a viable option for the UK

Lets disagree about "right from the start". Had we acted earlier we could have been in the same position. But obviously that doesn't help now.

No we couldn't; the UK is not an island. NZ doesn't have loads of lorry drivers driving straight off ferries and trains into NZ. NZ is not a global transport hub. I could go on....

The failings in your argument demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of basic principles. I have no idea why you are even arguing these things in a UK lockdown thread.

My point was just that zero covid isn't a mad strategy. It has worked for some countries. The only reason it isn't an option for us is that we acted too late.

That is far from the "only reason"; see above for some reasons, and that's just the start.

 

[duncanp]

And yet, it is Australia and NZ who are able to safely hold mass events that us or Sweden are not able to hold right now.

Would the mass events that Australia is able to hold "safely" include the Australian Open Tennis Tournament in Melbourne, where spectators have now been banned, and the city plunged into a "snap lockdown" over just a few COVID-19 cases?

 

[DustyBin]

I disagree with most of what you say, but fine that is your opinion.
But to take that thought - and then suggest there is a plan to ban socialising or gatherings full stop forever - that is a leap of faith to say the least - and that is what I am having a problem with people about here.

I absolutely believe that there is a contingent within the scientific community, including SAGE, who would like to exercise increased control over our everyday lives because they know best (or so they believe). There are others, the likes of Michie, who I strongly suspect of trying to use the pandemic to further a political agenda. There are quite clearly politicians attempting the same. I really don't think this is tinfoil hattery; it would be incredibly naive to think that there aren't people out there who see this as an opportunity.

Do I think there's a grand plan or script being folllowed? No. Do I think there are those attempting to slip in a few permanent changes to the way we live on the back of this pandemic? Absolutely.

 

[MikeWM]

John Edmunds is insane. And the really funny thing is, he has alienated people on all sides. Does anyone actually hold him in high regard in terms of his views on the strategy going forward and the bigger picture? I highly doubt it.

Not too hard to find videos of him from last March supporting the herd immunity strategy we started with. There's a notable one with him arguing with the wretched Thomas 'let's have lots of lockdowns and coincidentally I'll make buckets of money from my online education software' Pueyo about exactly that.

He's a classic example of someone in academia who is in a bubble compared to the rest of us. Very good at a very specific job, yes. But awful at seeing the bigger picture. His arguments have been very inconsistent, too. He's unstable, which is absolutely perfect for the media; they love interviewing someone like him, because they know it's going to make a great news story.

Exactly so.

 

[Bantamzen]

I agree with your points about financial hardship and resultant problems, however are you sure those cannabis farms weren't found because of the classic heat escaping through the roof and melting snow, and/or because the police went on a specific drugs busting spree at the time?

Well at least one was a city centre bar in Bradford! What my point is that when people run into financial hardship, some will turn to criminal means, which is clearly the case here.

 

[brad465]

Well at least one was a city centre bar in Bradford! What my point is that when people run into financial hardship, some will turn to criminal means, which is clearly the case here.

Yes and if we're not careful that crime will turn into unrest one day. Which, incidentally, leads onto this story about police struggling to breakup sledging crowds in the North East:

Police 'outnumbered' by Middlesbrough and Newcastle sledging crowds

Cleveland Police says large crowds take a lot of resources to disperse and are "hugely frustrating".

www.bbc.co.uk

Police were left "outnumbered" and "hugely frustrated" when hundreds of people gathered to sledge in snow.

Large crowds congregated to frolic on Newcastle's Town Moor and Flatts Lane Country Park in Middlesbrough on Wednesday and Thursday.

Covid regulations allow police to issue fines for organised gatherings but the rules do not apply for crowds consisting of individual households.

Cleveland Police Insp Tony Cross said: "It's taking up a lot of resources."

"You can see we're outnumbered," he added.

"If they're not going to engage with us and we can't explain and reason with them in an amicable manner we're going to have to start taking names and addresses and issuing fines."

This in itself is a sign of decreasing compliance, and I wonder if the language of police being "outnumbered" would inspire those wishing for unrest to potentially try their luck with it?

 

[takno]

Well at least one was a city centre bar in Bradford! What my point is that when people run into financial hardship, some will turn to criminal means, which is clearly the case here.

To be honest, Cannabis growers are very effective at taking over any and space that's not currently in use and that they think they will get a 6 month clear run at. I'd be surprised if the business got any money out of it at all, and the landlord usually just ends up with a massive bill to repair all the damage.

Cannabis is another area where an overbearing government trying to control and prevent perfectly natural and largely harmless human activity has serious and unpleasant consequences which are far more damaging than what they are trying to prevent. That's definitely a question for another thread though.

 

[NorthOxonian]

Yes and if we're not careful that crime will turn into unrest one day. Which, incidentally, leads onto this story about police struggling to breakup sledging crowds in the North East:

Police 'outnumbered' by Middlesbrough and Newcastle sledging crowds

Cleveland Police says large crowds take a lot of resources to disperse and are "hugely frustrating".

www.bbc.co.uk

This in itself is a sign of decreasing compliance, and I wonder if the language of police being "outnumbered" would inspire those wishing for unrest to potentially try their luck with it?

And that's just the crowds big enough to attract media attention - on a walk through Gateshead yesterday, I walked past a few hills with at least a couple of dozen sledgers each. It does seem like the majority are voting with their feet (or with their sledges)!

 

[Bantamzen]

To be honest, Cannabis growers are very effective at taking over any and space that's not currently in use and that they think they will get a 6 month clear run at. I'd be surprised if the business got any money out of it at all, and the landlord usually just ends up with a massive bill to repair all the damage.

I'm sure they are, in fact I know they are (a government office I used to work in had one discovered next door!). However I know the story behind the bar in question, and I'm fairly certain the owners would have both known about it & benefited from it. And just keeping this on topic, I read recently that drug related crime is up significantly West Yorks, which doesn't surprise me for reasons discussed above.