Should we go back into lockdown at this point?

[yorkie]

I would say I feel a lockdown would do far more harm than good. It certainly made me, a generally stable individual, utterly miserable. In the last week we've had at least 5 suicides on our routes. A colleague has also just passed away from cancer at a very young age. Instead of enjoying her last months with her friends and family she was holed up at home and latterly a hospice.

Some restrictions, sure. A full lockdown again - no thanks, I suspect most would rather take their chances.

Very well said!

How is going into lock down going to help? Perhaps a temporary reduction in transmission rates, but as soon as you open things up, the rate will go back up again as it did the first time around.

Exactly!

I saw on Alan Jones on Sky Australia (mislaid the link, alas) quoting figures comparing the world population then (1.8bn) with 2020.
To have killed the same percentage of the present population, deaths from Coronavirus would need to hit 210 million to be as deadly as Spanish flu, which actually killed young people in far greater percentage than Covid does

I don't think Sars-Cov-2 is a particularly dangerous virus; the big issue with it is that we don't have much immunity to it (some people claim we have no immunity but that's not true) so it spreads more readily. The 'danger' - for the overwhelming majority - is the spread, not the effects.

The average age of a Covid19 death is around 83; I don't know if the average age of deaths during the H1N1 Spanish 'flu pandemic is known but it would be extremely low in comparison (obviously people didn't live as long, but it also affected younger people much more).

I am not sure if 'flu deaths are measured in the same way as Covid19 deaths, but if they aren't, I wonder how much higher they would be if they are.

 

[Yew]

The average age of a Covid19 death is around 83;

That's a very interesting statistic, that's roughly in line with the average life expectancy of the UK; which is not what you'd expect if this was the "killer virus" that the media makes it out to be.

I've noticed that Prof Henneghan from the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine has started referring to COVID as an Endemic, rather than Pandemic, virus. Which does seem to be a more realistic way of thinking about it

 

[yorksrob]

It was not following rules... probably because he had a sense of entitlement. Had he done so, not visited friends, and not hauled his Covid laden frame round several watering holes, that would undoubtedly have been better!

At least they were rules with some basis. Had he used public transport, following the rules on masks, the chances of him passing on the virus would have been very slim, yet some officials seem determined to introduce rules against non-essential public transport.

 

[adc82140]

The average age of a Covid19 death is around 83; I don't know if the average age of deaths during the H1N1 Spanish 'flu pandemic is known but it would be extremely low in comparison (obviously people didn't live as long, but it also affected younger people much more).

The Spanish Flu was picking off previously fit and well young people (like flu still can do today. Flu killed about a dozen previously well children in the UK last year, Covid has killed none, but I digress) There was also no high dependency care available. That's why I stop reading whenever a lazy hack starts making comparisons.

 

[yorksrob]

Some countries were rather stupid and pointlessly banned outside exercise. The UK made the very sensible choice not to do so. Two countries, Spain and Italy, committed institutional child abuse by keeping children in for 2 months, that said, which was again totally unnecessary.

Other than that, our "lockdown" was very similar to other European countries.

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



A number of these events have involved people engaging in pub crawls. While these are fun, it's not really the time for it. Would a sensible restriction be that you are only allowed to visit one licensed premises per day for consumption on the premises? That would keep that sort of thing under control. How you'd implement it I'm not sure, perhaps via the NHS app, or perhaps just via the existing pubwatch schemes.

I'm personally a bit too past it for pub crawls, although I will often visit two or three pubs in a day, whilst engaging in track/trace and social distancing guidance. I think one pub in a day would be a very strict guideline personally. One mightbe visiting somewhere and have lunch in a pub, then have a beer back home in the evening. This doesn't seem like excessive behaviour.

 

[hwl]

Unlike 6 months ago we have some understanding of which activities have much higher spread risk and are far better at managing serious cases in hospital.

Hence targeted restrictions should be quite effective in controlling the rate of increase in spread.

It will be interesting to see the effect of the "rule of 6" (seen to be effective in Belgium where we copied it from) and potential wider hospitality trade restrictions have had in a fortnights time.

France have realised that "back to office" was a bit of mistake with the fairly low level of mitigation measures they went for but we need to make sure.

Retail with mitigation measures has been shown to be fairly low transmission risk in multiple countries.

 

[The Ham]

The Spanish Flu was picking off previously fit and well young people (like flu still can do today. Flu killed about a dozen previously well children in the UK last year, Covid has killed none, but I digress) There was also no high dependency care available. That's why I stop reading whenever a lazy hack starts making comparisons.

Technical there's been 6 children who have died who have contracted Covid-19, however they were all seriously ill beforehand.

The general point still stands that flu impacts all ages much more than Covid-19 does.

With regards to infection rates flu for about the line we went into lockdown but from the year before (mid March 2019) had a UK wide rate of 12/100,000, whilst fast forward to 12 months ago and it was 3/100,000 (there's few places where Covid-19 levels are that low, but then we're probably testing for it a lot more)

Whilst the rate of infections for 2019 were lower than recent years, it does highlight that Covid-19 does get passed around much more easily than the Flu.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It will be interesting to see the effect of the "rule of 6" (seen to be effective in Belgium where we copied it from) and potential wider hospitality trade restrictions have had in a fortnights time.

