Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
It's not but they're obsessed with public perception and being popular. Although their response to the kid's meals is an odd aberration.
Coronavirus Thread (Off Topic, Politics) (18 Viewers)
- Thread starter BackRoomRummermill
- Start date
It's not but they're obsessed with public perception and being popular. Although their response to the kid's meals is an odd aberration.
Half terms and holidays the natural points to do it .
No If's or buts should have been programmed in.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
It was half term this week wasn't it? Nothing could be more ridiculous than starting a national lockdown the day after the school holidays end, not to mention right as the furlough scheme ends, and insisting everyone go back to school.
Saddlebrains
Well-Known Member
Knew he would do it soon as others did.
Doesnt have the bollocks to do it himself, follower
Doesnt have the bollocks to do it himself, follower
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Sorry but fuckin idiot. Why now? 2 weeks too late again!!!!
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Think it longer than that really. I think it’s at least 4 weeks ago SAGE suggested the circuit breaker.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Once again it’s verging on criminal.
Thats OK the goverment have leaked there intentions again, lock down 2.0 here we come, glad it doesn't effect me I work from and barley leave, only downside is Iver seen my grandparents 3x since Feb, missed both birthdays missed many family meals but considering there both going into their 80s I don't mind.
SBAndy
Well-Known Member
Absolutely shameful approach, lacking any type of joined up thinking, from a clown that has blundered his way through his entire working career. I’m honestly fucking sick of this now. As many have mentioned, a number of mild creative plans see us swerve this but the c**t won’t take any form of decisive action until absolutely forced to. We will again be the worst affected both mortality-wise and economically. I can almost guarantee it.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
There's minutes from a SAGE meeting on 21st September where they formally suggested it. Although that was far from the first time it was put forward by the experts, it was being said for weeks before that with it being repeatedly said the longer we left it the less impact it would have.
Sage documents show how scientists felt sidelined by economic considerations
Timing of the release, just after the PM’s three-tier Covid plan, highlights experts’ disquiet
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Northern Ireland got it spot on and published the evidence behind it when asked
More like six tony then three weeks deciding/ pontificating cabinet arguing to announce the tiered system .
Then a week or two arguing with mayor's, utterly shambolic.
Skybluefaz
Well-Known Member
Johnson is ridiculous, do it when the fucking schools are off and when the scientists tell you. Too slow again.
skyblueusername
Well-Known Member
I'm not going back to school, i hated it when i had to attend in the 70/80's.
I was going to send this a couple of days ago but held off and even though I appreciate I’m now even less on the right side of the latest scientific advice, I thought I’d still post it...
I’ve seen plenty on here saying, locked down again, have regular lockdowns, just add extra weeks onto school hols etc etc but none fully take into account the ramifications of this ie if the schools close parents or more worryingly grandparents having to stay home to look after the kids (in particular key workers), the impact on businesses during lockdowns (whatever scheme is offered it won’t be enough for many to survive so huge redundancies on way), the mental health impacts of the lockdowns etc etc or the most importantly the fact that a significant proportion of the public are no longer following the measures !!!
I’m all for people hammering the government for things like track and trace, Hancocks general shitness etc but also there has got to be some realism
People keep part quoting Sage who ‘recommended’ a circuit break, without then acknowledging that, they would need more than one and also these would have negative impacts elsewhere and have a disproportionate effect on the poorest in society, as did WHO (and young as I’ve mentioned before). Nor recognising that they may only put the virus back for 3-4 weeks, the fact that people with far more serious illnesses have either avoided hospitals or GPs (26m lost appts apparently), or missed screenings in the last lockdown. Probably a sweeping generalisation but I’m guessing most people calling for lockdowns like it’s a relatively simple solution tick at least a couple of the following boxes - probably in a relationship, possibly got kids, don’t go out/socialise as much, got a relatively safe jobs, live in a house (not for example a one bed flat) and are probably higher risk. What about those that don’t tick any/as many of those boxes ?
I’m not saying lockdowns won’t help, of course they would and I’m all for using them as a tool to help manage NHS capacity but throughout Europe most countries are taking very similar approaches (we’re not an outlier)
I personally would’ve liked to have seen a big push on ensuring people follow self isolation measures (10% doing so means the actual track and trace numbers are pretty irrelevant) and also a massive push to get people healthier. I read that only over 65s maintained or improved their level of exercise/fitness during the first wave. So basically loads on furlough, saving time with no work/commuting (albeit many looking after kids) etc yet, didn’t manage to even do the same exercise as before, when the weather was good and when it’s known to help the fight against the virus...WTF ?!! For all the governments faults (there’s many), people have got to start taking some personal responsibility in all this and I don’t think following self isolation rules when you’ve got/likely to have the virus and upping exercise (although now far trickier with shit weather) is too much to ask !
