Should we go back into lockdown at this point?

[yorkie]

Any sign of a second wave in Sweden?

No sign at all; they have sensible policies that are not confusing, and a sustainable strategy.

 

[initiation]

Primarily, it seems, any form of social distancing when meeting people outside their household indoors.

Except for those recent local lockdown areas, there is no rule or guidance that you are not allowed to, or must maintain social distancing when meeting other households indoors in a private setting. Thus people cannot be not following a rule that doesn't exist.

 

[Yew]

If distancing was implemented, you wouldn't need to do that.

And dare I say "diddums" about demoralising teachers? We are all demoralised by this whole thing; it's like a different version of wartime. Suck it up and do your job. If that job has to change a little bit due to the emergency that's going on[1], that's life.

[1] "It's still going on" (Holly, Red Dwarf)

Remind me what we gain from this vast sacrifice?

 

[Freightmaster]

It's far too early in the epidemic for a "circuit break" to be of any use.

You should only employ one when cases start to fall again naturally - that cuts the tail off.
Now it just imposes a random step in the curve that achieves nothing.

The above seems blindingly obvious to people on this forum, most of whom,
myself included, are not 'experts' by any stretch of the imagination, so why
are Government advisers (such as Whitty, Valance, Van Tam, etc) calling for
severe restrictions/lockdowns at this stage??




MARK

 

[HSTEd]

The above seems blindingly obvious to people on this forum, most of whom,
myself included, are not 'experts' by any stretch of the imagination, so why
are Government advisers (such as Whitty, Valance, Van Tam, etc) calling for
severe restrictions/lockdowns at this stage??

I think a lot of people are just horrified at the stats for number of dead and are just grasping at straws to avoid that outcome.

 

[Huntergreed]

The above seems blindingly obvious to people on this forum, most of whom,
myself included, are not 'experts' by any stretch of the imagination, so why
are Government advisers (such as Whitty, Valance, Van Tam, etc) calling for
severe restrictions/lockdowns at this stage??




MARK

To be fair, the advisers are trained to review things from a medical perspective. Their job doesn’t take into account the economic or social impact of any restrictions they suggest. This is the job of Boris and Hancock, and so far they’ve been unprecedentedly terrible at doing so.

 

[yorkie]

The above seems blindingly obvious to people on this forum, most of whom,
myself included, are not 'experts' by any stretch of the imagination, so why
are Government advisers (such as Whitty, Valance, Van Tam, etc) calling for
severe restrictions/lockdowns at this stage??

Perhaps because they're not considering the bigger picture and/or they're not as intelligent as their equivalents in Sweden?

To be fair, the advisers are trained to review things from a medical perspective. Their job doesn’t take into account the economic or social impact of any restrictions they suggest. This is the job of Boris and Hancock, and so far they’ve been unprecedentedly terrible at doing so.

That's a very good point.

 

[45107]

No they don't 50% may have SARS-CoV-2. Doubt many, if any, will develop full Covid-19.

And your evidence for this is ?

 

[najaB]

Any sign of a second wave in Sweden?

It's hard to say say the moment. The seven day rolling average of new cases has shown a slight uptick, but nothing that I'd call significant yet. But that's the problem with exponential growth - it always starts off small.

 

[Freightmaster]

If we go into a full lockdown, there's a good chance I'll do something to myself. My mental health is fragile as it is, that would push me over the edge and for what? When people aren't bloody dying...

I've flaming had enough of this sh*t. I tried to be compliant and understanding the first time, that will no longer happen.

For the sake of people's mental health more than anything else, do NOT do another lockdown!!!

I hope those who voted "yes" in this poll feel ashamed of themselves when they read the above post.






MARK

 

[najaB]

I hope those who voted "yes" in this poll feel ashamed of themselves when they read the above post.

I didn't vote so don't have any investment either way, but there's no reason for people to be ashamed of having an opinion.

Should someone who is, or has someone close to them who is in an at-risk group feel ashamed for wanting to protect them from infection?

 

[Cowley]

I didn't vote so don't have any investment either way, but there's no reason for people to be ashamed of having an opinion.

Should someone who is, or has someone close to them who is in an at-risk group feel ashamed for wanting to protect them from infection?

No, and you’re quite right about that.
I know how I feel about this, but if someone has a different opinion then that’s up to them.
Shutting down debate is a huge problem these days and I’d say that it does us good to listen to what we don’t want to hear sometimes...

 

[Freightmaster]

Should someone who is, or has someone close to them who is in an at-risk group feel ashamed for wanting to protect them from infection?

Yes, because a lockdown will only 'protect' them for a brief period (two weeks, if the latest rumours are to be believed);
as soon as lockdown is released, the virus will start spreading rapidly again, so lockdowns only delay the inevitable;
they do not 'protect' anyone, at risk or otherwise.




