If you were leading the country, what actions would you take regarding COVID just now?

[py_megapixel]

I've had a great day at the V & A, but have been stuck in a bleedin mask so I am grumpy.
Day 1 - mask burning ceremony in St Paul's or Westminster Abbey, and in the the university church of Oxford and Cambridge Regents House to really rile up some academics.

I am sure that burning any significant proportion of the huge number of masks in circulatation at the moment would release a huge quantity of potentially toxic chemicals into the atmosphere, as burning synthetic/plastic materials tends to do, causing people respiratory difficulties due to the air pollution. Pretty ironic, don't you think?

If you want to wear a mask, fine - you must use a government specification and certify that you know how to use it correctly. Otherwise mask usage restricted to public facing roles.

Oh great, so rather than a sensible compromise which gives everyone freedom of choice - which, I hasten to add, is not what we have now - the government is still deciding what is best for us, just the decision is different. I don't want anti-mask propaganda either, thank you very much.

Plus I'd love to see how you intend to enforce that. It would effectively be a government approved list of items of clothing, which in my view is actually less freedom than just having to wear a mask of some description.

What's the point?

 

[big_rig]

Another very niche action I would take is to remove the London salary allowance specifically from people (railway employees) with London-based roles who live outside the M25 & refuse to travel in to work ever again

 

[Reliablebeam]

I am sure that burning any significant proportion of the huge number of masks in circulatation at the moment would release a huge quantity of potentially toxic chemicals into the atmosphere, as burning synthetic/plastic materials tends to do, causing people respiratory difficulties due to the air pollution. Pretty ironic, don't you think?


Oh great, so rather than a sensible compromise which gives everyone freedom of choice - which, I hasten to add, is not what we have now - the government is still deciding what is best for us, just the decision is different. I don't want anti-mask propaganda either, thank you very much.

Plus I'd love to see how you intend to enforce that. It would effectively be a government approved list of items of clothing, which in my view is actually less freedom than just having to wear a mask of some description.

What's the point?

Good point with pollution control. I'm sure we can work around that!

I'm not a fan of these custom 'fashion' masks a lot of people are using which I eye with suspicion. I think if you do want to wear one for extended periods, specifiying a safe standard for you and others is appropriate. I don't like being forced to wear them but will fight for your right to do so, safely.

 

[bramling]

Another very niche action I would take is to remove the London salary allowance specifically from people (railway employees) with London-based roles who live outside the M25 & refuse to travel in to work ever again

This is definitely something which will be looked at I suspect. London weighting should not be being paid for people who aren’t now working in London. No doubt that will upset some!

 

[SouthEastBuses]

A bit of brainstorming as I think most of us are extremely frustrated with how the entire UK government (especially the devolved nations) are managing COVID at this point.

What would you do? Another lockdown? Changes in mask legislation? Would you reduce any restrictions? What are your thoughts?

I'd replace the tiers with two types of risk zones - green zones and red zones.

In red zones (areas normally currently subject to Tier 3), strict lockdowns (but absolutely only in areas subject to very high infection rates e.g. Yorkshire or Liverpool) wil be imposed where the rules in the March lockdown would apply (non-essential shops must close, people must stay at home). With a difference that people must WEAR masks at all times outside the house unless you are of course exempt. People also CANNOT leave their areas without a reasonable excuse, with police strictly patrolling the local authority/county borders (like they did in Italy back in their lockdown). To be reviewed once every week and if infection rates become low and the situation improves, the strict lockdown will be lifted and everything goes back to normal.

In green zones, keep everything going on as normal. No lockdowns. Shops, pubs, bars and restaurants open as usual (maybe even lift the 10pm curfew unless if it's on a Friday or Saturday - but not sure if it will work or not). Maybe even increase the maximum amount of gatherings allowed from 6 to 10. People should still work from home where possible, but can use public transport for any purpose provided they wear a mask unless exempt. Masks only needed on public transport and indoor areas as it is per current legislation.

P.S. I'm only in favour of lockdown in areas where infection rates are too high and unsustainable. Otherwise, like pretty much everybody else on this forum, I am against lockdowns as they damage the economy and have many disastrous consequences.

 

[Huntergreed]

I'd replace the tiers with two types of risk zones - green zones and red zones.

