NottsClaret wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:51 am

One thing's for sure, if an eventual vaccine did the same harm that lockdown has done - and like it or not, it's condemned hundreds of thousands to misery, hardship and death - then it would never get approved. Yet people are demanding lockdowns, with or without consent, for the whole country.

What's the WHO's stance on lockdowns now? Genuinely not sure anymore, I heard they were against them these days but quite possibly 'fake news'.

Lockdown isn't the aim but just a short term measure to stem the tide to let us put plans and processes in place to balance managing health and getting on with life.

Unfortunately our govt has spent more time handing out big bucks contracts to their mates then developing the systems and tools to live with this virus.

This has been compounded by a dishonest press and a public who are more inclined to believe a Facebook post or a YouTube video that confirms there own uneducated opinion than listen to the people who understand the situation the most

The best way to manage where we are currently seems to be

1 Test/trace/isolate
2 Mask wearing
3 Distancing
4 Travel Restrictions
5 Identifying and stopping super spreading events
6 Good guidance to the public on what is risky and what is not

Country's who have been successful with the above have seen the best results in terms of health and the economy so it is not an extreme either or as you seem to think. If the govt would have got the above in place during the first lockdown you can see how we could easily living alongside this virus

Until we can get on top of the above actions and somehow get the majority of the people to listen to evidence based advice and work as one society then we will forever be walking the tightrope between killing our people and killing our economy and as you can't really separate them we are ending up killing them both

I have no hope for this country in terms of its leaders, press and people to achieve the above so we will just bundle and argue our way unsucessfully through it until we final get a vaccine, herd immunity or the virus mutates in to a much less dangerous version of its current self but when any of those will happen is anyone's guess

That's certainly true martin. Seems odd though, that we have such a high bar for harm a vaccine is allowed to do. Very mild side-effects and a 1 in 50,000 chance of real harm is completely unacceptable, enough to get a trial stopped and if confirmed, the whole project abandoned.

But we know for definite, right now, that lockdowns are hugely more damaging than that. Imagine if the Oxford vaccine kills thousands with treatable illnesses over the next 5 years, means kids can't be educated for months, closes thousands of businesses forever, leaves the elderly to die alone and drives people to suicide. Would we still hammer those who didn't want all that from an injection as irresponsible and selfish?

You could still say, yeah, well the alternative to a vaccine is even worse. But nobody does say that. Just that it has to be almost entirely safe, first rule of medicine etc.. cause no harm. But we don't hold lockdowns to the same standard, so why is that?

martin_p wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:50 am

No, where we differ is that I’ve read and digested the rules and you haven’t. Old people don’t need to sit at home staring at the walls. If they are alone they can form a support bubble with one other household and are free to visit and have visits when they wish. If they are able to get out for a walk they can meet friends in a park as long as they socially distance.

The problem with having all the answers is that when answer number 1 is "I'm clever and you aren't", you tend to lose credibility.

I am perfectly well aware that this hypothetical single old person, although possibly not able to see their family and old friends, will be able to go out and knock on doors to find some equally lonely old person who doesn't happen to be in a bubble with family and old friends. But I don't really see it happening.

And yes, I am aware that this coming winter they will be able to go and sit on adjacent park benches with their old friends and shout at each other. And that will be good for the coronavirus stats because if they die of pneumonia they won't be dying of Covid. But I do not consider it an adequate solution to the problem of the lonely old in lockdown, especially those with some form of dementia.

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 13, 2020 9:18 pm

Four

Five

Madness and irresponsible..
BBC News - Coronavirus: Liverpool crowds dispersed on eve of new restrictions
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-m ... e-54535481

The Enclosure wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:39 am

Madness and irresponsible..
BBC News - Coronavirus: Liverpool crowds dispersed on eve of new restrictions
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-m ... e-54535481

They really are thick as f***.

dsr wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:26 am

I am perfectly well aware that this hypothetical single old person, although possibly not able to see their family and old friends, will be able to go out and knock on doors to find some equally lonely old person who doesn't happen to be in a bubble with family and old friends. But I don't really see it happening.

If they choose their family’s household to form a bubble with they’ll be able to see the family in that household. There’s no need for them to be lonely. Obviously they can’t see everyone they used to see but this ‘lonely old person’ picture you paint isn’t enforced by the lockdown rules.

