Coronavirus

[alexxxxx]

If we were to lock down until elimination we'd be sat inside until May / June. It's that prevelent here. 

In order for us to have reached elimination we'd have been needed to have continued our original lockdown til September or further. 

 

[maxjam]

6 hours ago, Eddie said:

And THAT's how you control this thing.

It's not luck that they manage to respond in an efficient way. It's acting in a responsible way. But when has that ever been an acceptable approach in this sceptered isle?

I'm not saying that its not the best way to deal with covid - just saying that it will never happen in the UK (or the EU) due to our way of life or competing factions within our society.

If you add onto that the untold damage we're doing to our economy, jobs market and long term health (both mental and physical) going down the severe Aussie lockdown route would have have significant costs itself - possibly even more so than any damage covid may ultimately do. 

[Eddie]

1 minute ago, maxjam said:

I'm not saying that its not the best way to deal with covid - just saying that it will never happen in the UK (or the EU) due to our way of life or competing factions within our society.

If you add onto that the untold damage we're doing to our economy, jobs market and long term health (both mental and physical) going down the severe Aussie lockdown route would have have significant costs itself - possibly even more so than any damage covid may ultimately do. 

The economy has been done to death, for want of a better expression.

It's always been a choice, finding the right balance between locking everything down and letting it run wild. Procrastinating about locking down is the worst of all worlds, because a 'wait and see' attitude eventually leads to hasty decisions made too late.

[ariotofmyown]

9 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

So Spain are rid of it now then I'm assuming?

@maxjam said there would be civil war in Europe if they banned dog walking. 

I said they did ban dog walking in Madrid in March/April time.

Your trolling reply would have been valid if I had actually written "they did ban dog walking in Madrid and it was a vital step to completely eradicate Covid from the city".

 

[Albert]

20 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

If we were to lock down until elimination we'd be sat inside until May / June. It's that prevelent here. 

In order for us to have reached elimination we'd have been needed to have continued our original lockdown til September or further. 

Which is kind of the point, the horse has well and truly bolted for the UK, because they procrastinated at the key time, and let petty politics stifle actioning the advice. 

At every turn, the government's choice has been to sit on their hands, and this is the result. The notion of it was 'lives or the economy' is a fallacy, and has been from the start. The UK has already locked down longer than anywhere in Australia except Victoria. Even compared with Victoria, the UK has had to maintain fairly harsh restrictions since March, while Victoria is now Covid free. 

The argument of what's the best strategy now is challenging, as we already know that sacrificing lives to the volcano isn't helping the economy either. The case loads need to be brought down to manageable levels, but as long as there are cases in the community, harsh restrictions are needed to maintain that; the UK is very much between a rock and a hard place on this one. 

17 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I'm not saying that its not the best way to deal with covid - just saying that it will never happen in the UK (or the EU) due to our way of life or competing factions within our society.

If you add onto that the untold damage we're doing to our economy, jobs market and long term health (both mental and physical) going down the severe Aussie lockdown route would have have significant costs itself - possibly even more so than any damage covid may ultimately do. 

I agree that it's virtually impossible for this to be the UK's strategy now, but I disagree it was never possible. Culturally, and even politically speaking, we aren't so different. We're both under conservative governments, with similar parliamentary systems, etc. 

The damage being done to the UK's economy isn't being fixed by letting the fire burn either. I wouldn't suggest I have the answer to this, as quite frankly, the situation is an outright disaster at this point. As noted above, the horse has well and truly bolted. I disagree that it's a binary choice between jobs and lives though, as lives being lost, and high case loads, and harming livelihoods as well. 

That's doubly true for the issue around healthcare, as the UK needs an NHS that is capable of dealing with preventative and elective medicine. As long as there are high case loads, this simply isn't possible. This is only compounded by people needing such treatments, on average, being especially vulnerable to the disease. 

9 minutes ago, Eddie said:

The economy has been done to death, for want of a better expression.

It's always been a choice, finding the right balance between locking everything down and letting it run wild. Procrastinating about locking down is the worst of all worlds, because a 'wait and see' attitude eventually leads to hasty decisions made too late.

