Given that it is Peston I guess it isn't going to happen?
Absolutely mental.
How so? Whatever one's opinion, it is now patently clear that the local restrictions are not working to achieve their stated aim. The only choices therefore are tighten them or let rip.
If you let it rip then people will impose their own de facto lockdown because they don't want to get it.
Yup. Lots of students round here. We’re avoiding them and any likelihood of where they go like the literal plague, despite not being particularly high risk at all.
Effectively I and Mrs Owl have put ourselves back in much stricter lockdown than even the local restrictions demand. Quick nip out to the supermarket and lots of outdoor walks is about it.
Now we are extremely fortunate to be in a position where we have space, can work from home and both are working for seemingly secure organisations at present but essentially we’ve shut the door and the world can bugger off for a few months.
I was due to have a minor operation next Friday, I've decided to cancel it because the hospital is a University teaching hospital.
Coupled with the fact I live in a city with two universities my going out for the future is limited to dropping off and picking up the kids from school.
I can see widespread disobedience and possible civil resistance. A sunny spring lockdown was tolerable, once. An indefinite autumn and winter lockdown will send people mad. Fuck this insanity.
a second lock down won't be as effective as it requires consent and there'll be less of it. Still a majority consent, easy, but effectiveness will be lower with even a little less compliance.
An entire British autumn and winter without pubs, restaurants, society, parties, theatres, anything. It's..... dystopian. I'd literally prefer it if we were at war. At least that would be dramatic. This is just unremitting bleakness. The mental health impacts are going to be catastrophic
I have close friends who are already tipping towards mental breakdown. No exaggeration.
(FPT) Four years ago today, Wikileaks first published the leaked Clinton emails.
Ironically one of the reasons I got over confident on Clinton.
I read every single crank article that got posted on here about the e-mails and every time it was absolutely nothing. Including flat out fabrications and lies about what the e-mails said.
As a result I became immune to the siren of these disinformation merchants and failed to appreciate what affect they might be having in aggregate.
Wasn't it just reheated old news at that point? It needed the Comey statement a few weeks later, to nail the coffin shut.
Mr. Rentool, I wouldn't contend the PM is a better leader than New Zealand's, but it's also rather unreasonable to compare an isolated and low population density country with one that is neither of those things.
France, Germany, Spain, and Italy are more reasonable nations for comparison.
There was a post on Twitter during NZ's first lockdown along the lines of:
Jacienda has taken firm action by closing down all of NZ's pubs and both of its restaurants.
Mr. Rentool, I wouldn't contend the PM is a better leader than New Zealand's, but it's also rather unreasonable to compare an isolated and low population density country with one that is neither of those things.
France, Germany, Spain, and Italy are more reasonable nations for comparison.
Most of the people who will stay away from pubs "because they don't want to get it" would be the same people who never or rarely visit pubs anyway, to my best guess.
I'm part of a Monday night knitting group which is responsible for at least a third of the evening's business in the pub where it was held. The group went back to the pub in the summer, but only for a couple of weeks, before deciding that with the schools opening up again it was too much of a risk.
Anecdote doesn't rate to much against data, but how does it fare compared to best guess?
I can see widespread disobedience and possible civil resistance. A sunny spring lockdown was tolerable, once. An indefinite autumn and winter lockdown will send people mad. Fuck this insanity.
a second lock down won't be as effective as it requires consent and there'll be less of it. Still a majority consent, easy, but effectiveness will be lower with even a little less compliance.
An entire British autumn and winter without pubs, restaurants, society, parties, theatres, anything. It's..... dystopian. I'd literally prefer it if we were at war. At least that would be dramatic. This is just unremitting bleakness. The mental health impacts are going to be catastrophic
I have close friends who are already tipping towards mental breakdown. No exaggeration.
Autumn is the best season bar none in London for pubbing, clubbing and partying.
The prospect of none of that happening is, as you say, a deeply miserable prospect.
I can see widespread disobedience and possible civil resistance. A sunny spring lockdown was tolerable, once. An indefinite autumn and winter lockdown will send people mad. Fuck this insanity.
a second lock down won't be as effective as it requires consent and there'll be less of it. Still a majority consent, easy, but effectiveness will be lower with even a little less compliance.
An entire British autumn and winter without pubs, restaurants, society, parties, theatres, anything. It's..... dystopian. I'd literally prefer it if we were at war. At least that would be dramatic. This is just unremitting bleakness. The mental health impacts are going to be catastrophic
I have close friends who are already tipping towards mental breakdown. No exaggeration.
Autumn is the best season bar none in London for pubbing, clubbing and partying.
The prospect of none of that happening is, as you say, a deeply miserable prospect.
I had lunch with a friend the other day who is generally a cheerful chap, if a bit of a boozer. He confessed to suicidal urges. His business has gone and many of his friends (in the same industry) have gone bust likewise.
He said what kept him going was meeting friends in the pub
I can see widespread disobedience and possible civil resistance. A sunny spring lockdown was tolerable, once. An indefinite autumn and winter lockdown will send people mad. Fuck this insanity.
a second lock down won't be as effective as it requires consent and there'll be less of it. Still a majority consent, easy, but effectiveness will be lower with even a little less compliance.
An entire British autumn and winter without pubs, restaurants, society, parties, theatres, anything. It's..... dystopian. I'd literally prefer it if we were at war. At least that would be dramatic. This is just unremitting bleakness. The mental health impacts are going to be catastrophic
I have close friends who are already tipping towards mental breakdown. No exaggeration.
If we were at war, people of our age would be in the luxurious position of knowing the dangers of conscription would conveniently pass us by. Covid-19 offers us no such comfort. So yes, there is method in the madness of your statement.
I can see widespread disobedience and possible civil resistance. A sunny spring lockdown was tolerable, once. An indefinite autumn and winter lockdown will send people mad. Fuck this insanity.
a second lock down won't be as effective as it requires consent and there'll be less of it. Still a majority consent, easy, but effectiveness will be lower with even a little less compliance.
Non compliance is tricky in winter. You can't go to the park or the beach, you can't defy the law by going to the pub if it's shut, and it's much easier to nick and convict someone for being part of an illegal gathering in a house than in the open air.
Regarding universities, the decision to allow students to return to campuses ranks right up there with some of the worst decisions taken during the epidemic. Yes to try and rescue the situation I would look to a managed shutdown now of halls of residences for those with a home to return to, subject to testing immediately prior to return. Teaching to continue online, practical work postponed until 2021.
Regarding schools, no, simply because of the huge constraint that places on most parents' ability to work other than from home.
If students wish to return from Halls of Residence to their parent's house, they should be allowed to. I bet almost all won't.
The assumption that every student has a large comfortable bedroom in a house with supportive parents is clearly wrong. Many students do not, and many will find it easier to work at their University town rather than home.
Note almost every Western country has allowed students back to their Universities (including Wales where Labour is in power), and almost all the teaching is already online.
However, as far as I am concerned, if students wish to return home, they should be let off any rent obligations and be permitted to do so. I don't believe many will. If the tuition is significantly compromised by being online (as it is in some subjects), then students deserve a partial rebate.
Given that it is Peston I guess it isn't going to happen?
And are all these businesses going to be supported / compensated?
Yes, that's the issue. Back in the Spring, hospitality businesses had a year's rate relief, plus a grant, plus furlough costs for staff at no cost to the business. This was supposed to be enough to bail out businesses for an epidemic that the Government hoped it would be on top of by the late Summer only.
Now some pubs have already been required to close in the NE in the second wave local lockdowns, and are doing so with no further grants and under a furlough scheme to which they are now partially paying for and which is due to end altogether by the end of October. If this becomes the general pattern, the absence of targeted support is going to lead to widespread business closures.
They're going to close anyway. My final (for a while) trip to the pub last Friday saw a place that isn't doing enough business. You have to book, you are limited in numbers, its unfriendly - and thats half a mile on the unrestricted side of the Stockton / Boro border. People are increasingly staying away as the pox tears through our communities - why take the risk for something that isn't remotely fun anymore?
So we have a choice. 1. A controlled lockdown. Shut the pubs already. Stay home. Another half trillion quid of made up currency to back stop as many jobs and companies as possible. Hope the vaccine is available in the Spring 2. A partially controlled lockdown - Scotland / English city regions force the government's hand to extend nationally. Minimal cash support with red wall Tories the loudest to shout about the damage being done to their constituents their chances of re-election 3. No national lockdown. Continued chaotic bumbling twattery. The pox overwhelms the NHS in some cities forcing reluctantly the activation of Nightingale hospitals. Pubs etc finally closed long after being abandoned by their former clientele. No cash support as an avalanche of job losses shags forever Tory chances in the red wall
I can see widespread disobedience and possible civil resistance. A sunny spring lockdown was tolerable, once. An indefinite autumn and winter lockdown will send people mad. Fuck this insanity.
a second lock down won't be as effective as it requires consent and there'll be less of it. Still a majority consent, easy, but effectiveness will be lower with even a little less compliance.
An entire British autumn and winter without pubs, restaurants, society, parties, theatres, anything. It's..... dystopian. I'd literally prefer it if we were at war. At least that would be dramatic. This is just unremitting bleakness. The mental health impacts are going to be catastrophic
I have close friends who are already tipping towards mental breakdown. No exaggeration.
Also the fact that any lockdown wouldn't actually be solving anything, but just delaying things until the next outbreak in a few months where we'll be back in the same position again.
This. The choice between economy and joy-killing restrictions, or overwhelmed hospitals, or some combination of the two, only arises because the government have failed to get rid of the virus.
So with a harsher lockdown, say pubs closing, no household mixing, granny doesn't get a hug.
What is the difference between this, for granny, if a bunch of 20-30yr olds minus those who must associate with vulnerable people are down the pub?
The difference for granny is that she is far, far less likely under the harsher lockdown to get the virus than if there is no lockdown. Especially if she needs any form of care which probably comes from 20-30 year olds.
If the virus is rife in the community then the people who care for the elderly will be infected and even with PPE will pass it on to the elderly.
You can argue its a price worth paying, but don't pretend please there's no difference. There absolutely is.
So with a harsher lockdown, say pubs closing, no household mixing, granny doesn't get a hug.
What is the difference between this, for granny, if a bunch of 20-30yr olds minus those who must associate with vulnerable people are down the pub?
And what if this lockdown doesn't work, but just delays the next outbreak (as I think it will). Then we lockdown again, and again, and again
We just have to copy Sweden. That is now the only choice. Accept a relatively high death toll (but not that high) but save the economy, and prevent 50,000 suicides
Take away someone's business, a semblance of control, and social interaction and it's not hard to see how things are getting on top of people.
The psychology of the situation is one where the messaging and an air of competence really matters. This is proven by the stark contrast between the Queen's message ("We will meet again") and Boris Johnson flapping about, fantasising he's Churchill whilst still wearing the court jester motley.
