Government advice discussion

[Baxenden Bank]

Easy, given today's advice. Self-isolate now because someone else in your household has symptoms, then you get it two months later.

Current advice is for the whole household to self isolate for two weeks.

Good point. Typical single person household thinking here.

 

[Wivenswold]

Don't worry everyone, today's announcement is part of a 2 phase patch to get our response back in line with WHO recommendations. Someone in Downing Street realised the legal implications of having a unique strategy if illness and deaths are disproportionately high in the UK. Phase 2 will be in time for the weekend.

 

[thejuggler]

Commuter trains noticeably quiet at the moment. Leeds station was certainly not the usual rugby scrum this morning.

I was in Leeds station just before 9am connecting to a service to Wakefield. Plenty of choice so I decided to take the LNER at 9.15.

Took a seat in coach B, near the barrier line and in 15 minutes no one walked passed to get on another coach. By the time we left 4 others had joined me and at Wakefield 4 of us got off. At Wakefield there were only 3-4 getting on.

I suspect it won't be long before long distance services are drastically reduced.

 

[gazr]

Like the way Boris advises against going to the pub the day before St. Paddy's day!! I know where I'm off to in a minute to grab a cheeky Guinness on cheap pint Monday's

 

[yorkie]

Just to add that we have considered merging this with the wider Coronavirus thread but have decided that, for now at least, we will have this as a separate dedicated topic to discuss the very specific matter of government advice (currently against non-essential travel and gathering)

However if this thread becomes more of a general Coronavirus thread and is no longer topical we will consider closing this thread at that point

Other threads that may be of interest include (among others):

• Coronavirus virus fears causing panic buying
• Buses and the coronavirus
• Emergency timetable to deal with coronavirus: what would you propose?
• TOC plans regarding advance tickets if destinations become no-go (Coronavirus)?
• Could mandatory allocated seating be deployed during coronavirus outbreak?

 

[Mikey C]

Quite possibly won't be workable; there's only so much money available and you can't create too much without a risk of hyperinflation.

It's a nice slogan, but if a local cafe or window cleaner goes broke, how will they stop it? Even if the bank were given funding to support people, who is physically going to be working at the banks to actually meet the businesses...

 

[hexagon789]

Yeah, but it leaves the staff of such places in limbo. Not closed down but not making enough money to survive either.

Not much different to elsewhere in the world really

 

[hexagon789]

I don't believe the Government actually has the powers to do that without going to Parliament. Which it's doing tomorrow.

I think it could via an order in council, the reserve powers are quite significant in may respects. Though what the courts would decide I don't know.

Regardless, I suspect most opposition parties would call for more stringent restrictions on movement than have been imposed in the UK so far, more akin to much of the rest of Europe. And the government has a majority, so what they decide is pretty much a given to be implemented.

 

[WesternLancer]

Did a fair bit of driving today (not usual for me) and was stuck in traffic jam for ages - made me wonder if ppl were 'self isolating' by avoiding public transport which they have to share with others, and getting in their cars? When the roads were jammed up at 8.30am it didn't feel like many people were staying / working at home according to govt advice!

 

[Athelstan]

Here is some proper modelling from Imperial College London …...

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/news--wuhan-coronavirus/

Gist is that without taking precautions, we get 510,000 extra deaths in the next few months, with the peak in June.

There are many measures we can take, and the choice is between a French or Spanish style lockdown ("suppression") and a more gentle and very carefully targeted set of measures for mitigation, trying to keep the flow of cases into hospital fairly even and build up some immunity in the population.

There is a very serious hard constraint, which is that the UK is not realistically likely to have more than 8,000 functioning, staffed and resourced ventilators, so in any week where more than 8,000 people go into hospital, most of the ones that need ventilation at any point will die. About half the cases going into hospital need a ventilator at some point.

I'm not sure why the government didn't think about the ventilators earlier, but I'm also not sure starting a crash programme to build them in January would have been any more effective than now. As it is, by next year we will probably have 30,000 ventilators but far too late and unused with many tens of thousands dead.

 

[Mag_seven]

When the roads were jammed up at 8.30am it didn't feel like many people were staying / working at home according to govt advice!

The government advice to stay/work at home was only issued this evening.

 

[Belperpete]

Regardless, I suspect most opposition parties would call for more stringent restrictions on movement than have been imposed in the UK so far, more akin to much of the rest of Europe.

There is nowhere near a consistent approach in "much of the rest of Europe". Some countries, like the Czech Republic, have gone "state of emergency", while others such as the Netherlands are taking a similar response to the UK.

 

[londonmidland]

It hasn’t officially been announced yet but don’t expect much in the way of catering on EMR services for the foreseeable...

 

[yorkie]

I just can't sleep; wish I wasn't posting at this time.

There is an update (posted 3 mins ago), though the update is more to say that there will be an update:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51920444

There is a lot here, but the opening paragraph reads:

The government is set to announce more financial measures to help the economy during the coronavirus outbreak, amid warnings the latest restrictions could put firms out of business.

Of particular concern/note, this part of the analysis by James Gallagher:

....Instead the plan is to drive down the number of cases to very low levels, which the models predict will limit deaths from coronavirus to the thousands or tens of thousands.

However, this approach comes with a major problem - there is no exit strategy.

Without the immunity that would build up if people were infected, then cases would soar as soon as measures are lifted.

The report said these could need to be in place until a vaccine is available, which could take up to 18 months....

(bold red = my emphasis)

We can NOT have a situation of people not being able to go about their daily lives for 18 months. It just cannot happen. Too many millions of people would be out of work for far too long.

I am not saying there are easy solutions. There really aren't. But the idea that we all have to cancel all gatherings for many months and to accept many millions being put into incredible hardship just is not viable.

 

[AntoniC]

I fall into the "particularly stringent" category as I have the flu jab every year.

 

[Bantamzen]

Indeed, the world is going to be very different.

I notice that Macron has just said France will go into lockdown from midday tomorrow but tellingly he also said that 'No business, regardless of size, will be allowed to fail'. How workable that is, i've no idea. But I cannot see the same thing coming from the mouth of our lot in charge.

It is indeed going to be very different, almost certainly a world-wide recession which is probably going to be more damaging than the virus itself.

Don't worry everyone, today's announcement is part of a 2 phase patch to get our response back in line with WHO recommendations. Someone in Downing Street realised the legal implications of having a unique strategy if illness and deaths are disproportionately high in the UK. Phase 2 will be in time for the weekend.

I lost my rag a bit yesterday with the WHO when a sponsored ad from them came up on Facebook asking for people to contribute. This was minutes after my wife and I had discussed the future of her self-employed business, much of which involves home services including to people classed as at risk and now told to totally isolate themselves for at least 3 months. I know it is the decision of HM Government, but the timing was the thing that got me as the WHO advice would have formed at least of that decision. But its going to be a huge blow, and has me sitting here at silly-o-clock trying to come up with contingency plans.

A lot of small & medium businesses are now staring into the abyss, even a few weeks of social distancing is going to cost many jobs. And as money dries up among the poorer, even more companies will start to feel the pinch, and even more jobs will go. I can't say where I have heard it, but there are some bracing for tens, possibly even hundreds of thousands of job losses over the coming months if any "lock-down" is sustained for more than a couple of weeks.

The impact of this is going to be far reaching, and no amount of promises from any government are ever going to be able to recover the situation any time soon.

 

[yorkie]

Off the record a top Science teacher told me (a week ago) that, in terms of lockdowns, you either do all or nothing; i.e. completely contain it early on (far too late now) or you may well not do any lockdowns.

He may be wrong of course. But increasingly it's looking like the approach of wreck the livelihood of millions of people for a long period might actually be the most damaging thing to do.

I appreciate we don't know what the best thing to do is, but it's becoming more and more obvious to me that the direction we are currently headed is very unlikely to be it.

Problem is, some people are probably going to say (and I think even are saying) I am irresponsible for suggesting that we shouldn't all stay at home for the next few months, as if I'm being selfish for saying that. But I'm not saying this for me at all (I'm not going to be affected by it financially), but for the livelihood of others (millions of people could lose their jobs). I can't describe how I feel about that.

 

[Bantamzen]

Off the record a top Science teacher told me (a week ago) that, in terms of lockdowns, you either do all or nothing; i.e. completely contain it early on (far too late now) or you may well not do any lockdowns.

