Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

[souljacker]

And PMQs at 12pm.

PMQ's is showbiz. Not politics.

 

[MrSki]

Wrong thread.

 

[souljacker]

He's doing the Downing Street press conference this afternoon at 4 pm.

He should be addressing the nation regularly. How have we got to a position where it's left to Hancock to be the official spokesman in a time of national crisis?

 

[two sheds]

Not known as a great place to get answers from him

It's not called Prime Minister's Answers for good reason..

 

[Pickman's model]

He should be addressing the nation regularly. How have we got to a position where it's left to Hancock to be the official spokesman in a time of national crisis?

Boris Johnson has taken up residence under the cabinet room table where Dominic Cummings hands him bottles of cheap cider

 

[Teaboy]

So basically these new rules are just about stopping house parties aren't they? Doubt anyone will give a shit seen as people who are having parties didn't give a shit about the various rules around it in the first place.

I know the police have get very little sympathy round these parts but fuck trying to police this bollocks.

 

[quimcunx]

Its outside too. Convenient for anyone annoyed about extinction rebellion gatherings.

Also 7 people meeting in parks for free bad. People in groups of 6 sharing space indoors with other groups of 6 in pubs good.

 

[LDC]

Its outside too. Convenient for anyone annoyed about extinction rebellion gatherings.

Also 7 people meeting in parks for free bad. People in groups of 6 sharing space indoors with other groups of 6 in pubs good.

If you really think these restrictions are anything to do with Extinction Rebellion you're into conspiracy theory territory.

Six is a reasonable figure, more than one average household but small enough to police compared to the 30, and there will also be some level of infection likelihood and social research behind that number. And the number set as a limit will seem arbitrary to some people whatever it is set at.

The pubs thing is difficult, even ignoring the economic reasons. If you make that too restrictive some people will just go to other people's houses which is worse.

 

[wtfftw]

I've been to a (reasonably small) house party. I knew everyone there and I know that most of them are on top of the contact so much that if there had even been a removed covid case they could tell everyone (this is just before kids back at school and the bubble being incomprehensible). I feel more confident in that than the govs track and trace.

 

[quimcunx]

If you really think these restrictions are anything to do with Extinction Rebellion you're into conpsiracy theory territory.

I dont think they are because of that but I'm sure there was smirking involved.

 

[maomao]

If you really think these restrictions are anything to do with Extinction Rebellion you're into conpsiracy theory territory.

I wouldn't put it past the current government to have raised it in a 'two birds one stone' kind of way.

 

[Teaboy]

Its outside too. Convenient for anyone annoyed about extinction rebellion gatherings.

Also 7 people meeting in parks for free bad. People in groups of 6 sharing space indoors with other groups of 6 in pubs good.

Yes, I think that's to stop people just having big parties in the garden or street or whatever. They just don't want people having parties anywhere.

 

[LDC]

I know the police have get very little sympathy round these parts but fuck trying to police this bollocks.

The police were instrumental in deciding on these new rules as the previous ones were unenforceable.

 

[Teaboy]

The police were instrumental in deciding on these new rules as the previous ones were unenforceable.

Sure. But fuck being the actual police who have to deal with this.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If you really think these restrictions are anything to do with Extinction Rebellion you're into conspiracy theory territory.

Six is a reasonable figure, more than one average household but small enough to police compared to the 30, and there will also be some level of infection likelihood and social research behind that number. And the number set as a limit will seem arbitrary to some people whatever it is set at.

The pubs thing is difficult, even ignoring the economic reasons. If you make that too restrictive some people will just go to other people's houses which is worse.

That last bit of course is also an argument against making outside rules the same as inside rules. May be easier to police with the same figure for both, but it's much easier to keep a larger gathering secret at someone's house than it is in a park.

It would be nice if they ended their rotten culture of secrecy and published SAGE stuff in full, rather than selectively leaking the bits they want people to know, such as the worst-case scenario that justifies actions such as these. This isn't a question of national security but one of national health - other countries publish full minutes of their SAGE-equivalent meetings as a matter of course.

 

[emanymton]

I don't think anyone has suggested 'it's all the fault of young people', certainly not me, there'll always be several different things going on. What we do know is that cases have been tracked back to various settings, and the biggest single problem has been households mixing and house parties*, and we also know there's a specific issue in these settings with younger people, as reflected in test results. There's been loads of cases traced back to fairly large house parties, attended by mainly young people, and not just in the four nations of the UK.

This has been the case for weeks and plenty of local council leaders and local public health officers have been highlighting this problem, if it was just the government I would be sceptical.

Pubs haven't been as much of a problem so far, although I suspect that could change with the weather, hence why personally I would like to see more inspections & forced closures of those caught breaking the rules.

In the article you have linked to, a number of pubs & the Conservative Club are listed as having closed for a deep clean following, in most cases, a single customer or member of staff that has tested positive, there's nothing in that that suggests any of them had been breaking the rules. Pubs closing in such circumstances should not be confused with pubs being closed due to breaking covid rules over social distancing, etc., where there will be a far higher chance of covid spreading.

* In fact as I was typing this,there was a virologist on BBC News pointing out the vast majority of current transmission is within households, around the 80-90% mark, although that clearly includes all household infections, not limited to just households mixing and house parties, although they remain a major factor in the figures.