MARK

 

[DelayRepay]

Yes, because a lockdown will only 'protect' them for a brief period (two weeks, if the latest rumours are to be believed);
as soon as lockdown is released, the virus will start spreading rapidly again, so lockdowns only delay the inevitable;
they do not 'protect' anyone, at risk or otherwise.9

Agree - and this is why the strategy should focus on protecting the vulnerable, and making sure those who need to isolate due to symptoms can do so while the rest of us go about our business. The cost of providing an income and practical support (immediate grocery delivery if you need to isolate and you don't have much food, for example) would be far less than the ruin another lockdown would cause to the economy.

I have read only 20% of people who should be isolating actually do it properly. I don't know why; maybe they think the rules don't apply to them, maybe they are scared of losing their job if they take too much time off, maybe they don't have anyone to help with shopping and can't get a delivery, maybe there are other reasons. This is what needs to change - find out why people aren't isolating (because I guarantee the same people won't follow lockdown rules either). Address whatever the cause is whether it's financial, fear of losing their job, a need to shop and an inability to get items delivered or whatever. Some may just think the rules don't apply to them so the police should be able to enforce isolation. If someone who should be isolating is found to be breaking the rules, they should be arrested and taken to a central facility to complete their isolation.

I'm not convinced that lack of testing is really the issue people are making it out to be. I understand that if you test negative, you still have to isolate anyway. I think a lot of people assume that if you test negative that removes the need to isolate. And if people are ignoring the isolation rules anyway, then where is the benefit in increasing capacity?

 

[Bantamzen]

My anger and rage levels are becoming uncontrollable and talking to my colleagues I'm not the only one.

We were just starting to recover at my place and had some optimism for the next couple of months. I had even spent some time in the office block. Now this all looks very flaky. Some of my colleagues are pretty blind to the danger we are in funding wise. And even we decide to try and stagger through somehow, there's no point at all if everything around us is shuttered and we 'enjoy' going in to work and then get locked back in our houses. Meanwhile the twits in the flat below me on furlough smoke their wacky baccy and start drinking at 11am whilst I sit through another one of these b*strd Zoom meetings.

Edit- I didn't realise the Idiot in Chief, the fop haired buffoon was on my site today. I would dearly loved to tell him what I think of him to his face. The cretin.

Likewise, I've found myself getting increasingly angry not only at the government but at people who I know that are grimly determined to prolong lockdown misery. Having been working from home since 16th March, I am now starting to lose my marbles (not that I had a whole lot to start with!).

The above seems blindingly obvious to people on this forum, most of whom,
myself included, are not 'experts' by any stretch of the imagination, so why
are Government advisers (such as Whitty, Valance, Van Tam, etc) calling for
severe restrictions/lockdowns at this stage??




MARK

Because like all the other governments around the globe, they are too frightened to try something different.

It's hard to say say the moment. The seven day rolling average of new cases has shown a slight uptick, but nothing that I'd call significant yet. But that's the problem with exponential growth - it always starts off small.

Is it just possible that not having had an on-off-of-off lockdown strategy there are fewer cause to create increased infections rates?

 

[C J Snarzell]

Yes, because a lockdown will only 'protect' them for a brief period (two weeks, if the latest rumours are to be believed);
as soon as lockdown is released, the virus will start spreading rapidly again, so lockdowns only delay the inevitable;
they do not 'protect' anyone, at risk or otherwise.




MARK

As I've said before - the government are simply daming a river. I suspect they knew this back in March and the original lockdown was put in place to slow the spread so the NHS could cope.

Its still the same scenario now. If you get caught in a storm, you take shelter to stay dry. Unfortunately, the storm will not go away and as soon as you step outside, you are at risk of getting caught in the rain again. It's exactly the same with Covid19.

Chris Whitty and his medical team have made it clear very early on that this virus is not going away. Boris Johnson simply cannot justify a second lockdown, because what if we are then faced with a third spike, then a forth? It becomes the endless roller-coaster ride.

CJ

 

[221129]

I understand that if you test negative, you still have to isolate anyway. I think a lot of people assume that if you test negative that removes the need to isolate.

If you test negative then that's that. You dont need to continue to isolate.

 

[The Ham]

The Express was still supporting Hitler at the time.

That sounds like they no longer do, when that happen?

 

[yorksrob]

We certainly should not lock down again, it's a terrible idea.

 

[Richard Scott]

And your evidence for this is ?

Very few children develop Covid-19 so statically if half the class have the virus it's unlikely more than one of two will develop it.

 

[LAX54]

It's hard to say say the moment. The seven day rolling average of new cases has shown a slight uptick, but nothing that I'd call significant yet. But that's the problem with exponential growth - it always starts off small.

surely the more you 'test' the more the figures will rise ? back in March / April we were testing very few people, now it's upwards of 170,000 a day, so it stands to reason the number is higher ?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Sep 2020 ==

I didn't vote so don't have any investment either way, but there's no reason for people to be ashamed of having an opinion.

Should someone who is, or has someone close to them who is in an at-risk group feel ashamed for wanting to protect them from infection?

But then we have 'other illenesses' now on a steep rise, especially cancer related ones, that will it has been said, bring about numerous deaths from this, also those people who have lost jons since March is now 690,000 and rising, which will bring it's own health issues, all outweighing C19

 

[The Ham]

What measures would you all put in place to try and put an end to all this, and at the same time be acceptable to the wider public, the opposition, and the general media?

