• 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!

How much longer will social distancing go on for in the UK?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
It also seems to be the way it's gone in the US from the beginning- i.e. the left were more in favour of restrictions.

There is something slightly odd in left wingers demanding more restrictions from their right wing governments. I wonder when the penny will drop?

Proof by assertion, perchance? Why are you using a graph that clearly shows an increasing infection rate (at least in terms of those detected) to claim a reducing one?

And a falling mortality rate, which was as I recall one of the aims of the lockdowns?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
And a falling mortality rate, which was as I recall one of the aims of the lockdowns?

Yes, it would seem so, but using graphs to "prove" something that is clearly shown not to be the case from the graph being used is rather silly :)

I do however think the reason for the reducing death rate needs analysing, as that could be a good reason to reduce measures.
 

Justin Smith

Member
Joined
14 Nov 2009
Messages
1,052
Location
Sheffield
Proof by assertion, perchance? Why are you using a graph that clearly shows an increasing infection rate (at least in terms of those detected) to claim a reducing one?

Not sure what you mean, other than an increased infection rate could be down to increased testing.
But I think people can get too hung up on the infection rate, it is essentially irrelevant other than as a possible predictor of the death rate a few weeks down the line. However, that link appears to be broken anyway, so, I'm not at all interested in the infection rate, just the death rate. If, for whatever reason, the infection rate sky rockets, but the death rate stays low, that's surely what matters, and means we can get rid of all these appalling infringements on our freedoms (including masks.....).
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Not sure what you mean

What I mean is that you stated that that graph shows a decreasing infection rate. It doesn't, very obviously not. It shows an increasing one.

The reasons for that increase (which may not be an actual increase in prevalence) are of course for further debate, but your analysis of the graph was simply incorrect.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Yes, it would seem so, but using graphs to "prove" something that is clearly shown not to be the case from the graph being used is rather silly :)

I do however think the reason for the reducing death rate needs analysing, as that could be a good reason to reduce measures.

Don't these graphs start to offer evidence that the epidemic is not as bad as some people want us to believe? I'd say that's not silly at all
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Don't these graphs start to offer evidence that the epidemic is not as bad as some people want us to believe? I'd say that's not silly at all

They may offer evidence that the present social distancing regulations are highly effective and should remain indefinitely, too.

That's why the proper research needs to be done as to why the death rate has dropped so much. If we can prove it has dropped because the virus has evolved to be less harmful than flu, then all restrictions should be removed. But we must know that first.

With regard to the other poster, he stated a falsehood and supplied evidence that it was false :)
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
They may offer evidence that the present social distancing regulations are highly effective and should remain indefinitely, too.

No, it doesn't do that. Firstly because the measures are now being widely ignored, and secondly because they won't be responsible for the fact that fewer cases, proportionally, are resulting in hospitalization or death - this is probably down to more testing of asymptomatic people rather than anything else.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
They may offer evidence that the present social distancing regulations are highly effective and should remain indefinitely, too.

That's why the proper research needs to be done as to why the death rate has dropped so much. If we can prove it has dropped because the virus has evolved to be less harmful than flu, then all restrictions should be removed. But we must know that first.

With regard to the other poster, he stated a falsehood and supplied evidence that it was false :)

<Quiz show incorrect buzzer noise>

Actually they show quite the opposite. We are more mobile than we have been since late March, and yet infections rates are far below those detailed earlier in the year.
 

Justin Smith

Member
Joined
14 Nov 2009
Messages
1,052
Location
Sheffield
They may offer evidence that the present social distancing regulations are highly effective and should remain indefinitely, too.

That's why the proper research needs to be done as to why the death rate has dropped so much. If we can prove it has dropped because the virus has evolved to be less harmful than flu, then all restrictions should be removed. But we must know that first.

With regard to the other poster, he stated a falsehood and supplied evidence that it was false :)

The graphs do NOT show that social distancing and lockdowns have worked. I cannot understand how you can conclude that.
To recap, as the lockdowns were unwound, including the reduction in the social distancing "rule" from 2m to 1m and the opening of pubs (and I've been into a few pubs and social distancing is very hit and miss, unsurprisingly), the death rate (and the infection rate at the time that was all happening) was consistently dropping. And. may I remind you, that was also before the (unwarranted in my view) mandating of face masks.

<Quiz show incorrect buzzer noise>

Actually they show quite the opposite. We are more mobile than we have been since late March, and yet infections rates are far below those detailed earlier in the year.

Correct.
 

