That is your opinion. The Government presumably has a different view.Given the number of false positives we see from PCR testing, they are already
That is your opinion. The Government presumably has a different view.Given the number of false positives we see from PCR testing, they are already
The travel industry is just another group of commercial entities. They will say whatever they think is in their businesses' interest. They haven't said that the Government didn't consult them, but if the action wasn't their preferred option they might prefer to make it might like they weren't
20 per 100K is a threshold that they have decided to take action. Like it or not, whatever threshold is decided on, there are going to be marginal cases. The alternative is to set levels and then ignore them which makes measuring infections pointless.
Not mine a growing number of scientists are criticising their usage to detect active Covid cases in community testing. See the thread here.That is your opinion. The Government presumably has a different view.
So that's a 'number' anywhere between 1 and a larger number. "A growing number" is the type of sentence that is designed to convey a sense of fact but not offering anything, often used as a sensationalist headline in newpapers. Maybe a reference to a verifiable proportion of scientists would be more credible.Not mine a growing number of scientists are criticising their usage to detect active Covid cases in community testing. See the thread here.
So that's a 'number' anywhere between 1 and a larger number. "A growing number" is the type of sentence that is designed to convey a sense of fact but not offering anything, often used as a sensationalist headline in newpapers. Maybe a reference to a verifiable proportion of scientists would be more credible.
Actually it is the threshold where they start considering action (or dithering, depending on your point of view). There are several countries above 20 that I don't believe are currently restricted, but obviously could soon be if their numbers are consistently going in the wrong direction.20 per 100K is a threshold that they have decided to take action. Like it or not, whatever threshold is decided on, there are going to be marginal cases. The alternative is to set levels and then ignore them which makes measuring infections pointless.
It is a number set slightly higher than our current infection rate. Personally, I would have preferred them to set a rate slightly lower than ours - at one time that wouldn't have been difficult!Do you remember when 20/100,000 was set as a threshold? Do you remember when science set this level as a threshold? No, neither do I because this is just a number plucked out of the ether. The actual target back in March was to maintain capacity in the NHS to deal with those worst affected, and we have had that for months.
It is a number set slightly higher than our current infection rate. Personally, I would have preferred them to set a rate slightly lower than ours - at one time that wouldn't have been difficult!
The actual target back in March was to save lives. Ensuring that the NHS wasn't overwhelmed was a necessary step in achieving that, it was never the end goal in itself. If you remember, the message was not "Stay Home > Save Lives > Protect the NHS" it was "Stay Home > Protect the NHS > Save Lives".
I'm sorry, but I must refer you to Boris Johnson's lockdown speech on 23rd March:It is a number set slightly higher than our current infection rate. Personally, I would have preferred them to set a rate slightly lower than ours - at one time that wouldn't have been difficult!
The actual target back in March was to save lives. Ensuring that the NHS wasn't overwhelmed was a necessary step in achieving that, it was never the end goal in itself. If you remember, the message was not "Stay Home > Save Lives > Protect the NHS" it was "Stay Home > Protect the NHS > Save Lives".
Without a huge national effort to halt the growth of this virus, there will come a moment where no health service in the world could possibly cope, because there won’t be enough ventilators, enough intensive care beds, enough doctors and nurses. As we’ve seen elsewhere, in other countries that also have fantastic healthcare systems, that is the moment of real danger. To put it simply, if too many people become seriously unwell at one time, the NHS will be unable to handle it, meaning more people are likely to die, not just from coronavirus but from other illnesses as well. So it’s vital to slow the spread of the disease because that is the way we reduce the number of people needing hospital treatment at any one time so we can protect the NHS’s ability to cope and save more lives.
I am sorry, but that is a truly preposterous thing to say. What is the point of having an NHS?It really was the end goal. Sorry.
I am sorry, but that is a truly preposterous thing to say. What is the point of having an NHS?