Steve1956 wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:35 am

FiveFB_IMG_1602667958910.jpg

I wouldn’t laugh too much, it’ll be coming to Lancashire soon enough.

We should just put a boarder around Liverpool and give them independence.

martin_p wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:46 am

I wouldn’t laugh too much, it’ll be coming to Lancashire soon enough.

And?

We are not trying to eradicate the virus with lockdowns, we are trying to stay in the safe zone until a vaccine can create herd immunity. Herd immunity cannot be achieved without one, we do not have it for flu for example, we needed the flu jab.

Yes, we might have to do several two weeks lock downs periodically until the vaccine arrives but in between people could live more normal lives, non-covid medical treatments could take place etc. Hardship would be short and sharp as opposed to long and prolonged.

We don't even know if this 3 tier system will take us under R-1, the 5 tier system didn't work nor did the local lockdowns so eventually another national lockdown maybe essential and we will again like the first start at a far higher number which takes far longer to climb down from hurting the economy even more.

martin_p wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:44 am

If they choose their family’s household to form a bubble with they’ll be able to see the family in that household. There’s no need for them to be lonely. Obviously they can’t see everyone they used to see but this ‘lonely old person’ picture you paint isn’t enforced by the lockdown rules.

One of the problems with families is that they aren't linear. I know that when I was a boy, I had two grandmothers - my mother's mother and my father's mother. Under today's rules, my parents could have nominated either grandmother as a bubble; they could not have nominated both.

Besides, I'm not sure you're right about loneliness. Can you be lonely if you see one person for an hour a week, for example? Could someone who has a reasonably busy social life become lonely if it's almost, but not completely, cut off? I suspect they could. Give it a try sometime. Stop in your house for 6 months and see only 1 other person in that time, as often as you like. See how much fun it is.

There's a reason why old people are (normally) encouraged to get out and meet people; to be sociable; to keep the mind active.

dsr wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 13, 2020 11:22 pm

I can't see the point of keeping schools, universities, and workplaces open but closing all the pubs and restaurants. That isn't a "circuit breaker". Is Starmer seriously suggesting that someone who spends all day at work but calls in at the pub later is vulnerable, but someone who spends all day at work and goes straight home is safe? Surely the main places where this disease is spread, is the place where people spend the most time.

If he wants a circuit breaker, then it has to be thorough. No work, no play, no sport, no walking the dog. Otherwise it's not a circuit breaker, it's a temporary pause.

How on earth do you deny a dog having a pee or poo, we'll all have houses full of germs on top of covid, I fully agree with your principle that if we have lockdown it's a proper one, which was one of the mistake's in the first place ie - : letting 20m people back in the country, but we can't deny our animals and ourselves for that matter a degree of exercise, but fully agree with the principle we lockdown proper, other countries had road blocks first time, borders closed, not us, but we can't do that primarily because of austerity, we don't have the police or military numbers to be able to police it.

Never in a million years did I think I'd ever say this, but Arlene Foster (DUP) and Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Fein) have a better grip on this pandemic than the chaotic idiots in Downing St. There, I've said it and I don't feel good about saying it either, in fact it's absolutely gutting, but it just goes to show how shockingly bad this Johnson led govt is.

Billy Balfour wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:09 am

Never in a million years did I think I'd ever say this, but Arlene Foster (DUP) and Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Fein) have a better grip on this pandemic than the chaotic idiots in Downing St. There, I've said it and I don't feel good about saying it either, in fact it's absolutely gutting, but it just goes to show how shockingly bad this Johnson led govt is.

Do you think Boris will get a second term? I do because the alternative is frightening!

dsr wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:04 am

One of the problems with families is that they aren't linear. I know that when I was a boy, I had two grandmothers - my mother's mother and my father's mother. Under today's rules, my parents could have nominated either grandmother as a bubble; they could not have nominated both.

Besides, I'm not sure you're right about loneliness. Can you be lonely if you see one person for an hour a week, for example? Could someone who has a reasonably busy social life become lonely if it's almost, but not completely, cut off? I suspect they could. Give it a try sometime. Stop in your house for 6 months and see only 1 other person in that time, as often as you like. See how much fun it is.

There's a reason why old people are (normally) encouraged to get out and meet people; to be sociable; to keep the mind active.

