You must stay at home as much as possible

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not blaming the public. As I alluded to on here, had I not had the incredibly useful resource of this forum, I may well have been in the same boat.

I'm just noting that for the past month and a bit, my requirements have largely been there, buried in the guidance. I wonder how many other people could have benefitted from that, had the Government and other organisations not been so keen to obscure that guidance with innacurate messaging.

Indeed, the whole thing was and is overcomplex and not at all well presented.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

I'm not blaming the public. As I alluded to on here, had I not had the incredibly useful resource of this forum, I may well have been in the same boat.

I'm just noting that for the past month and a bit, my requirements have largely been there, buried in the guidance. I wonder how many other people could have benefitted from that, had the Government and other organisations not been so keen to obscure that guidance with innacurate messaging.

Well I'm blaming the public! Not all of them obviously but those who, even now, are posting in Facebook and Twitter that they're not leaving their home until there's a vaccine and anyone who does without good reason is being irresponsible and spreading the deadly killer virus.

 

[yorkie]

It's a very small, albeit extremely vocal, minority of the public.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well I'm blaming the public! Not all of them obviously but those who, even now, are posting in Facebook and Twitter that they're not leaving their home until there's a vaccine and anyone who does without good reason is being irresponsible and spreading the deadly killer virus.

As long as I'm not paying that's up to them. If anything, with jobs likely to be at a premium, people choosing not to do them might help make them available to those who want one but don't have one.

 

[DB]

It's a very small, albeit extremely vocal, minority of the public.

It is - but they seem to be having an impact out of all proportion to their actual number!

 

[yorksrob]

Well I'm blaming the public! Not all of them obviously but those who, even now, are posting in Facebook and Twitter that they're not leaving their home until there's a vaccine and anyone who does without good reason is being irresponsible and spreading the deadly killer virus.

Well, I'm not blaming the public for the guidance being obscured by the Government and other organisations. If members of the public are disseminating false information, that's another issue !

 

[birchesgreen]

What replies have people had from emails about this message?

I think it’s well out of order for you to try to imply it's the fault of the general public for not understanding the government's communications tbh

Why is it out of order, a lot of people haven't understood the government communication. That happens all of the time lets face it.

 

[Starmill]

Why is it out of order, a lot of people haven't understood the government communication. That happens all of the time lets face it.

See post #60. Apologies. I suspect a misunderstanding.

To clarify, I agree with Yorksrob that it is not in any way the fault of the general public, almost all of whom have tried to do what they thought was the right thing. I also agree with Bletchleyite that government communication hasn't been well written for the consumption of all and that most of it has been way too complicated or contradictory.

I don't agree with the sensationalist complaints often posted by Captain Haddock and others about what people have written on social media.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Johnson: “Stop working from home”
Vallance: “Keep working from home”
Johnson: “No lockdowns in future"
Vallance: “Lockdowns very likely in future”
Johnson: “Covid dealt with by Xmas”
Vallance: “Covid with us for years”

But remember, the government’s following the science. Or not.

The messaging is confusing as it suits the government for it to be confusing. I believe that it's beyond incompetence and into a deliberate policy of misinformation that allows the populist message to continue.

And as we're not staying at home as much as possible, as that information is clearly out of date, COVID rates are starting a nice little uptick. (Source COVID Symptom Study)

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

And as we're not staying at home as much as possible, as that information is clearly out of date, COVID rates are starting a nice little uptick. (Source COVID Symptom Study)

This was inevitable with recent relaxations but what we aren't being told very clearly is at what level its deemed to be unsafe but what are being told is it will be localised in future. So by looking at the weekly case data which is nicely imaged on on this PHE map you can visually see where the outbreaks are (well actually you have to zoom in quite a bit to see there are so few of them. This is why we need to have a traffic light system for areas and i suggest that if weekly case is less 5/100k then there should be no restrictions between 5-20 its facemasks above 20 targeted closures based on outbreaks and above 50 local lockdown stay at home. Based on last weeks data at least 2/3rd of country could be back to normal. You would have to retain facemasks on long distance trains/coaches but not local ones

 

[HSTEd]

What Valance was actually saying was: Well, me and my fellow baby boomers got together and we decided that having a few more years of us running things was worth a hell of a lot more to us than the welfare of our children, so we've decided to crash the economy to save ourselves

 

[Bletchleyite]

What Valance was actually saying was: Well, me and my fellow baby boomers got together and we decided that having a few more years of us running things was worth a hell of a lot more to us than the welfare of our children, so we've decided to crash the economy to save ourselves

How's the tinfoil hat doing? Comfortable?

 

[HSTEd]

How's the tinfoil hat doing? Comfortable?

More comfortable than the face mask is!

(Also I'm not sure what is particularly tinfoily noting that the people advocating these approaches are all in the group most affected by the virus, and that that might be a conflict of interest)

 

[Starmill]

More comfortable than the face mask is!

