Keir Starmer calls…

If you were going to do it the penalties for breaching would have to be draconian
Which would completely turn the British Public off and risk significant protest etc...

All for a measure (as Lost points out) that would most likely gain 4 or 5 days (certainly not the over exaggerated 28 days, which would likely need a complete lockdown, including schools for a couple of months).

It’s a hair-brained idea
 
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.
I get that . So lockdowns work only as a short term measure but then the virus comes back further down the line and more lockdowns are needed.
 
I get that . So lockdowns work only as a short term measure but then the virus comes back further down the line and more lockdowns are needed.
Yep. But unless you want to take the risk of the “let rip” alternative I can’t see there’s an option.

Do you want to risk the “let rip” alternative?
 
Yep. But unless you want to take the risk of the “let rip” alternative I can’t see there’s an option.

Do you want to risk the “let rip” alternative?

Current plan looks like about 140,000 deaths even with an optimally timed lockdown, with a premature circuit breaker that's more like 170,000.

With sufficient shielding for over 50s and vulnerable groups you might get away with perhaps 25,000 or so, most of those being due to shielding not working.

Who's taking risks?
 
Lockdowns are as we use the term are pretty useless unless all passengers arriving at UK airports, the Eurostar terminal and ferry ports are put into isolation, it was widely reported a few months back that those arriving from suspect areas abroad did not go into isolation and took a chance on not being found out and carried on as normal.
Our previous lockdown was a half hearted effort and the present situation with some areas doing one thing and other areas doing something totally different and with people travelling through and in and out of areas is akin to taking an asprin for killing off a tumour, come Christmas the NHS could be in serious trouble.
 
Yep. But unless you want to take the risk of the “let rip” alternative I can’t see there’s an option.

Do you want to risk the “let rip” alternative?
Nope. But I agree with regional lockdown measures that harm the economy less and focus on the highest risk areas.
 
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 ?
Has Boris apologised for the people he killed by delaying the lockdown first time around?
 
Has Boris apologised for the people he killed by delaying the lockdown first time around?

Yet high profile Labour MP and Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham is ready to legally challenge any 3 tier restrictions the government may place on Greater Manchester.

Will your political tunnel vision be swarming social media with how he may be responsible for the deaths of many a northerner 🤔
 
But what do you think of Andy Burnham preparing a legal challenge to thwart restrictions in Greater Manchester?
I think you’ll find AB’s issue is that Dominic Cummings is withholding data justifying the Manchester lockdown.

But that aside, he wants proper financial support for businesses the government wants to close.

I’d hope everyone would agree the North should be treated fairly so far as the dosh is concerned.
 
I think you’ll find AB’s issue is that Dominic Cummings is withholding data justifying the Manchester lockdown.

But that aside, he wants proper financial support for businesses the government wants to close.

I’d hope everyone would agree the North should be treated fairly so far as the dosh is concerned.
Yes but we all want these things.
It doesn’t mean that Cats politically driven accusations of ‘ death on your hands’ applies to one politician not locking down but not to another who doesn’t want to lockdown just because one you ‘don’t like .’
No offence Mex but the question was directed at Cat in this instance. He seems to have disappeared again without a coherent and unbiased reply after spouting his one sided propaganda.
 
Yes but we all want these things.
It doesn’t mean that Cats politically driven accusations of ‘ death on your hands’ applies to one politician not locking down but not to another who doesn’t want to lockdown just because one you ‘don’t like .’
No offence Mex but the question was directed at Cat in this instance. He seems to have disappeared again without a coherent and unbiased reply after spouting his one sided propaganda.
Understood. But by attacking Cat you also questioned Andy Burnham and his approach.

And I was making the point that might not be fair. And that Burnham might be justified in his legal action.
 
Understood. But by attacking Cat you also questioned Andy Burnham and his approach.

And I was making the point that might not be fair. And that Burnham might be justified in his legal action.
I didn’t attack Cat, I questioned him on his accusations aimed at BJ and he still hasn’t responded.
 
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.
I think you're forgetting that...
- Plenty of over 50s are fitter and healthier than most of those younger than them
- Most of the top jobs in Britain are held by the over 50s in every walk of life (and no, a younger person can't just step into the breach to run the NHS, the police, ICI etc. etc. Experience is a long word for a reason)

Why should any age group be "locked down"? Why can't every adult analyse the situation and make their own decisions (and accept the risks associated with their choice)? Many of my customers are very old/in poor health and say they want to live what remains of their life.
"Coronavirus...well, I'm going to die of something soon!" They are irritated by younger people trying to "protect" them.
 
I take it no one here owns a business? It’s easy enough to say lockdown for 2 - 4 weeks etc without taking into account the long term economic damage. Rents, bills and wages still have to be paid and a lot of businesses are teetering on the edge. It’s easy for starmer when he’s not accountable for how to pay for it all. Herd immunity and adapting to this new normal are the only way forward. There is no magic vaccine waiting in the wings
 
Whataboutery at its finest.
Ignore the facts that Boris Johnson's delays, his desire to watch a rugby international, to let his partner have a baby shower, his friend and privateer to have her Cheltenham festival, for hundreds of Spaniards to fly into Liverpool when Madrid was already rife with the disease, his governments failure to provide adequate PPE to health workers leading to dozens of deaths, government policy to send covid sufferers into care homes effectively spreading the disease and killing residents, the scrapping of the public health testing system just so he could set up a privatised version which has proved to be an unmitigated disaster, his continual lies to parliament, the contracts awarded without tender to Tory donors, the theft of public money from deprived towns and cities to bribe constituencies such as Newark which happens to have a Tory minister as MP, his cowardice in not sacking his chief advisor for breaking the lockdown, his take it on the chin comment about people dying, his incompetence to manage any aspect of the crisis successfully, his lies and cowardice over meeting the families of people who have died of Covid 19, his attempts to blame everybody but his own ineptitude, his arrogance in his failure to bother talking to local government, the other devolved governments in the uk before imposing restrictions or to follow scientific advice.
But no. In your eyes Andy Burnham is to blame for not accepting measures which fail to adequately support the businesses, employees and self employed of his city. All future deaths are on him apparently.
 
I think you're forgetting that...
- Plenty of over 50s are fitter and healthier than most of those younger than them
- Most of the top jobs in Britain are held by the over 50s in every walk of life (and no, a younger person can't just step into the breach to run the NHS, the police, ICI etc. etc. Experience is a long word for a reason)

Why should any age group be "locked down"? Why can't every adult analyse the situation and make their own decisions (and accept the risks associated with their choice)? Many of my customers are very old/in poor health and say they want to live what remains of their life.
"Coronavirus...well, I'm going to die of something soon!" They are irritated by younger people trying to "protect" them.
In reality the vast majority of over-50’s are certainly not fitter than most of those younger than them...Even the ones that are physically fitter than the odd younger person, their immune systems have still likely deteriorated with age in any case... (we’ve heard examples of 60 year old marathon runners struggling, when 30 year old layabouts don’t etc..)

The statistic absolutely bear out the age related approach suggested by Lost Seasider.

The reason you wouldn’t simply leave it to the adult to make the choice is because, unfortunately, it is not just themselves they are placing at risk.... By allowing the older generation the choice, you risk placing too much stress on the NHS, which has knock on effects.
 
I think you're forgetting that...
- Plenty of over 50s are fitter and healthier than most of those younger than them
- Most of the top jobs in Britain are held by the over 50s in every walk of life (and no, a younger person can't just step into the breach to run the NHS, the police, ICI etc. etc. Experience is a long word for a reason)

What I'm saying is that we can work out the numbers who are likely to die under the various approaches.
  • With a lockdown at 50 the death toll is roughly 7,500 or 25,000 if we allow for some cross-over into older age groups;
  • with a lockdown at 60 the death toll is likely between 25,000 - 40,000 (again depending upon how effective the lockdown is);
  • with a lockdown at 70 the death toll is likely between 75,000 - 85,000;
with no lockdown whatsoever (or circuit breakers) the death toll is probably somewhere around 150,000.

I'm not saying that lockdown at 50, or 60 is a perfect approach, but ultimately we're talking about what is the best approach, how to minimise lives lost and the impact on the economy, and if we could effectively lock down the over 50s and let the virus burn itself out among the least vulnerable population we might get through this in 4 - 6 weeks, maybe the start of December if we went now (although I think we'd need two or 3 weeks lead time to allow people to prepare).
 
What I'm saying is that we can work out the numbers who are likely to die under the various approaches.
  • With a lockdown at 50 the death toll is roughly 7,500 or 25,000 if we allow for some cross-over into older age groups;
  • with a lockdown at 60 the death toll is likely between 25,000 - 40,000 (again depending upon how effective the lockdown is);
  • with a lockdown at 70 the death toll is likely between 75,000 - 85,000;
with no lockdown whatsoever (or circuit breakers) the death toll is probably somewhere around 150,000.