SuperNova

Member
Joined
12 Dec 2019
Messages
957
Location
The North
There is something slightly odd in left wingers demanding more restrictions from their right wing governments. I wonder when the penny will drop?

Not really, more restrictions especially earlier on, would've prevented more deaths and allowed the economy to open up quicker.
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
3,673
Not really, more restrictions especially earlier on, would've prevented more deaths and allowed the economy to open up quicker.
Really? Looks like countries that did open up quicker at at risk of more measures. I don't understand why as this virus is here to stay and seemingly trying to pretend we can still eliminate it. We seem to be waiting for a vaccine now so locking down earlier would have achieved nothing, there's some schools of thought that suggested locking down achieved little or nothing in terms of deaths as it was issues in care homes that led to many excess deaths.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
Really? Looks like countries that did open up quicker at at risk of more measures. I don't understand why as this virus is here to stay and seemingly trying to pretend we can still eliminate it. We seem to be waiting for a vaccine now so locking down earlier would have achieved nothing, there's some schools of thought that suggested locking down achieved little or nothing in terms of deaths as it was issues in care homes that led to many excess deaths.

Comparing the statistics for Sweden (no lockdown) with all the worst-affected European countries (all of which had lcokdowns, in some case severe ones) would suggest that lockdowns achieved nothing.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,038
Really? Looks like countries that did open up quicker at at risk of more measures. I don't understand why as this virus is here to stay and seemingly trying to pretend we can still eliminate it. We seem to be waiting for a vaccine now so locking down earlier would have achieved nothing, there's some schools of thought that suggested locking down achieved little or nothing in terms of deaths as it was issues in care homes that led to many excess deaths.
Locking down better rather than earlier would have been a more effective plan. That does mean that doing some planning a bit earlier would have been the right thing to do. We could also have safely reopened earlier anyway, but we had scared people too much, and had no answers on test and trace. Thar because the only planning they did was about how to split the pork barrel between their mates.

In essence all the decisions throughout have been late, wrong and made for the wrong reasons, and the execution has been hamstrung by getting the wrong people to do it. Sadly that has often meant that Labour doesn't have the information they need to demand specific alternative courses of action. We are all left flying blind with nothing to suggest to the government other than "for the love of God please just be better at this"
 

SuperNova

Member
Joined
12 Dec 2019
Messages
957
Location
The North
Really? Looks like countries that did open up quicker at at risk of more measures. I don't understand why as this virus is here to stay and seemingly trying to pretend we can still eliminate it. We seem to be waiting for a vaccine now so locking down earlier would have achieved nothing, there's some schools of thought that suggested locking down achieved little or nothing in terms of deaths as it was issues in care homes that led to many excess deaths.

The point is if they closed down quick enough. Most didn't, when we had the option to do so. Ex-Tory Minister Rory Stewart was advising nearly 3 weeks before the government implemented their version of 'lockdown', to take that action. SAGE did so 9 days before it was taken.

Locking down earlier would've achieved far fewer deaths and cases. Locking down earlier, would've allowed the UK economy to open up quicker. Sadly, political decisions were made based on flawed models and the fear of locking down too soon.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
Locking down earlier would've achieved far fewer deaths and cases. Locking down earlier, would've allowed the UK economy to open up quicker. Sadly, political decisions were made based on flawed models and the fear of locking down too soon.

None of those claims are convincing. It may well equally have just strung it out even longer. These lockdown theories are all based on the often unspoken assumption that it can be eliminated, which many people find highly improbable.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,538
Location
UK
Locking down earlier would've achieved far fewer deaths and cases. Locking down earlier, would've allowed the UK economy to open up quicker. Sadly, political decisions were made based on flawed models and the fear of locking down too soon.
Whilst it's a nice narrative, I don't think your assertions are as backed up as strongly by the evidence as you think.
 

Skimpot flyer

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2012
Messages
1,610
What I mean is that you stated that that graph shows a decreasing infection rate. It doesn't, very obviously not. It shows an increasing one.

The reasons for that increase (which may not be an actual increase in prevalence) are of course for further debate, but your analysis of the graph was simply incorrect.
Not true.
It shows an increase in cases, i.e. the number of infections detected by testing
The infection rate is a measure of cases per 100,000
The graph does not show the infection rate.
It is obvious that if 20 people in 100,000 get coronavirus, but in April, the number of tests done is substantially lower than those done in August, then it would be certain that you would detect greater numbers of cases!
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,038
The point is if they closed down quick enough. Most didn't, when we had the option to do so. Ex-Tory Minister Rory Stewart was advising nearly 3 weeks before the government implemented their version of 'lockdown', to take that action. SAGE did so 9 days before it was taken.

