Keir Starmer calls…

Levi501

Levi501

Well-known member
For a ‘circuit breaker‘ of 2/3 weeks to stem the spike in Covid, it’s a move that if the Government ignore and things worsen he gains kudos, if his suggestion is acted on kudos also! So kudos all round!?
 
Close the borders, lock down for a month, total lockdown no one goes anywhere, except medical emergency, stock up on food before hand, government pays every adult £100 a week and the virus is gone. If every country did it, it would cost less financially than covid being around until the middle of next year.
 
I said the same thing at the start. Total China style lockdown for a short period, without the £100 payout. Enforced by Police / Army / TA. Would have been better than what we have now. Only problem is that they would need to get a grip on the airports / ports this time around, rather than allowing travellers to pass unchecked.
 
todayistheday said:
Love's calling it different after the event. Would we still be here if he was in power.
Click to expand...
He’s simply asking the Government to follow the scientific advice it received some time ago. Not sure why that’s a problem?

Johnson’s difficultly is that he has a sizeable minority of MPs (plus members of the Cabinet) who are against tighter restrictions. So he’s trying to keep them happy but not really succeeding. At the same time as adopting measures that may not be stringent enough to curtail the infection rate and reduce the R number.
 
Is that it after months in charge of the Labour Party his one policy is to shut the whole country down and that only came after Boris challenged him at Westminster to come up with something.
Lockdowns don't work just delay the virus.
 
The scenes in Liverpool were just disgusting the Police should have rounded them all up and only released them once they all paid a £1,000 fine.
A full 4 week lock down is now required close everything apart from essential shops like food shops, pharmacies, etc.
Cancel all sport cancel all travel apart from those that have to go to work (essential work only) or those that have to go to hospital/Doctors etc.
Close down all schools Uni’s, Gyms, in fact close down everything else for the same 4 week period.
Law breakers must be made accountable with heavy fines.
It’s not going to be nice but it’s simply getting out of hand as thousands of people don’t give two flying fucks about it but something needs doing right now to protect those that do care about their life.
 
Curryman said:
Other countries around the world have mostly failed by imposing a full lockdown, so why do we think it will work here?
Click to expand...
To be fair the last lockdown did succeed in reducing the R number and the rate of infections. The problem of course was that it caused massive damage to the economy.
 
poolseasider said:
Is that it after months in charge of the Labour Party his one policy is to shut the whole country down and that only came after Boris challenged him at Westminster to come up with something.
Lockdowns don't work just delay the virus.
Click to expand...
Lockdowns do work although I agree they just delay the virus and it comes back once the lockdown ends.

That leaves us with the Great Barrington Declaration which I also have grave reservations about.

First it assumes we’ll achieve herd immunity. Problem is many diseases never achieve herd immunity - flu, measles, malaria for instance.

Secondly I don’t think it’s practicable to fence off the elderly and the vulnerable while everyone else returns to normal. How many families share homes with elderly parents? How many of the elderly and vulnerable require carers?

Thirdly what about the debilitating effect of long term Covid, including in the young?

I saw Sunetra Gupta on TV recently. She didn’t inspire confidence.

What are we going to say when we have a few hundred thousand dead? Whoops!!! That didn’t work. What next?
 
poolseasider said:
Is that it after months in charge of the Labour Party his one policy is to shut the whole country down and that only came after Boris challenged him at Westminster to come up with something.
Lockdowns don't work just delay the virus.
Click to expand...
Captain Hindsight is very good at spouting from the safety of opposition
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Lockdowns do work although I agree they just delay the virus and it comes back once the lockdown ends.

That leaves us with the Great Barrington Declaration which I also have grave reservations about.

First it assumes we’ll achieve herd immunity. Problem is many diseases never achieve herd immunity - flu, measles, malaria for instance.

Secondly I don’t think it’s practicable to fence off the elderly and the vulnerable while everyone else returns to normal. How many families share homes with elderly parents? How many of the elderly and vulnerable require carers?

Thirdly what about the debilitating effect of long term Covid, including in the young?

