Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

[Doodler]

It’s alright, I think I’ll just put up with long hair, thanks

Get it cut mate!

 

[andysays]

Now that the weather is getting warmer, might it not be an idea to start selling food and other goods in the open air? That way people's exhalations would be more quickly dispersed. You could keep your distance more easily than in supermarkets with narrow aisles and blind corners. Supermarkets themselves often have large car parks that could be used to set up outdoor stalls selling the most commonly bought items. You could even get your hair cut outdoors.

Last weekend I managed to get a Sainsburys click and collect slot, which basically meant collecting my order, already selected and bagged, from a van set up in the car park.

Much more effective than loads of people milling around inside the supermarket, attempting to keep two metres apart while the queue outside grows ever longer...

 

[Doodler]

Last weekend I managed to get a Sainsburys click and collect slot, which basically meant collecting my order, already selected and bagged, from a van set up in the car park.

Much more effective than loads of people milling around inside the supermarket, attempting to keep two metres apart while the queue outside grows ever longer...

Outdoors definitely seems safer. Well done on managing to get a c&c slot.

 

[Taphoi]

Many more lives are being lost in the lockdown than is being admitted by the government. We are all going to lose at least six weeks of our lives as if we had been thrown in jail. That is 0.15% of our entire life, given that life expectancy is around 80 years. There are about 70 million people in the UK, so that is a total of 100,000 lives lost or about five times more lives than are likely to be lost to Covid-19. It might be argued that these are not the same kind of lives. That is true: the 100,000 are all full eighty-year lives whereas many of the Covid-19 victims are people nearing the ends of their lives. It is also accurate to say that there might have been up to 250,000 deaths from Covid-19 in the absence of any measures, but only a fool would advocate no measures at all. However, 99% of all deaths are among the 20% of the population in identified high-risk groups, so up to 99% of any further fatal infections could be avoided by only sheltering the high-risk groups. And this measure could be bolstered by widespread testing in the community as pioneered with great success by Germany. Not only would the 100,000 lost lives from the lockdown itself be avoided, but the high-risk groups are not very economically active, so much of the economic damage could be averted. Ironically, this was the government’s original policy and the fact that the death rate is already flattening is strong evidence that it would have succeeded, since it takes 4 weeks for the death rate to respond to measures and it was the isolation of high-risk groups (only) that happened 4 weeks ago. An economic depression will impoverish and kill millions. There needs to be balance in policy.

 

[Labourite]

This data compiled by Johns Hopkins University makes for sobering reading, placing the UK as one of the worst for coronavirus cases and deaths in the world. COVID-19 Map

And some people think the government are doing a good job!?

 

[prunus]

Many more lives are being lost in the lockdown than is being admitted by the government. We are all going to lose at least six weeks of our lives as if we had been thrown in jail. That is 0.15% of our entire life, given that life expectancy is around 80 years. There are about 70 million people in the UK, so that is a total of 100,000 lives lost or about five times more lives than are likely to be lost to Covid-19. It might be argued that these are not the same kind of lives. That is true: the 100,000 are all full eighty-year lives whereas many of the Covid-19 victims are people nearing the ends of their lives. It is also accurate to say that there might have been up to 250,000 deaths from Covid-19 in the absence of any measures, but only a fool would advocate no measures at all. However, 99% of all deaths are among the 20% of the population in identified high-risk groups, so up to 99% of any further fatal infections could be avoided by only sheltering the high-risk groups. And this measure could be bolstered by widespread testing in the community as pioneered with great success by Germany. Not only would the 100,000 lost lives from the lockdown itself be avoided, but the high-risk groups are not very economically active, so much of the economic damage could be averted. Ironically, this was the government’s original policy and the fact that the death rate is already flattening is strong evidence that it would have succeeded, since it takes 4 weeks for the death rate to respond to measures and it was the isolation of high-risk groups (only) that happened 4 weeks ago. An economic depression will impoverish and kill millions. There needs to be balance in policy.

I don’t know about other people, but I don’t consider having to stay in my home only going out for exercise and shopping the same as being in jail; I also don’t consider being in jail the same as being dead. All in all I think I think your thesis rests on unsound propositions.

 

[Cid]

So no, putting it in the terms other have been using in this conversation recently, I dont think they are going to go for a pure version of option 2.

But so much depends on how things go with other countries, and what sort of numbers we can get down to, and how quickly. And to what extent they actually manage to scale up testing. And to what extent hospital acquired cases continue, and so many related things.

Even without the more advanced options around testing and tracing, there are all sorts of ways to fiddle about with the lockdown parameters without resorting back to the crude 'switch the measures on and off over periods' approach. Switch just some bits on and off, try to compensate for relaxations. There are all sorts of things they could try which wont see us go back to anything like normal, but will give some people something, and wont lead us straight back to the sorts of levels of death we are currently experiencing.

Thats not to say I trust them to do the right thing, there are plenty of things they could get wrong as well as right. And its still a numbers game, but I think the order of magnitude of 'tolerable death' changed, and there is no avoiding that for them, especially since Johnson nearly ended up as part of those statistics.

