Firstly. In March I felt the response to our current crisis was necessary and appropriate.

We knew very little about the disease. How to treat it. Its mortality rate. How it spreads and thrives. How quickly it may mutate. How it may affect young, fit and healthy people.

Buying time was sensible as we looked to a strategy to prevent hospitals becoming overrun.

Over time it became apparent that other critical services being delayed or cancelled were only going to cause a bigger problem in the long run.

An entire generation of youth have lost valuable education. The worlds entire working population have had major challenges. ALL of us have been affected by the measures implemented.

Not downplaying the virus. That threat remains very real, particularly for those in vulnerable categories. But now is the time to use the 'circuit breaker' to plan for an alternative strategy. Covid deaths and issues are the tip of a very huge iceberg of other issues:

Unemployment being the obvious one. But physical and mental health issues are the biggest for me. Along with all of the other crisis' in waiting from delayed treatments. Kids missing valuable education and even more valuable social interaction. The young fit and healthy who would work us out of the recession having no prospects to return to work.

Hopefully from lockdown people have learnt more about how important health and hygiene is. And how valuable the 'small things' are. Who would have thought that things such as seeing your friends and family.

A never ending cycle of lockdowns and restrictions will alienate even the most reasonable of people. It will inevitably lead to major social unrest and civil disorder. We saw in summer with BLM you only need the right excuse and the wrong combination of people for something nasty to happen. And the media will be there to stir it up.

Unclear, inconsistent messages no matter how well intentioned have alienated too many. And it’s not the people you would think that aren't following.

Many reasonable people will feel they have nothing left to lose. While individuals & businesses need to adapt & change they need to at least feel like there is hope.

The strategy needs a major rethink & simplifying.

The response at the start of the crisis was the right one. But when the fix is worse than the problem that’s when things need to change quickly. And government won’t be remembered for how they started but how they finished.

We need to find better ways of testing, tracing and protecting the most vulnerable and regain trust. These are as important as treatments and vaccines! With quick, accurate testing we can return to some semblance of normality even without treatments. But the longer the mixed messages and different approaches go on, the more jobs and futures lost the more people start to see sense in the 'whacky' conspiracies.

Some pretty alarming stats regarding excess deaths - many of these people will have delayed or even avoided treatment either through fear or simply not being allowed.

We missed an opportunity in summer when weather was nice, people were able to mix outdoors etc to encourage the virus to filter through the less vulnerable in a reasonably controlled way.

It seems the only strategy at the minute is holding out and delaying for a vaccine. Perhaps those in power have confidence that this is imminent? But there is a growing population of people who don't trust that there best interests are at heart and wont let a government who cant manage an excel document administer them with a vaccine!

The advice on masks also alienated people. 'Dont wear them'. 'They dont work'. To mandatory in almost all places. Perhaps it was a tactic to prevent people buying them up before the NHS and thats a sound idea (assuming they even work). But the public would have been more accepting of honesty.

Some alarming stats released today that show 91% of excess deaths in private homes have been NON Covid related. These stats exclude suicides.

----

91% of excess deaths in private homes were non-Covid related
The ONS confirmed that excess deaths in private homes – the number of deaths above the average for the corresponding period in the previous five years – have mostly been deaths not involving Covid-19.

Of the 25,472 excess deaths in private homes in England that were registered up to September 11, 2,358 (9%) were deaths involving Covid-19 while 23,114 (91%) were non-Covid excess deaths.

In Wales, of the 1,624 excess deaths in private homes over the same period, 134 (8%) were deaths involving Covid-19 while 1,490 (92%) were non-Covid excess deaths.

22 hours ago
Female deaths in Welsh private homes from dementia and Alzheimer’s disease up almost double five-year average
In Wales, deaths in private homes for males from heart disease are up 23% on the five-year average, prostate cancer deaths have increased 75% and bowel cancer deaths are up 52%.

The number of female deaths in private homes from dementia and Alzheimer’s disease is almost double the five-year average (up 92%) while deaths from breast cancer are up 28%.