It's why the decision making should always have been in the hands of the public health experts. It's what I've found so refreshing with this sharp lockdown in South Australia. They weren't waiting around for more data to trickle in, and acted swiftly both to lockdown, and to end that lockdown early once new information came to light. That's how it should be, and that's how it always should have been. Too many politicians are too used to processes taking weeks and months to go anywhere, and are all too happy to let the health advice wash over them while treating these problems the same way. They're not, rapid responses matter for such a disease. 

[ariotofmyown]

17 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

If we were to lock down until elimination we'd be sat inside until May / June. It's that prevelent here. 

In order for us to have reached elimination we'd have been needed to have continued our original lockdown til September or further. 

 

We were told that testing, track & trace and the world beating app were all crucial things to have in place before we could end lockdown.

None of them were ready or working in time, but we ended lockdown anyway.

Testing seem to be in an efficient state by September sort of time and track & trace seems like a 12 billion private sector debacle. The communication around the app doesn't seem to have been particularly good, and it seems lots of people aren't using it, often due to a misunderstanding of what it is supposed to do. If it had been delivered in May as promised, people would have much more inclined to get involved. It also took the government way too long to provide support for people who had to self-isolate and were then unable to earn. But it still seemed to prioritise opening pubs over most other things.

Unsurprisingly, Covid has spread everywhere again and we have another lockdown to try and stop deaths rising further above 500 per day again. This number of deaths were predicted by experts back in September, but were ignored by the government and scoffed at by the "experts" on here.

Knowing that none of the tools required were ready in order to safely end the lockdown, the government ended it anyway. They were the ones who told us these tools were vital in the first place, but then indulged in Trump style language about how world beating things were.

A mature, competent and honest government would have laid the risks vs reward out properly to the public. Ours pretended everything was fine when they knew it wasn't, and also knew that saving the economy in the summer would lead to it suffering even more in the winter.

Whilst an extended lockdown until September would have been dire at the time, it seems less worse than the situation we now find ourselves in: loads of deaths, economy still screwed and the winter making it too cold and dark to see people outside.

And we are now all fully aware at the total dysfunction at the heart of government. Well not really "government", as nearly all our MPs were totally uninvolved with what was going on. Total shambles.

[maxjam]

2 minutes ago, Albert said:

Which is kind of the point, the horse has well and truly bolted for the UK, because they procrastinated at the key time, and let petty politics stifle actioning the advice.

Not sure about that, we 'followed the science' to begin with and locked down when we were told to.  IIRC Vallance and Whitty told Boris not to lock down to early...

 

3 minutes ago, Albert said:

At every turn, the government's choice has been to sit on their hands, and this is the result. The notion of it was 'lives or the economy' is a fallacy, and has been from the start.

Not sure about sitting on their hands either.  Flip flop on decisions but not sit on their hands - and whilst its never been about 'lives of the economy' the economy does have to factor into decisions otherwise we'll be doing all of this for nothing.

 

5 minutes ago, Albert said:

The UK has already locked down longer than anywhere in Australia except Victoria. Even compared with Victoria, the UK has had to maintain fairly harsh restrictions since March, while Victoria is now Covid free.

Depends what you call lockdown.  We were free to do pretty much what we all wanted over the summer and other than pubs, some shops and venues being shut now I can't say as I've noticed a lockdown this time - most people are just carrying on as normal. 

 

8 minutes ago, Albert said:

The argument of what's the best strategy now is challenging, as we already know that sacrificing lives to the volcano isn't helping the economy either. The case loads need to be brought down to manageable levels, but as long as there are cases in the community, harsh restrictions are needed to maintain that; the UK is very much between a rock and a hard place on this one.

Why is it always lockdown vs sacrificing lives?  Surely there is a middle ground, such as one similar to the one Sweden chose.

 

10 minutes ago, Albert said:

I agree that it's virtually impossible for this to be the UK's strategy now, but I disagree it was never possible. Culturally, and even politically speaking, we aren't so different. We're both under conservative governments, with similar parliamentary systems, etc.  

It was always going to be more difficult to control in the EU do to open borders, free movement and our economies being closely linked for trade and travel. 

Furthermore I would argue that culturally, competing factions within the UK, parts of the EU and US have had a massive impact on outcomes.

