Main Coronavirus / Covid-19 Discussion Thread

[beorhthelm]

As in Ireland - the Tories want to keep the schools open at all costs - because creches/ nursery care is a shambles and they are effectively using the schools as babysitters to keep profits flowing. If you seriously want to curb the pandemic then you need to shut schools..

what on earth have nurseries got to do with schools? absolutly right though, we want schools to stay open so working families can work. even more so when they're working from home, having a couple of primary aged kids or younger around isnt condusive to work.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

what on earth have nurseries got to do with schools? absolutly right though, we want schools to stay open so working families can work. even more so when they're working from home, having a couple of primary aged kids or younger around isnt condusive to work.

So you believe it is more important to keep profits flowing than to prevent the spread of a deadly virus that is out of control and rampaging through the country

Yesterday the UK had more than 53,000 new cases (likely an underestimate) and 613 recorded deaths from covid 19
To date the UK has over 2.5m cases and almost 75.000 deaths

Yesterday New Zealand had zero new cases and zero deaths.
To date New Zealand has 2,162 cases and 25 deaths from covid 19

The virus isn't any different in each country - the response of the government is - and you can clearly see which one f*cked it up spectacularly - and at the expense of tens of thousands of grieving families and hundreds of thousands of people who will suffer long-term health issues because of infection.

 

[beorhthelm]

So you believe it is more important to keep profits flowing than to prevent the spread of a deadly virus that is out of control and rampaging through the country

you call it profit, i call it income. millions of people's income. its a balance that few are getting perfect, western democracies walking a line between keeping economy working and keeping infection spread low.

 

[crodonilson]

Teaching unions telling their members not to return to school on Monday under the current provisions. Needs to return to just key workers and vulnerable children. Quite rightly, IMO.

Absolutely, the message, and quite honestly the law should now be unless absolutely necessary you should not leave your homes. I applaud the efforts to keep schools open but we now need to return to and redouble the discipline of the March lockdown for the next 3 to 4 months.

 

[crodonilson]

you call it profit, i call it income. millions of people's income. its a balance that few are getting perfect, western democracies walking a line between keeping economy working and keeping infection spread low.

I'm sorry but for the next 3-6 months we need to forget about income, it's all about staying at home unless it is absolutely necessary and protecting our NHS.

 

[beorhthelm]

I'm sorry but for the next 3-6 months we need to forget about income, it's all about staying at home unless it is absolutely necessary and protecting our NHS.

so who pays for the NHS? more immediately, who provides supplies to them, or for NHS workers, who looks after their kids? who fixes their car or cooker? so we have a string of exceptions to support the 1m NHS staff? no, your view is just pandering to catastrophism, if people simply follow the guidance properly most can go about our restricted business.

 

[Gazwag]

So you believe it is more important to keep profits flowing than to prevent the spread of a deadly virus that is out of control and rampaging through the country

Yesterday the UK had more than 53,000 new cases (likely an underestimate) and 613 recorded deaths from covid 19
To date the UK has over 2.5m cases and almost 75.000 deaths

Yesterday New Zealand had zero new cases and zero deaths.
To date New Zealand has 2,162 cases and 25 deaths from covid 19

The virus isn't any different in each country - the response of the government is - and you can clearly see which one f*cked it up spectacularly - and at the expense of tens of thousands of grieving families and hundreds of thousands of people who will suffer long-term health issues because of infection.

It not just the government though its also the British public. This country is full of arrogant selfish twats who will do what they want with no regard for others. Keep kids off school they will just roam around towns, at least in schools they can be controlled. Keep people out of work they will meet up in friends houses as its too cold now to have fun on the beach while getting paid.

 

[crodonilson]

so who pays for the NHS? more immediately, who provides supplies to them, or for NHS workers, who looks after their kids? who fixes their car or cooker? so we have a string of exceptions to support the 1m NHS staff? no, your view is just pandering to catastrophism, if people simply follow the guidance properly most can go about our restricted business.

The r rate of this new strain is as much as 0.7 higher than the old one (s). So we would need to do the equivalent of getting the old R down to 0.3 just to maintain the level of cases (which we didn't get close to in the March lockdown). We need urgent measures, aassive national stay at home order. Only the very essential should be leaving their homes. It will cost money and as soon as we get back to some sort of normal in the next 2-3 years we will need tax rises for all to start paying this debt back, but that's a long way in the future, the immediate concern is protecting the NHS and saving lives.

 

[atomised]

The r rate of this new strain is as much as 0.7 higher than the old one (s). So we would need to do the equivalent of getting the old R down to 0.3 just to maintain the level of cases (which we didn't get close to in the March lockdown). We need urgent measures, aassive national stay at home order. Only the very essential should be leaving their homes. It will cost money and as soon as we get back to some sort of normal in the next 2-3 years we will need tax rises for all to start paying this debt back, but that's a long way in the future, the immediate concern is protecting the NHS and saving lives.

