Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
marinyork
Resting in suspended Animation
I'm inclined to think that the timings of the new fines may also be something to do with the government app launching on 24th(?). Fines should have been done earlier, but it's more recently where the most egregious cases of a few idiots have come to light and possibly more attempts at enforcement.
Beebo
Firm and Fruity
They were saying on the news yesterday that the UK population as a whole are worse than most other countries at following the rules which is why we can’t be trusted like the Swedes were.
Something has changed in the last few years because I would have always expected us to be one of the best.
Something has changed in the last few years because I would have always expected us to be one of the best.
It’s part of the strategy of blame the public not their handling of it. Politicians have a modus operandi that involves constantly lying then deny it when caught out. We are reaping what they’ve been sowing for years. Not that many trust politicians to be telling the truth.
marinyork
Resting in suspended Animation
After MPs expenses scandal there is no reason why anyone should trust an MP as it showed that most are greedy and badly behaved.
tom73
Guru
It's true the power is already around but we don't have enough Public Health Officers or other appointed professional such as an infectious disease Nurse to review and issues orders for the high number of Covid cases. Remember most Test and Trace is unqualified call handlers they are not qualified to make clinical decisions. If they had enough clinical contact tracers working the phones then maybe you could do it that way. But that cost money and means using NHS not Serco so that's off the table. Much better to shift the blame to the public for not going something.
The powers set up for Covid only ever covered refusing a test not quarantine. It was PHE who had the power to detain for 14 days then another 14 if still a risk. Until they get updated the current powers can only be used and by officers named in them. You can't be held in a secure hospital without a court order or detrained under the mental health act. Even then the mental capacity act still comes into play. Even if you wanted to we don't have enough placers for people who really need them prisons are full of people in real need but not place to go.
nickyboy
Norven Mankey
For sure, but it's a reasonable topic to discuss here, no?
No country other than NZ with its unique geographical position has stamped out the virus. Every country is working towards an "optimal" balance between opening up society and economy and Covid deaths. I'm just interested to hear where folk think that optimal number is
Fwiw I think it's more than we are experiencing now but less than the 1000/day we did experience. Probably North of 100. It's a difficult topic but this question must be central to every country's response, although few governments would admit it
tom73
Guru
The have your cake and eat it "plan" that Boris likes can only work if they start using the information we have both the data to know what the virus is doing and the clinical and scientific knowledge we now have. Testing needs to get much smarter and more targeted and backed up with availability and a more local focus. Given the high number of asymptomatic cases the government needs to formally start working around particle transmission and use of face coverings needs to be made wider. "Covid secure" need's a rethink and be enforced the tick box approach won't cut it. None of this can ever work without clear, simple and consistent public health campaign.
If more money is going to be poured in to keep things moving then that's needs targeting both at a business level and a public one.
If more money is going to be poured in to keep things moving then that's needs targeting both at a business level and a public one.
marinyork
Resting in suspended Animation
I suspect the so called optimal number is something like 50-200 deaths per day
.It's probably not actually a real world solution though. By the time you have 100 deaths per day let alone 200 you're quite close to unstable solutions and it running wildly out of control. So it would mean that you'd have to have a much lower solution perhaps something like 25 per day.
I don't think there is a societal response. It's split down the middle like brexit. Half of society wants the economy prioritised, half wants physical health prioritised. It also means it's a nightmare as very crudely you could see from a completely independent point of view that half of the population won't 'cooperate' with getting the economy going and the other half the population won't cooperate with severe restrictions (which is what people go on about on here all day long). None of that works unless you take 90% of the population with you and various studies have shown 20% of people cause 80% of cases deliberately/otherwise and a few idiots causing outbreaks whether it's south korea or bolton. You need to take 90%+ of the population with you with whatever is implemented.
That implies there’s some nice graph between open up these bits of the economy and the death rate will be this. There isn’t , sure there are models, but this is the first time they are being tested. There are a lot of assumptions in the models, some may or may not match the real world. So they’ve got to monitor what is going on. That’s where the test test test mantra of WHO comes from. But there’s a lag between spikes and deaths. It’s not as simple as open these bits up, and deaths will be this. Truth is they don’t know which is why there is so much disagreement on what to do.
There also a certain butterfly effect of chaos theory in this. Look at Bolton, a guy returns from holiday, tests positive, doesn’t isolate, goes on pub crawl. Suddenly they are in special measures from a relatively low infection rate before that.