 

17 minutes ago, Albert said:

It's why the decision making should always have been in the hands of the public health experts.

Absolutely not, certainly not the narrow group we've been listening too - all we have heard are doomsday predictions that have been debunked repeatedly.

What we needed was strong Government directives following advice from Medics, Psychologists and Economists etc.  Make a plan and stick to it, the outcome was always going to be bad whatever happened but the constant flip-flopping, confused messaging and doom mongering has lost a lot of public trust - and they never had that much to begin with.

[Archied]

16 minutes ago, Albert said:

Which is kind of the point, the horse has well and truly bolted for the UK, because they procrastinated at the key time, and let petty politics stifle actioning the advice. 

At every turn, the government's choice has been to sit on their hands, and this is the result. The notion of it was 'lives or the economy' is a fallacy, and has been from the start. The UK has already locked down longer than anywhere in Australia except Victoria. Even compared with Victoria, the UK has had to maintain fairly harsh restrictions since March, while Victoria is now Covid free. 

The argument of what's the best strategy now is challenging, as we already know that sacrificing lives to the volcano isn't helping the economy either. The case loads need to be brought down to manageable levels, but as long as there are cases in the community, harsh restrictions are needed to maintain that; the UK is very much between a rock and a hard place on this one. 

I agree that it's virtually impossible for this to be the UK's strategy now, but I disagree it was never possible. Culturally, and even politically speaking, we aren't so different. We're both under conservative governments, with similar parliamentary systems, etc. 

The damage being done to the UK's economy isn't being fixed by letting the fire burn either. I wouldn't suggest I have the answer to this, as quite frankly, the situation is an outright disaster at this point. As noted above, the horse has well and truly bolted. I disagree that it's a binary choice between jobs and lives though, as lives being lost, and high case loads, and harming livelihoods as well. 

That's doubly true for the issue around healthcare, as the UK needs an NHS that is capable of dealing with preventative and elective medicine. As long as there are high case loads, this simply isn't possible. This is only compounded by people needing such treatments, on average, being especially vulnerable to the disease. 

It's why the decision making should always have been in the hands of the public health experts. It's what I've found so refreshing with this sharp lockdown in South Australia. They weren't waiting around for more data to trickle in, and acted swiftly both to lockdown, and to end that lockdown early once new information came to light. That's how it should be, and that's how it always should have been. Too many politicians are too used to processes taking weeks and months to go anywhere, and are all too happy to let the health advice wash over them while treating these problems the same way. They're not, rapid responses matter for such a disease. 

From what I can see this virus is as virulent as the common cold ( not death rates) so I can’t see for the life of me how zero cases can be achieved and maintained world wide and long term , do Australia keep borders closed and lock down every time there is a case long term? 
im sorry but I just can’t agree with you on this strategy in terms of how the world is today with global travel and trade, I agree there is no perfect answer as we ALL  would love it if we could say no deaths from it but not possible, measures need to be targeted to the vulnerable and limit the amount of deaths as much as can be done,

over simplification I know but we have x road accidents world wide then x number deaths from those accidents ( some through no fault of they’re own or others faults) , do we need to shut down all roads every time there is an accident with the aim of zero road accident deaths? , not possible in the world we live in and people have to take on board we can never eradicate death from a multitude of causes

[Albert]

22 minutes ago, Archied said:

From what I can see this virus is as virulent as the common cold ( not death rates) so I can’t see for the life of me how zero cases can be achieved and maintained world wide and long term , do Australia keep borders closed and lock down every time there is a case long term? 
im sorry but I just can’t agree with you on this strategy in terms of how the world is today with global travel and trade, I agree there is no perfect answer as we ALL  would love it if we could say no deaths from it but not possible, measures need to be targeted to the vulnerable and limit the amount of deaths as much as can be done,

Zero cases can be achieved by reaching zero, then making use of quarantine procedures to prevent returning travelers reintroducing it. The issue South Australia had was with a breach in that system, but it has allowed most of the country to be Covid free for a long time. As noted, South Australia had over 200 days without a lockdown, and this new one was ended after 3 days now that the health experts are confident that it is no longer needed. 

