BBC: Coronavirus: UK lockdown solidarity 'starting to fray'

[Bantamzen]

Given the actions just taken in North of England, I know it is some way off, but I do wonder if on the 23rd or 24th December they will suddenly announce either locally or nationally you can’t visit people indoors. If they do I can’t imagine that going down too well.

To put it into context, what happened last night would be like the government announcing that families couldn't visit each other on Christmas Day morning.

 

[birchesgreen]

To put it into context, what happened last night would be like the government announcing that families couldn't visit each other on Christmas Day morning.

To quote Yes Prime Minister, that would be a courageous decision

 

[Bletchleyite]

note the lower case ‘p’ as it’s a brand name - it really gets on some parkrun enthusiasts nerves if you put it in upper case

OT, but I do that on purpose - to me not capitalising a proper noun as required by the rules of the English language really, really grates.

The Scout Association for a bit insisted on us writing "beaver scouts", "cub scouts" etc, and it looked ridiculous, everyone ignored it and they changed it back to correctly capitalising the proper nouns.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To put it into context, what happened last night would be like the government announcing that families couldn't visit each other on Christmas Day morning.

In my book this is an absolute certainty unless there's a miracle with one of the vaccines, and so I think people need to start mentally preparing themselves for it. It might be a good idea if the Government do something themselves, such as a campaign that people should celebrate a family Christmas 2020 at Easter 2021 instead (I know the religious connotation is rather different, but it isn't actually a religious festival to most people), as I think there's rather more chance of a vaccine being ready by then.

New thread re Christmas: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/what-might-the-government-do-about-christmas.207193/

 

[island]

At present a gathering of more than 30 people is not allowed.

You‘re wrong there. See section 5 (1) and (3) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2020.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You‘re wrong there. See section 5 (1) and (3) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2020.

I stand corrected. Paragraph 3 would indeed appear to allow a larger event like parkrun or indeed a commercially organised running race.

 

[Yew]

It's very bold of you to say "unnecessary". I dare say that kind of sentiment is a driver behind the rise in cases and deaths we're seeing.

If it was just you that it affects then as long as you were willing to forgo free NHS care and willing to accept that even your paid care might still be prioritised below that of someone who cooperated (the only reasonable proposition) then I'd say go for it. But it's not that simple.

People are being asked, often for the first time in their lives, to make temporary sacrifices to keep others safe. Including protecting the ability of the NHS to treat other life threatening conditions and injuries.

If people really are so emotionally incontinent these days that they simply cannot bear to forgo gatherings and parties for a while (when others are paying in jobs) then I don't see the point of carrying on having things like welfare, NHS and so on. These are collective endeavours for the good of all. Why should we all pay handsomely to keep the irresponsible in healthcare, instead of just looking out for ourselves. That's the logical endpoint of a perspective that places all emphasis on own wants.

For the good of all? Aside from the forced cessation of basic personal liberties, that we were assured, many months ago would be for the shortest possible time, We're seeing tonnes of redundancies every week, massive economic damage and the worst recession in 300 years, all for a virus that has a IFR similar to that of influenza, and doesn't pose a significant risk to the vast majority of people.

 

[AdamWW]

For the good of all? Aside from the forced cessation of basic personal liberties, that we were assured, many months ago would be for the shortest possible time, We're seeing tonnes of redundancies every week, massive economic damage and the worst recession in 300 years, all for a virus that has a IFR similar to that of influenza, and doesn't pose a significant risk to the vast majority of people.

And the IFR stays the same when the health service has collapsed under the strain?

 

[Yew]

And the IFR stays the same when the health service has collapsed under the strain?

Many moons ago, that was the point of flattening the curve, however we seem to have sleepwalked into a new approach since then, no doubt in part due to Prof Fergusons fantastical forecasts of doom.

 

[AdamWW]

Many moons ago, that was the point of flattening the curve, however we seem to have sleepwalked into a new approach since then, no doubt in part due to Prof Fergusons fantastical forecasts of doom.

So if we drop all restrictions, and let coronavirus run wild through the population, we now have enough evidence to show that the NHS will be just fine?

 

[Yew]

So if we drop all restrictions, and let coronavirus run wild through the population, we now have enough evidence to show that the NHS will be just fine?