There also a certain butterfly effect of chaos theory in this. Look at Bolton, a guy returns from holiday, tests positive, doesn’t isolate, goes on pub crawl. Suddenly they are in special measures from a relatively low infection rate before that.
Last edited:
tom73
Guru
The main thing was NZ had a plan and a government that fostered the idea that everyone was in it together. Deaths are only part of it though the economic and social damage of larger number of people with long covid. Will have effects on workforce and primary care services. Then we have the really ill "lucky ones" left with long term health issues which are still very much unknown. So they can't work either and the wider effect on the families. The long term effect on public health are going to big and that's before we even start on the mental and physical health of NHS and social care staff. limiting deaths is only a small part of it. Be it an important one so the debate need's to be much wider then deaths and money. We can't have the latter if the wider public health is bust in the process.
Adam4868
Guru
New restrictions across all of Lancashire... except Blackpool ! WTF is that all about ? As I said yesterday it was absolutely heaving.Queues of at least 50 people to get in any of the Weatherspoons pubs on the seafront.Im a hypocrite because in one way it's good for the town,and it needs the money from tourism.But I can't see how this works regarding the virus ? So from Tuesday anywhere in lancs pubs have to shut at 10,yet come to Blackpool were open as late as you want.Could be a new promotional advert....
tom73
Guru
I suspect the so called optimal number is something like 50-200 deaths per day
It's probably not actually a real world solution though. By the time you have 100 deaths per day let alone 200 you're quite close to unstable solutions and it running wildly out of control. So it would mean that you'd have to have a much lower solution perhaps something like 25 per day.
I don't think there is a societal response. It's split down the middle like brexit. Half of society wants the economy prioritised, half wants physical health prioritised. It also means it's a nightmare as very crudely you could see from a completely independent point of view that half of the population won't 'cooperate' with getting the economy going and the other half the population won't cooperate with severe restrictions (which is what people go on about on here all day long). None of that works unless you take 90% of the population with you and various studies have shown 20% of people cause 80% of cases deliberately/otherwise and a few idiots causing outbreaks whether it's south korea or bolton. You need to take 90%+ of the population with you with whatever is implemented.
That's the other part of the science that looks to totality lacking in all this. The more you open up society and work out how to mange it you've got to fully know how it works and the effects it's having.on it. Not sure the government want to listen to the social science or talk about it as it often shines a light on the lack of social policy. Without public trust and cooperation we can't get sadly get much more down the road then we are and the longer this will take. NZ understood that from the word go and built it in to the plan.
SkipdiverJohn
Deplorable Brexiteer
Given any second strict lockdown attempt will simply be ignored by a large part of the population who were clearly already fed up with the first lockdown by the time it got relaxed, any politician with half an ounce of common sense would simply try to keep a lid on the number of daily hospitalisation cases to the point just below NHS overload level and not concern themselves with any other numbers..
The total number of infections doesn't really matter, since most will have no illness or only a mild illness. Coronavirus has now declined a lot in Sweden, because they just adopted a keep it down to a manageable level policy, rather than trying to suppress it hard. Most of the countries that actively tried to stamp out the virus earlier in the year have since seen a second wave that is worse than the first one, but with less deaths. Spain's infection rate is massive, and France is nothing to write home about either. Both countries might has well have not bothered with a lockdown for all it's achieved. It's obvious that you cant contain a contagious infection amongst the general population without literally all normal activity stopping, which no country can afford the economic damage of for very long, and no population will co-operate with indefinitely either.
The ultimate outcome in terms of infections and deaths is not actually going to vary that much amongst countries with similar levels of wealth and healthcare facilities. The difference will be the lockdowners will suffer worse economic outcomes and more deaths from other causes going forward. The UK got slated by all the virtue-signallers for having a very high death rate earlier on, but if you look now there's quite a number of countries with worse rates, and plenty more where the official figures simply aren't credible, and in all likelihood are probably significantly worse than ours in reality.
Last edited:
RoadRider400
Some bloke that likes cycling alone
But they dont know which infections will result in hospitalisations. So how do you achieve that? In my mind hospitalisations (a) make a given percentage of total infections (b). Therefore the only way to reduce a is by reducing b.
Futhermore the actions of today are only shown in the numbers a couple of weeks down the line. So you there is no way of keeping the NHS "just below the overload level". Its not an exact science and they will err on the side of caution...probably.
Not saying I agree with all these lockdowns. But its the simplest way to keep infections and hospital cases down if thats their intention.
Last edited:
