Further Restrictions Announced by Johnson (22/09)

[trebor79]

Yes, but noone in modern epidemiological history has attempted anything like what is being attempted now.
This is entirely uncharted terrain.

Yet this approach is apparently conventional, and Swedens lack of lockdown is "controversial"

It's not conventional on a national or international scale. It's been used to contain Ebola and things like that on relatively limited geographical areas.

For example, with HIV governments made extensive efforts in public information and educating people about the risk and how to minimise it. They didn't attempt to enforce celibacy, or publish daily figures.

Aside from anything else, lockdowns clearly do nothing other than to delay the progression of an epidemic (if that). They come at huge unsustainable cost and will have permanent impacts long after this panic has passed.

It's time governments stopped pretending that it's possible to stop an epidemic by legislating.

 

[HSTEd]

Yet this approach is apparently conventional, and Swedens lack of lockdown is "controversial"

Just because febrile modern politics has forced many governments into unprecedented actions does not mean questioning them is controversial.

For example the US has not imposed any such restrictions, and state governments have only done so peicemeal, largely as an attempt to spite the federal government.
Large parts of the world either have extreme traditions of filial piety or are simply gerontocracies.

The imposition of these restrictions probably won't help the populace as a whole, but is extremely beneficial to the ruling class.

 

[Yew]

Just because febrile modern politics has forced many governments into unprecedented actions does not mean questioning them is controversial.

For example the US has not imposed any such restrictions, and state governments have only done so peicemeal, largely as an attempt to spite the federal government.
Large parts of the world either have extreme traditions of filial piety or are simply gerontocracies.

The imposition of these restrictions probably won't help the populace as a whole, but is extremely beneficial to the ruling class.

A spectre is haunting Europe, the spectre of capitalists profiteering from lockdowns.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

But really epidemiology is rather academic. It should be used to inform policy, not define the policy.

Experts can put forward their views but it's the government who decide on policy. Like in every other facet... intelligence experts, defence figures, economists all contribute to different aspects of policy but ultimately it is the government who enact policy.

I remember Michael Gove saying that we'd had too much of experts... Much better to rely on the selective views of people on message boards (the latter day man in the pub) than someone who has expertise in a field.

 

[Crossover]

When I was in halls, arranged as flats of 6 with shared kitchen, it was effectively a tenancy. They posted a notice on the front door 2 days in advance of the fortnightly cleaning and made clear that this was to comply with the law around entering the tenants property.
Didn't stop one of the porters from bursting in on the girls to "check the plumbing" in the en suite bathrooms...

During my year in halls (shared kitchen and shower rooms) we had a cleaner come in weekly and that was just ‘done’ and wasn’t announced as I recall. Room inspections however were advised in advance

 

[Howardh]

Seems like there will be a legal challenge to whatever Johnson comes up with - asking where is the evidence that bars, cafes and restaurants need to be shut?

Hospitality industry preparing legal challenge to new lockdown restrictions

Two of the region's biggest breweries are said to be involved in the action ahead of the Prime Minister's announcement on a tiered lockdown system

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

Senior figures from Greater Manchester's hospitality industry are preparing a legal challenge to new lockdown restrictions.
The Prime Minister is set to make an announcement on a so-called tiered local lockdown system tomorrow.
It has been reported Manchester will be placed in the tier 3 category for 'very high risk' areas and that the city could be told to shut pubs, bars and restaurants.
Negotiations between local leaders and the government over how a new lockdown will look are said to be ongoing.
Pubs in the Liverpool city region are set to be ordered to close as part of new restrictions there it has been reported tonight but restaurants could be allowed to stay open.
Merseyside Metro Mayor Steve Rotheram tonight tweeted no deal had yet been reached, and suggested measures could still vary from those which are expected.

Also in the paper it suggests Manchester will have a lockdown for "a minimum of four weeks" which takes us to mid-November and no-one will be allowed out of the region without good reason.
I think I will need psychological therapy, so if someone on the south coast would like to be my individual therapist please let me know!!

 

[Chester1]

Seems like there will be a legal challenge to whatever Johnson comes up with - asking where is the evidence that bars, cafes and restaurants need to be shut?

Hospitality industry preparing legal challenge to new lockdown restrictions

Two of the region's biggest breweries are said to be involved in the action ahead of the Prime Minister's announcement on a tiered lockdown system

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

Also in the paper it suggests Manchester will have a lockdown for "a minimum of four weeks" which takes us to mid-November and no-one will be allowed out of the region without good reason.
I think I will need psychological therapy, so if someone on the south coast would like to be my individual therapist please let me know!!

The key word in the reports regarding travel is "asking". It will be advised, it is highly unlikely to be compulsory or that 3 million people can be stopped from leaving and re-entering when they want to. There are 9 Tory MPs for Greater Manchester and all are in marginal seats and want to be re-elected. The tier 3 measures seem to be based on the maximum that the government thinks English voters will tolerate this time.

