Coronavirus

[Uptherams]

5 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

TexasRam when you say lockdowns don’t work, are you implying that any kind of lockdown doesn’t work? 

Or half arsed not really a lockdown more a load of random restrictions don’t work. 

What would your prediction be if we went into a national lockdown that exactly replicated the type we did earlier in the year, say starting tomorrow?

 

That's also not a lockdown is it. The virus would still exist and spread. 

[jimmyp]

8 minutes ago, Uptherams said:

That's also not a lockdown is it. The virus would still exist and spread. 

Tell me oh wise one, what is a lockdown?

Actually don’t bother, I’m unlikely to reply to you. 

[Gone]

18 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

TexasRam when you say lockdowns don’t work, are you implying that any kind of lockdown doesn’t work? 

Or half arsed not really a lockdown more a load of random restrictions don’t work. 

What would your prediction be if we went into a national lockdown that exactly replicated the type we did earlier in the year, say starting tomorrow?

 

My prediction Is we’d see a reduction in cases for a short while then 3/4 weeks later be back where we are now. Then what,we do it again? It’s not worked anywhere in the UK up to now, so what  says one now will work?

Protect the vulnerable and let the rest of us get on with life, would be my strategy 

[Uptherams]

3 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

Tell me oh wise one, what is a lockdown?

Actually don’t bother, I’m unlikely to reply to you. 

If we went into the same lockdown we did earlier this year, then we'd come out of it the same. With the virus still among us. 

[Uptherams]

1 minute ago, TexasRam said:

 

Protect the vulnerable and let the rest of us get on with life

Best political slogan in the UK for a while. Much better than build back better. 

Put it on the side of a bus, I'd vote for it. 

[Gone]

3 minutes ago, Uptherams said:

Best political slogan in the UK for a while. Much better than build back better. 

Put it on the side of a bus, I'd vote for it. 

I’d quite happily lead this Country 

[jimmyp]

5 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

My prediction Is we’d see a reduction in cases for a short while then 3/4 weeks later be back where we are now. Then what,we do it again? It’s not worked anywhere in the UK up to now, so what  says one now will work?

Protect the vulnerable and let the rest of us get on with life, would be my strategy 

So you agree lockdowns reduce cases albeit on a temporary basis. 

Do you not think it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to protect / shield all of the vulnerable? 

How would you operate the NHS for example when having to deal with those getting on with life and those being protected. Would we need to cancel all treatments and services to the vulnerable in order to protect them?

How do we protect those that are protecting the vulnerable ?

[Uptherams]

Just now, TexasRam said:

I’d quite happily lead this Country 

I'd vote for you.

Then regret my vote a few months later. 

But what choice did I have ?

[GboroRam]

29 minutes ago, Uptherams said:

I don't understand how a lockdown is supposed to be an effective stratergy. Are we seriously suggesting every single person stays indoors, in one place for 2-3 weeks? It's just going to spread again once we open back up. 

Not saying it is possible, but if we did that we would eradicate it in the UK. Everyone with it would have passed it to their household, and had time to recover (or die from it). 

If we eradicated it, you would have to quarantine everyone coming into the country to ensure that it is out of their system before they can go out into the clean population. 

If course you can't do this. But the closer to 100% you can get, and the more effective testing and tracking is at catching the ones who you couldn't get, the faster we can get back to normal. 

We never got close to 100%. Not even within light years. We needed more tight lockdown and not to open up until testing was available and widespread. 

I fear we have to go back to a full lockdown again because we did such a poor job first time around. 

[Gone]

8 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

So you agree lockdowns reduce cases albeit on a temporary basis. 

Do you not think it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to protect / shield all of the vulnerable? 

How would you operate the NHS for example when having to deal with those getting on with life and those being protected. Would we need to cancel all treatments and services to the vulnerable in order to protect them?

How do we protect those that are protecting the vulnerable ?

Not sure myself if I’m honest , but we have all the brain power about to come up with that plan I’d of thought. It seems to me to be the best strategy all round, protect those that need to be protected and also protect the economy and social well being of everyone else. 

[G STAR RAM]

38 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

Yes my folks are in the same boat as yours, however they really don’t go out to the kind of places where social distancing can’t take place efficiently. 

Why don’t you have much confidence in it? 

Not sure enough people are using it to make it worthwhile. 

Also not sure how it can give reliable data when you can check into a venue but then dont check out.

[Uptherams]

1 minute ago, GboroRam said:

Not saying it is possible, but if we did that we would eradicate it in the UK. Everyone with it would have passed it to their household, and had time to recover (or die from it). 

If we eradicated it, you would have to quarantine everyone coming into the country to ensure that it is out of their system before they can go out into the clean population. 

If course you can't do this. But the closer to 100% you can get, and the more effective testing and tracking is at catching the ones who you couldn't get, the faster we can get back to normal. 

We never got close to 100%. Not even within light years. We needed more tight lockdown and not to open up until testing was available and widespread. 

I fear we have to go back to a full lockdown again because we did such a poor job first time around. 

You highlight the issue. Such a lockdown would be extremely difficult with no proof it would even work. What about the economy? What are people who need to see doctors or go to appointments supposed to do? Just deal with it? One way or another, millions of people need to leave their homes every week for not only their health but in order for the lights to stay on and food for us to eat. 

The damage would be enormous and for what exactly? 50 people dieing per day with Covid? 

[Albert]

9 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

UK is 18th for tests per capita.

Yep. Not sure what you point is otherwise. As noted, the key is how the tests are being used. High testing is useful, but only part of the full strategy to get things under control. It's like a smoke alarm, it doesn't matter if your building has a million of them if nobody responds to the alarms. That, however, doesn't imply that they're not useful. 