I saw Sunetra Gupta on TV recently. She didn’t inspire confidence.

What are we going to say when we have a few hundred thousand dead? Whoops!!! That didn’t work. What next?
Click to expand...
Scaremongering at it's best.

Remind me how many fit and healthy under 50's have died from the virus?

Look after the ill and elderly let the rest of us go to work pay our taxes spend in shops bars and restaurants etc and fuel the economy and not have the youth still paying for this pandemic when we are long gone.
 
So how do you shield the elderly and the vulnerable when they live with you?

Keep them in their room and feed them on pancakes and fried eggs? On the basis those are the only things you can slide under the door.
 
A cynical political move imho... An attempt to create an any which way you lose situation for Boris / Any which way I win scenario for Starmer.

It doesn’t matter which way you dress these ideas up “circuit-breaker” is essentially a lockdown.

It’s not a sustainable option and the benefits (if there really are any are likely to be extremely short lived.
 
I don t have a great deal of confidence in our national politicans especially not Labour MPs. Our local politicans should have a greater say in decision making in taking steps to
defeat this virus.
 
We know lockdown reduces the infection rate, we also know that once the population starts to mingle again, the infection rate increases, so what is the SAGE plan, to lock down for two weeks every two months?
By the way ,I don't have an answer.
 
Victorsponge said:
We know lockdown reduces the infection rate, we also know that once the population starts to mingle again, the infection rate increases, so what is the SAGE plan, to lock down for two weeks every two months?
Click to expand...

The problem is that lockdown reduces the number of cases much more slowly than they grow when lockdown is released, about 1 week to double but 4 weeks to halve, thus to keep case number stable you'd need to lockdown for 4 weeks then have 1 week off, clearly not a viable option.

This is pure politics from Sir Odd Stammer.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
A cynical political move imho... An attempt to create an any which way you lose situation for Boris / Any which way I win scenario for Starmer.

It doesn’t matter which way you dress these ideas up “circuit-breaker” is essentially a lockdown.

It’s not a sustainable option and the benefits (if there really are any are likely to be extremely short lived.
Click to expand...
Any which way you do lose if you're making the decisions, there's no current out, no actual undamaging policy.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Except he's not.

The SAGE minutes said it was something to be considered, when you consider it it's actually a pretty dumb idea.
Click to expand...
Nice attempt at spin. But no coconut.

They urged the government to introduce a circuit breaker or risk “catastrophic consequences”.

That was on 21 September. The R number is higher now so presumably 2 weeks would not be long enough.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Nice attempt at spin. But no coconut.

They urged the government to introduce a circuit breaker or risk “catastrophic consequences”.

That was on 21 September. The R number is higher now so presumably 2 weeks would not be long enough.
Click to expand...
So, let’s assume we don’t do the ‘circuit breaker’ and we avoid these, so called, ‘catastrophic consequences’....Are we to view that as a massive success on the part of the Government?

Will smarmy Starmer be apologising to the British Public for undermining confidence in policy at such a crucial stage ?
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
So, let’s assume we don’t do the ‘circuit breaker’ and we avoid these, so called, ‘catastrophic consequences’....Are we to view that as a massive success on the part of the Government?

Will smarmy Starmer be apologising to the British Public for undermining confidence in policy at such a crucial stage ?
Click to expand...
Will he fuck. 👍
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
So, let’s assume we don’t do the ‘circuit breaker’ and we avoid these, so called, ‘catastrophic consequences’....Are we to view that as a massive success on the part of the Government?

Will smarmy Starmer be apologising to the British Public for undermining confidence in policy at such a crucial stage ?
Click to expand...
Lost Seasider has kindly posted a copy of the Sage minutes on another thread. Para 6 reads

“The more rapidly interventions are out in place, and the more stringent they are.....the greater the reduction in Covid related deaths (high confidence”.