The systems don't need to be in place forever either, just until the vaccines are ready. The question marks over whether they'd be effective are now answered at the very least. The only remaining question is how strong an immunity they provide. A vaccine that doesn't prevent spread, but does reduce severity to the levels suggested, however, is still an excellent outcome, and one that would allow safe reopening through a phased approach. 

Again though, I fundamentally disagree with this 'deaths are inevitable line'. They're just not, and that has well and truly been proven at this point. Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, etc. are all showing that the best approach for lives and livelihoods is to effective eliminate the virus. It's all the benefits of opening up (because it literally is), with none of the negatives. 

Look at this image below, look in the background:

 

That's not way back in January, that was a couple of days ago in Brisbane. I'm personally still not convinced being that open is a great idea, but the risks are being monitored and managed. 

Quote

over simplification I know but we have x road accidents world wide then x number deaths from those accidents ( some through no fault of they’re own or others faults) , do we need to shut down all roads every time there is an accident with the aim of zero road accident deaths? , not possible in the world we live in and people have to take on board we can never eradicate death from a multitude of causes

The reason for shut downs isn't the number of deaths that are occurring, it's because if you don't, the number keeps rising. Deaths are a function of number of active cases, and the number of new cases is related to the number of active cases. This is an exponential system, it's not just a consistent figure that chugs along like with car accidents, etc. Car accidents don't cause more in the following days, but with Covid it does. If the number of deaths per time were static, and could be held there, then there's be a far greater argument for just accepting it in the case where the health response has failed, like in the UK. The issue is that this just isn't the case. 

25 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Not sure about that, we 'followed the science' to begin with and locked down when we were told to.  IIRC Vallance and Whitty told Boris not to lock down to early...

They locked down so late, and spent so long dithering at the start. There were countries responding to the academic reports out of the UK, and doing so faster, while the UK was still umming and ahhing about it all. You're not wrong, they did eventually follow the health advice, but that's entirely my point: eventually. 

Quote

Not sure about sitting on their hands either.  Flip flop on decisions but not sit on their hands - and whilst its never been about 'lives of the economy' the economy does have to factor into decisions otherwise we'll be doing all of this for nothing.

They have most assuredly sat on their hands. A circuit breaker lockdown was recommended in September, but they sat on their hands until things got out of control and forced action. This has been the pattern the whole way through. 

As noted, here in Australia we locked down to save the economy. The UK had a chance to in September, but again, sat on their hands. Maybe elimination wasn't realistic by that point, but at least getting things back to some level of control was. 

Quote

Depends what you call lockdown.  We were free to do pretty much what we all wanted over the summer and other than pubs, some shops and venues being shut now I can't say as I've noticed a lockdown this time - most people are just carrying on as normal. 

We were free to do whatever we wanted*. 

*Terms and conditions apply

Quote

Why is it always lockdown vs sacrificing lives?  Surely there is a middle ground, such as one similar to the one Sweden chose.

You mean the one Sweden has moved away from because it was costing too many lives and livelihoods? 

Quote

It was always going to be more difficult to control in the EU do to open borders, free movement and our economies being closely linked for trade and travel. 

Furthermore I would argue that culturally, competing factions within the UK, parts of the EU and US have had a massive impact on outcomes.

Australia's economy is driven by travel and trade, but we've done what we had to. Australia also had issues around locking down regions and borders, but again, we've done what we've had to. This is just muddying the water with weak excuses. The UK is on islands, it was always possible to deal with the freedom of movement if the desire was there. Mandatory quarantine at the very least was an option. 

Quote

Absolutely not, certainly not the narrow group we've been listening too - all we have heard are doomsday predictions that have been debunked repeatedly.

What we needed was strong Government directives following advice from Medics, Psychologists and Economists etc.  Make a plan and stick to it, the outcome was always going to be bad whatever happened but the constant flip-flopping, confused messaging and doom mongering has lost a lot of public trust - and they never had that much to begin with.

What doomsday predictions were 'debunked' as pushed by your public health experts? 

I agree broadly though. The biggest issue with the UK's response has been the lack of any clear direction. 

[Eddie]

37 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Absolutely not, certainly not the narrow group we've been listening too - all we have heard are doomsday predictions that have been debunked repeatedly.

