We've had a thread on what you would do about containing Covid-19 in the first place if you were in charge, but the virus is looking like it is here to stay for a while and we are going to need to find ways for it to avoid targeting those most vulnerable to ending up in hospital from it. While allowing it to spread throughout the fit and healthy population can be seen as a good thing due to the fact it helps build up herd immunity while ensuring there isn't a massive peak of people who have it all at once, people are going to be worried about excess deaths from a second wave and we may need to take action once again. If you were in charge of running the country, what would you do?
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
If there was a second wave, what would you do if you were in power?
- Thread starter PTR 444
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I’d bite the bullet, ask the vulnerable to shield, and tell everyone else to get on with things.
I’d also build hospitals (and mortuaries) and manage expectations. Sadly there will be many deaths from Covid, but we cannot continue to allow our response to this virus to bankrupt our country and destroy the fabric of our society.
I’d also build hospitals (and mortuaries) and manage expectations. Sadly there will be many deaths from Covid, but we cannot continue to allow our response to this virus to bankrupt our country and destroy the fabric of our society.
Richard Scott
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 3,694
Totally agree.
I voted for Other (Please Specify)
What I would do is a targeted local lockdown, with measures tailored to the specific cause of the outbreak in a particularr area.
What is appopriate for one area may not be appropriate for another area.
I have already mentioned the case of the Borough of Sandwell in the West Midlands, where I live. There, one of the main source of infections was large multi generational households, some of which contained people whose first language was not English, and who therefore did not understand all the rules about testing and self isolation, etc. The council asked people who could speak the appropriate languages to go out into the community and explain the situation. Since that was done, the infection rate in Sandwell has dropped by about 50%, and the number of wards in the borough with no cases at all has increased to 75%. So it was not necessary to close pubs, shops and leisure centres in Sandwell, and I question whether that would have made any difference anyway.
All local authorities should balance the need to keep the virus under control with the need to keep as much of the economy open as possible. Remember that government policy is not to avoid a "second peak" (whatever that means,) but to avoid a second peak which overwhelms the NHS. According to the latest figures, admissions to hospital for COVID-19, the number of patients in hospital with COVID-19, and the number of patients with COVID-19 on mechanical ventilators are the lowest they have ever been since the start of the pandemic.
What I would do is a targeted local lockdown, with measures tailored to the specific cause of the outbreak in a particularr area.
What is appopriate for one area may not be appropriate for another area.
I have already mentioned the case of the Borough of Sandwell in the West Midlands, where I live. There, one of the main source of infections was large multi generational households, some of which contained people whose first language was not English, and who therefore did not understand all the rules about testing and self isolation, etc. The council asked people who could speak the appropriate languages to go out into the community and explain the situation. Since that was done, the infection rate in Sandwell has dropped by about 50%, and the number of wards in the borough with no cases at all has increased to 75%. So it was not necessary to close pubs, shops and leisure centres in Sandwell, and I question whether that would have made any difference anyway.
All local authorities should balance the need to keep the virus under control with the need to keep as much of the economy open as possible. Remember that government policy is not to avoid a "second peak" (whatever that means,) but to avoid a second peak which overwhelms the NHS. According to the latest figures, admissions to hospital for COVID-19, the number of patients in hospital with COVID-19, and the number of patients with COVID-19 on mechanical ventilators are the lowest they have ever been since the start of the pandemic.
I'd say carry on mostly as normal, mandate 1m social distancing, but stop superspreading events such as conferences, and close nightclubs and other close contact poorly ventilated venues. The social distancing would apply to theatres as well, but I would ensure financial support so it's still worth their while operating at 50% capacity.
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
C J Snarzell
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 1,506
The Sunday tabloids are hinting that the UK could be heading for a second national lockdown. This would be catastrophic to the economy and to people's mental health & well being.
The government even stated months ago that the UK cannot endure a second lockdown like we had at the end of March.
I personally feel genuine law abiding people are fed up of being subject to measures with no end in sight and more people will simply ignore advice and get on with their lives. Thousands of people have lost their jobs & livelihoods because of this virus and many are now at the end of their tether with being told what to do.
The danger is we are now approaching the Autumn - as the nights begin to draw in, can people actually cope with isolation from loved ones in prolonged dark periods or being forced to queue outside shops in sub zero temperatures? I think not.
As another forum member has stated, the Covid19 rules should be aimed now at the older vulnerable generation. I appreciate this might seem like a selfish thing to say, but older people more at risk because of poor health should be encouraged to take extra precautions as well as anyone they come into contact with.
It all boils down to common sense - places like GP surgeries & nursing homes should be still treated as fortresses because much of their clientele are vulnerable. However, a pub or supermarket should be treated as a 'normal' environment. Those people who fall into the vulnerable category need to be aware of the dangers of venturing into such environments - which they know already!!!
Every since Covid19 first swept into the UK, I've felt that the government has been damming a river - its a case of slowing the flow to allow the NHS to cope. Like the damn water, the virus is still going to seep through and claim lives and there is nothing that can completely stop it dead in it's tracks.
I do think the government has lost it's way in recent weeks with the lack of clear communication and this is yet more reason why alot of people will not adhere to a second national lockdown.
CJ
The government even stated months ago that the UK cannot endure a second lockdown like we had at the end of March.
I personally feel genuine law abiding people are fed up of being subject to measures with no end in sight and more people will simply ignore advice and get on with their lives. Thousands of people have lost their jobs & livelihoods because of this virus and many are now at the end of their tether with being told what to do.
The danger is we are now approaching the Autumn - as the nights begin to draw in, can people actually cope with isolation from loved ones in prolonged dark periods or being forced to queue outside shops in sub zero temperatures? I think not.
As another forum member has stated, the Covid19 rules should be aimed now at the older vulnerable generation. I appreciate this might seem like a selfish thing to say, but older people more at risk because of poor health should be encouraged to take extra precautions as well as anyone they come into contact with.
It all boils down to common sense - places like GP surgeries & nursing homes should be still treated as fortresses because much of their clientele are vulnerable. However, a pub or supermarket should be treated as a 'normal' environment. Those people who fall into the vulnerable category need to be aware of the dangers of venturing into such environments - which they know already!!!
Every since Covid19 first swept into the UK, I've felt that the government has been damming a river - its a case of slowing the flow to allow the NHS to cope. Like the damn water, the virus is still going to seep through and claim lives and there is nothing that can completely stop it dead in it's tracks.
I do think the government has lost it's way in recent weeks with the lack of clear communication and this is yet more reason why alot of people will not adhere to a second national lockdown.
CJ
The risk, even to the vulnerable, is lower now and they have learned how to treat it in hospital. One would also hope they wont ship people to care homes without checking first of they are infected. No hospital should discharge an infected person.
many people must have had it now and got antibodies so infections will be slower. And simple measures like hand washing and not coughing/sneezing without a hankie help a lot.
The risk of doing lockdown is massive. lockdown does not come at zero cost in terms of deaths or misery.
The thing that would be bad if we have another virus to cope with alongside COVID over the winter
many people must have had it now and got antibodies so infections will be slower. And simple measures like hand washing and not coughing/sneezing without a hankie help a lot.
The risk of doing lockdown is massive. lockdown does not come at zero cost in terms of deaths or misery.
The thing that would be bad if we have another virus to cope with alongside COVID over the winter
bramling
Veteran Member
Can’t help but smile. IMV you’re absolutely bang on the money with managing expectations, which is the one thing this shower of a government have completely and utterly failed to do.
If we do not lift out of this rut there is going to be severe mental health issues through the population. There’s now an extremely ugly and unpleasant mood, it’s funny that despite an undercurrent of annoyance with how things are the most chilled place I’m experiencing at present is ... at work. By contrast part of my town is cordoned off this morning after a stabbing last night, which is pretty rare here.
