Coronavirus Thread

[dsr-burnley]

30 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Well said.

 

I don't think he did misinterpret it. Everyone is dangerous at these times but that poster decided to single out migrants as a 'dangerous source'. It's no different to people flying in to the country...

Yes he did.  See the above posts and try and work out what I meant.  I can't make it any simpler.

 

For the record, I know that migrants arriving in small boats are no different in principle to people arriving by plane.  My point was that if you have a country with no infections, a relatively small number of people arriving unregistered and sliding away into the night to hide, would be a dangerous source of infection.  I don't care what colour their skin is.  

[Blackboots only]

1 hour ago, Line-X said:

New Zealand has a population of 4.8 million compared to 66.5 million in the UK. 3.8 million of which are in the north island. and 1.6 million of these in Auckland. Entry into the country is very strictly regulated and its border control designed to protect its biodiversity and ecosystem. I've lived in New Zealand and visited the country many times. Kiwis are fixers, doers, who tend to be stoic and resilient. They also strictly adhered to lockdown restrictions which the government instituted early and resolutely aiming for rapid elimination in which cities were shut down and the national parks closed. New Zealand's isolated location and low population was key - in addition to only having three major cities, Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch - the next closest is Hamilton which is about the size of Colchester. The South Island is very sparsely populated and aside from Christchurch, Dunedin is the next biggest settlement, around the size of Doncaster. 

 

Saying that, unlike the UK, national lockdown was immediate, stringent and the population complicit. Their 'Level 4' restrictions meant grocery stores, pharmacies, hospitals, and petrol stations were the only commerce allowed; vehicle travel was restricted; and social interaction was limited to within households. This science driven strategy could work anywhere that has functioning government and infrastructure, as we've seen in Vietnam, Taiwan, China and parts of Australia - particularly Victoria. 

 

The county will need to maintain the total halt on arrivals until a vaccine is developed and widely disseminated or risk the threat of reinfection. That’s a big ask for a country where tourism, New Zealand’s largest export industry in terms of foreign exchange earning, accounts for 10 percent of GDP and nearly 15 percent of the workforce. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake, and forecasts indicate that the economy will not recover until the latter half of the decade. Interestingly, I was reading a recent survey which showed that 87 percent of Kiwis supported the harsh restrictions understanding that decisive action was necessary to bring about a swifter end to the crisis. Unlike our own faltering and hesitant government over here, together with the scientifically illiterate fools that bemoan wearing a facemask in public, not being able to congregate in a pub or go to a football stadium and in between clanging their pots and pans for the NHS - insist on doing this at the slightest hint of  the mercury rising into the mid twenties...

 

So no, nothing like the UK. 

Excellent post 👍🏻
 

My mate and his OH flew back to New Zealand at the start of December after spending 6 months here in the uk. 

They have dual citizenship and live on the North Island. 
 

They had to quarantine for 14 days in a government approved hotel in Auckland. 
They were not allowed to leave the hotel. 
They had to book it online here in the uk using NZ government website and it cost around £4000 for the pair of them. 

 

Seems a good system but totally unworkable here in the uk. 

[leicsmac]

51 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Obvs a lot smaller nation but I read about Taiwan deals with incoming persons from abroad. Absolutely superb - balancing the line between protective and actually caring 

Yep, very good indeed.

 

Not sure if they're still doing it but I do remember that if you flew into Korea, during your quarantine time they would drop off any temperature and medical check stuff at your door and give you a voucher for 50 quid of online food shopping that would likewise be delivered to your door to see you out the two weeks.

[Alf Bentley]

7 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Because I was talking about New Zealand.  Pliskin made a direct comparison between New Zealand and the UK both being islands, and I made a slightly oblique comment about if we were like New Zealand,.an island with basically no coronavirus, how we would cope with a relatively large number of people arriving unregistered from unsanitary and overcrowded boats, some of them captured en route and others slipping into the country unseen.

 

I'm aware of the context of your comment - a debate about Covid control measures, comparing NZ and UK due to both being island states.

 

In that context, you chose to focus on a very specific group of people who, beyond reasonable doubt, have had minimal impact on Covid spread. 

