Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

[Raheem]

Well the bit in quotation marks is a paraphrase, but basically yes;

UK at 'critical point' over Covid-19, top scientists to tell public

Britain’s most senior government scientists will make a direct appeal to the public on Monday, warning that the coronavirus trend is “heading in the wrong direction” and “a critical point has been reached”.

Makes perfect sense to wait until you're past the critical point, then go back into lockdown, doesn't it?

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

Windows Vista lives long in the memory.

would you care to try millenium?

<has a rummage in the back of the thread> Ah...



I liked this post back in August, and I think it's of particular relevance again now, but with regard to how this government doesn't seem to have used any of the intervening time effectively. Get used to the idea rates are going down regardless, and that things will be back to normal, and you're stuck on that track. Be half-arsed with test and trace, don't develop strategies to make WFH more effective, support those for whom it's more difficult etc, because that would mean an admission that the strategy for getting the economy back on track may not work. It's just a bit baffling that the entire government appears to function like the mind of a mildly incompetent mid-level manager.

peter has a principle

So...what's the best time to go to the supermarket? I'm out of food and need to go so may as well fill the freezer. When I went last week, it was packed and few masks :/ Was it because I went in the morning?

monday mornings used to be good, or post 8pm on friday and saturday outside of london (the shelves might look like panic buying has occurred though)

Makes perfect sense to wait until you're past the critical point, then go back into lockdown, doesn't it?

let's get brexit done!

 

[elbows]

Nick Triggle alert. The BBC man who brought us 'we should carry on with our lives' on March 13th, amongst other classics.

This latest one is like the greatest Triggle & Co shits of this pandemic all rolled into one. Featuring many of the names of professionals we have become used to seeing express these sorts of views throught the pandemic so far.

And just like when he was parping out this stuff during the crucial part of March, it does reflect a certain attitude that normally carries the establishment through epidemics of death. Explore the themes. Pick this shit apart, please.

Covid: Is it time we learned to live with the virus?

Infections are rising and new restrictions being introduced. But is that the right thing to do?

www.bbc.co.uk

The nation has been brought to a standstill once at immense cost to the economy, education and health more generally. And now with cases rising there is the threat of new national restrictions, while large parts of the country have already found themselves back in partial lockdown. But are we fighting a losing battle? Do we instead need to learn to live with the virus?

What is more, rising admissions for respiratory illness and, sadly, deaths are what you would expect to happen at this time of year as you head into autumn and winter when these viruses always spread more.

In fact, Prof Robert Dingwall, a sociologist and an adviser to the government, believes the public may well be now at the stage where it is "comfortable" with the idea that thousands will die from Covid just as they are that they die of flu.

He believes it is only a particular element of the public health and scientific leadership who worry about driving down the infection level and is critical of politicians for not being "brave enough" to be honest with the public that the virus will be around "forever and a day" even with a vaccine.

Prof Mark Woolhouse, an expert in infectious disease at Edinburgh University, agrees this is a risk. But he argues the government must carefully "balance the harms" of Covid with the consequences that come from trying to contain it. He says there is already growing evidence the "cure has been worse than the disease" because of the wider societal costs.

The burden of those have fallen on the very old. The average age of death has been over 80.

And if you look at the age-adjusted mortality rates, which take into account the size and age of the population, you can see that while 2020 has undoubtedly been a bad year compared to recent years, what has been seen in terms of people dying is not completely out of sync with recent history. It is actually comparable with what happened in the 2000s.

The other factor to consider is that doctors are in a much better position to treat severe illness. Two steroid treatments have been found to reduce the risk of death in the seriously ill, while much has been learned about how Covid behaves, which means hospitals will be better prepared for problems such as blood clots and kidney damage. It means many are confident the scale of deaths seen earlier will not be repeated

You can rest assured I will be studying the age-adjusted mortality rates to see just how hideous his 'comparable with the 2000s' shit is. I'm rather familiar with raw number of deaths data from 1970 onwards but not age-standardised stuff.

 

[elbows]

OK here is the graph from that article:


I believe that graph was made using data from table 1 for England and table 2 for Wales of the following ONS document. Using the Persons, Rate per 100,000 population monthly figures. And they took an average of the figures for January-August, leaving out every years September-December data because there is no 2020 data for those months yet.

