We must enable the economy to recover as soon as practicable

[xc170]

I'm in agreement with most of the posts in this thread.

IMO, the majority of people begging for a long, drawn out lockdown are those that are enjoying a nice long paid holiday... we need to shield the elderly and vulnerable until the risk is low enough not to, or until a vaccine is available, whichever comes first, but the young and healthy are at low risk and should be continuing to work as normal.

I've been working through this and going out no less than usual and all I can see is people interpreting guidelines the wrong way, today was a perfect example, I've been to a supermarket and a hardware store for a few bits, the elderly who are most vulnerable were out in force not caring about social distancing where as I was seeing young and healthy folk with gloves and masks and a look of panic if you came within a 5m radius of them...

 

[Sherlock49]

The intention of the "impunity" would be to stop people from claiming "you reopened your restaurant, I visited, developed symptoms and then infected my nan" and similar - the sort of cases where despite taking every reasonable precaution there is still a chance of spread. I certainly would hope it wouldn't affect the HSE and reporting to them which should be the first port of call for people taking a cavalier attitude to employee's H&S

Unfortunately, as Starmill says, we should be able to rely on employers doing the right thing but we'll always have companies who skirt or flout the rules - like Sports Direct, Holland and Barrett, Wetherspoon and multiple other companies who have taken a cavalier attitude to employee welfare (even unionised train companies). Removing liability makes it a lot easier for them to flout their obligations.

It certainly isn't a done deal that without lockdown we'd have 50k dead and everyone else would be fine. If the lockdown hadn't been implemented, hospitals would have been overrun and they would potentially be in a much worse position for providing care for those who don't have Covid. it's a very careful balancing act and our infection rate is still stubbornly high.

I do support gradual easing of restrictions, particularly for those who are young and healthy (unfair as that may be) - for those older people who think they should be able to go out and risk catching it, this has never been about individual safety, it's always been about preventing the NHS from being overwhelmed. The fact Nightingale hospitals weren't used is great but does not indicate we have done too much by any means.

 

[bramling]

I'm in agreement with most of the posts in this thread.

IMO, the majority of people begging for a long, drawn out lockdown are those that are enjoying a nice long paid holiday... we need to shield the elderly and vulnerable until the risk is low enough not to, or until a vaccine is available, whichever comes first, but the young and healthy are at low risk and should be continuing to work as normal.

I've been working through this and going out no less than usual and all I can see is people interpreting guidelines the wrong way, today was a perfect example, I've been to a supermarket and a hardware store for a few bits, the elderly who are most vulnerable were out in force not caring about social distancing where as I was seeing young and healthy folk with gloves and masks and a look of panic if you came within a 5m radius of them...

One of the most disagreeable aspects of this has been the way it has created a fully paid public holiday for a segment of the population, whilst at the same time another segment of the population has continued at work facilitating this. Notwithstanding questions as to whether this has helped achieve the objectives of the lockdown, it has made it very difficult for the second group to go about their legitimate business. For example key worker urgently needs a replacement lamp for their car and has to queue for an hour to get into Halfords.

National emergency should have meant national emergency, not paid jolly which is how some people have treated this.

In that sense getting people back to work should probably be the new slogan, and it will help with a lot of this as it will mean many people won't have so much time on their hands to queue up for hours outside KFC or whatever.

I guess it's simply fingers crossed the virus doesn't start spreading uncontrollably again.

 

[bramling]

Unfortunately, as Starmill says, we should be able to rely on employers doing the right thing but we'll always have companies who skirt or flout the rules - like Sports Direct, Holland and Barrett, Wetherspoon and multiple other companies who have taken a cavalier attitude to employee welfare (even unionised train companies). Removing liability makes it a lot easier for them to flout their obligations.

It certainly isn't a done deal that without lockdown we'd have 50k dead and everyone else would be fine. If the lockdown hadn't been implemented, hospitals would have been overrun and they would potentially be in a much worse position for providing care for those who don't have Covid. it's a very careful balancing act and our infection rate is still stubbornly high.

I do support gradual easing of restrictions, particularly for those who are young and healthy (unfair as that may be) - for those older people who think they should be able to go out and risk catching it, this has never been about individual safety, it's always been about preventing the NHS from being overwhelmed. The fact Nightingale hospitals weren't used is great but does not indicate we have done too much by any means.

A well thought-out post. I agree with all of the above.

