Circuit breaker

[sydney]

So rinse repeat ‘circuit breaker’ lockdowns then, what happens when they release restrictions?

Remember what happened the last time we had a ‘3 week lockdown’ It’s time to say no. Pretty much everyone else in Europe is doing everything they can to avoid any lockdown, yet some people in high places in this country appear to be desperate for one? Why?

<Probably a thread for the COVID section BTW>

because they are inept , clueless ***** .....thats why.

 

[sydney]

When someone puts in a post, any of the following..

I’m not a racist, but...
I don’t want to be rude, but...
I’m not trying to be funny, but...

I just know the poster is all of those things, so saying “I don’t mean to be callous, but...” doesn’t detract from the fact your comment is just that, callous. Clearly you attempted to win some points back by talking about protecting the vulnerable, but the damage has been done and your true colours shown!

callous , realistic take your pick.

 

[Reddleman]

because they are inept , clueless ***** .....thats why.

And also because it’s easy to call for a full lockdown, I.e. SAGE, Sir Kier Starmer, when you don’t have to be the ones responsible for then dealing with the economic and societal issues resulting from a further lockdown.

 

[darkwolf666]

The thing I although I am sorry it comes across as callous it’s also a realistic opinion based on what I can see. I do prioritise the education and wellbeing of the young over the lives of the very elderly who there is limited evidence are dying from rather than with Covid and who in the main can be isolated. Current excess deaths in this country in 2020 is less than 0.01% of the total population, during a global pandemic and from those excess deaths the absolutely overwhelming majority are the very elderly. So I maintain a total lockdown is totally unjustified.

By the way your willingness to cause such pain and suffering to the younger generation both now and in the long term while they absorb the burden of unemployment and paying for never ending lockdowns is far more callous than anything I am saying. At least I am honest enough to admit it.

WTF - where did I suggest that?

 

[sydney]

And also because it’s easy to call for a full lockdown, I.e. SAGE, Sir Kier Starmer, when you don’t have to be the ones responsible for then dealing with the economic and societal issues resulting from a further lockdown.

so you can add corrupt , derelict and politically driven then ........it's a ****ing monumental mess alright.

 

[Reddleman]

WTF - where did I suggest that?

Apologies I just checked and you weren’t the poster advocating the closure of schools and numerous further lockdowns which is what that point was based on.

Sorry!

 

[darkwolf666]

Apologies I just checked and you weren’t the poster advocating the closure of schools and numerous further lockdowns which is what that point was based on.

Sorry!

That's the way things should be done, apology willingly accepted.

 

[BLOCK F]

From those advocating a lockdown I still haven't seen a proposal for how both the government and working young families are supposed to pay for it?

Whilst I don't believe anyone wants to be selfish, there is an obvious split here between the older population worried for their health from the immediate threat of the virus and the younger population worried about the secondary effects of it. Both are valid arguments and whilst no one has an obvious clear strategy yet, I just can't see that another total lockdown is the answer. Slightly tighter general restrictions on socialising and local lockdowns where necessary seems to me the most practical solution of them all.

I am 72 and certainly wouldn't advocate a lockdown.
May be there is a split along the lines of those who, for whatever reason/reasons, have a secure income regardless, and those who have not.
At this time, I really do not think there is a justification for a total lockdown, without trying a less drastic approach first, and I was genuinely surprised by Keir Starmer's announcement. I'm not sure how well it would have gone down with many of his potential supporters in the country. Perhaps he was trying to be 'Statesmanlike' and rise above politics, but I'm not convinced. Anyway, he has the comfort of not having to make these tough decisions.

 

[Machiavelli]

Have you seen the average age of those dying? It’s 82. So while tragic for them and their families it does not strike me that we should lockdown the whole country as a result.

You're changing the subject. You claimed that the data didn't support a circuit breaker. This is something that I and other posters picked up on. I provided you the opportunity to consider three data points. If you wanted to, you could even compare them with points in the past such as, for instance, the days leading up to the last lockdown (which, incidentally, is different from a circuit breaker).
So, unless you can provide any evidence for your claim that the data doesn't support a circuit breaker, I (and I suspect others) are going to proceed on the basis that the data does support it, which is what SAGE is indicating.
And here's a little help for you: don't make confident statements that you can't back up. It'd be perfectly fine if you just offered a different reason for it, such as it's an affront on my civil liberties but you said something else.

 

[Machiavelli]

From those advocating a lockdown I still haven't seen a proposal for how both the government and working young families are supposed to pay for it?

Whilst I don't believe anyone wants to be selfish, there is an obvious split here between the older population worried for their health from the immediate threat of the virus and the younger population worried about the secondary effects of it. Both are valid arguments and whilst no one has an obvious clear strategy yet, I just can't see that another total lockdown is the answer. Slightly tighter general restrictions on socialising and local lockdowns where necessary seems to me the most practical solution of them all.

