Jump to content
filbertway

Coronavirus Thread

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-what-counts-as-a-substantial-meal-how-rules-on-pub-drinking-could-work-in-tier-2-12143814

 

'However, on Friday an official spokesperson for the prime minister said drinkers will have to leave the premises once they have finished their food.'

I wonder if you could go into the pub and order your plate of cheesy chips, only to be told "there is a backlog in the kitchen and there will be a three hour delay" - and bring out a plate of nuts to show willing, and allow you a pint of beer or three while you are waiting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

We're currently averaging about 400+ deaths per day, almost 3000 per week, not to mention an unknown number surviving with long-term damage.

Fortunately, those figures should dip again shortly, now that infection rates are falling and hospitalisation figures leveling off, due to lockdown. 

 

However, under the new tiering system, non-essential shops are opening again - in time for Christmas shopping crowds. The Govt has also announced a relaxation over Christmas. A lot of people will meet family/friends and use public transport.

There alone you have ways in which further infections are baked in - which argues for a stricter approach in other ways, particularly in winter when more people fall ill of other causes and need hospitalisation.

 

I don't do everything the Govt tells me to do. I didn't vote for this Govt. I think it's done a disastrous job of handling the pandemic in many ways. But adopting a strict approach in these circumstances is correct. In fact, I think they have adopted too lax an approach re. the 23rd-27th December relaxation and some of us will pay for that with our lives or the lives of those close to us in Jan/Feb.

 

As for why some places are in higher tiers than before:

- Some have infection rates that are still high (Manchester, Leicester) or that have risen recently (Kent, Bristol)

- Some have hospitals under pressure (Devon)

- There are other factors in the calculation that I know less about: e.g. consideration of infection rates among over-60s

- Plus the new tiering system relaxes some activities (shops, gyms, hairdressers) so, when Covid is still a massive danger, it makes sense to be strict with other activities

 

I appreciate that some people are in a more difficult situation than me (I work from home anyway) but that's an argument for better Govt support for people and businesses that are struggling, particularly as the vaccine is on the horizon.

I absolutely support criticism of the Govt strategy on that score.

 

When will I say "enough is enough"? Well, vaccination is expected to be rolled out by the spring for the most vulnerable, so showing patience until then seems entirely reasonable, to protect lives and health - who knows, it might even be the life or health of someone you care about.

I'm still waiting, and have been waiting for a long time, for someone to say "we need this lockdown to reduce the number of covid deaths, because although we know that lockdown itself causes deaths and hastens the onset of dementia, as well as storing up future problems by the damage to the national economy as well as creating individual poverty, we still think that lockdown is necessary because ..."

 

All we get is "people are dying of coronavirus, so whatever it takes, we must not let anyone die of coronavirus".

 

Where are the reasoned estimates of the pros and cons of lockdown? 

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

I'm still waiting, and have been waiting for a long time, for someone to say "we need this lockdown to reduce the number of covid deaths, because although we know that lockdown itself causes deaths and hastens the onset of dementia, as well as storing up future problems by the damage to the national economy as well as creating individual poverty, we still think that lockdown is necessary because ..."

 

All we get is "people are dying of coronavirus, so whatever it takes, we must not let anyone die of coronavirus".

 

Where are the reasoned estimates of the pros and cons of lockdown? 

It's never been about the death numbers though, has it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DennisNedry said:

I'm still allowed to take my car in for it's service in a couple of weeks, nip into town and go Christmas shopping...

...but I can't go with my wife to her 12 week scan of our first child.

 

Both gutted and furious.

 

 

 

If you can spare 50 quid, go private. Me and my missus did a few times in her pregnancy because I couldn't get in the hospital with her.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

I'm still waiting, and have been waiting for a long time, for someone to say "we need this lockdown to reduce the number of covid deaths, because although we know that lockdown itself causes deaths and hastens the onset of dementia, as well as storing up future problems by the damage to the national economy as well as creating individual poverty, we still think that lockdown is necessary because ..."

 

All we get is "people are dying of coronavirus, so whatever it takes, we must not let anyone die of coronavirus".

 

Where are the reasoned estimates of the pros and cons of lockdown? 

