Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

[frogwoman]

That said if more restrictions are introduced I'll follow them, I wear a mask in shops etc. I just think that 2 years after 2020 we shouldn't have to be in this position again

 

[_Russ_]

Everyone is expecting an increase but no-one can say for sure that it is going to be a large one. Doesn't mean it's right to do nothing but it's not hard to see why they are scared of putting in major measures and then nothing much happening and a large portion of the electorate saying they over-reacted.

They are scared of each other not the electorate, they wont give a fuck about the electorate for another couple of years.
Do you have a subscription to the daily mail or something?

 

[teuchter]

 

[l'Otters]

That said if more restrictions are introduced I'll follow them, I wear a mask in shops etc. I just think that 2 years after 2020 we shouldn't have to be in this position again

But this is where we are and being in denial about it isn’t going to change anything.

We know the government guidelines aren’t enough & if you’ve access to reliable information on how to better protect yourself and others it makes sense to act on that.

 

[l'Otters]

Double post

 

[l'Otters]

people taking voluntary measures is one of the reasons the headbangers are giving for mandatory measures not being necessary though

Also conveniently leaves hospitality venues to struggle & smaller ones to go out of business as they have no support to cover the massive drop in custom.

 

[redsquirrel]

I'll probably get some stick tbh but I'm not entirely sold on the need for this lockdown. I agreed with all the previous ones and even think we reopened too quickly during the summer but I'm not convinced that the level of hospitalisation and death etc is going to be the same this time, there is quite a lot of data saying it won't and most people have some protection due to vaccines.

Actually I'm not a million miles from you FW.
I do think the case for a full lockdown is (or perhaps was) less clear cut than in previous waves - the data is less clear, there are more uncertainties, vaccination has changed things.

Also as time goes on I think it becomes increasingly less useful to lockdown. If you were going to introduce a lockdown you needed to do it yesterday, well really a week ago. If you wait until after Xmas when you've just encourage a load of mixing then you could end up with a all the disadvantages of a lockdown with very limited benefits. And as SAGE have pointed out if you introduce mitigation measures early you can go lighter.

Where I think the failure is, by all politicians, is (i) refusing to strong mitigation measures that should have been running ever since the last lockdown ended (ii) ramping up those mitigation measures pretty much as soon as Omicron came on the scene. Combing those measures with proper support for an International vaccination program and I think you'd be in a much better situation now.

 

[killer b]

Also conveniently leaves hospitality venues to struggle & smaller ones to go out of business as they have no support to cover the massive drop in custom.

Worth noting that Nadine Dorries was one of the few cabinet members supportive of measures - fairly sure she wouldn't be if she wasn't culture secretary.

 

[existentialist]

Everyone is expecting an increase but no-one can say for sure that it is going to be a large one. Doesn't mean it's right to do nothing but it's not hard to see why they are scared of putting in major measures and then nothing much happening and a large portion of the electorate saying they over-reacted.

The point of putting in major measures is SO THAT nothing much happens. I appreciate that you probably know this, but it's the perennial "security problem" - "why are we paying for all this security, when nothing bad is happening?".

 

[frogwoman]

But this is where we are and being in denial about it isn’t going to change anything.

We know the government guidelines aren’t enough & if you’ve access to reliable information on how to better protect yourself and others it makes sense to act on that.

That's not really what I said but ok.

 

[teuchter]

The point of putting in major measures is SO THAT nothing much happens. I appreciate that you probably know this, but it's the perennial "security problem" - "why are we paying for all this security, when nothing bad is happening?".

Yes, I do know this, but I also know how many people will look at the situation, and that they will consider that sometimes it's worth taking the risk of something bad happening, maybe or maybe not with an underestimate of that risk.

 

[redsquirrel]

BTW great to see you around again frogwoman ! Merry Xmas

 

[frogwoman]

I think another risk is that these kind of far reaching restrictions become normalised as a standard policy response if something else is going around like a swine flu, rather than something that was needed in an exceptional situation but after that it's less clear cut. Like it's easier to tell/encourage stuff to close (with no support) than to actually build up capacity in the NHS so these kind of measures are not needed again, and put the kind of long term measures in place which redsquirrel mentions.

I'm not saying they aren't needed now btw but I don't think the case for it is as clear cut as it was in March 2020 or January this year.

 

[pbsmooth]

lots of people will ignore it now who didn't ignore it back then. govt has eroded any trust and the general divisions in society have emerged around covid and lockdowns.
I do wonder if the Tories are simply gauging popular opinion and thinking if they can spin it as Boris and co 'saying no to another lockdown' to give the idiots a reason to be on side again.

 

[Wilf]

I don't think a full lockdown is the way to go, not that we've ever had a full lockdown. For me though, I'd like to have a government that looked like it was trying to introduce sensible mitigation measure rather than one that is doing everything it can to avoid those measures.

 

[l'Otters]

wouldn’t need a fucking lockdown if they’d done anything to prepare for this. not like we haven’t had 18 months to work on better preventative measures (nevermind all the shite pre pandemic lack of preparedness.)

 

[platinumsage]

wouldn’t need a fucking lockdown if they’d done anything to prepare for this. not like we haven’t had 18 months to work on better preventative measures (nevermind all the shite pre pandemic lack of preparedness.)

If the modelling is correct, there are no scenarios where we wouldn’t need a lockdown for omicron.

 

[bimble]

This treatment called Ronapreve which is now available, are people factoring it into their hospitalisation prediction graphs ?

 

[teuchter]

If the modelling is correct, there are no scenarios where we wouldn’t need a lockdown for omicron.

