|
Post by Tim on Jan 19, 2021 9:08:24 GMT
It's all very well referencing how great (or at least less badly) Sweden are doing but that then ignores national characteristics. For example when they started social distancing I saw a few comments from Swedes about why they'd want to stand closer - the 2 metres - to other people than they already do.
Additionally I have the strong impression that they're more obedient of any restrictions than the UK in general is.
While I don't have any great faith in our politicians I'm still surprised by the number of people who have some sort of career in pretty much anything that isn't medicine constantly asking for more data. That's not aimed particularly at anyone on here but something I see a lot everywhere. What are they going to do with it and are they actually interpreting it correctly such that their subsequent journey of 200 miles is reasonable?
I think we're close behind the US of not wanting to be told what to do but expecting everyone else around us to obey the rules.
|
|
|
Post by chipbutty on Jan 19, 2021 13:15:29 GMT
The reasons as to why there are differences are so numerous and complex (even if the measurement baseline is identical – which it isn’t), that you will never be able to boil it down to a soundbite or two. It is completely unfair and unjust to blame the perceived poor performance of the UK on wide spread disobedience when so many people have suffered for nigh on a year. Evidence markers indicate an unexpectedly high level of compliance and support for the UK restrictions, across even the usual scapegoated groups – see this BMJ article for details. blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/07/pandemic-fatigue-how-adherence-to-covid-19-regulations-has-been-misrepresented-and-why-it-matters/As to why Sweden appears to have faired so much worse than it’s Nordic neighbours is not simply because they didn’t lockdown whilst Norway, Denmark and Finland did – it is way more nuanced than that and the article below looks at some the key differences (TLDR: Half term holiday timing in relation to the pandemic start, higher per capita levels of international travel, higher immigrant population, much larger nursing home population and the lower level of 2019 mortality vs 5 year average). sebastianrushworth.com/2020/12/06/why-did-sweden-have-more-covid-deaths-than-its-neighbors/I have no doubt there is a lifetime’s work studying these outcomes and many new and interesting theories will be tested and proven, but if you take a high level view of the imperfect absolutes, the outlier countries and American states who didn’t lockdown have not been proven to be wrong based on their stated outcomes to date. This was published today in Telegraph – paywalled but worth a read www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/18/analysis-second-wave-nothing-like-first/Do you really think that is going to happen ? Just look at the press reports today and tell me that the goal posts aren’t being subtly shifted. I don’t think the schools will go back until Easter at the earliest and we will still be under some form restrictions for all of 2021 and the first half of 2022 and I think this because the Government is extraordinarily weak and easily turned by the slightest pressure. I have yet to seen any main media outlet challenge any of the NHS grown ups for their woeful level of preparation for this winter (instead they just let them tell us how we have to put our lives on hold indefinitely) and the teaching union seems hell bent on not letting it’s members do any teaching in near future. They relish this new found power and will only need the slightest of doubts from SAGE to justify “ calls for further measures “ which the BBC and Piers Fucking Morgan will fall over themselves to support. Unless Boris abandons mass testing and manages to rustle up double the ICU capacity and circa 80k nurses and doctors in the next 10 months, what is going to stop the NHS pulling the emergency brake next winter as well ? If anything, the precedents that have been set are more dangerous than the current restrictions.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jan 19, 2021 14:26:32 GMT
I think that the pandemic has proved one thing, it's that prediction is a mug's game.
As such, as a layman in such matters, I'm very wary of leaping on any piece of research or writing no matter how immaculate its credentials or how much it supports what I do or don't already think, because there are simply too many unknowns (known and unknown).
That's not so say that we should not hold the feet of those in authority firmly to the fire to ensure that all decisions are appropriately measured, rational, justifiable and justified. But I would not hasten to judgment.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Jan 19, 2021 16:32:28 GMT
^ ... but we weren't even prepared, as a nation, for the pandemic despite many warnings over a significant period of time that it was highly probable that there would be one at some satge in the "near future".
Will government learn after the current crisis is all-but-over and take steps in case of another one? Remember the "prepare for emergency" web site and booklet that was posted through the letterbox of every home in the country not so long ago? All centred on bombs/destructive attacks. No mention of a pandemic or serious medical issues. The government website has died but the spoof one was still up a few weeks back when I checked.
Will we get updated advice? Will we get information on how we should prepare, eg what minimum levels of tinned food, toilet paper etc we should keep in our homes? Or will I see a pig fly past my window first?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2021 16:39:07 GMT
Funny thing is, there was a lot of government money into research before the pandemic occurred.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Jan 19, 2021 17:28:09 GMT
^ ... but we weren't even prepared, as a nation, for the pandemic despite many warnings over a significant period of time that it was highly probable that there would be one at some satge in the "near future". Will government learn after the current crisis is all-but-over and take steps in case of another one? Remember the "prepare for emergency" web site and booklet that was posted through the letterbox of every home in the country not so long ago? All centred on bombs/destructive attacks. No mention of a pandemic or serious medical issues. The government website has died but the spoof one was still up a few weeks back when I checked. Will we get updated advice? Will we get information on how we should prepare, eg what minimum levels of tinned food, toilet paper etc we should keep in our homes? Or will I see a pig fly past my window first? The problem is the Government (without the benefit of hindsight) needs to decide whether they want to spend a lot of money preparing for something that might never happen. They have to weigh up the cost with the likelihood of it coming to the UK. SARS, bird flu and Ebola didn't manage to make any significant impact on us, so I presume the thought process was "why should it be any different next time". Even if they think the planning and expenditure are worthwhile they will also be aware of the undoubted criticism from the opposition at the waste of public money on something that is highly unlikely to happen when there are children in the UK starving. Add to that the fact that they would be accused of lining the already stuffed pockets of their public school chums and you can see why it might not have been top of the agenda. If we want a tribal political environment we have to be prepared to accept some of the downsides too.
|
|
|
Post by chipbutty on Jan 19, 2021 18:36:09 GMT
I agree that a positive outcome from this episode is that all parties agree that running higher spare (and potentially unused) capacity in terms of facilities and staff would be a bloody good idea.
However – that isn’t necessarily the answer.
In theory, the NHS is always stretched to capacity and beyond every winter and this year there are less overall beds occupied – BUT:
• Covid protocols for social distancing and segregation has soaked up thousands of bed space • Bed blocking is a bigger problem where the occupant would ordinarily return to a care home or another vulnerable adult. • There is a higher load of significantly unwell people whose care was delayed from earlier in the year. • A significant volume (circa 80k ?) of frontline staff are missing as they are either ill or isolating (track’d and trace’d)
So – it’s understandable why some hospitals have been absolutely swamped.
But it’s also clear that two of those issues are exacerbated by the crappy PCR test and the crappy track and trace tool. False positives and/or excessive sensitivity is keeping staff out and patients in with a positive test even though they are not infectious.
The other two issues should and could have been planned for – especially as key elements of the private sector will give the Government whatever they need if it means they can re-open 4 weeks earlier.
|
|
|
Post by PG on Jan 19, 2021 19:36:29 GMT
I'm not often reduced to shouting abuse at the radio. Gentle admonishing, depressingly often, but genuine abuse, rarely. Only today on Jeremy Vine, there was a lady Professor of Health Psychology from SAGE on. And her ignorance of basic facts was pretty shocking - she had to be told that the Pfizer vaccine gives 90% protection after one shot for example. But as said above, you could hear her trying to move the goalposts. In precis "ah well, it's not the case that once the vulnerable are vaccinated we can release restrictions, because they may still be able to infect others and so that's still putting people at risk. We can't be safe until 90% of the population have had an effective vaccine etc...".
But I'll tell you one difference I did hear. Vine actually challenged her on that and did not take her word as gospel. So I hope that the press begin to challenge the SAGE view that permanent lockdown is the only safe route for society. This lockdown 3 is being tolerated by people as they believe that vaccination offers us a way out.
Re whether we were prepared or not, there'a a military adage that has been proved right over the centuries. That we are always preparing to fight the last war, not the next one. The inevitable public inquiry into Covid will last years and result in nobody and everybody being to blame and that lessons will be learnt. Then if the 2020 Covid epidemic comes back we'll be prepared. Of course the next epidemic will be different and so we'll be as unprepared as we (and many other countries) were this time.
Until society is prepared to re-visit its relationship with death - and not view it as something that medical science should be able to put off almost indefinitely - I do fear that any future epidemic like this one will just result in the same issues. Or it could be worse. Society is, after all, only a pretty thin veneer. Imagine if the death rate was 50% for over 70's and 10% across all other age groups. How long till the riots start?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2021 21:38:25 GMT
As long as we have the open skies and go anywhere you want, anytime you want mindset/policies, this will happen. Travel time gone by was harder, fewer people did it but now?
|
|
|
Post by Stuntman on Jan 19, 2021 21:57:44 GMT
In response to Chris M wanting his life to return to 2015 - I'd like mine to return to 1984, 1987, 1988 or 1996 if we're allowed to choose..
And Pete - yes, I do think that it's perfectly feasible to give let's say the first 9 groups of people on the current priority list an annual Covid vaccine and therefore allow pre-2020 ways of life to return to the UK.
Regarding the restrictions generally, I agree with John C and others that I think that we will fairly soon see an unstoppable groundswell of public opinion no longer being willing to tolerate these lockdowns. Once the tipping point is reached, there will not only be a lot more challenge to the current 'SAGE advice', but also a significant reduction in complying with that advice/those laws if does not change.
Many years ago I did my professional (Chartered Accountancy) training alongside Mark Harper MP. He was a typical 'Tory Boy' back then, aged 21 to 25 when I knew him well, and very easy to take the mick out of - but he is currently one of the few MPs challenging the prevailing guidance/laws and demanding more evidence for these restrictions.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jan 20, 2021 6:50:32 GMT
I would only like to go back to 2011. Everything before that was fine and dandy. I'd change a few things after that (but only if I could do so with the benefit of hindsight!!).
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Jan 20, 2021 7:57:06 GMT
I'd go back to 1989......and not turn up for my first wedding. Oh i'd be so much better off!
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jan 20, 2021 9:10:00 GMT
By contrast I'd have married my wife faster! We got married three and a half years after we started going out, which in retrospect is a mistake when you are already in your mid-30s.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Jan 20, 2021 9:12:58 GMT
I'd have been in some serious trouble if I married my second wife any earlier. I started going out with her when she was 20 and I was.....a bit older!
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Jan 20, 2021 9:46:19 GMT
I’d go back to 1968 and have nothing to do with myself at all.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jan 20, 2021 10:00:48 GMT
I'd go back to 1995 with a full list of winning lottery numbers and the details of future tech millionaires who require investments.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jan 20, 2021 11:31:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jan 20, 2021 12:32:12 GMT
The alternative views have their own alternative views now?
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jan 20, 2021 12:34:25 GMT
The alternative views have their own alternative views now? It's about taking views in the round. The round and round the garden in this case.
|
|
|
Post by chipbutty on Jan 20, 2021 12:43:30 GMT
I agree - it is perfectly feasible, but that's not my point. My point is that even if it is achieved, the current signs are that the reins will not be loosened and a new hurdle will be introduced. More reports in the press today that heavy restrictions could remain until May or June.
I am not so sure because that unstoppable groundswell is not reflected in the media. If your view is that media is inherently pro lockdown, then there is either a significant element of misrepresentation/cherry picking in reported public mood and opinion polls, or a substantial volume of the populace really do support these measures.
Out of interest - if a referendum was held on lockdown measures was held, what do you think the result would be ?
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jan 20, 2021 12:54:01 GMT
Another silly one?
Sorry, couldn't resist...
|
|
|
Post by chipbutty on Jan 20, 2021 13:13:33 GMT
Thanks - will read through that, always interested in the counterpoints.
|
|
|
Post by chipbutty on Jan 20, 2021 13:16:28 GMT
Well one man's silly is another man's sensible.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jan 20, 2021 13:28:34 GMT
Out of interest - if a referendum was held on lockdown measures was held, what do you think the result would be ? Depends on the question. I agree with this one now but it really does need a pathway documented to explain our way out. I don't buy the view that the government are hell-bent on locking us up. I think if anything half the u-turns are because that's a course they've tried to avoid as long as possible.
On a completely unrelated note, I'm sick to death of my computer retrospectively changing what I've typed. It just tried to change locking to looking for reasons only known to it.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jan 20, 2021 13:29:28 GMT
I agree - it is perfectly feasible, but that's not my point. My point is that even if it is achieved, the current signs are that the reins will not be loosened and a new hurdle will be introduced. More reports in the press today that heavy restrictions could remain until May or June. I am not so sure because that unstoppable groundswell is not reflected in the media. If your view is that media is inherently pro lockdown, then there is either a significant element of misrepresentation/cherry picking in reported public mood and opinion polls, or a substantial volume of the populace really do support these measures. Out of interest - if a referendum was held on lockdown measures was held, what do you think the result would be ? Which referendum? The first one or the re run if some people won’t accept the first? (sorry, couldn’t resist..)
|
|
|
Post by garry on Jan 20, 2021 14:10:34 GMT
As I've expressed previously, my views align closely with Pete on this topic. The lack of proper critical debate and analysis drives me nuts. However, I do agree with John C about the unstoppable groundswell.
Most people I talk to now seem to be aware of the fact that Covid presents very little threat unless you're elderly or have significant underlying health issues. I cant see much compliance once those groups are vaccinated (and perhaps there is access to the vaccine for anyone who feels they need it). Opinion polls are never are good indicator when the issue is divisive because people say what they think they should say. I bet an opinion poll would come out strongly in support of isolation for anyone showing symptoms, but studies show that north of 80% of those with symptoms don't self isolate (it was a report from Kings College). And polling shows the general public are in favour of track and trace, but the app has only been downloaded to circa 15% of phones and I know many who turn it off when they go out. My take on compliance at the moment is that it's very high and very fragile.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Jan 20, 2021 16:20:26 GMT
Latest email update from "The Scotsman" suggests that government officials have been told that they should not book foreign holidays this year.... for some while I have felt that holidays will be out of the question this year because of the virus and continuing restrictions. Roll on 2022
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jan 20, 2021 17:03:16 GMT
That could easily be because of the shit show that plenty of other countries have managed rather than being on us
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jan 20, 2021 18:00:26 GMT
Garry you raise some good points regarding compliance. Having to isolate because you've been in close contact with a positive case is all very well for those in middle class white collar jobs who are working from home but if you have no symptoms and work in the gig economy then choosin to isolate or not can mean the difference in being able to feed your family or see the kids go hungry (very few people in such a position are in receipt of free school meals after all).
I think the Covid app has lost traction somewhat. I must admit I often forget to scan in and tbh if I'm only popping somewhere for 5 minutes in the morning the fact it leaves me checked in until midnight if I don't go anywhere else seems a rather big flaw. I know some who also claim it drains their battery so they turn off contact tracing when they get home. The only reason I know this is because when I'm working with them they suddenly remember they forgot to turn it back on!
|
|
|
Post by PG on Jan 20, 2021 22:34:09 GMT
I'm think like all surveys and polls, the support for lockdown depends on who you ask and what the question is. If you have a public sector job; a safe job; can easily work from home; are retired on a secure pension and so on then you might well say "yes" to lockdowns and all that entails if you perceive no risks to your own fiscal security or see so much health risk to your security (I doubt many NHS employtees say "no" to lockdowns for example?). And that's probably as easy 60%+ of the adult population across all those groups.
|
|