 

[yorkie]

It certainly isn't a done deal that without lockdown we'd have 50k dead and everyone else would be fine. If the lockdown hadn't been implemented, hospitals would have been overrun and they would potentially be in a much worse position for providing care for those who don't have Covid. it's a very careful balancing act and our infection rate is still stubbornly high.

Notwithstanding the fact that we should (in hindsight) have acted earlier to do more sustainable measures to slow the spread (as Switzerland and Sweden have done), I don't think there is much disagreement that we had to do something.

But I think that many people thought if we locked down for a few weeks it would disappear; it is increasingly becoming obvious that is not the case (many of us knew this wasn't the case for a long time but the general public are only starting to realise) and so we are seeing the emergence of two camps: those who want to lockdown until there is a vaccine available, and those who see the bigger picture and realise we must start the process of opening the economy before it becomes too late.

I do support gradual easing of restrictions, particularly for those who are young and healthy (unfair as that may be) - for those older people who think they should be able to go out and risk catching it, this has never been about individual safety, it's always been about preventing the NHS from being overwhelmed.

Unfortunately there are a significant number of people who think this is about individual safety and can not see the bigger picture.

 

[xc170]

One of the most disagreeable aspects of this has been the way it has created a fully paid public holiday for a segment of the population, whilst at the same time another segment of the population has continued at work facilitating this. Notwithstanding questions as to whether this has helped achieve the objectives of the lockdown, it has made it very difficult for the second group to go about their legitimate business. For example key worker urgently needs a replacement lamp for their car and has to queue for an hour to get into Halfords.

This is one of my issues with the current situation, a lot of companies are currently using the 'we look after key workers' thing as nothing more than a publicity stunt, the majority of companies offering reductions, early opening hours ets only count NHS staff as key workers.

 

[yorkie]

This is one of my issues with the current situation, a lot of companies are currently using the 'we look after key workers' thing as nothing more than a publicity stunt, the majority of companies offering reductions, early opening hours ets only count NHS staff as key workers.

I think this is best posted in a new thread. If you do, I'd be interested to hear examples of that.

 

[bramling]

This is one of my issues with the current situation, a lot of companies are currently using the 'we look after key workers' thing as nothing more than a publicity stunt, the majority of companies offering reductions, early opening hours ets only count NHS staff as key workers.

Yes my place has had nothing but trouble with the local Sainsbury's.

Initially there were issues with staff getting priority access (which was essential as staff only had limited time in their breaks). An arrangement was then agreed with the store management, which worked for about all of five minutes then problems started arising again. Then our staff started getting serious abuse when receiving priority access. Now I think most people have given up. Hence why I suspect many view the Thursday clapping with a degree of cynicism, and simply want to see people returned to work ASAP.

 

[Starmill]

majority of people begging for a long, drawn out lockdown

Again, I think you're just making this up so that you sound good. Nobody is doing this.

drawn out lockdown are those that are enjoying a nice long paid holiday...

If you think people are enjoying this, it's hard to see how the rest of your analysis has any value?

One of the most disagreeable aspects of this has been the way it has created a fully paid public holiday for a segment of the population, whilst at the same time another segment of the population has continued at work facilitating this.

How on earth is this disagreeable? It's erm, how government works. Complaining about having to pay for a service is easy when you don't need it yourself.

I guess it's simply fingers crossed the virus doesn't start spreading uncontrollably again.

You think we should do nothing and hope? Rather than attempting to get the best overall results? That's the best you can do?

 

[Starmill]

we are seeing the emergence of two camps: those who want to lockdown until there is a vaccine available, and those who see the bigger picture and realise we must start the process of opening the economy before it becomes too late.

This is a completely false characterisation of how the debate has changed. Firstly there are no calls for indefinite "lockdown" by any means, secondly the economy is not "closed", this is language borrowed from Donald Trump, designed to whip up extremism, and thirdly there's very broad consensus, which has been growing for a while now, that we need more than anything else to learn to live around the virus, not try to keep it out completely. The problems lie mainly in lack of planning and management capacity, lack of leadership and lack of trust in government. "pro-lockdown lobbyists" do not exist. The only real lobbyists who matter are the major donors to the Conservative Party too, and they're all extremely unhappy with the government restrictions.

 

[Cowley]

OK!

Time to wind the heat down a bit here I think....
Much of this debate is around what’s going to be announced on Sunday and none of us actually know that.
The debate on here is starting to get heated and is becoming borderline unpleasant. When it gets to that point it’s difficult to chip in and get involved for many people, so even though the thread is an interesting and valid subject, can we wind it back a little and discuss things in a calm and respectful manner please? Because most of us want to hear the opinions from each angle and make our own minds up on this.

