The reasons for going into lockdown

[bramling]

Really?!! I think most people were perfectly well aware of why we went into lockdown. What the government has singularly failed to do is manage people's expectations of when we will come out. There were many who truly believed that it would all be lifted at the first three week review (several posting just that on this group, refusing to believe otherwise) and the government did little to disabuse them of this view. Admittedly, there were a few "this is a marathon, not a sprint" messages, but it wasn't hammered home what exactly this meant. Too many people have been allowed to get their hopes up (encouraged by the newspapers), only to have them dashed. The result being that when someone like Nicola Sturgeon tells it like it is, people don't want to believe it. Yes, people need to see the light at the end of the tunnel, but all these false dawns are a real issue.

To be honest, I think the government and their advisors were expecting the numbers of new infections and numbers in hospital to have dropped faster and more significantly than they have. Compared to London, where the drop off has been pretty much as expected, in some regions the numbers are barely falling at all.

Okay, why did we go into lockdown?

To get the infection rate down?
To get the death rate down?
To get the R rate down?
To maintain the R rate down?
To stop the NHS being overwhelmed?
To stop the virus spreading to parts of the country where it didn’t have a foothold?
To protect key workers in going about their work?
To eliminate C19 completely and allow us to start a fresh?
To buy us time to implement social distancing measures?
To buy us time to uplift NHS capacity?
To enforce social distancing?
Because peers were doing it?
Some of all of the above?

I’ve heard all the above reasons quoted at various times.

It really would help if people knew what we are actually collectively trying to achieve at this point.

I’m no fan of Sturgeon, in fact I despise her, however on this she has been clear and open what the position is, leaving it open to scrutiny if people disagree. England’s position feels much more muddled.

 

[Belperpete]

Okay, why did we go into lockdown?

To get the infection rate down?
To get the death rate down?
To stop the NHS being overwhelmed?
To stop the virus spreading to parts of the country where it didn’t have a foothold?
To protect key workers in going about their work?
To eliminate C19 completely and allow us to start a fresh?
To buy us time to implement social distancing measures?
To buy us time to uplift NHS capacity?
To enforce social distancing?
Some of all of the above?

I’ve heard all the above reasons quoted at various times.

It really would help if people knew what we are actually collectively trying to achieve at this point.

I’m no fan of Sturgeon, in fact I despise her, however on this she has been clear and open what the position is, leaving it open to scrutiny if people disagree. England’s position feels much more muddled.

I think most people were quite clear about why we went INTO lockdown (we needed to slow the spread of the virus before it killed millions of people, totally overwhelming the NHS and so leading to even further deaths from people with other conditions who would not get treated). And it was only because people understood this, and accepted it, that compliance was so good.

What was not generally understood, or even explained, was the long-term aim of the lockdown and how we would get out of it. Now that the short-term objective of getting the virus under control has been achieved, the lack of a commonly-agreed long-term objective is what is causing problems.

 

[bramling]

I think most people were quite clear about why we went INTO lockdown (we needed to slow the spread of the virus before it killed millions of people, totally overwhelming the NHS and so leading to even further deaths from people with other conditions who would not get treated). And it was only because people understood this, and accepted it, that compliance was so good.

What was not generally understood, or even explained, was the long-term aim of the lockdown and how we would get out of it. Now that the short-term objective of getting the virus under control has been achieved, the lack of a commonly-agreed long-term objective is what is causing problems.

Yes I think that kind of follows my line of thought. We went into it essentially as a panic, infection rates were soaring out of control, people weren’t following voluntary measures and needed a kick up the backside, and pressure was building from various quarters (“for goodness sake just call a flaming lockdown” was common to hear at the time).

Like you say, because we went into it on a rushed and reactive basis, we don’t really know what we’re actually trying to get out of it. Given the massive economic costs there should be a really tangible justification for every single continuing day, and if there is then it doesn’t feel like it’s being communicated well at the moment.

To get people to buy-in they need to know what the objective is. “Save the NHS” is too vague, especially when people are hearing of unused Nightingale hospitals, for example.

