Government advice discussion

[mpthomson]

I think it was just a matter of time before such a statement was released, notable that it's not an outright ban as in some countries though

That requires emergency legislation that doesn't (yet) exist. Boris was saying last week that they're bringing emergency powers legislation in fairly shortly, and it may well be covered under that. He's said he wants to make sure he has proper cross party support before going into parliament, its not something they'll want anyone bumping their gums about in a debate.

 

[Meerkat]

I am already finding I need to spend a little time away from the news

Very much so - it’s tough but trying to force my self to take hour long breaks from reading anything about Covid. Also totally ignoring it for an hour before bedtime to help sleep.

 

[mpthomson]

Boris doesn’t want to close your business he wants you to make that decision due to lack of business.
Not the governments fault then!

No, not at all. It requires emergency legislation to order a shut down. It doesn't yet exist. Its going before parliament today/tomorrow and will probably result in legal directives to close by the end of the week. Note the comments about actions to be taken by the most vulnerable, also by the end of the week, it'll be part of the same thing.

 

[mpthomson]

I think the policy is 'closure by default' rather than 'closure by direction'. That way, the government can be all shilly-shally and not have to take the tough decisions which, if they call them wrong, they will get blamed for. Better to not make a decision than to make the wrong one. Worked with far too many of that kind of senior management in my time.

no, it isn't... wait for the emergency legislation.

 

[richw]

I’m travelling on 2C06 right now dropping some essentials to an elderly friend, who doesn’t want to leave the house. There’s 2 other passengers on the entire train! (Unless the rear most carriage is full, I counted heads as it came past into my station)

 

[Bletchleyite]

no, it isn't... wait for the emergency legislation.

If anyone wants to read it it's here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/129/contents/made

 

[Bostwick]

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!

Everyone saw what was happening in China with them building hospitals from scratch in eight days, shutting down whole cities and their massive industrial capacity, which was warning enough that this was deadly serious, but we were told more people die from seasonal flu every year and the economy must keep going, people must still fly etc., not even basic checks were carried out at airports in the UK. Now we see the disaster in Italy with their modern, well equipped hospitals totally swamped in the North and elsewhere. Last week it was reported by them hospitals were 200% above their capacity, ambulances were arriving in an hour instead of the normal 8 minutes and still there is no real action here, only talks of having talks. A few days ago the Government was saying we were a month behind Italy! If one looked at the graphs of cases we were 2 weeks max behind Italy and 1 week behind France. Yesterday, we were told we are 3 weeks behind Italy. Also we were told the NHS was well equipped and prepared to cope, now the government is scrabbling around to get more ventilator machines. In the last 3 days in the UK, Covid-19 deaths went from 1 or 2 a day, here and there, to overnight a situation of low double digit figures, Italy had the same thing in the first days of March and the figures for deaths just went up and up (now 400 a day). Also anyone who is hit with a serious health condition ie. a heart attack, stroke etc. won't get the health care they would normally get and their chances of a good outcome reduce dramatically.

 

[yorksrob]

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.

Indeed. Hopefully in an optomistic scenario, if a short term period of more extreme social distancing is successful in slowing the heavy ramp up of cases seen in Europe, it might buy time to institute the "test, test, test" regime which has helped to identify and isolate cases in the far east. Hopefully this could then lead to a less stringent period where people are able to visit shops and restaurants more, perhaps with sufficient spacing (with sufficient help to tide those businesses over).

It might be that the scenario works in controlling it more in areas where it's less established, which can release resourses to areas where it's more prevalent.

Like @yorkie, I can't see lockdowns working for months on end.

 

[Meerkat]

If anyone wants to read it it's here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/129/contents/made

That’s quite limited - just gives powers to force testing, detain during testing, force isolation, and detention if abscond (though I can’t see any punishments, just throwing you back into quarantine.
Powers last for two years......

 

[Bantamzen]

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!

It is a life and death situation, for those at risk and for many that aren't. Whilst we need to do our best for those at risk of this disease, we can't simply toss other people away in the meantime. Even this morning people are starting to be laid off, people without the means to be able to save, who are going to find themselves at the end of an increasingly long queue for Universal Credit and very empty wallets. And with the panic buying epidemic in full swing, guess what's happening to food banks?