As I keep pointing out, the end goal was to save lives, protecting the NHS was only a step in achieving that. We still need to protect the NHS, and we still need to save lives. This is a virus that escalates rapidly, exponentially, as we saw when it first arrived, and as we can see now in other countries where outbreaks are re-occurring. If we just lifted all restrictions now, we would be back to where we were in January, just with slightly more NHS capacity, and a slightly better understanding of the virus. It would rapidly escalate again, just like it did in January, and we would have to go back into full lockdown again to try and contain it.I'm sorry, I don't understand your point? The original end goal was to ensure that the NHS wasn't overwhelmed by people needing care as a result of the virus. That was achieved, almost completely without the need for the additional capacity. And now the NHS is well in control of the situation, so can you explain to me why we are still in a state of national panic, and why we have to quarantine people coming back from abroad who may have a very small chance of bringing the virus over?
As I keep pointing out, the end goal was to save lives, protecting the NHS was only a step in achieving that. We still need to protect the NHS, and we still need to save lives. This is a virus that escalates rapidly, exponentially, as we saw when it first arrived, and as we can see now in other countries where outbreaks are re-occurring. If we just lifted all restrictions now, we would be back to where we were in January, just with slightly more NHS capacity, and a slightly better understanding of the virus. It would rapidly escalate again, just like it did in January, and we would have to go back into full lockdown again to try and contain it.
The reason that we are maintaining the precautions, and applying quarantine, is that we don't want a repeat of what happened at the start of the year. Far better to maintain some moderate restrictions to keep the virus under control, than to lift everything, let it get out of control, and have to go back into full lockdown again.
Individually, each person only has a very small chance of bringing the virus in. But when you have tens of thousands of people coming in, that very small individual chance becomes a big collective chance. Even if only a few of those tens of thousands bring it in, they act as the seed to start infecting many others, exactly as happened at the start of the year. Remember that the virus was first brought into this country by people bringing it in from abroad, mainly from Italy. Now that we have almost got it under control, do we really want that happening again? You only have to compare the infection rates in France and Spain with ours, to see how much worse it is there than in the UK.
You don't know that we would we back where we started, you're just making an assumption that can't be proven.As I keep pointing out, the end goal was to save lives, protecting the NHS was only a step in achieving that. We still need to protect the NHS, and we still need to save lives. This is a virus that escalates rapidly, exponentially, as we saw when it first arrived, and as we can see now in other countries where outbreaks are re-occurring. If we just lifted all restrictions now, we would be back to where we were in January, just with slightly more NHS capacity, and a slightly better understanding of the virus. It would rapidly escalate again, just like it did in January, and we would have to go back into full lockdown again to try and contain it.
And many Hopsitals it seems, as staff start to talk, were empty 'Ghost Towns' someone said, as all appointments had been cancelled, but they had no C19 cases to deal with, some areas had a lot, the numbers banded about sounded really serious, but they would also sound just as terrifying on a bad flu year ! locally 99% of the country the fugures were / are low, when you add them all up they sound bad. NZ were shouting they had got rid of it, they still had restrictions coming in, self isolation 14 days, and then 'bang' they have it again out of the blue from someone who has been nowhere ! We now have the quarantine back in for France (and others), but is only really aimed at stopping holidays, there are so many exemptions !I'm sorry but I don't agree. The primary goal was to ensure capacity was available to deal with those patients who needed care as a result of being badly affected by the virus (i.e. the elderly, those in health & care situations). It was always known from the start that some would sadly. If you really believe that the "save lives" memes pushed around by the government actually meant something, then I'm afraid I have some bad news for you.
Of course its an assumption, but it is a far more creditable assumption than just hoping that everything is magically going to be alright now if we just lift all the restrictions. That is certainly not supported by what we see happening here and elsewhere.You don't know that we would we back where we started, you're just making an assumption that can't be proven.
We apparently have increased levels of infection, but no hospital admissions? Perhaps that's because we're doing lots of tests that we weren't doing earlier in the year?
Lets be clear on the defaults here. The default is normality, we do not need justification to return to normality, we need justification the any restrictions are necessary. At the present, the case for continuing restrictions on normal life is low, as many hospitals have zero cases, nowhere close to being overwhelmed.Of course its an assumption, but it is a far more creditable assumption than just hoping that everything is magically going to be alright now if we just lift all the restrictions. That is certainly not supported by what we see happening here and elsewhere.
We already know that it takes about two to three weeks for infections to translate into hospital admissions.