Given that it is Peston I guess it isn't going to happen?
Its increasingly out of control up here. Another lockdown is inevitable - everyone seems to be talking about it. I'd rather have the government do a controlled shutdown with some financial support so that we only lose 10% of the jobs rather than an uncontrolled consumer led boycott caused by the "go to the pub don't go to the pub" instructions from Shagger which leads to us losing 30% of the jobs.
People circulating around each other is spreading the pox. The only way to squash the thing again is stop people circulating. My friends up in geordieland report from relatives that "the RVI is 2 weeks away from shutting itself down as the ICU will be overcapacity". Remember, stay home to save the NHS? Time to park the rule of 6 and replace it with stay home.
“ I'd rather have the government do a controlled shutdown with some financial support so that we only lose 10% of the jobs ...”
The government seems intent on having shutdowns with no financial support. That is a death sentence for those businesses which are shut down. The resulting economic and social misery will be entirely the government’s fault.
Covid may necessitate lockdowns. It does not necessitate lockdowns without support. That is Sunak and Johnson’s choice if that is what they do and, if so, they will deserve all the opprobrium coming their way.
I can see widespread disobedience and possible civil resistance. A sunny spring lockdown was tolerable, once. An indefinite autumn and winter lockdown will send people mad. Fuck this insanity.
a second lock down won't be as effective as it requires consent and there'll be less of it. Still a majority consent, easy, but effectiveness will be lower with even a little less compliance.
An entire British autumn and winter without pubs, restaurants, society, parties, theatres, anything. It's..... dystopian. I'd literally prefer it if we were at war. At least that would be dramatic. This is just unremitting bleakness. The mental health impacts are going to be catastrophic
I have close friends who are already tipping towards mental breakdown. No exaggeration.
It is catastrophic, but it might well already be baked in.
Lockdown (either top-down or bottom-up) is what happens when the caseload of the virus gets unmanageable. The UK could have spent the summer getting test'n'trace slick and fast, working out how much work and study could be done virtually, and what needed to use up some of the precious face-to-face contact that could safely be done.
Instead, the government seemed more interested in: 1. working out how many people it could take out of the death stats (even though it's likely that they're an underestimate overall), 2. finding more jobs for Dido to do, 3. encouraging people back into offices and restaurants, 4. insisting that the Last Night of the Proms had singers for patriotic songs,
all of which are things for after the crisis, not in a lull between two waves.
I wish I could be more optimistic, and it gives me no pleasure at all to say this, but the fable of the ant and the grasshopper springs to mind.
The only local lockdown which has had any success is in Leicester.
Where they closed the pubs.
To be clear, are you advocating the mass closure of pubs in the north of England?
We need to get a grip on the spread of the virus. What we know:
- Current measures are insufficient - When we had a full lockdown it worked
Therefore we need to move more towards a full lockdown situation. In northern cities we already have a ban on mixing at home. Closing enclosed public spaces where you mingle with strangers seems like the logical next step.
They will end up closing the schools again, I reckon.
Every time a child gets a winter cough or a sniffle they will be told to go home and isolate until tested. Likewise their friends. And teachers. And other staff. And some will be positive, so terrified families will withdraw more kids anyway. The chaos will increase until schools are unmanageable and will simply shut down.
We have frightened ourselves into apocalypse. As have some other countries. There might be riots.
So with a harsher lockdown, say pubs closing, no household mixing, granny doesn't get a hug.
What is the difference between this, for granny, if a bunch of 20-30yr olds minus those who must associate with vulnerable people are down the pub?
The difference for granny is that she is far, far less likely under the harsher lockdown to get the virus than if there is no lockdown. Especially if she needs any form of care which probably comes from 20-30 year olds.
If the virus is rife in the community then the people who care for the elderly will be infected and even with PPE will pass it on to the elderly.
You can argue its a price worth paying, but don't pretend please there's no difference. There absolutely is.
How so? Her carers aren't forced to go down the pub. They will take more care. But they might get the virus on the bus. Yes indeed they might and that is a difference. So work to make public transport safer by mask compliance and sanitation measures.
The question then becomes - is the chance of a carer getting the virus on public transport large enough to lock down a whole city.
So with a harsher lockdown, say pubs closing, no household mixing, granny doesn't get a hug.
What is the difference between this, for granny, if a bunch of 20-30yr olds minus those who must associate with vulnerable people are down the pub?
And what if this lockdown doesn't work, but just delays the next outbreak (as I think it will). Then we lockdown again, and again, and again
We just have to copy Sweden. That is now the only choice. Accept a relatively high death toll (but not that high) but save the economy, and prevent 50,000 suicides
I don't necessarily disagree but as we have rehearsed on here, the let it rip strategy is analogous to the appetite for more tax. Fine as long as it's not me being taxed.
Still, I am one for risk segmentation. We can do that I believe without unsheathing the sledgehammer.
The only local lockdown which has had any success is in Leicester.
Where they closed the pubs.
To be clear, are you advocating the mass closure of pubs in the north of England?
We need to get a grip on the spread of the virus. What we know:
- Current measures are insufficient - When we had a full lockdown it worked
Therefore we need to move more towards a full lockdown situation. In northern cities we already have a ban on mixing at home. Closing enclosed public spaces where you mingle with strangers seems like the logical next step.
It is not logical. Strict lockdowns in large western countries do not work. They just delay the next outbreak when you ease up again. So you need another lockdown
The only local lockdown which has had any success is in Leicester.
Where they closed the pubs.
To be clear, are you advocating the mass closure of pubs in the north of England?
We need to get a grip on the spread of the virus. What we know:
- Current measures are insufficient - When we had a full lockdown it worked
Therefore we need to move more towards a full lockdown situation. In northern cities we already have a ban on mixing at home. Closing enclosed public spaces where you mingle with strangers seems like the logical next step.
I have to agree. We have no 'other' way of stopping the virus.
That is a picture of an incredibly stable race, with both candidates moving in their own narrow corridor of support.
For all the drama of 2020 - the COVID crisis, the economic crisis, the Democratic primaries, Trump's illness etc - perhaps it's all noise. I increasingly feel that perhaps we'll look back in a couple of years time and say, "actually, almost everyone had decided pretty firmly by the end of his first year in office whether or not they could stomach eight years of Trump, and everything after that was just irrelevant passing the time until judgment day.
This is my view. He scraped in in 2016 with many people not in love with him but prepared to give him a shot. Let's call them Tepid Trumpers. No, let's get more snappy and call them TTs. Whatever, to get a 2nd term he needed to keep them onside. How to do it? Easy. Stop clowning around and at least try to do the job. If he'd done this he would be poised to win now. But it wasn't easy as it turned out. Not for him. From day 1 - devoted to pushing "alternative facts" about the size of his inauguration crowd - it was clear that he was incapable of being anything but a complete and utter dick. And so he has lost a chunk of the TTs. Which means he's toast - and always has been.
They will end up closing the schools again, I reckon.
Every time a child gets a winter cough or a sniffle they will be told to go home and isolate until tested. Likewise their friends. And teachers. And other staff. And some will be positive, so terrified families will withdraw more kids anyway. The chaos will increase until schools are unmanageable and will simply shut down.
We have frightened ourselves into apocalypse. As have some other countries. There might be riots.
I'm in the process of buying two laptops for the kids in the expectation of the schools being closed again.
So with a harsher lockdown, say pubs closing, no household mixing, granny doesn't get a hug.
What is the difference between this, for granny, if a bunch of 20-30yr olds minus those who must associate with vulnerable people are down the pub?
If only someone were to ask the bloody question.
It has been asked and answered repeatedly. Including answered by Vallance and Whitty and answered by Hancock and Johnson.
People may not like the answer but the answer is there.
Its entirely possible to argue that the price to the young isn't worth paying to save the old, but there is no scientific reason to say there is no difference to the elderly, there absolutely is.
The elderly can't be cut off completely, especially those that require care which is a large proportion of them.
So what is Labour's solution? I thought they were calling for local lockdowns. They want an another national Lockdown? Close all the schools and bust the unis?
Because the focusing over 10pm or not 10pm is totally missing the point.
They will end up closing the schools again, I reckon.
Every time a child gets a winter cough or a sniffle they will be told to go home and isolate until tested. Likewise their friends. And teachers. And other staff. And some will be positive, so terrified families will withdraw more kids anyway. The chaos will increase until schools are unmanageable and will simply shut down.
We have frightened ourselves into apocalypse. As have some other countries. There might be riots.
I might be wrong, and it might just be other stories crowding the news, but the perception is there is a lack of stories of a schools catastrophe, in contrast to the first week or two of the term. Maybe my perception is wrong, but is it possible that the schools are managing (albeit with freezing kids, as recounted on previous threads)?
So with a harsher lockdown, say pubs closing, no household mixing, granny doesn't get a hug.
What is the difference between this, for granny, if a bunch of 20-30yr olds minus those who must associate with vulnerable people are down the pub?
If only someone were to ask the bloody question.
It has been asked and answered repeatedly. Including answered by Vallance and Whitty and answered by Hancock and Johnson.
People may not like the answer but the answer is there.
Its entirely possible to argue that the price to the young isn't worth paying to save the old, but there is no scientific reason to say there is no difference to the elderly, there absolutely is.
The elderly can't be cut off completely, especially those that require care which is a large proportion of them.
So with a harsher lockdown, say pubs closing, no household mixing, granny doesn't get a hug.
What is the difference between this, for granny, if a bunch of 20-30yr olds minus those who must associate with vulnerable people are down the pub?
The difference for granny is that she is far, far less likely under the harsher lockdown to get the virus than if there is no lockdown. Especially if she needs any form of care which probably comes from 20-30 year olds.
If the virus is rife in the community then the people who care for the elderly will be infected and even with PPE will pass it on to the elderly.
You can argue its a price worth paying, but don't pretend please there's no difference. There absolutely is.
How so? Her carers aren't forced to go down the pub. They will take more care. But they might get the virus on the bus. Yes indeed they might and that is a difference. So work to make public transport safer by mask compliance and sanitation measures.
The question then becomes - is the chance of a carer getting the virus on public transport large enough to lock down a whole city.
If you think her carers, often working on minimum wage, will not be living their own lives when off the clock then that is entirely naive.
Do you honestly think that a young 20-something care worker on minimum wage never goes to the pub or does anything else same as everyone else their age?
They will end up closing the schools again, I reckon.
Every time a child gets a winter cough or a sniffle they will be told to go home and isolate until tested. Likewise their friends. And teachers. And other staff. And some will be positive, so terrified families will withdraw more kids anyway. The chaos will increase until schools are unmanageable and will simply shut down.
We have frightened ourselves into apocalypse. As have some other countries. There might be riots.
I might be wrong, and it might just be other stories crowding the news, but the perception is there is a lack of stories of a schools catastrophe, in contrast to the first week or two of the term. Maybe my perception is wrong, but is it possible that the schools are managing (albeit with freezing kids, as recounted on previous threads)?
My personal experience is that north London schools are beginning to lose control. Not calamitous yet, but it is ominous, and I fear they will shut eventually. I pray, daily, that I am wrong.
So with a harsher lockdown, say pubs closing, no household mixing, granny doesn't get a hug.
What is the difference between this, for granny, if a bunch of 20-30yr olds minus those who must associate with vulnerable people are down the pub?
The difference for granny is that she is far, far less likely under the harsher lockdown to get the virus than if there is no lockdown. Especially if she needs any form of care which probably comes from 20-30 year olds.
If the virus is rife in the community then the people who care for the elderly will be infected and even with PPE will pass it on to the elderly.
You can argue its a price worth paying, but don't pretend please there's no difference. There absolutely is.
How so? Her carers aren't forced to go down the pub. They will take more care. But they might get the virus on the bus. Yes indeed they might and that is a difference. So work to make public transport safer by mask compliance and sanitation measures.
The question then becomes - is the chance of a carer getting the virus on public transport large enough to lock down a whole city.
If you think her carers, often working on minimum wage, will not be living their own lives when off the clock then that is entirely naive.
Do you honestly think that a young 20-something care worker on minimum wage never goes to the pub or does anything else same as everyone else their age?
So pay them not to, it's cheaper to do this than destroy a whole industry.
I can see widespread disobedience and possible civil resistance. A sunny spring lockdown was tolerable, once. An indefinite autumn and winter lockdown will send people mad. Fuck this insanity.
a second lock down won't be as effective as it requires consent and there'll be less of it. Still a majority consent, easy, but effectiveness will be lower with even a little less compliance.
An entire British autumn and winter without pubs, restaurants, society, parties, theatres, anything. It's..... dystopian. I'd literally prefer it if we were at war. At least that would be dramatic. This is just unremitting bleakness. The mental health impacts are going to be catastrophic
I have close friends who are already tipping towards mental breakdown. No exaggeration.
Also the fact that any lockdown wouldn't actually be solving anything, but just delaying things until the next outbreak in a few months where we'll be back in the same position again.
You can solve the issue if you have an effective test, trace and isolate scheme to hunt down the last carriers of the virus and extinguish it.
It's much easier to run such a scheme with a few hundred cases a day, rather than ten thousand, but the government messed up their first go at this. A lockdown would give another chance to do it properly.
So with a harsher lockdown, say pubs closing, no household mixing, granny doesn't get a hug.
What is the difference between this, for granny, if a bunch of 20-30yr olds minus those who must associate with vulnerable people are down the pub?
If only someone were to ask the bloody question.
It has been asked and answered repeatedly. Including answered by Vallance and Whitty and answered by Hancock and Johnson.
People may not like the answer but the answer is there.
Its entirely possible to argue that the price to the young isn't worth paying to save the old, but there is no scientific reason to say there is no difference to the elderly, there absolutely is.
The elderly can't be cut off completely, especially those that require care which is a large proportion of them.
It hasn't been sufficiently answered.
What would be a sufficient answer?
The more infections there are amongst the general community, then the more it will be passed on to the vulnerable, because the vulnerable are not hermetically sealed from the general community.
So with a harsher lockdown, say pubs closing, no household mixing, granny doesn't get a hug.
What is the difference between this, for granny, if a bunch of 20-30yr olds minus those who must associate with vulnerable people are down the pub?
If only someone were to ask the bloody question.
It has been asked and answered repeatedly. Including answered by Vallance and Whitty and answered by Hancock and Johnson.
People may not like the answer but the answer is there.
Its entirely possible to argue that the price to the young isn't worth paying to save the old, but there is no scientific reason to say there is no difference to the elderly, there absolutely is.
The elderly can't be cut off completely, especially those that require care which is a large proportion of them.
It hasn't been sufficiently answered.
Germany's lower death toll from the first wave is thought to be because they were able to prevent the infection reaching vulnerable people in the same numbers, so it should be studied in detail before dismissing a risk segmentation approach. Preventing young students from acquiring immunity might be counterproductive.
Intellectually, I've long thought that further lockdowns as winter approached were inevitable, which is one reason why my wife and I have been making the most of the low-risk period between late July and now. Even so, I'm surprised at the extent of the government's loss of control, and its rapidity. You can point to all sorts of reasons - some of them not the government's fault, to be fair - but overall the issues have been disastrously mismanaged messaging, zig-zagging between panic and complacency, and falling between two stools.
The way this is heading, I think the government will be forced to introduce a genuine circuit-breaker before too long, although they'll no doubt introduce it too late. That means literally breaking the circuit, which unfortunately requires the kind of full-Monty lockdown we saw in the spring. The political and economic cost of that, if it happens, will be immense of course. (And that's without even factoring in a full-Monty crash-out on Jan 1st as well, the insanity of which is breathtaking).
Rishi Sunak's throwing of zillions at the problem earlier in the year is looking increasingly ill-judged. We seem to again be falling between two stools on this: not enough (or, more precisely, not sufficiently well-targeted) to save the jobs and businesses which need saving, but still an eye-watering amount of borrowing. All that money will have bought just a brief postponement of the job losses and bankruptcies, with crucial sectors such as hospitality and the arts completely pole-axed. Those are sectors which are crucial to any recovery.
Meanwhile, like many others, my wife and I are beginning to reduce contact and unnecessary outings, and take extra precautions. The country will largely lock itself down.
I think the original article is too vague in its terminology, but Silver is too literal in his debunking of it. The article is using "wrong" to mean systematically biased. The 538 modeling allows the polling to be wrong in the sense of random polling error (otherwise it would project a 100% probability of a Biden victory) but assumes that it is right on average, controlling for things like house effects (and the model also includes some non polling factors I believe, including time to the election, which is why the Biden victory probability trends upwards). Clearly if the polls are systematically biased against Trump then he has a higher chance of winning. I don't find that argument convincing, personally, but Silver is being a bit too cute here in his response.
This. The choice between economy and joy-killing restrictions, or overwhelmed hospitals, or some combination of the two, only arises because the government have failed to get rid of the virus.
And so has just about everyone else in any kind of comparable country to the U.K. ( Spain, France, Germany etc ,) failed to eradicate it. Some have fine notably better (Germany) some worse (USA ), but nobody has got rid of it.
Now NZ has done very very well, and J Adern will doubtless reap a week deserved landslide in a few days and praise should be healed in her, but NZ had a good hand not given to others. It’s probably got less international flights in a day the Heathrow or Charles de Gaulle or Amsterdam get in an hour, there’s zero land borders and it’s way too far to paddle over in a dinghy. It’s self sufficient in all kinds of food stuffs, and thinly populated.
They’ve done brilliantly, they’ve played a great hand expertly, fine, reap the rewards Kiwis enjoy the upcoming Summer but somehow I don’t think if you parachuted Ms Adern into, say, Belgium, they would now be Covid free across Flanders and pouring the beer over celebratory stewed hare across Wallonia.
Intellectually, I've long thought that further lockdowns as winter approached were inevitable, which is one reason why my wife and I have been making the most of the low-risk period between late July and now. Even so, I'm surprised at the extent of the government's loss of control, and its rapidity. You can point to all sorts of reasons - some of them not the government's fault, to be fair - but overall the issues have been disastrously mismanaged messaging, zig-zagging between panic and complacency, and falling between two stools.
The way this is heading, I think the government will be forced to introduce a genuine circuit-breaker before too long, although they'll no doubt introduce it too late. That means literally breaking the circuit, which unfortunately requires the kind of full-Monty lockdown we saw in the spring. The political and economic cost of that, if it happens, will be immense of course. (And that's without even factoring in a full-Monty crash-out on Jan 1st as well, the insanity of which is breathtaking).
Rishi Sunak's throwing of zillions at the problem earlier in the year is looking increasingly ill-judged. We seem to again be falling between two stools on this: not enough (or, more precisely, not sufficiently well-targeted) to save the jobs and businesses which need saving, but still an eye-watering amount of borrowing. All that money will have bought just a brief postponement of the job losses and bankruptcies, with crucial sectors such as hospitality and the arts completely pole-axed. Those are sectors which are crucial to any recovery.
Meanwhile, like many others, my wife and I are beginning to reduce contact and unnecessary outings, and take extra precautions. The country will largely lock itself down.
Yes. We have bankrupted the country, for a generation, to gain..... almost nothing. At the end of this I can see the country swinging wildly left or right. There will be an extreme political reaction. What form it takes is hard to predict.
So with a harsher lockdown, say pubs closing, no household mixing, granny doesn't get a hug.
What is the difference between this, for granny, if a bunch of 20-30yr olds minus those who must associate with vulnerable people are down the pub?
The difference for granny is that she is far, far less likely under the harsher lockdown to get the virus than if there is no lockdown. Especially if she needs any form of care which probably comes from 20-30 year olds.
If the virus is rife in the community then the people who care for the elderly will be infected and even with PPE will pass it on to the elderly.
You can argue its a price worth paying, but don't pretend please there's no difference. There absolutely is.
How so? Her carers aren't forced to go down the pub. They will take more care. But they might get the virus on the bus. Yes indeed they might and that is a difference. So work to make public transport safer by mask compliance and sanitation measures.
The question then becomes - is the chance of a carer getting the virus on public transport large enough to lock down a whole city.
If you think her carers, often working on minimum wage, will not be living their own lives when off the clock then that is entirely naive.
Do you honestly think that a young 20-something care worker on minimum wage never goes to the pub or does anything else same as everyone else their age?
So pay them not to, it's cheaper to do this than destroy a whole industry.
That is 1.5 million people. Approximately 1,500,000 work in adult social care. How much are you going to pay that 1.5 million people not to socialise at all?
And how are you going to enforce that? Are we going to tag them all? Put ankle bracelets on them?
Furthermore what about their boyfriends/girlfriends/husbands/wives/children etc? Their friends? Their relatives they mingle with? When they go to the shops?
PS how much would you need to be paid to agree not to socialise at all with friends and family?
Starmer - can the PM set out the scientific evidence for the 10pm curfew? Shagger - yes, its because you voted for it. Stop undermining the country
Ultimately Boris is right, Labour voted through the non-oversight package and then let the government renew the same one and abstained on it. Starmer had the opportunity to force concessions but he flunked it and now oversight and votes are at the gift of the government who will never allow a vote on measures they know they will lose, see the withdrawal of the 10pm closing time debate/vote.
Starmer is turning out to be a rubbish politician.
Hang on - that wasn't the question. Starmer asked for scientific evidence and the evidence given by Shagger is that Labour supported it. Is this true of everything? Does Labour support = scientific evidence? If so I think we should know.
And yet when given the chance Labour abstained on the measure that would have forced the government to give scientific evidence to the House. Starmer is another empty suit with empty words coming out of his mouth.