Simply hiding behind our doors and hoping the problem is going to go away is not the answer. Even if it kicks the can down the road so that the NHS can cope a bit more in a couple pf months, its still going to be in the human population, we are still going have to manage it, it isn't going to just disappear. We should be steering more resources into being proactive for those at risk, we know who most are, and giving them the help & support they really need, not just shutting them away whilst we tank the economy. We could easily divert resources from elsewhere to support this, and frankly we should now be recalling all our oversees troops to concentrate on this country. Now is not the time for playing war in far off lands. We could do all this and not terminally damage the economy, but short-sightedness of politicians trying to win favour with voters who have shown that at the first sign of a crisis, they don't give a stuff about anyone else is driving what I consider to be the wrong, even dangerous decision making.

I would put a lot of money on the nation suffering more once the peak of this virus has passed, than during that time. I say would, because the bookies would likely be closed, and having looked at my wife's business that is potentially going to be severely affected, we probably shouldn't be chucking money around like that. And there will be hundreds of thousands of others, maybe millions of people doing exactly the same in the coming weeks.

 

[Meerkat]

We could easily divert resources from elsewhere to support this, and frankly we should now be recalling all our oversees troops to concentrate on this country.

That is unnecessary politics. We don’t even have significant numbers of troops abroad.
If manpower is needed there are going to be plenty of underemployed people about. For example the government could pay an airlines staff reduced wages to do government work (keeping them employed by the airline gives an established management/administration set up).

 

[OneOffDave]

We could easily divert resources from elsewhere to support this, and frankly we should now be recalling all our oversees troops to concentrate on this country.

What exactly would these troops be doing?

 

[mmh]

I think @yorkie has it spot on. Extended isolation is just unworkable for so many reasons. It feels like the government is doing a balancing act between numerous interests, understandably even if you think they're doing it successfully or sensibly or not - I'm in multiple minds over that.

I've thought a lot about it, and how it could or couldn't work with our household situation, and I'm afraid I've come to the conclusion that not only do I not particularly want to follow their advice, I practically can't. People may think I'm irresponsible for that, so be it.

I'm not in a high risk category, I'm middle and reasonably fit myself but live in the same house as my parents who only just fall outside the over 70s category. For half the week my middle aged sister and her young son live here. Does that mean I should put myself, and them, under effective house arrest? I don't think that's practical or sensible for any of us on a personal level. Is that selfish? Perhaps.

At risk of being criticized for being foolhardy, I will go to the pub later today. As a widower that is my only source of face to face social interaction with people outside my family these days. I don't want to give that up. I've struggled with depression for years and frankly the thought of losing it worries me more than my individual health (but no, not that of others, I'm not, or I don't like to think I am, inconsiderate or uncaring.)

Sigh. As someone else said, I think self-isolating from TV and radio news and social media more may be a good idea. I think, certainly for me, it can be more negative than positive.

I'm not classing the forum as social media, thankfully even though there are many differing views on it here it's possible to have pleasant conversations about the crisis here. Likewise in the pub. On twitter or a radio phone in? Seems not. Sad times.

 

[Meerkat]

If it comes to it you would need to replace the pub with sitting in the park, six feet apart, to have a chat. Or someone’s garden (though park is easier as you would touch other people’s stuff)

 

[Bantamzen]

That is unnecessary politics. We don’t even have significant numbers of troops abroad.
If manpower is needed there are going to be plenty of underemployed people about. For example the government could pay an airlines staff reduced wages to do government work (keeping them employed by the airline gives an established management/administration set up).

What exactly would these troops be doing?

Well there will be the medical staff that could be utilised, and the rest could support a whole host of roles from administrative through to logistical. As more and more people feel the pinch, there is going to be more pressure on both local & central government services. Speaking as someone in the public sector reading my emails dialling into calls today, it is clear that it is going to be a massive challenge. We need all the help we can get right now.

 

[trebor79]

I'm extremely worried and upset at where all this may be leading. I think the world is going to be a very different place at the other side of all this, whenever that may be.
I have 2 kids, 6 and 1 year old, and I just well up when I think about the sort of world they are going to be living in. It's just a horrible horrible change to our way or life, and it's going to have permanent effects for everyone.
I don't even know how you go about rebuilding a global economy. The closest this would be reconstruction in Europe after WW2, but Uncle Sam isn't going to be able to splash the cash this time.
Whatever measures are put in place to support business will be insufficient. How is the government going to do more when there is going to be a collapse in the tax take? Who's going to lend to bankrupt countries?

It may be hyperbole, but I genuinely fear we are headed into a dystopian end of days scenario.

I feel hopeless, angry and upset. I hate that my kids are going to miss out on really important education and social interaction.

