Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

Sasaferrato said:
So what does the Urban massive have to say?

We have never been in this situation before, there are no previous protocols to follow.

You are the PM, we are where we are now, what are you going to do?
Click to expand...

I don't even know what's good for myself most of the time but seeing as this is just words on a screen ...

* Collect and publish open data on which environments and activities hold the highest risk of infection.

* Develop online risk calculators so people can anonymously input their age, sex, health and other details to see how vulnerable or not they might be. At the same time make sure they understand the risks they might pose to others if they become infected. Use easy to understand odds terms where possible.

* Ram home the risk to others angle in the most obvious way to get through the skulls of our more selfish fellow citizens. Lurching around pissed in public shouting the odds or trying to shove your way to the front of the Waitrose queue? You're responsible for old Fred dying alone in an ICU!

* Keep older and more vulnerable workers away from contact with the public. Pay them to stay away from work altogether where these measures aren't possible. Make it a criminal offence for employers to pressurise vulnerable workers into taking unacceptable risks.

* Require supermarkets to devote some of their car park space to open air sale of staple foodstuffs, bog roll etc.

* Is Britain so far down the path of de-industrialisation that it's not possible to set up a face mask factory here?
 
Edie said:
I don’t wanna get in the business of defending every government decision since the pandemic started. I only say that because the aim of lockdown was to flatten the curve and protect the NHS, and to that extent it’s done exactly as intended. I’m sure the analysis of exactly what and when should have happened will occur for decades, and the article in The Times was certainly instructive.

It is however a bit disingenuous to say second highest number of deaths. There’s a lot of ways of counting, and a lot of ways of presenting those statistics, as you know. For example,Coronavirus deaths per million by country | Statista
Click to expand...

What does 'protect the NHS' even mean? As you know, there's inadequate PPE, leading to many deaths of doctors and nurses.

Even on deaths per million the UK is still 'top' four.

However you look at it, this government has failed in its handling of C19. We've got the worst of both worlds: high deaths, and a massive disruption to our lives!

The strategy is what it's always been i.e. to let it rip, in the hope that it will burn out quickly with minimal disruption to the economy. They've only tempered that to make it politically palatable. What they really mean by flattening the curve is to keep the spread as fast as possible without going over NHS capacity i.e. they don't mind their being more deaths as long as they're not directly attributable to their decimation of the NHS.

We were fucked the moment their immediate instinct was to give up on squashing it (testing, tracing, isolation) in favour of accepting more deaths as a trade off for the economy AKA their interests.
 
Last edited:
Athos said:
What does 'protect the NHS' even mean? As you know, there's inadequate PPE, leading to many deaths of doctors and nurses.

Even on deaths per million the UK is still 'top' four.

However you look at it, this government has failed in its handling of C19. We've got the worst of both worlds: high deaths, and a massive disruption to our lives!
Click to expand...
As I said earlier... My understanding of it was that locking down flattened the curve so prevented the NHS from being overwhelmed (like Northern Italy). Not PPE. I think your being disingenuous tho and you know that.

As I said, I’m not here to defend every Government decision. But ftr the Government would have failed no matter what decisions it made, as there is no perfectly correct answer. It’s all trade off of risk. That said, there have been some major fuck ups (see The Times).
 
Edie said:
As I said earlier... My understanding of it was that locking down flattened the curve so prevented the NHS from being overwhelmed (like Northern Italy). Not PPE. I think your being disingenuous tho and you know that.

As I said, I’m not here to defend every Government decision. But ftr the Government would have failed no matter what decisions it made, as there is no perfectly correct answer. It’s all trade off of risk. That said, there have been some major fuck ups (see The Times).
Click to expand...

Sorry, I edited my post before your quote, to address flattening the curve.

Yes, it's a trade off. One I think they got wrong by trading our lives for their interests.
 
Athos said:
Sorry, I edited my post before your quote, to address flattening the curve.

Yes, it's a trade off. One I think they got wrong by trading our lives for their interests.
Click to expand...
I’ve read it. Do you honestly think there was a chance of squashing it (and keeping it squashed)? I’m not convinced. I think we were much more like Italy, France and Spain than NZ with our pre existing exposure and spread (before even February probably). And have comparable death rates despite slightly different responses. But I’m really no expert on this stuff.
 