...yet ultimately proved to be closer to the truth

[Archied]

26 minutes ago, Albert said:

Zero cases can be achieved by reaching zero, then making use of quarantine procedures to prevent returning travelers reintroducing it. The issue South Australia had was with a breach in that system, but it has allowed most of the country to be Covid free for a long time. As noted, South Australia had over 200 days without a lockdown, and this new one was ended after 3 days now that the health experts are confident that it is no longer needed. 

The systems don't need to be in place forever either, just until the vaccines are ready. The question marks over whether they'd be effective are now answered at the very least. The only remaining question is how strong an immunity they provide. A vaccine that doesn't prevent spread, but does reduce severity to the levels suggested, however, is still an excellent outcome, and one that would allow safe reopening through a phased approach. 

Again though, I fundamentally disagree with this 'deaths are inevitable line'. They're just not, and that has well and truly been proven at this point. Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, etc. are all showing that the best approach for lives and livelihoods is to effective eliminate the virus. It's all the benefits of opening up (because it literally is), with none of the negatives. 

Look at this image below, look in the background:

 

That's not way back in January, that was a couple of days ago in Brisbane. I'm personally still not convinced being that open is a great idea, but the risks are being monitored and managed. 

The reason for shut downs isn't the number of deaths that are occurring, it's because if you don't, the number keeps rising. Deaths are a function of number of active cases, and the number of new cases is related to the number of active cases. This is an exponential system, it's not just a consistent figure that chugs along like with car accidents, etc. Car accidents don't cause more in the following days, but with Covid it does. If the number of deaths per time were static, and could be held there, then there's be a far greater argument for just accepting it in the case where the health response has failed, like in the UK. The issue is that this just isn't the case. 

They locked down so late, and spent so long dithering at the start. There were countries responding to the academic reports out of the UK, and doing so faster, while the UK was still umming and ahhing about it all. You're not wrong, they did eventually follow the health advice, but that's entirely my point: eventually. 

They have most assuredly sat on their hands. A circuit breaker lockdown was recommended in September, but they sat on their hands until things got out of control and forced action. This has been the pattern the whole way through. 

As noted, here in Australia we locked down to save the economy. The UK had a chance to in September, but again, sat on their hands. Maybe elimination wasn't realistic by that point, but at least getting things back to some level of control was. 

We were free to do whatever we wanted*. 

*Terms and conditions apply

You mean the one Sweden has moved away from because it was costing too many lives and livelihoods? 

Australia's economy is driven by travel and trade, but we've done what we had to. Australia also had issues around locking down regions and borders, but again, we've done what we've had to. This is just muddying the water with weak excuses. The UK is on islands, it was always possible to deal with the freedom of movement if the desire was there. Mandatory quarantine at the very least was an option. 

What doomsday predictions were 'debunked' as pushed by your public health experts? 

I agree broadly though. The biggest issue with the UK's response has been the lack of any clear direction. 

Ok Albert you say vaccine can reduce the number of deaths ,, what number is acceptable to allow this reopening you speak of?

 

[Albert]

3 minutes ago, Archied said:

Ok Albert you say vaccine can reduce the number of deaths ,, what number is acceptable to allow this reopening you speak of?

Depends on what you're actually asking. 

For Australia, that number should remain as close to zero (from here) as possible. The situation has been controlled well overall, and a vaccine should be offering a path out of what restrictions remain, and allowing the rest of the World back in. 

For the UK, the issue is a complicated one. As far as I'm concerned, however, the vaccine should be part of the process towards reopening, but it shouldn't just be letting it rip once it happens. The value in it all should be to force the deaths per day to zero, then work to open up from there. The purpose of this isn't just to save lives though, but rather, to exert control over the situation and relieve the pressure on the NHS as soon as possible. Using the vaccine as a way of getting the fire to fizzle out would extend the time that people are missing out on crucial treatments, but forcing the numbers down with the advantages that a vaccine gives, and going from there could cut this time drastically. 

The issue with that approach is that we don't know how quickly the UK can roll out the vaccine. If only the vulnerable can be vaccinated, then it could make sense to open up once vulnerable groups are vaccinated, but this still comes at a cost of holding off crucial treatments for others. There are too many variables at play there. 

