|
|
Post by garry on Jun 1, 2020 17:21:13 GMT
I am surprised by some of the continued attitudes towards social distancing despite the damage it will continue to inflict on day to day live, the economy, children’s mental health, etc. This all comes back to the fact that this virus poses little threat to anyone other than elderly folk with existing morbidity – and before the chorus of “ it’s not about you, it’s about spreading to others “ starts up like a broken record, consider the following: Hiding healthy people away and teaching them to treat each other like leprosy ridden filth bags is ridiculous given the above, if anything it’s weakening our immune systems which are normally under constant bombardment due to our usual, regular social interactions (so I think we will be more susceptible to the usual snuffles and coughs – ask anyone what the first 6 months of when their kids started school was like). The sooner healthy people are exposed to Covid (under normal life circumstances), the faster it will burn out (virus mutates, becomes less virulent so it can spread faster) and that’s better for everyone – especially those who do need to isolate. Seriously – what is the alternative ?, we play virus hide and seek for the next 3 years until the next cough pops up and the whole sorry cycle starts again ? Well said. The broken record of protecting others is really getting tiring. It’s as if there’s this single, virtuous path to a post covid world - that by locking down and socially distancing they are being good citizens, protecting the most vulnerable. Some are just self-interested bed wetters who are hiding behind the ‘do the right thing’ mantra, but many truly believe it. What that group seem to miss is that lockdown doesn’t come for free. Every life saved from covid needs to be balanced against the lives lost because of lockdown (think of how few cancer diagnosis’s are happening in the uk right now), live’s damaged through mental health issues relating directly to this and lives lost to economic issues relating to this crisis across the world (there are already huge issues building in poor countries because we’ve turned off their export tap). They are saving the elderly by sacrificing the next generation. It’s myopic and cowardly. |
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jun 1, 2020 17:33:20 GMT
That is what we started off doing but the media soon scared people into demanding lockdown. I am the view that both we and our political leaders are now guilty of using the media as a convenient scapegoat for our own failings. This doesn't mean I think the media hasn't got dirty hands; it just means I don't agree with shovelling all the blame on them. I doubtless sound like a stuck record, but I hate this modern trend where everything is always somebody else's fault but I especially hate it in politicians. Call me old-fashioned, but I want our elected leaders to take responsibility and they all seem remarkably unkeen on doing so. |
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jun 1, 2020 17:43:45 GMT
The DC outrage was only ever about Brexit. Oh FFS. Bugger effing Brexit. Let the lemmings jump. Of far more concern at this point is the fact that we have a lazy and useless PM, an inept government full of third rate tossers and no effing plan. All engineered by Dominic Cummings. Whose goals are still suspect. He's not a Tory and he's just using Boris and the Tories for his own peculiar goals, which I don't think any of us understand. |
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Jun 1, 2020 19:19:47 GMT
I agree with Racing about DC. He’s found an outlet / channel for his scheming and didn’t have to do the horrid hustings thing to get there. He’s some kind of control freak but what kind is as yet unclear.
|
|
|
|
Post by chipbutty on Jun 1, 2020 21:26:58 GMT
Nail on the head.....
The SAGE minutes recently released apparently show (haven't read them myself) that lock down was not driven by specific recommendations from the scientific leads. So I'm assuming this has DC's dabs all over it.
Norway's PM has shown some of the qualities team BoJo sorely lack - she has admitted the government overreacted, mainly driven by fear and overruled Norway's institute for public health advise not to close the schools. So, she has proven she is fundamentally a decent human being (tried to do her best and responds with honesty and humility). That's all we can reasonably expect.
Interestingly - NIPH also think that they could have got the same result by not locking down and using other infection control measures.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jun 2, 2020 8:30:13 GMT
The broken record of protecting others is really getting tiring. Especially when you go to the shops or garden centre and they're full of the people we're meant to be protecting just wandering around, brushing past you, ignoring the attempts to have any sort of one-way system and generally behaving as if they're indestructible with nothing to worry about. |
|
|
|
Post by PetrolEd on Jun 2, 2020 9:57:56 GMT
So we all agree the government hasn't performed well however this is at extremes from either side. Those that say the government haven't restricted movement nearly enough, that opening the lockdown is foolhardy and those that are equally sure that a lockdown has caused far too much damage to the economy and needs to be lifted now so we can all get on and earn.
So what do we do? Ideally for me we'd open up and have rules in place on social distancing. Those that in the high risk sector need to remain secluded. Trouble is we're a nation of morons and just looking at somewhere like Bournemouth beach on the weekend tells you all we need to know.