In red zones (areas normally currently subject to Tier 3), strict lockdowns (but absolutely only in areas subject to very high infection rates e.g. Yorkshire or Liverpool) wil be imposed where the rules in the March lockdown would apply (non-essential shops must close, people must stay at home). With a difference that people must WEAR masks at all times outside the house unless you are of course exempt. People also CANNOT leave their areas without a reasonable excuse, with police strictly patrolling the local authority/county borders (like they did in Italy back in their lockdown). To be reviewed once every week and if infection rates become low and the situation improves, the strict lockdown will be lifted and everything goes back to normal.

In green zones, keep everything going on as normal. No lockdowns. Shops, pubs, bars and restaurants open as usual (maybe even lift the 10pm curfew unless if it's on a Friday or Saturday - but not sure if it will work or not). Maybe even increase the maximum amount of gatherings allowed from 6 to 10. People should still work from home where possible, but can use public transport for any purpose provided they wear a mask unless exempt. Masks only needed on public transport and indoor areas as it is per current legislation.

P.S. I'm only in favour of lockdown in areas where infection rates are too high and unsustainable. Otherwise, like pretty much everybody else on this forum, I am against lockdowns as they damage the economy and have many disastrous consequences.

That's a very harsh lockdown that would likely cause far more issues than the virus in terms of mental health, livelihoods etc... Also there's absolutely no evidence masks work inside (and they absolutely do not work outside, just look at France!)

 

[SouthEastBuses]

That's a very harsh lockdown that would likely cause far more issues than the virus in terms of mental health, livelihoods etc... Also there's absolutely no evidence masks work inside (and they absolutely do not work outside, just look at France!)

But they would be reviewed every week and would only occur in the very high risk areas.

That's a very harsh lockdown that would likely cause far more issues than the virus in terms of mental health, livelihoods etc... Also there's absolutely no evidence masks work inside (and they absolutely do not work outside, just look at France!)

If masks don't work then why has Japan (a masked society) kept its cases and deaths very low? This is despite Japan being a very densely populated country with 126 million people living there.

Oh and regarding the harsh lockdown, it would only happen as a very last resort

 

[big_rig]

But they would be reviewed every week and would only occur in the very high risk areas.



If masks don't work then why has Japan (a masked society) kept its cases and deaths very low? This is despite Japan being a very densely populated country with 126 million people living there.

Oh and regarding the harsh lockdown, it would only happen as a very last resort

Cases in Japan are low because they closed their borders at the start of this and haven’t let anybody in all year. Absolutely nothing to do with masks.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Cases in Japan are low because they closed their borders at the start of this and haven’t let anybody in all year. Absolutely nothing to do with masks.

Yeah that's also true. Something we could have done to keep them low and avoid a lockdown but incompetent idiot Johnson only cares about the economy and nothing else.

 

[bramling]

Yeah that's also true. Something we could have done to keep them low and avoid a lockdown but incompetent idiot Johnson only cares about the economy and nothing else.

With the prospect of a vaccine seeming to be becoming increasingly dubious, it is looking like an elimination combined with closed borders strategy simply wouldn't have worked.

It's viable for so long, but it's not a long-term solution - and it runs the risk of a massive surge when eventually the borders are opened.

 

[NorthOxonian]

With the prospect of a vaccine seeming to be becoming increasingly dubious, it is looking like an elimination combined with closed borders strategy simply wouldn't have worked.

It's viable for so long, but it's not a long-term solution - and it runs the risk of a massive surge when eventually the borders are opened.

I wouldn't rule a vaccine out just yet. There are signs results from some of the main trials could finally be coming soon, and we've bought a huge stock of various types, so if one works, we'll probably be alright.

What worries me more is how it gets distributed - no doubt that very lucrative contract will be a repeat of the Track and Trace fiasco, making the logistics take far longer than needed.

If I was in charge, I'd certainly make changes to how these contracts were given out, ensuring good value for the taxpayer rather than payouts for political allies like Dido Harding.

 

[The Ham]

I would make a significant change, which would help a lot of people and might encourage people not to travel to work if they don't need to.

It should be noted that it would also remove the need for a lot of things to be in place, and so wouldn't be as costly as it would first appear.

I'd bring in universal basic income at a value of £7,000 which would be tax free however this would remove work based benefits, other tax free allowances, child benefits, and other things like that.

To pay for it there would be a flat rate tax of something like 40.1% meaning that those earning over about £27,000 would start to pay more tax than at present.

