Full national lockdown (not education) 4/11 - 1/12 possible

[Guinness Boy]

Those kindly Welsh folk seem better at following simple guidelines and adding a little common sense.

Our folks like to continue to party(in fancy dress sometimes), sod the rest and look for loopholes.

Hope that helps.

You know what, I'm with HWT. I genuinely can't work out if you're aiming for the acceptable face of the right hand side of the Bear Pit or if you're just taking the piss.

 

[Driver8]

Those kindly Welsh folk seem better at following simple guidelines and adding a little common sense.

Our folks like to continue to party(in fancy dress sometimes), sod the rest and look for loopholes.

Hope that helps.

If people could follow simple guidelines we wouldn’t need a second lockdown as people wouldn’t be putting themselves on situations where they could catch COVID-19.

Personally lockdown in Wales has had little effect on me as I haven’t been anywhere near a pub, restaurant or shopping centre since March. I don’t really understand why anyone would put themselves or their family at risk for the sake of a meal, pint or some new clothes.

 

[Bozza]

There is no simple answer here obviously but the average age of death in England is 82 and over 80% in critical care are overweight or obese. For me we need to wrap up in cotton wool the most vulnerable and let the rest get back to something closer to normality.

**** it, I will copy and paste my post on this from another thread. If you don't want to read the below, just read this: that simply won't work - it's simply impractical and unworkable...

1. The vulnerable number 12-15m. Even if essentially imprisoning this number of people was morally acceptable - and it's not - that would be close to a quarter of the population removed from most economic activity. The economy certainly wouldn't "go on as normal" with that massive contraction in demand.

2. The vulnerable can't be isolated. Many of them live with others who come under your "getting back to normality" part of the plan. Your plan would have the virus running rampant and would be taken home to many of these vulnerable people.

3. Tens of millions of low-risk people being exposed to the rampant virus which will happen with "getting back to normality" will equate to a substantial number of sick people requiring hospitalisation and also significant death. Not everyone who is low risk has a good outcome and when you multiple those percentages up across such a large number of people, you get a lot of bad outcomes. For those that don't die, "long Covid" may bring long-term health issues that creates a big drag on the NHS.

4. Hospitals will be over-run dealing with all the low-risk people getting sick and the vulnerable who have the virus brought home to them. Nearly all the other care the NHS needs to give won't happen, causing significant harm to those with other illnesses.

 

[LlcoolJ]

I'm struggling to think of any members of the Cabinet other than Sunak, who have not yet been thrown under the bus in the last year. They have all either lied to support each other ( Gove " I have driven as a way of testing my eyesight too...") or protect themselves ( Jenrick " I don't recall sitting next to a property developer then letting him off a £40m tax bill a few days later. ") ( Hancock, too many lies and deciets to mention)...... and sadly, they will ride this out as well.

Yes. It's the Mekon moving chess pieces about for his own sick amusement. They're clearly all terrified of him.

But some people still believe that Johnson is actually in charge (of anything). What a hoot.

 

[ken tiler]

The imperial college Sage modelling is highly dubious. Maybe the government should seek advice from a wider range of experts - eg professors Carl Henighan and Sunetra Gupta of the University of Oxford for example.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Lockdowns don't actually solve anything. They are merely intended to buy some time.

If they can't stop the spread, what is the next alternative? And if they wreck a significant part of the economy, what happens then? How do those with no job and no livelihood, and little prospect of any improvement rebuild their lives.

It isn't about following the science, because the science isn't certain and a lot remains open to debate and different interpretations. Science is not a simple issue of black or white, right or wrong, truth or untruth. It remains all about opinions.

It is about finding a path between reducing the spread without destroying society. If the cure becomes worse than the disease, and the cure doesn't even work very well, what then?

I don't think anyone in power has the faintest idea what to do. Instead they are desperately grasping at straws and hoping something will turn up.

Which it hasn't.

 

[Beach Hut]

The imperial college Sage modelling is highly dubious. Maybe the government should seek advice from a wider range of experts - eg professors Carl Henighan and Sunetra Gupta of the University of Oxford for example.

Never knew NSC had an expert on pandemic modelling but this is a first

 

[clapham_gull]

The "just protect the vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it" has very quickly become a tired old cliche.

It simply isn't practical especially in areas of the country where three generations living in the same house is very common.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

 

[Hampster Gull]

I believe that if you add in the proviso 'without overwhelming the NHS' that is what we are trying to do.

