• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!

Coronavirus precautions: Has the world gone mad?

Status
Not open for further replies.

43066

On Moderation
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
11,674
Location
London
Please note the text and not only the pictures.

Which text? The article is behind a paywall - the graph is telling us they the older you are, and the more underlying conditions you have, the fewer years you will lose if you die of the virus.

Which I think most of us already knew. We also know that 50% of fatalities from this virus are amongst people in care homes. Unless you’re disputing that?

I hope you live old enough to be dismissed as irrelevant by the likes of you!

And that looks like changing the claim because the previous post was incorrect.

I’ve not said they’re irrelevant, but I’ll ask you this: is it right that cancer patients in their 30s and 40s should die of curable cancers because of measures taken to prevent people in their 80s and 90s from dying a few months earlier than they might have done?

What was incorrect? I’ve only ever said that the risk from this virus for healthy people, with no underlying conditions, is negligible.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
73,351
Location
Yorkshire
After loosely digging around trying to do a bit of personal research I stumbled across this... now I may be interpreting this wrong but surely if COVID is as bad as what it is portrayed to be.... it should definitely be high up there on the list of HCID’s???
No; of the bullet points quoted, it only meets one or two of the criteria.
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
17,401
Location
0036
Just to clarify: I’ve gone down a rabbit hole above re the legal niceties. If the government has correctly passed the law requiring face coverings on public transport. Then it’s good law. Nothing changes that.
It is not clear that it has in fact correctly passed that law. Under section 45Q (4) of the Public Health Act 1984 a regulation such as that requiring face coverings on public transport must first be laid before, and approved by, Parliament. This has not happened. Instead, Matt Hancock has certified under section 45R of the act that the regulation is so urgent that awaiting approval would be inappropriate, and as such it must be approved within 28 days instead.

It can be argued that the plans for face coverings having been trailed on or before 4 June, that there was ample time to go through the proper approval procedure.

But only a court could decide formally.
 

Timpg

Member
Joined
30 Jan 2014
Messages
303
Location
Ipswich
No; of the bullet points quoted, it only meets one or two of the criteria.

exactly my point mate.
it begs the Question, why are we in lockdown when there are obviously far more serious viruses/ diseases around that haven’t put us in lockdown?
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
73,351
Location
Yorkshire
exactly my point mate.
it begs the Question, why are we in lockdown when there are obviously far more serious viruses/ diseases around that haven’t put us in lockdown?
Because it's not about the seriousness of the disease but the rapid rate in which it spread.

That said, the Swedish approach would have been much better than a full lockdown (plenty of posts in a variety of threads documenting this, e.g. https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...s-free-for-almost-a-month.205514/post-4627156 )
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,425
Location
nowhere
it begs the Question, why are we in lockdown when there are obviously far more serious viruses/ diseases around that haven’t put us in lockdown?

Because none of the other HCIDs have ever reached the same level of outbreak as COVID 19 in the UK?
 

Jonny

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,574
More madness I've noticed over the past few days;

Northern have gone to great lengths to tape off 3/4 of their seats on platforms with stern "out of use" signs. The daft thing is that they've done this at UNSTAFFED stations such as Woodlesford or Castleford so, if there's no one there to enforce it, what's the point?​
My local council (Barnsley) have in our local shopping streets fixed signs to just about every lamppost with warnings along the lines of "Is your shopping trip really essential?", "Keep your distance, stay safe", etc. Do they really think there's a single person left in the UK who hasn't been bombarded to death with all this nonsense already?​
Daftest of all, I missed a bus in Sheffield last night because the council have rerouted buses away from the main shopping streets to "maintain social distancing". Buses now go along Arundel Gate and bypass the main shopping area completely!​

When will this madness end?

Trust me, Gateshead Council - not my local authority but almost adjoining to where I live - are still advising people to stay at home. It's still on the coronavirus section of their website. And please don't get me going on their leader, or their pre-COVID track record. https://www.gateshead.gov.uk/article/14980/Information-on-Coronavirus-COVID-19-
 
Last edited:

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,996
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
**
Which text? The article is behind a paywall - the graph is telling us they the older you are, and the more underlying conditions you have, the fewer years you will lose if you die of the virus.

Which I think most of us already knew. We also know that 50% of fatalities from this virus are amongst people in care homes. Unless you’re disputing that?

The text is below:


“SACRIFICE THE WEAK”, urged a sign at a protest against Tennessee’s lockdown on April 20th—though whether the person holding it was trolling the other protesters is unknown. Some claim social distancing is pointless, since covid-19’s elderly victims would soon have died of other causes. In Britain many pundits have said that two-thirds of the country’s dead were already within a year of passing away. They cite an estimate made in March by Neil Ferguson, an epidemiologist at Imperial College London who advises the government.

Mr Ferguson notes that two-thirds was the upper bound of his estimate, and that the real fraction could be much lower. He says it is “very hard” to measure how ill covid-19’s victims were before catching it, and how long they might have lived otherwise. However, a study by researchers from a group of Scottish universities has attempted to do so. They found that the years of life lost (YLLs) for the average Briton or Italian who passed away was probably around 11, meaning that few of covid-19’s victims would have died soon otherwise.

First the authors analysed data for 6,801 Italian victims, grouped by age and sex for confidentiality. About 40% of men were older than 80, as were 60% of women. (The virus has killed fewer women than men, perhaps because they have different immune responses.) The authors excluded the 1% of victims under 50. Then they calculated how much longer these cohorts would normally survive. Life expectancies for old people are surprisingly high, even when they have underlying conditions, because many of the unhealthiest have already passed away. For example, an average Italian 80-year-old will reach 90. The YLLs from this method were 11.5 for Italian men and 10.9 for women.

Then the authors accounted for other illnesses the victims had, in case they were unusually frail for their age. For 710 Italians, they could see how many had a specific long-term condition, such as hypertension or cancer. The authors used a smaller Scottish sample to estimate how often each combination of diseases occurs among covid-19 victims. Finally, they analysed data for 850,000 Welsh people, to predict how long somebody with a given age and set of conditions would normally live.

Strikingly, the study shows that in this hybrid European model, people killed by covid-19 had only slightly higher rates of underlying illness than everyone else their age. When the authors adjusted for pre-existing conditions and then simulated deaths using normal Italian life expectancies, the YLLs dropped just a little, to 11.1 for men and 10.2 for women. (They were slightly lower for Britons.) Fully 20% of the dead were reasonably healthy people in their 50s and 60s, who were expected to live for another 25 years on average.

The researchers warn that their data exclude people who died in care homes, who might have been especially sickly. Nor can they account for the severity of underlying illnesses. For example, covid-19 victims might have had particularly acute lung or heart conditions. More complete data could produce a lower estimate of YLLs. Mr Ferguson also points out that tallies of all-cause mortality will contain clues. If the pandemic has merely hastened imminent deaths, there should be fewer than usual once covid-19 is under control.

Still, the available evidence suggests that many covid-19 victims were far from death’s door previously, and cut down at least a decade before their time. Allowing the virus to spread freely would sacrifice the strong as well as the weak.

But the pertinent detail here as relates to your point is:

The researchers warn that their data exclude people who died in care homes, who might have been especially sickly. Nor can they account for the severity of underlying illnesses. For example, covid-19 victims might have had particularly acute lung or heart conditions. More complete data could produce a lower estimate of YLLs.
 

NorthOxonian

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
5 Jul 2018
Messages
1,535
Location
Oxford/Newcastle
Trust me, Gateshead Council - not my local authority but almost adjoining to where I live - are still advising people to stay at home. It's still on the coronavirus section of their website. And please don't get me going on their leader, or their pre-COVID track record. https://www.gateshead.gov.uk/article/14980/Information-on-Coronavirus-COVID-19-

I have to say (as a Gateshead resident), no-one is listening to them. People are just going about their daily life, in accordance with the national guidelines.

That said I did walk past the town centre, and it looked even more bleak than usual. There are boards saying things like "keep moving", "don't talk to others", and "keep 2m at all times", to a much greater extent than Newcastle.
 
Last edited:

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,642
Location
Ely
Has it got any legs to start with?

As per my above, assuming the (tenuous) procedural grounds fail, it’s a challenge on human rights grounds. If it succeeds, where does it lead?

Probably nowhere on human rights grounds (cf. prisoners voting, which rumbled around for years).