"....not doing so stands a significant chance of a collapse of the NHS over the winter which will then result in far more human and economic cost than lockdown would."

 

That seems reasonably self-evident tbh, but yes - it would be nice if someone were to actually say it a few times for emphasis, because sometimes people need reminding, evidently.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://voxeu.org/article/lockdowns-and-uk-economic-performance
 

A panel of academic economists:

63% thought the UK suffered no, or little, economic impact as a result of lockdown vs the counter factual of no government intervention. 
73% thought the damage from the latest lockdown was likely to be small compared to mild social distancing over the summer.

70% thought there was a small or no trade off between lives saved and the economy.

 

In all cases, your perception, and weighting, of small likely affects your response to this. However, should the panel be representative (and I’d say, from what I have read throughout it comes out slightly more against lockdowns) then if you put the economists in charge then they’d not be doing what ‘but the economy’ folk want. Of course, had the economists been in charge, they’d have quickly recognised that not locking down in the face of rising cases was a time inconsistent choice and therefore would have locked down early.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

"....not doing so stands a significant chance of a collapse of the NHS over the winter which will then result in far more human and economic cost than lockdown would."

 

That seems reasonably self-evident tbh, but yes - it would be nice if someone were to actually say it a few times for emphasis, because sometimes people need reminding, evidently.

No, it is not self-evident.  Why was Leicester in lockdown in March?  Because the NHS might collapse.  Why was leicester in lockdown in April?  Because the NHS might collapse.  Why was Leicester in lockdown in My?  In June?  July?  August?  September?  Sooner or later, they ought to come up with a better answer than "Because the NHS might collapse" with the answer to the follow-up question asking for the reasoning being "because I say so".  

 

We went into lockdown in March, for 3 weeks, to save the NHS from collapse.  The three weeks have now finished.  Can you point me to any other statistics, perhaps more detailed than the Chicken Licken "The Sky is Falling" one, that indicate the comparative costs of various forms of action now?  Sooner or later they, someone will have to look at what the government did and what they didn't do and especially what they should have done.  And if they found out that they have saved 50,000 lives at the cost of 100,000 lives, wouldn't it be a good idea to ask the question now rather than 100,000 lives later?  Macmillan Cancer Support - experts int he field - say that 50,000 fewer cancers have been diagnosed this year compared with last, and 33,000 people have not been treated for known cancers who should have been treated.  Where is that factored into the "we must have lockdown" analysis?

 

I'm not even saying that lockdown is wrong.  I suspect it might be, but I don't know.  But why do they refuse even to ask the question?

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

No, it is not self-evident.  Why was Leicester in lockdown in March?  Because the NHS might collapse.  Why was leicester in lockdown in April?  Because the NHS might collapse.  Why was Leicester in lockdown in My?  In June?  July?  August?  September?  Sooner or later, they ought to come up with a better answer than "Because the NHS might collapse" with the answer to the follow-up question asking for the reasoning being "because I say so".  

 

We went into lockdown in March, for 3 weeks, to save the NHS from collapse.  The three weeks have now finished.  Can you point me to any other statistics, perhaps more detailed than the Chicken Licken "The Sky is Falling" one, that indicate the comparative costs of various forms of action now?  Sooner or later they, someone will have to look at what the government did and what they didn't do and especially what they should have done.  And if they found out that they have saved 50,000 lives at the cost of 100,000 lives, wouldn't it be a good idea to ask the question now rather than 100,000 lives later?  Macmillan Cancer Support - experts int he field - say that 50,000 fewer cancers have been diagnosed this year compared with last, and 33,000 people have not been treated for known cancers who should have been treated.  Where is that factored into the "we must have lockdown" analysis?

 

I'm not even saying that lockdown is wrong.  I suspect it might be, but I don't know.  But why do they refuse even to ask the question?

For what it's worth, I agree that the government dropped the ball post-lockdown back in March/April. The response over here in Korea shows that - there was a targetted restriction, and then when cases were down to a manageable amount, the government reopened stuff and adopted a much more flexible approach backed by jumping on outbreaks when and where they occurred locally. The UK did the first thing, but then not the second, and that has cost them dearly in terms of public confidence.