Added bit - The scientific ‘evidence’ is all over the place on this at the moment...where the transmissions are happening (hospitality or not ??), how many are currently being infected (from c30k per day to 90k per day - R rate from 1.1-1.3 to 1.6+ - bit of a difference !!!!), whether you are likely to be reinfected, fatality rates (from 0.2 to 1%), and how many have had it (anywhere between 7% and 30%+ - the use antibodies to estimate this appears crazy). It’s hard to know what to believe anymore and all of the above have massive implications on whats the best strategy to use.
RANT OVER - I go large and not often on here these days. No offence to any of those supporting lockdowns by the way, I get it, 100%, especially when you’re trying to protect loved ones, just trying to show there’s another side to the coin and it’s not a straight forward a call as people suggest
Ps what a win last night...let’s hope at least football continues in lockdown. PUSB x
I’ve seen plenty on here saying, locked down again, have regular lockdowns, just add extra weeks onto school hols etc etc but none fully take into account the ramifications of this ie if the schools close parents or more worryingly grandparents having to stay home to look after the kids (in particular key workers), the impact on businesses during lockdowns (whatever scheme is offered it won’t be enough for many to survive so huge redundancies on way), the mental health impacts of the lockdowns etc etc or the most importantly the fact that a significant proportion of the public are no longer following the measures !!!
I’m all for people hammering the government for things like track and trace, Hancocks general shitness etc but also there has got to be some realism
People keep part quoting Sage who ‘recommended’ a circuit break, without then acknowledging that, they would need more than one and also these would have negative impacts elsewhere and have a disproportionate effect on the poorest in society, as did WHO (and young as I’ve mentioned before). Nor recognising that they may only put the virus back for 3-4 weeks, the fact that people with far more serious illnesses have either avoided hospitals or GPs (26m lost appts apparently), or missed screenings in the last lockdown. Probably a sweeping generalisation but I’m guessing most people calling for lockdowns like it’s a relatively simple solution tick at least a couple of the following boxes - probably in a relationship, possibly got kids, don’t go out/socialise as much, got a relatively safe jobs, live in a house (not for example a one bed flat) and are probably higher risk. What about those that don’t tick any/as many of those boxes ?
I’m not saying lockdowns won’t help, of course they would and I’m all for using them as a tool to help manage NHS capacity but throughout Europe most countries are taking very similar approaches (we’re not an outlier)
I personally would’ve liked to have seen a big push on ensuring people follow self isolation measures (10% doing so means the actual track and trace numbers are pretty irrelevant) and also a massive push to get people healthier. I read that only over 65s maintained or improved their level of exercise/fitness during the first wave. So basically loads on furlough, saving time with no work/commuting (albeit many looking after kids) etc yet, didn’t manage to even do the same exercise as before, when the weather was good and when it’s known to help the fight against the virus...WTF ?!! For all the governments faults (there’s many), people have got to start taking some personal responsibility in all this and I don’t think following self isolation rules when you’ve got/likely to have the virus and upping exercise (although now far trickier with shit weather) is too much to ask !
Added bit - The scientific ‘evidence’ is all over the place on this at the moment...where the transmissions are happening (hospitality or not ??), how many are currently being infected (from c30k per day to 90k per day - R rate from 1.1-1.3 to 1.6+ - bit of a difference !!!!), whether you are likely to be reinfected, fatality rates (from 0.2 to 1%), and how many have had it (anywhere between 7% and 30%+ - the use antibodies to estimate this appears crazy). It’s hard to know what to believe anymore and all of the above have massive implications on whats the best strategy to use.
RANT OVER - I go large and not often on here these days. No offence to any of those supporting lockdowns by the way, I get it, 100%, especially when you’re trying to protect loved ones, just trying to show there’s another side to the coin and it’s not a straight forward a call as people suggest
Ps what a win last night...let’s hope at least football continues in lockdown. PUSB x
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
I think it’s clear Steve that more than most I want nothing more than just to teach properly and to have some kind of normality. My mental health after a term of remote teaching was shot and teaching with all these COVID restraints that clearly haven’t worked made it worse. So if we had to go back to remote I’d hate it. However if it really were just for 3 weeks, I could tolerate it and accept that it’s completely supported by the evidence. No it wouldn’t remove the virus from circulation but it would again put the squeeze on the case curve.
