Jump to content
filbertway

Coronavirus Thread

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Costock_Fox said:

I’m looking at all of this and think Wales really have nailed it. You can imagine how the conversation went as well...

 

”I’m really worried about the rapid rise in cases, what can we do?”

”Don’t know, have we tried wrapping duvets in clingfiim yet?”

 

976127E7-D1E6-48C3-B6A8-9CE354AD8ED3.jpeg

Ok, I’ll risk a good slagging by venturing the reasoning behind this.

 

What is the point of a firebreak, lockdown, whatever....?

 

Basically to stop people coming into contact with other people, by asking or forcing them to stay at home. Of course people still need to go out to get stuff they can’t do without such as food, so that’s still allowed. You don’t want people going out to buy something that they can do without, at least in the short term, so to reduce movement and mixing to a minimum you ban sales of stuff you can do without.

 

Now some shops sell both food and stuff that you can do without, at least in the short term. It would be pretty unfair on people who only sell stuff like duvets if people who sell both food and duvets can carry on as normal.

 

So food shops are allowed to stay open. Shops selling food and other stuff are allowed to stay open to sell food only. Shops that sell other stuff are closed.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

It's sickening. 

 

The risk of a 20% or even 30% capacity at outdoor sports grounds is incredibly low. Furthermore, perhaps seating punters in bubbles of 100 so that track and trace can do its stuff should someone come in riddled with it. 

 

The ban on sports crowds is spiteful.

Errrr.... I think Brisbane is in a somewhat different situation to you guys.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Errrr.... I think Brisbane is in a somewhat different situation to you guys.

Wgaf about Brisbane? 

 

The situation is that you can go to Carrow road and watch the Norwich match on a TV but not peep through the curtains to look at the pitch. 

 

You can sit in a cinema at Stratford shopping centre watching West Ham but not nip across the road Inside the stadium to watch. 

 

Or, finally, watching BT just now, 600 punters are safe to watch an fa cup match in Stafford but if they were promoted a division, it's deemed unsafe and would have to be behind closed doors. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Ok, I’ll risk a good slagging by venturing the reasoning behind this.

 

What is the point of a firebreak, lockdown, whatever....?

 

Basically to stop people coming into contact with other people, by asking or forcing them to stay at home. Of course people still need to go out to get stuff they can’t do without such as food, so that’s still allowed. You don’t want people going out to buy something that they can do without, at least in the short term, so to reduce movement and mixing to a minimum you ban sales of stuff you can do without.

 

Now some shops sell both food and stuff that you can do without, at least in the short term. It would be pretty unfair on people who only sell stuff like duvets if people who sell both food and duvets can carry on as normal.

 

So food shops are allowed to stay open. Shops selling food and other stuff are allowed to stay open to sell food only. Shops that sell other stuff are closed.

I get all of that but what % of people going out to buy duvets and kettles are likely to put the country in the mud?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Ok, I’ll risk a good slagging by venturing the reasoning behind this.

 

What is the point of a firebreak, lockdown, whatever....?

 

Basically to stop people coming into contact with other people, by asking or forcing them to stay at home. Of course people still need to go out to get stuff they can’t do without such as food, so that’s still allowed. You don’t want people going out to buy something that they can do without, at least in the short term, so to reduce movement and mixing to a minimum you ban sales of stuff you can do without.

 

Now some shops sell both food and stuff that you can do without, at least in the short term. It would be pretty unfair on people who only sell stuff like duvets if people who sell both food and duvets can carry on as normal.

 

So food shops are allowed to stay open. Shops selling food and other stuff are allowed to stay open to sell food only. Shops that sell other stuff are closed.

Got to say, I was pro-first lockdown and have generally been for the measures that have come in, but I'm not convinced by the firebreak lockdown either.

 

To me, local lockdowns right now in places like Liverpool where NHS capacity is genuinely on the verge of being breached, with the potential for a nationwide lockdown if the NHS looks like it will definitely breach capacity over the winter makes the most sense. But to me, a firebreak lockdown is just kicking the can down the road a month or so while putting people's livelihoods at risk. I don't  see the logic in how it will save many lives from the NHS  capacity being breached as the numbers will just grow back to that level in a month's time, but you're risking lives from the economic impact of the lockdown.

