A SECOND LOCKDOWN

N

No1_club

Well-known member
Would be an unmitigated disaster for the United Kingdom.
Its ok saying it would be for 4 to 6 weeks, but most of us thought that the first time around.
We will be heading into the New Year with mass unemployment, depression and broke.
You think the NHS is currently underfunded? Just wait until there is no revenue coming in and banks start to collapse.
 
No1_club said:
Would be an unmitigated disaster for the United Kingdom.
Its ok saying it would be for 4 to 6 weeks, but most of us thought that the first time around.
Click to expand...

A short 2 week circuit breaker at the end of November might be a good idea, assuming that the rate of infections has levelled off.
 
Jefflynnessongsheet said:
Yep but if Boris and his wazzacks had dealt with this whole thing properly first time round and didn’t dither it would have been so different.
Their incompetence has hit unimaginable new highs leaving businesses and people not knowing what the hell is going on.
Click to expand...

What, like France and Spain? Maybe Sweden or Italy perhaps?
 
Why do we continue to think purely in economic terms? 52% of the population didn't seem to bother in the referendum, the same people seem to be the most vocal on this issue.
The whole world is in the same boat, it can't be solved by an individual nation. I'm sure worldwide debt levels will be cancelled at the end of this.
 
Shandypants said:
Why do we continue to think purely in economic terms? 52% of the population didn't seem to bother in the referendum, the same people seem to be the most vocal on this issue.
The whole world is in the same boat, it can't be solved by an individual nation. I'm sure worldwide debt levels will be cancelled at the end of this.
Click to expand...

Its not just debt mate. How do you think the NHS is funded?
Think of the psychological damage mass unemployment will cause. Rise in crime, homes repossessed
Too many of you guys are thinking of your own circumstances and I guess in a lot of cases most of you guys are retired?
 
No1_club said:
Would be an unmitigated disaster for the United Kingdom.
Its ok saying it would be for 4 to 6 weeks, but most of us thought that the first time around.
We will be heading into the New Year with mass unemployment, depression and broke.
You think the NHS is currently underfunded? Just wait until there is no revenue coming in and banks start to collapse.
Click to expand...
We won’t need to worry about mass unemployment, depression, and being broke as most of us wont be here to worry about it.
 
Jaffa_The_Hut said:
I’am I?
So what’s killing hundreds of people on a daily basis and clogging up our hospitals right now? What’s killing Thousands of people around the world right now? What’s just killed Bobby Ball?
Yep apologies I’am being ridiculous. 🙄
Click to expand...

You are being ridiculous.
Its a virus that the overwhelming majority of people survive. 80% of all deaths (maybe more) are underlying health conditions.
 
No1_club said:
You are being ridiculous.
Its a virus that the overwhelming majority of people survive. 80% of all deaths (maybe more) are underlying health conditions.
Click to expand...

Have you by any chance looked at the underlying health conditions?

The most popular ones include obesity, diabetes and other not particularly rare conditions.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Have you by any chance looked at the underlying health conditions?

The most popular ones include obesity, diabetes and other not particularly rare conditions.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure this is entirely accurate...

I suspect the ones above are those given most attention in the press, as opposed to contributing to death from Covid.

From what I can recall the stats show Alzheimer’s being the most prominent? With other cancer related conditions, serious heart, lung & kidney conditions.

There are people with more supposedly minor /common conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, obesity etc... but these individuals are likely to have more than one, often chronic conditions...
 
Jaffa_The_Hut said:
I’am I?
So what’s killing hundreds of people on a daily basis and clogging up our hospitals right now? What’s killing Thousands of people around the world right now? What’s just killed Bobby Ball?
Yep apologies I’am being ridiculous. 🙄
Click to expand...

Is killing Bobby Ball unusually difficult then?

(I sympathise with your point, btw. You didn't need to mention BB)
 
Jefflynnessongsheet said:
Yep but if Boris and his wazzacks had dealt with this whole thing properly first time round and didn’t dither it would have been so different.
Their incompetence has hit unimaginable new highs leaving businesses and people not knowing what the hell is going on.
Click to expand...
If my Aunty had bollocks she’d be my Uncle .
 
Wizaard said:
I'm agreeing with you and the SAGE called for a lockdown on 21 September.
Click to expand...

You know they didn't as well as I do.

In fact about the only person calling for a lockdown is Odd Stammer, who seems to have developed his whole strategy around one poorly phrased line in one of the minutes.
 
Interesting stat from Starmer this morning
Last week Cornwall and Isle of Wight were the only regions in the UK that had a lower infection rate than Manchester when it was placed into local restrictions in July

The case for a national ‘ circuit break ‘ seems to be growing however Raab was having none of it when interviewed earlier

Suspect it’s coming though - likely as soon as the case for London to enter Tier 3 becomes compelling
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
Interesting stat from Starmer this morning
Last week Cornwall and Isle of Wight were the only regions in the UK that had a lower infection rate than Manchester when it was placed into local restrictions in July

The case for a national ‘ circuit break ‘ seems to be growing however Raab was having none of it when interviewed earlier

Suspect it’s coming though - likely as soon as the case for London to enter Tier 3 becomes compelling
Click to expand...
I’m sure it’s coming, we’re 3/4 weeks behind France who have had local restrictions for sometime, but they’ve gone into lockdown today.
 
The latest figures around Europe (part) per 100k:

Belgium - cases 1390.9 - Deaths 5.8

France - cases 629.4 - Deaths 3.3

Spain - cases 446 - Deaths not stated.

UK - cases 415.6 - Deaths 3,2

Italy - cases 305.5 - Deaths 2.1

Germany - cases 144.3 Deaths 0.6

Haven't found figures for other countries.
 
I think the dialogue will begin to change over the coming months, and the government have a hell of a job infront of them. With the second wave is coming the potential of a double dip recession along with unemployment figures not known since the 1980's. When you combine this with the cancelation of operations and the propensity of people to ignore conditions requiring treatment the problems are stacking up for Boris and his mob.

The figures perhaps show we are in line proportionately with other European countries. The combo of the govts management of the pandemic and the media coverage has not only scared half the populous stiff, but confused the rest to the point of ambivalence. 'Circuit Breaker' for 2 weeks? Why not? I don't think the outlook could get much gloomier.

It would help if the figures were revised to give a more accurate overview of deaths related to cv alone, rather than including people who died of something else but happened to have a positive test within 28 days of that, ie. the excess deaths. The govt have been guilty of trying to politik their way out of this with the population, perhaps it's time for some cold hard facts about the economic outlook too.
 
For balance another stat this am

Number of UK deaths from Covid since the start of those under 60 and without underlying health conditions - 315

Number of deaths from this group in the last 7 days - nil

What constitutes ‘ an underlying health condition ‘ wasn’t qualified but interesting nevertheless particularly when you bear in mind that at the same time the detection of some cancers when compared year on year is worryingly low ( lung cancer 75 % down )

A real conundrum
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
Interesting stat from Starmer this morning
Click to expand...

Looks completely wrong to me, probably Stammer misunderstanding the REACT study.


Edit:

In fact it might be a different trick, the July restrictions on Manchester were effectively what are now tier 2 measures and were lifted in early September, what he seems to be doing is trying to conflate the virus situation in July with the lockdown measures in October and implying that everywhere should now be T3 as a result.

Or he's just spouting pure ignorance and hoping nobody checks.
 
Last edited:
Lost Seasider said:
You know they didn't as well as I do.

In fact about the only person calling for a lockdown is Odd Stammer, who seems to have developed his whole strategy around one poorly phrased line in one of the minutes.
Click to expand...
Yes they did and in fact they used the word “immediate”. On 21 September.