 

[Mag_seven]

I had another look at the Boris Johnson lockdown announcement from 23rd March - there is quite a lot of cause and effect in it but I think the message that the health service should not be overwhelmed is the main reason:

 

[bramling]

I had another look at the Boris Johnson lockdown announcement from 23rd March - there is quite a lot of cause and effect in it but I think the message that the health service should not be overwhelmed is the main reason:

Which I think was perfectly okay for mid-March, but we’re now coming up to two months further on and this message is now very stale and simply hasn’t been refreshed.

 

[Carlisle]

Had Boris or whoever was PM refused a lockdown & adopted the Swedish method, given our current death rates they’d now be out of office & at least 100 times more unpopular than Tony Blair, even if history ultimately proves adopting the Swedish approach would’ve ultimately cost hardly any more lives

 

[HH]

I had another look at the Boris Johnson lockdown announcement from 23rd March - there is quite a lot of cause and effect in it but I think the message that the health service should not be overwhelmed is the main reason:

I think so too. But what would cause the NHS to be overwhelmed is too many people catching the virus at once, so the two are interlinked (and many of the other suggested reasons are too, like the R rate, which is pretty much the same as the infection rate).

 

[Belperpete]

I had another look at the Boris Johnson lockdown announcement from 23rd March - there is quite a lot of cause and effect in it but I think the message that the health service should not be overwhelmed is the main reason:

The idea of a public health system seems to be anathema to most Americans (seen as a form of "communism"): I have often mused what they (and perhaps Trump in particular) must be making of our "Save the NHS" mantra.

 

[Belperpete]

Yes I think that kind of follows my line of thought. We went into it essentially as a panic, infection rates were soaring out of control, people weren’t following voluntary measures and needed a kick up the backside, and pressure was building from various quarters (“for goodness sake just call a flaming lockdown” was common to hear at the time).

Like you say, because we went into it on a rushed and reactive basis, we don’t really know what we’re actually trying to get out of it. Given the massive economic costs there should be a really tangible justification for every single continuing day, and if there is then it doesn’t feel like it’s being communicated well at the moment.

To get people to buy-in they need to know what the objective is. “Save the NHS” is too vague, especially when people are hearing of unused Nightingale hospitals, for example.

Yes, I agree.

Boris likes to compare himself with Churchill, but in reality he is anything but. Churchill had the back-bone to espouse policies that were decidedly contrary to public opinion at the time, and to carry people with him. Boris seems to just follow public opinion, or what is best for his political career (like with Brexit). Boris only called the lockdown once public opinion was demanding it. I likewise worry that he may ease restrictions because public opinion is calling for it.

 

[bramling]

Yes, I agree.

Boris likes to compare himself with Churchill, but in reality he is anything but. Churchill had the back-bone to espouse policies that were decidedly contrary to public opinion at the time, and to carry people with him. Boris seems to just follow public opinion, or what is best for his political career (like with Brexit). Boris only called the lockdown once public opinion was demanding it. I likewise worry that he may ease restrictions because public opinion is calling for it.

Yes ultimately I think the lockdown was a response to public opinion. My workplace, for example, would probably have walked out en-masse if we’d gone on much longer with people making no attempt to do distancing, and to be fair there was little government guidance at the time for joe public to do it.

Had places like mine refused to work (or in practice mass numbers gone off with a cough) Britain would have been in real trouble as basic functions would have been compromised. We saw an element of what this might have looked like with the empty supermarket shelves, albeit caused by a slightly different reason.

Ultimately I think it was that which brought in the lockdown, combined with a worry about what it might subsequently look like it things got bad and we were out of step with other peer countries.

We might have avoided lockdown altogether if we’d taken advantage of the head start. With hindsight it’s utterly incredible that features like supermarket checkout screens have only appeared in the last few weeks, and one can’t help but wonder how much of this has come from staff pressure rather than edict from above. My workplace did some separation measures quite early on, but this was done on own initiative rather than by decree (and we still have one idiot who seems unsettled by the computers being in a slightly different position to normal and keeps moving his one back to its established position...)

 

[Belperpete]

We might have avoided lockdown altogether if we’d taken advantage of the head start.