(Also I'm not sure what is particularly tinfoily noting that the people advocating these approaches are all in the group most affected by the virus, and that that might be a conflict of interest)

A conflict of interest is usually defined by someone in a position of influence misusing their office in order to derive personal benefits. So it wouldn't generally be a conflict of interest to have a primary focus on prevention of deaths of other people from illness as an office holder whose responsibilities are around public health. Quite the opposite. Generally that would be them doing their best possible work.

Again and again people misunderstand how government takes decisions.

 

[HSTEd]

A conflict of interest is usually defined by someone in a position of influence misusing their office in order to derive personal benefits. So it wouldn't generally be a conflict of interest to have a primary focus on prevention of deaths of other people from illness as an office holder whose responsibilities are around public health. Quite the opposite. Generally that would be them doing their best possible work.

The personal benefit would be that him and his friends etc would be far less likely to die than if a different strategy was pursued.

The purpose of public health is to maximise utility/public health.
Not maximise the benefit of a subset of the population at the cost of the rest.

 

[Djgr]

Johnson: “Stop working from home”
Vallance: “Keep working from home”
Johnson: “No lockdowns in future"
Vallance: “Lockdowns very likely in future”
Johnson: “Covid dealt with by Xmas”
Vallance: “Covid with us for years”

But remember, the government’s following the science. Or not.

The messaging is confusing as it suits the government for it to be confusing. I believe that it's beyond incompetence and into a deliberate policy of misinformation that allows the populist message to continue.

And as we're not staying at home as much as possible, as that information is clearly out of date, COVID rates are starting a nice little uptick. (Source COVID Symptom Study)

Sigh. The graph does not show an uptick.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sigh. The graph does not show an uptick.

I don't know the origin of that graph's data. If it's symptom reports, then it could well be an uptick in flu cases, as the symptoms are similar. If it's test results, it relies on people reporting them in the app (which the app now prompts you to do so perhaps that's causing more people to do it). Though interestingly it hasn't prompted me for a few days, it's normally daily.

This:

England Summary | Coronavirus (COVID-19) in the UK

Official Coronavirus (COVID-19) disease situation dashboard with latest data in the UK.

coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk

shows the official figures which just seem to be bimbling along at R=1, roughly (it seems to roll up and down a bit as it goes along). The uptick you see on some graphs about a week or two ago was a change in the reporting method.

That said if you drill down it appears to be concentrated in a relatively small number of locations. MK seems to have one case every few days (probably imported), but Leicester still has loads and random Lancashire mill towns do too, probably for similar reasons. Bedford a bit high too, so that could be the origin of the MK imported cases.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

Sigh. The graph does not show an uptick.

Indeed. You do wonder about the mentality of people who spend their free time desperately scouting the internet for bad news about the virus just so they can say "I told you so".

In the meantime the head of the ONS Ian Diamond has confirmed that the reopening of pubs and restaurants has not led to a spike in new cases of the virus.

Lifting lockdown in England has not led to coronavirus spike, says ONS chief

LIFTING the lockdown in England has not led to a spike in coronavirus infections, the Office for National Statistics’ (ONS) chief has said. Professor Sir Ian Diamond told Sky’s Sophy Ri…

www.thesun.co.uk

The government began easing lockdown measures earlier this month, with Covid-secure pubs, restaurants and shops reopening throughout England.


And the head of the ONS - which has been monitoring the UK's coronavirus crisis since the start of the pandemic - was quizzed on whether the new measures have impacted the rate of infection across the country.

When asked whether he has seen an uptick in infections recently, Prof Diamond said: "No we haven’t.

"We are basically flat over the last few weeks - and clearly there are one or two outbreaks in various parts of the country."

 

[mmh]

Anyway, back on topic, whilst there's no need to stay at home there's also no reason for everyone to crowd into work in offices when some* are able to work at home and have little impact on the economy by doing so.

Excessive levels of working at home have a huge impact on the economy. It's really quite amazing how many don't realise that. No man is an island, and ultimately the home workers will begin to see their jobs disappear.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Sigh. The graph does not show an uptick.

Indeed. You do wonder about the mentality of people who spend their free time desperately scouting the internet for bad news about the virus just so they can say "I told you so".

6 July 25000 Cases
17 July 30000 Cases

Looks like an uptick to me.

@CaptainHaddock You know nothing of me or the time (I do not) spend looking for bad news - I looked to see how we were faring post pubs opening.

 

[Richard Scott]

6 July 25000 Cases
17 July 30000 Cases

Looks like an uptick to me.

@CaptainHaddock You know nothing of me or the time (I do not) spend looking for bad news - I looked to see how we were faring post pubs opening.

UK never quote anyone recovering so numbers infected fairly meaningless. I'm assuming that's what your numbers represent?