Monthly mortality analysis, England and Wales - Office for National Statistics

Provisional data on death registrations and death occurrences in England and Wales, broken down by sex and age. Includes deaths due to coronavirus (COVID-19) and leading causes of death.

www.ons.gov.uk

I dont like the averaging out thats being done in that BBC graph. Graphing the monthly figures properly creates a messy graph but one with important features of detail that averaging would miss out on. Especially as we are talking about a pandemic year where the majority of the virus deaths happened in a short period. Which also happened to be a year where there were less deaths than typical earlier in the year for reasons such as the flu season was early for winter 19-20.

Plus the obvious thing missing from his analysis of that data - this is all the deaths we had with a lockdown that was late but did something, not with the virus left to flourish under their shitty do nothing approach. Its no surprise that the people promoting this Covid-19 death normalisation with these dodgy comparisons to other years in history are treating the number of deaths we've actually had as if they represent the full picture of how much death the pandemic virus can bring. Thankfully we dont have a graph showing how many deaths there would have been this year if this agenda had won the first time around, because so far these fuckers make a lot of noise and indulge in plenty of distortions but for some strange reason they havent gotten their way.

Here is my graph of the same data but without averaging out or the removal of any months. Apologies for the Wales data getting lost under the thick lines of England, I ran out of time to try to fix that. For some strange reason 2020 doesnt actually seem lend itself to his statement that "It is actually comparable with what happened in the 2000s".


The BBC have sometimes felt the need to edit Triggle articles after they were published so I'm not sure what shape the stuff I've been going on about will be in when people read it.

 

[TopCat]

I'm wondering about how there'll be lots of small changes that may remain permanent things after this - was just looking at a piece about people's cancelled weddings not being insured and wondering whether, during this they might start letting celebrants marry people anywhere so they can have home/outdoor ceremonies more easily (in fact I think this might already be a thing they've introduced, but can't find where I think I read it) - because there's going to be a huge backlog of people who couldn't get hitched, a lot of venues permanently shut and it would help a lot to allow people to get married. Then it would probably stay being a thing.

It's a laugh and a half trying to plan a wedding or Partnership ceremony at the moment.
The Ivy House in Peckham want way over a grand plus their food and drink and only six allowed.

 

[Steel Icarus]

Looking back it's interesting that Whitty said on March 14th the peak was 10-14 weeks away. Obviously since that we had lockdown so the peak was done before April. I wonder if there'll be anything comparable from his announcement today.

 

[Doodler]

What I don't get at the moment is what is driving these localised spikes. Are we just all agreeing that Geordies, Scousers and Brummies are worse at following the rules than everyone else in the UK? Seems unlikely that human behaviour will differ greatly between parts of the same country.

In normal times there are geographical differences in life expectancy which are down to all kinds of factors, some behavioural, others down to circumstance, and doubtless complicated mixtures of the two. Can't think why covid infection and mortality rates would be different.

 

[killer b]

Thing is — it goes without saying and must be obvious to fellow urbanites that I am the cleverest person I know, and by a fair old margin. And yet, the rules are somewhat confusing even to me!!1! They change regularly and because my consumption of news has pretty much ended since I stopped commuting, I’m never really sure if something new is in place. And after I have caught up, I can’t really remember if the rule is now this thing or if that’s the rule from three weeks ago. There’s no apparent logic to any of it that would help me follow a general principle, so I’m left needing to memorise this week’s list of instructions.

Even now — I know it’s six people but is that now two households at most or as many households as you like? Are you allowed overnight stays? And the rules are getting tighter because it’s getting worse but they want me to stop working from home and start commuting, right? You can see how confusion creeps in.

If there was an overarching principle, I could follow it. But it seems to me that some dangerous things are being downright encouraged whilst other innocuous things are banned, so that’s no help.

So I’m left either choosing to totally isolate to ensure I’m following every possible requirement of both rule-following and risk mitigation. Or I just basically make it up as I go along and hope for the best.

This is kind of what I meant by people working hard not to understand the restrictions. Yes, they might be more complex than they were, and they also change regularly as the situation changes. But they really aren't that complex, and it would take less than 5 minutes for you to check what they currently are for your area. Instead you've chosen not to, and to make it up as you go along, and to spend those 5 minutes that you could have spent putting your mind at rest on what you are and are not able to do typing out a justification of why you aren't doing - why do you think that is?

Partly I think it's because it just doesn't feel fair. There's plenty of reasonable arguments for keeping parts of society open and restricting movements in the home, but however eloquently those arguments are made they don't hold much water when you walk - alone - past a busy pub.

Add this to a crisis of legitimacy post Barnard Castle - I think this has been particularly exacerbated more recently by the hunting thing - again there's plenty of reasonable arguments why grouse shooting is probably a 'safe' activity while 5-a side football isn't, but it really doesn't look good... It's difficult to see how complex partial restrictions can really work right now.