And thats party political. Out there in the real world people are getting sick and losing their jobs. Do we not ask any questions about why because SKS is a bit wooden?
No it isn't. Starmer could have spoken to Brady who had the numbers and forced the government to come to the table with a revised bill that guaranteed debates and votes on all measures. He made the choice not to and now we're all having to live with it. Labour gave the government the ability to not give a shit about evidence and are now making policy to suit them, even if it's a dog's breakfast.
In the real world those people needed Starmer to stand up to the government when it counted, he's doing so now to get a soundbite on the news, to look like he's doing something about it knowing full well he passed up an opportunity to actually do something about it.
We know Boris is shite, no one is disputing that. We know the government has completely fucked up basically any kind of public health policy in regards to virus containment. Yet when it came down to it Labour didn't even bother voting against the bill which allowed the government to continue exactly as it had done for the previous six months. They just accepted the promise of votes from the same group of people happy to break the law.
As I said, Starmer is an empty vessel with empty words. Our political class has let the nation down time and again, and Starmer has proved he's part of it.
Did Brady really have the numbers? He could barely muster a dozen last night as opposed to the 80 he was briefing beforehand.
Why bother voting against the government when Labour are going to abstain?
One could ask exactly the same question from Starmer's POV, though.
Principle is principle - both Labour and Tory members who wanted Parliamentary scrutiny should have voted for it.
This. The choice between economy and joy-killing restrictions, or overwhelmed hospitals, or some combination of the two, only arises because the government have failed to get rid of the virus.
And so has just about everyone else in any kind of comparable country to the U.K. ( Spain, France, Germany etc ,) failed to eradicate it. Some have fine notably better (Germany) some worse (USA ), but nobody has got rid of it.
Now NZ has done very very well, and J Adern will doubtless reap a week deserved landslide in a few days and praise should be healed in her, but NZ had a good hand not given to others. It’s probably got less international flights in a day the Heathrow or Charles de Gaulle or Amsterdam get in an hour, there’s zero land borders and it’s way too far to paddle over in a dinghy. It’s self sufficient in all kinds of food stuffs, and thinly populated.
They’ve done brilliantly, they’ve played a great hand expertly, fine, reap the rewards Kiwis enjoy the upcoming Summer but somehow I don’t think if you parachuted Ms Adern into, say, Belgium, they would now be Covid free across Flanders and pouring the beer over celebratory stewed hare across Wallonia.
Exactly right.
And of course we do not have a vaccine yet and we may not have a good one ever, or for a long time. Which then presents NZ with a painful existential choice. Open up again to save the economy, and import the virus? - or keep NZ quarantined and basically jailed for years.
I can see widespread disobedience and possible civil resistance. A sunny spring lockdown was tolerable, once. An indefinite autumn and winter lockdown will send people mad. Fuck this insanity.
a second lock down won't be as effective as it requires consent and there'll be less of it. Still a majority consent, easy, but effectiveness will be lower with even a little less compliance.
An entire British autumn and winter without pubs, restaurants, society, parties, theatres, anything. It's..... dystopian. I'd literally prefer it if we were at war. At least that would be dramatic. This is just unremitting bleakness. The mental health impacts are going to be catastrophic
I have close friends who are already tipping towards mental breakdown. No exaggeration.
Also the fact that any lockdown wouldn't actually be solving anything, but just delaying things until the next outbreak in a few months where we'll be back in the same position again.
You can solve the issue if you have an effective test, trace and isolate scheme to hunt down the last carriers of the virus and extinguish it.
It's much easier to run such a scheme with a few hundred cases a day, rather than ten thousand, but the government messed up their first go at this. A lockdown would give another chance to do it properly.
Not if they have the same incompetents in charge as last time, which they do.
So with a harsher lockdown, say pubs closing, no household mixing, granny doesn't get a hug.
What is the difference between this, for granny, if a bunch of 20-30yr olds minus those who must associate with vulnerable people are down the pub?
The difference for granny is that she is far, far less likely under the harsher lockdown to get the virus than if there is no lockdown. Especially if she needs any form of care which probably comes from 20-30 year olds.
If the virus is rife in the community then the people who care for the elderly will be infected and even with PPE will pass it on to the elderly.
You can argue its a price worth paying, but don't pretend please there's no difference. There absolutely is.
How so? Her carers aren't forced to go down the pub. They will take more care. But they might get the virus on the bus. Yes indeed they might and that is a difference. So work to make public transport safer by mask compliance and sanitation measures.
The question then becomes - is the chance of a carer getting the virus on public transport large enough to lock down a whole city.
If you think her carers, often working on minimum wage, will not be living their own lives when off the clock then that is entirely naive.
Do you honestly think that a young 20-something care worker on minimum wage never goes to the pub or does anything else same as everyone else their age?
Oh hold on Mr Libertarian.
So you are going to force the entire country into lockdown and many businesses to close permanently because a 20-yr old carer can't be trusted not to go down the pub?
The only local lockdown which has had any success is in Leicester.
We've never been out!
Not that you can call it a lockdown. About the only thing that we are not allowed is to meet in each others houses and garden. Otherwise national rules apply.
Inpatient numbers creeping up, 41 now with 2 on ICU.
Guido can now reveal the explanatory notes revealing further details of the plan. Key takeaways include:
Serving alcohol will be ‘effectively banned’. All indoor hospitality will be closed between 6 pm and 6 am, with exceptions for serving meals in hotels. Hospitality venues may open between 6 am and 6 pm provided no alcohol is served. In the central belt, there will be no serving of alcohol outdoors (but that will be allowed elsewhere). There will be exceptions for “significant life events” such as wedding receptions and funeral wakes, to allow these to continue in line with current rules. Some form of “financial compensation” will be offered to the hospitality sector. The plans being circulated by the Edinburgh government are likely to be similar to those being discussed in London too, as new cases continue to climb.
They will end up closing the schools again, I reckon.
Every time a child gets a winter cough or a sniffle they will be told to go home and isolate until tested. Likewise their friends. And teachers. And other staff. And some will be positive, so terrified families will withdraw more kids anyway. The chaos will increase until schools are unmanageable and will simply shut down.
We have frightened ourselves into apocalypse. As have some other countries. There might be riots.
I might be wrong, and it might just be other stories crowding the news, but the perception is there is a lack of stories of a schools catastrophe, in contrast to the first week or two of the term. Maybe my perception is wrong, but is it possible that the schools are managing (albeit with freezing kids, as recounted on previous threads)?
My personal experience is that north London schools are beginning to lose control. Not calamitous yet, but it is ominous, and I fear they will shut eventually. I pray, daily, that I am wrong.
Yes. They are managing, but for increasing numbers it sounds like "barely". The government rules for managing pox in schools had entirely assumed that it would largely have gone away by now. It hasn't, kids can spread it even if they aren't likely to suffer from it themselves. And kids in both my kids schools are literally wedged in next to each other.
Guido can now reveal the explanatory notes revealing further details of the plan. Key takeaways include:
Serving alcohol will be ‘effectively banned’. All indoor hospitality will be closed between 6 pm and 6 am, with exceptions for serving meals in hotels. Hospitality venues may open between 6 am and 6 pm provided no alcohol is served. In the central belt, there will be no serving of alcohol outdoors (but that will be allowed elsewhere). There will be exceptions for “significant life events” such as wedding receptions and funeral wakes, to allow these to continue in line with current rules. Some form of “financial compensation” will be offered to the hospitality sector. The plans being circulated by the Edinburgh government are likely to be similar to those being discussed in London too, as new cases continue to climb.
On Tuesday the regional health agency for the Île-de-France (Paris and its inner suburbs) reported that the number of Covid sufferers in critical beds in the region had reached 449 - which equals just over 40% of available beds.
Worse, the agency predicted that in the next two weeks the proportion will go up to 50%, as the growing rate of infections translates into more hospitalisations.
Guido can now reveal the explanatory notes revealing further details of the plan. Key takeaways include:
Serving alcohol will be ‘effectively banned’. All indoor hospitality will be closed between 6 pm and 6 am, with exceptions for serving meals in hotels. Hospitality venues may open between 6 am and 6 pm provided no alcohol is served. In the central belt, there will be no serving of alcohol outdoors (but that will be allowed elsewhere). There will be exceptions for “significant life events” such as wedding receptions and funeral wakes, to allow these to continue in line with current rules. Some form of “financial compensation” will be offered to the hospitality sector. The plans being circulated by the Edinburgh government are likely to be similar to those being discussed in London too, as new cases continue to climb.
Guido can now reveal the explanatory notes revealing further details of the plan. Key takeaways include:
Serving alcohol will be ‘effectively banned’. All indoor hospitality will be closed between 6 pm and 6 am, with exceptions for serving meals in hotels. Hospitality venues may open between 6 am and 6 pm provided no alcohol is served. In the central belt, there will be no serving of alcohol outdoors (but that will be allowed elsewhere). There will be exceptions for “significant life events” such as wedding receptions and funeral wakes, to allow these to continue in line with current rules. Some form of “financial compensation” will be offered to the hospitality sector. The plans being circulated by the Edinburgh government are likely to be similar to those being discussed in London too, as new cases continue to climb.
So with a harsher lockdown, say pubs closing, no household mixing, granny doesn't get a hug.
What is the difference between this, for granny, if a bunch of 20-30yr olds minus those who must associate with vulnerable people are down the pub?
The difference for granny is that she is far, far less likely under the harsher lockdown to get the virus than if there is no lockdown. Especially if she needs any form of care which probably comes from 20-30 year olds.
If the virus is rife in the community then the people who care for the elderly will be infected and even with PPE will pass it on to the elderly.
You can argue its a price worth paying, but don't pretend please there's no difference. There absolutely is.
How so? Her carers aren't forced to go down the pub. They will take more care. But they might get the virus on the bus. Yes indeed they might and that is a difference. So work to make public transport safer by mask compliance and sanitation measures.
The question then becomes - is the chance of a carer getting the virus on public transport large enough to lock down a whole city.
If you think her carers, often working on minimum wage, will not be living their own lives when off the clock then that is entirely naive.
Do you honestly think that a young 20-something care worker on minimum wage never goes to the pub or does anything else same as everyone else their age?
Oh hold on Mr Libertarian.
So you are going to force the entire country into lockdown and many businesses to close permanently because a 20-yr old carer can't be trusted not to go down the pub?
Blimey - so much for personal responsibility.
No.
I said from the start "You can argue its a price worth paying, but don't pretend please there's no difference. There absolutely is." Did you not read that?
The idea we can hermetically seal the vulnerable from the general population is nonsense, since the vulnerable rely upon the general population. Roughly 5% of all jobs in this country are in adult social care - and this is without considering retail or any other vulnerabilities.
The idea we can save granny by just ignoring her is a nonsense, unless granny is fit and able to look after herself without any care - which isn't the case for those most at risk.