 

[Freightmaster]

Large parts of the world either have extreme traditions of filial piety...

Or in layman's terms, "don't kill granny!"

...or are simply gerontocracies

Whereas in this country we have a mediocracy, or arguably a idiocracy







MARK

 

[StationTown]

I wish I had the confidence of some on this forum to so breezily dismiss the concerns of those with decades of experience in public health but there we go.

 

[Bantamzen]

I wish I had the confidence of some on this forum to so breezily dismiss the concerns of those with decades of experience in public health but there we go.

I think you will find that there are very different views on restrictions from within the public health sector, medical & scientific communities. Its not at all binary.

 

[StationTown]

I think you will find that there are very different views on restrictions from within the public health sector, medical & scientific communities. Its not at all binary.

Ok, but the point I'm making is there are people dismissing the views of people like Prof. Peter Horby in his BBC interview yesterday because they are taking a binary position based on deciding they do not want further restrictions under any circumstances (regardless of any evidence that further restrictions may actually be necessary), rather than engaging with what is actually being said. I think people are too easily dismissing the views of people who are clearly well qualified to talk about the situation we find ourselves in.

 

[Cowley]

Ok, but the point I'm making is there are people dismissing the views of people like Prof. Peter Horby in his BBC interview yesterday because they are taking a binary position based on deciding they do not want further restrictions under any circumstances (regardless of any evidence that further restrictions may actually be necessary), rather than engaging with what is actually being said. I think people are too easily dismissing the views of people who are clearly well qualified to talk about the situation we find ourselves in.

They may be qualified to talk about health issues as that is their particular area of expertise.
What they are not qualified to do is to take a step back and weigh up the long term damage caused by the current route we are on as a society, because that is not their area of expertise.
And that’s why many people have an issue with it on here.

 

[yorkie]

I wish I had the confidence of some on this forum to so breezily dismiss the concerns of those with decades of experience in public health but there we go.

What's your view on Anders Tegnell's concerns?

Why we aren't wearing masks in Sweden

Anders Tegnell, architect of a unique response to the pandemic, defends his approach

unherd.com

...we know that lockdowns also have big other effects on public health. We know that closing schools has a great effect on children’s health in the short and the long term. We know that people being out of work also produces a lot of problems in the public health area. So we also have to look at what are the negative effect of lockdowns, and that has not been done very much so far.”

Full interview:

 

[adc82140]

I wish I had the confidence of some on this forum to so breezily dismiss the concerns of those with decades of experience in public health but there we go.

Prof Carl Heneghan has many years of experience, and heads up the centre for evidence based medicine at Oxford University as well as being editor in chief for the BMJ's evidence based medicine supplement. Yet he dismisses the opinions of the likes of Jonathan Van Tam.

What's your opinion on that?

Thee is no such thing as "the science". Acedemics have disagreed on fundamentals since the dawn of academia.

 

[StationTown]

What they are not qualified to do is to take a step back and weigh up the long term damage caused by the current route we are on as a society, because that is not their area of expertise.

I haven't seen much evidence of this to be honest. Could you point me to an example of what you mean? In the BBC article yesterday with Prof. Peter Horby I struggle to see how you could make this accusation, but alas it was shot down in flames by some on here.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Prof Carl Heneghan has many years of experience, and heads up the centre for evidence based medicine at Oxford University as well as being editor in chief for the BMJ's evidence based medicine supplement. Yet he dismisses the opinions of the likes of Jonathan Van Tam.

What's your opinion on that?

Thee is no such thing as "the science". Acedemics have disagreed on fundamentals since the dawn of academia.

There are obviously differing opinions in every facet of life but the general consensus of experts is nearer to Dr Van-Tam than Prof Heneghan.

Rather than look at the reasons for that, some on here seem to gravitate to the evidence that best supports their view..... Heneghan, Sweden etc.

 

[yorkie]

There are obviously differing opinions in every facet of life but the general consensus of experts is nearer to Dr Van-Tam than Prof Heneghan.

Rather than look at the reasons for that, some on here seem to gravitate to the evidence that best supports their view..... Heneghan, Sweden etc.

Many people here are intelligent and realise a more holistic approach is needed.

When you say 'the general consensus of experts' , what do you mean by an 'expert', what are they experts on, and where is evidence of this consensus?

As you appear to support lockdowns, can you tell me what the endgame of these lockdowns is supposed to be?

 

[yorksrob]

Experts can put forward their views but it's the government who decide on policy. Like in every other facet... intelligence experts, defence figures, economists all contribute to different aspects of policy but ultimately it is the government who enact policy.

I remember Michael Gove saying that we'd had too much of experts... Much better to rely on the selective views of people on message boards (the latter day man in the pub) than someone who has expertise in a field.