Not sure I would go that far, but it is patently obvious that the government did little but sit on its hands and wait to see how things panned out, rather than doing any serious preparation work (like checking the supplies of PPE were adequate, for starters).

 

[ABB125]

I think the reason was the infections predictions coming from, for example, Professor Ferguson. I seem to recall seeing on estimate of "between 20,000 and 200,000 deaths" or something similar, with that order of magnitude of difference between the upper and lower figures (such a wide range that they might as well have said "we don't know"). I think the upper limit of these predictions caused panic in government (and the population), hence the lockdown.

 

[HH]

I think the reason was the infections predictions coming from, for example, Professor Ferguson. I seem to recall seeing on estimate of "between 20,000 and 200,000 deaths" or something similar, with that order of magnitude of difference between the upper and lower figures (such a wide range that they might as well have said "we don't know"). I think the upper limit of these predictions caused panic in government (and the population), hence the lockdown.

Well, it's pretty clear now that the lower figure was optimistic. I saw figures of 250k and 500k estimated for the upper. We will never know how accurate they were.

 

[scotrail158713]

I think it was a combination of not overwhelming the NHS, and also to buy time to build up capacity. Ultimately, people didn’t want to have the situation that occurred in some other countries where it ended up as a case of choosing who lives and who dies.

 

[Mogster]

Well, it's pretty clear now that the lower figure was optimistic.

Is it? The current death figures include people who would have died anyway but happened to have a CoV2 infection. Most of hospital deaths recorded on the CoV2 stats aren’t actually being treated on ICU or respiratory wards.

What‘s certain is that we aren’t anywhere near 30,000 deaths “from” CoV2.

 

[43066]

Okay, why did we go into lockdown?

To get the infection rate down?
To get the death rate down?
To get the R rate down?
To maintain the R rate down?
To stop the NHS being overwhelmed?
To stop the virus spreading to parts of the country where it didn’t have a foothold?
To protect key workers in going about their work?
To eliminate C19 completely and allow us to start a fresh?
To buy us time to implement social distancing measures?
To buy us time to uplift NHS capacity?
To enforce social distancing?
Because peers were doing it?
Some of all of the above?

I’ve heard all the above reasons quoted at various times.

It really would help if people knew what we are actually collectively trying to achieve at this point.

I’m no fan of Sturgeon, in fact I despise her, however on this she has been clear and open what the position is, leaving it open to scrutiny if people disagree. England’s position feels much more muddled.

I suspect the real reason we went into it was simply because a political judgment was made that it was necessary for the government to be seen to be doing more.

The initial strategy of isolation of vulnerable groups, and “herd immunity”, was presumably viewed as insufficient due to rising public panic, and appearing increasingly out of step with the more draconian messages being abroad.

Like you say, because we went into it on a rushed and reactive basis, we don’t really know what we’re actually trying to get out of it. Given the massive economic costs there should be a really tangible justification for every single continuing day, and if there is then it doesn’t feel like it’s being communicated well at the moment.

The government was too slow to react at the start of the crisis and have now painted themselves into an unfortunate corner. The UK death rate is unpalatably high despite simultaneously being in a strict lockdown which is destroying the economy by the day.

The emotive messaging about saving lives, apparently at all costs (no doubt intended to encourage compliance with social distancing etc.) has whipped up a great deal of panic and mass hysteria. This will make it politically very difficult for lockdown to be relaxed, even as the dire economic consequences of the current strategy become increasingly clear.

Is it? The current death figures include people who would have died anyway but happened to have a CoV2 infection. Most of hospital deaths recorded on the CoV2 stats aren’t actually being treated on ICU or respiratory wards.

What‘s certain is that we aren’t anywhere near 30,000 deaths “from” CoV2.

That’s an interesting point, thanks. It certainly explains why that the death rates are often described in terms of people dying “with” the virus, as opposed to “from” it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because the mechanism of death is respiratory based, it would be very hard to count people who died from it. Consider a severe asthmatic - how do you know their COVID wasn't actually asymptomatic and what they presented with wasn't just a severe asthma attack with a different cause?

Excess deaths is a more interesting measure - i.e. how much above the average death rate are we for this time of year?