I want it fucking over more than anyone-but being impatient isn’t going to turn out well.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Yep lower it and start to manage the test isolate and trace stuff with some professionalism
I think schools will remain open though, which just appears bizarre under current circumstance (based of the varied evidence). My worry is this will not be a 3-4 circuit breaker but turn into an extended lockdown. Let’s hope/pray for some good vaccine/treatment news soon !!!
Ps fair play to you guys and others on the front line. Can’t be easy. Please don’t say you’re gloried babysitters, however tricky the last few weeks have been it has no doubt benefited large numbers of kids lives (remote working is great in theory but I’m sure most kids would’ve got a lot more from schools being open)
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Well said steve most teachers are bloody brilliant
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
With respect, the evidence is pretty overwhelming that the virus is spreading exponentially and we aren’t far from hitting capacity in areas of the NHS. Equally it’s pretty overwhelming that local lockdowns don’t work and it’s National or nothing.
But lockdowns are a last resort when your track and trace has failed/been overwhelmed.
You say a two week lockdown would be terrible but it’s to avoid a three month one which would be worse. It’s the uncertainty that’s killing people mentally in my experience. If we plan proper support for these mini lockdowns I see no reason why it would cause some mental health crisis.
At the moment it’s the worst of all worlds. Businesses are hurting without clear support. Local economies are being destroyed for months at a time for no good reason.
Unless you’re claiming the virus doesn’t need managing at all, and we should just let people and business die to protect a theoretical mental health effect from lockdown, then I don’t see what other options we have.
Don’t lock down at all and watch hospitality and other businesses go to the wall as people are too scared to go out, tens of not hundreds of thousands dead before their time and tens of thousands more because the NHS is incapacitated. I find it very very hard to believe that’s seriously what you’re arguing for.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
It’s that first part I can’t take. We all know schools spread it around so if you’re going to put me in there let me do it properly and give them a proper learning experience. We are having to reinvent the science curriculum from scratch with no support and that’s without all the other problems caused by being confined to a box
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
It’s the same everywhere and emblematic of this governments approach to everything. Half arse it if you arse it at all. End up with the worst of both worlds.
We so desperately need leadership in this country.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I'd just like to say that my mental health is far worse having to see someone I care about go in, needlessly in my view, to a high risk area, and them being in tears each time they set off and come back.
And yes, I have suggested they quit, and I'll support them, but they're worried about me losing my job, because we've not got an integrated support system.
Mental health and wellbeing ain't just affected negatively by staying home and saving lives.
They need to sort it and quickly. Harding has got to go (even if only perception/to give it new impetus). Having said that as I mentioned Pete only 10% are are fully following self isolation rules
Of course it needs managing Shmmeee, hope my lengthy post didn’t suggest otherwise. Just that there’s various things at play
Ps a two week lockdown wouldn’t touch the sides !!!
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
That's true but, at the risk of repeating the same things, that's what I've said all along. Do it early, decisively and sure, you'll probably have to do it again, but hanging on and hanging on means we're flapping around in chaos and carnage.
And that's worse for the economy!
(As an aside, even though you're opposed to me here... and Brexit, can I just say I appreciate the way you at least phrase your posts!)
Poeple have never understood the terms apart from Lockdown .
Anything else has just led to non compliance and confusion ,to outright division.
Flying Fokker
Well-Known Member
DR MIKE YEADON:Three facts No 10's experts got wrong
DR MIKE YEADON:On Monday more than 30million Britons will be under Tier Two and Three restrictions.We will then have days - a few weeks at best - until the inevitable total lockdown.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
It also unravelled quite badly when Cummings carried on in his post. Given the timing of all that coming to light, you'd almost think it was a conspiracy theory to push people out again but... let's assume it isn't, and it was a fatal blow if we expected people to follow messaging. Couple that with the extra confusing go out, don't go out, go and drink a pint, but carefully, go back to your office but don't go and watch sports... it just ends up so muddled.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I think some of the confusion here is about strategy. We aren’t trying to suppress the virus to zero like NZ or China, we have decided to limp along as long as the NHS can handle it.