 

I understand the logic if you do the firebreak lockdown early on when cases start to rise to get them down to a point where it can't rise rapidly again, but when we're at this point, I can't see how we can suppress the virus enough in only 2-3 weeks to stop it not just exploding again once we open up? If there is to be a lockdown with the cases rising like they are, surely it needs to be longer than 2-3 weeks to suppress the virus? It just feels like a bit of an arbitrary time frame which does nothing but just kick the can down the road.

 

Happy to be proven wrong on this though.

Edited by Sampson
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Got to say, I was pro-first lockdown and have generally been for the measures that have come in, but I'm not convinced by the firebreak lockdown either.

 

To me, local lockdowns right now in places like Liverpool where NHS capacity is genuinely on the verge of being breached, with the potential for a nationwide lockdown if the NHS looks like it will definitely breach capacity over the winter makes the most sense. But to me, a firebreak lockdown is just kicking the can down the road a month or so while putting people's livelihoods at risk. I don't  see the logic in how it will save many lives from the NHS  capacity being breached as the numbers will just grow back to that level in a month's time, but you're risking lives from the economic impact of the lockdown.

 

I understand the logic if you do the firebreak lockdown early on when cases start to rise to get them down to a point where it can't rise rapidly again, but when we're at this point, I can't see how we can suppress the virus enough in only 2-3 weeks to stop it not just exploding again once we open up? If there is to be a lockdown with the cases rising like they are, surely it needs to be longer than 2-3 weeks to suppress the virus? It just feels like a bit of an arbitrary time frame which does nothing but just kick the can down the road.

 

Happy to be proven wrong on this though.

My post wasn’t pro or anti firebreak. I was just trying to explain why (if you are to impose a firebreak) they might want to seal off non essential purchases in stores offering both them and essentials. The measures are self consistent.

Edited by WigstonWanderer
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

Wgaf about Brisbane? 

 

The situation is that you can go to Carrow road and watch the Norwich match on a TV but not peep through the curtains to look at the pitch. 

 

You can sit in a cinema at Stratford shopping centre watching West Ham but not nip across the road Inside the stadium to watch. 

 

Or, finally, watching BT just now, 600 punters are safe to watch an fa cup match in Stafford but if they were promoted a division, it's deemed unsafe and would have to be behind closed doors. 

Something’s got lost here. This is the post you quoted.

7 hours ago, Rain King said:

Watching the AFL Grand Final on BT from Brisbane. Crowd of 30,000. Sitting together, no masks. Jealous.

You seemed to be complaining about not being able to do the same, and I was saying that Brisbane are in a complete different situation, with pretty much no virus circulating  that’s why they can afford to have large crowds gathering.

Edited by WigstonWanderer
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sampson said:

Got to say, I was pro-first lockdown and have generally been for the measures that have come in, but I'm not convinced by the firebreak lockdown either.

 

To me, local lockdowns right now in places like Liverpool where NHS capacity is genuinely on the verge of being breached, with the potential for a nationwide lockdown if the NHS looks like it will definitely breach capacity over the winter makes the most sense. But to me, a firebreak lockdown is just kicking the can down the road a month or so while putting people's livelihoods at risk. I don't  see the logic in how it will save many lives from the NHS  capacity being breached as the numbers will just grow back to that level in a month's time, but you're risking lives from the economic impact of the lockdown.

 

I understand the logic if you do the firebreak lockdown early on when cases start to rise to get them down to a point where it can't rise rapidly again, but when we're at this point, I can't see how we can suppress the virus enough in only 2-3 weeks to stop it not just exploding again once we open up? If there is to be a lockdown with the cases rising like they are, surely it needs to be longer than 2-3 weeks to suppress the virus? It just feels like a bit of an arbitrary time frame which does nothing but just kick the can down the road.

 

Happy to be proven wrong on this though.