22 hours ago
Male heart disease deaths in private homes up 26 per cent
Deaths in private homes in England for males from heart disease since the start of the coronavirus pandemic are 26 per cent higher than the five-year average, according to new figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
Prostate cancer deaths have increased 53 per cent while deaths from bowel cancer are up 46 per cent.

For women, deaths in private homes from dementia and Alzheimer’s disease have increased 75 per cent while deaths from breast cancer are up 47 per cent.

All figures cover deaths that were registered between March 14 and September 11.


-----

What happens next?

Its not a case of Covid or Cancer. We need to find a balance. We need to protect the vulnerable but in a way that also protects the non vulnerable.

We need more stats. More evidence on who are the most at risk groups. What are the stats for people outside of these groups. And allow people (including those at risk) some ability to make their own (reasonable) decisions and take their own (reasonable) risks.

The virus is clearly still here and clearly still a risk. There are no easy answers. Its about finding the least worse balance.

Soz

To answer the question: Yes.

https://gbdeclaration.org/

We're crippling our economies, hurting people's mental wellbeing and damaging our wider healthcare.

I admire the the OP's blind faith in our government's initial responses......................

Rowls wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:48 am

We're crippling our economies, hurting people's mental wellbeing and damaging our wider healthcare.

And do you think a virus ripping through a population left to it’s own devices would be any less disaster out for those three things?

The kids aged 13 and above are the ones losing valuable education. Below that age they are learning very little that will advance their career prospects or even appear on their crucial exams, when they reach that age.
In saying that there appears to be very little of the virus amongst the younger children and I would imagine the teachers are at greater risk than them.
My feeling is that Government wants the youngest back at school to allow parents work and keep the economy ticking over. Elder children can pretty much look after themselves.

The loss of valuable education has been and gone at schools, all schools are supposed to be open now and even the local ‘circuit breaker’ in Wales will only extend the half term holiday for a week in secondary schools. I don’t think we’ll see lengthy school closures again at this stage.

CFC I cannot quibble with the stats you have posted but at the end of all this we will need to look into the total deaths and see how they vary with the annual rate of about 500,000/year. That home deaths are up could be a good thing as most people would like to die at home and certainly total hospital deaths are down. The stats on heart disease are strange given that my colleagues did see far less acute heart attacks and we know that untreated the death rate is around 12% reduced to about 8% with modern treatment. If there were a lot of undiagnosed untreated heart attacks in the community 1) not all would die-in fact you might postulate that there would be 1 extra death per 25 heart attacks 2) given there are 3 broad scenarios in untreated heart attacks a) death b) complete recovery c) heart failure. The interesting thing is that apparently we have not seen an increase in admissions with new heart failure.
I recognise all the pros and cons of what we are doing and have done to keep a check on this virus. In the first instance the lock down would appear to have been essential to allow the NHS to treat emergencies and it copes-just about. This time we have to keep Covid in some form of check to allow the NHS to cope with Covid, seasonal flu, other emergencies and deal to some part with those awaiting elective surgery. That means there is no way we can have a large number of additional admissions over winter for Covid patients and we do know how to reduce transmission.
It beholds every one to adhere to the rules to try and achieve these ends and the fewer people we meet the less likely are we to transmit or pick up the virus

We have to look faorward to six weeks of lockdown , bliss don't think so

Nothing wrong with an enforced 4 week full lockdown over Christmas if it’s planned in advance as a “circuit breaker” (who thinks of these analogous names!)

Zlatan wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:57 pm

Nothing wrong with an enforced 4 week full lockdown over Christmas if it’s planned in advance as a “circuit breaker” (who thinks of these analogous names!)

Do you reckon this is what's going to happen?

martin_p wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:10 pm

The loss of valuable education has been and gone at schools, all schools are supposed to be open now and even the local ‘circuit breaker’ in Wales will only extend the half term holiday for a week in secondary schools. I don’t think we’ll see lengthy school closures again at this stage.

I met with a teacher yesterday. He has been working from home on and off pretty much since the schools returned.

The madness of one kid testing positive and the whole class isolating for two weeks means it only takes 15 kids at different times to be exposed to the virus to have 30 weeks of no classroom teaching.

FactualFrank wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:58 pm

Do you reckon this is what's going to happen?

Absolutely no idea mate but it wouldn’t be the worst scenario.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:48 am

We're crippling our economies, hurting people's mental wellbeing and damaging our wider healthcare.

Absolutely.

Zlatan wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:57 pm

Nothing wrong with an enforced 4 week full lockdown over Christmas if it’s planned in advance as a “circuit breaker” (who thinks of these analogous names!)

That’s the hospitality sector gone then.

evensteadiereddie wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:56 am

I admire the the OP's blind faith in our government's initial responses......................

To be honest it was the least worse option at the time and the one that was likely to be most widely accepted.

Are their actual figures of deaths caused by Covid? I’m not on about being tested positive within 28 days and already had medical problems or knocked down by a car but actual numbers.

huw.Y.WattfromWare wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:07 pm

The kids aged 13 and above are the ones losing valuable education. Below that age they are learning very little that will advance their career prospects or even appear on their crucial exams, when they reach that age.
In saying that there appears to be very little of the virus amongst the younger children and I would imagine the teachers are at greater risk than them.
My feeling is that Government wants the youngest back at school to allow parents work and keep the economy ticking over. Elder children can pretty much look after themselves.

Educationally perhaps maybe right, But socially both interaction and social education they are missing out massively.

Tribesmen wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:50 pm

We have to look faorward to six weeks of lockdown , bliss don't think so

Therein lies one of the problem. There sno clear strategy or communication or plan to get out of it. Its just delaying the problem.

cricketfieldclarets wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:06 pm

Therein lies one of the problem. There sno clear strategy or communication or plan to get out of it. Its just delaying the problem.

In the hope of getting a vaccine that is effective

martin_p wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:01 pm

And do you think a virus ripping through a population left to it’s own devices would be any less disaster out for those three things?

Who on earth is suggesting that?

Rowls wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:35 pm

Who on earth is suggesting that?

You were implying it?

martin_p wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:36 pm

You were implying it?

No.

You have incorrectly inferred it.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:38 pm

No.

You have incorrectly inferred it.

Ok, so what point were you making?

martin_p wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:39 pm

Ok, so what point were you making?

You could have made an effort to understand that before you posted couldn't you? Especially as you were so keen to misrepresent me.

If you follow the link I posted you'd face a chance of understanding.

Please dont tell me you take Johhny Banana's and the rest of the crew behind the (not so) Great Barrington Declaration seriously? There work has been completely discredited and anybody with a serious voice in the media who is pedalling is a disgrace

Rowls wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:42 pm

You could have made an effort to understand that before you posted couldn't you? Especially as you were so keen to misrepresent me.

If you follow the link I posted you'd face a chance of understanding.

Sorry I thought the link was a joke, it was widely discredited by the scientific community shortly after it appeared.

"Austerity" was responsible for a cut of about 4-5% in government spending and an equivalent (so a widely accepted study declares) 130,000 excess deaths.

I reckon it's a seriously flawed survey but many people accept it. If the study is correct, then the drop in GDP and hence in governemt income, allied to the drop in individual income due to large scale unemployment and the increase in social security payments which must take funds away from other government departments, then the number of deaths caused so far by the anti-virus measures must be running at higher-than-usual levels by tens of thousands. Then you add in the ill people who stayed away from the NHS because they were told to, and the elderly and lonely with dementia whose condition has got significantly worse, and the cost of these measures is becoming huge.

Then add in the foreigners who are suffering. Not the EU or the USA, but the imports that we aren't buying from Africa, from India, from places where the poor are very very poor. How many lives are being lost to their additional poverty?

dsr wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:54 pm

"Austerity" was responsible for a cut of about 4-5% in government spending and an equivalent (so a widely accepted study declares) 130,000 excess deaths.

I reckon it's a seriously flawed survey but many people accept it. If the study is correct, then the drop in GDP and hence in governemt income, allied to the drop in individual income due to large scale unemployment and the increase in social security payments which must take funds away from other government departments, then the number of deaths caused so far by the anti-virus measures must be running at higher-than-usual levels by tens of thousands. Then you add in the ill people who stayed away from the NHS because they were told to, and the elderly and lonely with dementia whose condition has got significantly worse, and the cost of these measures is becoming huge.

Then add in the foreigners who are suffering. Not the EU or the USA, but the imports that we aren't buying from Africa, from India, from places where the poor are very very poor. How many lives are being lost to their additional poverty?

Austerity has lasted ten years, COVID 7 months. If it last ten years then yes the numbers will be significantly higher.

The case count at 740,000 has given a death count of 43,000.
(5.8%). With an estimated 66m in the UK, we are looking at 1.1% infected (that we know of). Our rate of 5.8% is bigger than other nations for some reason.

The case count is only that low because steps have been taken to try and keep it that way (lockdown, distancing, WFH, the various tiers etc etc).

If we 'go back to normal', and that infection rate goes to 10%, we would see a death count of just under 400,000. Never mind the additional deaths that would cause with the NHS crumbling. We are already seeing missed cancer screenings, deaths through delayed surgeries etc. Imagine if it was 10 times worse....

The fix looks as though it is keeping the problem at bay..... thankfully. Without the fix, the problem becomes so much bigger?

martin_p wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:59 pm

Austerity has lasted ten years, COVID 7 months. If it last ten years then yes the numbers will be significantly higher.

Do you think that the financial effects of Covid will last less than 10 years?

Maybe less than 10 decades but can't be certain

IAmAClaret wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 2:00 pm

The case count at 740,000 has given a death count of 43,000.
(5.8%). With an estimated 66m in the UK, we are looking at 1.1% infected (that we know of). Our rate of 5.8% is bigger than other nations for some reason.

The case count is only that low because steps have been taken to try and keep it that way (lockdown, distancing, WFH, the various tiers etc etc).

If we 'go back to normal', and that infection rate goes to 10%, we would see a death count of just under 400,000. Never mind the additional deaths that would cause with the NHS crumbling. We are already seeing missed cancer screenings, deaths through delayed surgeries etc. Imagine if it was 10 times worse....

The fix looks as though it is keeping the problem at bay..... thankfully. Without the fix, the problem becomes so much bigger?

Wrong. The case count is only that low because in March and April we were counting very few of the cases. Why did we never reach 20,000 confirmed cases in a day when we were testing only 10,000? I hope the answer is obvious.

Your figures are based on the idea that there were no asymptomatic cases in March and April (and that in the future there may again be no asymptomatic cases). Any calculation based on the idea that every single case of Covid was identified in March/April is so flawed as to be useless.

IAmAClaret wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 2:00 pm

The case count at 740,000 has given a death count of 43,000.
(5.8%). With an estimated 66m in the UK, we are looking at 1.1% infected (that we know of). Our rate of 5.8% is bigger than other nations for some reason.

The case count is only that low because steps have been taken to try and keep it that way (lockdown, distancing, WFH, the various tiers etc etc).

If we 'go back to normal', and that infection rate goes to 10%, we would see a death count of just under 400,000. Never mind the additional deaths that would cause with the NHS crumbling. We are already seeing missed cancer screenings, deaths through delayed surgeries etc. Imagine if it was 10 times worse....

The fix looks as though it is keeping the problem at bay..... thankfully. Without the fix, the problem becomes so much bigger?

The 5.8% is likely to be vastly, vastly over estimated.

Even the WHO have recently acknowledged that its closer to 0.05%!

martin_p wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:51 pm

Sorry I thought the link was a joke, it was widely discredited by the scientific community shortly after it appeared.

If it was so widely "discredited" then why did you need to misrepresent it?

It's written by immunologists.

There may be idsagreement between immunologists as to how best to tackle the virus but that is not the same as "discrediting" something.

The proposed approach has certainly not been "discredited" and the fact that countries who did not enforce strict lockdowns appear to be avoiding second waves is showing there is a lot of credit in taking that approach.

You don't appear to be interested in engaging in serious debate on this martin.

Dr Anthony Fauci’s opinion on the declaration https://twitter.com/peterstaley/status/ ... 38306?s=21

Yes, it is.

I would much rather try to get back to normal, whilst recognising the associated risks with that, yet let those who are required to shield to continue to do so.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 2:56 pm

If it was so widely "discredited" then why did you need to misrepresent it?