No restrictions, allow the cases to rise and some people to die, is therefore not a valid answer as that would not receive public support outside of this forum.

I'll start by saying what I wouldn't do.

I wouldn't have a national lockdown, not whilst large tracts of the country have less than 10 cases per 100,000.

What I would do is have clear guidelines in place so that if an area sees a given number of cases that there would be more restrictions brought in to cover that area.

In doing so those areas which follow the guidelines (keeping 2m apart unless 1m+ was needed) and saw low levels of cases would be able to get in with life in near normal conditions.

Once an region saw more cases then the rule of 6 would come into play, whilst those meet in larger groups, this is already the case as some have already suggested that they go to Wales/Scotland for Christmas so that their children aren't counted. With encouragement to WFH if that's viable (that's different to if it's possible, as viable means that the staff are productive, it doesn't impact on their mental health, etc.).

As cases rise further then further steps are poor in place.

More than 100 cases per 100,000 and local lockdowns happen to that area and those which surrounds it and working from home being encouraged and where that's not possible then zoning work places to bubbles of ideally 6 but a maximum of 30. Supermarket home delivery is encouraged with limits placed on numbers aloud into shops.

As it passes 150/100,000 then the local lockdown expands to be the areas which surround the neighbouring areas. Part time attendance of schools for secondary school children is introduced, with additional learning being undertaken at home but with teacher contact being possible using school contact details (e.g. main phone number or generic email or a general zoom meeting with the tutoring happening in a breakout room, etc.).

This could include in very high numbers of cases (say more than 500 cases per 100,000, which is still over double the number currently seen in Bolton) closure of all hospitality settings and restrictions on movement, which may even include the closure of motorway junctions and trunk roads passing through such areas to limit the risk of it being spread.

In having a clear guide as to what happens as cases increase there would be a clear incentive to limit the rise of infections so that you're area wasn't moved up a category of restrictions.

Obviously there'll be flexibility so that a family of 5 in a rural area doesn't trigger major restrictions.

 

[Ianno87]

Remind me what we gain from this vast sacrifice?

Always notable that it's sacrifices that *other people* have to make that are suggested.

 

[The Ham]

Nothing short of arrest will make me comply this time. The police would certainly have a job.

A relative who works within the NHS tells me she has been told to expect full lockdown by October. Great.

The NHS have been canceling leave in October for some time now in preparation for a second wave.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Completely agree. To my mind, once someone goes into a care home, they are just waiting to die. The food looks awful and, in my experience, there are usually buzzers or alarms going off all the time. That would drive me insane, assuming I hadn't gone deaf.

Sounds like a night in hospital, two of which were enough to cause me to lie about the severity of the pain I was experiencing so as to get out the next day.

 

[The Ham]

It's far too early in the epidemic for a "circuit break" to be of any use.

You should only employ one when cases start to fall again naturally - that cuts the tail off.
Now it just imposes a random step in the curve that achieves nothing.

The logic of having one early is so that you give the testing chance to increase capacity, by being able to test enough people then it should help with keeping maximum numbers down. However to do that there's a need to have the capacity to test most people every month so you can catch cases early.

For instance testing everyone in an area with high cases weekly, so that those with a positive test result can limit their movements to limit further spread before they show symptoms.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yet presumably none of them are at death's door?

No, but if the test hadn't been carried out and they'd gone round their Nan's?

(Grandparents of schoolkids tend to have quite a few more years left in them - it's not like those in a home for whom it might be welcome relief)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Sep 2020 ==

I’m not prepared to work through another lockdown as a “key worker”.

That's a very strong statement. What will you do instead? Quit and lose your income?

 

[najaB]

Is it just possible that not having had an on-off-of-off lockdown strategy there are fewer cause to create increased infections rates?

Not really, no. The drop in infection rates over the summer happened for exactly the same reason there as it did here, the increase (assuming there is one) is also likely to follow the same pattern.

surely the more you 'test' the more the figures will rise ?

Which is why the raw figure doesn't matter as much as the positivity rate. If your number of cases goes up but the positivity rate is the same or lower then no problem. But if the positivity rate is increasing (as it is) then that shows the virus is spreading again.

 

[C J Snarzell]

My guess is that Johnson will press for tighter restrictions despite the impact on the economy.

The furlough scheme has to be extended if Johnson pushed this further. If the furlough tap is turned off, workers will be dropped like Lemmings which will lead to some very hostile scenes in the coming months.

CJ

 

[Bantamzen]

Not really, no. The drop in infection rates over the summer happened for exactly the same reason there as it did here, the increase (assuming there is one) is also likely to follow the same pattern.

You mean when we started to re-open businesses, which wasn't needed in Sweden because they didn't have wholesale shutdowns of the hospitality businesses?

My guess is that Johnson will press for tighter restrictions despite the impact on the economy.

The furlough scheme has to be extended if Johnson pushed this further. If the furlough tap is turned off, workers will be dropped like Lemmings which will lead to some very hostile scenes in the coming months.

CJ

Unfortunately that might not be possible because at some point its going to exert way too much pressure on the Treasury.