Cheers for popping in Mr hancock

 

[jessiejames]

The r rate of this new strain is as much as 0.7 higher than the old one (s). So we would need to do the equivalent of getting the old R down to 0.3 just to maintain the level of cases (which we didn't get close to in the March lockdown). We need urgent measures, aassive national stay at home order. Only the very essential should be leaving their homes. It will cost money and as soon as we get back to some sort of normal in the next 2-3 years we will need tax rises for all to start paying this debt back, but that's a long way in the future, the immediate concern is protecting the NHS and saving lives.

The problem is you say only the essential should be out. My company is classed as an essential service, they are signed up to a scheme backed by the Government and NHS. We get key worker passes issued by the Government and NHS as proof. Not every company is signed up for this, so how do you decide what is an essential service? Are car mechanics essential, well no if everyone should stay indoors, but what about key workers whose car breaks down and needs that mechanic. All jobs and companies where you can't work from home can in someway say that they are
essential and need to stay open.

Better guidance is needed from the government, IMHO adding another tier is useless, we probably need a full lockdown, government to say what business can open, limit time out of your home for exercise if you have to stay in, how many in each household can go and do shopping for essential items. One of the things that got me was as soon as the law changed that face coverings had to be worn in supermarkets, there was a free for all and you could just walk straight in to a shop without having to queue. Social distancing seems to have gone out the window now.

 

[jessiejames]

We probably need to return to 2m distancing, with the subsequent effect that has on capacity in supermarkets etc. It was a huge inconvenience having to queue for 20 minutes just to get into Sainsbury’s earlier in the year, but it’s noticeable what a free for all they’ve become. We already know they are the most common public setting for transmission, so given the new variant’s propensity to spread the current environment could be disastrous.

Other than that, I can only see shutting down non-essential businesses as an option left on the table. And by non-essential, I mean it. Amazon, other than its grocery arm, isn’t essential. Nor are takeaways, or many trades etc.

Basically, you stay at home unless your job involves food / sanitary products, medicine, essential infrastructure or fixing an essential item in an emergency. That’s going to be economically painful and a pretty grim way to live our lives for a period, however we would at least go into it would some idea as to what the exit plan is and when it is coming.

I don’t even know what incremental benefit those measures would deliver versus March, but given what we now know about the new variant, the fact the NHS is seemingly close to breaking point and that we probably still haven’t seen the fallout and residual impact from Christmas it seems we’re going to end up with something resembling this model in relatively short order.

Shit times, but there is light at the end of the tunnel.

Just read your post, I agree on all you have said regarding lockdown, the queuing at supermarkets stopped as soon as the wearing of face covers came in, people became complacent.
I would argue that places like Costa and Caffe Nero should stay open for the takeaway only, I'm a lorry driver so still need my caffeine fix.

 

[atomised]

It not just the government though its also the British public. This country is full of arrogant selfish twats who will do what they want with no regard for others. Keep kids off school they will just roam around towns, at least in schools they can be controlled. Keep people out of work they will meet up in friends houses as its too cold now to have fun on the beach while getting paid.

Last time I checked, when my 5 year old and 9 year old aren't at school they weren't running rogue around town either. Very much within eye or ear shot of myself 24/7

 

[worthingseagull123]

The r rate of this new strain is as much as 0.7 higher than the old one (s). So we would need to do the equivalent of getting the old R down to 0.3 just to maintain the level of cases (which we didn't get close to in the March lockdown). We need urgent measures, aassive national stay at home order. Only the very essential should be leaving their homes. It will cost money and as soon as we get back to some sort of normal in the next 2-3 years we will need tax rises for all to start paying this debt back, but that's a long way in the future, the immediate concern is protecting the NHS and saving lives.

You are wanting a lockdown for 2-3 years?

There will not be a country left if that happens.

 

[dsr-burnley]

The r rate of this new strain is as much as 0.7 higher than the old one (s). So we would need to do the equivalent of getting the old R down to 0.3 just to maintain the level of cases (which we didn't get close to in the March lockdown). We need urgent measures, aassive national stay at home order. Only the very essential should be leaving their homes. It will cost money and as soon as we get back to some sort of normal in the next 2-3 years we will need tax rises for all to start paying this debt back, but that's a long way in the future, the immediate concern is protecting the NHS and saving lives.

If, as you imply, the vaccine is a total failure, then I doubt that lockdown for 2-3 years would make any difference. If there is no vaccine then the virus will rampage, faster or slower depending on degree of lockdown, until we have achieved herd immunity.

But on the other hand, if the vaccine does work, as it appears that it might; then by the end of January most over-80s will have been vaccinated, all being well. This means that by mid-February deaths of over-80s will be rare, and they currenty contribute more than two thirds of the death toll.

