Quarantine

[AM9]

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.

 

[Bantamzen]

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

It is quite clear that the travel industry wasn't consulted, if you choose not to believe that and instead believe this disaster of a government that's your choice. But it doesn't make it true. Quite honestly if the government today declared that the sky was blue, I would be looking upwards to check.

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.

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.

 

[Yew]

That is your opinion. The Government presumably has a different view.

Not mine a growing number of scientists are criticising their usage to detect active Covid cases in community testing. See the thread here.

 

[AM9]

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.

 

[Bantamzen]

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.

You mean like the the kind of sensationalist headlines we've had for months trying to convince us that covid equalled the end of all things....

 

[Belperpete]

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.

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.

Personally, I prefer the Latvian approach: no dithering, no ambiguity - quarantine is automatically imposed for all countries above a set level, the moment that level is reached.

The numbers are publicly available, and tbh I have very little sympathy with anyone who chooses to go to one of these countries and then finds themselves subject to quarantine. They knew the risk they were taking when they went. Certainly since the example of what happened with Spain, and Boris's public pronouncement that he won't hesitate to act. It is a risk that I will be evaluating carefully closer to the time, for my trips abroad.

 

[Belperpete]

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".

 

[Bantamzen]

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".

It really was the end goal. Sorry.

 

[Huntergreed]

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:

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.

(https://www.rev.com/blog/transcript...t-announces-uk-lockdown-you-must-stay-at-home)

The 'Save Lives' part isn't referring to saving lives from COVID, it's referring to saving lives that would have been lost due to refused hospital treatment if the NHS become overwhelmed, the main intention of the lockdown was indeed to prevent the health board from being overwhelmed. As for what the main goal is now? It's anyone's guess.

 

[Belperpete]

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?

 

[Mag_seven]

I think we are starting to drift slightly off topic here - can we stick to discussing Quarantine. Thanks.

 

[Bantamzen]

I am sorry, but that is a truly preposterous thing to say. What is the point of having an NHS?

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?

 

[Belperpete]

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.

 

[Bantamzen]

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.

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.

 

[talldave]

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.

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?

Whether we're protecting lives, the NHS, or government from having egg all over its face, it seems nonsensical that Leicester is locked down but hasn't had a hospital admission for almost two weeks. Other lockdown areas with millions of residents are seeing 1 hospital admission every 2 or 3 days.

 

[LAX54]

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.

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 !

 

[Belperpete]

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?

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.

 

[Yew]

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.

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.

 

[Mag_seven]

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?

 

[Belperpete]

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 !

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.

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.

NZ don't know where their outbreak has come from. Those currently tested have been nowhere, but they weren't necessarily the seed carrier. NZ doesn't have an absolute travel restriction - like us, at the height of the lockdown, there were still people importing food and essential supplies, for example. You moan about the exemptions - would you have us stop importing food and essential supplies?

 

[Belperpete]

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.

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.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

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

Surely most of the country ought to be Level 2 - looking at the left-hand side of the chart?

Is there a definition of the difference between 'in general circulation' and 'cases and transmission is low'?

Level 2 is likely the lowest it will get for a considerable period of time. 'No longer present in the UK' is an absolute statement which can only be declared with any degree of certainty after a period of monitoring - once everyone has been immunised, and no new cases have been identified for 'x' weeks / months / years.

 

[takno]

I am getting a bit fed up with arguing

Feel free to stop anytime

 

[Yew]

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.

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.

 

[Yew]

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.

I think that your second statement is inherently unknowable at this stage.

 

[yorkie]

...There is a big difference - the covid numbers would have been exponentially worse if we had .... 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)

As for quarantine, I don't think many people are going to be rigidly sticking to the rules. As we saw earlier in the thread, even someone acting very responsibly was considered to be technically breaching quarantine rules. Our "quarantine" is also very different to the quarantine you get, say, New Zealand. It's more of an individual "lockdown" of sorts.

Our "quarantine" is for political reasons to pander to the "we must do something" brigade, and not for actual medical reasons.

 

[trainophile]

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.

 

[takno]

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.

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.

Probably most importantly there are people like Johnson, Hancock and Sturgeon who are aware that they have been making the decisions over the last 6 months, and for the sake of their reputations (and in one or two cases their consciences), they desperately need the decisions to have been right or worth it. They are already on the back foot because the actions they all took in seeding nursing homes with infected people have undoubtedly led to thousands of deaths, and the economic devastation is increasingly clear to all. It's going to be devastating for them personally if it turns out that the virus wasn't bad enough to justify that, or even worse that the vast majority of the harm from the virus was actually caused by the nursing home mess-up, or even that the unrelated deaths from lockdown were actually higher than the deaths from Covid.

Under those circumstances there are plenty of completely understandable individual reasons to cling onto the notion of Coronavirus as the greatest threat of our times. Even for ordinary people who had no power and just had to live through it, it's often important to cling to the sense of a worthwhile sacrifice. Even as it unravels it will be important to keep a narrative going that "nobody predicted this", however loudly and clearly a lot of people outside (and even inside) the bubble were saying it at the time.

You don't need a grand conspiracy or sinister plan to explain any of this. Believing in one is likely to make you unhappy in a way that isn't really warranted right now. More importantly it makes your voice and opinion much easier to ignore. Even the word conspiracy will make most people categorise you as a nutjob.

Honestly, most world-defining events are just like a rolling ball gathering moss. To think that there's some Machiavellian figure out there controlling events is just to buy into the ego trips of idiots like Cummings.

 

[island]

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.

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.

 

[The_Train]

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?

This is exactly my thinking as well - the Government have seen all these people heading off to plough their money into another country's economy and decided that they need to stop that and hope that by restricting travel abroad, people will head off with their tents to the Lake District for 2 weeks. It's no coincidence that the nations being restricted are popular holiday destinations with Brits...….