Which modelling?

 

[elbows]

If the modelling is correct, there are no scenarios where we wouldn’t need a lockdown for omicron.

Yes.

Although the modelling is not a prediction, its a series of illustrations of what happens when various different parameters are changed.

And in addition to the various uncertainties regarding vaccine protection from severe Omicron disease and death, the biggest unknown, which they didnt even fiddle with in different modelling scenerios, is peoples behaviour & mixing patterns. And these behavioural changes, should they occur, end up being broadly equivalent to a range of different strengths of lockdown type measures. On a related note, I dont think summer easing modelling properly captured the sheer potential of the 'pingdemic' to act as a sort of temporary lockdown at the peak back then.

And the one thing the state has been prepared to do whenever faced with a big wave at a difficult moment, is to enable very large changes to the mood music. When it isnt summer, they are prepared to at least do that in order to hedge their bets.

Many people cannot help but perceive the modelling as being a prediction anyway. And if we must look at it that way, the two biggest reasons the modelling could be 'wrong' this time are parameters to do with levels of protection from severe disease, and behavioural changes that happen without formal introduction of rules.

 

[steeplejack]

What's Scottish Labour's policy, can they make it 3 from 3?

who? The Model Railway Society's opinion carries more weight up here. Scottish Labour are a total irrelevance.

 

[elbows]

I'll probably get some stick tbh but I'm not entirely sold on the need for this lockdown. I agreed with all the previous ones and even think we reopened too quickly during the summer but I'm not convinced that the level of hospitalisation and death etc is going to be the same this time, there is quite a lot of data saying it won't and most people have some protection due to vaccines.

I also think there's a risk of this becoming normalised as a policy response to eg a bad flu season or something rather than something that was needed as an emergency measure during a pandemic but hopefully not beyond that.

I understand where your position comes from, but I follow precautionary principals when the stakes are this high, so I cannot possibly begin to agree.

 

[elbows]

The point of putting in major measures is SO THAT nothing much happens. I appreciate that you probably know this, but it's the perennial "security problem" - "why are we paying for all this security, when nothing bad is happening?".

Yes, the self-defeating prophecy, my favourite sort!

Self-defeating prophecy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[frogwoman]

Yeah, that's fair enough. I'll probably change my mind at some point! elbows

 

[Sue]

people taking voluntary measures is one of the reasons the headbangers are giving for mandatory measures not being necessary though

IME, the people doing this voluntarily are the people who've been careful all along. Mandatory measures make people who've been less careful be more careful.

 

[elbows]

According to the rumours, Javid and Gove want more lockdown sooner compared to the rest of the government, so he could have been seeking additional views to bolster his position in cabinet meetings, rather than looking to circumvent SAGE in some way as Fraser Nelson is implying.

And as usual Sunaks name comes up in the press as someone pushing back hard against tough new measures.

This is never surprising given the office he holds. And then chuck in political career maneuvers and ideological stuff and the favourite narratives of the press on top of that.

I was dismayed but not surprised that previous grotesque failures of the same sort didnt really stick to him in the past. Well, the 'eat out to help out' fiasco stuck a bit at the time, but not his role in delaying the lockdown that was necessary this time last year.

 

[l'Otters]

That's not really what I said but ok.

We’ve seen already how waiting for this shower to change the rules isn’t getting us out of this mess.

I find it weird that anyone who’s well informed about this pandemic as it’s been playing out in the uk, would only be willing to change their behaviour once the government tells us to.

We absolutely shouldn’t be here now, but they did away with all restrictions in July so we’re totally fucked now.

Umpteen other things could have been done to prevent this incoming public health crisis but we’ve got predatory disaster capitalist eugenicist nepotistic scum in power so here we are.

Edited to add I’d sooner listen to eg David Nabarro from the WHO as an indication of what to do next…

 

[elbows]

Yeah, that's fair enough. I'll probably change my mind at some point! elbows

Since we dont get to make the big decisions at a national level, we have the 'luxury' of changing our opinions once the real picture emerges more fully.

 

[steeplejack]

And as usual Sunaks name compes up in the press as someone pushing back hard against tough new measures.

This is never surprising given the office he holds. And then chuck in political career maneuvers and ideological stuff and the favourite narratives of the press on top of that.

I was dismayed but not surprised that previous grotesque failures of the same sort didnt really stick to him in the past. Well, the 'eat out to help out' fiasco stuck a bit at the time, but not his role in delaying the lockdown that was necessary this time last year.

He should be in prison for killing thousands with "Eat Out to Help Out (My Friends in Business)".

His ideological intransigence now will cost many more lives, too. Because, ultimately, that's the "evidence" he wants; thousands more deaths before he green-lights money for businesses to close.

 

[frogwoman]

We’ve seen already how waiting for this shower to change the rules isn’t getting us out of this mess.

I find it weird that anyone who’s well informed about this pandemic as it’s been playing out in the uk, would only be willing to change their behaviour once the government tells us to.

We absolutely shouldn’t be here now, but they did away with all restrictions in July so we’re totally fucked now.

Umpteen other things could have been done to prevent this incoming public health crisis but we’ve got predatory disaster capitalist eugenicist nepotistic scum in power so here we are.

I didn't say I'm not willing to change my behaviour, like many people I already have tbh! I'm barely going out and I'm being a lot more cautious than a few weeks ago.

Maybe my post was unclear, I was saying I'm not convinced of the need for a lockdown but if one was brought in would obviously listen to it because I'm not a dick. Not that I wouldn't change anything unless the government said so