By the end of March, we should have vaccinated all the over 60s. That means that the people currently contributing 92% of the deaths will be mostly safe. In addition, the vulnerable under 60's, who contribute the majority of the remaining 8%, will also have been vaccinated. So - again depending on the vaccine working as predicted - there will be very few deaths. The vulnerable will not catch it or will get a much less dangerous does, there will be fewer people to pass it on, and those who receive a new infection will be getting lower viral loads.

That's perhaps an optimistic, but possible timeline, and it has us more or less back to normal by April. (Which is good, because I still hope to go on holiday then - if I've had my jab!)

 

[dsr-burnley]

The r rate of this new strain is as much as 0.7 higher than the old one (s). So we would need to do the equivalent of getting the old R down to 0.3 just to maintain the level of cases (which we didn't get close to in the March lockdown).

Incidentally, the 0.7 is on a geometric scale not an arithmetic scale - when they say it is 70% more transmissible, they mean that under conditions where the R number used to be 1.0 it will now be 1.7. Under conditions where the R number used to be 0.5 it will now be 0.85. Under theoretical conditions where the R number used to be zero (ie. no human interaction at all) the new R number would still be zero. By that scale, we would need to get the old R down to 0.6, near enough.

If it was valid to simply add 0.7 to the old number, then it would mean that this R number can never get below 0.7 even if every single person is in solitary confinement; because R numbers can't go below zero, so R + 0.7 couldn't go below 0.7.

 

[Rugrat]

so who pays for the NHS? more immediately, who provides supplies to them, or for NHS workers, who looks after their kids? who fixes their car or cooker? so we have a string of exceptions to support the 1m NHS staff? no, your view is just pandering to catastrophism,


if people simply follow the guidance properly most can go about our restricted business.

I don't disagree but how do you suggest it is accomplished (people following guidance)?

 

[Poojah]

If, as you imply, the vaccine is a total failure, then I doubt that lockdown for 2-3 years would make any difference. If there is no vaccine then the virus will rampage, faster or slower depending on degree of lockdown, until we have achieved herd immunity.

But on the other hand, if the vaccine does work, as it appears that it might; then by the end of January most over-80s will have been vaccinated, all being well. This means that by mid-February deaths of over-80s will be rare, and they currenty contribute more than two thirds of the death toll.

By the end of March, we should have vaccinated all the over 60s. That means that the people currently contributing 92% of the deaths will be mostly safe. In addition, the vulnerable under 60's, who contribute the majority of the remaining 8%, will also have been vaccinated. So - again depending on the vaccine working as predicted - there will be very few deaths. The vulnerable will not catch it or will get a much less dangerous does, there will be fewer people to pass it on, and those who receive a new infection will be getting lower viral loads.

That's perhaps an optimistic, but possible timeline, and it has us more or less back to normal by April. (Which is good, because I still hope to go on holiday then - if I've had my jab!)

I share your optimism that by late spring we’ll be in a much better position, thanks to the vaccination program. My concern is the carnage likely to ensue in the intervening period - the next 6 - 8 weeks are going to be absolutely grim.

The other concern I have is how do we go about ensuring the safety of the most vulnerable as they go about receiving their vaccination? People who have been shielding for almost a year now have to leave the house and stand in queues and waiting rooms etc. In theory, it shouldn’t be an issue provided social distancing etc. implemented perfectly, but will it be? Do we know that 2m is still effective in the case of the new variant?

Maybe I’m overthinking this, but to me the concept of bringing the most vulnerable out of their homes en masse at a time when the prevalence is so high and the virus so transmissible feels like a potential recipe for disaster. I don’t know what the alternative is by the way; it’s not like we can afford to delay vaccinations, I guess it’s just unfortunate that we’ve now got the new variant to contend with.

 

[worthingseagull123]

How can restrictions get tougher?

We are already banned from just about everything.

 

[RossyG]

The other concern I have is how do we go about ensuring the safety of the most vulnerable as they go about receiving their vaccination? People who have been shielding for almost a year now have to leave the house and stand in queues and waiting rooms etc.

My 84-year-old mum has got a letter from her doctor’s surgery asking for consent for the vaccine. Rather oddly they expect her to hand the form in personally rather than post it back. Naturally I shall be taking it. If this is the norm, then hopefully family members or volunteers will do this rather than the poor old people themselves.

The letter says that the surgery will have staff in full PPE gear and will be practicing social distancing. It’s Rustington so hopefully things won’t be too crowded. Not sure what’ll happen in more urban areas though.

 

[Bakero]

How can restrictions get tougher?

We are already banned from just about everything.

Close all schools and unis, mandatory mask wearing inside and out, limits on exercise, implant "intestinators" like in that film Fortress https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortress_(1992_film)