That group of people also happen to be an obvious target for those looking for scapegoats (I'm not necessarily saying that's you - but it's why I felt your comment needed to be challenged).

 

1 minute ago, dsr-burnley said:

That's right.  IF THERE IS NO CORONAVIRUS IN THE COUNTRY, SUCH AS IN NEW ZEALAND - then 20,000 migrants packed into little boats would be a relatively dangerous source of infection in comparison to other people.  In the UK as it stands they are not dangerous - nor for that matter are other travellers - because relative to other people they don't have any more infection.  Once the infection is in, there effect of letting a little bit more in isn't enough to really matter.  But when there isn't much infection, or even none at all, a little bit extra is lethal.

 

I felt it more relevant to discuss the real world that we live in, where there is an awful lot of Covid in the country.

 

Frankly, given what we all face, I find it bizarre that you want to discuss a set of hypothetical circumstances that didn't happen. Yes, if the UK was a Covid-free zone, then having infected migrants arrive in small boats would be higher up the list of priorities. The scale of the problems we faced would also be much smaller overall. If Messi and Ronaldo had signed for us (or Burnley) in the summer, we might be higher up the league.....

 

Anyway, I've made my points and have paid attention to yours - and don't want to divert this thread into a dialogue or slanging match so I'll bow out for now.

[dsr-burnley]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I'm aware of the context of your comment - a debate about Covid control measures, comparing NZ and UK due to both being island states.

 

In that context, you chose to focus on a very specific group of people who, beyond reasonable doubt, have had minimal impact on Covid spread. 

That group of people also happen to be an obvious target for those looking for scapegoats (I'm not necessarily saying that's you - but it's why I felt your comment needed to be challenged).

 

 

I felt it more relevant to discuss the real world that we live in, where there is an awful lot of Covid in the country.

 

Frankly, given what we all face, I find it bizarre that you want to discuss a set of hypothetical circumstances that didn't happen. Yes, if the UK was a Covid-free zone, then having infected migrants arrive in small boats would be higher up the list of priorities. The scale of the problems we faced would also be much smaller overall. If Messi and Ronaldo had signed for us (or Burnley) in the summer, we might be higher up the league.....

 

Anyway, I've made my points and have paid attention to yours - and don't want to divert this thread into a dialogue or slanging match so I'll bow out for now.

1.  Illegal migrants have had no impact on Covid spread in the UK.  That is blindingly obvious.  You have said it, I have said it.  I will keep on saying it until you realise that I have said it.

 

2.  If the UK had been run like New Zealand and had no covid running wild and had been locking up all international arrivals, then illegal migrants would have made a significant difference.

 

As for talking about hypothetical circumstances that didn't happen, there has been quite a lot of talk about what we should have done.  I and most people think it's appropriate, you don't, end of story.

 

I won't apologise for banging on about this.  When you start throwing "this person is racist" accusations about, they tend to stick, so I will defend them as long as you keep making them.

[Strokes]

44 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Well said.

 

I don't think he did misinterpret it. Everyone is dangerous at these times but that poster decided to single out migrants as a 'dangerous source'. It's no different to people flying in to the country...

The point he was responding too was how we could have done a New Zealand here, close borders completely. He asked how you stopped the illegal immigrants coming over on dingys and that they would pose a risk to this strategy. I don’t see what is wrong with what he said.

34 minutes ago, bovril said:

So then let's do it. We have a government that was apparently elected on taking back control of our borders and yet we seem to have some of the worst checks on incoming travellers in the developed world. Why is there such concern over a few hundred migrants arriving by dingy but not hundreds of thousands of travellers who haven't been checked or monitored adequately for nearly 12 months now. 

I don’t think it’s possible to completely do it, (not without taking barbaric drastic action anyway) and that’s kind of the point.

27 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

There is absolutely a valid debate to be had over controls at borders. I'm not sure that closing borders entirely was ever feasible for long - and other measures would have taken time to put in place.

 

But it should have been possible, within weeks (?), to establish a system for testing at borders and properly monitoring quarantine for incoming travelers....especially as Johnson announced in early May we'd soon have a "world-beating" test-and-trace system. Small boats? The failure to exercise proper control over the much bigger influx of conventional travelers and to do better at controling the internal UK virus spread mattered much, much more than a few infected migrants in small boats.