If you want to make an argument that it isn't worth locking the country down and if granny dies you can live with that then I respect that completely, that is an entirely valid libertarian argument. If you want to make an argument that you can save granny and avoid restrictions then that is just totally ignorant.
So with a harsher lockdown, say pubs closing, no household mixing, granny doesn't get a hug.
What is the difference between this, for granny, if a bunch of 20-30yr olds minus those who must associate with vulnerable people are down the pub?
And what if this lockdown doesn't work, but just delays the next outbreak (as I think it will). Then we lockdown again, and again, and again
We just have to copy Sweden. That is now the only choice. Accept a relatively high death toll (but not that high) but save the economy, and prevent 50,000 suicides
Cor Blimey! We are all so much braver these days. Can you believe, before you joined, there were PBers scrambling from North London to the relative safety of South Wales
Now we are finally coming to the decisions that the government has all but bankrupted Britain trying to avoid. Do we go back to our lives and use the money we earn to ameliorate the virus as best we can, or do we head for economic and social meltdown? the latter is still, incredibly, in with a shout.
I can see widespread disobedience and possible civil resistance. A sunny spring lockdown was tolerable, once. An indefinite autumn and winter lockdown will send people mad. Fuck this insanity.
a second lock down won't be as effective as it requires consent and there'll be less of it. Still a majority consent, easy, but effectiveness will be lower with even a little less compliance.
An entire British autumn and winter without pubs, restaurants, society, parties, theatres, anything. It's..... dystopian. I'd literally prefer it if we were at war. At least that would be dramatic. This is just unremitting bleakness. The mental health impacts are going to be catastrophic
I have close friends who are already tipping towards mental breakdown. No exaggeration.
I'm finding it tedious but manageable. As for Lockdown, to me this means -
Shops other than supermarkets, schools and unis, all hospitality, closed. Plus the government telling everyone except key workers to stay at home apart from essential trips and exercise.
I don't think this is going to happen unless the trend in hospital admissions indicate the NHS is heading for a crisis of similar magnitude to early April.
So with a harsher lockdown, say pubs closing, no household mixing, granny doesn't get a hug.
What is the difference between this, for granny, if a bunch of 20-30yr olds minus those who must associate with vulnerable people are down the pub?
The difference for granny is that she is far, far less likely under the harsher lockdown to get the virus than if there is no lockdown. Especially if she needs any form of care which probably comes from 20-30 year olds.
If the virus is rife in the community then the people who care for the elderly will be infected and even with PPE will pass it on to the elderly.
You can argue its a price worth paying, but don't pretend please there's no difference. There absolutely is.
How so? Her carers aren't forced to go down the pub. They will take more care. But they might get the virus on the bus. Yes indeed they might and that is a difference. So work to make public transport safer by mask compliance and sanitation measures.
The question then becomes - is the chance of a carer getting the virus on public transport large enough to lock down a whole city.
If you think her carers, often working on minimum wage, will not be living their own lives when off the clock then that is entirely naive.
Do you honestly think that a young 20-something care worker on minimum wage never goes to the pub or does anything else same as everyone else their age?
So pay them not to, it's cheaper to do this than destroy a whole industry.
This. The choice between economy and joy-killing restrictions, or overwhelmed hospitals, or some combination of the two, only arises because the government have failed to get rid of the virus.
And so has just about everyone else in any kind of comparable country to the U.K. ( Spain, France, Germany etc ,) failed to eradicate it. Some have fine notably better (Germany) some worse (USA ), but nobody has got rid of it.
Now NZ has done very very well, and J Adern will doubtless reap a week deserved landslide in a few days and praise should be healed in her, but NZ had a good hand not given to others. It’s probably got less international flights in a day the Heathrow or Charles de Gaulle or Amsterdam get in an hour, there’s zero land borders and it’s way too far to paddle over in a dinghy. It’s self sufficient in all kinds of food stuffs, and thinly populated.
They’ve done brilliantly, they’ve played a great hand expertly, fine, reap the rewards Kiwis enjoy the upcoming Summer but somehow I don’t think if you parachuted Ms Adern into, say, Belgium, they would now be Covid free across Flanders and pouring the beer over celebratory stewed hare across Wallonia.
Exactly right.
And of course we do not have a vaccine yet and we may not have a good one ever, or for a long time. Which then presents NZ with a painful existential choice. Open up again to save the economy, and import the virus? - or keep NZ quarantined and basically jailed for years.
Where are the other countries that have opened up and saved their economy?
Given that it is Peston I guess it isn't going to happen?
Its increasingly out of control up here. Another lockdown is inevitable - everyone seems to be talking about it. I'd rather have the government do a controlled shutdown with some financial support so that we only lose 10% of the jobs rather than an uncontrolled consumer led boycott caused by the "go to the pub don't go to the pub" instructions from Shagger which leads to us losing 30% of the jobs.
People circulating around each other is spreading the pox. The only way to squash the thing again is stop people circulating. My friends up in geordieland report from relatives that "the RVI is 2 weeks away from shutting itself down as the ICU will be overcapacity". Remember, stay home to save the NHS? Time to park the rule of 6 and replace it with stay home.
“ I'd rather have the government do a controlled shutdown with some financial support so that we only lose 10% of the jobs ...”
The government seems intent on having shutdowns with no financial support. That is a death sentence for those businesses which are shut down. The resulting economic and social misery will be entirely the government’s fault.
Covid may necessitate lockdowns. It does not necessitate lockdowns without support. That is Sunak and Johnson’s choice if that is what they do and, if so, they will deserve all the opprobrium coming their way.
Exactly. As in other areas of government, such as knocking down housing to build motorways and airports, the established principle is that if you make people suffer for the perceived greater good, you help them disproportionately (I believe that house owners get 120% of the house value in that situation). We shouldn't be sentimental about pubs or cinemas or theatres - if they need to close to stop mass death and we all have a boring winter, then of course they should. But in fairness, and so that we don't lose them forever, we should help them get through it.
Reopening the universities seems quite mad too, since shortly afterwards they seem to have all gone 90% into internet-only tuition. Make it an internet-only year, cut the cost to students and subsidise the unis to get through it. Schools are harder, but most uni students are perfectly able to study online, and if you halve the tuition fee for that year, I bet that most would think it a fair deal.
This. The choice between economy and joy-killing restrictions, or overwhelmed hospitals, or some combination of the two, only arises because the government have failed to get rid of the virus.
And so has just about everyone else in any kind of comparable country to the U.K. ( Spain, France, Germany etc ,) failed to eradicate it. Some have fine notably better (Germany) some worse (USA ), but nobody has got rid of it.
Now NZ has done very very well, and J Adern will doubtless reap a week deserved landslide in a few days and praise should be healed in her, but NZ had a good hand not given to others. It’s probably got less international flights in a day the Heathrow or Charles de Gaulle or Amsterdam get in an hour, there’s zero land borders and it’s way too far to paddle over in a dinghy. It’s self sufficient in all kinds of food stuffs, and thinly populated.
They’ve done brilliantly, they’ve played a great hand expertly, fine, reap the rewards Kiwis enjoy the upcoming Summer but somehow I don’t think if you parachuted Ms Adern into, say, Belgium, they would now be Covid free across Flanders and pouring the beer over celebratory stewed hare across Wallonia.
Exactly right.
And of course we do not have a vaccine yet and we may not have a good one ever, or for a long time. Which then presents NZ with a painful existential choice. Open up again to save the economy, and import the virus? - or keep NZ quarantined and basically jailed for years.
Where are the other countries that have opened up and saved their economy?
All the talk of how well New Zealand have done. I actually think Australia is far more impressive. They are a large country, lots of travel from all around the world, especially to and from China, and have several very large dense cities.
And the most recent outbreak was due to something outside of the government control i.e. security staff bonking hotel guests. The logic was sound of ensuring arrivals quarantine.
All the talk of how well New Zealand have done. I actually think Australia is far more impressive. They are a large country, lots of travel from all around the world, especially to and from China, and have several very large dense cities.
And the most recent outbreak was due to something outside of the government control i.e. security staff bonking hotel guests. The logic was sound of ensuring arrivals quarantine.
Yes, the Victorian outbreak was handled extremely well. OTOH I have friends in Sydney who say the city centre is as bleak as central London at the mo. So it's not all good
The only local lockdown which has had any success is in Leicester.
We've never been out!
Not that you can call it a lockdown. About the only thing that we are not allowed is to meet in each others houses and garden. Otherwise national rules apply.
Inpatient numbers creeping up, 41 now with 2 on ICU.
How are the other wards looking?
Anecdotally, I'd say there are noticeably more ambulances on sirens in my drive to and fro from Huddersfield, I'd say 60-75% of the time at the moment as opposed to 20-30% normally.
COVID cases have escalated dramatically in the last couple of weeks from a fairly lowish level here (despite lockdown), but the hundred or so COVID cases that would be accessed along that road, don't remotely explain any increased level of activity. Maybe I'm hypersensitive, but it doesn't feel like a normal autumn uptick either - I've never noticed it in ambulance activity before.
So with a harsher lockdown, say pubs closing, no household mixing, granny doesn't get a hug.
What is the difference between this, for granny, if a bunch of 20-30yr olds minus those who must associate with vulnerable people are down the pub?
The difference for granny is that she is far, far less likely under the harsher lockdown to get the virus than if there is no lockdown. Especially if she needs any form of care which probably comes from 20-30 year olds.
If the virus is rife in the community then the people who care for the elderly will be infected and even with PPE will pass it on to the elderly.
You can argue its a price worth paying, but don't pretend please there's no difference. There absolutely is.
How so? Her carers aren't forced to go down the pub. They will take more care. But they might get the virus on the bus. Yes indeed they might and that is a difference. So work to make public transport safer by mask compliance and sanitation measures.
The question then becomes - is the chance of a carer getting the virus on public transport large enough to lock down a whole city.
If you think her carers, often working on minimum wage, will not be living their own lives when off the clock then that is entirely naive.
Do you honestly think that a young 20-something care worker on minimum wage never goes to the pub or does anything else same as everyone else their age?
Oh hold on Mr Libertarian.
So you are going to force the entire country into lockdown and many businesses to close permanently because a 20-yr old carer can't be trusted not to go down the pub?
Blimey - so much for personal responsibility.
No.
I said from the start "You can argue its a price worth paying, but don't pretend please there's no difference. There absolutely is." Did you not read that?
The idea we can hermetically seal the vulnerable from the general population is nonsense, since the vulnerable rely upon the general population. Roughly 5% of all jobs in this country are in adult social care - and this is without considering retail or any other vulnerabilities.
The idea we can save granny by just ignoring her is a nonsense, unless granny is fit and able to look after herself without any care - which isn't the case for those most at risk.
If you want to make an argument that it isn't worth locking the country down and if granny dies you can live with that then I respect that completely, that is an entirely valid libertarian argument. If you want to make an argument that you can save granny and avoid restrictions then that is just totally ignorant.