This isn’t good for anyone. The furloughs need to be back at work not swanning around on beaches and in parks day after day, and those at work need to be able to enjoy quality leisure time, not be dreading holidays or days out.
We all need to be allowed to make an informed choice about how we live based on a sensible and personal assessment of risk. I’d be happy for there to be some level of support for those with a very genuine medical need to shield, with strict controls in place to prevent misuse.
The social distancing and muzzling dont make going out pleasurable at all. We avoid going into town except for essentials. Seeing people in the street in masks just makes me sad - they are not needed there.
And people running away from each other all the time. It must be doing every-bodies heads in.
All these negative vibes must be affecting how much goes into shop, cafe and pub tills. How it will work when its cold and wet I dont know.
I do know some have given up on the shops and buy everything online. Amazon must be jumping with joy over this.
bramling
Veteran Member
My trip to town today was what might be termed a “distress purchase”, I only did it as there were a couple of things I particularly needed and didn’t wish to wait for. Apart from the first welcome being a police officer informing me the route into town was cordoned off due to a stabbing last night, the atmosphere was dire. We’re now back to shops full of families (if shopping is so dangerous we need masks, why are we back to families with multiple kids walking round Sainsbury’s or Wilkinson’s as more of a day out than a shopping mission?), and I could wait to get away. Notably though I didn’t have to queue at either checkout, which pre-Covid would have been atypical for a Sunday. Aside from that I’m either buying online, or in some cases just not buying at all - would be good for my bank balance if interest rates were decent!
For me sorting out this dog’s breakfast would be a priority if I was making decisions, and it’s not something which is sustainable second wave or otherwise.
To be fair, they did try that at the start, Boris' announcement in early/mid March (I think his first public COVID one): "It is going to spread further and I must level with you, I must level with the British public: many more families are going to lose loved ones before their time."
Presumably the outrage from that was part of the reason that we saw the stricter measures announced, first the urge to social distance, then the announcement of lockdown
bramling
Veteran Member
Fair point. Ultimately he should have had the balls to maintain that message. Now we don’t seem to have any message at all, just a bumbling car-crash of half measures, drip feeding via leaked announcements, and Sturgeon able to seize the initiative time after time.
Completely agree. There are rather too many idlers in this country, only too happy for the government to keep paying their wages. The lack of speed at which some businesses have reopened perhaps suggests the scheme is more generous than it should be.
Class 33
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Messages
- 2,362
Well hopefully the experts are very wrong in that there will be a second wave. I think it was about 3 weeks or so now that experts predicted "There will be a second wave WITHIN A FORTNIGHT". So they got that wrong. And I think back in March experts predicted that 8 MILLION people in the UK would become infected with Coronavirus and 500,000 would die from it. They were astronomically wrong with that prediction!
Years ago the news used to be about what is happening now, not what might happen!
Years ago the news used to be about what is happening now, not what might happen!
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
To be fair, cases are now climbing notably, so that "second wave" or "second spike" looks like it's arrived.
Yeah, so what?
Nobody who has ever looked at how diseases spread in the most basic detail would reasonably expect that a suppression policy was going to work with a disease which had already achieved significant worldwide spread.
The only figures which matter are hospital admissions and deaths - and there needs to be realism there too.
Richard Scott
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 3,694
With the initial infection new daily cases near enough tripled every week looking at the numbers, don't think that's happening so not convinced. Perhaps we have some herd immunity now and lower viral loads that are limiting spread?
You aren't confusing positive tests with 'cases' are you?
SouthEastBuses
On Moderation
I know many people will disagree with me, but...
I would put a second national lockdown. And as much as I wouldn't want that to happen, if the second wave becomes as bad as the first one or even worse, then I believe lockdown is the only way to save people's lives from being infected.
What I would do is put a lockdown nearly exactly like the one in Italy. That means no going out unless strictly necessary, and here are the following reasons to go out:
Shopping for food and drinks
Visiting your GP
Shopping at medical stores like Boots
Daily exercise, but MUST be done within 10 km of your house.
Going to work if it can't be done from home
Social distancing of 2m must be observed at all times.
People MUST wear face masks at all times whenever outside the house EXCEPT when going out for exercise.
Oh and a complete closure of borders to non essential travel.
Economy is important and I agree, but what comes first? Your life or your money?
I would put a second national lockdown. And as much as I wouldn't want that to happen, if the second wave becomes as bad as the first one or even worse, then I believe lockdown is the only way to save people's lives from being infected.
What I would do is put a lockdown nearly exactly like the one in Italy. That means no going out unless strictly necessary, and here are the following reasons to go out:
Shopping for food and drinks
Visiting your GP
Shopping at medical stores like Boots
Daily exercise, but MUST be done within 10 km of your house.
Going to work if it can't be done from home
Social distancing of 2m must be observed at all times.
People MUST wear face masks at all times whenever outside the house EXCEPT when going out for exercise.
Oh and a complete closure of borders to non essential travel.
Economy is important and I agree, but what comes first? Your life or your money?
I take it the long term negative effects of having a failed state and no economy (not just a damaged one) have gone over your head. Yes we'll all be free of a virus, but who wants to live that sort of life? Sorry, I'll take my chances with Covid and enjoy life, thanks.
Oh and today's positive test results figure- 0.6% of tests processed.
And you seriously think that there would be compliance with this? No chance!
We've already been through this many times, but those particularly at risk are now well identified, so put measures in place for them - and leave everyone else alone. Carrying on with a policy like you are suggesting will, outside the at risk groups, end up killing more people than the virus does.
Richard Scott
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 3,694
As we've said before this isn't just one issue. Lockdown means other treatments stop. There are still people waiting for cancer treatment that stopped in March, I have it from the horse's mouth this is true. There are people who are now terminal because of lack of treatment. This is conveniently forgotten. If we don't lockdown again and open up health service properly I'm confident more lives will be saved due to proper treatment of other ailments than will die from contracting the virus (this is my view and I don't have numbers to back it up). Seeing as a recent doctor's visit that took ages to get to results of a blood test was 15 days, if had been serious that's a lot of treatment time lost. We just need to move on and learn to live with this virus than keep running away from it, it will find us in the end, doesn't matter if you count to 100 or 100,000 in hide and seek, outcome is the same!!
SouthEastBuses
On Moderation
But what would you rather have?
Lockdown with a collapsed economy but at least being safe?
Or no lockdown but risk of being infected just to save the economy?
Lockdown with a collapsed economy but at least being safe?
Or no lockdown but risk of being infected just to save the economy?
Given the extremely low death rate amongst almost all of the population, I would choose the latter without a second thought, as I imagine would a lot of others on here.
Definitely go with the second option. You seem to be working on the assumption that the virus is going to kill most people it infects, which it isn't - in people under 60 of reasonable health the fatality rate is negligible, and even with older people the majority who die with it already have a serious health condition.
I'm really not sure how a collapsed economy counts as "safe" - the effects of that would be highly likely to kill vast numbers in one way or another.
SouthEastBuses
On Moderation
If they manage to find an effective treatment or vaccine, then my life is 100% back to normal and I wouldn't worry about the virus at all.
I mean, I am going out like before coronavirus, but with extra precautions such as avoiding public transport and wearing N95 face masks indoors (that are, btw, WAY more effective than useless cloth homemade masks in my opinion)
SouthEastBuses
On Moderation
That's the problem though - whilst young, 18-25 year olds people like myself would 100% survive from it, we are often asymptomatic and we are spreading the virus to the vulnerable elderly without even knowing it.
The chances of a negative outcome for most people are astonishingly small. This is not Spanish Flu, this is not SARS, this is an illness with a infection fatality ratio that's not incomparable to standard influenza. Lockdown, on the other hand, does not come without costs.
Lockdown 'killed two people for every three who died of coronavirus' at peak of outbreak
Estimates show 16,000 people died through missed medical care by May 1, while virus killed 25,000 in same period
www.telegraph.co.uk
- Status