Locking down earlier would've achieved far fewer deaths and cases. Locking down earlier, would've allowed the UK economy to open up quicker. Sadly, political decisions were made based on flawed models and the fear of locking down too soon.
With all due respect to Rory Stewart, the man shows every sign of being every but as much of an idiot and opportunist vulture as Boris. He seems willing to take any contrarían stance he can find just to keep his irrelevant face in the media. I don't doubt he believes what he says at the time, but he seems capable of dumping whatever he's saying this week faster than you can say "these old Etonians are a profoundly untrustworthy bunch aren't they"
 

Justin Smith

Member
Joined
14 Nov 2009
Messages
1,052
Location
Sheffield
Not really, more restrictions especially earlier on, would've prevented more deaths and allowed the economy to open up quicker.

And then be shut down again for all these local lockdowns, and having to quarantine everyone who comes into this country.
We may have a relatively high death rate, but at least (in my opinion) that means we are well on the way to herd immunity. We are not as dependent on a vaccine as, say, NZ or AUS or even Germany. But, and this is the real tragedy, we are squandering that resilience that we have painfully built up by keeping on with all these anti Covid measures which are not required for us (just look at the death rate graphs).

Comparing the statistics for Sweden (no lockdown) with all the worst-affected European countries (all of which had lcokdowns, in some case severe ones) would suggest that lockdowns achieved nothing.

I agree completely. It only surprises me that people cannot see the evidence in front of their own eyes.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Whilst it's a nice narrative, I don't think your assertions are as backed up as strongly by the evidence as you think.

Without knowing why we actually went into lockdown, and what we intended to get in return for doing it, it’s impossible to say one way or other.

If it was to buy time whilst we got the house in order (eg ensure the NHS was in a fit state to handle the situation, and to get in some of the distancing measures) then earlier would certainly have been preferable.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
Without knowing why we actually went into lockdown, and what we intended to get in return for doing it, it’s impossible to say one way or other.

If it was to buy time whilst we got the house in order (eg ensure the NHS was in a fit state to handle the situation, and to get in some of the distancing measures) then earlier would certainly have been preferable.

But thd NHS wasn't overwhelmed in any case, so it's not clear what would have been achieved if it was earlier.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
They don't show either unless the appropriate research is done.

The data is starting to show that rolling back the restrictions a) hasn't caused a second wave & b) hasn't caused higher mortality rates. These were the stated aims of the government at the outset, to reduce the burden on the NHS. And this is what the data shows.

Not really, more restrictions especially earlier on, would've prevented more deaths and allowed the economy to open up quicker.

We really don't know that, in fact there is some suggestion that countries that impose more rigorous restrictions sooner have simply been kicking the viral can down the road. This is potentially happens when politicians use political solutions to biological problems. The virus is patient, it doesn't care about policies, doesn't care about lockdowns or restrictions. Its probably time to face the fact that lockdowns won't eliminate viruses, but they will cause economic problems and social ones that may ultimately provide the conditions for the virus to gain a foothold again, as countries like New Zealand are starting to find out.
 

Smidster

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2014
Messages
561
Who are these people then? Almost everyone I know is fed up with the whole thing and wants to get on with life. I've not been surveyed and nor has anyone I know so how do we know this? Just going by social media posts? May I suggest those that want to be cautious have next to no idea about severity of, or apparent lack of, this virus and are unable to weigh up advantages/disadvantages to restrictions? Unless government is going to a proper survey then can do without blanket statements about what the public wants.

I don't see that as being mutually exclusive - I think you are right that people , including me, are fed up with it all as we can't do the things in life that we enjoy and make life worth living.

That being said people also don't like the thought of their loved ones dying and so, on balance, are willing to accept limitations to reduce the risk of that happening - Even if the actual risk is much lower than what they perceive (remember the public are bad at perception)

It is obviously really good that while we are still getting cases that doesn't seem to be translating to hospitalizations or worse - My only caution is that we don't know:
a) How much of that is helped because of what we are doing - Perhaps distancing and masks are reducing viral load
b) How much of that is helped because we are helped by the climate at the moment - Evidence seems to show being outside is beneficial
c) How much is because the more vulnerable populations are remaining isolated? - The latest PHE data shows a much smaller proportion of cases in those aged 70+ than back in March / April. If we were to fling everything open would that start to reverse?