Agreed that a lot of hospitals became ghost areas - mine did. Unfortunately a lot of routine and serious treatments got indefinitely postponed to make room for covid patients. At a time when we are just restarting some of these treatments, the last thing we need is to have to shut them down again to brace for another wave of covid.And many Hopsitals it seems, as staff start to talk, were empty 'Ghost Towns' someone said, as all appointments had been cancelled, but they had no C19 cases to deal with, some areas had a lot, the numbers banded about sounded really serious, but they would also sound just as terrifying on a bad flu year ! locally 99% of the country the fugures were / are low, when you add them all up they sound bad. NZ were shouting they had got rid of it, they still had restrictions coming in, self isolation 14 days, and then 'bang' they have it again out of the blue from someone who has been nowhere ! We now have the quarantine back in for France (and others), but is only really aimed at stopping holidays, there are so many exemptions !
I am getting a bit fed up with arguing against blatantly preposterous suppositions. We have a justification, it is called covid-19. It hasn't gone away, it is still here. Would you have us wait until the hospitals are overwhelmed before we do anything? With a virus that has an incubation period of two to three weeks, that is a recipe for disaster. Unfortunately we came very close to that at the beginning of the year, when the government prevaricated about going into lockdown.Lets be clear on the defaults here. The default is normality, we do not need justification to return to normality, we need justification the any restrictions are necessary. At the present, the case for continuing restrictions on normal life is low, as many hospitals have zero cases, nowhere close to being overwhelmed.
Surely most of the country ought to be Level 2 - looking at the left-hand side of the chart?We are supposed to be at level three which means "the gradual relaxation of restrictions". How does reimposing restrictions in the form of quarantine square with that?
View attachment 82266
Feel free to stop anytimeI am getting a bit fed up with arguing
I am getting a bit fed up with arguing against blatantly preposterous suppositions. We have a justification, it is called covid-19. It hasn't gone away, it is still here. Would you have us wait until the hospitals are overwhelmed before we do anything? With a virus that has an incubation period of two to three weeks, that is a recipe for disaster. Unfortunately we came very close to that at the beginning of the year, when the government prevaricated about going into lockdown.
I am getting a bit tired of those who keep equating covid numbers with the flu. There is a big difference - the covid numbers would have been exponentially worse if we had treated it as flu, and not locked-down.
This is a myth which has been done to death in other threads; I don't think it's related to quarantine, so feel free to discuss it in the appropriate threads (such as the thread about Sweden, as they didn't lock down)...There is a big difference - the covid numbers would have been exponentially worse if we had .... not locked-down...
There are some people quite clearly taking advantage of the situation to push agendas they've had for a very long - you can expect that kind of opportunism whenever any disruption or significant event happens. There is also a whiff of large-scale graft around some of the huge contracts awarded, which comes down to the same thing. There are also a lot of people who were already too obsessed with making every single thing in front of their noses "safe", and the circumstances have conspired to allow them free reign in a way that's hugely unhelpful for society.I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that all these measures, that keep curtailing our freedom more and more, are part of a great big plot to find out how far "they" can push the law abiding masses. It is causing huge distress (masks) and inconvenience (quarantine) and there doesn't seem to be any respite in view, despite them now saying tattoo parlours can re-open. If those are considered safe then we might as well just go back to the old normality.
I've never been one for conspiracy theories but this is testing my credulity about how the whole thing has been handled. Take the extremely short notice for returning from France, either naively not thought through, or deliberately designed to cause mass panic for thousands of UK citizens.
Not only is this a matter of common sense, it is a matter of law. Most of the various regulations enacting COVID19-related restrictions in England state that if the relevant Secretary of State is of the opinion that any restriction is no longer necessary, he must publish a declaration terminating it.Preposterous, that restrictions on our lives should have to be continuously justified, and if they can't be then they should be stopped. I refer you to Huntergreeds post #129, the whole purpose of this is the stop the NHS being overwhelmed, since it is not being overwhelmed, and does not seem to be in danger, then restrictions should be reduced.
Is the quarantine perhaps being used as a deterrent to attempt to discourage international travel, thus reducing the likelihood of incoming international infections and encourage more people to use the UK tourism and holiday sectors instead?