There has always been different advice for the vulnerable

Sure, there is different guidance for those clinically extremely vulnerable. I don’t believe it’s compulsory. As you say, it’s advice. If we were to be more restrictive then the support for that section of our society would need to be massively stepped up

 

[Gabbafella]

My place of work didn't have to close last time as we somehow managed to blag that we are key workers. I work for a motorcycle parts company and because we have some NHS customers who use their bikes to commute, we managed to stay open. I wonder if that would still be the case this time round?

 

[ac gull]

Quite how anyone ever thought we would get through a whole winter without any period of a few weeks when all bars and restaurants have to shut am not sure

Living in a ( as of today ) tier two area and a lot of places we shop at still being in tier 1 ( we are about two miles from county border ) the regional approach is rather confusing re what you can and cannot do

Though given all going on the number of folk who just ignore the advice never ceases to amaze - Nottingham students seem to live in their own "bubble" and were still going out in large groups up to this week - whilst also no shortage of under 30's and over 60's out shopping locally seemingly with the view "masks are not for me mate"

 

[WATFORD zero]

Sure, there is different guidance for those clinically extremely vulnerable. I don’t believe it’s compulsory. As you say, it’s advice. If we were to be more restrictive then the support for that section of our society would need to be massively stepped up

The post I replied to was where you said

There is no simple answer here obviously but the average age of death in England is 82 and over 80% in critical care are overweight or obese. For me we need to wrap up in cotton wool the most vulnerable and let the rest get back to something closer to normality.

about getting back to something closer to normality. If you are now saying that compulsory measures should be bought in for the most vulnerable, then I'm out and I'll simply refer you to [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION]'s more detailed explanation on the previous page

 

[Hampster Gull]

**** it, I will copy and paste my post on this from another thread. If you don't want to read the below, just read this: that simply won't work - it's simply impractical and unworkable...

1. The vulnerable number 12-15m. Even if essentially imprisoning this number of people was morally acceptable - and it's not - that would be close to a quarter of the population removed from most economic activity. The economy certainly wouldn't "go on as normal" with that massive contraction in demand.

2. The vulnerable can't be isolated. Many of them live with others who come under your "getting back to normality" part of the plan. Your plan would have the virus running rampant and would be taken home to many of these vulnerable people.

3. Tens of millions of low-risk people being exposed to the rampant virus which will happen with "getting back to normality" will equate to a substantial number of sick people requiring hospitalisation and also significant death. Not everyone who is low risk has a good outcome and when you multiple those percentages up across such a large number of people, you get a lot of bad outcomes. For those that don't die, "long Covid" may bring long-term health issues that creates a big drag on the NHS.

4. Hospitals will be over-run dealing with all the low-risk people getting sick and the vulnerable who have the virus brought home to them. Nearly all the other care the NHS needs to give won't happen, causing significant harm to those with other illnesses.

You keep repeating “getting back to normality”, I didn’t say that but whatever.

You use the word vulnerable, that is undefined and can be used to make the sweeping statements. Genuine question, and it may be 12m to 15m, but what is the population of the clinically extremely vulnerable category that the NHS refer to?

What’s your proposal?

 

[Hampster Gull]

The post I replied to was where you said.



about getting back to something near normality. If you are now saying that compulsory measures should be bought in for the most vulnerable, then I'm out and I'll simply refer you to [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION]'s more detailed explanation on the previous page

Sure, happy for you to be out

 

[Cheshire Cat]

I live in a tier 2 county at the moment, only a mile from the border of several tier 1 local authorities and less than 15 miles from North Wales border.

It feels like the waggon train, surrounded by hostile Indians, and no cavalry in sight.

Nowhere to run, and nowhere to run to.

 

[Bozza]

You keep repeating “getting back to normality”, I didn’t say that but whatever.

You use the word vulnerable, that is undefined and can be used to make the sweeping statements. Genuine question, and it may be 12m to 15m, but what is the population of the clinically extremely vulnerable category that the NHS refer to?

What’s your proposal?

Well, you did say "let the rest get back to something closer to normality". I'll concede you were light on detail as to what that actually meant.

It looks like you have access to the same internet I do. There's a wealth of information out there - I'll let you take a look (and I want to get out for a run before the storm arrives).