 

However, as the Northern Hemisphere heads into winter and there is a corresponding increase in cases in many places, allowing Covid to spread further will then lead to a subsequent spike in hospitalisations and place possibly terminal stress on the NHS. We saw it stretching at the seams in the spring, and we've seen enough from the US and from other places in Europe to see what happens when such systems collapse or become close to doing so - where would those cancer patients be then? Kopf above posted a decent article on the economic comparison of lockdown vs no action.

 

I'm not entirely sure that a lockdown or whatever it is the UK is calling their tiered restrictions right now is the right pathway either - but I'm also struggling to come up with a better alternative that would cost less in human and economic terms too. What would you do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leicestershire areas with the most cases:

 

The neighbourhoods are:

  • Loughborough Storer & Queen's Park - 970 cases
  • Oadby North & East - 782 cases
  • Loughborough - University - 693 cases
  • Thurmaston - 419 cases
  • Oadby South & West - 392 cases
  • Loughborough Lemyngton & Hastings - 380 cases
  • Wigston Town - 341 cases
  • Birstall Wanlip & Riverside - 328 cases
  • Braunstone Town - 319 cases
  • Loughborough - Shelthorpe & Woodthorpe - 312 cases
  • Enderby & Glen Parva - 306 cases
  • Houghton,Thurby & Scraptoft - 302 cases
  • Mountsorrel & Rothley - 291 cases
  • Glenfield - 269 cases
  • South Wigston - 265 cases

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/local-news/leicestershire-neighbourhoods-most-coronavirus-cases-4745362

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard that one of the local schools had 13 staff having to self isolate and none of them had anything wrong with them, turns out they'd all left their phones in a staff room and someone went in doing some work whose own phone had been contacted, which consequently set all the other ones off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

I wonder if you could go into the pub and order your plate of cheesy chips, only to be told "there is a backlog in the kitchen and there will be a three hour delay" - and bring out a plate of nuts to show willing, and allow you a pint of beer or three while you are waiting.

Funny guy

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

Macmillan Cancer Support - experts int he field - say that 50,000 fewer cancers have been diagnosed this year compared with last, and 33,000 people have not been treated for known cancers who should have been treated.  Where is that factored into the "we must have lockdown" analysis?

Has the government stopped cancer diagnosis as part of lockdown?

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Heard that one of the local schools had 13 staff having to self isolate and none of them had anything wrong with them, turns out they'd all left their phones in a staff room and someone went in doing some work whose own phone had been contacted, which consequently set all the other ones off.

So the system worked then.

 

Whats the challenge procedure after you’ve had a text to self isolate, is there 1, should there be 1?
It’s clearly obvious what’s happened here once investigation has been followed through, probably by the individuals themselves, but have the NHS the resource to follow up on every ping and subsequent challenge they would receive?

 

Its a “dumb” system, in that the program parameters are fixed so unless we are all Bio-chipped it’s the only way we have some element of tracking I guess.

 

Just thinking more about the school staff as I type, do they really need to self isolate? Surely they would have received a txt to say they (their phones) have been close to someone who has themselves been close to someone who has tested positive, so more of an interest txt not an action txt otherwise how far down the “closeness” chain do they go?

The person who entered would got a txt to say they have been in contact with someone who has tested positive therefore self isolate so unless that person then went and tested positive why would following txts be sent triggered by that phone & even then there would be days in between events, how would they know the source your not told are you?


The last bit is me thinking out aloud trying to work out the scenario not a challenge on you Yorkie :blink:

 

 

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

Has the government stopped cancer diagnosis as part of lockdown?

Diagnosis still going on though fewer people are presenting at Docs with their ailments - its the treatment that's really under pressure.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nick said:

Diagnosis still going on though fewer people are presenting at Docs with their ailments - its the treatment that's really under pressure.

What I’m getting at is that @dsr-burnleyputs the blame for the lack of cancer diagnosis and treatment on lockdowns. Surely the government are allowing these to proceed even during lockdown?