He may be wrong of course. But increasingly it's looking like the approach of wreck the livelihood of millions of people for a long period might actually be the most damaging thing to do.

I appreciate we don't know what the best thing to do is, but it's becoming more and more obvious to me that the direction we are currently headed is very unlikely to be it.

Problem is, some people are probably going to say (and I think even are saying) I am irresponsible for suggesting that we shouldn't all stay at home for the next few months, as if I'm being selfish for saying that. But I'm not saying this for me at all (I'm not going to be affected by it financially), but for the livelihood of others (millions of people could lose their jobs). I can't describe how I feel about that.

I must admit I have been struggling to understand why lock-downs seem to be the go-to for many governments long after the virus has established within their borders. I've certainly seen a lot of commentary from the scientific community that suggests that not only is it not the best thing to do, but in some cases, Italy for example, it could actually make things worse. I have long suspected that some of these countries enforced these decisions because they could, not because they should.

There is nothing irresponsible about suggesting that staying at home might not be the best thing to do. We live in a capitalist society, and in the case of the UK one that relies very heavily on social mobility. If people aren't going out, aren't travelling around, aren't socialising and most importantly aren't spreading their income around, we will quickly fall into a deep rescission which would be bad enough on its own, but combined with a possible global one (even Trump is now talking recession, so it must be on the cards) will be devastating. And a deep recession will have at least as much impact on our services as the virus, and most likely a lot more.

We should not, nay must not base our decisions on what other countries have done as many out there on social media like to demand. We have to consider both the short term and long term effects of any restrictions, and make a balanced judgement. Locking down for short term peace of mind at the expense of long term stability is not the right thing to do.

 

[C J Snarzell]

The problem with what Boris Johnson has said is that if everyone now stays at home full stop and doesn't venture out for say an evening meal at a pub or local restaurant we are in danger of losing many local businesses that will simply go under.

There has to be some kind of duty of care to any business affected by Coronavirus. The travel industry is already in a dire situation - but social venues will need some sort of support if this goes on.

I think going out has to be proportionate. Walking the dog in the morning is fine - you very rarely come into someone's personal space & you are not in any confined environment where it will spread.

However, a trip into central Manchester to buy a new pair of shoes is clearly not a necessary requirement to travel as is going to the Cinema to watch the latest film release when you can watch stuff at home.

CJ

 

[LAX54]

Yeah, but it leaves the staff of such places in limbo. Not closed down but not making enough money to survive either.

Indeed, they cannot claim on insurance for loss of trade, unless they are 'told' to close, but at the same time no one is going to the pub etc, and it's just a loss of money, and in the end, ultimate closure.

 

[krus_aragon]

We've got a pregnant athsmatic, one child of school age, and one preschooler in our household. Just down the road, at the in-laws', one is over 70, the other is under.

Yesterday's "warning of imminient isolation" advice suggests we've got two at-risk individuals, one in each household. One house has room for an individual to isolate themselves from others, but the other just doesn't have the space. Then there's also the question of when schools will close (for Easter or otherwise), and what my work situation will be. A twelve-week lockdown would extend beyond the baby's due date, too.

We've got a fair bit of thinking to do, to decide how to deal with this situation. There are several permutations and variables that are yet to resolve for us.

 

[Ivor]

I’m back on shift tomorrow after 5 days so I’ll be very interested to see what ‘footfall’ is like.

 

[DarloRich]

We can NOT have a situation of people not being able to go about their daily lives for 18 months. It just cannot happen. Too many millions of people would be out of work for far too long.

I am not saying there are easy solutions. There really aren't. But the idea that we all have to cancel all gatherings for many months and to accept many millions being put into incredible hardship just is not viable.

I am going to be quite blunt here. I think we need to be.

While I agree that this is not, surely, a long term solution I think we have to be honest about the situation we are in. Preservation of life is all that matters at this point. I don't care if people suffer financial hardship. That can be mitigated if the government have the will. Death cant be mitigated. We can rebuild the economy.

Anyway we will all be bartering boll rolls for beans soon!

 

[Meerkat]

I am going to be quite blunt here. I think we need to be.

While I agree that this is not, surely, a long term solution I think we have to be honest about the situation we are in. Preservation of life is all that matters at this point. I don't care if people suffer financial hardship. That can be mitigated if the government have the will. Death cant be mitigated. We can rebuild the economy.