Just another half measure. No leadership, no clue, no hope.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

Just another half measure. No leadership, no clue, no hope.

I think the government has got so, so much wrong in this pandemic but I actually think the government is doing broadly the right thing right now (though I'd have more school kids and university students working from home) in England over what is being done in Wales.

 

I wouldn't have been against the early firebreak lockdown when it was first suggested a few weeks ago, but to my possibly ignorant knowledge it seems like that short window to be effective has passed now. 

 

If the NHS genuinely is at the position it was back in March in a few week's time then I'd definitely be for a national lockdown (if it's a proper one, not just a 2 week one), but right now when we have much more regional data it makes a lot more sense to me to stick to the localised tier system, although maybe places like Liverpool where the NHS is struggling need a harsher lockdown than tier 3.

 

But it definitely doesn't feel right shutting down people's livelihoods in a place like Cornwall where cases are relatively low and aren't rising at a particularly high rate either, because a virus is pushing hospitals to the brink in Liverpool and Manchester.

Edited by Sampson
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Sampson said:

 

 

But it definitely doesn't feel right shutting down people's livelihoods in a place like Cornwall where cases are relatively low and aren't rising at a particularly high rate either, because a virus is pushing hospitals to the brink in Liverpool and Manchester.

 

Edited by st albans fox
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Sampson said:

I think the government has got so, so much wrong in this pandemic but I actually think the government is doing broadly the right thing right now (though I'd have more school kids and university students working from home) in England over what is being done in Wales.

 

I wouldn't have been against the early firebreak lockdown when it was first suggested a few weeks ago, but to my possibly ignorant knowledge it seems like that short window to be effective has passed now. 

 

If the NHS genuinely is at the position it was back in March in a few week's time then I'd definitely be for a national lockdown (if it's a proper one, not just a 2 week one), but right now when we have much more regional data it makes a lot more sense to me to stick to the localised tier system, although maybe places like Liverpool where the NHS is struggling need a harsher lockdown than tier 3.

 

But it definitely doesn't feel right shutting down people's livelihoods in a place like Cornwall where cases are relatively low and aren't rising at a particularly high rate either, because a virus is pushing hospitals to the brink in Liverpool and Manchester.

With all the money at stake, would it not be feasible to pay doctors and nurses from places like Cornwall well above the odds to help out in Nightingale hospitals in areas with more cases such as Manchester and Liverpool right now?

 

Any lockdown, local or not, should be regarded last resort.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Just looked up this fella, he’s not even a qualified doctor 

He doesn't need to be.  He evaluates the data that's already out there.

 

The mastermind behind the ICL figures Ferguson is well qualified, on paper, but that hasn't translated in any way shape or form to an accurate set of projections.  The whole UK strategy in dealing with this is based on these projections and there's no sign of abandoning this approach despite all the data to the contrary.

 

I see the BBC is again pushing his agenda having wheeled him out once more with his focus now being on keeping 14 to 16 year olds at home.  

 

Repeating the conclusions made in the earlier video posted, where is the exit strategy here?

Edited by Legend_in_blue
Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with lockdown is that there is very little evidence that it works.  Let's leave aside the countries that squeezed the life out of the virus before it started, and just look at those where it took hold.

 

In Italy, Spain, UK, we had lockdowns and the virus took off like wildfire in Spring before dropping quite fast for the summer and is now rising again.  

 

In Sweden they had no lockdown but asked people to use common sense and the virus took off like wildfire in the Spring before dropping quite fast for the summer and is now rising again.

 

In Brazil there was no lockdown at all and the virus took off like wildfire in Spring before dropping rather more slowly and hasn't yet started rising again.  Their data may be a bit skewed because the vastness of the country means that different areas started their waves at different times.

 

In Peru they had a very thorough lockdown which delayed the start of the serious numbers until May, whereupon they took off pretty fast (but not like wildfire) before dropping in late summer.  They haven't started rising again yet.

 

In Poland they held it down successfully with lockdown in spring and it stayed low through summer but now has taken off and is far worse than it was first time round (but still not as high as ours).