I know this because you kindly posted the Sage minutes on here.

It was those minutes that Starmer was referring to when he called for the circuit breaker.
 
basilrobbie said:
Is killing Bobby Ball unusually difficult then?

(I sympathise with your point, btw. You didn't need to mention BB)
Click to expand...
I don’t agree. I think that by referring to the death of a celebrity victim, who lived locally to many posters, you’re making the dangers more real. Otherwise, unless they have personal experience of the disease, they tend to think it’s somehow just a media story that won’t ever affect them.
 
Lost Seasider said:
They also used the word consideration.
Click to expand...
What as in “you really ought to consider these options for immediate implementation”? A circuit breaker being one of them.

I am paraphrasing of course but if you’re relying on the use of the word “consider” to support an argument that Sage didn’t call for a circuit breaker back in September then you’re on very wobbly territory. The fact of the matter is that is what they were urging the government to do. And Starmer was simply following the scientific advice.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Looks completely wrong to me, probably Stammer misunderstanding the REACT study.


Edit:

In fact it might be a different trick, the July restrictions on Manchester were effectively what are now tier 2 measures and were lifted in early September, what he seems to be doing is trying to conflate the virus situation in July with the lockdown measures in October and implying that everywhere should now be T3 as a result.

Or he's just spouting pure ignorance and hoping nobody checks.
Click to expand...
Have you once called out Boris Johnson, Matt Hancock or the other Tory liars for the dozens of misleading, duplicitous and ignorant statements made through the pandemic?
 
Lost Seasider said:
Looks completely wrong to me, probably Stammer misunderstanding the REACT study.


Edit:

In fact it might be a different trick, the July restrictions on Manchester were effectively what are now tier 2 measures and were lifted in early September, what he seems to be doing is trying to conflate the virus situation in July with the lockdown measures in October and implying that everywhere should now be T3 as a result.

Or he's just spouting pure ignorance and hoping nobody checks.
Click to expand...
He was using the July rate as he referred to when Manchester first went into local restrictions in the summer
 
Mexboroseasider said:
What as in “you really ought to consider these options for immediate implementation”? A circuit breaker being one of them.

I am paraphrasing of course but if you’re relying on the use of the word “consider” to support an argument that Sage didn’t call for a circuit breaker back in September then you’re on very wobbly territory. The fact of the matter is that is what they were urging the government to do. And Starmer was simply following the scientific advice.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

I think Labour has built its entire covid policy around one slightly poorly worded phrase in one minute of one meeting, I can find no other evidence of any scientist actually calling for this lockdown at the time, or even now.

We don't know what other scientific advice the government had, we do not know what consideration they gave to matter or what guided their decision.

My considered view of the matter is that a lockdown at the time would've done nothing other than delay the peak by 2 weeks and at very great cost, it is a tool best kept as a measure of last resort.

The Welsh have helpfully decided to put the question to the test, let's see how that works out for them.
 
Lost Seasider said:
I disagree.

I think Labour has built its entire covid policy around one slightly poorly worded phrase in one minute of one meeting, I can find no other evidence of any scientist actually calling for this lockdown at the time, or even now.

We don't know what other scientific advice the government had, we do not know what consideration they gave to matter or what guided their decision.

My considered view of the matter is that a lockdown at the time would've done nothing other than delay the peak by 2 weeks and at very great cost, it is a tool best kept as a measure of last resort.

The Welsh have helpfully decided to put the question to the test, let's see how that works out for them.
Click to expand...
So you claim no other scientists have called for a lockdown, but then acknowledge that the Welsh (who are following the advice of their scientists) have imposed a lockdown.

As for the timing you seem to have this theory that the best time for a lockdown is when the infections are at their peak (and hence deaths will be at their highest or will follow very quickly). Now this might be some sort of counter intuitive wizardry on your part, but it sounds bonkers to me.

And yes I understand the argument that suppression is just an exercise in kicking the can down the road. But that’s the nature of the beast.
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
Must admit I was surprised Lost

That said the ' orange ' sections on the heat map under the section dealing with the spread are expanding quickly
Click to expand...

Looks to me like they're playing a bit of a game with that map, compare and contrast with this one: https://coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk/details/interactive-map

What they're done is define orange as over 100 cases and dark orange as over 200, the official map uses purple for more than 400 cases, which is confined soley to the NW.

The colour change makes the spread look more striking visually and the lower cap on case numbers makes medium areas look the same as high areas.
 
It's a shit show.

Circuit Breaker? Maybe, it's likely that you're simply delaying things though.

Full lockdown? In winter, at Christmas, people won't follow it, the damage to the economy and public health would be massive.

Carry on as normal? Could overwhelm the NHS, could kill a lot of people.

The choice is yours!
 
Mexboroseasider said:
So you claim no other scientists have called for a lockdown, but then acknowledge that the Welsh (who are following the advice of their scientists) have imposed a lockdown.
Click to expand...

Are they following the science? Looks more to me like they're following offical Labour party policy instead.


Mexboroseasider said:
As for the timing you seem to have this theory that the best time for a lockdown is when the infections are at their peak (and hence deaths will be at their highest or will follow very quickly). Now this might be some sort of counter intuitive wizardry on your part, but it sounds bonkers to me.
Click to expand...

Counter intuitive maybe, but if you run the math this is what results in the lowest number of infections and deaths.

The reason for this is that if you lockdown early the virus simply rebounds and you end up with the same level of infection as you would have anyway.

If you time the lockdown right there should be just enough immunity in the population to prevent a resurgence and thus the reduction in case number from the lockdown is maintained for the rest of the year.

If you're interested then by my workings the final infections numbers for England would be 15m with a well timed C/B and 20m+ with an early one, although there are some fairly rough estimates in there so take those numbers as guidance rather than gospel.
 
I think both arguments have important things to say. How to square the circle? I don't know, nobody knows. This is new...a virus for which the world currently has no answer.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Are they following the science? Looks more to me like they're following offical Labour party policy instead.




Counter intuitive maybe, but if you run the math this is what results in the lowest number of infections and deaths.

The reason for this is that if you lockdown early the virus simply rebounds and you end up with the same level of infection as you would have anyway.

If you time the lockdown right there should be just enough immunity in the population to prevent a resurgence and thus the reduction in case number from the lockdown is maintained for the rest of the year.

If you're interested then by my workings the final infections numbers for England would be 15m with a well timed C/B and 20m+ with an early one, although there are some fairly rough estimates in there so take those numbers as guidance rather than gospel.
Click to expand...
LS, I disagree with much that you say but I'll always find room for your posts. Just never, ever use the expression, 'do the math', at least, not without adding an s. Otherwise, I'll be tempted to virtually cover you in petrol and set it alight. No offence.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Are they following the science? Looks more to me like they're following offical Labour party policy instead.




Counter intuitive maybe, but if you run the math this is what results in the lowest number of infections and deaths.

The reason for this is that if you lockdown early the virus simply rebounds and you end up with the same level of infection as you would have anyway.

If you time the lockdown right there should be just enough immunity in the population to prevent a resurgence and thus the reduction in case number from the lockdown is maintained for the rest of the year.

If you're interested then by my workings the final infections numbers for England would be 15m with a well timed C/B and 20m+ with an early one, although there are some fairly rough estimates in there so take those numbers as guidance rather than gospel.
Click to expand...
Well as I only got 5% in maths I think your workings would be wasted on me. Immediate thoughts though:

1. You have a theory. It’s only a theory.
2. If your theory is wrong you’ve maxed out on infections and deaths needlessly.
3. If your theory is right how can we be sure we’ve reached the peak or the optimum point of infections where, you believe, a lockdown would be most effective? With a reliability rate of between 70 and 80% for tests, and lots of people untested, it seems to me it’s very much a finger in the air approach.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
LS, I disagree with much that you say but I'll always find room for your posts. Just never, ever use the expression, 'do the math', at least, not without adding an s. Otherwise, I'll be tempted to virtually cover you in petrol and set it alight. No offence.
Click to expand...