We shouldn't need to be told about restrictions we should be using our common sense but seems as a nation we have none.
I feel for the government, your proper damned if you do, damned if you don't and you can't call us out for being stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jun 2, 2020 10:05:54 GMT
We do not agree that the government has performed well. I think they performed better than a troupe of gibbering monkeys wearing ties, but only just. One of the world's highest infection and death rates would seem to reflect that.
I don't think we are necessarily any more a nation of morons than, say, Italy, but I think that Italy's government (which has been heavily criticised by the Italian right) has done a better job than our government. Most Italians agree that if the Italian government hadn't literally locked pretty much all of Italy in its houses for several months, the outbreak there would not have been brought under control, because absent draconian government action, the average Italian simply wasn't going to take any of it seriously.
|
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jun 2, 2020 10:11:08 GMT
I think the infection rates reflect the difference in populations rather than difference in policies.
|
|
|
|
Post by PetrolEd on Jun 2, 2020 10:31:24 GMT
We do not agree that the government has performed well. I think they performed better than a troupe of gibbering monkeys wearing ties, but only just. One of the world's highest infection and death rates would seem to reflect that. I don't think we are necessarily any more a nation of morons than, say, Italy, but I think that Italy's government (which has been heavily criticised by the Italian right) has done a better job than our government. Most Italians agree that if the Italian government hadn't literally locked pretty much all of Italy in its houses for several months, the outbreak there would not have been brought under control, because absent draconian government action, the average Italian simply wasn't going to take any of it seriously. Edited my post to now say HAS NOT performed well and NOT has performed well. An important word I left out! |
|
|
|
Post by chipbutty on Jun 2, 2020 10:48:21 GMT
Is there any evidence that proves this ?
|
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Jun 2, 2020 12:25:03 GMT
I had an interesting discussion yesterday: London was the first place to be hit badly and Scotland and the North were up to a couple of weeks behind the curve for infection rates. However we all locked down at the same time so Scotland effectively did have an earlier lockdown than the rest of UK.
If early lockdown was the golden ticket to stopping the spread, why has Scotland not fared better than the rest of the UK. At the moment Scotland has a higher R than most of the rest of the UK so it must come down to population behaviour or something much more complex than that such as the genetics of the types of people it attacks.
|
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jun 2, 2020 12:32:17 GMT
Scotland has handled this very badly. It hasn't received a lot of coverage as yet but I expect that is being held back to give Nicola Sturgeon a bit of a kicking down the line.
|
|
|
|
Post by PG on Jun 2, 2020 12:46:05 GMT
..The SAGE minutes recently released apparently show (haven't read them myself) that lock down was not driven by specific recommendations from the scientific leads. So I'm assuming this has DC's dabs all over it... I decided to read some of the SAGE minutes around the time that lockdown was put in (23rd March). You can read the minutes to say what you want them to say - like most government minutes I expect. On 18 March SAGE do clearly state that schools should be closed. However, the rest gets a bit wooly. My cynical precis would be - "the measures already in place by that date [i.e not full lockdown] may be enough, or maybe not enough. It is too early to tell - and we have no real data either way anyway. But if they are not enough, it would have been better to take action earlier rather than later". Right, that's our arses suitably covered when these minutes are published...... Screen shot from the minutes below:  And the full lockdown was put in 5 days after that SAGE meeting - by which time the press pressure was overwhelming. Now whether the press reflect the public or lead them on this is a different issue. I think that any government would - after the event of course - be damned if they did and damned if they didn't. The lockdown is good group wanted it earlier and harder and still want it. The opposite group think it was a bad decision and still do. It is interesting to me that the one thing SAGE are very clear on is that schools must be closed. Yet there is evidence now that children are pretty immune and may not even pass on the virus as much as adults. Yes everybody seems to say that it is all the government's fault? Personally, I think that the at risk should have been protected and the rest of us educated about the risks and told to deal with it. But then I like to think I've got some common sense.... |
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jun 2, 2020 13:32:23 GMT