Hospitalisations are doubling every two weeks in some places. And are therefore two weeks from overwhelming the NHS in those areas. Those two weeks hispiralisations and deaths are locked in. Those people already have COVID.
All the evidence shows lockdown immediately reduces cases. And also second lockdowns work a lot quicker than the first (see Israel evidence). If we don’t lock down now we lock in going over capacity, say we delay two weeks that means we won’t be slightly over capacity, we’ll be at twice capacity and in another two weeks four times over it. Think about that. Hospitals at four eight sixteen times capacity. You’re in dead bodies on the streets territory. I’m stunned anyone thinks this is an option.
We have two options here, whether you care about the economy or health or mental health (as they’re all linked and basically the same thing):
1) Zero COVID strategy. Close the borders, proper lockdown, proper test and trace until there’s no cases. Then open up internally.
2) Manage hospital capacity but not deaths or cases. This requires a very good track and trace to slow the spread (we haven’t got this), good compliance with measures (we haven’t even tried this) and repeated lockdowns when the first two fail.
There is no magic third option where you let hundreds of thousands die, businesses go down the toilet, thousands more have lifelong health conditions. It’s just not credible. It’s the epitome of lazy right wing “what’s the point in action it’ll figure itself out” thought and it angers me this is even seen as a realistic policy choice in the 21st century. It’s be more humane to take the China approach and leave people to die in their homes.
And let’s not forget we’ve just discovered immunity doesn’t last. So double or triple those deaths predictions depending on how long it takes to get a vaccine or antivirals out.
Hospitalisations are doubling every two weeks in some places. And are therefore two weeks from overwhelming the NHS in those areas. Those two weeks hispiralisations and deaths are locked in. Those people already have COVID.
All the evidence shows lockdown immediately reduces cases. And also second lockdowns work a lot quicker than the first (see Israel evidence). If we don’t lock down now we lock in going over capacity, say we delay two weeks that means we won’t be slightly over capacity, we’ll be at twice capacity and in another two weeks four times over it. Think about that. Hospitals at four eight sixteen times capacity. You’re in dead bodies on the streets territory. I’m stunned anyone thinks this is an option.
We have two options here, whether you care about the economy or health or mental health (as they’re all linked and basically the same thing):
1) Zero COVID strategy. Close the borders, proper lockdown, proper test and trace until there’s no cases. Then open up internally.
2) Manage hospital capacity but not deaths or cases. This requires a very good track and trace to slow the spread (we haven’t got this), good compliance with measures (we haven’t even tried this) and repeated lockdowns when the first two fail.
There is no magic third option where you let hundreds of thousands die, businesses go down the toilet, thousands more have lifelong health conditions. It’s just not credible. It’s the epitome of lazy right wing “what’s the point in action it’ll figure itself out” thought and it angers me this is even seen as a realistic policy choice in the 21st century. It’s be more humane to take the China approach and leave people to die in their homes.
And let’s not forget we’ve just discovered immunity doesn’t last. So double or triple those deaths predictions depending on how long it takes to get a vaccine or antivirals out.
Saddlebrains
Well-Known Member
'Terrifying' projections and concern over NHS capacity at heart of push for new lockdown
No 10 are furious that the details of national measures have been leaked to journalists and have launched an official inquiry.
What do we reckon then? Hastily pulled together presser tonight? Pubs to close as of 10pm tomorrow?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Given everything else has been leaked before, not sure why they'd be furious now!'Terrifying' projections and concern over NHS capacity at heart of push for new lockdown
No 10 are furious that the details of national measures have been leaked to journalists and have launched an official inquiry.news.sky.com
What do we reckon then? Hastily pulled together presser tonight? Pubs to close as of 10pm tomorrow?
Guess it depends where the leak came from .
The more hawkish members of cabinet would no doubt still like to resist these measures .
Pulling it forward would seem panicky but would usurp their influence .
Let's not forget the initial circuit breaker theory of mid September made it to the media so someone at the top became persuaded against that by others .
The more hawkish members of cabinet would no doubt still like to resist these measures .
Pulling it forward would seem panicky but would usurp their influence .
Let's not forget the initial circuit breaker theory of mid September made it to the media so someone at the top became persuaded against that by others .
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
As we have seen with Trump the more of your own circle you piss off the more often stuff like this happens. Sunak surely being primed to take over post Covid based on the approval ratings