 

[43066]

Because the mechanism of death is respiratory based, it would be very hard to count people who died from it. Consider a severe asthmatic - how do you know their COVID wasn't actually asymptomatic and what they presented with wasn't just a severe asthma attack with a different cause?

Excess deaths is a more interesting measure - i.e. how much above the average death rate are we for this time of year?

But it certainly implies that the Covid “death rate” is overstated, as an unknown % of “Covid” victims might well have died of something else. If someone died in a car crash, but also tested positive for the condition, presumably they would also be included in the stats as someone who “died with Covid”.

If it’s true that deaths of people who aren’t being treated in ICU/on ventilators are being included, that seems even more misleading, as presumably it would be impossible for someone to die of (as opposed to with) Covid without requiring such treatment.

Excess deaths is probably more revealing, I agree. Relating that back to the OP, why are we in a lockdown which is destroying the economy (the Bank of England is now forecasting the worst recession for three hundred years)?

To save lives? To protect the NHS?

Preventing excess deaths was always a secondary objective. The unpalatable truth is that a lot more excess deaths of vulnerable people will occur until a vaccine is developed. Sadly that’s down to nature.

The main aim, so far as I understood it, was to prevent the NHS from being overrun. Yet we are now told that the Nightingale hospitals are being mothballed, so there is clearly plenty of spare capacity in the system. Yet the lockdown continues!

The government’s current strategy is looking more confused and indefensible by the day.

 

[HH]

Is it? The current death figures include people who would have died anyway but happened to have a CoV2 infection. Most of hospital deaths recorded on the CoV2 stats aren’t actually being treated on ICU or respiratory wards.

What‘s certain is that we aren’t anywhere near 30,000 deaths “from” CoV2.

Do you have evidence to back your first assertion?

Or your second? Excess deaths are estimated at c.26k for just 3 weeks; only c.18k were registered as C19 on the death certificates. Currently nobody knows (well, unless you are the exception) what has caused that difference.

In those three weeks, just 3,475, 6,213 and 8,758 death certificates mentioned Covid-19. This still leaves 2,607, 1,783 and 3,096 “extra” people dying. Not of—or even “with”—Covid-19, but seemingly for some other reason. This is the gap in our knowledge where many of the answers to our questions about the “true” death toll will lie.

 

[Mogster]

Do you have evidence to back your first assertion?

Or your second? Excess deaths are estimated at c.26k for just 3 weeks; only c.18k were registered as C19 on the death certificates. Currently nobody knows (well, unless you are the exception) what has caused that difference.



People need to get a grip here. Stop making unsubstantiated claims. Get some bloody evidence before pressing that 'Post' icon.

The number of people dying from CoV2 infections on ICU wards was published by the Intensive Care, National Audit & Research Centre, ICNARC. The stats up to 7th April reported 871 deaths out of 7978 occurring in ICU, 89% hadn’t died in ICU. They were referenced in the Telegraph and other sources.

Will the UK coronavirus death toll really be as high as we are told?

Predictions Britain may end up with largest coronavirus death toll branded 'absurd' by some experts

www.telegraph.co.uk

The latest report from the Intensive Care, National Audit & Research Centre, ICNARC, shows that around 89 per cent of people dying with coronavirus never made it to intensive care. As of April 9, when the most recent figures were compiled, just 871 patients had died in intensive care out of 7,978 deaths. It suggests that the vast majority of people are dying on other wards, perhaps from other conditions.

Obviously there will be a variety of reasons for this, but 89% is still very high. As I understand it regional ICU capacity has never been exceeded and even complex therapies like ECMO aren’t at 100% utelisation. So it seems people that require ICU treatment have in the whole been receiving it.

That people are dying from other causes and being attributed to Covid is suggested by recent ONS data. The ONS have published stats for Coronavirus deaths compared to other common causes. Fig 4

Deaths involving COVID-19, England and Wales - Office for National Statistics

Number of deaths registered each month in England and Wales, including deaths involving the coronavirus (COVID-19), by age, sex and region.

www.ons.gov.uk

All common alternative causes are suspiciously low, down below 5 year average levels. Deaths by coronary heart disease are down by 25%. It’s reasonable to assume that people haven’t stopped dying from these common conditions but their continued deaths are being attributed to Covid.

According to the ONS 43% of people who appear on their Covid mortality stats are age 85+

Coronavirus (COVID-19) latest insights - Office for National Statistics

The latest data and trends about the coronavirus (COVID-18) pandemic from the Office for National Statistics and other sources.

www.ons.gov.uk

The majority of deaths involving COVID-19 have been among people aged 65 years and over (24,009 out of 27,356), with 43% (10,410) of these occurring in the over-85 age group.

Over UK life expectancy, at that age the probability of dying within the next year is over 10%. It’s very difficult to separate the “normal” deaths in this age group from deaths “with covid”. Both Ferguson and Whitty have said when asked that up to 1/2 to 2/3 of these cases would have died in the next year with it without Covid.

Will we ever know the true death rate “from” Covid, no. It’s made especially hard to tell the “with” deaths from the “from” deaths because of the advanced age of most of the patients. Have anywhere near 30,000 People died “from” Covid in the UK? That seems very unlikely.

 

[Freightmaster]

A well thought out and balanced article arguing that lockdown is doing immeasurably more harm than good:

Ten reasons to end the lockdown now

Writing in this magazine a month ago, I applauded the government’s stated aim of trying to follow the science in dealing with Covid. Such promises are easier made than kept. Following science means understanding science. It means engaging with rival interpretations of the limited data in order...

www.spectator.co.uk

1. You cannot understand the significance of this virus simply by looking at the raw death figures
2. The policy response to the virus has been driven by modelling of Covid – not other factors
3. We don’t know if lockdown is working
4. We should ease the lockdown to save lives
5. Lockdown is not sustainable
6. Lockdown directly harms those most likely to be affected by coronavirus
7. Lockdown directly harms those who will be largely unaffected by coronavirus
8. The health service has not been overwhelmed nor likely to be
9. The virus is almost certainly not a constant threat
10. People can be trusted to behave sensibly

MARK

 

[bramling]

To save lives? To protect the NHS?

Preventing excess deaths was always a secondary objective. The unpalatable truth is that a lot more excess deaths of vulnerable people will occur until a vaccine is developed. Sadly that’s down to nature.

The main aim, so far as I understood it, was to prevent the NHS from being overrun. Yet we are now told that the Nightingale hospitals are being mothballed, so there is clearly plenty of spare capacity in the system. Yet the lockdown continues!

The government’s current strategy is looking more confused and indefensible by the day.

It does, sadly, seem that way. There's plenty of critical material on the internet, which whilst some can be put down the usual political opponents scoring points, it does bug me that in many cases it's hard to seriously dent the arguments put forward. Whilst there's clearly an element of hindsight, it does seem difficult to escape the conclusion that we squandered an opportunity to have a head-start.

In terms of the lockdown I've come to the conclusion that it was essentially the result of pressure from various quarters, it simply became untenable not to have one. Ultimately insufficient steps were taken to arrest the spread of the virus during February and especially into the first half of March. It will be very interesting when the inevitable reviews happen to hear exactly what advice came from the government's scientists. One thing possibly in Boris's defence is that I remember hearing at the time that Boris was contemplating a sooner lockdown, but the police were against it as they felt there weren't the resources to fully enforce it.

Unfortunately missed opportunities in February and March have put us in a position where we're now trying to fight a much more developed fire than might have been the case. When you think about things, the fact that at one point we had the PM, Health Secretary, Chief Medical Officer and heir to the throne infected is pretty bad.

 

[Monarch010]

Ideally, people presenting symptoms would be tested and if positive would be quarantined. Their contacts would be traced and also isolated.
Britain didn't have the capacity to do this (neither did other European countries) so a blanket lockdown was the only alternative.

 

[Mogster]

It does, sadly, seem that way. There's plenty of critical material on the internet, which whilst some can be put down the usual political opponents scoring points, it does bug me that in many cases it's hard to seriously dent the arguments put forward. Whilst there's clearly an element of hindsight, it does seem difficult to escape the conclusion that we squandered an opportunity to have a head-start.

In terms of the lockdown I've come to the conclusion that it was essentially the result of pressure from various quarters, it simply became untenable not to have one. Ultimately insufficient steps were taken to arrest the spread of the virus during February and especially into the first half of March. It will be very interesting when the inevitable reviews happen to hear exactly what advice came from the government's scientists. One thing possibly in Boris's defence is that I remember hearing at the time that Boris was contemplating a sooner lockdown, but the police were against it as they felt there weren't the resources to fully enforce it.

Unfortunately missed opportunities in February and March have put us in a position where we're now trying to fight a much more developed fire than might have been the case. When you think about things, the fact that at one point we had the PM, Health Secretary, Chief Medical Officer and heir to the throne infected is pretty bad.

When reviewing the response of European governments you have to take into account the fact that epidemiologists have over egged the danger from emerging infections over and over. When you cry wolf every few years for 40 years it’s understandable that your target audience will take your recommendations with some scepticism.

That’s one of the things that concerns me about the post Covid era. Any emerging infection appears over the horizon in the next few years and there’s going to be immense pressure on global governments for immediate extreme measures again.

 

[bramling]

When reviewing the response of European governments you have to take into account the fact that epidemiologists have over egged the danger from emerging infections over and over. When you cry wolf every few years for 40 years it’s understandable that your target audience will take your recommendations with some scepticism.

That’s one of the things that concerns me about the post Covid era. Any emerging infection appears over the horizon in the next few years and there’s going to be immense pressure on global governments for immediate extreme measures again.

An excellent point there. I think this certainly provide some justification for some of the earlier inaction, although rather less so going into February and March when we could see what was going on in Italy as well as having got a clearer picture of what had actually happened in China.

A very good point about the longer term.

 

[HLE]

It does, sadly, seem that way. There's plenty of critical material on the internet, which whilst some can be put down the usual political opponents scoring points, it does bug me that in many cases it's hard to seriously dent the arguments put forward. Whilst there's clearly an element of hindsight, it does seem difficult to escape the conclusion that we squandered an opportunity to have a head-start.

In terms of the lockdown I've come to the conclusion that it was essentially the result of pressure from various quarters, it simply became untenable not to have one. Ultimately insufficient steps were taken to arrest the spread of the virus during February and especially into the first half of March. It will be very interesting when the inevitable reviews happen to hear exactly what advice came from the government's scientists. One thing possibly in Boris's defence is that I remember hearing at the time that Boris was contemplating a sooner lockdown, but the police were against it as they felt there weren't the resources to fully enforce it.

Unfortunately missed opportunities in February and March have put us in a position where we're now trying to fight a much more developed fire than might have been the case. When you think about things, the fact that at one point we had the PM, Health Secretary, Chief Medical Officer and heir to the throne infected is pretty bad.

You've hit the nail on the head there. Missed opportunities indeed, although during February at least the majority of people were telling me that it was nothing more than flu, and things would continue as normal. Contrary to my early prediction that it would hit the west hard - even frontline NHS friends said it was nothing more than a bit of flu at the time.

Boris has indeed followed public opinion, in my opinion, and that's why we weren't on lockdown earlier. It only started to hit home in the different circles I move in when the lockdown was announced.

But despite his faults, I'd take him as PM over Corbyn and Abbott especially in a situation like this anyday.

 

[LAX54]

Not sure why we did not restrict travellers from 'known' hotspots coming in via Ports and Airports, right back to late Feb, early March, and even now, I do not think there is an actuall ban ? Stiil Daily Flights to/from JFK etc
Did we 'lockdown' two weeks too late ? There has been so much information, and mis-information over the past months, I do know what is real anymore ! It si interesting when you read local COVID figures for around the Country, which on a Town or County basis, in reality, and taking into account a normal 'flu season' and fatalities, come over as quite low ! Now there are reports coming in, that some Hosptals have been very much underused,whilst all non urgent cases cancelled nationwide, some hospitals to be reported..'it's been like a ghost town here'
The longer lockdown goes on, the more people will flout it, even now, the roads are far busier than there were just a week ago, more people out 'exercising'
People need to gte back to work, before there is no work to go to as for the 14 day Airport quarantine (does it apply to sea ports?? ) too late now, should have done that at the start, not 3/4 of the way through

 

[Neen Sollars]

This thread is headed "The reasons for going into lockdown."