I don't remember ever advocating that, however I would advocate a controlled spread, keeping the vulnerable out of the firing line, and only bringing in restritions if there is an actual risk to hospitals beig overwhelmed.

Given the recent research on T-Cell immunity, I think that in the baalance of probabilities, we're closer to herd immunity than we think.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

So if we drop all restrictions, and let coronavirus run wild through the population, we now have enough evidence to show that the NHS will be just fine?

All the partial liftings of restrictions to date have had no effect on the falling death rate. It logically follows that if we drop all restrictions this will have little effect on the falling death rate either.

 

[Ianno87]

To put it into context, what happened last night would be like the government announcing that families couldn't visit each other on Christmas Day morning.

To quote Yes Prime Minister, that would be a courageous decision

Future Wikipedia Page title predication: "2020 England Christmas Day Riots"

 

[AdamWW]

I don't remember ever advocating that, however I would advocate a controlled spread, keeping the vulnerable out of the firing line, and only bringing in restritions if there is an actual risk to hospitals beig overwhelmed.

OK apologies for misunderstanding - some people do seem to be advocating just that.

I suspect what you're suggsesting is where we are heading. Last time I looked it did actually seem to be UK government policy - avoiding a second wave that overwhelms the health service - then again ending shielding suggests otherwise. So who knows?

Maybe the only way out of this, but I think we'd need to figure out just how long we need to keep the vulnurable isolated, and what we do about households where one member is vulnurable.

And I think trying to tune R to some number above 1 but not too far above is going to be quite difficult.

 

[AdamWW]

All the partial liftings of restrictions to date have had no effect on the falling death rate. It logically follows that if we drop all restrictions this will have little effect on the falling death rate either.

No. No. No. No. No.

No.

The death rate lags what's happening with infections. People can survive for months in hospital and then expire.

You'd have to compare the fall in death rate with what it would be if we hadn't lifted restrictions - and we can't do that.

But the lifting of restrctictions to date has had an effect on the infection rate. It's stopped dropping. Now it's stable or maybe going up.

Once it goes up if you don't do something about it starts going up faster and faster (exponential growth).

Then the deaths start to go up. At which point to get them down you need something drastic like (god forbid) another lockdown.

 

[Yew]

OK apologies for misunderstanding - some people do seem to be advocating just that.

I suspect what you're suggsesting is where we are heading. Last time I looked it did actually seem to be UK government policy - avoiding a second wave that overwhelms the health service - then again ending shielding suggests otherwise. So who knows?

Maybe the only way out of this, but I think we'd need to figure out just how long we need to keep the vulnurable isolated, and what we do about households where one member is vulnurable.

And I think trying to tune R to some number above 1 but not too far above is going to be quite difficult.

Indeed, it's tricky, I'd suggest that Govt policy seems to be at avoiding a second wave regardless of if it stands a chance of overwhellming the NHS. For example "avoid a second wave that overwhelms the NHS" has turned into "we must avoid a second wave, as it will overwhelm the NHS regardless of it's size".

 

[CaptainHaddock]

No. No. No. No. No.

No.

The death rate lags what's happening with infections. People can survive for months in hospital and then expire.

You'd have to compare the fall in death rate with what it would be if we hadn't lifted restrictions - and we can't do that.

But the lifting of restrctictions to date has had an effect on the infection rate. It's stopped dropping. Now it's stable or maybe going up.

Once it goes up if you don't do something about it starts going up faster and faster (exponential growth).

Then the deaths start to go up. At which point to get them down you need something drastic like (god forbid) another lockdown.

Sigh.

You"ve already been told why the infection rate is largely irrelevant; people fear dying of the virus, not catching a mild dose of it. It wouldn't matter if the daily infection rate was in the tens of thousands so long as all it does is give people a bit of a cough for a few days but you get immunity from catching the virus again.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Sigh.

You"ve already been told why the infection rate is largely irrelevant; people fear dying of the virus, not catching a mild dose of it. It wouldn't matter if the daily infection rate was in the tens of thousands so long as all it does is give people a bit of a cough for a few days but you get immunity from catching the virus again.

I'd agree.