There's no way out of this now. It's either vaccine in at best 18 months to two years time, or eventual herd immunity with Covid19 becoming a childhood disease like mumps and measles.
But what sort of world we are living in by that point is anybody's guess. I suspect 1946 - 2020 will be seen as a paradise lost. I don't want to bring my kids up in this world, but I have to do the best I can.

I'm really struggling. Already.

 

[Bostwick]

It is a life and death situation, for those at risk and for many that aren't. Whilst we need to do our best for those at risk of this disease, we can't simply toss other people away in the meantime. Even this morning people are starting to be laid off, people without the means to be able to save, who are going to find themselves at the end of an increasingly long queue for Universal Credit and very empty wallets. And with the panic buying epidemic in full swing, guess what's happening to food banks?

Simply hiding behind our doors and hoping the problem is going to go away is not the answer. Even if it kicks the can down the road so that the NHS can cope a bit more in a couple pf months, its still going to be in the human population, we are still going have to manage it, it isn't going to just disappear. We should be steering more resources into being proactive for those at risk, we know who most are, and giving them the help & support they really need, not just shutting them away whilst we tank the economy. We could easily divert resources from elsewhere to support this, and frankly we should now be recalling all our oversees troops to concentrate on this country. Now is not the time for playing war in far off lands. We could do all this and not terminally damage the economy, but short-sightedness of politicians trying to win favour with voters who have shown that at the first sign of a crisis, they don't give a stuff about anyone else is driving what I consider to be the wrong, even dangerous decision making.

As you point out with people now being laid off the repercussions are going to be widespread, massive and long lasting, worse than the 2008 financial crash. Unfortunately, this is not going to get kicked down the road for the NHS to cope with, decisive action needed to be taken weeks ago at a very minimum. We are now heading for a rapid rise of cases in a short period of time. I agree about your point of troops overseas being recalled, I would also question why we should have any troops overseas in the first place. Instead of unending wars, we should be spending money on reintroducing the Civil Defence Corps.

As regards to politicians, IMO, it is best to be a self contained individual, free thinking, use your innate common sense and not handing your independence and resourcefulness to survive to useless politicians and so-called world leaders responsible for the global mess.

 

[DarloRich]

It is a life and death situation, for those at risk and for many that aren't. Whilst we need to do our best for those at risk of this disease, we can't simply toss other people away in the meantime. Even this morning people are starting to be laid off, people without the means to be able to save, who are going to find themselves at the end of an increasingly long queue for Universal Credit and very empty wallets. And with the panic buying epidemic in full swing, guess what's happening to food banks?

Simply hiding behind our doors and hoping the problem is going to go away is not the answer. Even if it kicks the can down the road so that the NHS can cope a bit more in a couple pf months, its still going to be in the human population, we are still going have to manage it, it isn't going to just disappear.

Surely at this point in time we are at least worst option in relation to preventing deaths. I don't disagree with your central point but think we have to make some very hard decisions. That might include some hard times for people. Surely that is better than death or avoidable deaths of your loved ones. That is the stark choice.

I said previously i was not concerned about getting sick. I am still not, other than a little more worry about hand hygiene I am in an age group not massively effected and the odds look acceptable. I AM now worried about transmitting the virus to someone less robust and killing them inadvertently.

 

[bramling]

Surely at this point in time we are at least worst option in relation to preventing deaths. I don't disagree with your central point but think we have to make some very hard decisions. That might include some hard times for people. Surely that is better than death or avoidable deaths of your loved ones. That is the stark choice.

Agreed. We are fully into “least worst” option territory, and even then we have to accept that there’s the possibility that what might seem the right choice at the time might turn out not to be so in the end.

I think some people are going to find that hard or even impossible to accept, given how all of us have been thus far used to living a life where risks are strictly controlled and managed.

It’s like being stuck in an inclined tunnel with a fire burning beneath you - do you risk going down and past the fire, or up and through the smoke?

 

[leedstraindude]

EMR have pulled all catering from trains this morning and closed all 1st lounges. Scotrail have also done the same. Guards at both companies and northern I believe have been advised to perform operational/safety critical duties only and no revenue. Before people ask source is an internal com document from emr, and the other two advised from friends who work at said tocs. And so it starts....

 

[Bantamzen]

Surely at this point in time we are at least worst option in relation to preventing deaths. I don't disagree with your central point but think we have to make some very hard decisions. That might include some hard times for people. Surely that is better than death or avoidable deaths of your loved ones. That is the stark choice.

