Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

[cupid_stunt]

they don't give a fuck, they're just making a political choice for economic reasons

Noting to do with economic reasons.

 

[bimble]

Yep. So basically their chart plan thing was wrong. Unrealistic and not properly thought through offered hastily to show that they had a plan .

 

[cupid_stunt]

Yep. So basically their chart plan thing was wrong. Unrealistic and not properly thought through offered hastily to show that they had a plan .

And, this surprises you?

 

[campanula]

Or are they seeking to nobble a few more 'unproductive units of labour'? So help me, I have never felt this cynical and hateful but am now completely prepared to believe that some consciously malign intent lies behind the Govt diktats.

I honestly cannot formulate a sensible way of looking at anything emanating from Westminster. I have already mentioned my vulnerable D-i-L who has been going out...and don't, in itself, see it as being a particularly controversial response but I really despair of the clarity, the rationale, even any sort of explanation behind these govt decisions. I actually want to see 'the workings out' because I know what my priorities are - starving the host to prevent the virus and maintaining clear boundaries to avoid transmission. but completely unsure of the govt's (although its fairly clear it isn't about ptotecting people).. So many, many possible solutions and nearly all of them are just trashed by incompetents and opportunists.

 

[Orang Utan]

Noting to do with economic reasons.

wot?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Let's not forget that they are stupid. They really are. They have "pro business" reflexes but they don't have the sense to even realise that an effective lockdown means a shorter lockdown and thus less negative effect on "the economy".

They see things in mayfly timelines and assume that they can just fudge something at the last minute if they need to and nobody will notice. They can copy someone's homework or do the essay in an all-nighter and anyway they're not going to really suffer whatever happens.

 

[cupid_stunt]

wot?

It's nothing to do with economic reasons, not sure how much clearer that can be, and I have no idea why you would think it does.

 

[LDC]

I also think what's clearer is that they're going to go with local lockdowns to manage outbreaks as they'll be easier to manage and police.

And they'll have less of an impact on the economy obviously....

 

[elbows]

I also think what's clearer is that they're going to go with local lockdowns to manage outbreaks as they'll be easier to manage and police.

And they'll have less of an impact on the economy obviously....

I think there is actually some anticipation that local lockdowns may be much harder to manage and police.

 

[Orang Utan]

It's nothing to do with economic reasons, not sure how much clearer that can be, and I have no idea why you would think it does.

Don’t be ridiculous. It’s always a factor

 

[Raheem]

I also think what's clearer is that they're going to go with local lockdowns to manage outbreaks as they'll be easier to manage and police.

And they'll have less of an impact on the economy obviously....

Provided you implement them sparingly and tokenistically.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Recent take from neuroscientist Karl Friston, advisor to Alternative Sage, on his form of modelling. His model got a few predictions about the UK pandemic right, which lends his approach some credibility.

Covid-19 expert Karl Friston: 'Germany may have more immunological “dark matter”'

He suggests that the first wave here is all but over.

The models support the idea that what happens in the next few weeks is not going to have a great impact in terms of triggering a rebound – because the population is protected to some extent by immunity acquired during the first wave. The real worry is that a second wave could erupt some months down the line when that immunity wears off.

Certainly that fits the pattern of previous pandemics such as Russian flu, which hit the UK in three separate waves.

He thinks there might be something about Germans that made them less susceptible.

The answers are sometimes counterintuitive. For example, it looks as if the low German fatality rate is not due to their superior testing capacity, but rather to the fact that the average German is less likely to get infected and die than the average Brit. Why? There are various possible explanations, but one that looks increasingly likely is that Germany has more immunological “dark matter” – people who are impervious to infection, perhaps because they are geographically isolated or have some kind of natural resistance. This is like dark matter in the universe: we can’t see it, but we know it must be there to account for what we can see. Knowing it exists is useful for our preparations for any second wave, because it suggests that targeted testing of those at high risk of exposure to Covid-19 might be a better approach than non-selective testing of the whole population.

Not so sure about that. There are other explanations, the most simple one being that fewer vulnerable Germans were exposed because they locked down earlier in their curve and did a better job of protecting people, which easily explains differences in mortality in discovered cases, given the enormous differences in mortality between age groups and those with and without underlying conditions.