 

More likely is that people are not presenting for diagnosis or treatment because they don’t want to risk infection at the surgery or hospital, or because doctors have restricted face to face treatment for fear of spreading virus or catching it themselves, or because hospitals simply don’t have the capacity. It is surely not because people are not allowed to seek treatment as part of lockdown restrictions. If infection is allowed to spread uncontrollably the situation would clearly be worse in all these categories.

 

This point has been made dozens of times, but seems to be ignored by people trying to push their weird agenda.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, DennisNedry said:

I'm still allowed to take my car in for it's service in a couple of weeks, nip into town and go Christmas shopping...

...but I can't go with my wife to her 12 week scan of our first child.

 

Both gutted and furious.

 

 

 

 

11 hours ago, Fktf said:

If you can spare 50 quid, go private. Me and my missus did a few times in her pregnancy because I couldn't get in the hospital with her.

 

Aye,  I also went down this route with my wife (17 weeks now)  too but do your research with these companies as obviously they would be more driven by profit than NHS-  I have read some questionable stories about their practice but it it is likely to be isolated examples rather than general consensus!

 

All the best with the pregnancy @DennisNedry and @Fktf-  it is quite a journey as I am sure you two have experienced by now! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/11/2020 at 08:32, reporterpenguin said:

What has formed that opinion though? These vaccines have been trialed on tens of thousands of people and has been shown to be safe. Statistically it is likely that any problems would have been highlighted by these trials, especially given the wide ranging demographic they have been conducted with. 

 

I'm genuinely curious about why you consider it a con on the public.

there a few factors in play imo, I'm not saying the vaccine is harmful but they are changing the way society lives because of damage to the planet and ecosystems and this virus is just a blanket to start that change

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Line-X said:

In Australia, and in particular Victoria, state lockdown policies have been decisive, committed and effectual aided by a compliant citizenship that unlike the UK enforced and maintained distancing protocols. This in tandem with a comprehensive programme of testing and contact tracing. Lockdown is not an isolated measure - as has been painstakingly explained again and again and again, it is designed to reduce clinical impact, reduce the r-nought value and bring the virus under control, it is therefore not a policy that operates in isolation from a range of other measures. It is however demonstrably necessary. 

 

Worldwide, overwhelming evidence suggests that lockdowns help contain coronavirus outbreaks and prevent additional deaths. Data shows that where lockdown measures have been observed to prevent the COVID-19 pandemic, that the spread of the virus can be significantly reduced and suppressed by this preventive restriction. However, that alone will not actually stop the virus, China had to undertake rapid testing of any suspect case, immediate isolation of anyone who was a confirmed or suspected case, and then quarantine the close contacts for 14 days so that they could then figure out if any were infected. Those were the measures that stopped transmission in China, as opposed to simply major travel restrictions and lockdowns. 

 

Nonetheless, in Wuhan, China, it is known that the city's lockdown on January 23 prevented tens of thousands of infections throughout the Hubei province. Without the lockdown, cases in Hubei would have been 65% higher. International researchers also recently determined that overall social distancing in China reduced the number of daily interactions by at least sevenfold, thereby lowering transmission.

 

This is an incredibly complex set of variables that we are confronted with. The populist notion that the people are "wise to it" is complete horseshit and that is precisely the foolhardy rhetoric and misconception that causes guidelines and restrictions to be flagrantly flouted, will inflict further damage to the economy long term, usher in further waves of infection and ultimately costs lives.

 

In spite of this data and complexity, last week I read on this thread that apparently 'lockdown doesn't work'.

 

So it must be true then :appl:

 

Odd that, because global data would beg to differ. Perhaps that's because the informed expertise in the fields of virology, immunology and epidemiology is preoccupied with applying their appreciable experience modelling infectious disease rates as opposed to posting scientifically illiterate populist horseshit on a football forum. 

 

Some of the 'self-proclaimed' armchair experts on here should visit the State of Victoria and tell the governors, biosecurity specialists, virologists, immunologists and epidemiologists that "lockdown doesn't work". Don't forget to also let them know that you are a member of a provincial UK internet football forum and that the University of You Tube sent you. 