But note there are two issues here - first there is the Coronavirus Act 2020, which has all sorts of nasties in it but which was (sadly) passed through Parliament without any obvious dissent. That's not obviously challenge-able, except on HRA grounds, which is unlikely to achieve much.

However, the lockdown, masks on transport, quarantine, etc. don't stem from there, but rather emergency regulations issued under the 1984 Public Health Act. These are somewhat more attackable, for two reasons:

- The 1984 Act may not be thought to be able to be used to issue such dramatic and far-reaching regulations. Having read the appropriate parts of the 1984 Act, I don't think that argument succeeds, but I'm not a lawyer.

- But also all these regulations have been passed 'too urgently to put them before Parliament', which is clearly nonsense when Parliament is sitting, and an abuse of process. I'm not sure of the available remedies if a court finds that the government acted improperly by doing this.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,425
Location
nowhere
Strikingly, the study shows that in this hybrid European model, people killed by covid-19 had only slightly higher rates of underlying illness than everyone else their age. When the authors adjusted for pre-existing conditions and then simulated deaths using normal Italian life expectancies, the YLLs dropped just a little, to 11.1 for men and 10.2 for women. (They were slightly lower for Britons.) Fully 20% of the dead were reasonably healthy people in their 50s and 60s, who were expected to live for another 25 years on average.

Some interesting modelling going on there then! Based on ONS numbers people aged 50-69 (regardless of health!) have made up 14% of COVID deaths in England & Wales - so their model does seem to have differed from reality quite a bit!
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,880
Location
UK
But the pertinent detail here as relates to your point is:

The researchers warn that their data exclude people who died in care homes, who might have been especially sickly. Nor can they account for the severity of underlying illnesses. For example, covid-19 victims might have had particularly acute lung or heart conditions. More complete data could produce a lower estimate of YLLs.

That does feel like "if we ignore this large number of highly relevant cases, we can cherry pick to get this scary number"
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,996
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
That does feel like "if we ignore this large number of highly relevant cases, we can cherry pick to get this scary number"

That's exactly what it is. When the it started to become clear that it was mainly people in care or health systems that were the ones very much most at risk, the was initially a scramble to single out cases where victims were younger and in reasonable health (and they were not a huge number of those unfortunate souls), and now they are cherry picking the data to try to prove they were right all along. Unfortunately not all of us just accepted the headline numbers as being the actual position, and it doesn't take a lot of digging to find where the true problem lay, that is in an appalling lack of attention to the care & health systems were so much of the deaths have occurred.
 

CaptainHaddock

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,472
I have to say (as a Gateshead resident), no-one is listening to them. People are just going about their daily life, in accordance with the national guidelines.

That said I did walk past the town centre, and it looked even more bleak than usual. There are boards saying things like "keep moving", "don't talk to others", and "keep 2m at all times", to a much greater extent than Newcastle.

Having visited Gateshead, I would presume that was good advice even before the pandemic started! ;)
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
3,583
Probably nowhere on human rights grounds (cf. prisoners voting, which rumbled around for years).

But note there are two issues here - first there is the Coronavirus Act 2020, which has all sorts of nasties in it but which was (sadly) passed through Parliament without any obvious dissent. That's not obviously challenge-able, except on HRA grounds, which is unlikely to achieve much.

However, the lockdown, masks on transport, quarantine, etc. don't stem from there, but rather emergency regulations issued under the 1984 Public Health Act. These are somewhat more attackable, for two reasons:

- The 1984 Act may not be thought to be able to be used to issue such dramatic and far-reaching regulations. Having read the appropriate parts of the 1984 Act, I don't think that argument succeeds, but I'm not a lawyer.

- But also all these regulations have been passed 'too urgently to put them before Parliament', which is clearly nonsense when Parliament is sitting, and an abuse of process. I'm not sure of the available remedies if a court finds that the government acted improperly by doing this.

Doesn't the 'too urgent' procedure require the regulations to be laid before Parliament eventually? Is there any suggestion that's not been happening at all?
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
17,401
Location
0036
Doesn't the 'too urgent' procedure require the regulations to be laid before Parliament eventually? Is there any suggestion that's not been happening at all?
It does (they have four weeks plus extensions for when Parliament is not sitting) and they have been approving them properly.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,642
Location
Ely
Doesn't the 'too urgent' procedure require the regulations to be laid before Parliament eventually? Is there any suggestion that's not been happening at all?