Edie said:
I’ve read it. Do you honestly think there was a chance of squashing it (and keeping it squashed)? I’m not convinced. I think we were much more like Italy, France and Spain than NZ with our pre existing exposure and spread (before even February probably). And have comparable death rates despite slightly different responses. But I’m really no expert on this stuff.
Click to expand...

Well the response from very early on is a big part of the reason things are so shit now. You shouldn't really let the government off over that.
 
I think it is a bit of a damned if you, damned if you don't situation. Like all crises, making a decision is the most important part and then following it through. What I do take issue with is how much those decisions seem to be driven by politics rather than, for example, health concerns or just simple common sense.

We need a leader during times like these and Johnson isn't a leader. He hasn't enough intelligence to see through the fog of these issues and not enough spine to make the tough calls. Look to Nicola Sturgeon for an example of a more coherent approach.
 
I absolutely agree with chilango, Louis MacNeice and others about the wider politics of the situation but even on the state's own terms this just seems to have been confused and badly handled.

Anyone listening to Raab's clusterfuck interview on R4 now? He was as confused as anyone about the few specific examples given by the interviewer - e.g. what does someone who works in England but lives in Wales do?

I mean when the government gets a harder time on the Today programme than a union gen sec, it pretty clearly indicated that the government has messed up on some level.
 
Last edited:
They didnt have to fail. Other governments did not fail.
Edie said:
That’s a partial answer to the question, and I’d agree it would be good if all those things happened (with the exception of the lowering of the criteria for level 3 care, as far as I’m aware anyone who would clinically benefit from it has been given it and at no point have we not had capacity to do so. Not everyone would benefit from intensive care, it can be harmful if there’s not a realistic chance of survival to discharge?).
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I'd seen on here mention of points on who to treat and with what. Also suggestions that the line drawn over when to admit patients when attended by paramedics was too high.

I think when this government talk about not overwhelming the NHS what they actually cared about avoiding was hospital footage similar to that of Italy being seen by the world.

While the NHS has the appearance of not being overwhelmed by covid I suspect the govt have been successful, to a degree, in moving the fallout of an underfunded under prepared under protected NHS off the NHS centre stage. The covid sufferers who died in care homes, in private homes. The invisible people who are not getting their non covid related issues treated because they are too scared to go to hospital or treatment has been cancelled or wait too long to call about covid symptoms.
 
I've just checked the average daily reported deaths over the last week, and adjusting for population, we still have around twice as many as both Spain & Italy, who both went into lockdown earlier, and are only just now starting to lift restrictions.

We went in too late, we are coming out too early.

ETA - Average daily reported deaths - UK 487, Italy 239, Spain 194
 
Edie said:
I’ve read it. Do you honestly think there was a chance of squashing it (and keeping it squashed)? I’m not convinced. I think we were much more like Italy, France and Spain than NZ with our pre existing exposure and spread (before even February probably). And have comparable death rates despite slightly different responses. But I’m really no expert on this stuff.
Click to expand...
I agree that a NZ-style response was not possible. But a Germany-style or Switzerland-style response was possible. Both countries hit relatively hard relatively early. The UK had a two-week head-start compared to Italy and will end up more or less the same. That's a failure. Spain fucked things up badly as well, but 'as bad as the other country that fucked things up really badly' is not doing well.

Probably the single thing that gets me the most is that this government has not and will not admit any mistakes. French president did that a few weeks ago, and France has been doing a lot better since then. It would help them to think, to act, to communicate, to everything, if they were to just come out and say what we all already know.

But then they appear not to know the difference between a plus sign and a multiply sign. Given that they're off school atm, why not just get Year 11 from Rotherham in to run things instead? I would have more confidence in them to a) be compassionate in their decisions, b) understand the science, and c) do the necessary sums.
 
Not as clear a slogan as before.

Not as clear an instruction as before either.

Many have been going to work in the last weeks anyhow.

While others, like me, have been working from home.

Many work places can be modified so there can be social distancing.

However, if you can't get to work without using public transport it isn't clear what you should do!
 
Last edited:
quimcunx said:
They didnt have to fail. Other governments did not fail.

