COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[Chippy_boy]

You are right it is global and if we were alone in restricting lockdown measures then it


you are right and it evidences why this is such a tough call. a really tough call. I don’t think it has to viewed in extremes though.

lockdown one day and now release go back to normal.

surely we can balance the release by still protecting those with underlying conditions and the elderly by still shielding them and allow some people to start to return to normal with a gradual easing of some restrictions. Social distancing in whatever we do is always going to be with us now until we have effective treatment or vaccine.

however what would be very odd is if the uk continued to have a lockdown until a vaccine was found ( if it ever is) when all other countries around the world are starting to prepare their economies for this new normal with an easing of some restrictions and some countries who have not had any restrictions such as ours have done a good job of containing the disease.

Agree completely.

 

[Mon Autre]

when you read the well balanced view points from both sides about the lockdown - it shows the mammoth task the Goverment have got

It is a mammoth task. It would be a challenge for anyone. Taking decisions and implementing policies that would normally take months or years in a matter of weeks is an undertaking so huge that it's difficult to comprehend.

Something like this would always result in huge disruption and death count. The vast majority of people understand that. However it is still the job of the government to ensure death count is kept as low as possible and disruption is minimised.

They should still be judged on decisions they've taken thoughout and the elements to this they have had some control over. They should be judged on decisions they supported in the years building up to this that didn't leave us well equipped to handle it.

Their response has been poor and the communication has been poor. There is no evidence of any strategy going forward beyond deliberate obfuscation and arguing semantics in order to defend their own failings.

Theyre arguing every day about testing and capacity and whether they've done well or not but they still don't seem to get that a testing target in and of itself means nothing. Have they spent the past month chasing a 100k per day figure as an end goal or have they spent it ensuring the testing network and infrastructure they're putting in place is fit for purpose to support lifting us out of lockdown? The testing strategy is our best hope to return to a vague sense of normality and still hopefully keep the spread under control. They are treating it like one of the statistics they use to mask their usual failings but that won't work with something like this. They can't keep up us under lockdown forever, but they did need to make sure that they spent this time ensuring we had the best shot at minimising spread post lockdown. They aren't telling us anything though.

We're still not even being told how many people are really dying. We've just come to blindly accept that they're only counting hospital deaths as a matter of course now. It's crazy.

 

[Brightwell’s left peg]

You do realise I mean 500,009 UK deaths? That's 3x our total cancer death rate - our biggest killer.

I didn’t realise you meant 500,009 deaths. That’s very specific.

;-)

You do realise I mean millions of deaths, starvation, societal collapse as a worst case. What will the cancer death rate be when it can’t be treated any more because we don’t have power, medicines etc because the supply chain has gone.

If this is like death count top trumps? Societal collapse wins in that case.

 

[Chippy_boy]

It's not lockdown v let it ride. There's mass-testing.

Lockdowns are unsustainable. There's no question about that and you can't ignore it. I don't know why you're debating this anyway as most of the US and Europe are in the process of lifting their lockdowns because they are unsustainable.

The arguable point is limited suppression aimed at acquiring immunity (Uk & Sweden) versus all out suppression (Rest of the world in some combination of lockdown/mass-testing), and that argument can only be won in hindsight when we know about vaccines and 2nd waves.

I was not arguing for perpetual lockdown. I said lockdown until we have it under control, I.e. a trickle of new infections and deaths. And then such measures as to keep it under control and avoiding having to have another lockdown. What we cannot do is "give up" on lockdown before time, simply because we think we have to get back to work, as was being suggested or implied at least. We cannot do that or else we are inevitably in for deep shit.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I didn’t realise you meant 500,009 deaths. That’s very specific.

;-)

You do realise I mean millions of deaths, starvation, societal collapse as a worst case. What will the cancer death rate be when it can’t be treated any more because we don’t have power, medicines etc because the supply chain has gone.

If this is like death count top trumps? Societal collapse wins in that case.

I was just checking.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

You do realise I mean millions of deaths, starvation, societal collapse as a worst case. What will the cancer death rate be when it can’t be treated any more because we don’t have power, medicines etc because the supply chain has gone.
If this is like death count top trumps? Societal collapse wins in that case.

@Brightwells left peg has just played his joker...

 

[Chippy_boy]

I didn’t realise you meant 500,009 deaths. That’s very specific.

;-)

You do realise I mean millions of deaths, starvation, societal collapse as a worst case. What will the cancer death rate be when it can’t be treated any more because we don’t have power, medicines etc because the supply chain has gone.

If this is like death count top trumps? Societal collapse wins in that case.

And btw I don't recognise your apocalyptic projection. Is there food in the shops? Yes there is. Are drugs still being made and shipped? Yes they are. Are the power stations and internet providers still operating? Yes.

This had never been a 100% lockdown but it is still working and it seems to me to be sustainable for quite some time yet. We are coping remarkably well considering.