[Albert]

9 hours ago, maxjam said:

You bought up Taiwan and Vietnam as examples!!!

I did, I also brought up other countries with more relevant characteristics that you've ignored. 

9 hours ago, maxjam said:

 

So, this is how you've chosen to continue ignoring the point. Fair enough, I'll take that as you tacitly conceding that you have no retort for those points. 

[jimmyp]

6 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Not sure myself if I’m honest , but we have all the brain power about to come up with that plan I’d of thought. It seems to me to be the best strategy all round, protect those that need to be protected and also protect the economy and social well being of everyone else. 

Yes it’s a fantastic idea, best of both worlds. Very easy to sell to people, it seems so obvious and simple.

However Unfortunately despite all the brain power in the world we have no way of protecting the vulnerable whilst letting everyone else get on with their life as normal. For all the ideas these very clever people are coming up with, none of them can answer how we protect the vulnerable. 

It therefore isn’t a realistic strategy, it isn’t even given serious consideration because of the absolute dire consequences of putting it into action. 

Before fully committing to an idea / strategy and trying to sell it to others, you should perhaps have all the answers. 

[TuffLuff]

I don’t really want to get too involved because of the amount of *lovely, clever and open minded* people in here, but I feel the elephant in the room is largely being ignored to suit the agenda of ‘I can just drone on for weeks and I won’t let anything change my mind’. So I feel I do need to make one small point. 

Lockdowns, like any method to slow or contain a virus, should work. It has done elsewhere and could have done here. Why it hasnt worked here is down to timing because we dither and delay. A decision that should take a couple of days usually takes seven whilst also being leaked to the press. When you lose 3-5 days to that delay you are essentially losing 3-5 weeks to try and get back any sort of control. There’s a lot of issues why this has happened, but the biggest will be down to our lack of track and trace and the general mishandling of the pandemic by the government. Essentially the mistakes that happened in the first wave  are happening again. 

The idea of a lockdown is that you are stopping Covid in its tracks and reacting before it takes hold in a community, our response is that we are reacting to the damage it’s done.

[Albert]

54 minutes ago, Uptherams said:

I don't understand how a lockdown is supposed to be an effective stratergy. Are we seriously suggesting every single person stays indoors, in one place for 2-3 weeks? It's just going to spread again once we open back up. 

What evidence is there that we need a circuit breaker now? People inside the NHS are saying the worst period for the NHS in general regarding capacity and flu, etc, will be the last two weeks of January. So that the beginning of Jan is when a circuit breaker lockdown should occur, if one has to. 

If you wait until that time, the worst period for the year will be a lot earlier than that. 

54 minutes ago, Uptherams said:

Statistitions are going mad. Saying the charts show no wave. 

Source on this being an actual published view of the situation? 

54 minutes ago, Uptherams said:

We have people saying listen to the experts. Where are these so called experts? 

Then we have thousands of doctors, scientists and mathematicians signing documents, trying to voice their professional opinions. But we are told they don't exist or the powers that be blacklist them. 

Unfortunately for your argument, the great Barrington Declaration has lost of lot of its impact now that it's been revealed that a lot of the 'experts' that signed it were either charlatans or outright fake. The fact that it was nutty in the first place obviously didn't help, and was the real issue with it, but that kind of stuff tends to take away the 'appeal to authority' shine you were attempting previously. 

54 minutes ago, Uptherams said:

Hopefully this man is the first of many. Well done to him. People need to take more notice of the fact that very few people within this government or the conservative party are publicly backing Boris and Hancock. A good sign that they plan to get rid. 

If we get to 2021 and deaths continue to be around the rate they have for the last 6 weeks..what is the point people will make? Will more step forward and believe the Virus to no longer be a threat? 

The deaths already are unacceptable, maintaining this until then would be a poorly outcome. 

[1967Ram]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

I've reluctantly downloaded but dont have much confidence in it to be honest.

I wonder how many people want it  it cant download it? Both of my parents wanted to download it but have phones that are not compatible with the app apparently.

Like your parents, I wanted it but can't download the App on my old i phone

[Gone]

8 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

Yes it’s a fantastic idea, best of both worlds. Very easy to sell to people, it seems so obvious and simple.

However Unfortunately despite all the brain power in the world we have no way of protecting the vulnerable whilst letting everyone else get on with their life as normal. For all the ideas these very clever people are coming up with, none of them can answer how we protect the vulnerable. 

It therefore isn’t a realistic strategy, it isn’t even given serious consideration because of the absolute dire consequences of putting it into action. 

Before fully committing to an idea / strategy and trying to sell it to others, you should perhaps have all the answers. 

As If I’m going to have all the answers, Steve Jobs never had all the answers but surrounded himself with people who did. That’s what I’d expect from our leaders to implement my strategy. Just because you say it can’t  be done, doesn’t mean it can’t ,the same as I say it can be done doesn’t mean it can. We are two plebs on a football forum sharing our views 

[jimmyp]

18 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Not sure enough people are using it to make it worthwhile. 

Also not sure how it can give reliable data when you can check into a venue but then dont check out.

The checking out makes no difference.

The app analysis how close you are to someone and how long you spend near them. If you are not near someone with the virus the app essentially isn’t interested in you. 

So the closer you are to somebody with the virus the less time you have before the app will tell you to quarantine. If you are  further away from them you will have more time before the app contacts you. 

The app does not presume you are still in the building because you have not checked out. 

The checking in is only so they can recognise certain hotspots perhaps lacking in virus control.