Fair enough. I'd seen on here mention of points on who to treat and with what. Also suggestions that the line drawn over when to admit patients when attended by paramedics was too high.

I think when this government talk about not overwhelming the NHS what they actually cared about avoiding was hospital footage similar to that of Italy being seen by the world.

While the NHS has the appearance of not being overwhelmed by covid I suspect the govt have been successful, to a degree, in moving the fallout of an underfunded under prepared under protected NHS off the NHS centre stage. The covid sufferers who died in care homes, in private homes. The invisible people who are not getting their non covid related issues treated because they are too scared to go to hospital or treatment has been cancelled or wait too long to call about covid symptoms.
Click to expand...
I agree with respect to non-covid medical problems not being treated (pancreatitis not gall stones in SAU kinda thing), but let’s be honest, that’s easy to say in hindsight once we are confident we’re not going to have covid patients on CPAP in corridors or dying on trolleys with a non-rebreathe and scant else.

The dying at home and in care homes point is not straightforward. Hospital is not necessarily the right or preferred place to die. There’s a discussion to be had about whether more patients should have been hospitalised from the community, but having seen and worked alongside my Trusts covid admission algorithm it seems clinically right to me. There are good clinical and psychosocial reasons for and against admission, it isn’t right to think that the best decision is admission if possible.
 
Kevbad the Bad said:
So me and Mrs K can meet up with our son, who is one person, and we won’t be fined for breaking the rules. But our son is going to meet up with us, and we’re two people, so he gets fined? Or have I missed something?
Click to expand...
That was my question yesterday, and the consensus on here, eventually, was that one person in a family can meet up with one other from another household. This morning Raab said the same thing, and then went on to say that one child could meet up with both parents, as long as they kept 2 metres apart. Consistency? Who needs it? Clarity? Who needs it? Etc etc
 
redsquirrel said:
Anyone listening to Raab's clusterfuck interview on R4 now? He was as confused as anyone about the few specific examples given by the interviewer - e.g. what does someone who works in England but lives in Wales do?
Click to expand...

The staggering lack of basic competence is the most striking feature.

There is logic for a gradual easing of the lockdown. There is a popular desire to see other people and to begin to return to some semblance of normal life at some point - including getting back to work.

However it’s on the question of returning to work where the Tories have spectacularly fucked up.

In respect of the longer term there was no vision whatsoever. In that sense the rush to end lockdown feels like a desperate attempt to increase the likelihood that the half living parts of old economic model can be stitched back together. A sort of frankenstein zombie economy staggering on somehow seems to be summit of ambition. There is a massive political space opening up for the sort of approach Louis MacNeice has suggested. The question of course is if Labour will take it.

In the short term the announcement was a disaster. Not only does the announcement clearly reveal the class dynamics at work during the pandemic - working class people should return to work, the middle class can stay at home and work from their laptops - but the fact that the PM and DPM now disagree about even the date on which working class people need to return to work is basic incompetence. The failure to build consensus with the TUC, the devolved nations and even it appears ‘business leaders’ is astonishing. A short delay, some cobbled together health and safety advice and a comms plan would probably have been enough to get most of the rest of the political class on board. Starmer hinted as much last night. The Government couldn’t even manage that.

Most of the people I know want to get back to work. Mainly because they are worried that if they don’t soon they won’t have a job to return back to. In that sense the left demanding a ‘stay home’ line is irrelevant. But the least that people expect is a) some clarity, some instruction and some basic sense that the government knows what it’s doing and b) a proper approach to safety.

These are not massive demands. The fact the Johnson couldn’t even manage that is frankly staggering. We’ll see how this plays out but if/when the death toll begins to spike again in a fortnight there is a strong possibility of genuine anger at the administrative class bubbling up
 
Last edited:
Edie said:
I’ve read it. Do you honestly think there was a chance of squashing it (and keeping it squashed)? I’m not convinced. I think we were much more like Italy, France and Spain than NZ with our pre existing exposure and spread (before even February probably). And have comparable death rates despite slightly different responses. But I’m really no expert on this stuff.
Click to expand...