No one said it’d be fun, we’re in a global pandemic things are rubbish for everyone! It’s bad timing for those entering the final years of their life but unfortunately that’s life! But the alternative is worse. While I’m sure you’ll argue that many elderly people would happily sacrifice a few years of life to continue seeing their family and friends I’m equally sure that most elderly people wouldn’t be happy to sacrifice their sons and daughters as well. That’s what is potentially at stake here.

no matter what the scientists and government tell us to do to quash this pandemic, as long as there's dross on the streets as there were in liverpool last night, we don't stand a chance.
I'd put money on them queue jumping for a vaccine too should it become available, and lying about their mad antics when a family member succumbs to covid in the near future.
truly sickening to see how people behave in a national crisis.
jobs on the line, education affected, but as long as they can congregate and have a laugh .... young people eh? got to love em.

I wish people would stop generalising about old people when they haven’t a clue what they are talking about.
If you want to express an opinion then do so after you’ve spent some time talking to a few of us. I can guarantee you will find out a wide range of feelings about this virus and it’s effects from us. You might even think a bit more next time before becoming a spokesperson for us.

Oddly, I don’t find a virus that’s killed over 40,000 people that funny but, hey, each to their own.

Steve1956 wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:12 am

Do you think Boris will get a second term? I do because the alternative is frightening!

I'm not afraid to say I voted Labour, in the run up to the election people asked me do I trust corbyn over johnson, that wasn't the issue for me and that was the basis of my own personal campaign, the answer was no but I trust Labour over Johnson and that now is the thing being out right now, truth is Boris is an absolute idiot and a liar, which is also the case with his cabinet, which is why my response to will Boris get a second term has to be a resounding no !!

Andy Burnham doesn't want tier 3 restrictions (which is a base level which local authorities can add onto like Liverpool did with gyms etc. So he could just take the base level and leave it at that)

Contrary Kier wants a full national lock down shut everything down.

What is it the Labour party want.

At least the SNP have been consistent, the Welsh Labour party have been consistent and the DUP/SF have been consistent.

Is it just politicians in England who can't tell their arse from their elbow?

SingaporeClarets wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 14, 2020 4:03 pm

Andy Burnham doesn't want tier 3 restrictions (which is a base level which local authorities can add onto like Liverpool did with gyms etc. So he could just take the base level and leave it at that)

Contrary Kier wants a full national lock down shut everything down.

What is it the Labour party want.

At least the SNP have been consistent, the Welsh Labour party have been consistent and the DUP/SF have been consistent.

Is it just politicians in England who can't tell their arse from their elbow?

It's hard to believe whether Keir Starmer (or as he's also known as - Captain Hindsight), wants the national lockdown to simply damage Boris even further, or whether he genuinely thinks that's the best thing to do, taking into account the economy.

SingaporeClarets wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 14, 2020 4:03 pm

Andy Burnham doesn't want tier 3 restrictions (which is a base level which local authorities can add onto like Liverpool did with gyms etc. So he could just take the base level and leave it at that)

Contrary Kier wants a full national lock down shut everything down.

What is it the Labour party want.

At least the SNP have been consistent, the Welsh Labour party have been consistent and the DUP/SF have been consistent.

Is it just politicians in England who can't tell their arse from their elbow?

Well you’ve conveniently forgotten to mention that the Manchester politicians are saying that a short national lockdown would be better than tier three (because it would attract the financial support they don’t think is there for tier three), so it’s very clear what the Labour Party want.

Swizzlestick wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:22 pm

Oddly, I don’t find a virus that’s killed over 40,000 people that funny but, hey, each to their own.

There are people being equally facetious ont he other side. Have you seen this lead story from the BBC?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54538278

They have produced a graph showing deaths potentially rising from 100 now to 950 or just short on 2nd January, and then worked out there are 84 days between 10th October and 2nd January so that means 950 deaths x 84 days = 79,800 deaths if we don't do anything. And there are two people's names attributed to the graph. You would think that if two people draw a graph together, at least one of them would be able to add up. Or that the BBC would employ an O level statistician to point out the obvious fallacies.

dsr wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 14, 2020 4:22 pm

There are people being equally facetious ont he other side. Have you seen this lead story from the BBC?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54538278

They have produced a graph showing deaths potentially rising from 100 now to 950 or just short on 2nd January, and then worked out there are 84 days between 10th October and 2nd January so that means 950 deaths x 84 days = 79,800 deaths if we don't do anything. And there are two people's names attributed to the graph. You would think that if two people draw a graph together, at least one of them would be able to add up. Or that the BBC would employ an O level statistician to point out the obvious fallacies.