But Philip, Granny dies either way. She either dies of COVID or she dies because our locked down society cannot generate enough wealth to look after her and the other vulnerable people properly.
Not sure I'd call that powerful. The figures don't tell you anything - increases in infections may have been dramatically reduced by the local measures, but still have increased. It's like saying that D-Day was a failure because allied casualties continued to increase.
(I'm not saying that the local measures have worked, just that these data say nothing about whether or not thay have worked).
I can see widespread disobedience and possible civil resistance. A sunny spring lockdown was tolerable, once. An indefinite autumn and winter lockdown will send people mad. Fuck this insanity.
a second lock down won't be as effective as it requires consent and there'll be less of it. Still a majority consent, easy, but effectiveness will be lower with even a little less compliance.
An entire British autumn and winter without pubs, restaurants, society, parties, theatres, anything. It's..... dystopian. I'd literally prefer it if we were at war. At least that would be dramatic. This is just unremitting bleakness. The mental health impacts are going to be catastrophic
I have close friends who are already tipping towards mental breakdown. No exaggeration.
My apologies if this seems callous.
I am used to going out x times a week etc. I like my holidays. Group of friends etc..
Yet to me, bars closed, no travel, is something that I don't like, but must do.
I am can intellectualise why people find it life ending - but I struggle to internalise it. To really *feel* it.
Something like that revelation in Orwell, where he saw a woman in a grim slum, from a stopped train. In that moment he *felt* (he said) the realisation of her *knowing the awfulness of her situation*. Of not just being one of the "poor", but a person.
Given that it is Peston I guess it isn't going to happen?
Its increasingly out of control up here. Another lockdown is inevitable - everyone seems to be talking about it. I'd rather have the government do a controlled shutdown with some financial support so that we only lose 10% of the jobs rather than an uncontrolled consumer led boycott caused by the "go to the pub don't go to the pub" instructions from Shagger which leads to us losing 30% of the jobs.
People circulating around each other is spreading the pox. The only way to squash the thing again is stop people circulating. My friends up in geordieland report from relatives that "the RVI is 2 weeks away from shutting itself down as the ICU will be overcapacity". Remember, stay home to save the NHS? Time to park the rule of 6 and replace it with stay home.
“ I'd rather have the government do a controlled shutdown with some financial support so that we only lose 10% of the jobs ...”
The government seems intent on having shutdowns with no financial support. That is a death sentence for those businesses which are shut down. The resulting economic and social misery will be entirely the government’s fault.
Covid may necessitate lockdowns. It does not necessitate lockdowns without support. That is Sunak and Johnson’s choice if that is what they do and, if so, they will deserve all the opprobrium coming their way.
Exactly. As in other areas of government, such as knocking down housing to build motorways and airports, the established principle is that if you make people suffer for the perceived greater good, you help them disproportionately (I believe that house owners get 120% of the house value in that situation). We shouldn't be sentimental about pubs or cinemas or theatres - if they need to close to stop mass death and we all have a boring winter, then of course they should. But in fairness, and so that we don't lose them forever, we should help them get through it.
Reopening the universities seems quite mad too, since shortly afterwards they seem to have all gone 90% into internet-only tuition. Make it an internet-only year, cut the cost to students and subsidise the unis to get through it. Schools are harder, but most uni students are perfectly able to study online, and if you halve the tuition fee for that year, I bet that most would think it a fair deal.
I can see widespread disobedience and possible civil resistance. A sunny spring lockdown was tolerable, once. An indefinite autumn and winter lockdown will send people mad. Fuck this insanity.
a second lock down won't be as effective as it requires consent and there'll be less of it. Still a majority consent, easy, but effectiveness will be lower with even a little less compliance.
An entire British autumn and winter without pubs, restaurants, society, parties, theatres, anything. It's..... dystopian. I'd literally prefer it if we were at war. At least that would be dramatic. This is just unremitting bleakness. The mental health impacts are going to be catastrophic
I have close friends who are already tipping towards mental breakdown. No exaggeration.
Also the fact that any lockdown wouldn't actually be solving anything, but just delaying things until the next outbreak in a few months where we'll be back in the same position again.
You can solve the issue if you have an effective test, trace and isolate scheme to hunt down the last carriers of the virus and extinguish it.
It's much easier to run such a scheme with a few hundred cases a day, rather than ten thousand, but the government messed up their first go at this. A lockdown would give another chance to do it properly.
That was what ought to have happened over the summer, and didn't. How long a lockdown might it take for this administration to be in a position to "do it properly" now ?
There was a good post yesterday from @Andy_Cooke which put it quite well.
I'm miffed because the "spit test" that was being trialled in June hasn't appeared to be pursued. Twenty minute results and could be mass-produced.
Even if it gave a handful of false negatives - it would still do the job of shoving down spread and allowing some areas to open up with reduced social distancing. Maybe not nightclubs, or concerts, but pubs and restaurants and cinemas could have reopened with reduced social distancing, and it would have helped shove the spread down a long way.
Schools and universities could have benefited from it as well.
The pooled testing approach and backwards tracing to pick up superspreaders - where's the work on this? Instead we get a curfew that appears to have come about because of an argument between Johnson and Sunak, with questionable benefit at best and very possibly negatives in terms of spread.
This is the sort of work to be done on "learning to live with it."
The risk segmentation approach doesn't really work out in practice (we can't separate out the population to the degree we need), but at least it was an attempt to come up with a "To-Be" state that wasn't "let it rip and don't do the arithmetic as to what would happen," which has become strongly associated with the "we'll just have to learn to live with it" crowd.
Or the "let people make their own choices on what risk they'll accept" option, which runs into the intractable problem that with an infectious disease, people end up necessarily making their choices on what risk they'll force others to take.
Fast, ubiquitous, cheap testing. Pooled testing and backwards tracing. Identifying the highest dispersion scenarios and avoiding those.
That's the pathway to learning to live with it. The danger is that if things keep going the way they are, the politicians will look at the only thing that correlated with going from rapidly rising to decently descending and re-do it...
So with a harsher lockdown, say pubs closing, no household mixing, granny doesn't get a hug.
What is the difference between this, for granny, if a bunch of 20-30yr olds minus those who must associate with vulnerable people are down the pub?
The difference for granny is that she is far, far less likely under the harsher lockdown to get the virus than if there is no lockdown. Especially if she needs any form of care which probably comes from 20-30 year olds.
If the virus is rife in the community then the people who care for the elderly will be infected and even with PPE will pass it on to the elderly.
You can argue its a price worth paying, but don't pretend please there's no difference. There absolutely is.
How so? Her carers aren't forced to go down the pub. They will take more care. But they might get the virus on the bus. Yes indeed they might and that is a difference. So work to make public transport safer by mask compliance and sanitation measures.
The question then becomes - is the chance of a carer getting the virus on public transport large enough to lock down a whole city.
If you think her carers, often working on minimum wage, will not be living their own lives when off the clock then that is entirely naive.
Do you honestly think that a young 20-something care worker on minimum wage never goes to the pub or does anything else same as everyone else their age?
Oh hold on Mr Libertarian.
So you are going to force the entire country into lockdown and many businesses to close permanently because a 20-yr old carer can't be trusted not to go down the pub?
Blimey - so much for personal responsibility.
No.
I said from the start "You can argue its a price worth paying, but don't pretend please there's no difference. There absolutely is." Did you not read that?
The idea we can hermetically seal the vulnerable from the general population is nonsense, since the vulnerable rely upon the general population. Roughly 5% of all jobs in this country are in adult social care - and this is without considering retail or any other vulnerabilities.
The idea we can save granny by just ignoring her is a nonsense, unless granny is fit and able to look after herself without any care - which isn't the case for those most at risk.
If you want to make an argument that it isn't worth locking the country down and if granny dies you can live with that then I respect that completely, that is an entirely valid libertarian argument. If you want to make an argument that you can save granny and avoid restrictions then that is just totally ignorant.
What an asinine post. You are talking in absolutes where no one else is.
I said: "But they [the carers] might get the virus on the bus. Yes indeed they might and that is a difference."
Neither am I ignoring granny. I am pointing out that in total lockdown she doesn't get to interact with her family, while if pubs are open - and people who go there realise they shouldn't go and hug granny - she doesn't get hugged either.
She does interact with her carers and yes, in society as a whole there would be a greater risk if 20-30yr olds were allowed to go to the pub.
I said there is a balance of risks and allowing economic activity to continue. And there could usefully be a discussion about whether the chances of carers going to the pub or being on a bus and contracting the virus, with the concomitant increase in mortality of those being cared for, should justify closing down the economy.
I think you are in one of your blind spots again Philip.
“To govern is to choose, as someone once said. The government has made its choice for now. But if these measures don’t work, if there has to be another lockdown, if the virus reappears again when restrictions are lifted, if there is still no effective vaccine, what then? And what sort of economy and businesses will we have left when the dust clears?”
So with a harsher lockdown, say pubs closing, no household mixing, granny doesn't get a hug.
What is the difference between this, for granny, if a bunch of 20-30yr olds minus those who must associate with vulnerable people are down the pub?
The difference for granny is that she is far, far less likely under the harsher lockdown to get the virus than if there is no lockdown. Especially if she needs any form of care which probably comes from 20-30 year olds.
If the virus is rife in the community then the people who care for the elderly will be infected and even with PPE will pass it on to the elderly.
You can argue its a price worth paying, but don't pretend please there's no difference. There absolutely is.
How so? Her carers aren't forced to go down the pub. They will take more care. But they might get the virus on the bus. Yes indeed they might and that is a difference. So work to make public transport safer by mask compliance and sanitation measures.
The question then becomes - is the chance of a carer getting the virus on public transport large enough to lock down a whole city.
If you think her carers, often working on minimum wage, will not be living their own lives when off the clock then that is entirely naive.
Do you honestly think that a young 20-something care worker on minimum wage never goes to the pub or does anything else same as everyone else their age?
Oh hold on Mr Libertarian.
So you are going to force the entire country into lockdown and many businesses to close permanently because a 20-yr old carer can't be trusted not to go down the pub?
Blimey - so much for personal responsibility.
No.
I said from the start "You can argue its a price worth paying, but don't pretend please there's no difference. There absolutely is." Did you not read that?
The idea we can hermetically seal the vulnerable from the general population is nonsense, since the vulnerable rely upon the general population. Roughly 5% of all jobs in this country are in adult social care - and this is without considering retail or any other vulnerabilities.
The idea we can save granny by just ignoring her is a nonsense, unless granny is fit and able to look after herself without any care - which isn't the case for those most at risk.
If you want to make an argument that it isn't worth locking the country down and if granny dies you can live with that then I respect that completely, that is an entirely valid libertarian argument. If you want to make an argument that you can save granny and avoid restrictions then that is just totally ignorant.
But Philip, Granny dies either way. She either dies of COVID or she dies because our locked down society cannot generate enough wealth to look after her and the other vulnerable people properly.