Many thanks everyone. Over to you...

 

[yorkie]

Firstly there are no calls for indefinite "lockdown" by any means...

Some people are calling for the lockdown to last until there is a vaccine available.

...there's very broad consensus, which has been growing for a while now, that we need more than anything else to learn to live around the virus, not try to keep it out completely....

I agree but there are a significant number of people who do not accept this [yet].

... "pro-lockdown lobbyists" do not exist. ...

Sadly they do as I've seen them!

For example a very quick search of Twitter found this posted just a minute ago:
https://twitter.com/vermin33/status/1258522881434120192

...The lock down must continue until there is a vaccine even if that doesn't happen this century. Violators are risking everyone's lives and therefore should forfeit there own. Immediately, in the street, by the police. Safety first. ...

Edit: here are some more examples:
https://twitter.com/_nav_a/status/1257126933218942988

end lockdown when there r 0 cases

https://twitter.com/King_C20/status/1254564663163080706

Lockdown should end when there's a vaccine ! Simple! How else are things going to go back to normal ? Social distancing? That **** won't work !

https://twitter.com/LockdownOne/status/1254576134509023233

Whenever it takes. If it takes five years so be it I’d rather be safe

https://twitter.com/EkbergMageta/status/1254524519542337536

I’m sick of people bitching about when will #lockdownend
It will end whenever it ends. I don’t care if it’s another week or month or even a year, if it keeps me and my family and friends healthy and safe...

https://twitter.com/PrettyPako/status/1258532933893107714

I feel your pain and appreciate your frustration. Lockdown shouldn't end until we have a vaccine in my opinion. Keep doing an amazing job and try to keep your head held high. People like you are the reason why the death toll isn't even higher than it already is! Stay safe

https://twitter.com/SaltyZaddy/status/1258532526605271040

183 in Lagos today Alone, lockdown has been lifted with no Vaccine developed I hope these guys knows what they are doing

https://twitter.com/Jonathandurbri1/status/1258531705498918912

... I can't see any other way, has to be lockdown until a safe vaccine is found

https://twitter.com/KBbrowneyedgirl/status/1258529548234141696

Keep the lockdown orders in place as much as possible until a vaccine arrives!

https://twitter.com/DavidJohnPreece/status/1258529266225934337

The lockdown needs to last until there is a vaccine for Covid.

https://twitter.com/wadyamin1/status/1258527908475228161

....Without a vaccine it’s ludicrous to suggest that lockdown be lifted....

https://twitter.com/Willy_Orwonty/status/1258518038405496833

There is no vaccine
There is no cure
The only way at present to keepCovid under control is the lockdown.
So why would any sane person want to lift it?

https://twitter.com/DingusFrisky/status/1258513609929265152

Lockdown is to keep the mass infection rate down UNTIL the vaccine arrives.

https://twitter.com/IanJames66/status/1258511118529490944

Loosen the lock down costs lives without a vaccine.

https://twitter.com/Mdrks1/status/1258509473695465473

I’m not even gonna lie lockdown should last for at least a few more months! There’s over 200,000 cases of covid-19 and that’s only the people who’ve been tested! How can anyone justify ending lockdown when there’s still not a vaccine, this country really wants us to die lol

https://twitter.com/neilpatrickrice/status/1258502855406882816

Lockdown being lifted on Monday is a sure way to let this covid19 free because there is nothing put in place to stop it. Everyone should carry on lockdown until vaccine is found. Government focus is on achieving 'herd immunity' but within the maximum capacity for NHS hospitals.

I know of other forum members who have reported seeing people have similar views in their social media feeds.

These are the sort of people I am arguing with.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Is it confirmed that there will be announcement one way or another Sunday? Seems a strange day to do it.

 

[causton]

Is it confirmed that there will be announcement one way or another Sunday? Seems a strange day to do it.

With a Bank Holiday on a Friday, I think if an announcement were to have been made today removing any restriction, it would have caused all hell to break loose this weekend.
Tomorrow, being a Bank Holiday, would be just as weird as Sunday.

Probably best, if there IS any easing, for it to be announced after the 3-day weekend otherwise there will be mass non-compliance as people see a slight easement and go back to pre-lockdown activities.

 

[trebor79]

This is literally a crazy thing to say.