 

That aside, since we have established on Thursday that 'Lockdowns don't work' because several members of Foxes Talk said so, can I reiterate the requests from both St.Albans Fox and Leicsmac for these people to detail an alternative strategy that does? Only, judging by the total lack of response, it must have slipped their minds.

what a load of bollox

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, whoareyaaa said:

what a load of bollox

No use saying it. Do feel free to demonstrate why. Go ahead. And whist on the subject of "bollox"...

 

19 minutes ago, whoareyaaa said:

there a few factors in play imo, I'm not saying the vaccine is harmful but they are changing the way society lives because of damage to the planet and ecosystems and this virus is just a blanket to start that change

lol

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Purely in an effort to raise the standard of discourse here right now, I ask, sincerely:

 

@whoareyaaa (and anyone else who might share a similar viewpoint), what would be the best way out of this, in your opinion - and why?

 

I'm honestly interested in thoughts here - if it is just an unsubstantiated hunch, feel free to say so, there's no actual shame in that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Line-X said:

In Australia, and in particular Victoria, state lockdown policies have been decisive, committed and effectual aided by a compliant citizenship that unlike the UK enforced and maintained distancing protocols. This in tandem with a comprehensive programme of testing and contact tracing. Lockdown is not an isolated measure - as has been painstakingly explained again and again and again, it is designed to reduce clinical impact, reduce the r-nought value and bring the virus under control, it is therefore not a policy that operates in isolation from a range of other measures. It is however demonstrably necessary. 

 

Worldwide, overwhelming evidence suggests that lockdowns help contain coronavirus outbreaks and prevent additional deaths. Data shows that where lockdown measures have been observed to prevent the COVID-19 pandemic, that the spread of the virus can be significantly reduced and suppressed by this preventive restriction. However, that alone will not actually stop the virus, China had to undertake rapid testing of any suspect case, immediate isolation of anyone who was a confirmed or suspected case, and then quarantine the close contacts for 14 days so that they could then figure out if any were infected. Those were the measures that stopped transmission in China, as opposed to simply major travel restrictions and lockdowns. 

 

Nonetheless, in Wuhan, China, it is known that the city's lockdown on January 23 prevented tens of thousands of infections throughout the Hubei province. Without the lockdown, cases in Hubei would have been 65% higher. International researchers also recently determined that overall social distancing in China reduced the number of daily interactions by at least sevenfold, thereby lowering transmission.

 

This is an incredibly complex set of variables that we are confronted with. The populist notion that the people are "wise to it" is complete horseshit and that is precisely the foolhardy rhetoric and misconception that causes guidelines and restrictions to be flagrantly flouted, will inflict further damage to the economy long term, usher in further waves of infection and ultimately costs lives.

 

In spite of this data and complexity, last week I read on this thread that apparently 'lockdown doesn't work'.

 

So it must be true then :appl:

 

Odd that, because global data would beg to differ. Perhaps that's because the informed expertise in the fields of virology, immunology and epidemiology is preoccupied with applying their appreciable experience modelling infectious disease rates as opposed to posting scientifically illiterate populist horseshit on a football forum. 

 

Some of the 'self-proclaimed' armchair experts on here should visit the State of Victoria and tell the governors, biosecurity specialists, virologists, immunologists and epidemiologists that "lockdown doesn't work". Don't forget to also let them know that you are a member of a provincial UK internet football forum and that the University of You Tube sent you. 

 

That aside, since we have established on Thursday that 'Lockdowns don't work' because several members of Foxes Talk said so, can I reiterate the requests from both St.Albans Fox and Leicsmac for these people to detail an alternative strategy that does? Only, judging by the total lack of response, it must have slipped their minds.

Course a lockdown works, it's bound to, and if you take it to the extreme and lock everyone in their houses for long enough, no-one will catch it and the figures will say zero, but the problem is that a lockdown can't go on forever, and consequently people will argue that lockdowns don't work because eventually you have to come out of a lockdown and the whole problem starts again, just delayed by 2 months. The government are trying to stop the nhs being overwhelmed, which must be working because the nhs appears not to be overwhelmed, but at what cost to the general health of the nation 12 months down the line, no-one knows what it could be like.

  • Thanks 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...