Coronavirus Thread (Off Topic, Politics) (341 Viewers)

Forums New posts
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
chiefdave said:
Where I live we have 3 conservative councillors as well as Street and they are all constantly claiming to be against things that are unpopular locally that are the policy of the Conservative government. Makes you wonder if they're in the right party.
Click to expand...
tbf it's more what government should be, general support, but willing to hold your own party / government to account if you differ too much. Always used to work that way...
 
D

djr8369

Well-Known Member
David O'Day said:
Sandwell is tier 2 with 123 cases per 100k and we are tier 1 with 130 cases per 100k?

What are they actually basing this on?
Click to expand...
In fairness could also be based on rate of change. Any idea what that is for those two areas? Of course it’s just as likely to be guesswork so don’t put yourself out.
 
B

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
djr8369 said:
Going to go out on a limb and guess that they will never say what numbers get you in or out of each tier and eventually the system will just be replaced with another arbitrary set of rules in a few months designed to deflect whatever criticism they are facing at the time.
Click to expand...

Newcastle is over 500 per 100,000 but not in Tier 3?
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
djr8369 said:
Going to go out on a limb and guess that they will never say what numbers get you in or out of each tier and eventually the system will just be replaced with another arbitrary set of rules in a few months designed to deflect whatever criticism they are facing at the time.
Click to expand...

Yeah, what happened to the alert levels of a few months ago? Why have we got such a pathetic client media who just amplify this nonsense?
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
djr8369 said:
Brilliant. Just multiply cases per 1000 by rate of change and define a limit for each tier. This should have been worked out and put in place during the first lockdown, it’s fucking basic stuff.
Click to expand...

They hinted that rate of change was part of the consideration in designating tiers but it clearly isn't. Cases alone is a retrospective measure
 
Jamesimus

Jamesimus

Well-Known Member
Anyone know why Newcastle upon Tyne isn't in Tier 3 but Liverpool is yet? I imagine there might be a reason, but obviously with our current decision makers, I'm not sure?!
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Saddlebrains said:
Never gonna end is it this shit?
Click to expand...

Yeah it will. Just not for a long while yet and we've probably got a dark, cold and miserable winter ahead.

Even if it still carries on it'll blow itself out eventually. I mean, if it killed everyone it can't infect anyone else can it.
giphy.gif
 
D

djr8369

Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge said:
Yeah, what happened to the alert levels of a few months ago? Why have we got such a pathetic client media who just amplify this nonsense?
Click to expand...
Exactly.
fernandopartridge said:
They hinted that rate of change was part of the consideration in designating tiers but it clearly isn't. Cases alone is a retrospective measure
Click to expand...
They always use rate of change as a get out if a journalist asks why one area has certain restrictions but as pointed out it clearly isn’t.
 
David O'Day

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
To be serious for a minute, Boris did seem to say in the HoC that he wanted more areas to be Tier 3 but the local leaders were putting their foot down
 
D

djr8369

Well-Known Member
David O'Day said:
To be serious for a minute, Boris did seem to say in the HoC that he wanted more areas to be Tier 3 but the local leaders were putting their foot down
Click to expand...
That’s true but part of the reason they are putting their foot down is because there isn’t enough support available for the businesses closing.
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
David O'Day said:
To be serious for a minute, Boris did seem to say in the HoC that he wanted more areas to be Tier 3 but the local leaders were putting their foot down
Click to expand...

Which is where leadership comes in and having a clear, definable equation that sets the levels based on the scientific data matched to clear restrictions at each tier.

We've got cases per 100k, R rate, positive test %, hospitalisations and percentage of capacity etc - all of which could be used to set an automatic tier level. Doesn't then need govt or local authorities arguing over what should or shouldn't be done. It's all there already.

You could try and add them all into one equation if you wanted although that makes it complicated and puts people off. So instead you could take each criteria and set a tier to a figure for it.
i.e.
R rate
Tier 1 - 1 or below
Tier 2 - 1.1 - 1.4
Tier 3 - 1.5 and above

Cases per 100k
Tier 1 - under 250
Tier 2 - 250-500
Tier 3 - above 500

Hospital capacity
Tier 1 - under a third
Tier 2 - under two-thirds
Tier 3 - above two-thirds

*these are examples - proper figures would be agreed with the relevant scientists and experts to prevent transmission.

Then the tier for each area is set based on the highest tier from all these, so if you're tier 1 on all criteria but tier 3 in another, you're in tier 3.

It's clear, indisputable and sets out what will happen at defined points. Of course people would be annoyed by it but I reckon we're far more likely to be accepting of it if the criteria is plainly set out and what each tier means in terms of restrictions.