I'm advocating a circuit breaker -- which is the title of this thread, and somewhat different from a lockdown, and is also what SAGE is recommending. And there's a really easy answer to the question you pose: exactly the same mechanism that paid for the lockdown, ie increase government debt.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I'm advocating a circuit breaker -- which is the title of this thread, and somewhat different from a lockdown, and is also what SAGE is recommending. And there's a really easy answer to the question you pose: exactly the same mechanism that paid for the lockdown, ie increase government debt.

What’s the difference between a circuit breaker and a full lockdown minus the closing of schools - which will be in Half term any way?

It’s a lockdown with a different name

 

[Bozza]

What’s the difference between a circuit breaker and a full lockdown minus the closing of schools - which will be in Half term any way?

It’s a lockdown with a different name

Well it depends on the terms of the circuit breaker but if you run down the list of Northern Ireland's new measures, there is a lot people can still do that we couldn't under lockdown.

In short: no, any "circuit breaker" is likely to be nowhere near as stringent as the "lockdown" in England earlier this year.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Well it depends on the terms of the circuit breaker but if you run down the list of Northern Ireland's new measures, there is a lot people can still do that we couldn't under lockdown.

In short: no, any "circuit breaker" is likely to be nowhere near as stringent as the "lockdown" in England earlier this year.

Labour on the back of Sage advice are pushing for everything to be shut again minus key areas.

Where do you go from tier 3?

 

[Bozza]

Labour on the back of Sage advice are pushing for everything to be shut again minus key areas.

Where do you go from tier 3?

I'd have to see the terms of any proposed circuit breaker for England but, as I said, there is a massive list of things those in Northern Ireland can still do under their CB that we couldn't under lockdown, which was your original question.

 

[BLOCK F]

A touch of hair splitting going on methinks.
Reading the headlines in my copy of the Times today, it says, 'Pressure grows on PM for half-term lockdown.'
It then goes on to talk about full lockdown and a limited lockdown.
Anyway, I am sure we all get the gist.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I'd have to see the terms of any proposed circuit breaker for England but, as I said, there is a massive list of things those in Northern Ireland can still do under their CB that we couldn't under lockdown, which was your original question.

The original poster was pushing for a sage backed circuit breaker and I assume the sage recommendations from what he said.

 

[beorhthelm]

In short: no, any "circuit breaker" is likely to be nowhere near as stringent as the "lockdown" in England earlier this year.

which would beg the question, whats the point?

great, what we have a soundbite that means anything anyone wants.

 

[e77]

survival rate 98% + , average age of deaths is the elderly , how can you have a lockdown across the whole country based on cases.

If a million people catch it that is still 20,000 deaths.

 

[Reddleman]

You're changing the subject. You claimed that the data didn't support a circuit breaker. This is something that I and other posters picked up on. I provided you the opportunity to consider three data points. If you wanted to, you could even compare them with points in the past such as, for instance, the days leading up to the last lockdown (which, incidentally, is different from a circuit breaker).
So, unless you can provide any evidence for your claim that the data doesn't support a circuit breaker, I (and I suspect others) are going to proceed on the basis that the data does support it, which is what SAGE is indicating.
And here's a little help for you: don't make confident statements that you can't back up. It'd be perfectly fine if you just offered a different reason for it, such as it's an affront on my civil liberties but you said something else.

Who are you to dictate the data points I should use which by the way don’t support your argument. Given we didn’t have mass testing back in March/April we have no comparison for how the current rate compares to then. The data point I chose to you use is the average age of death and that supports my view that a circuit breaker/lockdown that impacts everyone isn’t proportionate.

And here’s a lite pointer to you. If you are going to be so patronising I strongly urge you to recommend data points that can support your answer. Makes you look pretty silly.

P.s. The SAGE modelling predicted a circuit breaker could save between 3000 and 107000 thousand lives. In the real world if your ‘model’ has a range that wide most people would laugh you out the room. So excuse me if I have my doubts about its validity. If you think that range is acceptable to dictate policy fine, but I’m pleased the government is applying some common sense.

 

[Machiavelli]

What’s the difference between a circuit breaker and a full lockdown minus the closing of schools - which will be in Half term any way?

It’s a lockdown with a different name

Well, I disagree. And I wouldn't be advocating another lockdown, because we know a lot more about how the virus operates now and, in retrospect, even the earlier lockdown went too far.
A circuit breaker is, as its name implies, a punctual attempt to limit the spread of the virus. All it will achieve is a reduction in the R-number. In short, its for a brief and delimited period of time. It'd be even better if it falls over half-term, in fact it should take place over half-term in my view. Once we've got beyond that, then we'll need to continue with the current local/regional/Tiered strategy that the government has introduced.
What we need to do is to buy time. Have a look at [MENTION=12101]Mellotron[/MENTION]'s helpful contributions on vaccines -- there are several, and they're not too far away -- and that's by no means the only positive aspect on CV19 (treatment has improved greatly too, for instance).
Of course, circuit breakers are not enough. We need a vastly improved test and trace system, which is the kind of thing South Korea has had in place since about February. Our government has known about this since January, but they've failed us miserably on that front.