As for who is making the decisions - With respect hopefully people who know a load more about infectious disease than me or you.
 

philosopher

Established Member
Joined
23 Sep 2015
Messages
1,346
We really don't know that, in fact there is some suggestion that countries that impose more rigorous restrictions sooner have simply been kicking the viral can down the road. This is potentially happens when politicians use political solutions to biological problems. The virus is patient, it doesn't care about policies, doesn't care about lockdowns or restrictions. Its probably time to face the fact that lockdowns won't eliminate viruses, but they will cause economic problems and social ones that may ultimately provide the conditions for the virus to gain a foothold again, as countries like New Zealand are starting to find out.

Australia locked down early, appeared to have almost eliminated the virus and subsequently had a worse outbreak than the first time in Melbourne and reintroduced a harsher lockdown there than the first lockdown.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Australia locked down early, appeared to have almost eliminated the virus and subsequently had a worse outbreak than the first time in Melbourne and reintroduced a harsher lockdown there than the first lockdown.

And so like New Zealand they are entering an on-off-on-off cycle of restrictions which will remain indefinitely, or until the Australian people tell their government where to stuff it. Meanwhile the virus will continue to spread.
 

Justin Smith

Member
Joined
14 Nov 2009
Messages
1,052
Location
Sheffield
But thd NHS wasn't overwhelmed in any case, so it's not clear what would have been achieved if it was earlier.

I would agree with you because this country is very open and many people do travel including long haul. We're also a bolshy lot who don't like doing what we're told (some more than others I grant you) so draconian lockdowns were never going to work. I was surprised it was as well adhered to as it was, despite the fact it actually started unwinding after a few weeks as everyone with eyes could see. TBH I don't think there was any chance we could ever keep it out of the UK.

I don't see that as being mutually exclusive - I think you are right that people , including me, are fed up with it all as we can't do the things in life that we enjoy and make life worth living.

That being said people also don't like the thought of their loved ones dying and so, on balance, are willing to accept limitations to reduce the risk of that happening - Even if the actual risk is much lower than what they perceive (remember the public are bad at perception)

It is obviously really good that while we are still getting cases that doesn't seem to be translating to hospitalizations or worse - My only caution is that we don't know:
a) How much of that is helped because of what we are doing - Perhaps distancing and masks are reducing viral load
b) How much of that is helped because we are helped by the climate at the moment - Evidence seems to show being outside is beneficial
c) How much is because the more vulnerable populations are remaining isolated? - The latest PHE data shows a much smaller proportion of cases in those aged 70+ than back in March / April. If we were to fling everything open would that start to reverse?

As for who is making the decisions - With respect hopefully people who know a load more about infectious disease than me or you.

No, the people making the decisions are too focused on Covid and keeping the death toll down in that no matter what the cost is. They are obsessed and have no balls to make the decisions which most people can see are crying out to be made. I wouldn't go so far as to say there is a conspiracy, but we're only being told officially what the government want us to think, and far too many people only take notice of what they're told officially, despite the evidence being right in front of them.
Also, none of the experts agree on this anyway, they're like economists, you can always find an economist to support an argument you want to make. However, right from the beginning the government have decided to follow the most pessimistic forecasts and they're still doing that. They want to be seen "to be on the safe side", forgetting there is a massive social and economic cost to that. As I said before, they have no balls.
 
Last edited:

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
Interesting article in the FT:

https://www.ft.com/content/c011e214...ebb29d7?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB
In Britain, as across Europe, coronavirus infections have been increasing for several weeks — but the resurgence has so far proven notably less deadly than the original pandemic.

Although hospitalisations and deaths lag infections, neither indicator has shown a corresponding increase even six weeks after the number of cases began to rise.

Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.
https://www.ft.com/content/c011e214...ebb29d7?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

The global “case fatality rate” — total deaths as a proportion of confirmed cases — has fallen by half over the past three months to below 0.04 as of Monday. ....
 
Last edited by a moderator:

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,433
Location
Yorkshire
Not really, more restrictions especially earlier on, would've prevented more deaths and allowed the economy to open up quicker.
If we had done what France did, might we be in the position France is in now, with rapidly rising infections?

In contrast, countries like Sweden continue to see cases reduce.

The only way anyone could conclude the French method is better than the Swedish method (and it's far too early for that now!) is if the hospitalisation and death rates are much lower now than earlier on in the pandemic; in other words if the huge uptick in infections in places like France right now doesn't really matter, as the real danger has passed. But if that's going to be the conclusion, we are damaging the economy, mental health, peoples' livelihoods unnecessarily.

You can't have it both ways!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top