And we are going to run out of money soon.
That is a fair argument to make.
Topping's "cake and eat it" of saying that we can get back to normal and protect the vulnerable by not giving them a hug or taking care on a bus is just nonsense though.
If the virus goes wild in the community it will reach the vulnerable. 5% of all working adults work with the vulnerable, the idea we can easily the vulnerable and everyone else gets back to normal is just nonsense. It isn't an option.
So if you want to make an informed decision that lockdown isn't worth it, do so honestly.
So with a harsher lockdown, say pubs closing, no household mixing, granny doesn't get a hug.
What is the difference between this, for granny, if a bunch of 20-30yr olds minus those who must associate with vulnerable people are down the pub?
The difference for granny is that she is far, far less likely under the harsher lockdown to get the virus than if there is no lockdown. Especially if she needs any form of care which probably comes from 20-30 year olds.
If the virus is rife in the community then the people who care for the elderly will be infected and even with PPE will pass it on to the elderly.
You can argue its a price worth paying, but don't pretend please there's no difference. There absolutely is.
How so? Her carers aren't forced to go down the pub. They will take more care. But they might get the virus on the bus. Yes indeed they might and that is a difference. So work to make public transport safer by mask compliance and sanitation measures.
The question then becomes - is the chance of a carer getting the virus on public transport large enough to lock down a whole city.
If you think her carers, often working on minimum wage, will not be living their own lives when off the clock then that is entirely naive.
Do you honestly think that a young 20-something care worker on minimum wage never goes to the pub or does anything else same as everyone else their age?
So pay them not to, it's cheaper to do this than destroy a whole industry.
That is 1.5 million people. Approximately 1,500,000 work in adult social care. How much are you going to pay that 1.5 million people not to socialise at all?
And how are you going to enforce that? Are we going to tag them all? Put ankle bracelets on them?
Furthermore what about their boyfriends/girlfriends/husbands/wives/children etc? Their friends? Their relatives they mingle with? When they go to the shops?
PS how much would you need to be paid to agree not to socialise at all with friends and family?
So with a harsher lockdown, say pubs closing, no household mixing, granny doesn't get a hug.
What is the difference between this, for granny, if a bunch of 20-30yr olds minus those who must associate with vulnerable people are down the pub?
The difference for granny is that she is far, far less likely under the harsher lockdown to get the virus than if there is no lockdown. Especially if she needs any form of care which probably comes from 20-30 year olds.
If the virus is rife in the community then the people who care for the elderly will be infected and even with PPE will pass it on to the elderly.
You can argue its a price worth paying, but don't pretend please there's no difference. There absolutely is.
How so? Her carers aren't forced to go down the pub. They will take more care. But they might get the virus on the bus. Yes indeed they might and that is a difference. So work to make public transport safer by mask compliance and sanitation measures.
The question then becomes - is the chance of a carer getting the virus on public transport large enough to lock down a whole city.
If you think her carers, often working on minimum wage, will not be living their own lives when off the clock then that is entirely naive.
Do you honestly think that a young 20-something care worker on minimum wage never goes to the pub or does anything else same as everyone else their age?
So pay them not to, it's cheaper to do this than destroy a whole industry.
That is 1.5 million people. Approximately 1,500,000 work in adult social care. How much are you going to pay that 1.5 million people not to socialise at all?
And how are you going to enforce that? Are we going to tag them all? Put ankle bracelets on them?
Furthermore what about their boyfriends/girlfriends/husbands/wives/children etc? Their friends? Their relatives they mingle with? When they go to the shops?
PS how much would you need to be paid to agree not to socialise at all with friends and family?
BUT THEY DON'T SOCIALISE IN LOCKDOWN EITHER!
Jeez Louise.
Yes the only way to stop them from socialising is having a lockdown.
I can see widespread disobedience and possible civil resistance. A sunny spring lockdown was tolerable, once. An indefinite autumn and winter lockdown will send people mad. Fuck this insanity.
a second lock down won't be as effective as it requires consent and there'll be less of it. Still a majority consent, easy, but effectiveness will be lower with even a little less compliance.
An entire British autumn and winter without pubs, restaurants, society, parties, theatres, anything. It's..... dystopian. I'd literally prefer it if we were at war. At least that would be dramatic. This is just unremitting bleakness. The mental health impacts are going to be catastrophic
I have close friends who are already tipping towards mental breakdown. No exaggeration.
My apologies if this seems callous.
I am used to going out x times a week etc. I like my holidays. Group of friends etc..
Yet to me, bars closed, no travel, is something that I don't like, but must do.
I am can intellectualise why people find it life ending - but I struggle to internalise it. To really *feel* it.
Something like that revelation in Orwell, where he saw a woman in a grim slum, from a stopped train. In that moment he *felt* (he said) the realisation of her *knowing the awfulness of her situation*. Of not just being one of the "poor", but a person.
I explained in another comment why this is so particularly tough for some people: like my friend, just one example, who has lost his business from Covid and sees no business in the future, and has had suicidal thoughts thereby. He said what kept him going was seeing friends in the pub. He loves the pub and needs the friendship.
Given that it is Peston I guess it isn't going to happen?
Its increasingly out of control up here. Another lockdown is inevitable - everyone seems to be talking about it. I'd rather have the government do a controlled shutdown with some financial support so that we only lose 10% of the jobs rather than an uncontrolled consumer led boycott caused by the "go to the pub don't go to the pub" instructions from Shagger which leads to us losing 30% of the jobs.
People circulating around each other is spreading the pox. The only way to squash the thing again is stop people circulating. My friends up in geordieland report from relatives that "the RVI is 2 weeks away from shutting itself down as the ICU will be overcapacity". Remember, stay home to save the NHS? Time to park the rule of 6 and replace it with stay home.
“ I'd rather have the government do a controlled shutdown with some financial support so that we only lose 10% of the jobs ...”
The government seems intent on having shutdowns with no financial support. That is a death sentence for those businesses which are shut down. The resulting economic and social misery will be entirely the government’s fault.
Covid may necessitate lockdowns. It does not necessitate lockdowns without support. That is Sunak and Johnson’s choice if that is what they do and, if so, they will deserve all the opprobrium coming their way.
Exactly. As in other areas of government, such as knocking down housing to build motorways and airports, the established principle is that if you make people suffer for the perceived greater good, you help them disproportionately (I believe that house owners get 120% of the house value in that situation). We shouldn't be sentimental about pubs or cinemas or theatres - if they need to close to stop mass death and we all have a boring winter, then of course they should. But in fairness, and so that we don't lose them forever, we should help them get through it.
Reopening the universities seems quite mad too, since shortly afterwards they seem to have all gone 90% into internet-only tuition. Make it an internet-only year, cut the cost to students and subsidise the unis to get through it. Schools are harder, but most uni students are perfectly able to study online, and if you halve the tuition fee for that year, I bet that most would think it a fair deal.
Quite. Daughter would prefer not to have her business closed. Obviously. But she does not want this virus to spread or to kill or infect those she loves. So if her business has to be closed for the greater good she expects to be supported through such a closure or be compensated.
Expecting her and thousands like her to bear the burden is iniquitous.
It is, sadly, what I expect the government to do. It is an awful government making awful decisions.
Comments
Coupled with the fact I live in a city with two universities my going out for the future is limited to dropping off and picking up the kids from school.
I have close friends who are already tipping towards mental breakdown. No exaggeration.
Jacienda has taken firm action by closing down all of NZ's pubs and both of its restaurants.
Anecdote doesn't rate to much against data, but how does it fare compared to best guess?
The prospect of none of that happening is, as you say, a deeply miserable prospect.
He said what kept him going was meeting friends in the pub
What is the difference between this, for granny, if a bunch of 20-30yr olds minus those who must associate with vulnerable people are down the pub?
The assumption that every student has a large comfortable bedroom in a house with supportive parents is clearly wrong. Many students do not, and many will find it easier to work at their University town rather than home.
Note almost every Western country has allowed students back to their Universities (including Wales where Labour is in power), and almost all the teaching is already online.
However, as far as I am concerned, if students wish to return home, they should be let off any rent obligations and be permitted to do so. I don't believe many will. If the tuition is significantly compromised by being online (as it is in some subjects), then students deserve a partial rebate.
So we have a choice.
1. A controlled lockdown. Shut the pubs already. Stay home. Another half trillion quid of made up currency to back stop as many jobs and companies as possible. Hope the vaccine is available in the Spring
2. A partially controlled lockdown - Scotland / English city regions force the government's hand to extend nationally. Minimal cash support with red wall Tories the loudest to shout about the damage being done to
their constituentstheir chances of re-election3. No national lockdown. Continued chaotic bumbling twattery. The pox overwhelms the NHS in some cities forcing reluctantly the activation of Nightingale hospitals. Pubs etc finally closed long after being abandoned by their former clientele. No cash support as an avalanche of job losses shags forever Tory chances in the red wall
If the virus is rife in the community then the people who care for the elderly will be infected and even with PPE will pass it on to the elderly.
You can argue its a price worth paying, but don't pretend please there's no difference. There absolutely is.
We just have to copy Sweden. That is now the only choice. Accept a relatively high death toll (but not that high) but save the economy, and prevent 50,000 suicides
Take away someone's business, a semblance of control, and social interaction and it's not hard to see how things are getting on top of people.
The psychology of the situation is one where the messaging and an air of competence really matters. This is proven by the stark contrast between the Queen's message ("We will meet again") and Boris Johnson flapping about, fantasising he's Churchill whilst still wearing the court jester motley.
The government seems intent on having shutdowns with no financial support. That is a death sentence for those businesses which are shut down. The resulting economic and social misery will be entirely the government’s fault.
Covid may necessitate lockdowns. It does not necessitate lockdowns without support. That is Sunak and Johnson’s choice if that is what they do and, if so, they will deserve all the opprobrium coming their way.
Lockdown (either top-down or bottom-up) is what happens when the caseload of the virus gets unmanageable. The UK could have spent the summer getting test'n'trace slick and fast, working out how much work and study could be done virtually, and what needed to use up some of the precious face-to-face contact that could safely be done.
Instead, the government seemed more interested in:
1. working out how many people it could take out of the death stats (even though it's likely that they're an underestimate overall),
2. finding more jobs for Dido to do,
3. encouraging people back into offices and restaurants,
4. insisting that the Last Night of the Proms had singers for patriotic songs,
all of which are things for after the crisis, not in a lull between two waves.
I wish I could be more optimistic, and it gives me no pleasure at all to say this, but the fable of the ant and the grasshopper springs to mind.
- Current measures are insufficient
- When we had a full lockdown it worked
Therefore we need to move more towards a full lockdown situation. In northern cities we already have a ban on mixing at home. Closing enclosed public spaces where you mingle with strangers seems like the logical next step.