Belgium did 2 things - rule of 6 and hospitality closed 10pm-5am. I think we should do both and hold our nerve to see what happens before piling more on.

 

[hwl]

Belgium did 2 things - rule of 6 and hospitality closed 10pm-5am. I think we should do both and hold our nerve to see what happens before piling more on.

Agreed, though the impact may not be as great with the return of schools and universities here now.

 

[yorksrob]

Belgium did 2 things - rule of 6 and hospitality closed 10pm-5am. I think we should do both and hold our nerve to see what happens before piling more on.

Yes, even I (and I would have thought the majority of hospitality outlets) could live with closing at ten. Dangerously close to my bedtime anyway.

It has to be better than forcing businesses to close again with no recompence.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It has to be better than forcing businesses to close again with no recompence.

Indeed. I think it'd work, too, because lopping a couple of hours off drinking time means people get less drunk, which means better distancing. But I think 2200 is late enough that people will go home after rather than going round other peoples' houses (at least on weekdays). 2100 might have the opposite effect.

Might be worth having old style afternoon closing too, to stop people getting too drunk by staying in all day. Say have hours as 1100-1400 and 1700-2200?

 

[PTR 444]

Indeed. I think it'd work, too, because lopping a couple of hours off drinking time means people get less drunk, which means better distancing. But I think 2200 is late enough that people will go home after rather than going round other peoples' houses (at least on weekdays). 2100 might have the opposite effect.

Might be worth having old style afternoon closing too, to stop people getting too drunk by staying in all day. Say have hours as 1100-1400 and 1700-2200?

I wonder if alcohol rationing might also help. Say for example people are only allowed to have one alcoholic drink per pub, or can only order alcohol with a meal.

 

[Howardh]

How is going into lock down going to help? Perhaps a temporary reduction in transmission rates, but as soon as you open things up, the rate will go back up again as it did the first time around.

It will be like the electricity power cuts of the 70's, instead of hours insert "weeks" when we had three hours off, nine on, three off....

If we are gonna have this extra-time lockdown, it will be pointless (and infuriating) if people can go to work - key workers excluded of course - and the schools remain open. If it's lockdown then it has to be full, everyone, everything.

Then what if it doesn't work??

 

[DB]

I wonder if alcohol rationing might also help. Say for example people are only allowed to have one alcoholic drink per pub, or can only order alcohol with a meal.

Do you seriously think that it would be viable for pubs to open with those sory of rules? Unless almost all their business is food it wouldn't be worth them opening at all.

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed. I think it'd work, too, because lopping a couple of hours off drinking time means people get less drunk, which means better distancing. But I think 2200 is late enough that people will go home after rather than going round other peoples' houses (at least on weekdays). 2100 might have the opposite effect.

Might be worth having old style afternoon closing too, to stop people getting too drunk by staying in all day. Say have hours as 1100-1400 and 1700-2200?

I agree about 22:00 (in that it might be worth trying, rather than anything more damaging).

Not convinced about the mid day shut down though.

Incidentally, I read an article by a publican today pointing out that if you close pubs completely, a lot of younger people (and personally I don't think it would be confined to just younger people - but I think he was thinking in terms of people going back to university) gettin together in homes and flats which would be worse.

 

[DB]

It will be like the electricity power cuts of the 70's, instead of hours insert "weeks" when we had three hours off, nine on, three off....

If we are gonna have this extra-time lockdown, it will be pointless (and infuriating) if people can go to work - key workers excluded of course - and the schools remain open. If it's lockdown then it has to be full, everyone, everything.

Then what if it doesn't work??

There's no 'if' about it - it can't work. The most it will do is slow it down a bit, and it is unclear what purpose that would serve.

 

[Scrotnig]

I'm sure the person who went abroad from Bolton, then didn't quarantine when they got back, and is now responsible for a certain chunk of the Bolton spike, also considered it "somewhat of a right" to go and see their friends on a pub crawl, rather than thinking of their responsibilities to others.

It certainly was his right to do that and there was no problem with him doing it as such. The issue was that he did it when he'd just got back from one of the countries you have to quarantine on return from, and he didn't do that.

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

Boris is too much of a libertarian for that.

Yes that's no doubt why, as a libertarian, he ordered three water cannons to use against London citizens.

 

[Ianno87]

It was not following rules... probably because he had a sense of entitlement. Had he done so, not visited friends, and not hauled his Covid laden frame round several watering holes, that would undoubtedly have been better!

It certainly was his right to do that and there was no problem with him doing it as such. The issue was that he did it when he'd just got back from one of the countries you have to quarantine on return from, and he didn't do that.

Did the guy/wassock definitely bring Covid back from abroad, or was it from the "mingling" on his return?

Either way, had he Quarantined correctly on return it wouldn't have spread as much.

 

[Scrotnig]

They never told you that the first time around.

Technically you could go into your garden - though the police seemed to have other ideas about that - but apart from that 'no person may be outside the place where they live without reasonable excuse' was what the law said. I could no longer go out simply because I wanted to go out. If they reimpose that restriction, I shall wilfully and deliberately ignore it.