It's not. Area bombing had very little impact on the course of the war. Yes it caused lots of anguish and grief in both sides, but the wat machine kept turning.
A few hundred thousand early deaths would not have the huge impact on the economy that this lockdown is and will have.
In any case the strategy has manifestly failed. One of the worst death rates in the world (if that's what the measure should be, though I disagree with that), whilst Sweden with no lockdown is doing considerably better.
Lockdown has achieved little.other than wreck out economy, wreck young people's education and prospects and painted society into a scared corner that government will find it difficult to coax people out of.

 

[muz379]

The intention of the "impunity" would be to stop people from claiming "you reopened your restaurant, I visited, developed symptoms and then infected my nan" and similar - the sort of cases where despite taking every reasonable precaution there is still a chance of spread. I certainly would hope it wouldn't affect the HSE and reporting to them which should be the first port of call for people taking a cavalier attitude to employee's H&S

Im not exactly convinced that there is any basis for any claims of the type you have just alluded to anyway , its not as if this is a particular type of industrial disease that can be attributed to particular work environments , the transmission could have taken place at the supermarket the worker or customer visited before coming to the restaurant . Proving that the transmission took place within the workplace would be difficult .

And as I said if there is clear guidance for example that employers and businesses should be making sure staff wear face coverings , stay 2m apart , are afforded facilities to wash hands more often then they would be able to rely on following government guidance . Meanwhile 'impunity' would be used by some to not even bother following basic government guidance .

 

[richw]

Sunday at 7PM according to link bellow.

Boris cited it as a good time for changes to take effect on Monday.

clearly reopening businesses etc will be a future date as 7pm on a Sunday is insufficient notice for shops to get stocks in etc. Presumably things like visiting family will be an immediate Go, whereas businesses will probably get a few weeks notice so they can stock and resource where needed

 

[Starmill]

It's not. Area bombing had very little impact on the course of the war. Yes it caused lots of anguish

I'm unsure if you've noticed, but we're actually not at war.

Some seem to want nothing to change and for the lockdown to go on indefinitely/forever from what I can see.

True. One tweet from some random person in Germany - I'm sold.

 

[yorkie]

Here is a sensible tweet:
https://twitter.com/mac_puck/status/1258148314052284417

A study from Cambridge has shown people in the UK are more scared than in any other country. This relentless culture of fear has to end - it's dangerous. People know the risks of Coronavirus. A country paralysed by fear raises lots of new dangers.

True. One tweet from some random person in Germany - I'm sold.

Do we really need to provide more to prove these people do exist? (edit: OK done!)

 

[bramling]

Some people are calling for the lockdown to last until there is a vaccine

I’m not one of those, and have never been, *however*...

At present the only thing that’s different now compared to six weeks ago is that we have more social distancing measures up and running, and some people locked up in their homes essentially indefinitely. Test and trace ultimately failed first time round.

What do we do if within a space of a few weeks the infection, hospitalisation and death rates have increased substantially again?

Ultimately no one knows what’s going to happen next.

 

[muz379]

I'm unsure if you've noticed, but we're actually not at war.

Unfortunately a lot of the rhetoric used by certain members of government and certain sections of the press has been wartime rhetoric . Personally I think this wartime rhetoric characterising NHS workers for example as being on a front line in the "war againt coronavirus" has made it easy to characterise their deaths as a war story of fallen Heroes rather than as a group essential employees failed by the governments inability to distribute adequate PPE leading to needless deaths .

Here is a sensible tweet:

Jim Grace on Twitter

“@ProfKarolSikora The (major) country with most deaths per capita has the most scared people? Gee, I wonder why that might be? I imagine Japanese people are more scared of Tsunamis than the Swiss are.”

twitter.com

Do we really need to provide more to prove these people do exist?

that survey only surveyed 7000 people in 10 different countries , not something I woud personally consider extensive by any stretch of the imagination .

And one of the conclusions was that the reason for such concern was because of greater concern for fellow citizens , essentially a British sense of social responsibility . I find that conclusion hard to believe with my perception of modern Britain but there we go . Also I'm not sure how they scored it , but there was no great difference in risk perception in any of the nations they surveyed .

This is why taking political direction or serious discourse from a platform with a 280 character limit for posts is something I really struggle with .

 

[Starmill]

Test and trace ultimately failed first time round.

'failed' in the sense that the government decided to stop community testing and contact tracing in March. Despite the World Health Organisation advising them to.