I assume it’s come from the unpublished research yet to be reviewed by scientists. On the face of it it does seem to be very obviously wrong.

martin_p wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 14, 2020 4:30 pm

I assume it’s come from the unpublished research yet to be reviewed by scientists. On the face of it it does seem to be very obviously wrong.

The M Keeling on the graph is a professor of mathematics at Warwick University. I can't believe he's made that error. It's an idiot BBC scaremongerer who tried to make a frightening headline figure without any knowledge of how numbers work.

dsr wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 14, 2020 4:37 pm

The M Keeling on the graph is a professor of mathematics at Warwick University. I can't believe he's made that error. It's an idiot BBC scaremongerer who tried to make a frightening headline figure without any knowledge of how numbers work.

I wonder if the numbers have been added by the BBC rather than being in the report. It does state that the report concludes that a circuit break could reduce deaths by between 29% and 49% yet the graph illustrates a reduction of over 50% which leads me to believe the figures aren’t from the report.

martin_p wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 14, 2020 4:42 pm

I wonder if the numbers have been added by the BBC rather than being in the report. It does state that the report concludes that a circuit break could reduce deaths by between 29% and 49% yet the graph illustrates a reduction of over 50% which leads me to believe the figures aren’t from the report.

50% overall, or just for the time of the circuit break?

The graph is speculation of course, not long since the one which had us on 50,000 cases a day by yesterday (18,000). So I wouldn't pay too much attention.

But the figures... I don't mind a few grammatical errors and the like, but getting basic maths like this wrong, with something a huge number of people will be reading and being frightened by. Not good enough really - still on there too.

dsr wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 14, 2020 4:22 pm

There are people being equally facetious ont he other side. Have you seen this lead story from the BBC?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54538278

They have produced a graph showing deaths potentially rising from 100 now to 950 or just short on 2nd January, and then worked out there are 84 days between 10th October and 2nd January so that means 950 deaths x 84 days = 79,800 deaths if we don't do anything. And there are two people's names attributed to the graph. You would think that if two people draw a graph together, at least one of them would be able to add up. Or that the BBC would employ an O level statistician to point out the obvious fallacies.

"The scientists warn there are three things that must be considered as part of any discussion of a circuit breaker:

What are the harms to the economy and society?
Will people support and abide by more tight controls?
What happens next to ensure we do not return to the same situation?"

None of these seem to be a consideration for SAGE - that is why there is a difference between their recommendations and government action. Even if 1, and particularly 3, are of little matter to BloJo and his cronies in the cabinet who seem more interested in making sure their mates get lots of high value contracts even if they have no experience, let alone expertise, to deliver.

A lot of pubs will be making so little at the moment it might be better for them to go into tier 3 so they qualify for government help.

bfcmik wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 14, 2020 5:14 pm

"The scientists warn there are three things that must be considered as part of any discussion of a circuit breaker:

What are the harms to the economy and society?
Will people support and abide by more tight controls?
What happens next to ensure we do not return to the same situation?"

None of these seem to be a consideration for SAGE - that is why there is a difference between their recommendations and government action. Even if 1, and particularly 3, are of little matter to BloJo and his cronies in the cabinet who seem more interested in making sure their mates get lots of high value contracts even if they have no experience, let alone expertise, to deliver.

Sage never consider anything other than the scientific outcome, and scientific intervention, no consideration is given to financial outcomes, mental wellbeing or general fitness of the country that's all down to government to work out

FactualFrank wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 14, 2020 4:15 pm

It's hard to believe whether Keir Starmer (or as he's also known as - Captain Hindsight), wants the national lockdown to simply damage Boris even further, or whether he genuinely thinks that's the best thing to do, taking into account the economy.

Captain Hindsight = Learning from Government mistakes and not wanting to repeat them.

Johnson today said he would not rule out another lock down.

He knows once ICU beds are full it will be essential once again to take pressure off the NHS. But rather than doing it now for a short time he would rather wait until the virus is rampant again and it takes us exponentially longer to recover to a safe level.

Whitty and SAGE all say even the Tier 3 measures will not be effective in reducing R.

Reminder too re: ICU beds, even at R1 (which we are now above) ICU beds will fill at a constant rate, it can be 6-7 weeks for patient recovery.