 

[kabbes]

This is kind of what I meant by people working hard not to understand the restrictions. Yes, they might be more complex than they were, and they also change regularly as the situation changes. But they really aren't that complex, and it would take less than 5 minutes for you to check what they currently are for your area. Instead you've chosen not to, and to make it up as you go along, and to spend those 5 minutes that you could have spent putting your mind at rest on what you are and are not able to do typing out a justification of why you aren't doing - why do you think that is?

Partly I think it's because it just doesn't feel fair. There's plenty of reasonable arguments for keeping parts of society open and restricting movements in the home, but however eloquently those arguments are made they don't hold much water when you walk - alone - past a busy pub.

Add this to a crisis of legitimacy post Barnard Castle - I think this has been particularly exacerbated more recently by the hunting thing - again there's plenty of reasonable arguments why grouse shooting is probably a 'safe' activity while 5-a side football isn't, but it really doesn't look good... It's difficult to see how complex partial restrictions can really work right now.

How often do you want me to review the rules in case they’ve changed and in case I’ve misremembered their current status? Daily? You have to recognise that fatigue sets in regarding trying to stay up to date on this.

 

[zahir]

A round up of where we are from Devi Sridhar.

As more local lockdowns begin, the hard truth is there's no return to 'normal' | Devi Sridhar

The only certainty about the year ahead is the uncertainty. As a scientist, here’s my advice on how we can live alongside Covid, says public health expert Devi Sridhar

www.theguardian.com

 

[ska invita]

It's a laugh and a half trying to plan a wedding or Partnership ceremony at the moment.
The Ivy House in Peckham want way over a grand plus their food and drink and only six allowed.

Are you planning on getting partnershiped? Congratulations TC xx
BYO in the park?
Though I guess the rule is six in the park right now too

 

[TopCat]

Are you planning on getting partnershiped? Congratulations TC xx
BYO in the park?
Though I guess the rule is six in the park right now too

Yeah it is planned for next July. My love would like 100 of her best mates.
6 would be fine for me.

 

[cupid_stunt]

It seems very odd that Whitty and Vallance are going to address the nation first, then Johnson at some later point, and no questions will be taken.

Some media outlets have been saying Johnson would be addressing the nation tomorrow, but Shapps implies it could actually be today.

Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, speaking this morning, said that Prime Minister Boris Johnson will set out the next steps in tackling the pandemic after England’s chief medical officer and chief scientific adviser have held a press conference.

When asked why the Prime Minister was not going to be part of their public address, Mr Shapps added: “What he wants to do, quite rightly, is allow without politicians there, to allow scientists to set out the picture to the country.

“He will come out very soon after that and speak to the country.”

Why Boris Johnson isn't addressing the nation today

The press briefing will not feature any cabinet minister

www.walesonline.co.uk

 

[TopCat]

Yeah it is planned for next July. My love would like 100 of her best mates.
6 would be fine for me.

My mindset is a bit dark at the moment. I can see covid wittling down the guest list by next Summer.

 

[TopCat]

It seems very odd that Whitty and Vallance are going to address the nation first, then Johnson at some later point, and no questions will be taken.

Some media outlets have been saying Johnson would be addressing the nation tomorrow, but Shapps implies it could actually be today.

Why Boris Johnson isn't addressing the nation today

The press briefing will not feature any cabinet minister

www.walesonline.co.uk

11am isn't it? I think they are going to drop a bomb on us so to speak.

 

[ska invita]

Yeah it is planned for next July. My love would like 100 of her best mates.
6 would be fine for me.

Current finger in the wind speculation is six more months of lockage. Hopefully by July there'll be a lot more flexibility with people. A gamble to give deposits etc now though eh.

 

[teuchter]

How often do you want me to review the rules in case they’ve changed and in case I’ve misremembered their current status? Daily? You have to recognise that fatigue sets in regarding trying to stay up to date on this.

I think you just need to check them each time you are thinking of doing something that you are not sure about. Which for most people is not daily. Possibly not even weekly.

 

[Cid]

I think you just need to check them each time you are thinking of doing something that you are not sure about. Which for most people is not daily. Possibly not even weekly.

Unless the rules change of course.

 

[cupid_stunt]

11am isn't it? I think they are going to drop a bomb on us so to speak.

Yep 11 am for Whitty and Vallance, nothing has been confirmed about Johnson yet.