 

[bramling]

'failed' in the sense that the government decided to stop community testing and contact tracing in March. Despite the World Health Organisation advising them to.

But surely by that time the infection rate had increased to the point where tracing was simply no longer viable, especially with the number of asymptomatic-but-infectious cases knocking around?

 

[Starmill]

It seemed almost no resource had been allocated and it seemed exceptionally early to give up completely. The WHO still advised mass testing and tracing at that point, and still does. It will be difficult and very very expensive but it's now what we must try to return to.

 

[johnnychips]

However PHS have published findings a couple of weeks ago. They found that the average reduction in life expectancy was 13 years.

Here's the research article.

I skim-read this, and it seemed to imply that if you caught CV and had no other underlying health conditions and died from it, you could have lived, on average, thirteen years longer. The bolder bit implies my criticism of the headlines this might have generated, and the authors of the report creditably acknowledge the difficulties in trying to generate and analyse data in such a short time period.

I will genuinely be open to correction to anybody who has read it fully and has had time to look at it in more detail.

 

[C J Snarzell]

The announcement on Sunday will be a glimmer of hope for many people but I don't anticipate a major change to the situation. It would appear that social distancing is going to be enforced for the immediate future.

The problem the UK has is that we now have the highest death rate in Europe (depending on how accurate the figures of other countries are being recorded) and our daily death rate is still quite high.

Boris Johnson has an impossible decision to make - damned if you or damned if you don't!!! He needs to act to stop the economy sky rocketing into further recession & things like mental health & domestic violence are soaring to worrying levels.

However, can he really justify loosening the reins slightly when the UK is clearly still weathering a storm?

The protection of human life must always be a priority & I suspect that in order to prevent deaths that can be avoided, BJ will have to delay some things until June at least.

CJ

 

[HH]

I skim-read this, and it seemed to imply that if you caught CV and had no other underlying health conditions and died from it, you could have lived, on average, thirteen years longer. The bolder bit implies my criticism of the headlines this might have generated, and the authors of the report creditably acknowledge the difficulties in trying to generate and analyse data in such a short time period.

I will genuinely be open to correction to anybody who has read it fully and has had time to look at it in more detail.

It's in the summary:

Conclusions: Deaths from COVID-19 represent a substantial burden in terms of per-person YLL, more than a decade, even after adjusting for the typical number and type of LTCs found in people dying of COVID-19.

So the numbers include those with underlying health conditions. Clearly, those with underlying health conditions will have a shorter life expectancy, hence they say:

The number and type of LTCs led to wide variability in the estimated YLL at a given age (e.g. at ≥80 years, YLL was >10 years for people with 0 LTCs, and < 3 years for people with ≥6)

They have done an update, which shows they may have been a few months out.

Following additional analyses, using a range of national life tables in addition to the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2010 life tables which we used previously, the average years of life lost (YLL) due to COVID-19 remained above 10, even after adjusting for the number of long-term conditions

 

[underbank]

It seemed almost no resource had been allocated and it seemed exceptionally early to give up completely. The WHO still advised mass testing and tracing at that point, and still does. It will be difficult and very very expensive but it's now what we must try to return to.

Track and trace would never work at a time thousands were still attending mass gatherings such as Cheltenham races and Anfield for that football match. You need some kind of lock down or similar restriction to keep numbers manageable.

 

[trebor79]

Track and trace would never work at a time thousands were still attending mass gatherings such as Cheltenham races and Anfield for that football match. You need some kind of lock down or similar restriction to keep numbers manageable.

And for people to have any idea of who they've been in contact with.

 

[HH]

Track and trace would never work at a time thousands were still attending mass gatherings such as Cheltenham races and Anfield for that football match. You need some kind of lock down or similar restriction to keep numbers manageable.

We simply didn't have the ability to test, track and trace at the time, because we were woefully under-prepared. The events were a mistake - see how the scientists squirm whenever they have been asked about them (particularly given that Liverpool has been relatively highly affected). They obviously believe that quaranting arrivals from abroad achieves little, but they've never provided any evidence that this is the case - how can they when they have no idea how many of these people were/are carrying the virus?

I think that all of these have contributed to our relatively poor performance (no matter how they like to witter on about how we can't compare yet). I think that if they'd taken action sooner we would already be in phase 2.

Sadly they do as I've seen them!

Are these people really lobbyists (a person who takes part in an organised attempt to influence legislators)? They look like normal Twitter trolls to me.

These are the sort of people I am arguing with.

More fool you.