But the idea of finding ways to target testing for a second wave is an interesting one, and he addresses the point about who, and how many, might be resistant to catching it in the first place if exposed, which is something I would like to know a lot more about.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Don’t be ridiculous. It’s always a factor

How does letting the most vulnerable out for a walk benefit the economy in anyway?

 

[LDC]

I think there is some anticipation that local lockdowns may be much harder to manage and police.

Yeah, I'm not sure and am just speculating, I can imagine they cause a different type of tension, but maybe that is mitigated by having resources like policing able to be concentrated in one area rather than spread out? I wonder if the tension might also be counter acted with a feeling of people protecting their area a bit as well? Guess lots depends on the size of the area locked down. I also think maybe a tighter lockdown would be easier to manage in some ways. Like if you're only allowed out of your house for essentials then there's none of this crowds about and trying to work out who's doing what.

 

[Orang Utan]

How does letting the most vulnerable out for a walk benefit the economy in anyway?

It means that government can stop sending food parcels to them and that local government can scale back the assistance they are giving to self-isolated vulnerable people

 

[Supine]

The lakes had been full of tourists this weekend. Where have they been going to the toilet? Dirty bastards!

 

[LDC]

It means that government can stop sending food parcels to them and that local government can scale back the assistance they are giving to self-isolated vulnerable people

TBH given the billions being spent I think the minimal amounts going towards that aren't going to be a factor in the decision.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The vulnerable people thing is about sticking to the original timetable as much as anything else, isn't it? It was 12 weeks from the start, and now those 12 weeks are up so some change in advice is needed, otherwise they got that 12 weeks wrong at the start, but they couldn't have got that 12 weeks wrong at the start cos they know what they're doing, they've always known what they're doing, and everything is going to plan.

 

[elbows]

The Sick Man of Europe

It's hard to recall now, but there was a time the UK looked on top of Coronavirus. In the very early days as the outbreak was raging in Wu...

averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com

Their central theme about the authoritarian government stuff is key, I've gone on about this int he form of repeated complaints about the establishment, the orthodox approach, and all the absurd top-down shit and local dovolution of powers than in most cases just pay lip service to actual local autonomy.

I disagree when they say that there was a time when it looked like this country was well positioned to deal with the pandemic. Its true that there was a period where it was much easier for lots of people to hold onto that belief, but those who were following along in detail from the start, listened to independent experts via twitter etc, or were familiar with our standard approach to pandemics, had little cause for optimism in February or early March. They are still right in somse sense though because this wouldnt have been enugh to show up in early opinion polling.

They are incorrect about the role of SAGE in this though. SAGE are not just there to be paraded for show, although that is one of the roles they've ended up with. They also represent establishment, orthodox thinking and response to the pandemic, they are very much part of the doomed top-down instincts of this nations establishment. The failings of this country in this pandemic are a joint effort between all the centralised aspects of government. Some are specific to Johnson & Co, other failings are very much down to SAGE and the government acting on SAGE advice. In other areas, what SAGE would like to happen has been thwarted by ongoing capacity and resource issues. In this next phase we have ended up in, there are already signs that we are likely to get a sense of growing divergence between SAGE and what the government is doing, in terms of timing if not in substance. But these are still squabbles between establishment top-down players, with few opportunities for bottom up stuff to get involved and inject urgency, practicality and the right priorities into the response.

 

[cupid_stunt]

It means that government can stop sending food parcels to them and that local government can scale back the assistance they are giving to self-isolated vulnerable people

Support for shielders, such as food and medicine deliveries, will continue.

Some people shielding to be allowed outdoors

Some restrictions on vulnerable people shielding from coronavirus are to be eased after 10 weeks.

www.bbc.co.uk

You should try following what's actually going on, rather than making things up.

This is for the benefit of their mental health, not to cut back on services, and should be applauded.

 

[Orang Utan]

You should try following what's actually going on, rather than making things up.

This is for the benefit of their mental health, not to cut back on services, and should be applauded.

it should not applauded at all - it's a dangerous thing to do

 

[littlebabyjesus]

it should not applauded at all - it's a dangerous thing to do

It might be. It might not. There is also danger in not making changes.