Its very hard for me to estimate what relaxations would be reasonable for the UK soon, since we are only recently into the period where existing measures should make a difference to stats such as critical care beds occupied by Covid-19 cases. And despite the various models, I dont like to assume I have a proper sense of how quickly and how far various numbers will drop.

I think for me one of the major problems with really understanding the uk approach is the serious lack of information. We may know some of the science it’s based on, but that isn’t necessarily presenting a solution, just models and info based on current science. The solution itself is going to be a combination of that, evidence from other countries and - crucially - a coherent political coordination between a number of scientific and tech bodies.

From what we know there is likely to be an app, and the government is trying to increase testing. Or saying they are. We also know that lockdown will be reviewed soon (graun says this week). To me this smacks of hubris... there is no reason to tie review of lockdown to the possible peak. The only thing any review should be tied to is a coherent solution. Maybe there is one in the wings... but I just cannot see it. At the moment all I can see is a hotchpotch of on-trend ideas. Saying ‘we’ll increase testing’, saying ‘we have an app!’, throwing around ‘data-mining, startups’.

Again, what the government has said is that there will be no relaxation until we are definitely past the peak. That is disturbing. Maybe it isn’t a coherent back room strategy of the disease tap thing. I certainly don’t see conspiracy. But I think there is a fair chance that on/off infection-lockdown is what it ends up being, at least until various organisations just pull together in spite of a lack of central coordination. It’s the easy route. It’s something they now know works... and it feeds into the blame thing they keep putting out.

 

[LDC]

Exit strategies get talked about a fair bit. To my mind there's an exit strategy that's approaching sooner than the other more generally talked about one, and that's the one for the vulnerable people that are currently being shielded with the 12 weeks isolation. What's the options for them when that 12 weeks expires? Surely given the current trajectory going back to normal won't be an option. But what is?

 

[weltweit]

..
Again, what the government has said is that there will be no relaxation until we are definitely past the peak. That is disturbing.
..

I find the suggestion that the peak will mean more than a peak disturbing also. All a peak, let's say of deaths, will mean is that some of the measures in place currently have had an effect, I don't see that a peak in deaths should suggest any relaxation of measures. Perhaps once we emerge somewhat post peak and cases and deaths have reduced significantly then some relaxation - perhaps regionally - might be considered.

And I am aware of the delays involved.

But ministers have not worded their communications subtly enough, they are in danger of having linked or associated relaxation to a peak which I think is not clever.

 

[belboid]

Exit strategies get talked about a fair bit. To my mind there's an exit strategy that's approaching sooner than the other more generally talked about one, and that's the one for the vulnerable people that are currently being shielded with the 12 weeks isolation. What's the options for them when that 12 weeks expires? Surely given the current trajectory going back to normal won't be an option. But what is?

They’ll be locked in for longer than everyone else, simple as.

 

[LDC]

They’ll be locked in for longer than everyone else, simple as.

Yes, that's the only workable option I can see currently as well. But I've not seen it (or any suggested alternatives) mentioned anywhere, so was trying to see if other people had thoughts on it. I can't see that being a welcome announcement when it comes...

 

[Cid]

Exit strategies get talked about a fair bit. To my mind there's an exit strategy that's approaching sooner than the other more generally talked about one, and that's the one for the vulnerable people that are currently being shielded with the 12 weeks isolation. What's the options for them when that 12 weeks expires? Surely given the current trajectory going back to normal won't be an option. But what is?

Well that warning only went out last Tuesday, so plenty of time to shift goalposts. Or hope for more coherent solutions. And to me that feeds directly into a minimum effort cycle of lockdowns... because just blame the most vulnerable for venturing out of the house.

 

[Cid]

Incidentally I know I’m just speculating here... could be many things, could just be fitting stuff to my own biases. Just... i was going to say interesting to think about. But that’s not quite right. We have to think about it. Frankly I’d rather just be able to have a degree of trust.

 

[elbows]

Many more lives are being lost in the lockdown than is being admitted by the government. We are all going to lose at least six weeks of our lives as if we had been thrown in jail. That is 0.15% of our entire life, given that life expectancy is around 80 years. There are about 70 million people in the UK, so that is a total of 100,000 lives lost or about five times more lives than are likely to be lost to Covid-19. It might be argued that these are not the same kind of lives. That is true: the 100,000 are all full eighty-year lives whereas many of the Covid-19 victims are people nearing the ends of their lives. It is also accurate to say that there might have been up to 250,000 deaths from Covid-19 in the absence of any measures, but only a fool would advocate no measures at all. However, 99% of all deaths are among the 20% of the population in identified high-risk groups, so up to 99% of any further fatal infections could be avoided by only sheltering the high-risk groups. And this measure could be bolstered by widespread testing in the community as pioneered with great success by Germany. Not only would the 100,000 lost lives from the lockdown itself be avoided, but the high-risk groups are not very economically active, so much of the economic damage could be averted. Ironically, this was the government’s original policy and the fact that the death rate is already flattening is strong evidence that it would have succeeded, since it takes 4 weeks for the death rate to respond to measures and it was the isolation of high-risk groups (only) that happened 4 weeks ago. An economic depression will impoverish and kill millions. There needs to be balance in policy.