Yes, and *maybe* after Parliament has approved them then they take on some more sound legal footing than before - but if the manner in which they were originally made was 'wrong' in the first place, that may be enough to question their legitimacy (eg. see the Prorogation case last year - once the original mechanism used to request the Prorogation was shown to be unlawful, everything that stemmed from that, including the Prorogation ceremony in Parliament, was quashed as if it had never happened).

It also results in the farcical situation where Parliament is being asked to approve regulations that have already been supplanted by other regulations, as happened in the House of Commons on Monday.
 

Steveoh

Member
Joined
19 Aug 2015
Messages
165
Just received an email complete with handy pictograms of how the school crossing patrol will operate with social distancing.

Imagine my incredulity when I saw this on the street. There are also some handy lines painted on the pavement so that you know where to line up to cross the road.

20200618_181533.jpg
Image shows pavement with a stenciled diagram showing a crossing person with a 2m gap to a parent holding a childs hand. The gap between them has the text Leave Space Cross Safe 2m.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
104,564
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
What precisely is wrong with that?

We can argue that the 2m thing doesn't make sense, and there's a thread for that. But in the context that it does apply, all these things are helpful in complying to it.
 

Steveoh

Member
Joined
19 Aug 2015
Messages
165
What precisely is wrong with that?

We can argue that the 2m thing doesn't make sense, and there's a thread for that. But in the context that it does apply, all these things are helpful in complying to it.

Do we really need to spend time and money on stencils like this and installing them and marking over the pavement etc etc. Surely there are many, many better things to spend the money on. You are far more at risk at being run over by a car then catching Covid at a range of 2m, 1m, 2cm whilst waiting to cross a road. It's reinforcing the message "come close to me and you'll die".
 

talldave

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2013
Messages
2,424
What precisely is wrong with that?

We can argue that the 2m thing doesn't make sense, and there's a thread for that. But in the context that it does apply, all these things are helpful in complying to it.
Only for people who don't know what 2m is.

And when the non-enforceable 2m is replaced by a non-enforceable 1m, then what?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
104,564
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Only for people who don't know what 2m is.

And when the non-enforceable 2m is replaced by a non-enforceable 1m, then what?

There is no reason not to keep 2m where it is feasible, because it is lower risk. If you hide from that you're just lying to yourself.

Anyway there's a thread for that :)
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Associate Staff
International Transport
Railtours & Preservation
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
4,123
There is no reason not to keep 2m where it is feasible, because it is lower risk. If you hide from that you're just lying to yourself.

Anyway there's a thread for that :)
Not crossing the road is lower risk as can't get run over if not on road, not going down stairs is lower risk as can't fall down them if not on them; where does all this end?
 

Huntergreed

Established Member
Associate Staff
Events Co-ordinator
Joined
16 Jan 2016
Messages
3,098
Location
Dumfries
where does all this end?
Without a swift and major shift in focus from the government, it ends with an economic disaster which could end up being far worse than the virus, and I have no doubt the pro-lockdowners would be the first to shout “you went far too slowly - I’ve lost my job - I was telling them all along”, because they’re never wrong in their eye and the government are to blame for everything. God forbid one of them was in charge.
 

Baxenden Bank

Established Member
Joined
23 Oct 2013
Messages
4,300
Imagine my incredulity when I saw this on the street. There are also some handy lines painted on the pavement so that you know where to line up to cross the road.

View attachment 79706
Image shows pavement with a stenciled diagram showing a crossing person with a 2m gap to a parent holding a childs hand. The gap between them has the text Leave Space Cross Safe 2m.

A stencil which will be completely ignored, much like the ones with steaming dog muck.

As an aside, I wish to register a complaint. :D The person taking the photograph either has three legs with mismatching footwear, or is not socially distancing!
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
104,564
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
A stencil which will be completely ignored, much like the ones with steaming dog muck.

As an aside, I wish to register a complaint. :D The person taking the photograph either has three legs with mismatching footwear, or is not socially distancing!