My main criticism of the current approach is that it lacks localism in its advice. It's very clear that different parts of the country are now at different stages, but everything is still being directed effectively by a Westminster central diktat. It's been a massive weakness in the UK's approach from the start.

 

[cupid_stunt]

it should not applauded at all - it's a dangerous thing to do

No it isn't.

You want to lock these people up for over a bloody year, until a vaccine becomes available, if one is actually ever produced?

You're both insane, and inhuman.

 

[LDC]

it should not applauded at all - it's a dangerous thing to do

Unlike telling people to stay in one room for the forseeable? I dunno, I can see why this decision has been taken. It also covers a load of different conditions with different risks and they're hoping to tailor the advice more very soon.

 

[elbows]

Yeah, I'm not sure and am just speculating, I can imagine they cause a different type of tension, but maybe that is mitigated by having resources like policing able to be concentrated in one area rather than spread out? I wonder if the tension might also be counter acted with a feeling of people protecting their area a bit as well? Guess lots depends on the size of the area locked down. I also think maybe a tighter lockdown would be easier to manage in some ways. Like if you're only allowed out of your house for essentials then there's none of this crowds about and trying to work out who's doing what.

A bunch of this was covered by some SAGE papers I linked to, I think it was yesterday, in response to someone.

The detail of the area matters. If its an area where there is a tension between residents and police at the best of times, then they worry about how easily things could descend into riot etc under a situation of local lockdown. They are considering the detail of riots of the past when thinking about this stuff.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

it should not applauded at all - it's a dangerous thing to do

At some point, you have to make the judgement that the risks in going out a bit more (and that's all this is - a bit more) have reduced to such a point that they are now lower than the risks (and damage) of continuing to be shut away. And it's not like anyone is being forced to go out if support is being continued.

 

[ricbake]

Why? I mean yes the economy but why tell the most vulnerable to go out when they so recently said that was for the final stage?
Has the science changed so that human interaction and not being stuck indoors is now a factor in their thinking when it wasn’t before?

Or are they seeking to nobble a few more 'unproductive units of labour'? So help me, I have never felt this cynical and hateful but am now completely prepared to believe that some consciously malign intent lies behind the Govt diktats.

I honestly cannot formulate a sensible way of looking at anything emanating from Westminster. I have already mentioned my vulnerable D-i-L who has been going out...and don't, in itself, see it as being a particularly controversial response but I really despair of the clarity, the rationale, even any sort of explanation behind these govt decisions. I actually want to see 'the workings out' because I know what my priorities are - starving the host to prevent the virus and maintaining clear boundaries to avoid transmission. but completely unsure of the govt's (although its fairly clear it isn't about ptotecting people).. So many, many possible solutions and nearly all of them are just trashed by incompetents and opportunists.

It means that government can stop sending food parcels to them and that local government can scale back the assistance they are giving to self-isolated vulnerable people

Does any body else suspect that among some anti welfare Tory and right wing elements both here and in the US, they are working to a hidden agenda. COVID19 is a useful form of euthanasia. The old, obese, infirm, those with expensive medical conditions, BAME communities are all appear to have a higher rate of mortality and do not resuscitate is a method of tidying up that doesn't necessarily need to be spoken of out loud

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Does any body else suspect that among some anti welfare Tory and right wing elements both here and in the US, they are working to a hidden agenda. COVID19 is a useful form of euthanasia. The old, obese, infirm, those with expensive medical conditions, BAME communities are all appear to have a higher rate of mortality and do not resuscitate is a method of tidying up that doesn't necessarily need to be spoken of out loud

No.

 

[Orang Utan]

Experts decry easing of coronavirus lockdown for England's shielders

Relaxing restrictions for most vulnerable has no scientific rationale, says top virologist

www.theguardian.com

 

[MrSki]

The vulnerable people thing is about sticking to the original timetable as much as anything else, isn't it? It was 12 weeks from the start, and now those 12 weeks are up so some change in advice is needed, otherwise they got that 12 weeks wrong at the start, but they couldn't have got that 12 weeks wrong at the start cos they know what they're doing, they've always known what they're doing, and everything is going to plan.

Yeah apart from it has only been ten weeks.