 

The point I am making is that most of these countries, however they run the lockdowns, are ending up in about the same place.  Lockdown, no lockdown, degree of lockdown, it seems to make very little difference.  Can we have a scientifc basis to show that lockdown actually works?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

The problem with lockdown is that there is very little evidence that it works.  Let's leave aside the countries that squeezed the life out of the virus before it started, and just look at those where it took hold.

 

In Italy, Spain, UK, we had lockdowns and the virus took off like wildfire in Spring before dropping quite fast for the summer and is now rising again.  

 

In Sweden they had no lockdown but asked people to use common sense and the virus took off like wildfire in the Spring before dropping quite fast for the summer and is now rising again.

 

In Brazil there was no lockdown at all and the virus took off like wildfire in Spring before dropping rather more slowly and hasn't yet started rising again.  Their data may be a bit skewed because the vastness of the country means that different areas started their waves at different times.

 

In Peru they had a very thorough lockdown which delayed the start of the serious numbers until May, whereupon they took off pretty fast (but not like wildfire) before dropping in late summer.  They haven't started rising again yet.

 

In Poland they held it down successfully with lockdown in spring and it stayed low through summer but now has taken off and is far worse than it was first time round (but still not as high as ours).

 

The point I am making is that most of these countries, however they run the lockdowns, are ending up in about the same place.  Lockdown, no lockdown, degree of lockdown, it seems to make very little difference.  Can we have a scientifc basis to show that lockdown actually works?

According to Ivor Cummins, there isn't one.  There's plenty to suggest the opposite however.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

So if I’ve understood, @dsr-burnleyis saying that lockdowns don’t work in the long term because shutting down to achieve lower infection in the short term just means that infection rates rise later on when they’ve been lifted? I actually agree with that.

 

This is exactly what the original Imperial College paper suggested if I recall, and that’s why the government started off with a herd immunity strategy. The objective was to let it run through the population as quickly as possible, but when hospitals were threatened with being overwhelmed they imposed a lockdown.

 

A lockdown isn’t a long term policy, it’s a relatively short term strategy to reduce infection rates. Either it can be used as described above as a last resort to protect health services, or with a view to driving rates down until they are manageable by contact tracing, testing and isolation measures such as in Australia, South Korea and elsewhere.

 

It is certainly true to say that most western style countries have failed to lock in low infection rates when they perhaps had the chance.

This is the problem.  Lockdown should be a short term strategy.  The initial lockdown regulations were for three weeks.  But now lockdown is being used as a long term strategy.  It has already taken 7 months and is more than likely going to be over a year before it is stopped.  If we don't get the promised vaccine, it could be two or three years before they finally let us out.

 

For one of the groups it is most supposed to protect - the over 80's - one year is about 20% of their remaining life, on average.  (Life expectancy for people over 80, as a bloc, is about 5 years, based on about 10% of over 80's die each year.)  And if you are going to lose 20% of your life to lockdown, and it's the best and healthiest 20%, then that's not short term.

 

Even for me, it feels like a heck of a long time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a fvcked up situation and I think that we may go into a no return situation, like lemmings. Another 6 months and lockdowns will be the new norm. The population is not building up an immunity to the virus during a lockdown so consequently when things do get a little relaxed, the virus can attack more people and so the cycle starts again. In the long run we may be increasing the likelyhood of it spreading to more people because of lockdowns and mask wearing, it’s not going to just disappear but the more people who develop some sort of immunity from catching it means the virus has a smaller amount of targets and consequently reducing the r value. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

This is the problem.  Lockdown should be a short term strategy.  The initial lockdown regulations were for three weeks.  But now lockdown is being used as a long term strategy.  It has already taken 7 months and is more than likely going to be over a year before it is stopped.  If we don't get the promised vaccine, it could be two or three years before they finally let us out.

Mental when you think about it really, I thought the original lockdown was going to be a few weeks and then we'd be back to normal. I don't think we'll ever go back to normal now, we'll always be using masks, more hand washing etc. Some of the changes will definitely be better for us in the long run though.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...