 

[killer b]

How often do you want me to review the rules in case they’ve changed and in case I’ve misremembered their current status? Daily? You have to recognise that fatigue sets in regarding trying to stay up to date on this.

Sorry, I'm not actually asking you to do anything - I was just using your post as an example of an extremely widespread attitude, one which I think it probably currently shared by the majority of the country. But the idea that the restrictions are too complex for you to understand or remember is - I'm afraid - a bit silly. You've made a choice not to understand or remember.

 

[two sheds]

brain the size of a planet









/runs and hides

 

[andysays]

Yeah it is planned for next July. My love would like 100 of her best mates.
6 would be fine for me.

Congratulations to you and the missus

 

[TopCat]

Current finger in the wind speculation is six more months of lockage. Hopefully by July there'll be a lot more flexibility with people. A gamble to give deposits etc now though eh.

I'm more focused on wanting everyone to be well. Elderly parents etc.

 

[killer b]

Sorry, I'm not actually asking you to do anything - I was just using your post as an example of an extremely widespread attitude, one which I think it probably currently shared by the majority of the country. But the idea that the restrictions are too complex for you to understand or remember is - I'm afraid - a bit silly. You've made a choice not to understand or remember.

fwiw I'm not sticking by the letter of my own local restrictions. But I know which ones I'm ignoring or stretching.

 

[kabbes]

Is it physically impossible for me to prioritise knowing the latest version of the rules? Of course not. So to that degree, it’s a choice. But it’s the classic neoliberal attitude to make it all about personal responsibility to keep up and personal failure if that responsibility isn’t met, rather than recognise the social context of the way the knowledge of what to do has been created, disseminated and maintained. Who are the ones that make the rules and why are these not the ones also responsible for making them in a way that makes following those rules inevitable? It’s a strange inverse of the power hierarchy to put the onus on the public rather than the government to keep up.

 

[prunus]

Is it physically impossible for me to prioritise knowing the latest version of the rules? Of course not. So to that degree, it’s a choice. But it’s the classic neoliberal attitude to make it all about personal responsibility to keep up and personal failure if that responsibility isn’t met, rather than recognise the social context of the way the knowledge of what to do has been created, disseminated and maintained. Who are the ones that make the rules and why are these not the ones also responsible for making them in a way that makes following those rules inevitable? It’s a strange inverse of the power hierarchy to put the onus on the public rather than the government to keep up.

It is, absolutely; unfortunately we have to deal with the reality we have, which is that this government is, to sum up in a single but apposite word, shit.

 

[mauvais]

This is kind of what I meant by people working hard not to understand the restrictions. Yes, they might be more complex than they were, and they also change regularly as the situation changes. But they really aren't that complex, and it would take less than 5 minutes for you to check what they currently are for your area. Instead you've chosen not to, and to make it up as you go along, and to spend those 5 minutes that you could have spent putting your mind at rest on what you are and are not able to do typing out a justification of why you aren't doing - why do you think that is?

They are complicated. There are at least four different sets of restrictions less than an hour's drive from where I live (Bolton/some-but-not-all-of-GM/Lancashire/national), and it requires understanding arbitrary administrative boundaries.

 

[killer b]

Is it physically impossible for me to prioritise knowing the latest version of the rules? Of course not. So to that degree, it’s a choice. But it’s the classic neoliberal attitude to make it all about personal responsibility to keep up and personal failure if that responsibility isn’t met, rather than recognise the social context of the way the knowledge of what to do has been created, disseminated and maintained. Who are the ones that make the rules and why are these not the ones also responsible for making them in a way that makes following those rules inevitable? It’s a strange inverse of the power hierarchy to put the onus on the public rather than the government to keep up.

I'm not really trying to suggest it's a personal failure on your part tbh, I was just expanding on an earlier point about how I didn't think 'better communication' from the government would really make much of a difference, as the problems we're seeing with how well the restrictions are observed are not not really about how well they're communicated.

 

[kabbes]

It is, absolutely; unfortunately we have to deal with the reality we have, which is that this government is, to sum up in a single but apposite word, shit.

So people do their best in the circumstances they have been shoved into. I’m therefore not going to make it their failure when they inevitably get things wrong.

Creating a system that has the certainty of failure baked into it is on the creator of the system, not the points of failure. I don’t blame the wood for splitting.

 

[kabbes]

I'm not really trying to suggest it's a personal failure on your part tbh, I was just expanding on an earlier point about how I didn't think 'better communication' from the government would really make much of a difference, as the problems we're seeing with how well the restrictions are observed are not not really about how well they're communicated.

In what way is it not at least in part about how they are communicated?