Every time a child gets a winter cough or a sniffle they will be told to go home and isolate until tested. Likewise their friends. And teachers. And other staff. And some will be positive, so terrified families will withdraw more kids anyway. The chaos will increase until schools are unmanageable and will simply shut down.
We have frightened ourselves into apocalypse. As have some other countries. There might be riots.
The question then becomes - is the chance of a carer getting the virus on public transport large enough to lock down a whole city.
Still, I am one for risk segmentation. We can do that I believe without unsheathing the sledgehammer.
People may not like the answer but the answer is there.
Its entirely possible to argue that the price to the young isn't worth paying to save the old, but there is no scientific reason to say there is no difference to the elderly, there absolutely is.
The elderly can't be cut off completely, especially those that require care which is a large proportion of them.
Because the focusing over 10pm or not 10pm is totally missing the point.
Do you honestly think that a young 20-something care worker on minimum wage never goes to the pub or does anything else same as everyone else their age?
It's much easier to run such a scheme with a few hundred cases a day, rather than ten thousand, but the government messed up their first go at this. A lockdown would give another chance to do it properly.
The more infections there are amongst the general community, then the more it will be passed on to the vulnerable, because the vulnerable are not hermetically sealed from the general community.
The way this is heading, I think the government will be forced to introduce a genuine circuit-breaker before too long, although they'll no doubt introduce it too late. That means literally breaking the circuit, which unfortunately requires the kind of full-Monty lockdown we saw in the spring. The political and economic cost of that, if it happens, will be immense of course. (And that's without even factoring in a full-Monty crash-out on Jan 1st as well, the insanity of which is breathtaking).
Rishi Sunak's throwing of zillions at the problem earlier in the year is looking increasingly ill-judged. We seem to again be falling between two stools on this: not enough (or, more precisely, not sufficiently well-targeted) to save the jobs and businesses which need saving, but still an eye-watering amount of borrowing. All that money will have bought just a brief postponement of the job losses and bankruptcies, with crucial sectors such as hospitality and the arts completely pole-axed. Those are sectors which are crucial to any recovery.
Meanwhile, like many others, my wife and I are beginning to reduce contact and unnecessary outings, and take extra precautions. The country will largely lock itself down.
Now NZ has done very very well, and J Adern will doubtless reap a week deserved landslide in a few days and praise should be healed in her, but NZ had a good hand not given to others. It’s probably got less international flights in a day the Heathrow or Charles de Gaulle or Amsterdam get in an hour, there’s zero land borders and it’s way too far to paddle over in a dinghy. It’s self sufficient in all kinds of food stuffs, and thinly populated.
They’ve done brilliantly, they’ve played a great hand expertly, fine, reap the rewards Kiwis enjoy the upcoming Summer but somehow I don’t think if you parachuted Ms Adern into, say, Belgium, they would now be Covid free across Flanders and pouring the beer over celebratory stewed hare across Wallonia.
And how are you going to enforce that? Are we going to tag them all? Put ankle bracelets on them?
Furthermore what about their boyfriends/girlfriends/husbands/wives/children etc? Their friends? Their relatives they mingle with? When they go to the shops?
PS how much would you need to be paid to agree not to socialise at all with friends and family?
Principle is principle - both Labour and Tory members who wanted Parliamentary scrutiny should have voted for it.
And of course we do not have a vaccine yet and we may not have a good one ever, or for a long time. Which then presents NZ with a painful existential choice. Open up again to save the economy, and import the virus? - or keep NZ quarantined and basically jailed for years.
So you are going to force the entire country into lockdown and many businesses to close permanently because a 20-yr old carer can't be trusted not to go down the pub?
Blimey - so much for personal responsibility.
Not that you can call it a lockdown. About the only thing that we are not allowed is to meet in each others houses and garden. Otherwise national rules apply.
Inpatient numbers creeping up, 41 now with 2 on ICU.
Serving alcohol will be ‘effectively banned’.
All indoor hospitality will be closed between 6 pm and 6 am, with exceptions for serving meals in hotels.
Hospitality venues may open between 6 am and 6 pm provided no alcohol is served.
In the central belt, there will be no serving of alcohol outdoors (but that will be allowed elsewhere).
There will be exceptions for “significant life events” such as wedding receptions and funeral wakes, to allow these to continue in line with current rules.
Some form of “financial compensation” will be offered to the hospitality sector.
The plans being circulated by the Edinburgh government are likely to be similar to those being discussed in London too, as new cases continue to climb.
https://order-order.com/2020/10/07/exclusive-read-the-details-of-scotlands-sobering-lockdown-plan/
And it is coming to England too
Worse, the agency predicted that in the next two weeks the proportion will go up to 50%, as the growing rate of infections translates into more hospitalisations.
Runaround.... NOW!
I said from the start "You can argue its a price worth paying, but don't pretend please there's no difference. There absolutely is." Did you not read that?
The idea we can hermetically seal the vulnerable from the general population is nonsense, since the vulnerable rely upon the general population. Roughly 5% of all jobs in this country are in adult social care - and this is without considering retail or any other vulnerabilities.
The idea we can save granny by just ignoring her is a nonsense, unless granny is fit and able to look after herself without any care - which isn't the case for those most at risk.
If you want to make an argument that it isn't worth locking the country down and if granny dies you can live with that then I respect that completely, that is an entirely valid libertarian argument. If you want to make an argument that you can save granny and avoid restrictions then that is just totally ignorant.
Rishi's explaining........
It seems the jury is still out.
Shops other than supermarkets, schools and unis, all hospitality, closed. Plus the government telling everyone except key workers to stay at home apart from essential trips and exercise.
I don't think this is going to happen unless the trend in hospital admissions indicate the NHS is heading for a crisis of similar magnitude to early April.
Reopening the universities seems quite mad too, since shortly afterwards they seem to have all gone 90% into internet-only tuition. Make it an internet-only year, cut the cost to students and subsidise the unis to get through it. Schools are harder, but most uni students are perfectly able to study online, and if you halve the tuition fee for that year, I bet that most would think it a fair deal.
And the most recent outbreak was due to something outside of the government control i.e. security staff bonking hotel guests. The logic was sound of ensuring arrivals quarantine.
https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/advice-and-guidance/2020/10/coronavirus-covid-19-evidence-paper---october-2020/documents/coronavirus-covid-19-evidence-paper-october-2020/coronavirus-covid-19-evidence-paper-october-2020/govscot:document/Coronavirus+COVID-19%29+-+evidence+paper+-+7October+2020.pdf
Paper cites France, Spain as warnings that Scotland is on same trajectory, but one could ask why Germany and Italy are on different paths.
Make of it what you will.
Anecdotally, I'd say there are noticeably more ambulances on sirens in my drive to and fro from Huddersfield, I'd say 60-75% of the time at the moment as opposed to 20-30% normally.
COVID cases have escalated dramatically in the last couple of weeks from a fairly lowish level here (despite lockdown), but the hundred or so COVID cases that would be accessed along that road, don't remotely explain any increased level of activity. Maybe I'm hypersensitive, but it doesn't feel like a normal autumn uptick either - I've never noticed it in ambulance activity before.
And we are going to run out of money soon.
(I'm not saying that the local measures have worked, just that these data say nothing about whether or not thay have worked).
https://twitter.com/danhollandnews/status/1313840423715172358?s=21
I am used to going out x times a week etc. I like my holidays. Group of friends etc..
Yet to me, bars closed, no travel, is something that I don't like, but must do.
I am can intellectualise why people find it life ending - but I struggle to internalise it. To really *feel* it.
Something like that revelation in Orwell, where he saw a woman in a grim slum, from a stopped train. In that moment he *felt* (he said) the realisation of her *knowing the awfulness of her situation*. Of not just being one of the "poor", but a person.
(I might have to lie down)
How long a lockdown might it take for this administration to be in a position to "do it properly" now ?
There was a good post yesterday from @Andy_Cooke which put it quite well.
I'm miffed because the "spit test" that was being trialled in June hasn't appeared to be pursued. Twenty minute results and could be mass-produced.
Even if it gave a handful of false negatives - it would still do the job of shoving down spread and allowing some areas to open up with reduced social distancing. Maybe not nightclubs, or concerts, but pubs and restaurants and cinemas could have reopened with reduced social distancing, and it would have helped shove the spread down a long way.
Schools and universities could have benefited from it as well.
The pooled testing approach and backwards tracing to pick up superspreaders - where's the work on this? Instead we get a curfew that appears to have come about because of an argument between Johnson and Sunak, with questionable benefit at best and very possibly negatives in terms of spread.
This is the sort of work to be done on "learning to live with it."
The risk segmentation approach doesn't really work out in practice (we can't separate out the population to the degree we need), but at least it was an attempt to come up with a "To-Be" state that wasn't "let it rip and don't do the arithmetic as to what would happen," which has become strongly associated with the "we'll just have to learn to live with it" crowd.
Or the "let people make their own choices on what risk they'll accept" option, which runs into the intractable problem that with an infectious disease, people end up necessarily making their choices on what risk they'll force others to take.
Fast, ubiquitous, cheap testing.
Pooled testing and backwards tracing.
Identifying the highest dispersion scenarios and avoiding those.
That's the pathway to learning to live with it. The danger is that if things keep going the way they are, the politicians will look at the only thing that correlated with going from rapidly rising to decently descending and re-do it...
I said: "But they [the carers] might get the virus on the bus. Yes indeed they might and that is a difference."
Neither am I ignoring granny. I am pointing out that in total lockdown she doesn't get to interact with her family, while if pubs are open - and people who go there realise they shouldn't go and hug granny - she doesn't get hugged either.
She does interact with her carers and yes, in society as a whole there would be a greater risk if 20-30yr olds were allowed to go to the pub.
I said there is a balance of risks and allowing economic activity to continue. And there could usefully be a discussion about whether the chances of carers going to the pub or being on a bus and contracting the virus, with the concomitant increase in mortality of those being cared for, should justify closing down the economy.
I think you are in one of your blind spots again Philip.
“To govern is to choose, as someone once said. The government has made its choice for now. But if these measures don’t work, if there has to be another lockdown, if the virus reappears again when restrictions are lifted, if there is still no effective vaccine, what then? And what sort of economy and businesses will we have left when the dust clears?”
The government has no answers to these questions.
Topping's "cake and eat it" of saying that we can get back to normal and protect the vulnerable by not giving them a hug or taking care on a bus is just nonsense though.
If the virus goes wild in the community it will reach the vulnerable. 5% of all working adults work with the vulnerable, the idea we can easily the vulnerable and everyone else gets back to normal is just nonsense. It isn't an option.
So if you want to make an informed decision that lockdown isn't worth it, do so honestly.
Jeez Louise.
If there's no lockdown, they will socialise.
His marriage is in tatters because Covid.
Expecting her and thousands like her to bear the burden is iniquitous.
It is, sadly, what I expect the government to do. It is an awful government making awful decisions.