 

[The Ham]

Excessive levels of working at home have a huge impact on the economy. It's really quite amazing how many don't realise that. No man is an island, and ultimately the home workers will begin to see their jobs disappear.

Which is why I said some, that doesn't always mean that it's the same some.

I know that me being in the office or not has no impact on the wider economy.

 

[Puffing Devil]

UK never quote anyone recovering so numbers infected fairly meaningless. I'm assuming that's what your numbers represent?

Check the source - it's all in there.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

UK never quote anyone recovering so numbers infected fairly meaningless. I'm assuming that's what your numbers represent?

You can infer from the data recoveries.

295k have tested positive, 45k have died and around 2k in hospital currently so thats 248k who have pulled through

 

[Horizon22]

Staying at home until a vaccine is readily available is not remotely viable.

Your proposal would wreck the livelihoods of millions of people; people like me won't let that happen

The key point is as "much as possible". There are things that we do on balance and in this case we should lean towards the indoor activity. This doesn't necessarily exclude us going out and doing things we haven't done for several months and facilities reopen.

The problem is there's been a whole bunch of muddled messaging with no clear theme so people are understandably confused & have varying viewpoints.

 

[yorkie]

@Puffing Devil Notwithstanding the fact this site is clearly out of date, how long do you think we should be staying at home for? Weeks? Months? Years?

The key point is as "much as possible". There are things that we do on balance and in this case we should lean towards the indoor activity. This doesn't necessarily exclude us going out and doing things we haven't done for several months and facilities reopen...

I reject this; the original call to stay at home as much as possible was during the actual "lockdown" for the reason that the only legitimate reasons to leave home were clearly defined at that time. This is no longer the case and clearly if we were being advised to be at home "as much as possible" there wouldn't be a scheme to encourage people to eat out next month!

 

[Richard Scott]

You can infer from the data recoveries.

295k have tested positive, 45k have died and around 2k in hospital currently so thats 248k who have pulled through

But that's calculating it from the given statistics, which if incorrect mean the recovery figure is wrong, you've failed to include how many are currently infected. My point is there's no government figure given for actual recoveries so hard to say how many are currently infected.
Those are just another set of figures giving a predicted number of infections not actual. As with all statistics can say anything with them. If you look at one set they'll give a downward trend until last week where there was a slight increase of a few cases per day nowhere near 5000 quoted. With the rate of infection where it is you will expect up and down trends due to lowish numbers, that's what happens in any situation where random events occur. There is also more testing going on so would expect it to pick up more positive cases. To be honest I don't think all required information is there.

 

[Horizon22]

@Puffing Devil Notwithstanding the fact this site is clearly out of date, how long do you think we should be staying at home for? Weeks? Months? Years?

I reject this; the original call to stay at home as much as possible was during the actual "lockdown" for the reason that the only legitimate reasons to leave home were clearly defined at that time. This is no longer the case and clearly if we were being advised to be at home "as much as possible" there wouldn't be a scheme to encourage people to eat out next month!

Indeed, but the government are giving out BOTH pieces of advice - which is clearly very poor message discipline (a continuous aspect of this pandemic).

 

[Huntergreed]

What I suspect may be going on is that the messaging may be delibaretly confusing in order to prevent mass exodus to cities and tourist hotspots. By confusing a proportion of people into believing that we’re still to stay at home, it slows the opening up, as less people are emerging all at once, and thus lowers the risk, allowing for a much more gradual reopening.

Either this or they’re just pumping out the same wrong, out of date message, in which case it must stop.

 

[Puffing Devil]

@Puffing Devil Notwithstanding the fact this site is clearly out of date, how long do you think we should be staying at home for? Weeks? Months? Years?

I reject this; the original call to stay at home as much as possible was during the actual "lockdown" for the reason that the only legitimate reasons to leave home were clearly defined at that time. This is no longer the case and clearly if we were being advised to be at home "as much as possible" there wouldn't be a scheme to encourage people to eat out next month!

Indeed, but the government are giving out BOTH pieces of advice - which is clearly very poor message discipline (a continuous aspect of this pandemic).

My comment that the advice was out of date was ironic. A quick check will show that https://www.gov.uk/coronavirus has been updated multiple times per day - there is no doubt that this is current government messaging.

I believe that the government is being deliberately contradictory, as I said in my earlier post. The short-lived tweet from the Government Account "Can you imagine having to work with these truth twisters" sums up the current position.

As for how we need to lock down for - I'm really at a loss. It's clear that we should have locked down fast and hard when we had the change, but the government decided not to and we're in the position we are now. We could have had less than half the number of deaths and have been relaxing controls with a clear and easy conscience.

We've had the opportunity to act quickly and decisively on a number of occasions - masks are the latest debacle - why wait another week?

This is all down to the risible, self-serving, talentless government that's way out of its depth.