Anyway we will all be bartering boll rolls for beans soon!

Easy to say that but not necessarily true. Maintaining the economy is preservation of life.
There are claims austerity cost 140k lives, add in increased suicides from isolation and loads of old people dying in their homes unnoticed because they can’t/won’t ask for help, and indefinite shutdown and deepened recession will cost lives.
Of course we won’t get a rational debate because no one is going to sign off allowing a catastrophic untreated patient death spell to prevent years of unseen deaths.
I am not criticising the policy (the catastrophic scenario scares the hell out of me too) but the choice isn’t as blatantly obvious as made out. What is the exit strategy.....pray for a vaccine.....

 

[al78]

People are talking about the financial implications of self isolation, but no-one has mentioned any detrimental side effects to mental health. Humans are social animals some social human interaction is necessary for general well being.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/emotional-nourishment/201612/why-we-need-each-other

If we are all expected to isolate ourselves for months, expect the suicide rate to shoot up during the year.

 

[yorkie]

People are talking about the financial implications of self isolation, but no-one has mentioned any detrimental side effects to mental health. Humans are social animals some social human interaction is necessary for general well being.

Actually a lot of people are talking about that. I know I have been!

 

[edwin_m]

I suspect the current advice was unavoidable once the modelling indicated that hundreds of thousands would die under last week's advice. The scientists probably had a good idea that would be the case but needed the previous announcement, and the reaction to it, to secure public acceptance of the latest one. It basically amounts to trying to slow the spread and delay things in the hope that something will come along. This could be a successful anti-viral drug before a vaccine but neither is certain at present.

If successful in reducing spread, it's possible the numbers will fall back again as they have in China, and some restrictions might then be relaxed for a period until the numbers start climbing rapidly again, with the whole cycle being repeated until the abovementioned solution appears or things get to a level of herd immunity. This might give us some periods of respite, but it's impossible to say whether that will happen or when.

 

[Meerkat]

If we didn’t have social media then isolation would be mentally disastrous.
I think they need to find a way to get some sport up and running - opium of the masses kind of thing.
All we need is a hard-quarantined zone, a group of sportsbods (preferably recovered sufferers, but otherwise 14 days quarantine first), a football pitch and a cricket pitch, and a TV broadcast set up.
A world T20 league, and a 6-a-side football tournament, all on free to air. Maybe snooker too, as that fills loads of hours and is popular with housebound old folk.
It might seem frivolous in dire times but would make a huge difference to mental health IMO

 

[Crossover]

I`m lucky as a Civil Servant I have a surface pro so I can do most of my work from home - the one thing I cant do is make phone calls.

Working in IT, I also have the opportunity of working from home and we have a phone solution which allows phone calls through laptops, mobile app etc.

I must say, I expected our door to be being battered down this morning with colleagues after what spare laptops we have but all is oddly quiet and people are just cracking on as usual in their varying areas of the business

People are talking about the financial implications of self isolation, but no-one has mentioned any detrimental side effects to mental health. Humans are social animals some social human interaction is necessary for general well being.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/emotional-nourishment/201612/why-we-need-each-other

If we are all expected to isolate ourselves for months, expect the suicide rate to shoot up during the year.

Mental health is going to be a problem. I would also recommend people give this a read https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51873799

Coronavirus has plunged the world into uncertainty and the constant news about the pandemic can feel relentless. All of this is taking its toll on people's mental health, particularly those already living with conditions like anxiety and OCD. So how can we protect our mental health?

I am already finding I need to spend a little time away from the news (which can be a little tricky at times with the family seemingly glued to it) as to not be reminded of it every second of every day. Yes we need to be aware, but hyperawareness is helping no-one. Luckily I have friends (including some from here) who I have been able to have objective conversations with about the situation.

 

[Meerkat]

If successful in reducing spread, it's possible the numbers will fall back again as they have in China, and some restrictions might then be relaxed for a period until the numbers start climbing rapidly again, with the whole cycle being repeated until the abovementioned solution appears

Get a lid on acceleration, then tough border restrictions, and a hugely ramped up testing and contact tracing system might allow more normal social behaviour.