Both terms are in fact correct, math is generally preferred in the US and Canada but there's no sound linguistic reason to prefer either.

In my defence I post on a pan-EU gaming forum and I've picked up a few Americanisms along the way.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Well as I only got 5% in maths I think your workings would be wasted on me. Immediate thoughts though:

1. You have a theory. It’s only a theory.
Click to expand...

None of it is particularly complicated, it's just simple probability, the more people who've been exposed to the virus the harder it is for the virus to spread, some examples (assume R0 = 2 for all):
  • 0% population exposure, every case results in 2 new infections;
  • 100% exposure, every case results in 0 new infections;
  • 50% exposure, every case results in 1 new infection.
Take the above, apply the logic it to observed growth rates and best guess of existing population exposure and you're pretty much there.

I wouldn't say that what I've come up with would pass the strictest scientific tests, but it's broadly in line with what I've seen coming out of SAGE et al so I think I'm in the right ball park.


Mexboroseasider said:
2. If your theory is wrong you’ve maxed out on infections and deaths needlessly.
Click to expand...

And if the theory is right I've minimised infections and deaths, the difference being I'm working off some fairly solid evidence rather than the need to have a policy, any policy, for political reasons.


Mexboroseasider said:
3. If your theory is right how can we be sure we’ve reached the peak or the optimum point of infections where, you believe, a lockdown would be most effective? With a reliability rate of between 70 and 80% for tests, and lots of people untested, it seems to me it’s very much a finger in the air approach.
Click to expand...

You'll never get it quite right, modelling and testing might get you within a week or so, it's about as good as it'll get.

The alternative is pure finger in the air "something must be done".
 
Lost Seasider said:
None of it is particularly complicated, it's just simple probability, the more people who've been exposed to the virus the harder it is for the virus to spread, some examples (assume R0 = 2 for all):
  • 0% population exposure, every case results in 2 new infections;
  • 100% exposure, every case results in 0 new infections;
  • 50% exposure, every case results in 1 new infection.
Take the above, apply the logic it to observed growth rates and best guess of existing population exposure and you're pretty much there.

I wouldn't say that what I've come up with would pass the strictest scientific tests, but it's broadly in line with what I've seen coming out of SAGE et al so I think I'm in the right ball park.




And if the theory is right I've minimised infections and deaths, the difference being I'm working off some fairly solid evidence rather than the need to have a policy, any policy, for political reasons.




You'll never get it quite right, modelling and testing might get you within a week or so, it's about as good as it'll get.

The alternative is pure finger in the air "something must be done".
Click to expand...
So with your theory when’s the optimum or most effective time to lockdown? What % of infection?
 
The SAGE scientists have been at pains to explain, since Starmer has gone off on his ‘Circuit Break’ campaign, shortly after his Shadow Health Secretary had said that another National Lockdown would be a disaster, that the proposed ‘Circuit Breaker’ was an advisory based upon an evaluation of the epidemiological situation ONLY and that the Government must consider other contrasting harms and form policy on the basis of overall harm mitigation.

When questioned Starmer had absolutely no clue as to the economic or any other impact of his proposed policy and had, as Lost Pointed out, essentially relied on a his own poor interpretation of a limited minute, taken out of context.... He’d assumed that just because SAGE had suggested it that it must be the right thing to do..... So he’s essentially formed his policy without and due consideration of a whole array of other potential issues..... Even if you might ultimately conclude the Circuit Break is the right thing to do, it would be utterly stupid (as in Starmers case) to teach such a conclusion in the absence of at least 50% of the picture / facts!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top