I think the quote was that people has had enough of experts getting it wrong. I can't forsee the current situation alleviating that view either.

 

[StationTown]

What's your view on Anders Tegnell's concerns?

Why we aren't wearing masks in Sweden

Anders Tegnell, architect of a unique response to the pandemic, defends his approach

unherd.com

Full interview:

I think the difference between his approach and the UK approach is exaggerated. Not sure what relevance this has to my point

 

[Domh245]

Odds on Boris & co paying any attention to this?

WHO official urges world leaders to stop using lockdowns as primary virus control method

WHO official urges world leaders to stop using lockdowns as primary virus control method

The World Health Organization’s special envoy on COVID-19 urged world leaders this week to stop “using lockdowns as your primary control method.”

“We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,” Dr. David Nabarro said to The Spectator’s Andrew Neil. “The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.”

Nabarro went on to point out several of the negative consequences lockdowns have caused across the world, including devastating tourism industries and increased hunger and poverty.

"Just look at what’s happened to the tourism industry in the Caribbean, for example, or in the Pacific because people aren’t taking their holidays,” he said. “Look what’s happened to smallholder farmers all over the world. ... Look what’s happening to poverty levels. It seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition.”

Earlier this week, thousands of medical health experts signed their names to a petition calling for the end of coronavirus lockdowns, citing the “irreparable damage” they’ve caused.

"As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists, we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection,” read the petition, known as the Great Barrington Declaration. "Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health."

In the United States, lockdowns have been tied to increased thoughts of suicide from children, a surge in drug overdoses, an uptick in domestic violence, and a study conducted in May concluded that stress and anxiety from lockdowns could destroy seven times the years of life that lockdowns potentially save.

 

[philosopher]

There are obviously differing opinions in every facet of life but the general consensus of experts is nearer to Dr Van-Tam than Prof Heneghan.

Rather than look at the reasons for that, some on here seem to gravitate to the evidence that best supports their view..... Heneghan, Sweden etc.

Whatever the opinion of these scientists, it is the government’s job to consider the wider impacts, social and economic impacts of lockdown. Epidemiologists may be general agreement that lockdowns get the rate of transmission down, but it does not make them an expert on how the economy operates or people’s mental health.

 

[trebor79]

Odds on Boris & co paying any attention to this?

WHO official urges world leaders to stop using lockdowns as primary virus control method

Nil, unfortunately.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Many people here are intelligent and realise a more holistic approach is needed.

When you say 'the general consensus of experts' , what do you mean by an 'expert', what are they experts on, and where is evidence of this consensus?

As you appear to support lockdowns, can you tell me what the endgame of these lockdowns is supposed to be?

Where have I said I support lockdowns?

The question was on the denigration of experts. I have already explained what I consider to be an expert. And as most countries have gone for restrictions (rather than the Swedish approach) then that would suggest some sort of consensus.

 

[Richard Scott]

Odds on Boris & co paying any attention to this?

WHO official urges world leaders to stop using lockdowns as primary virus control method

Well they've changed their tune. Back in August they were praising his approach for local interventions, if I remember correctly.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Whatever the opinion of these scientists, it is the government’s job to consider the wider impacts, social and economic impacts of lockdown. Epidemiologists may be general agreement that lockdowns get the rate of transmission down, but it does not make them an expert on how the economy operates or people’s mental health.

And you don’t think that government is considering that?

All these governments worldwide failing to consider the wider health implications and the financial impact. All implementing unpopular measures. Johnson is a populist by nature and you think he is ignoring the wider picture???

 

[Richard Scott]

I haven't seen much evidence of this to be honest. Could you point me to an example of what you mean? In the BBC article yesterday with Prof. Peter Horby I struggle to see how you could make this accusation, but alas it was shot down in flames by some on here.

So you haven't seen the damage to the economy, missed the 1 million breast cancer screenings that haven't occured, failed to hear about people who've had enough and taken their lives, people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own or are these just minor issues not worthy of your time?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well they've changed their tune. Back in August they were praising his approach for local interventions, if I remember correctly.

TBH, they've flip flopped around so much (based on who's bankrolling them at any given time?) I think they should be completely ignored.

I'd follow Trump in ending the UK's funding for them and spend that money on a proper track and trace system. They serve no useful purpose.

 

[Richard Scott]

TBH, they've flip flopped around so much (based on who's bankrolling them at any given time?) I think they should be completely ignored.

I'd follow Trump in ending the UK's funding for them and spend that money on a proper track and trace system. They serve no useful purpose.

Glad I didn't make that up, think I'm tending to agree that they really don't seem to serve a useful purpose.

 

[ainsworth74]

Think we've hashed this announcement out more than enough now! In advance of the new announcement affecting England you can find a thread to discuss what is likely to be an 'action packed' day here.