So if you achieve R=1 when 100 people a week are being put in ICU then week you have 100 in ICU, next week 2 its 200, week 3 it's 300, week 4 it's 400 etc.
To clear beds takes a long lag time and ideally a reclining R rate.
And we're above R=1 one and growing fast. Remember too it's not death or fine, it can cause long lasting problems. And if you'd rather see the NHS dealing with non-Covid issues like cancer etc. The fastest way to do that would be to implement a Circuit Breaker lockdown for a set period. Then the normal procedures can take place while the rates slowly climb again from a very low number.

You may say that's just kicking the can down the road, yes it is, until this shower sorts out an effective track and trace system or a vaccine is put into public use.

CombatClaret wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 14, 2020 5:51 pm

You may say that's just kicking the can down the road, yes it is, until this shower sorts out an effective track and trace system or a vaccine is put into public use.

I can't see Serco sorting out track and trace before this things runs its course or we get a vaccine. It's a private company, they're making vast amounts of cash, handed out by pals in government. Where's the incentive to get it working? It won't make them any richer.

NottsClaret wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 14, 2020 5:58 pm

I can't see Serco sorting out track and trace before this things runs its course or we get a vaccine. It's a private company, they're making vast amounts of cash, handed out by pals in government. Where's the incentive to get it working? It won't make them any richer.

Documents released today show some employees being paid up to £7000 per day. Must be great having mates in government.

alwaysaclaret wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:24 pm

I'm not afraid to say I voted Labour, in the run up to the election people asked me do I trust corbyn over johnson, that wasn't the issue for me and that was the basis of my own personal campaign, the answer was no but I trust Labour over Johnson and that now is the thing being out right now, truth is Boris is an absolute idiot and a liar, which is also the case with his cabinet, which is why my response to will Boris get a second term has to be a resounding no !!

That's the sad thing buddy yes the country is being run by idiots,but the alternative is the country being run by even bigger idiots...sad but true!

Steve-Harpers-perm wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 14, 2020 6:05 pm

Documents released today show some employees being paid up to £7000 per day. Must be great having mates in government.

It's an absolute scandal, but we're pretty accepting of scandals now. Johnson could tell you himself about the deals he's handed out to his mates, laugh in your face while he was telling you, refuse to give those plucky NHS nurses a pay rise.. and you'd still have droves of the working class Northerners he openly despises licking his boots.

NottsClaret wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 14, 2020 6:12 pm

It's an absolute scandal, but we're pretty accepting of scandals now. Johnson could tell you himself about the deals he's handed out to his mates, laugh in your face while he was telling you, refuse to give those plucky NHS nurses a pay rise.. and you'd still have droves of the working class Northerners he openly despises licking his boots.

Exactly right, but the alternative is too frightening to contemplate, apparently

NottsClaret wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 14, 2020 5:58 pm

I can't see Serco sorting out track and trace before this things runs its course or we get a vaccine. It's a private company, they're making vast amounts of cash, handed out by pals in government. Where's the incentive to get it working? It won't make them any richer.

Your comment in conjunction with what you quoted from Combat perfectly highlights the sh*tty catch 22 dilemma we are in and reflecting on it from this perspective I can see why some people are against these lockdowns and just get on with it even if that's not my view

Cant link them at moment but YouGov poll on 2 werk circuit breaker surprised me with level of support

68% support v 20% oppose

Tory voters even more suprising

65% support v 26% oppose

Steve1956 wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:35 am

FiveFB_IMG_1602667958910.jpg

Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 14, 2020 6:36 pm

Cant link them at moment but YouGov poll on 2 werk circuit breaker surprised me with level of support

68% support v 20% oppose

Tory voters even more suprising

65% support v 26% oppose

Think it’s the short nature of it that sounds attractive to voters. Two weeks of inconvenience followed by relative normality doesn’t sound so bad. It’s if we get to a point where we need one every other fortnight that it becomes less appealing.

Can we not just build a massive wall around Liverpool and forget about them and there annoying accent forever?

Steve1956 wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 14, 2020 7:29 pm

Can we not just build a massive wall around Liverpool and forget about them and there annoying accent forever?

You have to let it go Steve .... Let it go m8

Bosscat wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 14, 2020 7:35 pm

You have to let it go Steve .... Let it go m8

Not a chance Stewart.

We will be put in tier 3 tomorrow.