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

Did the guy/wassock definitely bring Covid back from abroad, or was it from the "mingling" on his return?

Either way, had he Quarantined correctly on return it wouldn't have spread as much.

Supposedly he started showing symptoms a few days after his return, but also after the pub crawl. So it's pretty likely he caught it abroad.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Technically you could go into your garden - though the police seemed to have other ideas about that - but apart from that 'no person may be outside the place where they live without reasonable excuse' was what the law said. I could no longer go out simply because I wanted to go out. If they reimpose that restriction, I shall wilfully and deliberately ignore it.

You could, though, because you'd just say you were taking exercise.

 

[takno]

I wonder if alcohol rationing might also help. Say for example people are only allowed to have one alcoholic drink per pub, or can only order alcohol with a meal.

I haven't seen much (or actually any) evidence that drunk people in pubs are causing a particular problem. I've seen a few assumptions that it does from people who are only too willing to blame absolutely everything on drinking, but no actual evidence. If you limit them to one drink though they will just go on a pub crawl, and there is some evidence that that causes a problem

 

[Skimpot flyer]

I agree about 22:00 (in that it might be worth trying, rather than anything more damaging).

Not convinced about the mid day shut down though.

Incidentally, I read an article by a publican today pointing out that if you close pubs completely, a lot of younger people (and personally I don't think it would be confined to just younger people - but I think he was thinking in terms of people going back to university) gettin together in homes and flats which would be worse.

If you really want to curb young people getting together, socialising for a drink and being under one roof, it’s not pubs that need to close.

It’s Starbucks, Costa, Caffè Nero etc

 

[yorksrob]

If you really want to curb young people getting together, socialising for a drink and being under one roof, it’s not pubs that need to close.

It’s Starbucks, Costa, Caffè Nero etc

TBH, I don't think I would want to stop young people getting together and socialising. It seems a sinister and unnatural state of affairs.

Although if they could do so in the socially distanced, controlled environment of a pub for example, it would be better in the current situation.

 

[james60059]

There's another forum I use on which it would be the opposite way round (no, not Mumsnet).

Haha, Mumsnet - The main source of news for the Daily Mail.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

TBH, I don't think I would want to stop young people getting together and socialising. It seems a sinister and unnatural state of affairs.

Although if they could do so in the socially distanced, controlled environment of a pub for example, it would be better in the current situation.

It was meant as a tongue-in-cheek comment.
I don’t think these rules have any logic or that they will do anything. Except perhaps postpone the day when we have to face reality: this virus will not be eradicated

 

[yorksrob]

It was meant as a tongue-in-cheek comment.
I don’t think these rules have any logic or that they will do anything. Except perhaps postpone the day when we have to face reality: this virus will not be eradicated

Don't worry, i didn't think you did

I do think that there's something to be said for the hospitality industry providing a more COVID secure environment where people can mix though.

 

[DB]

Don't worry, i didn't think you did

I do think that there's something to be said for the hospitality industry providing a more COVID secure environment where people can mix though.

To what end though? The virus isn't going yo disappear so provided the NHS doesn't get overwhelmed what does all this theatre actually achieve, other than making things thoroughly unpleasant?

 

[yorksrob]

To what end though? The virus isn't going yo disappear so provided the NHS doesn't get overwhelmed what does all this theatre actually achieve, other than making things thoroughly unpleasant?

I'm willing to go through some inconveniences - to keep a bit of a lid on things until vulnerable people can get a jab.

But lockdowns are disproportionate IMO.

 

[najaB]

And Spanish flu was a lot more dangerous than this virus.

It's interesting that you say this, do you have a source to back it up? Everything I've seen says that the fatality/infection rate was about 2% for Spanish Flu [1] where the official numbers for Covid-19 are around 3%[2] . Naturally, since this is still "in flight" the numbers will change, but I've not seen anything that suggests Spanish Flu was "much more dangerous".

[1]https://www.biospace.com/article/compare-1918-spanish-influenza-pandemic-versus-covid-19/
[2] https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

 

[Domh245]

It's interesting that you say this, do you have a source to back it up? Everything I've seen says that the fatality/infection rate was about 2% for Spanish Flu [1] where the official numbers for Covid-19 are around 3%[2] . Naturally, since this is still "in flight" the numbers will change, but I've not seen anything that suggests Spanish Flu was "much more dangerous".

[1]https://www.biospace.com/article/compare-1918-spanish-influenza-pandemic-versus-covid-19/
[2] https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

That 2% estimate for spanish flu appears to be an IFR - the 3% from the John Hopkins dashboard is a CFR - the estimated IFR is of the order 0.1-0.5% last I checked

At its worse, the Spanish flu infected 500 million people worldwide, which at the time was about a third of the Earth’s population. More than 50 million people died of the disease, with 675,000 in the U.S. There is some disagreement on that figure, with recent researchers suggesting it was about 17.4 million deaths, while others go as high as 100 million. Generally speaking, the fatality rate for the Spanish flu is calculated at about 2%.