In essence though, as noted before, my preference would be to leave the decision up to your health experts, the ones already advising the government. The concern I have is that politics has played too much of a role in the decision making, but slowing and watering down the response. 

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, ariotofmyown said:

@maxjam said there would be civil war in Europe if they banned dog walking. 

I said they did ban dog walking in Madrid in March/April time.

Your trolling reply would have been valid if I had actually written "they did ban dog walking in Madrid and it was a vital step to completely eradicate Covid from the city".

Yes it was so vital to eradicating it that they had to impose a state of emergency enforced by 7000 police just 6 months later....

[Spanish]

12 hours ago, ariotofmyown said:

Those were the rules in Spain (at least Madrid) back when 100s were dying every day in March.

it was the whole of the country, I couldn't leave the gate to do training in the street outside.  My mate got stopped by the Guardia in a 4x4 for running in a field!

[Spanish]

5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Yes it was so vital to eradicating it that they had to impose a state of emergency enforced by 7000 police just 6 months later....

you know better than that GS.  It was never about eradication it was about trying the control it.  As we are seeing now the virus is still in the population and will spring into action if people ignore the guidelines.  Nothing is perfect, common sense is important, I try to do the best I can.

[G STAR RAM]

13 minutes ago, Spanish said:

you know better than that GS.  It was never about eradication it was about trying the control it.  As we are seeing now the virus is still in the population and will spring into action if people ignore the guidelines.  Nothing is perfect, common sense is important, I try to do the best I can.

If you can catch the virus out walking your dog then I think we are pissing in the wind.

[Stive Pesley]

Today is our last day of isolation after my youngest's school bubble was closed. 2 other people in the bubble tested positive along the way, so the isolation of the bubble worked. Touch wood we have emerged unscathed.

That said, the school had to deal with incidents of parents being spotted taking their isolating kids out to play areas, and also incidents where children from different isolating households let slip to their teachers that they'd been going round to each others houses

So to sum up - I don't think the UK will ever be able to deal with the amount of people amongst us who are just unthinking morons

 

[Eddie]

Just now, G STAR RAM said:

If you can catch the virus out walking your dog then I think we are pissing in the wind.

We all know that "walking one's dog" is a euphemism for going to the pub and getting ratarsed, and that, coupled with the mass migration to and from Spain for a fortnight's "walking Juan's dog" is why we are back to square one - pissing in the sirocco.

[Spanish]

44 minutes ago, Eddie said:

We all know that "walking one's dog" is a euphemism for going to the pub and getting ratarsed, and that, coupled with the mass migration to and from Spain for a fortnight's "walking Juan's dog" is why we are back to square one - pissing in the sirocco.

then of course  I often have to visit Holland on match days for 90 minutes, God knows what havoc I'm causing

[Archied]

1 hour ago, Albert said:

Depends on what you're actually asking. 

For Australia, that number should remain as close to zero (from here) as possible. The situation has been controlled well overall, and a vaccine should be offering a path out of what restrictions remain, and allowing the rest of the World back in. 

For the UK, the issue is a complicated one. As far as I'm concerned, however, the vaccine should be part of the process towards reopening, but it shouldn't just be letting it rip once it happens. The value in it all should be to force the deaths per day to zero, then work to open up from there. The purpose of this isn't just to save lives though, but rather, to exert control over the situation and relieve the pressure on the NHS as soon as possible. Using the vaccine as a way of getting the fire to fizzle out would extend the time that people are missing out on crucial treatments, but forcing the numbers down with the advantages that a vaccine gives, and going from there could cut this time drastically. 

The issue with that approach is that we don't know how quickly the UK can roll out the vaccine. If only the vulnerable can be vaccinated, then it could make sense to open up once vulnerable groups are vaccinated, but this still comes at a cost of holding off crucial treatments for others. There are too many variables at play there. 

In essence though, as noted before, my preference would be to leave the decision up to your health experts, the ones already advising the government. The concern I have is that politics has played too much of a role in the decision making, but slowing and watering down the response. 

You say as close to zero as poss , what number is acceptable and who decides that