I haven't seen any rioting or even whiffs of a possibly if it.

 

[Chippy_boy]

@Brightwells left peg has just played his joker...

Not really.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Not really.

Your comprehension skills manifestly haven’t improved over the course of lockdown.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

@Brightwells left peg has just played his joker...

I would hate to see his right peg!

 

[Chippy_boy]

Your comprehension skills manifestly haven’t improved over the course of lockdown.

And you are still a twat.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

And you are still a twat.

That's not a widely held view, but you’re entitled to your opinion.

 

[Brightwell’s left peg]

And btw I don't recognise your apocalyptic projection. Is there foid in the shops? Yes there is. Are drugs still being made and shipped? Yes they are. Are the power stations and internet providers still operating? Yes.

This had never been a 100% lockdown but it is still working and it seems to me to be sustainable for quite some time yet. We are coping remarkably well considering.

That’s fine. Everyone’s welcome to an opinion, and I won’t throw my toys out of the pram.

Not going to belabour my points.

 

[Zubrman]

That’s fine. Everyone’s welcome to an opinion, and I won’t throw my toys out of the pram.

Not going to belabour my points.

Someone always has drag politics into it.

 

[Brightwell’s left peg]

I would hate to see his right peg!

I was just about to send you a picture.

I won’t bother now

;-)

 

[Chippy_boy]

That's not a widely held view, but you’re entitled to your opinion.

There was just no need for the insult from you. None.

I mean there was nothing to comprehend and you come out with shit about my comprehension skills? I mean really? People will indubitably conclude you are a twat if you do that. And rightly so.

 

[Marvin]

I was not arguing for perpetual lockdown. I said lockdown until we have it under control, I.e. a trickle of new infections and deaths. And then such measures as to keep it under control and avoiding having to have another lockdown. What we cannot do is "give up" on lockdown before time, simply because we think we have to get back to work, as was being suggested or implied at least. We cannot do that or else we are inevitably in for deep shit.

I agree with you entirely if you're just being pragmatic and working out how we could get from where we are now to the trickle.

I feel the lockdown has become politicised because I feel the UK government is pursuing an unspoken strategy of submaximal suppression with an hidden target of obtaining some level of immunity. I think they've moderated policy as they've gone along and seen the reality of the virus but it's not as straightforward as humanity v virus. There are differences in how different populations of people have chosen to combat it.

No one really thought that you could test your way out of infection but South Korea with the SARS experience behind them probably knew more than we did. That to me is the ideal response. Remain economically active and hold out for the vaccine. The lockdown should be the tool of the third world. I know that's easy to say.

Despite what Dominic Raab says, I think the Oxford vaccine has a good chance. If the same group got a MERS vaccine a long way into clinical trials then I don't see why they wouldn't be confident.

 

[Chippy_boy]

That’s fine. Everyone’s welcome to an opinion, and I won’t throw my toys out of the pram.

Not going to belabour my points.

Fair enough.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I agree with you entirely if you're just being pragmatic and working out how we could get from where we are now to the trickle.

I feel the lockdown has become politicised because I feel the UK government is pursuing an unspoken strategy of submaximal suppression with an hidden target of obtaining some level of immunity. I think they've moderated policy as they've gone along and seen the reality of the virus but it's not as straightforward as humanity v virus. There are differences in how different populations of people have chosen to combat it.

No one really thought that you could test your way out of infection but South Korea with the SARS experience behind them probably knew more than we did. That to me is the ideal response. Remain economically active and hold out for the vaccine. The lockdown should be the tool of the third world. I know that's easy to say.

Despite what Dominic Raab says, I think the Oxford vaccine has a good chance. If the same group got a MERS vaccine a long way into clinical trials then I don't see why they wouldn't be confident.

I agree with all of that apart from the bit about herd immunity being a target. It's an inevitable outcome, but I don't for one moment think we are aiming for it, i.e. our that actions are to try to achieve it. I think we were doing so until a very marked change of strategy after that Imperial College report projecting 500,000 dead and the NHS overloaded by 8x.

But there is definitely a balance to be struck with the lockdown, in terms of on one hand suppressing the infections and on the other keeping the economy and society going as much as is feasible. It isn't a 100% lockdown and never could be because we all need to eat. We don't have the luxury of being a huge country like China where they can lock down a region and supply it from elsewhere.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

There was just no need for the insult from you. None.

I mean there was nothing to comprehend and you come out with shit about my comprehension skills? I mean really? People will indubitably conclude you are a twat if you do that. And rightly so.

Playing the joker does not mean it’s a winning hand, but rather an attempt to do so. On that basis, my use of the term was entirely correct. Your misapprehension means you were not.

I don’t think you’re stupid, but I have observed that you frequently have difficulty understanding what other people post. It possibly explains why you often hold such strident views on subjects against the weight of what you are arguing against.