Should we go back into lockdown at this point?

[DB]

It's interesting that you say this, do you have a source to back it up? Everything I've seen says that the fatality/infection rate was about 2% for Spanish Flu [1] where the official numbers for Covid-19 are around 3%[2] . Naturally, since this is still "in flight" the numbers will change, but I've not seen anything that suggests Spanish Flu was "much more dangerous".

[1]https://www.biospace.com/article/compare-1918-spanish-influenza-pandemic-versus-covid-19/
[2] https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

So you don't think a virus which kills a lot of younger people is more dangerous than one which mostly kills people who have already reached somewhere around the average life expectancy?

 

[najaB]

That 2% estimate for spanish flu appears to be an IFR...

I'm not sure that it is but happy to be corrected if you have a source to hand.

So you don't think a virus which kills a lot of younger people is more dangerous than one which mostly kills people who have already reached somewhere around the average life expectancy?

That very much depends on if old people are somehow less valuable than young people.

 

[DB]

That very much depends on if old people are somehow less valuable than young people.

And this is the sort of emotive messaging which is unhelpful. And the brutal answer has to be yes, as practiced in hospitals every day under normal circumstances - treatments for all sorts of conditions will be provided for younger people in reasonable health which would not be provided for someone in poor health and at the average life expectancy.

We seem to have many with the view that in the current situation it's fine to blight the lives of younger people, and for people of all ages to die of treatable conditions, in order to try to prolong the lives of very elderly people in poor health for a few more months (and often failing at that anyway - Covid has been through about half the care homes in this country already).

 

[bramling]

I'm not sure that it is but happy to be corrected if you have a source to hand.
That very much depends on if old people are somehow less valuable than young people.

Death is part of the human life-cycle, something all of us will encounter at some point. We have to be realistic about a virus which is now sufficiently entrenched to be a fact of life which we have to live with.

 

[philosopher]

According to the BBC, the government is planning to introduce fines of up to £10,000 for refusing to self isolate if they test positive. I suspect this is an attempt to avoid another lockdown. My initial thoughts is that many just won’t bother getting a test if they have symptoms if they know they could be fined for not self isolating. The one off support payment may genuinely encourage more to self isolate though

People in England who refuse an order to self-isolate could be fined up to £10,000, the government has said.

The new legal duty requires people to self-isolate if they test positive for coronavirus, or are traced as a close contact, from 28 September.

New measures also include a one-off £500 support payment for those on lower incomes, and a penalty for employers who punish those told to self-isolate.

Hancock: Follow Covid rules or they will get tougher

The country is facing a "tipping point", the health secretary says, as the government considers further restrictions.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Yew]

The Conservatives do love a disproprtionate punishment.

 

[DB]

According to the BBC, the government is planning to introduce fines of up to £10,000 for refusing to self isolate if they test positive. I suspect this is an attempt to avoid another lockdown. My initial thoughts is that many just won’t bother getting a test if they have symptoms if they know they could be fined for not self isolating. The one off support payment may genuinely encourage more to self isolate though

Hancock: Follow Covid rules or they will get tougher

The country is facing a "tipping point", the health secretary says, as the government considers further restrictions.

www.bbc.co.uk

This will just mean that more people avoid tests, and the number of people giving false details in pubs, etc, will increase.

 

[Howardh]

According to the BBC, the government is planning to introduce fines of up to £10,000 for refusing to self isolate if they test positive. I suspect this is an attempt to avoid another lockdown. My initial thoughts is that many just won’t bother getting a test if they have symptoms if they know they could be fined for not self isolating. The one off support payment may genuinely encourage more to self isolate though

Hancock: Follow Covid rules or they will get tougher

The country is facing a "tipping point", the health secretary says, as the government considers further restrictions.

www.bbc.co.uk

How does the snooping, sorry, track and trace work? If they have your address and mobile number, well you could be anywhere answering your mobile. So are they calling at people's houses? What's the procedure??

 

[najaB]

And this is the sort of emotive messaging which is unhelpful. And the brutal answer has to be yes, as practiced in hospitals every day under normal circumstances - treatments for all sorts of conditions will be provided for younger people in reasonable health which would not be provided for someone in poor health and at the average life expectancy.

That doesn't make it any more dangerous. It might mean that the economic impact is higher, but a disease that kills 10 out of every 100 people it infects is equally dangerous irregardless of the ages of the people it infects. The only way it could be "less dangerous" is if you weight the outcome based on the ages of the victims.