 

Yes, every body, foreign or otherwise matters. Yes, I'm sure some people caught the virus from migrants who arrived in small boats. But I'm sure an awful lot more caught it due to infected conventional travelers circulating unchecked (foreigners and returning Brits) - and due to the lamentable govt performance at tackling the problem internally.

 

Yet our Burnley friend chose to take a valid debate about Covid border control measures and focus it on migrants in small boats who, beyond any reasonable doubt, were a tiny part of the problem. He said they "must be a dangerous source of infection" (presumably in comparison to other people). Yet Covid infection rates peaked in early spring and have soared again now in the winter......whereas most migrants in small boats arrive in better weather, like in the summer when UK infection rates fell.....

 

There is "a" risk of Covid infections being spread by small boat migrants. There is a risk of you or me getting beaten to death today and the murderer being a Jew, but I don't think undue focus should be placed on that latter risk.

 

 

That’s not how I seen it, he was arguing that it would be impossible to do a New Zealand type lockdown and border shutdown here and even if we did we would still be at risk and highlighted why. If we had have done it and a illegal immigrant on a boat came in carrying the virus, it would damage that plan would it not?

What do you do to prevent it? Sink them, put floating spikes all around the island? Or accept it probably isn’t possible and it’s damage limitations? 

[Pliskin]

I think lockdown 3 will be very much like the first. So I do feel the government will buckle under the pressure and stop everything again, back to the only outside for 1 hour of exercise etc. 

[Tuna]

 

[Pliskin]

1 minute ago, Tuna said:

 

No surprises, they’ve been fantastically slow to react to anything..... I’m sure there will be another patronising press conference on the way from them blaming everything else other than themselves. 
 

Spitting image picked the perfect time for a revival, so much content for them to sink their teeth into. 

[BKLFox]

12 minutes ago, Tuna said:

 

 

6 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

No surprises, they’ve been fantastically slow to react to anything..... I’m sure there will be another patronising press conference on the way from them blaming everything else other than themselves. 
 

Spitting image picked the perfect time for a revival, so much content for them to sink their teeth into. 

but schools have been closed since 18th Dec & most before that.
All secondary schools are still closed until next Monday 11th Jan with then only Yr11 & 13s attending, the rest will follow a week later 18th Jan, so not sure how fantastically slow they are as my sums make schools being closed for over a month if they do indeed return fully on the 18th Jan.

[Pliskin]

Just now, BKLFox said:

 

but schools have been closed since 18th Dec & most before that.
All secondary schools are still closed until next Monday 11th Jan with then only Yr11 & 13s attending, the rest will follow a week later 18th Jan, so not sure how fantastically slow they are as my sums make schools being closed for over a month if they do indeed return fully on the 18th Jan.

The schools closed due to a Christmas holiday..... Not because the government saw fit to close them... The PM has been encouraging people to send their kids to schools? So I am not sure where your point is coming from? 

[The People's Hero]

Its okay being reactive (as opposed to proactive) to a point, but only if you react with wisdom, haste (not often seen together) and decisiveness.

 

You can't get all the expert advice and then just not act for 2 weeks. By the time the 2 weeks has gone, the situation has worsened and the advice may actually have evolved.

 

I just find the whole thing completely bizarre now.

[BKLFox]

10 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

The schools closed due to a Christmas holiday..... Not because the government saw fit to close them... The PM has been encouraging people to send their kids to schools? So I am not sure where your point is coming from? 

point is figures rising despite schools being closed for 3 weeks already regardless of why they are closed.

If as expecting we go into full lockdown then i'm sure they will be closed along with everything else as it was in Lockdown 1.0

[Pliskin]

Just now, BKLFox said:

point is figures rising despite schools being closed for 3 weeks already regardless of why they are closed.

If as expecting we go into full lockdown then i'm sure they will be closed along with everything else as it was in Lockdown 1.0

Figures have been rising because we came out of a lockdown far too early and entered a tier system when the figures were still going up.

It’s just been a catalogue of errors which will eventually lead to another national lockdown. 
 

You’re right though, school will untimely end up closing as will everything again I imagine. 