How do you know they're not living together or in a "single person bubble"? :D
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
The whole situation has now descended into a farce of tokenism. I've just been into town, and the market is on (and seemed to be doing a good trade), with plenty of people milling about. Probably about three quarters of the shops are open. There's no consistent approach at all, either by the public or the shops. On the quieter streets otuside the town centre, people are still walking in front of traffic in order not to pass another person on the (reasonably wide) pavement, and glaring at the person coming the other way, but in the town centre this is largely ignored as it wouldn't work, and most people are being more sensble. Some are wearing masks, but it's all completely inconsistent - saw one family of three generations, where granny and the parents weren't wearing masks, but the three kids were. What's the point of that? A smaller number of people are still also wearing gloves. To what end? If you've that concerned, no gloves and using hand sanitiser when needed is a more sensible approach.

At the weekend, when it was sunny, the whole distancing thing was widely being ignored, with groups of teenagers hanging around together, groups drinking in the park, etc.

Then there are the shops. Some are behaving fairly normally, but some have one-way systems and/or bits barricaded off / maximum number in the shop at a time. the M&S food shop had a long queue going right round the corner. With the increased footfall, I really can't see the public putting up with the supermarket restrictions for much longer, especially if we have a prolonged rainy spell.

I've avoided the trains since March. I would actually like to use them, but with the mask insistence I won't unless I absolutely have to go somewhere - I find masks extremely uncomfortable, and the medical evidence seems thin at best for them making any difference - but clearly, being seen to be doing something is more important.

Don't know whether others have commented on this already, but the rhetoric has changed over the past few months. Intially the restrictions were to slow down the spread and prevent the NHS being overwhelmed, which was reasonable and most people complied. Now it's morphed into 'we must STOP the virus', which simply isn't going to happen unless there is a vaccine, which may or may not happen and if it does could be quite a while - and yet the more extreme elements are still calling for restrictions to remain in place until there's a vaccine.

Then there's the schools, and seemingly parents being allowed to keep their kids away even if the schools are opening again. Why? Kids are generally the lowest risk group, so unless there's a particular reason (i.e. medical), how is this proportionate, particularly considering the long-term effects it coud have on them in other ways.

I suspect that people are going to be less and less willing to comply with many guidelines over the coming weeks, as many of them serve no clear purpose and seem to be solely in place to be seen to be doing something.
 

Baxenden Bank

Established Member
Joined
23 Oct 2013
Messages
4,300
I suspect that people are going to be less and less willing to comply with many guidelines over the coming weeks, as many of them serve no clear purpose and seem to be solely in place to be seen to be doing something.

On the one hand, I think this is correct. Even if there is a second wave and a genuine need to bring back severe restrictions on liberty, a lot of people are going to reject the message - unless draconian penalties are available and applied in a widespread manner. Personally, I can't afford the original £30 'discounted if paid quickly fine', so will comply regardless.
On the other hand, perhaps a lot of people will comply if they see the need to do so - regardless of the penalties and regardless of the 'do as I say, not as I do' behaviour of those issuing the message. They will do it because they feel it is 'the right thing to do' at the time.
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
5,447
Do we really need to spend time and money on stencils like this and installing them and marking over the pavement etc etc. Surely there are many, many better things to spend the money on. You are far more at risk at being run over by a car then catching Covid at a range of 2m, 1m, 2cm whilst waiting to cross a road. It's reinforcing the message "come close to me and you'll die".
Totally agree. Cardiff council is already playing the Covid card with regards to shortage of staff and funds. I'd far rather they spent money on mending potholes (properly), keeping drains clear and road markings. Given the government wants us to cycle now, these should all be top priorities.
 

Jonny

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,574
There is a new word that has been coined, Coronaphobia. It seems to be coming into common useage.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11692397/brits-lockdown-fears-return-normal-life-money-coronavirus/
‘Coronaphobia’ leaves Brits wanting to stay IN lockdown as they fear return to normality – and actually have MORE cash

BRITS want to stay in lockdown because they fear it is being lifted too quickly and have more money because of the pandemic, a poll has found.

The survey comes as the government prepares to ease restrictions on movement and announce a scaling back of its furlough scheme.

(article continues)

It's other peoples' coronaphobia and the pandering to it that is bothering me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top