Yes, we could've done much better. We had advance warning of what was coming, but failed to heed it until too late. The UK should've locked down harder and faster, then tested, traced and isolated much more vigorously (and not lifted lockdown too soon, as they seem to want to do, now). And, even leaving aside the wider issue of the ideological basis of the economy, by: i) not having run down: a) the capacity of the NHS, and b) the manufacturing capacity of the UK; and, ii) maintaining necessary stocks of PPE for a pandemic (which was inevitable sooner or later).
 
Last edited:
Edie said:
I agree with respect to non-covid medical problems not being treated (pancreatitis not gall stones in SAU kinda thing), but let’s be honest, that’s easy to say in hindsight once we are confident we’re not going to have covid patients on CPAP in corridors or dying on trolleys with a non-rebreathe and scant else.

The dying at home and in care homes point is not straightforward. Hospital is not necessarily the right or preferred place to die. There’s a discussion to be had about whether more patients should have been hospitalised from the community, but having seen and worked alongside my Trusts covid admission algorithm it seems clinically right to me. There are good clinical and psychosocial reasons for and against admission, it isn’t right to think that the best decision is admission if possible.
Click to expand...
My issue isn't so much with these clinical judgements. It's not even that they got it wrong with things like the Nightingale Hospitals or the ventilator panic - you're right about hindsight, when they were first building the hospitals, they didn't feel wrong then. My issue is with transmission in hospital and from hospitals to care homes. There have clearly been failures there. More worryingly, there appear still to be failures.
 
Edie said:
It is however a bit disingenuous to say second highest number of deaths. There’s a lot of ways of counting, and a lot of ways of presenting those statistics, as you know. For example,Coronavirus deaths per million by country | Statista
Click to expand...
Since the true death count is now at least in the 40k range and quite likely in the 50k range then, arguably we currently have the worst count globally when normalised by population (statistical anomalies such as San Marino, aside). Excess all-cause mortality, which eliminates any classification variation, confirms the UK, England in particular, as being far and away the worst in Europe.
 
Edie said:
Oh goodness for the record then yes of course I’d be prepared to take public transport. I’ve been working with dying covid patients wearing a fucking surgical mask and a dinner lady apron, of course I’d sit upstairs on the number 6 :facepalm: My point is that doesn’t make my opinion any more or less valid than yours.

Like I said to Orang Utan maybe it should be down to personal choice for a period. Note this hasn’t been an option for nhs workers or supermarket staff or delivery drivers or police etc.
Click to expand...
This is rather different to your earlier dismissive response to at least one poster, but thanks for clarifying
 
Of course the transport thing isn't just about you catching it. It's also about you not giving it to others. I can pretty confidently say that I've not spent time close to anyone who works directly with C19 patients over the last seven weeks. For that reason, I can say that I probably don't have it with a lot more confidence than I could seven weeks ago. Would not be true if I were using public transport.
 
2hats said:
Since the true death count is now at least in the 40k range and quite likely in the 50k range then, arguably we currently have the worst count globally when normalised by population (statistical anomalies such as San Marino, aside). Excess all-cause mortality, which eliminates any classification variation, confirms the UK, England in particular, as being far and away the worst in Europe.
Click to expand...
Those z scores don’t look good, I agree. The cause will be multi factorial, and clearly some of the factors contributing to the variation will have been modifiable by Government decisions.

And ftr I don’t doubt that the right-wing position on the economy-mortality sliding scale tilts towards the ‘herd-immunity and back at work’ end. I’m just not convinced the far left ‘absolutely everyone stay at home until there’s no covid or a vaccine’ stance is any more sensible.

The idea that anything whatsoever can be funded by scrapping trident or taxing billionaires is a comforting lie (and useful in an argument n all ;) ).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

elbows
UK Inquiry Module 3: Impact on UK Healthcare Systems
2 3
Replies
76
Views
2K
elbows
elbows
elbows
UK Inquiry Module 1: Resilience and preparedness
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
165
Views
6K
elbows
elbows
elbows
UK Inquiry Module 2: Decision-making & political governance
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
173
Views
5K
elbows
elbows
frogwoman
Shanghai lockdown
2
Replies
55
Views
3K
skyscraper101
skyscraper101
editor
Professional football and coronavirus
Replies
6
Views
602
elbows
elbows
Back
Top Bottom