Those earning more would pay more tax, so someone on £49,000 would be paying £3,400 more tax (even allowing for the £7,000), however it could be that as a household they are no worse off. Whilst tax payed would continue to rise it wouldn't rise very fast much beyond this because of the current 40% threshold. However to provide time to adjust any person could defer 40%, 30% and 15% of the extra tax owed in the first, second and third years to be paid back over the following 20 years or upon death whichever is sooner (basically for the above example reduces the tax by a total of £2,000 to be paid back at £100/ year)

It would cut a lot of red tape from the government, with no self assessments for high rate tax payers, which could save the state a lot of money. State pensions could be reduced, as the UBI would already be more than it anyway.

There'd be less arguments about if we needed to provide free school meals during school holidays as there should be suitable income for that.

It would boost the economy in areas with low salaries and therefore encourage businesses to employ more people in those areas.

Minimum wage would remain, but would have to be addition to the UBI. Given that it would remove some benefits there wouldn't be the same sort of limits in place to stop people working more than 15 hours a week before they lost their benefits. However to stop people benefiting too much by going onto benefits before coming off them there would be a benefits tax of +14.9% on earnings of those claiming benefits (so that they are paying 55% tax on their earnings, so for every £1 earned they loose 15p in benefits but the government gets 55p, so that it's worth everyone's while working more).

How's this linked to Covid? Well it would replace the need for a lot of the support packages and allow those not to work if they have symptoms.

This should encourage people to follow lockdown rules more easily without feeling that they are going to put their finances at risk.

It would mean that there's less people missed in the support deals and could allow people to "keep" their jobs whilst the economy picks back up again and companies to start to pay them again.

I'd also bring in a rule that states that companies can only limit their staff from working for a competitor where they are earning more than double minimum wage or they are employed for a total of 37 hours a week. They could stop any other employment if they are the employer providing the most hours and it would mean that member of staff working more than 60 hours a week on minimum wage, this would be linked to rates of pay so for each 5% above minimum wage it would reduce the hours by 1 hour, so someone on double the minimum wage could still work up to 40 hours across two jobs without their being a limit imposed on them.

The other Covid-19 rule that I'd change is to bring in the 6*6 rule. Basically the rule of 6 but to be limited to 6 groups each month (work or school counts as one). However you can have one of those groups to be another group of 6 (with a 2 week gap between each different group) which you can meet with (so families can meet grandparents or cousins). However it would limit the total number of people that there's interactions between.

 

[Richard Scott]

Yeah that's also true. Something we could have done to keep them low and avoid a lockdown but incompetent idiot Johnson only cares about the economy and nothing else.

No, he doesn't care about that but reality is no economy, no NHS or other services. People need to realise that economy is linked to so many things that they hold dear.

 

[py_megapixel]

But they would be reviewed every week and would only occur in the very high risk areas.

On the subject of masks: are you suggesting that if someone decides to get up early in the morning, drive out into the middle of nowhere and go for a walk on in the hills for exercise and fresh air, with literally nobody else about - which is as close as it gets to zero risk, because there is literally nobody they could concievably transmit to - they would be expected to wear a mask for the entire duration of their walk because they are "outside of their homes"?

The thing about a mask mandation in public buildings is that, while I'm not particularly in favour of it, it's absolutely possible to have a high quality of life without entering a single public building. Have your shopping delivered; choose restaurants and pubs which have outdoor seating accessible without going through the main building; have takeaways rather than eating out; partake in outdoor exercise such as cycling. The only case in which it would be required would be for those who do not own vehicles and are unable to cycle for whatever reason and therefore are forced to take public transport.

A mask mandation everywhere is a very different beast. Sealing oneself in one's home simply isn't possible for all but the richest of the rich.

If masks don't work then why has Japan (a masked society) kept its cases and deaths very low? This is despite Japan being a very densely populated country with 126 million people living there.

That's an entirely meaningless comparison. Japanese society is very different to British society... there are so many different factors that could have affected it

 

[Domh245]

I wouldn't rule a vaccine out just yet. There are signs results from some of the main trials could finally be coming soon, and we've bought a huge stock of various types, so if one works, we'll probably be alright.

Agreed that there will be a vaccine, but it's not the sort of vaccine that will allow elimination. Countries that have pursued the closed border strategy now have to face up to the reality of the situation - the virus is endemic and no country will be able to maintain the strict border controls they have in perpetuity.

