Life after the end of "lockdown" 2.0

[yorkie]

If people are too scared to go out of their doors, that's a failure of government to reassure the public that the vast majority of people aren't at risk. That people currently are so scared is entirely down to the campaign of fear that was prevalent during the early days of this mess

this is very true.

 

[yorksrob]

On the other hand many people are increasingly scared for the physical and mental wellbeing and livelihoods of people they know..

If people are too scared to go out of their doors, that's a failure of government to reassure the public that the vast majority of people aren't at risk. That people currently are so scared is entirely down to the campaign of fear that was prevalent during the early days of this mess

Absolutely.

 

[Bantamzen]

I've had an interesting exchange with a Dr Gabriel Scally on Twitter. He originally posted that x number of people had died of covid (using ONS figures), so I challenged him stating that the correct term to use was died with covid. He refuted this, continuing to claim he was correct so I asked him to evidence this & reminded him that an inability to do so would leave him at least partly responsible for the chronic damage being inflicted on society's mental health. Because feeding people information you know not to be correct in order to scare them into compliance is exactly that.

He blocked me. I think that says it all. Can't prove it, won't try to prove it.

 

[bramling]

Well maybe I am deluded but all the people I know haven't expressed any anti restrictions to me, and just seem to be getting on with things as best they can without moaning about it, In fact the only hostility to the regulations I have experienced with one exception has been on this forum.

That may well be the case, but if one goes out it’s quite clear that people aren’t observing the current restrictions, which is “stay at home, protect the NHS, save lives”.

Actions speak louder than words.

I've had an interesting exchange with a Dr Gabriel Scally on Twitter. He originally posted that x number of people had died of covid (using ONS figures), so I challenged him stating that the correct term to use was died with covid. He refuted this, continuing to claim he was correct so I asked him to evidence this & reminded him that an inability to do so would leave him at least partly responsible for the chronic damage being inflicted on society's mental health. Because feeding people information you know not to be correct in order to scare them into compliance is exactly that.

He blocked me. I think that says it all. Can't prove it, won't try to prove it.

That’s very telling indeed.

 

[Domh245]

I've had an interesting exchange with a Dr Gabriel Scally on Twitter. He originally posted that x number of people had died of covid (using ONS figures), so I challenged him stating that the correct term to use was died with covid. He refuted this, continuing to claim he was correct so I asked him to evidence this & reminded him that an inability to do so would leave him at least partly responsible for the chronic damage being inflicted on society's mental health. Because feeding people information you know not to be correct in order to scare them into compliance is exactly that.

He blocked me. I think that says it all. Can't prove it, won't try to prove it.

The thing is, the ONS definitions are the more accurate "died of" stats as they're based on what's on the death certificates. CEBM looked at this and concluded that (as of mid September) 92.3% of the deaths registered as covid by the ONS were actually "of" covid (covid being the underlying cause) albeit dropping to around 75% as numbers of deaths dropped further into the year.

Death certificate data: COVID-19 as the underlying cause of death - The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine

Daniel Howdon, Jason Oke, Carl Heneghan Overall about one in thirteen deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate did not

www.cebm.net

 

[Yew]

He is talking a load of bovine excreta when he is saying that every hospital in England risks being overwhelmed unless these restrictions are approved.

The same is true all the time, every hospital risks being overloaded, however they are not usually; this is how risks work, it's about probabilities.

 

[Bantamzen]

The thing is, the ONS definitions are the more accurate "died of" stats as they're based on what's on the death certificates. CEBM looked at this and concluded that (as of mid September) 92.3% of the deaths registered as covid by the ONS were actually "of" covid (covid being the underlying cause) albeit dropping to around 75% as numbers of deaths dropped further into the year.

Death certificate data: COVID-19 as the underlying cause of death - The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine

Daniel Howdon, Jason Oke, Carl Heneghan Overall about one in thirteen deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate did not

www.cebm.net

But covid is a notifiable illness, and therefore must be on the death certificate if a positive test has been returned within 28 days of death, along with when a GP suspects covid as the cause due to symptoms. So in reality it isn't necessarily accurately recording deaths from covid but those with covid, which was the point I was trying to make with Dr Scally.

Deaths from Covid-19 (coronavirus): | The King's Fund

It means that whilst the ONS data may be more accurate than the gov.uk data, it is still not a true representation of deaths from covid, and as such it is the responsibility of professionals like Dr Scally to present accurately, not to use data in order to scaremonger which to be honest seemed to be his primary motive.

 

[Richard Scott]

The same is true all the time, every hospital risks being overloaded, however they are not usually; this is how risks work, it's about probabilities.

To be honest surely hospitals should be running at close to or at 100% capacity otherwise why have the facility? If there are empty beds and staff doing very little then that's a huge waste of a resource so this sort of scaremongering is ludicrous as surely that's how hospitals operate?

 

[Carlisle]

- I reckon many pub/restaurant owners have simply given up any hope of making any profit over the festive period.

CJ

That’s probably what a sizeable number in government prefer
There’s likely been serious lobbying by the NHS/ Public Health officials etc to avoid the additional pressures & cancel the usual Christmas drinking season & all that goes with it
There’s far less accountability for whatever goes wrong in the privacy of people’s homes

 

[DustyBin]

I've had an interesting exchange with a Dr Gabriel Scally on Twitter. He originally posted that x number of people had died of covid (using ONS figures), so I challenged him stating that the correct term to use was died with covid. He refuted this, continuing to claim he was correct so I asked him to evidence this & reminded him that an inability to do so would leave him at least partly responsible for the chronic damage being inflicted on society's mental health. Because feeding people information you know not to be correct in order to scare them into compliance is exactly that.

He blocked me. I think that says it all. Can't prove it, won't try to prove it.

Oddly enough I was directed to a similar thing on Twitter by somebody on another forum. There was a doctor (I didn’t take much notice of their name) telling people categorically that all covid deaths were OF covid. They went so far as to say that the victims would still be alive now if it wasn’t for covid. The doctor had attracted a number of cheerleaders who were quick to shout down dissenters, variously branding them idiots, thick and even murderers. A great reminder of why I’ve never signed up to a social media platform!

 

[Domh245]

But covid is a notifiable illness, and therefore must be on the death certificate if a positive test has been returned within 28 days of death, along with when a GP suspects covid as the cause due to symptoms. So in reality it isn't necessarily accurately recording deaths from covid but those with covid, which was the point I was trying to make with Dr Scally.

Deaths from Covid-19 (coronavirus): | The King's Fund

It means that whilst the ONS data may be more accurate than the gov.uk data, it is still not a true representation of deaths from covid, and as such it is the responsibility of professionals like Dr Scally to present accurately, not to use data in order to scaremonger which to be honest seemed to be his primary motive.

I agree that ONS is more accurate but not perfect, I just think it's an odd fight to choose. Quickly running the numbers with CEBM's methodology on the most recently available data shows that around 14% (7559) of all ONS covid registered deaths to date didn't have it as the underlying cause. Does the fact that it's only 52,895 deaths from Covid as opposed to 60,455 (and of the 2466 announced this week, 448 were 'with' - 18%) fundamentally change whatever argument he was making - I'm not sure it would

 

[yorkie]

Additionally, if you look at the number of people admitted to hospital compared to the number of people testing positive, it is a lot lower in the second wave than in the first wave. (ie, in the second wave the number of people in hospital peaked at about 80% of the peak of the first wave, and yet there were considerably more cases)

The vast majority of people who are exposed to the virus are asymptomatic and do not normally qualify for a test; I believe the true number who have been exposed is far higher than estimated. More of these are now being found, but the true number must be staggering. This means the overall death rate is tiny. The proportion of young people who get seriously ill must be absolutely tiny too.

I've had an interesting exchange with a Dr Gabriel Scally on Twitter. He originally posted that x number of people had died of covid (using ONS figures), so I challenged him stating that the correct term to use was died with covid. He refuted this, continuing to claim he was correct so I asked him to evidence this & reminded him that an inability to do so would leave him at least partly responsible for the chronic damage being inflicted on society's mental health. Because feeding people information you know not to be correct in order to scare them into compliance is exactly that.

He blocked me. I think that says it all. Can't prove it, won't try to prove it.

Just looked at his Twitter feed and my goodness it's awful; he doesn't seem to give a damn about the livelihoods and physical & mental wellbeing of the majority of the population. It's all about keeping elderly people alive for as long as possible, and to hell with the younger generation.

People of his ilk make me feel angry. Words cannot express what I think of people like him; well I could think of some, but I can't post them. The responses are a mixture of people who challenge him on the bigger picture, which he tends to ignore, and hysterical pro-lockdown people who agree with him and thank him for his tweets. Those misguided people are either incapable of seeing the bigger picture or maybe they don't get out into the real world. Fortunately such people are very much the minority of the population, but sadly they are by far the most vocal (many of them have a LOT of time on their hands).

Oddly enough I was directed to a similar thing on Twitter by somebody on another forum. There was a doctor (I didn’t take much notice of their name) telling people categorically that all covid deaths were OF covid. They went so far as to say that the victims would still be alive now if it wasn’t for covid. The doctor had attracted a number of cheerleaders who were quick to shout down dissenters, variously branding them idiots, thick and even murderers. A great reminder of why I’ve never signed up to a social media platform!

There are a significant number of highly vocal people who spend their entire days on platforms like Twitter saying things like this; their intention is to drown out the normal working people who actually keep this country going and don't have the time to keep up with countering their ludicrous one-dimensional claims.

Make no mistake: the hysterical minority is extremely mobilised and vocal on social media; so much so that I think the Government actually believes the majority of the population holds their views, even though they are a tiny proportion of the population.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

I and three colleagues often have a coffee and a pre-work chat in our (socially distanced) canteen in the morning.
One chap, maybe in his early 50s, is firmly in the ‘believe everything the government & media tell me about the dangers of the virus’ camp, and myself and two female friends have been trying to persuade him to be more inquisitive, and do some research.
I asked him yesterday if he knew what the average age of death with coronavirus is (doubts about of/with coronavirus notwithstanding). He didn’t know, so I asked him to hazard a guess. He thought for a moment and pitched at ‘around 60?’
I informed him that it is 82.2 and my friend said it’s also true that under 1% of the deaths were people under 60 who had no pre-existing medical condition, and showed him the stats from a gov.uk web page.
His response?
‘So you’re saying we should just let the old people die, then?’

Seriously, how can people I consider to be rational thinkers, in all non-Covid discussions, be so blinkered? You point out absurd anomalies like Manchester in Tier 3 when London is put in Tier 2, like coronavirus is scared of food because it thrives in ‘wet’ pubs but is somehow less of a danger if there’s a pint AND food on the table etc... but still they just spout government-inspired ‘you’re being selfish’ platitudes, and have the analytical part of their brain in a sleep mode!

 

[brad465]

I agree that ONS is more accurate but not perfect, I just think it's an odd fight to choose. Quickly running the numbers with CEBM's methodology on the most recently available data shows that around 14% (7559) of all ONS covid registered deaths to date didn't have it as the underlying cause. Does the fact that it's only 52,895 deaths from Covid as opposed to 60,455 (and of the 2466 announced this week, 448 were 'with' - 18%) fundamentally change whatever argument he was making - I'm not sure it would

When comes to all the talk about excess deaths form non-Covid causes, many of them won't have happened yet, but will the next year and beyond, but the lockdown brigade, etc. won't think about that much if at all.

 

[C J Snarzell]

That’s probably what a sizeable number in government prefer
There’s likely been serious lobbying by the NHS/ Public Health officials etc to avoid the additional pressures & cancel the usual Christmas drinking season & all that goes with it
There’s far less accountability for whatever goes wrong in the privacy of people’s homes

I agree mate - as the phrase goes, there is a method to the madness somewhere.

Most A&Es are swamped with drunken idiots over Christmas & New Year so the closure of pubs & restaurants can only be an advantage.

From my own point of view having seen people's behaviour from my policing days, the reckless minority will still get boozed up anyway but if licenced premises are kept closed it might just take the edge of the pressure the Ambulance Service and Hospitals, who are already under enormous pressure.

CJ

 

[yorkie]

‘So you’re saying we should just let the old people die, then?’

Seriously, how can people I consider to be rational thinkers, in all non-Covid discussions, be so blinkered?

Because of emotions and irrationality.

Some people genuinely believe elderly people should be kept alive as long as possible no matter what, and that length of life is the most important thing. But given what happened to my grandmothers, I cannot agree with that.

I agree mate - as the phrase goes, there is a method to the madness somewhere.

Most A&Es are swamped with drunken idiots over Christmas & New Year so the closure of pubs & restaurants can only be an advantage.

From my own point of view having seen people's behaviour from my policing days, the reckless minority will still get boozed up anyway but if licenced premises are kept closed it might just take the edge of the pressure the Ambulance Service and Hospitals, who are already under enormous pressure.

CJ

So, your argument is that this won't stop the reckless minority, so it's a good thing to harm the majority?

Who are you wanting to compensate the millions whose livelihoods are currently on hold?

 

[island]

There are some excellent pubs serving good value meals in York if you venture off the tourist trail. The same applies to towns like Skipton and Harrogate, which are also in tier 2.

I work in Leeds and already my colleagues and I are trying to find a way of having a Christmas meal and a few beers in York.

That is unlikely to be legal.

The problem is that when asked a substantial number of people are claiming they not only support restrictions, but think there should be *more*. There’s no hope for a change in direction whilst that’s happening.

More precisely they think there should be more restrictions on other people.

 

[C J Snarzell]

Because of emotions and irrationality.

Some people genuinely believe elderly people should be kept alive as long as possible no matter what, and that length of life is the most important thing. But given what happened to my grandmothers, I cannot agree with that.

So, your argument is that this won't stop the reckless minority, so it's a good thing to harm the majority?

Who are you wanting to compensate the millions whose livelihoods are currently on hold?

First of all - No - I don't agree with this and - yes - livelihoods are at stake in the licencing industry.

My point is that the government have probably considered opening up the pubs prior to Christmas is fraut with danger. The impact of some drunken revellers is going to affect an already overstretched NHS who are struggling with the volume of Covid cases.

CJ

 

[DelayRepay]

I agree with Yorkie in that nobody I speak to is supportive of the current lockdown or the tiering arrangements. Everyone I speak to is being sensible - I've had a few conversations about Christmas recently where people said they won't be having a big gathering this year due to the risk to elderly relatives. That's sensible and how it should work, people evaluating their own risk and making sensible decisions. The job of SAGE should be to provide factual information to help people make the right decisions.

I should add that many of these people did support the original lockdown (I did, more or less), but that was when the disease was unknown and we were subject to those awful pictures of Italian hospitals.

I don't think we should go straight to a world with no restrictions at all. Mass gatherings don't seem a great idea at the moment. But the current rules are just nonsense - from next week I can legally go to an indoor event with 999 other people, but I can't go into my mum's house for a cuppa without breaking the law.

 

[kez19]

It’s alright up in Scotland for Christmas Day it’s been suggested to eat from a Pasting Table (I kid you not!)

Leitch suggests families eat at pasting tables at Xmas to keep social distance

JASON Leitch today suggested families maintain social distancing during Christmas dinner — by eating around wallpaper pasting tables. The national clinical director suggested Scots were “innovative…

www.thescottishsun.co.uk

JASON Leitch today suggested families maintain social distancing during Christmas dinner — by eating around wallpaper pasting tables.


The national clinical director suggested Scots were “innovative enough” to ensure guests from different households still stay two metres apart over the five-day rules relaxation.

Prof Leitch said: “This isn’t eight individuals that have to sit two metres apart — you have to separate households not people.

“You could have a five, a two and a one. Yeah, you’d need a big table but have you never used the pasting table on the day you’ve had granny round for your Christmas dinner?


"Or sat the kids round the sofa? I think Scotland is innovative enough to manage. ”

---

The comments though hilarious, so after Christmas and lockdowns they'll be expecting the public to be using pasting tables next!

 

[duncanp]

It’s alright up in Scotland for Christmas Day it’s been suggested to eat from a Pasting Table (I kid you not!)

Leitch suggests families eat at pasting tables at Xmas to keep social distance

JASON Leitch today suggested families maintain social distancing during Christmas dinner — by eating around wallpaper pasting tables. The national clinical director suggested Scots were “innovative…

www.thescottishsun.co.uk

The comments though hilarious, so after Christmas and lockdowns they'll be expecting the public to be using pasting tables next!

You've got to laugh.

What about a Most Ridiculous Suggestions To Keep People "Safe" thread?

Perhaps everyone should eat Christmas dinner in full hazmat suits just to be on the safe side.

Presumably no first footing will be allowed at Hogmanay either, or if you do you will have to post the lump of coal, shortbread, black bun and a miniature bottle of whisky through the letter box.

 

[C J Snarzell]

Another big thing with the current Tiers is the overall impact of mental health which in itself is becoming just as much an epidemic of the Covid virus.

One of the radio discussions I listen to the other day referred to mental health saying that even the most stable of people with a comfortable steady home life and no diagnosed conditions are struggling to cope and the issues are being ignored by the government.

I do think that when these current Tier measures start to be relaxed or removed, I don't think the government can push us back into them again for a third time.

For me many people will be too mentally exhausted to suffer future lockdown/Tier restrictions.

CJ

 

[DB]

Another big thing with the current Tiers is the overall impact of mental health which in itself is becoming just as much an epidemic of the Covid virus.

One of the radio discussions I listen to the other day referred to mental health saying that even the most stable of people with a comfortable steady home life and no diagnosed conditions are struggling to cope and the issues are being ignored by the government.

I do think that when these current Tier measures start to be relaxed or removed, I don't think the government can push us back into them again for a third time.

For me many people will be too mentally exhausted to suffer future lockdown/Tier restrictions.

CJ

Absolutely - and the government seems to be largely ignoring this aspect.

 

[Richard Scott]

Another big thing with the current Tiers is the overall impact of mental health which in itself is becoming just as much an epidemic of the Covid virus.

One of the radio discussions I listen to the other day referred to mental health saying that even the most stable of people with a comfortable steady home life and no diagnosed conditions are struggling to cope and the issues are being ignored by the government.

I do think that when these current Tier measures start to be relaxed or removed, I don't think the government can push us back into them again for a third time.

For me many people will be too mentally exhausted to suffer future lockdown/Tier restrictions.

CJ

I've reached that stage already. Afraid can't be bothered with latest guidelines as just annoys me too much that it's just a load of made up nonsense with no scientific basis whatsoever and seemingly having no real effect either on cases or deaths. For my own wellbeing I just try and let it go over my head and ignore what the politicians are saying.

 

[duncanp]

I do think that when these current Tier measures start to be relaxed or removed, I don't think the government can push us back into them again for a third time.

For me many people will be too mentally exhausted to suffer future lockdown/Tier restrictions.

CJ

And if we are not back to something approaching normality by the time of the various elections in May, then Boris Johnson is going to be toast, and he knows it.

But I think there is enough pressure from Tory MPs for Boris to concede a gradual loosening of restrictions in the new year, with perhaps a few token areas being moved down a tier on 16th December.

I've reached that stage already. Afraid can't be bothered with latest guidelines as just annoys me too much that it's just a load of made up nonsense with no scientific basis whatsoever and seemingly having no real effect either on cases or deaths. For my own wellbeing I just try and let it go over my head and ignore what the politicians are saying.

Same with me. I have no intention whatsoever of staying within my Tier 3 area for the next four months.

 

[DustyBin]

I've reached that stage already. Afraid can't be bothered with latest guidelines as just annoys me too much that it's just a load of made up nonsense with no scientific basis whatsoever and seemingly having no real effect either on cases or deaths. For my own wellbeing I just try and let it go over my head and ignore what the politicians are saying.

That’s my approach to this as well.

 

[trebor79]

But the current rules are just nonsense - from next week I can legally go to an indoor event with 999 other people, but I can't go into my mum's house for a cuppa without breaking the law.

That's the bit that really rankles with me. If you're not "risking" anyone other than you and your own family, what right do the government have to dictate? It's nonsense.

 

[bramling]

this is very true.

Yes there’s a big issue with people not being aware of the actual statistics. In particular, a large proportion of the population over-estimate the chance of mortality - by quite some amount.

I and three colleagues often have a coffee and a pre-work chat in our (socially distanced) canteen in the morning.
One chap, maybe in his early 50s, is firmly in the ‘believe everything the government & media tell me about the dangers of the virus’ camp, and myself and two female friends have been trying to persuade him to be more inquisitive, and do some research.
I asked him yesterday if he knew what the average age of death with coronavirus is (doubts about of/with coronavirus notwithstanding). He didn’t know, so I asked him to hazard a guess. He thought for a moment and pitched at ‘around 60?’
I informed him that it is 82.2 and my friend said it’s also true that under 1% of the deaths were people under 60 who had no pre-existing medical condition, and showed him the stats from a gov.uk web page.
His response?
‘So you’re saying we should just let the old people die, then?’

Seriously, how can people I consider to be rational thinkers, in all non-Covid discussions, be so blinkered? You point out absurd anomalies like Manchester in Tier 3 when London is put in Tier 2, like coronavirus is scared of food because it thrives in ‘wet’ pubs but is somehow less of a danger if there’s a pint AND food on the table etc... but still they just spout government-inspired ‘you’re being selfish’ platitudes, and have the analytical part of their brain in a sleep mode!

I had a similar conversation on Facebook. After pointing out some statistics, I got a post from someone suggesting I should speak to some doctors in Liverpool. It’s very difficult to take on such emotive twisted logic.

 

[C J Snarzell]

I've heard that the vaccine programmes could be effective and rolled out with the most of the older generation vaccinated by as early as February which is quite promising.

However, we still have December & January to contend with which are going to be challenging months.

CJ

 

[trainophile]

Are the relaxed "travelling out of your area" for 23-27 December rules applicable to tier 3 residents?