I'm not saying that lockdown at 50, or 60 is a perfect approach, but ultimately we're talking about what is the best approach, how to minimise lives lost and the impact on the economy, and if we could effectively lock down the over 50s and let the virus burn itself out among the least vulnerable population we might get through this in 4 - 6 weeks, maybe the start of December if we went now (although I think we'd need two or 3 weeks lead time to allow people to prepare).
You’ve still not answered my previous post about mixed age group families living together. You can’t and your weird obsession with theoretical models can’t save you.
 
You’ve still not answered my previous post about mixed age group families living together. You can’t and your weird obsession with theoretical models can’t save you.

Well I have already answered it, you said that there were too many households in that category for it to work, I don't see why that prevents effective measures being put into place in what is let's remember an emergency situation and you then stormed off in a huff.

My initial answer for reference:

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.

Now my question for you: how many people do you want to die?
 
This is an emergency, make it work.

Now answer my question, how many do you want to die?
I want nobody to die needlessly, obviously.

I can count 6 households in my near neighbourhood similar to my example. They simply can’t make your bizarre plan work.
 
You're not answering the question, people are going to die, do you want it to be 25,000 or 150,000?



So what's the alternative?
I answered the question you asked, you’ve now put numbers on it that you’ve invented, again?

If you remember I originally asked you what was the alternative and throughout you have been unable to answer.

I don’t know why I’ve dragged myself into another debate with somebody with a single fixed agenda who cannot see beyond it.

I’m done you carry on with your theories and graphs.
 
I can just imagine the cabinet discussing potential measures to try and curtail the virus.

BJ - I’m planning to introduce a nationwide Lockdown to slow the virus.

Rishi Sunak - Sorry PM, but that won’t be possible.

BJ - Why not Rish?

RS - Well Sir, Mr Jones at number 43 Marton Drive Blackpool won’t be able to manage without his daily trip to the Post Office.

BJ - OK well we can keep the Post Office open then.

RS - Nope, that won’t work sir, I’m afraid.

BJ - Why not?

RS - Well it’s Amanda in St Ives you see...

BJ - Amanda?

RS - Yes, Amanda, she works at the Post Office and she’s got COPD... She was hoping you would be closing the Post Office so she can claim her furlough payments.

BJ - OK / OK... Let’s just pay Amanda her Furlough anyway... That should sort it👍

RS - Sorry, can’t do that ... Dave from Wycombe says it’s not fair......

🤪
 
I answered the question you asked, you’ve now put numbers on it that you’ve invented, again?

No you didn't, you refused to answer and just said "I don't want anyone to die".

And calculations (which I've shown BTW) are not the same thing as inventions.


If you remember I originally asked you what was the alternative and throughout you have been unable to answer.

No you didn't; the order of posting was:
  1. I raised the idea of a 4 week lockdown for over 50's;
  2. you asked what happens with your example household;
  3. I gave some options, there may be others;
  4. you said it wouldn't work;
  5. I asked why?
  6. You said it wouldn't work;
  7. I said it was an emergency and we'd have to find ways to make it work;
  8. you said it wouldn't work;
  9. I asked what the alternative was;
  10. you didn't answer that question either and came out with your post above.

I don’t know why I’ve dragged myself into another debate with somebody with a single fixed agenda who cannot see beyond it.

I’m done you carry on with your theories and graphs.

It seems that your the one with a fixed agenda, unwilling to explore options, and unable to engage with fairly simple mathematics and concepts, perhaps it is for the best if you exclude yourself from the debate.
 
No you didn't, you refused to answer and just said "I don't want anyone to die".

And calculations (which I've shown BTW) are not the same thing as inventions.




No you didn't; the order of posting was:
  1. I raised the idea of a 4 week lockdown for over 50's;
  2. you asked what happens with your example household;
  3. I gave some options, there may be others;
  4. you said it wouldn't work;
  5. I asked why?
  6. You said it wouldn't work;
  7. I said it was an emergency and we'd have to find ways to make it work;
  8. you said it wouldn't work;
  9. I asked what the alternative was;
  10. you didn't answer that question either and came out with your post above.



It seems that your the one with a fixed agenda, unwilling to explore options, and unable to engage with fairly simple mathematics and concepts, perhaps it is for the best if you exclude yourself from the debate.
View attachment 3199
 
Last edited:
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.
To be fair the SAGE minutes have only just come to light after 3 weeks!!
 
Back
Top