None of the vaccines being produced are one-shot long term immunity types, they're all much like a flu vaccine where it'll give you a short term immunity boost that'll lessen the impact of the virus as opposed to stopping the spread

 

[35B]

I would define the boundaries for entering Covid measures much more clearly, along with what those are, and how those affected will be protected. I would do this in terms of predicted health capacity, based on the estimated ability of hospitals to maintain normal services while treating Covid patients. These numbers would be published, and implementation of restrictions would be automatic, with limited (48 hour) notice of changes. Exit would also be automatic, at a level estimated to be far enough below the entry criteria not to lead to ping ponging in an out.

Where restrictions are in place, I would then make them consistent and coherent, with meaningful enforcement rather than token measures designed to be evaded. In particular, I would police quarantine measures, with evasion of self isolation mandates being followed up robustly, rather than largely ignored.

 

[John Luxton]

My strategy for ending this nonsense:
Sack SAGE and recruit some new advisors.

I highly recommend that you watch an interview with Dr Mike Yeadon former chief respiratory scientist at Pfizer - it can be found on Anna Brees' YouTube channel.

End widespread testing to reduce numbers - test only those admitted to hospital or showing symptoms. It is quite clear as Dr Yeadon states in his interview that increasing testing has just found for cases in people who are not ill!
People would be expected to make their own risk assessments based on their vulnerability and existing health conditions and if necessary shield.
Masks should only be recommended for those considered vulnerable - too many health and / of psychological problems caused for the rest of us.
End Social Distancing
Everyone returns to normal.

It has become quite clear now that Sweden which took a much more relaxed approach to Covid is in no worse off than the UK in terms of deaths early on - is now seeing much lower infection rates.

If only the UK had stuck with the original strategy.

Moderator note: Please continue the Sweden debate at

What are tha main differences between the approaches of the UK and Sweden?

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/if-you-were-leading-the-country-what-actions-would-you-take-regarding-covid-just-now.210830/ It has become quite clear now that Sweden which took a much more relaxed approach to Covid is in no worse off than the UK in terms of...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Jozhua]

So, what would I do?

Well firstly:
COVID isn't the disease we thought it was. 2% CFR is very high, even the WHO now says it is more like 0.5%. In that case, 13% of the population has already had it. I think the university of Oxford's 0.1-0.36% CFR is probably more accurate.

New deaths reported would be required to list if COVID was the probable cause of death. Currently it is death within 30 days of a positive test, the amount of ways this could be inaccurate is numerous. I'd keep the existing form of counting, as it is useful for those tracking trends, but introduce a more accurate one to get a better understanding of risk.

False negative results are endemic and more widespread than we think - I think a lot of that is down to inaccurate swabbing due to a reliance on 'self tests' at walk & drive thru testing centres.

So, next we need to decide how we will get through this:

The virus is embedded in the population and will be impossible to suppress, even with a perfect lockdown. Further lockdowns therefore are useless without an appropriate exit strategy, which essentially boils down to vaccination.

We cannot ignore the situation, as COVID does contribute a significant pressure to healthcare and a risk to elderly and vulnerable.

So, considering this and the fact we still may be 12 months + away from a vaccine:

-Immediately furlough vulnerable and offer early retirement or furlough for the over 60's.
-Introduce a scheme to get all the young and middle aged unemployed to help fill the gaps left by these people, temporarily or permanently, as needed.
-Subsidised supermarket deliveries for the vulnerable, elderly or those isolating.
-Masks mandatory indoors in public spaces, with a national scheme for exemption cards where physical or mental health applies.
-1m+ advice in public spaces like shops and restaurants. Advisory removal of 1 way systems and entrance/exit only's where they could cause bottlenecks in other places.
-Set up guidelines for ventilation & filtering, with legal maximum capacity rules introduced depending on the air circulation of the space.
-Clubs and venues remain closed, with a targeted furlough and maintainence scheme for these venues.
-Advisory placement of full handwashing stations in as many places as possible.
-Quarantine rules remain in place for countries deemed to be at risk, with the exception of transiting through on a direct train/bus, so that people taking services like Eurostar are not caught up if France is on the list. Quarantine reduced to 1 week with a test.

 

[Yew]

Even though there’s a wide range of increasing evidence that face coverings are effective in preventing the spread of COVID in close quarters?

None of it has materialised so far.

So, what would I do?