I said previously i was not concerned about getting sick. I am still not, other than a little more worry about hand hygiene I am in an age group not massively effected and the odds look acceptable. I AM now worried about transmitting the virus to someone less robust and killing them inadvertently.

But that is true of many diseases we might inadvertently pass on, hell you could pass a cold onto someone which ends up being the tipping point for them if they have other medical problems. It isn't going to be practical to shut down for weeks and months every time the cold, flu or perhaps now Covid-19 viruses do the rounds. The damage that this could cause internationally is going to be serious, could lead to more poverty, perhaps civil unrest and with both could inadvertently lead to unnecessary deaths.

Which is why I believe, from a purely layman's point of view of course, that we should be directing all our efforts to reach out to those more likely to suffer seriously from it, and give them what they need to survive. We are not doing that at the moment, we are trying to hide from the virus and hope we can cope later on. And frankly it has been cheered on by many not because they think it will save the vulnerable, but because of the "Me" culture that all too often prevails in this country (please note I do not include yourself in this bracket). I have a mother in the age bracket ordered to stay at home, but fully support the fact that she has no intentions of being a prisoner in her own home for 3 months when she is in good health, and can mitigate the risks of catching the virus for herself.

However in three or four weeks, if we are still in this or more restrictive conditions it will all become moot. Because I guarantee that people will start to get very fed up, fear & anxiety will be replaced by boredom & anger, and people will start to ignore the instructions. On the Beeb this morning in Rome they were already interviewing older folk who after a week were still to death of being stuck inside, and decided to at least get out for walking regardless of what their government wants. Expect to see a lot more of this soon.

 

[Bletchleyite]

However in three or four weeks, if we are still in this or more restrictive conditions it will all become moot. Because I guarantee that people will start to get very fed up, fear & anxiety will be replaced by boredom & anger, and people will start to ignore the instructions. On the Beeb this morning in Rome they were already interviewing older folk who after a week were still to death of being stuck inside, and decided to at least get out for walking regardless of what their government wants. Expect to see a lot more of this soon.

The French have thought this one through, and for them going for a walk/run locally to home on your own is a specific exemption to the lockdown - one of only about 4.

 

[Meerkat]

Harsh measures should dramatically slow the spread.
After that all we can do is slow motion herd immunity, trying to keep below NHS capacity whilst desperately trying to increase that capacity, ramp up testing infrastructure.
Accepting that eradication is unlikely we almost need suppression to be leaking cases at near capacity to get through as many people as possible to get some herd immunity and a group of survivors available to take more risks. Assuming immunity.....

 

[Skymonster]

EMR have pulled all catering from trains this morning and closed all 1st lounges. Scotrail have also done the same. Guards at both companies and northern I believe have been advised to perform operational/safety critical duties only and no revenue. Before people ask source is an internal com document from emr, and the other two advised from friends who work at said tocs. And so it starts....

EMR update is on the website at https://www.eastmidlandsrailway.co.uk/covid-19

No revenue checks could develop into an interesting situation if the public get to learn about it more widely... But I hope that part is true: it would be rather two-faced to be saying "we're protecting our staff by not havin g any catering provision" (i.e. removing interacting with customers / social distancing) and then insisting revenue staff should continue to face a broadly similar risk.

 

[Bantamzen]

The French have thought this one through, and for them going for a walk/run locally to home on your own is a specific exemption to the lockdown - one of only about 4.

That won't sit well with them for long....

Harsh measures should dramatically slow the spread.
After that all we can do is slow motion herd immunity, trying to keep below NHS capacity whilst desperately trying to increase that capacity, ramp up testing infrastructure.
Accepting that eradication is unlikely we almost need suppression to be leaking cases at near capacity to get through as many people as possible to get some herd immunity and a group of survivors available to take more risks. Assuming immunity.....

Assuming a lock-down stops, and not just stalls the virus...

 

[bramling]

But that is true of many diseases we might inadvertently pass on, hell you could pass a cold onto someone which ends up being the tipping point for them if they have other medical problems. It isn't going to be practical to shut down for weeks and months every time the cold, flu or perhaps now Covid-19 viruses do the rounds. The damage that this could cause internationally is going to be serious, could lead to more poverty, perhaps civil unrest and with both could inadvertently lead to unnecessary deaths.