Previously you were obsessed with smoking as a main factor, so in addition to the other dubious aspects to your stance, you are also inconsistent. Unless you think smokers are 'not very economically active'. The governments original strategy put no emphasis on smokers either.

The figure of 250,000 deaths was with mitigation. It was more like 500,000 without any measures at all.

 

[GarveyLives]

I had noticed - I'm sure everyone else had too - that most if not all of the doctors who've died from the virus so far are from ethnic minority backgrounds - has there been any explanation of this?

The issue has certainly been noted, included in the following pieces:

Why were black NHS staff whitewashed out of Clap For Our Carers?

Why are a third of UK COVID-19 patients ethnic minority?

Coronavirus: Ethnic minorities 'are a third' of patients

If coronavirus doesn't discriminate, how come black people are bearing the brunt?[/url]

 

[magneze]

Especially if European countries get control of the situation, and even push towards eliminating the virus from their borders.

Which countries are attempting to do that?

 

[teqniq]

I note that the replies are by and large derogatory/negative wrt to C4. Anyone elso noticing a lot of this anytime someone relatively high-profile is critical of the government?

 

[Gerry1time]

View attachment 206485

I note that the replies are by and large derogatory/negative wrt to C4. Anyone elso noticing a lot of this anytime someone relatively high-profile is critical of the government?

Most of Twitter is organisations posting things, then astro turfing accounts run by opposing organisations replying to them.

 

[treelover]

Last weekend I managed to get a Sainsburys click and collect slot, which basically meant collecting my order, already selected and bagged, from a van set up in the car park.

Much more effective than loads of people milling around inside the supermarket, attempting to keep two metres apart while the queue outside grows ever longer...

many people are struggling to get online delivery or even click and collect, for disabled and sick who are self isolating, that is a disaster.

 

[treelover]

They’ll be locked in for longer than everyone else, simple as.

many disabled and sick people have been very isolated before the virus, the opportunity to go out once or twice a week now lost, is more than some than bear, hearing reports of people under real strain

 

[treelover]

This data compiled by Johns Hopkins University makes for sobering reading, placing the UK as one of the worst for coronavirus cases and deaths in the world. COVID-19 Map

And some people think the government are doing a good job!?

The public seem to think so, and if labour go in hard they will be seen to be 'politicising the crisis'

strange times.

 

[teqniq]

Starmer has no intention of doing anything of the sort. Not now anyway, and when? Who knows?

 

[andysays]

many people are struggling to get online delivery or even click and collect, for disabled and sick who are self isolating, that is a disaster.

Sainsburys have reorganised their deliveries specifically to focus on those who are vulnerable. Have you attempted to register with them?

 

[two sheds]

Sainsburys have reorganised their deliveries specifically to focus on those who are vulnerable. Have you attempted to register with them?

This. I registered on the government site and after a couple of weeks got a phone call from sainsburys and delivery within three or four days. Must try again in fact.

 

[andysays]

This. I registered on the government site and after a couple of weeks got a phone call from sainsburys and delivery within three or four days. Must try again in fact.

Glad to hear it's working, at least for you

 

[xenon]

Sainsburys have reorganised their deliveries specifically to focus on those who are vulnerable. Have you attempted to register with them?

You have to register via the government website. That's where they're getting their list of vunrible people. If you can actually get through on the phone, you might be able to register directly but you'd have to argue the case.

 

[andysays]

You have to register via the government website. That's where they're getting their list of vunrible people. If you can actually get through on the phone, you might be able to register directly but you'd have to argue the case.

Thanks for the clarification.

Have you tried this treelover ?

 

[xenon]

This. I registered on the government site and after a couple of weeks got a phone call from sainsburys and delivery within three or four days. Must try again in fact.

There are quite a few blind and partially sighted people who have always done online shopping. However, you're not classed as vunrible according to the gov site. This is reasonable except, you can't really do social distancing if going to a supermarket in person and there's no guarantee staff will help you due to the same. (In normal times, a staff member might guide you around the store.)

This is varying across the country. I've heard of one visually impaired person who was simply turned away by the CoOp.

I managed to get one delivery by emailing someone at Sainsburries but that was seemingly a one off. (No slots on any of the supermarkets I'm registered with.) I'll be alright as there are local shops and people have offered to pick stuff up for me but it's definitely a problem for a lot of folk.

 

[xenon]

But yes treelover, if you can't get registered on gov.uk here:

COVID-19: guidance for people whose immune system means they are at higher risk

Guidance for people aged 12 and over whose immune system means they are at higher risk of serious illness if they become infected with COVID-19.

www.gov.uk

I'd suggest emailing who ever you can at the supermarkets in question.

You may find your council has set up a volunteer scheme to help people who can't go out as well.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Many more lives are being lost in the lockdown than is being admitted by the government. We are all going to lose at least six weeks of our lives as if we had been thrown in jail.