It's the constant arbitrary decisions with exemptions for some things and not others not seemingly based on any evidence whatsoever that riles most people. Have the balls to say "these are the criteria for each tier, these are the restrictions that will be imposed for each tier, no exceptions"
 
C

CCFCSteve

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
Which is where leadership comes in and having a clear, definable equation that sets the levels based on the scientific data matched to clear restrictions at each tier.

We've got cases per 100k, R rate, positive test %, hospitalisations and percentage of capacity etc - all of which could be used to set an automatic tier level. Doesn't then need govt or local authorities arguing over what should or shouldn't be done. It's all there already.

You could try and add them all into one equation if you wanted although that makes it complicated and puts people off. So instead you could take each criteria and set a tier to a figure for it.
i.e.
R rate
Tier 1 - 1 or below
Tier 2 - 1.1 - 1.4
Tier 3 - 1.5 and above

Cases per 100k
Tier 1 - under 250
Tier 2 - 250-500
Tier 3 - above 500

Hospital capacity
Tier 1 - under a third
Tier 2 - under two-thirds
Tier 3 - above two-thirds

*these are examples - proper figures would be agreed with the relevant scientists and experts to prevent transmission.

Then the tier for each area is set based on the highest tier from all these, so if you're tier 1 on all criteria but tier 3 in another, you're in tier 3.

It's clear, indisputable and sets out what will happen at defined points. Of course people would be annoyed by it but I reckon we're far more likely to be accepting of it if the criteria is plainly set out and what each tier means in terms of restrictions.

It's the constant arbitrary decisions with exemptions for some things and not others not seemingly based on any evidence whatsoever that riles most people. Have the balls to say "these are the criteria for each tier, these are the restrictions that will be imposed for each tier, no exceptions"
Click to expand...

Agreed SBD. I might be wrong but I thought this was based on cases per 100k. Problem is Bham is on 160 and Manc is on 500+ and yet both in same tier, which indicates other parameters should be considered (as you suggest something like hospital capacity)

The bigger issue for me is robust scientific evidence to actually back up the restrictions ie closing pubs. I’m not sure there is any. So much of recent increases in cases (not admissions, ICU, deaths) appear to be uni driven

Basically the scientific advisors and government have shat it, backed by polling which says 2/3 want more restrictions.

I can understand when it gets to Liverpool levels (ie causing nhs concerns) but not convinced about the rest of it
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
CCFCSteve said:
Agreed SBD. I might be wrong but I thought this was based on cases per 100k. Problem is Bham is on 160 and Manc is on 500+ and yet both in same tier, which indicates other parameters should be considered (as you suggest something like hospital capacity)

The bigger issue for me is robust scientific evidence to actually back up the restrictions ie closing pubs. I’m not sure there is any. So much of recent increases in cases (not admissions, ICU, deaths) appear to be uni driven

Basically the scientific advisors and government have shat it, backed by polling which says 2/3 want more restrictions.

I can understand when it gets to Liverpool levels (ie causing nhs concerns) but not convinced about the rest of it
Click to expand...
They're sticking the restrictions in the wrong places, in the need to be seen to be doing something.

And in that they'll leave the main places to carry on unfettered.

Utter shambles.
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
CCFCSteve said:
Agreed SBD. I might be wrong but I thought this was based on cases per 100k. Problem is Bham is on 160 and Manc is on 500+ and yet both in same tier, which indicates other parameters should be considered (as you suggest something like hospital capacity)

The bigger issue for me is robust scientific evidence to actually back up the restrictions ie closing pubs. I’m not sure there is any. So much of recent increases in cases (not admissions, ICU, deaths) appear to be uni driven

Basically the scientific advisors and government have shat it, backed by polling which says 2/3 want more restrictions.

I can understand when it gets to Liverpool levels (ie causing nhs concerns) but not convinced about the rest of it
Click to expand...

As you say this system would be fine IF it were clear how they're making the decisions. No-one seems to be able to make it out as the cases/100k doesn't match up. Some with higher figures are in lower tiers than other with lower.

It's basically a rehash of the 5 step system we had before that's been forgotten about because no-one could work out the rules or they were just blatantly ignored.

If your going to set up a system like this then you have to say what will happen and at what points and, this is the crucial point, stick to it. If it's unpopular sobeit. That's what leadership is about - making decisions that might be unpopular and enforcing them. Otherwise you're not a leader, you're just someone offering suggestions and you'll have no respect or authority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 341 (members: 0, guests: 341)
Top