Which is why I believe, from a purely layman's point of view of course, that we should be directing all our efforts to reach out to those more likely to suffer seriously from it, and give them what they need to survive. We are not doing that at the moment, we are trying to hide from the virus and hope we can cope later on. And frankly it has been cheered on by many not because they think it will save the vulnerable, but because of the "Me" culture that all too often prevails in this country (please note I do not include yourself in this bracket). I have a mother in the age bracket ordered to stay at home, but fully support the fact that she has no intentions of being a prisoner in her own home for 3 months when she is in good health, and can mitigate the risks of catching the virus for herself.

However in three or four weeks, if we are still in this or more restrictive conditions it will all become moot. Because I guarantee that people will start to get very fed up, fear & anxiety will be replaced by boredom & anger, and people will start to ignore the instructions. On the Beeb this morning in Rome they were already interviewing older folk who after a week were still to death of being stuck inside, and decided to at least get out for walking regardless of what their government wants. Expect to see a lot more of this soon.

I don’t doubt you’re right about boredom and anger, however ultimately those emotions really won’t be helpful and people are going to have to find ways of dealing with it. At the end of the day for those in the “at risk” groups it’s for their own good. They should also spare a thought for those younger people who will also be exposing themselves to some level of risk just to keep things like supermarkets and essential services going.

I’m afraid against that backdrop I have little sympathy for someone who’s merely bored. There’s plenty of things for people to do if so inclined.

I agree that people should be allowed to go for walks and the like. At the end of the day people are going to *have* to go out at times for supplies and such.

 

[Meerkat]

Assuming a lock-down stops, and not just stalls the virus...

No, I am assuming lockdown only stalls the virus. But every successful locked down case is a terminated infection trail - it has to work to some extent. Then you “test, test, test”

 

[DarloRich]

Which is why I believe, from a purely layman's point of view of course, that we should be directing all our efforts to reach out to those more likely to suffer seriously from it, and give them what they need to survive. We are not doing that at the moment, we are trying to hide from the virus and hope we can cope later on. And frankly it has been cheered on by many not because they think it will save the vulnerable, but because of the "Me" culture that all too often prevails in this country (please note I do not include yourself in this bracket). I have a mother in the age bracket ordered to stay at home, but fully support the fact that she has no intentions of being a prisoner in her own home for 3 months when she is in good health, and can mitigate the risks of catching the virus for herself.

But that isnt what is happening. This is designed to keep people safe AND ensure that the NHS can treat those in most need. That is the point of the restrictions so that when those in most need fall ill they can, hopefully, be cared for.

I agree they might be pushing the problem off but as @bramling says that is the call that has to be made today.

However in three or four weeks, if we are still in this or more restrictive conditions it will all become moot. Because I guarantee that people will start to get very fed up, fear & anxiety will be replaced by boredom & anger, and people will start to ignore the instructions. On the Beeb this morning in Rome they were already interviewing older folk who after a week were still to death of being stuck inside, and decided to at least get out for walking regardless of what their government wants. Expect to see a lot more of this soon.

Then they increase the likelihood that they might die. That is the harsh reality.

TBH self isolation is my live generally.

 

[Bantamzen]

I don’t doubt you’re right about boredom and anger, however ultimately those emotions really won’t be helpful and people are going to have to find ways of dealing with it. At the end of the day for those in the “at risk” groups it’s for their own good. They should also spare a thought for those younger people who will also be exposing themselves to some level of risk just to keep things like supermarkets and essential services going.

I’m afraid against that backdrop I have little sympathy for someone who’s merely bored. There’s plenty of things for people to do if so inclined.

And if you are angry because of a cash flow problem, and can't get the essentials you need?

Even so, this will happen sooner rather than later, you can't lock down entire countries at a time and just expect them to sit nicely in a corner. Humans will be humans, tensions will rise, families will start to grate on each other, arguments will grow and eventually people will want an end to it. its really only a matter of time, and when it starts in one country it will spread way quicker than the virus.

 

[bramling]

And if you are angry because of a cash flow problem, and can't get the essentials you need?

Even so, this will happen sooner rather than later, you can't lock down entire countries at a time and just expect them to sit nicely in a corner. Humans will be humans, tensions will rise, families will start to grate on each other, arguments will grow and eventually people will want an end to it. its really only a matter of time, and when it starts in one country it will spread way quicker than the virus.

Yes I agree - all that is quite likely to happen. It’s certainly not going to help.

Having said that, elderly people shouldn’t be experiencing cash flow problems simply due to self isolation, as everyone over 70 should have a pension of one sort of other, and with people staying in outgoings ought really to be down not up.

Obviously we wait to see what happens with the working-age sector of the population, that could be where problems start if people are laid off.