I don't really disagree. I just don't see young people behaving more irresponsibly than older people and blaming it all on young people has a whiff of scapegoating about it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't really disagree. I just don't see young people behaving more irresponsibly than older people and blaming it all on young people has a whiff of scapegoating about it.

Also, what was hidden first time around is now visible this time. There is a similar pattern across Europe of rising infection levels starting off with younger people (by which I mean really anybody under 60) and not showing up in hospital numbers for quite a while as it slowly then makes its way to older people. I don't see any reason to think it wasn't the same pattern in the first wave, probably throughout February. We just didn't know because of the lack of testing.

It's not so surprising, is it? The most vulnerable group by far wrt hospitalisation and deaths is retired people who don't go to work, don't commute, don't travel around loads generally. They're the most vulnerable, but they're not the main vectors of spread. Weren't last time and aren't this time either.

 

[Teaboy]

I don't really disagree. I just don't see young people behaving more irresponsibly than older people and blaming it all on young people has a whiff of scapegoating about it.

I do, all over the place. I'm not going to hang them out for it though I'd no doubt be doing the same if I was younger.

 

[quimcunx]

That bullshit about people wanting tests before going on holiday being to blame for test shortages is annoying me. For one I'll bet the return to school (possibly after a holiday which was allowed dont forget) has been a bigger driver in increased demand. But especially as a lot of trips will have been younger people finally visiting older relatives so looking to be tested first seems like people trying to be responsible and protect older people.

Again the govt (contractors) should have been prepared for this increased demand.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

TBF young people are probably more likely to go to parties than older people, so the proportion of them that don't care about the rules will be more likely to act on that by going to parties. It doesn't really require younger people as a group to have a different attitude to the rules overall for that to be the case. If the problem is parties it's entirely possible to emphasise that without getting all Daily Mail and tutting at the young folk with their terrible attitudes.

To be honest I think back to when I was younger - and spending my weekends at illegal parties in broken into warehouses taking drugs - and I'm really not sure how younger me would have acted in the current situation. I'd like to think I'd have been responsible but I couldn't say so with any confidence.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That bullshit about people wanting tests before going on holiday being to blame for test shortages is annoying me. For one I'll bet the return to school (possibly after a holidays which were allowed dont forget) has been a bigger driver in increased demand. But especially as a lot of trips will have been younger people finally visiting older relatives so looking to be tested first seems like people trying to be responsible and protect older people.

It is never, ever, ever their fault. With the benefit of hindsight, surely we should all have been told to forget about foreign holidays this year. They could just admit that, admit that they underestimated the spreading effect people moving around would have. But no, that would mean the clowns admitting that they are not perfect.

 

[Artaxerxes]

It is never, ever, ever their fault. With the benefit of hindsight, surely we should all have been told to forget about foreign holidays this year. They could just admit that, admit that they underestimated the spreading effect people moving around would have. But no, that would mean the clowns admitting that they are not perfect.

No hindsight needed, I've been saying since the start that only the most crucial of travel should be happening and any ideas of going on holiday abroad need to be cancelled at least until a vaccine is on trials or the disease is under control.

 

[andysays]

No hindsight needed, I've been saying since the start that only the most crucial of travel should be happening and any ideas of going on holiday abroad need to be cancelled at least until a vaccine is on trials or the disease is under control.

Yeah, there's absolutely no hindsight needed for this or any of the other myriad fuck ups the government has made, most if not all of which have been the result of putting short term profit before people's health and general wellbeing.

 

[Hyperdark]

Talking of Vaccines.

AstraZeneca suspends leading COVID-19 vaccine trials after a participant's illness

 

[quimcunx]

Encouraging limiting travel to those visiting family and encouraging tests beforehand would have been a more responsible and compassionate approach to my mind.

 

[xenon]

It is never, ever, ever their fault. With the benefit of hindsight, surely we should all have been told to forget about foreign holidays this year. They could just admit that, admit that they underestimated the spreading effect people moving around would have. But no, that would mean the clowns admitting that they are not perfect.

and losing the travel industry. Which lets not forget are actually asking for tests to be made available at airports.

 

[souljacker]

It is never, ever, ever their fault. With the benefit of hindsight, surely we should all have been told to forget about foreign holidays this year. They could just admit that, admit that they underestimated the spreading effect people moving around would have. But no, that would mean the clowns admitting that they are not perfect.

I'd have been happy if we had closed our borders to be honest. Don't go on holiday, don't allow execs to fly to important meetings anywhere and if you absolutely HAVE to travel, you're doing two weeks in a heathrow hotel (that you aren't allowed to leave) on your return. Then track and trace with mass quick testing on everyone until we get it under control.

 

[xenon]

They’ve been actually encouraging people to go on holiday. And of course. If someone can test them self for that bit of reassurance, why wouldn’t they. They told us we had plenty of tests. Not that I would be going on holiday myself, was due to go to Germany next month but it doesn’t seem sensible. Even so I understand some people have made plans long in advance or have family they need to visit abroad.

 

[xenon]

Not that holidays are especially the problem. Other than the general mass gathering, not being able to avoid social distancing thing.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

and losing the travel industry. Which lets not forget are actually asking for tests to be made available at airports.

Or saving it. If travel is still fucked next summer, allowing limited travel this summer won't look too clever.

Can't say for sure cos SAGE is secret, but the actions re summer holidays fit with a belief* that Covid-19 would show marked seasonal variability in its transmission. I read warnings right at the start that it might not, because MERS doesn't and it could be like MERS.

*or should that be 'hope'?