The only figures that really matter in all this are the number of hospital admissions and the number of patients on ventilators. Yesterday these figures were 139 and 87 respectively. The charts can be found on the Government website.

England Summary | Coronavirus (COVID-19) in the UK

Official Coronavirus (COVID-19) disease situation dashboard with latest data in the UK.

coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk

 

[bramling]

Future Wikipedia Page title predication: "2020 England Christmas Day Riots"

Sadly I think you may well be on to something there, if we see things handled in the established Boris bull-in-china-shop style.

 

[james60059]

Are you contractually required not to go abroad? This would probably be seen as an unfair term, though if you had to self-isolate I guess you'd need to take it unpaid or as annual leave.

Though TBH I think it's highly imprudent to go abroad at the moment.

Our company has stated that ANYONE who goes abroad to a country that's not on the "safe list" WILL NOT be paid for the isolation period - they have already enacted it earlier this year with a couple who went away, who coincidentally were bragging about having a 4 week paid holiday and only using 2 weeks annual leave (the extra 2 weeks being self isolation).

 

[Domh245]

Sigh.

You"ve already been told why the infection rate is largely irrelevant; people fear dying of the virus, not catching a mild dose of it. It wouldn't matter if the daily infection rate was in the tens of thousands so long as all it does is give people a bit of a cough for a few days but you get immunity from catching the virus again.

However, the infection rate is linked to the death rate. The higher the infection rate, the more people susceptible to dying of COVID will catch it. The missing 'key' to understanding the data about the positive case data is testing - is the increase in positive cases down to more and better focused testing, or is it genuinely reflective of an increase in the wider community. Similarly, are these cases asymptomatic or not, and who is it being infected, young healthy individuals or people in at-risk groups/

 

[Yew]

However, the infection rate is linked to the death rate. The higher the infection rate, the more people susceptible to dying of COVID will catch it.

In an unmitigated case, this is true, but it's avoidable with suitable measures.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Sadly this government has deliberately chosen the festival of Eid al-adha (almost to the minute in fact) to impose more restrictions on people because they seem to have some "intelligence" that people in certain areas are not adhering to distancing in their own homes. This is already sparking a firestorm on social media as the closet racists are already crawling out from under their rocks, and causing a lot of upset & fury not only amongst ethnic groups, but from those of us who do not judge people on their skin colour or chosen religious beliefs.

It's almost as though that is Cummings' intention, isn't it?

It's interesting how all the discord goes back to him. Even leaving aside Putin's Brexit.

Abandoning test, trace and isolate, which was working, for "herd immunity", then abandoning herd immunity for an economically destructive lockdown. Then ignoring his own lockdown causing great anger, and lots of people taking his lead and breaking it too. Then the stupid masks. Now this.

I wonder why a man who spent many years in Russia, without ever really explaining what he was doing there, might be at the root of so much discord?

 

[al78]

I don't remember ever advocating that, however I would advocate a controlled spread, keeping the vulnerable out of the firing line, and only bringing in restritions if there is an actual risk to hospitals beig overwhelmed.

Given the recent research on T-Cell immunity, I think that in the baalance of probabilities, we're closer to herd immunity than we think.

If this was done (controlled spread whilst keeping the vulnerable shielded), and it worked in that the healthy population caught it, recovered, and are now immune, is it not possible that they could pick up the virus again, not show symptoms, but be a carrier during the period of time it takes for their now trained immune system to fight it off, therefore potentially pass it on to the formerly shielded vulnerable? There is also the question of what likelihood there is of supposedly healthy people catching it, recovering, then having health complications further down the line, and whether that is a significant potential issue.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Our company has stated that ANYONE who goes abroad to a country that's not on the "safe list" WILL NOT be paid for the isolation period - they have already enacted it earlier this year with a couple who went away, who coincidentally were bragging about having a 4 week paid holiday and only using 2 weeks annual leave (the extra 2 weeks being self isolation).

Although this has harsh implications for those who booked holidays long ago, and might not be allowed to cancel their booked leave, I don't think it is inherently unreasonable unless you can work from home. By contrast, purporting to ban all overseas holidays (even to quarantine-exempt destinations) is an overreach into employees' private lives that has no legal or moral basis.

