• 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!

Media Coverage of COVID -19

Status
Not open for further replies.

Skimpot flyer

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2012
Messages
1,610
Here's what I find curious.

Looking at Worldometer figures and converting to per capita, if I have my sums right they've had about 50% more infections and deaths than us. Now infections depend on how you measure, but maybe deaths are a better proxy for overall infections. Of course it depends on how well you protect the vulnerable - though I don't think either us or Sweden did all that well.

So it doesn't look as if they've had that much greater spread of infection than us.

In any case they seem to have held things at around R=1, as have we for much of the time since lockdown.

Well, maybe the difference is in what happened at the start, i.e. when we locked down and they didn't.

This is all no doubt an oversimplification. But then articles like that may also be oversimplifying things.
But Sweden have had 579 deaths per million of population. UK has had 613/million
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Skimpot flyer

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2012
Messages
1,610
I did say if I have my sums right.

Which I clearly didn't.

I get the numbers above now...

Doesn't change my conclusion anyway.
Well we shall see soon what impact the different approaches have on unemployment rates and economic damage
 

thejuggler

Member
Joined
8 Jan 2016
Messages
1,186
BBC currently preaching Priti Patels comments as Gospel. Meet people in the street by accident and there are more than 6 and you are guilty of an offence.

No legal comment or analysis of what the law actually says whatsoever.
 

Skimpot flyer

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2012
Messages
1,610
Police in Brighton last weekend couldn’t wait to start using their dispersal powers, even though the new rules were not yet in force.
A spokesman for Sussex Police said: “Police dispersed a large group of people who had gathered in Ship Street, Brighton, on Sunday afternoon.

“Officers engaged, explained and encouraged and then spoke with buskers, giving words of advice about their responsibility in drawing in a crowd.
So presumably if you are really rubbish and people just walk past, that’s ok? :D
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
3,599
Well we shall see soon what impact the different approaches have on unemployment rates and economic damage

Well we'll see what impact the different approaches and differences between the two countries have.

I think it will be lot longer - if ever - that we can say what would instead have happened here if we'd done the same as Sweden.
 

adc82140

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2008
Messages
2,928
I see Peston's at it again:


Significant further restrictions on our freedom to mix with people, in social or work settings, could be introduced in a fortnight, if the “rule of six” does not lead to behavioural change and a flattening of the coronavirus infection rate.

I have spoken to members of the government and to its scientific advisers, and am struck by how anxious they are that the virus may be spreading out of control again.

One member of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) told me : “My big worry now is that we might be too late again to avert a major second wave.

"If we wait for deaths to go up again before taking decisive action we will be in trouble again”.

So that's based on talking to one member of SAGE, who advise government, but do not make the rules. I still maintain that it'd be economic suicide to lock down again, when the rest of Europe isn't. Never mind the fact that the public wouldn't stand for it a second time round.

Contrast with the head of France's equivalent of Sage, who even though they have a fairly squeaky-bum situation with hospitals in Marseille has said that the societal consequences of lockdown mean that it will never happen again.
 

Skimpot flyer

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2012
Messages
1,610
I see Peston's at it again:




So that's based on talking to one member of SAGE, who advise government, but do not make the rules. I still maintain that it'd be economic suicide to lock down again, when the rest of Europe isn't. Never mind the fact that the public wouldn't stand for it a second time round.

Contrast with the head of France's equivalent of Sage, who even though they have a fairly squeaky-bum situation with hospitals in Marseille has said that the societal consequences of lockdown mean that it will never happen again.
Don’t worry.
If you find it impossible to get a test, then the positive test numbers will fall and thus the government can claim the ‘rule of 6’ works and was, therefore, a necessary measure :rolleyes:
 

Mag_seven

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
1 Sep 2014
Messages
9,994
Location
here to eternity
I see Peston's at it again:




So that's based on talking to one member of SAGE, who advise government, but do not make the rules. I still maintain that it'd be economic suicide to lock down again, when the rest of Europe isn't. Never mind the fact that the public wouldn't stand for it a second time round.

Contrast with the head of France's equivalent of Sage, who even though they have a fairly squeaky-bum situation with hospitals in Marseille has said that the societal consequences of lockdown mean that it will never happen again.

The problem with certain elements of the media is that no sooner than one set of restrictions is introduced, they immediately start reporting a call for even more restrictions to be introduced.
 

Class 33

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2009
Messages
2,362
There really can not be another full national lockdown. The first one was bad enough with the huge damage it caused to the economy, and the nations livelihoods and mental health. If we have to RESET back to the full lockdown as of 23rd March, this will cause even more catastrophic damage to what has already been done! And this would drag on for at least several months again!