It's written by immunologists.

There may be idsagreement between immunologists as to how best to tackle the virus but that is not the same as "discrediting" something.

The proposed approach has certainly not been "discredited" and the fact that countries who did not enforce strict lockdowns appear to be avoiding second waves is showing there is a lot of credit in taking that approach.

You don't appear to be interested in engaging in serious debate on this martin.

Which countries are avoiding second waves?

For me it is. The damage we're inflicting on all sections of society is going to be catastrophic. What exactly are we going to do if it takes another 12 months to get a vaccine?

A 33-year-old Ukrainian fitness influencer who denied the existence of Covid-19 has died - of Covid-19.

https://bit.ly/3m3ZDCX

Forget Sage and their counterparts in other Countries. I'll just get ClaretTony to send Boris a link to this thread. With all the expert scientists, virolgists and economists on here he wont need to consult anyone else.

as always it's relative to your own circumstance along with your immediate family, group thinking then applies and so starts the never ending circle of what is right and wrong plus the choices made. Some people were ridiculed for suggesting the title of the thread months ago but clearly, for many, if not the majority, the answer will be yes to the question, however they will soon change minds on this if it effects them personally going forward.

There is no easy fix or solution that will satisfy everyone, so we should be cognizant of others circumstances when people post answer to a conundrum.

ClaretCraig wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 4:05 pm

Forget Sage and their counterparts in other Countries. I'll just get ClaretTony to send Boris a link to this thread. With all the expert scientists, virolgists and economists on here he wont need to consult anyone else.

That would suggest he has actually been consulting people already. Surely not?

The idea that not putting restrictions or temporary lockdowns in place will help the economy is laughable.

The main reason there was mass adoption of the first big lockdown was because people feared for their own lives/health.
How much business will the hospitality industry get when there is an uncontrolled virus running rampant while all ICU beds are full and there's people dying in hospital corridors.
We had just 500 reported cases in July, cinemas reopened aaaannnddd... no one wanted to go in them.

At this point treat it like a natural disaster, it will take as long as it will take and cost as much as it will cost.

I mentioned it before but my 85 year old Grandad said to me recently, ''I don't want to be shielded, I'll social distance and wear a mask if I must but If I have to spend the last few years of my life away from my family and locked away at home without family meals, going to Turf Moor and visits to Church, I'd rather die anyway''
Its sad to think there will be a lot of people in the same boat.

The government should be making more effort to identify exactly WHERE the transmission is occuring.

What if pubs/gyms etc are being 'put out of business' for the sake of (let's say) 5% transmission rate. It doesn't make sense.

If the source of transmission can be identified then lockdown measures can be targeted and will be more effective (even if that means closing down schools and universities for a few weeks).

CombatClaret wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 4:24 pm

The idea that not putting restrictions or temporary lockdowns in place will help the economy is laughable.

The main reason there was mass adoption of the first big lockdown was because people feared for their own lives/health.
How much business will the hospitality industry get when there is an uncontrolled virus running rampant while all ICU beds are full and there's people dying in hospital corridors.
We had just 500 reported cases in July, cinemas reopened aaaannnddd... no one wanted to go in them.

TBF there's been no decent film releases this year

Mala591 wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 4:25 pm

The government should be making more effort to identify exactly WHERE the transmission is occuring.

What if pubs/gyms etc are being 'put out of business' for the sake of (let's say) 5% transmission rate. It doesn't make sense.

If the source of transmission can be identified then lockdown measures can be targeted and will be more effective (even if that means closing down schools and universities for a few weeks).

Probably why there's no app check in at supermarkets and schools etc.

"oh we identified loads of contract tracing at pubs etc" funny that when they're the only ones you sign in to.

Mala591 wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 20, 2020 4:25 pm

The government should be making more effort to identify exactly WHERE the transmission is occuring.

What if pubs/gyms etc are being 'put out of business' for the sake of (let's say) 5% transmission rate. It doesn't make sense.

If the source of transmission can be identified then lockdown measures can be targeted and will be more effective (even if that means closing down schools and universities for a few weeks).

The source of transmission is people.