In fact they are shooting themselves in the foot by doing that, because it discourages people from visiting countries with low infection rates, and instead encourages staycations which could just as well be to hotspots within this country, say Rochdale! (Why you'd choose to go on holiday there is another matter...)

 

[MikeWM]

I've already alluded to it in the specific thread about the further restrictions in the North of England, but anger is rapidly growing here this morning. Sadly this government has deliberately chosen the festival of Eid al-adha (almost to the minute in fact) to impose more restrictions on people because they seem to have some "intelligence" that people in certain areas are not adhering to distancing in their own homes. This is already sparking a firestorm on social media as the closet racists are already crawling out from under their rocks, and causing a lot of upset & fury not only amongst ethnic groups, but from those of us who do not judge people on their skin colour or chosen religious beliefs.

And this is frightening, because back in 2001 here in Bradford this was exactly the sort of tension that grew & exploded into the terrifying riots that ripped a huge hole in the city. Worse still part of me now actually believes that this is deliberate.

Divide and conquer. Oldest trick in the book and we're falling for it like a mass of gullible fools.

There's only one direction we should be directing our anger and frustration, and that's at the people 'in charge' performing this increasingly bizarre and sinister social experiment on us.

 

[DB]

In my book this is an absolute certainty unless there's a miracle with one of the vaccines, and so I think people need to start mentally preparing themselves for it.

If they do that, many people will simply ignore it.

 

[AdamWW]

Sigh.

You"ve already been told why the infection rate is largely irrelevant; people fear dying of the virus, not catching a mild dose of it. It wouldn't matter if the daily infection rate was in the tens of thousands so long as all it does is give people a bit of a cough for a few days but you get immunity from catching the virus again.

Sigh and double sign.

I have already been told and I've explained why I think it's wrong.

I'll try again.

The evidence suggests that if infection rates spiral upwards so will death rates. But we see the rise in infections before we see it in death rates.

If we wait until we see it in the death figures it will need drastic action to deal with.

If we see infection rates rise, that tells us that urgent action is needed to prevent deaths from going up.

The earlier you take action, the less strict it has to be.

This logic sounds to me very much like saying that if you find a lump you shoudn't go and get it checked out because the only thing to fear about is cancer is dying and that hasn't happened.
And as with coronavirus, the longer you leave it do deal with cancer, the worse the outcome and the more drastic actions needs to be taken.

I'm always willing to hear arguments that my thinking is faulty so if anyone can see an error in the above please edo xplain.

In an unmitigated case, this is true, but it's avoidable with suitable measures.

Which at present unfortunately we don't have anything like well enough to just let coronavirus let rip through the population.

If this was done (controlled spread whilst keeping the vulnerable shielded), and it worked in that the healthy population caught it, recovered, and are now immune, is it not possible that they could pick up the virus again, not show symptoms, but be a carrier during the period of time it takes for their now trained immune system to fight it off, therefore potentially pass it on to the formerly shielded vulnerable? There is also the question of what likelihood there is of supposedly healthy people catching it, recovering, then having health complications further down the line, and whether that is a significant potential issue.

I think at present the evidence suggests this is a high enough probability to worry about, yes.

 

[AdamWW]

However, the infection rate is linked to the death rate. The higher the infection rate, the more people susceptible to dying of COVID will catch it. The missing 'key' to understanding the data about the positive case data is testing - is the increase in positive cases down to more and better focused testing, or is it genuinely reflective of an increase in the wider community. Similarly, are these cases asymptomatic or not, and who is it being infected, young healthy individuals or people in at-risk groups/

But we can and do avoid worrying about whether it's due to criteria for getting tested changing because we alos have figures from random sampling.

As the samples aren't large, the numbers have large uncertainties, but within the uncertainties they are more robust than just looking at overall positive results.

If infections start to rise rapidly, we'll see it in both sets of infection figures, and long before we see a significant change in the death toll.

 

[Yew]

I'm always willing to hear arguments that my thinking is faulty so if anyone can see an error in the above please edo xplain.

I think the intermediate measure of hospital admissions is a good one to consider too, it's clearly related to both more serious cases, and NHS capacity.