Michael Gove mentioned on BBC Breakfast about a week ago that a second national lockdown can not be ruled out. However a few days later there was an article in the Express with him calming fears over a second lockdown, which also goes on to mention that a senior source in Whitehall said Britain can not afford a second national lockdown because reintroducing furloughs would be too expensive, and also the huge damage it will do to the economy.


Michael Gove calms fears over a second lockdown

MICHAEL GOVE denied the country was heading for a national lockdown as a top scientist warned the UK was on the brink of losing control.

The Cabinet Office Minister spoke out after comments by Sir Mark Walport sparked fears of a new Covid-19 wave. The ex-chief scientific adviser, who is on the Sage team of Government experts, told the BBC: "I think one would have to say that we're on the edge of losing control. "You've only got to look across the Channel. The French on Thursday had 9,800 new infections and one can see their hospital admissions, and indeed their intensive care admissions, are going up."

Sir Mark also contradicted the Government's advice for people to return to offices. He said he was "definitely" still working from home, and added: "Where people can work from home there's an extremely strong argument that they should do so."

The source acknowledged that the restrictions have been eased at a slower pace than many people want.

But they stressed such caution was necessary if a nationwide lockdown was to be avoided.

The insider said: "With all the data we now have we should be able to have local lockdowns and get through that way but we cannot take risks.

"That was behind the announcements last week.

"The rule of six is not a second lockdown but people need to take these rules seriously or we are going to be in a very bad place."

Mr Gove described Sir Mark's words as a "warning to us all". But he denied the Government was losing control of Covid-19, saying: "No. I don't accept that."

In a separate interview with Times Radio, he said: "The reason why we're taking the steps we announced this week and come into force on Monday is precisely to seek to avoid that situation.

"The R rate has increased, the number of people who have been infected sadly has increased."

Mr Gove said that unlike in Wales and Scotland, the "rule of six" social gatherings curbs would apply to under-12s in England.

The Government is considering measures to ensure people follow rules intended to stop the spread of the virus, but says the strategy is to "avoid a second national lockdown at all costs". A senior Whitehall source said Britain cannot afford a second national lockdown because reintroducing furloughs would be too expensive.

It is feared a second blanket lockdown across the whole of the UK would "shatter business confidence" and mean "thousands of companies will permanently close their doors."

The source said: "That means we will be faced with hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs and an economic meltdown.

"Lots of businesses understood lockdown to be a one-off event and so they tried to ride it through. But a second lockdown means many won't be able to keep going and others will have their confidence shattered.

"If there is a second lockdown people will think there could be a third lockdown, a fourth and so on. There's no end to it."
 

scotrail158713

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2019
Messages
1,797
Location
Dundee
There really can not be another full national lockdown. The first one was bad enough with the huge damage it caused to the economy, and the nations livelihoods and mental health. If we have to RESET back to the full lockdown as of 23rd March, this will cause even more catastrophic damage to what has already been done! And this would drag on for at least several months again!

Michael Gove mentioned on BBC Breakfast about a week ago that a second national lockdown can not be ruled out. However a few days later there was an article in the Express with him calming fears over a second lockdown, which also goes on to mention that a senior source in Whitehall said Britain can not afford a second national lockdown because reintroducing furloughs would be too expensive, and also the huge damage it will do to the economy.

To be honest I don’t mind that story too much. He’s probably sensible to not entirely rule out another lockdown - however it’s also right that it should be avoided wherever possible.
 

Huntergreed

Established Member
Associate Staff
Events Co-ordinator
Joined
16 Jan 2016
Messages
3,019
Location
Dumfries
To be honest I don’t mind that story too much. He’s probably sensible to not entirely rule out another lockdown - however it’s also right that it should be avoided wherever possible.
I disagree, a full lockdown must be ruled out now because

(1) it’s not proportionate with what we are dealing with

(2) it’s actually not proven to be effective (look at Sweden who never locked down and are now in a better position than us quite substantially

(3) the economic damage, damage to people with other Physical and mental conditions and the general damage on mental well-being would be many times greater than during the first lockdown.

I refuse to believe that another (or the first) lockdown is a good idea and the ministers are just saying this out of fear.

If they do lock us down again, the compliance would be nowhere near as high and the backlash would be enormous, and they’re not stupid, they know that this isn’t an option.
 

NorthOxonian

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
5 Jul 2018
Messages
1,483
Location
Oxford/Newcastle
I disagree, a full lockdown must be ruled out now because

(1) it’s not proportionate with what we are dealing with

(2) it’s actually not proven to be effective (look at Sweden who never locked down and are now in a better position than us quite substantially

(3) the economic damage, damage to people with other Physical and mental conditions and the general damage on mental well-being would be many times greater than during the first lockdown.

I refuse to believe that another (or the first) lockdown is a good idea and the ministers are just saying this out of fear.

If they do lock us down again, the compliance would be nowhere near as high and the backlash would be enormous, and they’re not stupid, they know that this isn’t an option.

I agree with most of this point, but I wouldn't rule it out entirely. If we got to the point where we had a significantly larger spike of cases than the first wave (ie 100k/day), then we would have to consider a second national lockdown - the potential damage done by the virus at that point would be even worse than the consequences of lockdown. I'm not convinced that we could ever get to that point, but it's theoretically possible.

But talk of a national lockdown now, or even if cases were in the low five figures, is ridiculous. Which is probably why the media are transfixed by the idea - they know it will get them attention!
 

scotrail158713

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2019
Messages
1,797
Location
Dundee
I disagree, a full lockdown must be ruled out now because
I completely agree - it shouldn’t happen. All I’m saying is I’d say it’s probably sensible for a senior government minister to pretty much cover his back, in the (very) unlikely situation that it occurs.
(Imagine the cries of “the government said this wouldn’t happen” if it did happen)
they’re not stupid
Are they though? :D
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
3,599
I disagree, a full lockdown must be ruled out now because

(1) it’s not proportionate with what we are dealing with

(2) it’s actually not proven to be effective (look at Sweden who never locked down and are now in a better position than us quite substantially

(3) the economic damage, damage to people with other Physical and mental conditions and the general damage on mental well-being would be many times greater than during the first lockdown.

I refuse to believe that another (or the first) lockdown is a good idea and the ministers are just saying this out of fear.

If they do lock us down again, the compliance would be nowhere near as high and the backlash would be enormous, and they’re not stupid, they know that this isn’t an option.

If I were in charge I would certainly not want a second lockdown and I doubt that one would be appropriate.

But I would also want to base a decision on more sophisticated arguments than just "Look at Sweden" because I don't think it's as simple as that.
 

CaptainHaddock

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,206
It would help if the both the government and the media could actually agree on what a "full lockdown" constitutes, rather than just using the word "lockdown" to mean any new restriction, such as not allowing households to mix or closing the pubs.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It would help if the both the government and the media could actually agree on what a "full lockdown" constitutes, rather than just using the word "lockdown" to mean any new restriction, such as not allowing households to mix or closing the pubs.

I don't believe the Government ever used the word "lockdown" formally. It's the sensationalist media at fault there.
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
3,599
It would help if the both the government and the media could actually agree on what a "full lockdown" constitutes, rather than just using the word "lockdown" to mean any new restriction, such as not allowing households to mix or closing the pubs.

Indeed. It's not a very helpful phrase, is it?

Depending on your definitions, we had a lockdown and Sweden didn't. Or both of us. Or neither.

I would imagine if somehow we ended up in another national "lockdown" (and I doubt this very much, although a patchwork of local lockdowns covering most the UK seems plausible), it would not be the same as the first one.

For a start, many businesses partially or fully shut down sites when they didn't have to. Most of them will have started up now following "Covid-secure" guidelines and therefore should be able to continue.

I found it interesting that the media seemed to say very little about that at the time - there was a general impression given that all non "key workers" had to stop working if they couldn't work from home. This was never true.

I don't believe the Government ever used the word "lockdown" formally. It's the sensationalist media at fault there.

A very interesting point.

A google search for the work "lockdown" on gov.uk sites didn't find me anything referring to the original lockdown as such.

However, they do seem to be quite free with the term "local lockdown" now...
 
Last edited:

adc82140

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2008
Messages
2,928
How about adopting the Irish system. At least you know where you stand, and what the next level will look like. Currently we have the government, egged on by their media chums, threatening the public with the unknown. In Ireland there are no restrictions on movement or rules preventing families seeing each other until you get right to the top of their spectrum of measures.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
I agree with most of this point, but I wouldn't rule it out entirely. If we got to the point where we had a significantly larger spike of cases than the first wave (ie 100k/day), then we would have to consider a second national lockdown - the potential damage done by the virus at that point would be even worse than the consequences of lockdown. I'm not convinced that we could ever get to that point, but it's theoretically possible.