..The SAGE minutes recently released apparently show (haven't read them myself) that lock down was not driven by specific recommendations from the scientific leads. So I'm assuming this has DC's dabs all over it... I decided to read some of the SAGE minutes around the time that lockdown was put in (23rd March). You can read the minutes to say what you want them to say - like most government minutes I expect. On 18 March SAGE do clearly state that schools should be closed. However, the rest gets a bit wooly. My cynical precis would be - "the measures already in place by that date [i.e not full lockdown] may be enough, or maybe not enough. It is too early to tell - and we have no real data either way anyway. But if they are not enough, it would have been better to take action earlier rather than later". Right, that's our arses suitably covered when these minutes are published...... Screen shot from the minutes below: And the full lockdown was put in 5 days after that SAGE meeting - by which time the press pressure was overwhelming. Now whether the press reflect the public or lead them on this is a different issue. I think that any government would - after the event of course - be damned if they did and damned if they didn't. The lockdown is good group wanted it earlier and harder and still want it. The opposite group think it was a bad decision and still do. It is interesting to me that the one thing SAGE are very clear on is that schools must be closed. Yet there is evidence now that children are pretty immune and may not even pass on the virus as much as adults. Yes everybody seems to say that it is all the government's fault? Personally, I think that the at risk should have been protected and the rest of us educated about the risks and told to deal with it. But then I like to think I've got some common sense.... Evidence now may say that but at the time I think there was a strong impression that kids may not be affected by the virus much but they could be a carrier and pass it on, thus the reason for the recommendation on Mothers Day that they didn't take all the grandkids to visit parents. If it all gets looked at in hindsight then we all did stuff wrong. Even voices that are calling VERY loudly for an end to lockdown were pretty quiet for a long enough time. I agree its not fair to blame the Government, we all have a part to play in any decisions that have been taken. Thinking about it more I think we should give the print media & BBC a bit of a break - far more people seem to get their information (however good it may be) from Facebook and Twitter now than any of the outdated stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jun 2, 2020 13:39:55 GMT
Is there any evidence that proves this ? No idea. You need to include the rest of my sentence ". .., because absent draconian government action, the average Italian simply wasn't going to take any of it seriously." Not being an Italian, I wouldn't presume to comment, but I know a lot of Italians who have made the comment to me that their compatriots are not disciplined enough as a nation to have been trusted to take this seriously enough without the government taking severe steps. But equally, we watch a lot of Italian TV and in particular an Italian politics talkshow called " Porta a porta" which is a sort of Italian Newsnight hosted by a veteran Italian newscaster. It probably has a bit of a rightwing slant but is generally good. What watching it shows is that there is by no means any more consensus in Italian politics or commentariat about Covid-19 than there is here. Although there is generally more of a sense that it is more widely taken seriously there. PaP and other similar programmes are littered with talking heads who are medics, virologists, economists, respected senior commentators etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Jun 2, 2020 14:31:01 GMT
So let's consider what would happen if we had no government (or effective government) at all. Local families and local leaders (heads of families, business owners, traders, artisans etc.) would have seen some kind of illness and taken it upon themselves to shield their families (human nature) and advise others to do the same. Because that message was coming from people with a high level of localised authority and trust people would have done exactly as advised for as long as their household could stand it (so finances, food, sanity etc.). Then they'd have started breaking their self-enforced lockdown and noticed not so many people were ill / dying. Then they'd have got on with their lives, erring on the side of caution for a period of time.
This is effectively what we've all done with the exception that the main message comes from government and there is such a degree of mistrust in government that it's been easy for the naysayers to call "foul". In our society those naysayers are the media and their presence on social media, TV, radio etc. so they form groups: those that call it all bollocks and those that follow the advice. This flows from the initial "don't shake hands, touch your face and wash the top three layers of skin off your hands every ten minutes" (not enough / it's all overkill) through lockdown (it's all too late / it's overkill) up to the easing of lockdown (it's too soon / it's not enough easing). In the main we are following the advice (we did the hand washing, the lockdown, we've started venturing out) but the underlying issue is that whatever the advice it's not necessarily right because it comes from a body of people that there is much distrust for.
Over the years governments of all sides have told us one thing and done another, told us to behave one way and not done so themselves, made sure that they were OK before passing legislation that would leave others worse off, done something then passed legislation to ensure the something made them better off. Maybe it#s not fair to blame the government for this current position but there is no need to have any sympathy for it based on past form.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jun 2, 2020 15:34:25 GMT
I think the governments actions (particularly Dominic Cummings) have caused a lot of people who have not known anyone to have had the virus let along die of it to start calling bullshit on the whole thing or take the view that it wont happen to them (like earthquakes or volcanoes or infant mortality it'll never effect them just those on the telly) hence they've started bending the rules and inviting mates round to their house or having mass gatherings on the beaches. It's not like they can see the virus either and anyway the politicians aren't that bothered otherwise they would have stayed home. Couple this with the ongoing sunny weather and it's easy to see why people want to go out and have fun again without worrying about the consequences.
|
|