That was the advice on 21 September which the Government has “considered” and decided not to follow. The Leader of the Opposition, acting in the interests of the nation, is doing his job and saying we should be following the scientific advice.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
To be fair the last lockdown did succeed in reducing the R number and the rate of infections. The problem of course was that it caused massive damage to the economy.
Click to expand...
And it doesn’t suppression the virus indefinitely., just shoves it further down the line.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
They urged the government to introduce a circuit breaker or risk “catastrophic consequences”.
Click to expand...
Those are your words, not their's.

Note also para 12:

"The existing evidence base for the effectiveness and harms of individual interventions is generally weak"

So how can they be urging anything when they don't know what works.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
There’s certainly no pain free solution. The debate really is which option causes the least pain.
Click to expand...

Well the best option would likely be a total lockdown of all those over 50 and let the virus run wild amongst the rest of the population but I don't see your idol calling for that.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Lost Seasider has kindly posted a copy of the Sage minutes on another thread. Para 6 reads

“The more rapidly interventions are out in place, and the more stringent they are.....the greater the reduction in Covid related deaths (high confidence”.

That was the advice on 21 September which the Government has “considered” and decided not to follow. The Leader of the Opposition, acting in the interests of the nation, is doing his job and saying we should be following the scientific advice.
Click to expand...
Yet the weapon couldn’t adequately answer the question put to him about the economic cost. Easy to offer ‘solutions’ when you take no responsibility to evaluate the consequences.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Well the best option would likely be a total lockdown of all those over 50 and let the virus run wild amongst the rest of the population but I don't see your idol calling for that.
Click to expand...
Picture a household with mum and dad both in their 50’s who have one of their elderly parents living with them, and they have 2 teenage kids say 15 and 17 living at home.

How would that work in your scenario? Kick the kids out to live where?
 
cruzzer said:
Picture a household with mum and dad both in their 50’s who have one of their elderly parents living with them, and they have 2 teenage kids say 15 and 17 living at home.

How would that work in your scenario? Kick the kids out to live where?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's perfect or a cost free solution, just one that might come at lowest cost overall.

Some possible options:
  • isolate with the parents;
  • set up effective barriers within the home;
  • temporary accommodation elsewhere.
Also, note that absent any better policies there's a very high risk of the virus getting into that household at some point in the next 6 months anyway, so if the kids can get it without transferring it to other members of the household then that's a major reduction in risk for the older generations.
 
cruzzer said:
Picture a household with mum and dad both in their 50’s who have one of their elderly parents living with them, and they have 2 teenage kids say 15 and 17 living at home.

How would that work in your scenario? Kick the kids out to live where?
Click to expand...
Spot on cruzzer. Not really thought it through have they - the let rip brigade.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Spot on cruzzer. Not really thought it through have they - the let rip brigade.
Click to expand...

7,500 deaths under the age of 50, mostly concentrated in the 40 - 50 age band, each one tragic, but if you want to attach an economic cost to that it's about £18 billion pounds.

That of course assumes a 100% effective lockdown for the over 50's, if we assume a 90% effective one that rises to something like 25,000 deaths and a cost of £28 billion in value of life lost.

I can show you my workings if you like.

What's your alternative policy?
  1. Lockdown the entire country for the next six months?
  2. Continue current local restrictions and try to fight outbreaks where they occur?
  • Policy 1 is unaffordable and carries horrific non-financial costs for everybody.
  • Policy 2 seems likely to result in the uncontrolled spread of the virus through vulnerable populations and in the longer run vastly more deaths.

I'd suggest it's the "circuit breaker" brigade that haven't thought things through instead.
 
Lost Seasider said:
I'm not saying it's perfect or a cost free solution, just one that might come at lowest cost overall.

Some possible options:
  • isolate with the parents;
  • set up effective barriers within the home;
  • temporary accommodation elsewhere.
Also, note that absent any better policies there's a very high risk of the virus getting into that household at some point in the next 6 months anyway, so if the kids can get it without transferring it to other members of the household then that's a major reduction in risk for the older generations.
Click to expand...
My scenario points to countless family groups in the UK, so your ideas would not be feasible.
 