It's the hospitalisation / death rates which are important, rather than the number of infectiond detected (which will always be to an extent a product of how much testing is done) - and unless those start to go up significantly there's not a problem.

On the term 'lockdown', while it's not very specific the main implication is that people are expected to stay at home other than for specified purposes - if that doesn't apply then it's not a lockdown.
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
3,599
On the term 'lockdown', while it's not very specific the main implication is that people are expected to stay at home other than for specified purposes - if that doesn't apply then it's not a lockdown.

That's certainly not the way the government, let alone the media, is using the term for local lockdowns at the moment.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
That's certainly not the way the government, let alone the media, is using the term for local lockdowns at the moment.

Indeed - they seem to be using it as a synonym for any type of restriction! Really not helpful - or perhaps they want to create as much confusion as possible?
 

philosopher

Established Member
Joined
23 Sep 2015
Messages
1,346
That's certainly not the way the government, let alone the media, is using the term for local lockdowns at the moment.

Here is the definition of Lockdown according the Cambridge dictionary:

a situation in which people are not allowed to enter or leave a building or area freely because of an emergency


Therefore really the media should only being using the phrase if people are legally forbidden without an excuse from leaving an area or their homes. So the restrictions in Caerphilly can be described as a lockdown as they can only leave the area for essential purposes but those in Greater Manchester and Birmingham not.
 
Last edited:

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
3,599

I'm not arguing with dictionary definitions, just commenting on how the government are now using the word.

But in fact the Welsh lockdowns seem a reasonabale fit to that dictionary definition given that nobody is supposed to enter or leave the relevant areas without good cause.

We can argue over whether it's an "emergency" till the cows come home, of course.
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,923
the restrictions in Caerphilly can be described as a lockdown as they can only leave the area for essential purposes

Not quite. The restrictions say without good cause / a reasonable excuse I believe. At least I interpret that a bit differently to essential, and reading what the Rhondda MP has been putting out today it allows people to travel for work or education, to visit family for compassionate reasons or care and for access to services not available locally. The last one especially is pretty vague!
Guess it just proves how the wording and definitions of what is going on is up for interpretation which really doesn't help!
 

adc82140

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2008
Messages
2,928
An example I can think of there is the "for maintenance of your house" clause. Would a trip to IKEA count?
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
3,599
Not quite. The restrictions say without good cause / a reasonable excuse I believe. At least I interpret that a bit differently to essential, and reading what the Rhondda MP has been putting out today it allows people to travel for work or education, to visit family for compassionate reasons or care and for access to services not available locally. The last one especially is pretty vague!
Guess it just proves how the wording and definitions of what is going on is up for interpretation which really doesn't help!

Well we could argue over semantics but I think this is pretty much what they were using as the definition of 'essential travel' during the national lockdown. Travel for work counted, so long as you couldn't work at home - it didn't matter if the job itself was in any sense essential or not. Travel for education didn't really apply then of course.

Indeed 'essential travel' on public transport also included travel for exercise.
 

CaptainHaddock

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,206
If only we'd followed Swden's lead and not had any lockdowns at all we'd be in a far better situation by now. They've had no deaths for a week and an average of just 108 new infections per day.


Only 1.2 per cent of Sweden's 120,000 tests last week came back positive according to their national health agency, reports The Guardian.

The country's rate of new cases is 22.2 for every 100,000 inhabitants.

This is compared to 279 in Spain, 158.5 in France, 118 in the Czech Republic, 77 in Belgium and 59 in the UK.

All those countries imposed lockdowns in the grips of the pandemic in March.

But Sweden did not impose any restrictions.

It kept open schools for children under 16, banned gatherings of more than 50 people and told over-70s and vulnerable groups to self-isolate.

Shops, pubs and restaurants stayed open throughout the pandemic and mask wearing has not been advised by the government.

Yet the death rate has been falling steadily since April despite a slight rise in cases in the summer.
 

LAX54

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2008
Messages
3,753
I agree with most of this point, but I wouldn't rule it out entirely. If we got to the point where we had a significantly larger spike of cases than the first wave (ie 100k/day), then we would have to consider a second national lockdown - the potential damage done by the virus at that point would be even worse than the consequences of lockdown. I'm not convinced that we could ever get to that point, but it's theoretically possible.

But talk of a national lockdown now, or even if cases were in the low five figures, is ridiculous. Which is probably why the media are transfixed by the idea - they know it will get them attention!
surely carrying on the way we are, running away from 'the virus', is doing far more damage than if we went back to a normal society ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top