 

[Yew]

That doesn't make it any more dangerous. It might mean that the economic impact is higher, but a disease that kills 10 out of every 100 people it infects is equally dangerous irregardless of the ages of the people it infects.

If you take the naïve measure of lost lives, then perhaps, however if we consider the loss of quality-adjusted life years, then it's obvious that age has a factor.

 

[DB]

If you take the naïve measure of lost lives, then perhaps, however if we consider the loss of quality-adjusted life years, then it's obvious that age has a factor.

Quite.

Najab seems to have ignored my point that exactly these sorts of judgements are made all the time in hospitals - and the principal of quality adjusted life years is what underpins these decisions.

 

[takno]

That doesn't make it any more dangerous. It might mean that the economic impact is higher, but a disease that kills 10 out of every 100 people it infects is equally dangerous irregardless of the ages of the people it infects. The only way it could be "less dangerous" is if you weight the outcome based on the ages of the victims.

We do weigh these outcomes all the time, and indeed we should do. Pretending that a few miserable isolated months of life for the nearly dead is the same value as the life of somebody with 40 or 50 years ahead of them is morally repugnant.

 

[brad465]

There is a column on the front page of the Sunday Telegraph, and this paywall article, stating Sir Graham Brady is planning to put forward an amendment to the Coronavirus Act that ensures Parliament now gets to vote on any measures linked to lockdown and future restrictions:

Senior Tories plot backlash against PM's emergency curbs on freedoms during pandemic

It's time for Parliamentary scrutiny of Covid-19 restrictions, says chairman of the powerful 1922 Committee of backbench Conservative MPs

www.telegraph.co.uk

Senior Tories plot backlash against PM's emergency curbs on freedoms during pandemic

It's time for Parliamentary scrutiny of Covid-19 restrictions, says chairman of the powerful 1922 Committee of backbench Conservative MPs

Given who is tabling it, there's every possibility if the opposition side with it, the Government will lose, which combined with the backbench revolt brewing anyway is not only potential good news for less restrictions in future, but bad news for Johnson and the cabinet.

 

[yorksrob]

There is a column on the front page of the Sunday Telegraph, and this paywall article, stating Sir Graham Brady is planning to put forward an amendment to the Coronavirus Act that ensures Parliament now gets to vote on any measures linked to lockdown and future restrictions:

Senior Tories plot backlash against PM's emergency curbs on freedoms during pandemic

It's time for Parliamentary scrutiny of Covid-19 restrictions, says chairman of the powerful 1922 Committee of backbench Conservative MPs

www.telegraph.co.uk

Given who is tabling it, there's every possibility if the opposition side with it, the Government will lose, which combined with the backbench revolt brewing anyway is not only potential good news for less restrictions in future, but bad news for Johnson and the cabinet.

It is about time.

 

[Huntergreed]

I see it’s to become law that you must self isolate it you have a positive test or get asked to by test and trace in England, with fines starting from £1,000 for breaches.

Yet another step backward towards authoritarianism

 

[Bletchleyite]

I see it’s to become law that you must self isolate it you have a positive test or get asked to by test and trace in England, with fines starting from £1,000 for breaches.

Yet another step backward towards authoritarianism

Not isolating if you test positive is a pretty despicable act. Though I believe you should receive 100% of salary if you can't work.

 

[Huntergreed]

Not isolating if you test positive is a pretty despicable act. Though I believe you should receive 100% of salary if you can't work.

I agree if you test positive it’s quite poor if you don’t, but really if you are asked by track and trace seems a bit harsher

 

[Yew]

Not isolating if you test positive is a pretty despicable act. Though I believe you should receive 100% of salary if you can't work.

It's no if you have transmissible covid though, it's if you have virus fragments, or a false positive, or have been in contact with one of the above.

Regarding salary, it should be higher, as compensation for the imposition.

 

[yorkie]

Not isolating if you test positive is a pretty despicable act. Though I believe you should receive 100% of salary if you can't work.

But merely if asked to by test and trace in England could be a step too far.

 

[bramling]

I agree if you test positive it’s quite poor if you don’t, but really if you are asked by track and trace seems a bit harsher

I agree. To be honest I don’t have a problem with a clampdown on people who test positive and fail to isolate (but why now, wouldn’t this have been equally appropriate back in March?). However it’s a bit much for the tracing - we were in a castle yesterday which was almost entirely outdoors where details were taken of entry and exit times, would we have to isolate if we happened to coincide with someone positive, even if we didn’t get near anyone?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Sep 2020 ==

It's no if you have transmissible covid though, it's if you have virus fragments, or a false positive, or have been in contact with one of the above.