 

[Nalis]

1 hour ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Yeah that would have been a useful number on that chart. But surely there is a correlation between deaths and hospital admissions by category, even if it's a rough one.

Yeah I would have thought there was a correlation too. Even if its 65% fewer people in hospital for 78% of deaths then thats still a hell of a difference.

Edited 4 January 2021 by Nalis

[Alf Bentley]

59 minutes ago, Strokes said:

That’s not how I seen it, he was arguing that it would be impossible to do a New Zealand type lockdown and border shutdown here and even if we did we would still be at risk and highlighted why. If we had have done it and a illegal immigrant on a boat came in carrying the virus, it would damage that plan would it not?

What do you do to prevent it? Sink them, put floating spikes all around the island? Or accept it probably isn’t possible and it’s damage limitations? 

 

If I replied to your questions: 

(a) it would fan the flames of an argument in which the points have already been made on both sides, I think;

(b) it would continue to divert this thread away from the important realities of Covid and onto an issue that, though important in its own right, is a side-issue to Covid....precisely what I wanted to avoid in the first place.

 

So, I'll dodge your questions and wish you a Happy New Year! 

[Strokes]

Just now, Alf Bentley said:

 

If I replied to your questions: 

(a) it would fan the flames of an argument in which the points have already been made on both sides, I think;

(b) it would continue to divert this thread away from the important realities of Covid and onto an issue that, though important in its own right, is a side-issue to Covid....precisely what I wanted to avoid in the first place.

 

So, I'll dodge your questions and wish you a Happy New Year! 

They weren’t meant for you to answer them point on point anyway but yes I agree, let’s keep the thread on track.

Happy New Year Alf, I hope you have a good one.

[Guest Harrydc]

What possible new restrictions do we think they will attempt to bring in with this tougher measures? 

[BKLFox]

7 minutes ago, Harrydc said:

What possible new restrictions do we think they will attempt to bring in with this tougher measures? 

What restrictions does Keir want?

[Sol thewall Bamba]

25 minutes ago, Nalis said:

Yeah I would have thought there was a correlation too. Even if its 65% fewer people in hospital for 78% of deaths then thats still a hell of a difference.

Absolutely. Pair that with a seasonal reduction in other illnesses heading into the spring and hopefully that may ease the pressure. Maybe even freeing up resources to speed up the immunization program even more.

 

[Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo]

2 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

What restrictions does Keir want?

7 year warranty

[filbertway]

I'm not sure what else they can take from us?

 

We just sit in our houses anyway. There's nothing left to do or take from us.

 

Make essential shops one person only. If you're a single parent then you'll need to get a friend or family member to go for you.

 

I'm expecting to see a reduction in the next 2 weeks now the holidays are over. People will have seen the christmas break as a chance to go and see a few mates or family. I think now we're in Jan and normality is resumed for the majority of working people that we'll start to see a reduction. Mainly as people don't want to do anything in January but wallow anyway

 

[yorkie1999]

36 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

point is figures rising despite schools being closed for 3 weeks already regardless of why they are closed.

If as expecting we go into full lockdown then i'm sure they will be closed along with everything else as it was in Lockdown 1.0

Doubt it, my mrs has just been told that all staff are to receive weekly tests on site.

[Leicester_Loyal]

Think we'll be into a national lockdown or everywhere at Tier 4 (if there's any difference?) by the weekend.

[martyn]

2 hours ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

I came across this last night, I couldn't find the source but even if the figures are a little out it still paints a rough picture. Vaccinating the 4 million most vulnerable people would cover off 66% of the cumulative deaths, that's a massive reduction in the deaths which could be done relatively quickly. 

 

Imo once we've done everyone over 75 (which would take 8.7 million total vaccinations), that's a 78% drop in deaths, yes I'm assuming 100% immunity but this is all just rough numbers anyway. At that point surely we'd be having serious conversation about getting back to normal? Proper normal that is. 

 

Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but look at those vaccination numbers to prevent one death in the lower categories, 94,000 jabs to save one life under 50, if we're still sat inside at that point...

Point has already been made, but it's hospitalisations that are important.

 

If you vaccinate all over 75's then open up fully, it wouldn't be too long before hospitals fill up again due to sheer numbers getting infected, unless the seasonal weather effects can temper it a bit.