And the rest of the potential deaths just get swept under the carpet.
 
cruzzer said:
Which bit of a perfectly clear statement do you not understand? I’m not going to reiterate the same thing in “Jack and Jill” English just for you.
Click to expand...

Well, first off it's perfectly countable and thus the first part of your statement is incorrect.

The second part of your statement is a non-sequitur, even if it were true it doesn't follow that effective mitigation measures could not be put in place.

And to repeat my earlier point, your policy seems to be to let families like that get the virus anyway, but without any attempt to isolate the most vulnerable members.
 
Lala said:
And it doesn’t suppression the virus indefinitely., just shoves it further down the line.
Click to expand...
As I just posted as an OP the T&T finally seems to be coming together

If we can cut the time it takes to issue results I can see the value in a circuit break whilst they get the remaining resources they need to deal with it effectively - and that must include spot checks on those instructed to self-isolate and max fines for breaches ( maybe controversial but I'd consider removing anyone found to have breached the rule to a secure unit / hotel for the remainder of their self-isolation period )
 
Technically a total lockdown would work. But you literally wouldn’t be allowed out of your house for 2 weeks. Nowhere open. Only A&E. Can’t see it happening. People are being even more resistant now to lockdown measures.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Well, first off it's perfectly countable and thus the first part of your statement is incorrect.

The second part of your statement is a non-sequitur, even if it were true it doesn't follow that effective mitigation measures could not be put in place.

And to repeat my earlier point, your policy seems to be to let families like that get the virus anyway, but without any attempt to isolate the most vulnerable members.
Click to expand...
Now you’re making stuff up to suit your agenda. I will therefore leave you in your own fantasy.
 
Lala said:
And it doesn’t suppression the virus indefinitely., just shoves it further down the line.
Click to expand...
Yes but that isn’t the same as saying lockdowns don’t work, which is what some people argue is the case.

The thinking is that they enable us to manage pressure on the NHS at the same time as putting it place the systems and infrastructure to help in the fight - test and trace, PPE and the Nightingale Hospitals.
 
tangerine_neil said:
Technically a total lockdown would work. But you literally wouldn’t be allowed out of your house for 2 weeks. Nowhere open. Only A&E. Can’t see it happening. People are being even more resistant now to lockdown measures.
Click to expand...

If we did go down this route, and 4 or 5 days later we have case numbers back to where we were when lockdown started, then what? Another 2 week lockdown, followed by another 2 week lockdown, followed by another 2 week lockdown?
 
The further you can kick it down the line (lala) the better. More chance of measures like T&T working, more chance of a vaccine.

I'd be in favour of a CB and probably another one in 3 months if that what it takes. Need also to keep people in their own areas as far as possible- not good for tourism, but it is the end of the season.
 
fcblackpool said:
I'd be in favour of a CB and probably another one in 3 months if that what it takes. Need also to keep people in their own areas as far as possible- not good for tourism, but it is the end of the season.
Click to expand...

3 months? 3 days more like.

Hypothetically, 15,000 cases today, thanks to the delay in syptoms developing and positive tests being returned we'll likely be showing that or more two weeks from now, so what then? Extend it for another 2 weeks?

Then after a month you've got cases down to 7,500, a week to 10 days later you're back up to 15,000 cases so then what, another month long lockdown?

And all of that ignores that compliance is likely to be much worse than last time around.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Lol.

Makes statement with nothing to back it up, has no better ideas what to do then runs away when it's pointed out to him.
Click to expand...
I’m not running away, I’m not going to debate with you when you make boundless assumptions on my position on this matter. You simply are not worth it.
 
Lost Seasider said:
3 months? 3 days more like.

Hypothetically, 15,000 cases today, thanks to the delay in syptoms developing and positive tests being returned we'll likely be showing that or more two weeks from now, so what then? Extend it for another 2 weeks?

Then after a month you've got cases down to 7,500, a week to 10 days later you're back up to 15,000 cases so then what, another month long lockdown?

And all of that ignores that compliance is likely to be much worse than last time around.
Click to expand...
If you were going to do it the penalties for breaching would have to be draconian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top