Bojo`s first instinct was to ride it out - keep the economy going in the hope of developing a "herd immunity" to get through it. His initial broadcasts gave a sombre message, "many of you will lose loved ones". He was preparing us for the worse case scenario perhaps 250 or 350,000 deaths from C19. We must remember Bojo was only elected in December 2019 with a massive majority, his vision was to rebuild a post EU UK into a dynamic world power the envy of the world. He could immediately see that a lockdown would destroy the economy and his dream, which is why he resisted it. He knew Corbyn was finished, Labour would now have a credible leader, the domestic economy already weak from the calamitous Mrs May government would be ruined for years. The way would be open again for a war to herald a socialist government at the next election. His dreams have been shattered, it is not only C19 which has left him a shadow of his former self.
So they got to him, all in his ear, saying the price was too much, the public would not stand seeing scenes repeated here as they saw in Italy. "They" some of his cabinet, "leading scientists" brought in. The likes of the discredited Prof Ferguson who apparently over reacted during the BSE outbreak, predicting mass deaths, the public cannot handle it, you must lockdown and closedown. And so we have, and there is little hope in sight of returning to normal. So the reason for going into lockdown was that Boris was persuaded to change his mind. I think he knows and we know that he will not win the next election.

What the pandemic has shown us is that the NHS and PHE were totally unprepared for a pandemic, our wonderful NHS is not wonderful at all. If our NHS is the envy of the world why has no other nation copied it?
The pandemic has shown that lifestyle choice of obesity in the UK (40/50% obese) leaves that person vulnerable to an even earlier C19 death. Unfortunately those with pre existing medical issues are left exposed as are some ethnic minorities genetically. Those in care homes have been sacrificed, lots and lots of stories of elderly being discharged and returned to care homes after treatment in hospitals which are treating C19 patients. Most if not all available PPE diverted to NHS, not care homes.
I do not think fat shaming is yet a crime, but today the government announce we have all got to get fit, they are far too polite to say what we all see around us. Have you noticed the number of overweight people, mostly young, suddenly appearing in their outfits doing running and physical exercise? Better late than never. Is the penny starting to drop?
I collated some data during Brexit which seeing as the UK left the EU on 31/1/2020 (Q&A with a minister one punter did not realise we had left) so cannot be bothered to check if 2019 figures are available, but deaths in UK in 2018 616,014 divide by 365 = 1687 per day. The four winter months are the worst for deaths and surprisingly the death rate was below the average until April of this year. So if 350 poor souls have died from C19 yesterday spare a thought for the other 1200 or so and their loved ones who do not get a mention. It would be interesting to have official figures as to exactly how many people have died in the UK so far this year. Exactly how many excess deaths are there?

 

[JonathanH]

It would be interesting to have official figures as to exactly how many people have died in the UK so far this year. Exactly how many excess deaths are there?

Extrapolation suggests something just short of 60,000 as set out here.

https://www.actuaries.org.uk/documents/england-wales-mortality-monitor-covid-19-update-week-17-2020

 

[LAX54]

Extrapolation suggests something just short of 60,000 as set out here.

https://www.actuaries.org.uk/documents/england-wales-mortality-monitor-covid-19-update-week-17-2020

Found this on the web....

https://fullfact.org/health/coronavirus-compare-influenza/

Seasonal flu is still a major killer, which contributes to the rise in death rates during colder months, and to the overloading of medical systems in winter. Dr Suzanna McDonald, national programme lead for influenza at Public Health England, warned: “Whilst the flu is common, it can be deadly for older adults, very young children and people with underlying health conditions.”

The WHO estimates that between 290,000 and 650,000 respiratory deaths globally each year are associated with seasonal influenza.

Public Health England estimates that on average 17,000 people have died from the flu in England annually between 2014/15 and 2018/19.