I don't know what the answer is. Two months ago I'd have said something like:

"We need to find the range of measures that permit as much social, economic and educational activity to continue whilst keeping control of the viral spread, allowing the NHS to treat those who get sick with Covid-19 whilst also giving timely care to those with all other ailments.

These measures need consistent and clear messaging in order to get widespread buy-in. Test, track and trace needs to be highly effective and all individual and businesses that are impacted need support to enable them to come out the other side."​

It seems that ship has sailed now though, unfortunately.

There's no good road out of where we are. There's going to be pain in terms of Covid health, all other health both short-term and long-term as well as severe economic impacts. The job is to try and minimise those and find the least worse route out of this. There will be casualties - that simply can't be avoided - and we need to do everything we can to help those affected adversely.

 

[The Wizard]

If you’re going to lock everyone up and make the vulnerable stay home again anyway, why treat those who have a 0.01% chance of dying with the virus the same as people who have a 5% fatality rate? If we lock down, those vulnerable people will in all likelihood have to do some degree of shielding again anyway?

If you have a underlying condition that makes you high risk - try to stay home as much as possible. Full financial support.
If you have a household with a member with a high risk condition - isolate and stay home, fully financially supported.

The unbelievably dumb thing is that people will genuinely think they will release restrictions after 3 weeks, it simply will not happen and don’t let that date of ‘1st December’ be a dangled carrot again, they did this the first time round.

 

[Wardy's twin]

Perhaps it’s because there seems to be a lot of people making instant judgemental remarks..not exclusive to NSC...the times we live in.

I trust your wife is now well

Thank you for asking.

I guess she has what is being called Long Covid. She has been left breathless and not being able to walk up inclines, stairs etc, very tired and lethargic and has some nerve damage which means her left thumb is always painful and has problems with her left arm. She also developed more blood clots. The irony is that she caught COVID when she was an outpatient following her treatment for Lymphoma ( a blood cancer).

Last year she was diagnosed with Lymphoma, had two different types of chemo that did not work, 15 days of radiotherapy over last Christmas (at least she had the two days off) followed by a brand new treatment, she was first NHS patient in South East to have it. Process is called CAR-T where her blood T-cells are extracted then sent to the US for modification and then put back in. This was combined with another round of very high dosage chemo to lower her immune system. The cells are put back in and resulted in her body fighting them which resulted in her first visit to ICU. The lymphoma treatment has worked as the lumps have disappeared and scans are clear.

With the COVID she was in initially for 4 weeks including ICU , then another 2 weeks , then home then another 4 weeks. Most of the COVID treatment was done at the Royal Marsden and its clear to me that the cancer doctor's intervention was vital. They advised use of the steroid that later became well publicised.

 

[Weststander]

True, if you ignore all the people who have died and occupied hospital beds you definitely have a point.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Well, you did say "let the rest get back to something closer to normality". I'll concede you were light on detail as to what that actually meant.

It looks like you have access to the same internet I do. There's a wealth of information out there - I'll let you take a look (and I want to get out for a run before the storm arrives).

I don't know what the answer is. Two months ago I'd have said something like:

"We need to find the range of measures that permit as much social, economic and educational activity to continue whilst keeping control of the viral spread, allowing the NHS to treat those who get sick with Covid-19 whilst also giving timely care to those with all other ailments.

These measures need consistent and clear messaging in order to get widespread buy-in. Test, track and trace needs to be highly effective and all individual and businesses that are impacted need support to enable them to come out the other side."​

It seems that ship has sailed now though, unfortunately.

There's no good road out of where we are. There's going to be pain in terms of Covid health, all other health both short-term and long-term as well as severe economic impacts. The job is to try and minimise those and find the least worse route out of this. There will be casualties - that simply can't be avoided - and we need to do everything we can to help those affected adversely.

Agree there is no good way out and we need to find the least worst route out. By the nature and scale of the problem people will have different experiences, expectations and views on an exit. I’m not saying my opinion of a potential different path is right but I would like to see all main options debated more, with more transparency on data and how decisions are come to. Its how trust is built between the government and the people and but it’s woeful in England.

Done a quick search on the internet thingy. From the Office of National Statistics there are 2.2m in the clinically extremely vulnerable who get additional guidance. Interestingly during June only 58% of this population were fully complying with the guidance that is there to try and protect them. These are the people by far the most likely to die. I suspect we need to do much more to help them