Well firstly:
COVID isn't the disease we thought it was. 2% CFR is very high, even the WHO now says it is more like 0.5%. In that case, 13% of the population has already had it. I think the university of Oxford's 0.1-0.36% CFR is probably more accurate.

I think they have recently published some work by John Iddionis (sp?) that agrees more with Oxfords range of values.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Round up Cummings, Johnson, Hancock, Whitty, Valance and the rest of the mob, place them in stocks and allow dirty rolled up used masks to be thrown at them. That might sound quite cruel but no more than they have been for the last seven months.

Can I be behind the camera recording this please?

 

[Darandio]

Can I be behind the camera recording this please?

Of course. I reckon we could sell tickets too.

 

[35B]

Of course. I reckon we could sell tickets too.

I tend to see abolition of public executions (1868) and the stocks (last used in the 1870s) as a sign of civilisation, so prefer not to regress to earlier, more barbarous, eras.

 

[DB]

Disband Sage, and put together a balanced advisory group including all aspects of healthcare, plus economists and statisticians. And ban it from talking direct to the media.

 

[HLE]

Simple really. Have these severe restrictions for the over 70s regardless of health condition as they are the ones much more likely to need a bed and die of the disease.

Allow them to exercise outdoors and go shopping for essentials but no mixing. Hard on mental health, especially over the Christmas period but the data tells us thats the age group most likely to collapse the NHS.

 

[jtuk]

Simple really. Have these severe restrictions for the over 70s regardless of health condition as they are the ones much more likely to need a bed and die of the disease.

Allow them to exercise outdoors and go shopping for essentials but no mixing. Hard on mental health, especially over the Christmas period but the data tells us thats the age group most likely to collapse the NHS.

Distinct lack of "optional" in that post. If I was 70 right now I would tell your exactly where to go

 

[initiation]

Day 1 start a vigorous media campaign with facts around death rates, comparisons to previous years, effectiveness of masks etc... Ofcom rules revoked.

A solidarity tax to be introduced to attempt to cover the cost of all the extra borrowing. Let's say 20-40% on top of VAT for the time until there are no mandatory closures and social distancing.

For those who are highly vulnerable, for the next 6 months make cash available to support them. Care homes shielded, staff paid to live in if possible.

With the narrative change and people being hurt in the pocket, public opinion will soon start to swing behind a relaxation of the rules. People will also start breaking them on their own accord. It would take no more than 1 month to roll everything back.

 

[kristiang85]

A solidarity tax to be introduced to attempt to cover the cost of all the extra borrowing. Let's say 20-40% on top of VAT for the time until there are no mandatory closures and social distancing.

The problem is that will hit those losing money the hardest (furlough doesn't cover everything, and it isn't saving businesses going bust, so that would hit a lot of people).

An online sales tax for non-UK companies for the period should be discussed, however.

 

[Darandio]

I tend to see abolition of public executions (1868) and the stocks (last used in the 1870s) as a sign of civilisation, so prefer not to regress to earlier, more barbarous, eras.

It's no more barbaric and uncivilised than what the current lot have inflicted on us.

 

[HLE]

Distinct lack of "optional" in that post. If I was 70 right now I would tell your exactly where to go

To be honest, so would I.

However, if the stats say I'm of an age much more likely to die or become seriously ill as a result of catching this disease, and by doing so risk collapsing the NHS then I'll reluctantly comply. I'll comply knowing the majority of the population can carry on relatively 'normally' and not collapse the economy that funds my state pension which I receive regardless of these restrictions.

And knowing my kids and grandkids are then less likely to have some practice of being a pensioner sat on fulough and/or constantly under threat of redundancy with almost every sector being hit as a result of these restrictions.

This disease gets a lot worse the further past 70 you get. That's the cold hard fact. People in that age bracket have the state pension and can sit at home and ride out the storm, even if they don't want to. Same can't be said for people of working age.

That's what I'd do. Keep masks, test and trace etc. for under 70s and keep easing restrictions for those under 70 but lock down those over 70 for a month.

Age discrimination? Yep. But that would show the government is protecting those most at risk from this disease whilst keeping the economy moving as much as possible which funds their pensions and care.

 

[yorkie]

please stick to discussing If you were leading the country, what actions would you take regarding COVID just now? in this thread, thanks

face covering discussion can be found at https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/uk-face-coverings-discussion.206902/

sweden comparison: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...n-the-approaches-of-the-uk-and-sweden.210892/