Regarding salary, it should be higher, as compensation for the imposition.

£10 a day extra would probably do for many people. It got them out to restaurants in droves last month after all!

 

[Freightmaster]

Not isolating if you test positive is a pretty despicable act.

Agreed - and furthermore, why would anyone go for a test in the first place
if they are not prepared to deal with the consequences of a positive result?





MARK

 

[STINT47]

If I or a member of my household tested positive I would isolate.

If track and trace called I would be very reluctant. As I understand it track and trace do not tell you who tested positive so you have no idea if you were in close contact with them for half an hour or if it's someone who sat on the other side of the resturant and arrived just as you were getting your coat to leave.

If you expect people to lock themself away for two weeks you really need to give them more info and assurance that it's worth the sacrifice of their liberty. Of course the way it's set up this won't happen and is another reason why track and trace is a bit of a mess.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed - and furthermore, why would anyone go for a test in the first place
if they are not prepared to deal with the consequences of a positive result?

Well, quite - there's clearly still a way round it for anyone who is insistent on not isolating or not causing their friends to isolate - pretend it's a cold and don't get a test.

Not to be encouraged of course.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Sep 2020 ==

If track and trace called I would be very reluctant. As I understand it track and trace do not tell you who tested positive so you have no idea if you were in close contact with them for half an hour or if it's someone who sat on the other side of the resturant and arrived just as you were getting your coat to leave.

Track and trace are only meant to be interested in anyone who's been within 2m of you for 15 minutes or more or within 1m for less than that beyond just walking past. But you indeed don't know if, when rushed, they are just asking whole restaurants or hotels to isolate. I agree a bit more openness (without giving a name) would be better.

TBH even though testing isn't perfect in such cases, I think they should reduce it to say 4 days with a test at the end. They'd get more compliance overall - I reckon more enough to offset the lack of accuracy.

 

[adc82140]

The amount of people wanting to get a test will fall, positive results will fall, they can claim test & trace is now working and "cases" are falling, everyone's happy [/sarcasm]

 

[hwl]

If I or a member of my household tested positive I would isolate.

If track and trace called I would be very reluctant. As I understand it track and trace do not tell you who tested positive so you have no idea if you were in close contact with them for half an hour or if it's someone who sat on the other side of the resturant and arrived just as you were getting your coat to leave.

If you expect people to lock themself away for two weeks you really need to give them more info and assurance that it's worth the sacrifice of their liberty. Of course the way it's set up this won't happen and is another reason why track and trace is a bit of a mess.

Yep and lots of the people seeking reassurance when called by track and trace are trying to get tests. The problem is the government assumed they would just followed the call instructions with no test...
Hence all the extra demand for tests that "surprised" the government.

 

[Scrotnig]

Scenario: someone is called by the tracing people, and asked to name their close contacts. They maliciously name someone they don't like. This person is now legally obliged to not leave the house for 14 days, and with no notice to make caring arrangements etc. What protections are there against this?

 

[Huntergreed]

Scenario: someone is called by the tracing people, and asked to name their close contacts. They maliciously name someone they don't like. This person is now legally obliged to not leave the house for 14 days, and with no notice to make caring arrangements etc. What protections are there against this?

None whatsoever. I totally disagree with them mandating self isolation only if you’re asked by track and trace. It seems wildly disproportionate and I hope that it won’t come up here North of the border (although knowing Sturgeon she’ll find a way to implement it in a slightly different format to England.)

 

[adc82140]

It's given me an idea. If I were to test positive, I'd tell T&T that I'd been in close contact with Boris Johnson, Matt Hancock, Dominic Cummings....

 

[Andy Pacer]

It's given me an idea. If I were to test positive, I'd tell T&T that I'd been in close contact with Boris Johnson, Matt Hancock, Dominic Cummings....

I'm sure they can continue 'running the country' while isolating!

 

[DelayRepay]

It's given me an idea. If I were to test positive, I'd tell T&T that I'd been in close contact with Boris Johnson, Matt Hancock, Dominic Cummings....

If we have an outbreak in my local pub, they will be looking for all of those, along with Lord Lucan, Micky Mouse and Elvis Presley, according to the names in the book!