I think the army on the streets was the important bit.I said New years Eve, not xmas eve or xmas day!
I think the army on the streets was the important bit.I said New years Eve, not xmas eve or xmas day!
I’m not sure I follow the last point but if the question is why did they follow a strategy that required another lockdown, I think the simple answer is because they accepted multiple lockdowns were necessary from early strategising. That was the scientific advice in April. The advice was based on the acceptance that adherence to social distancing and hygiene would fluctuate and economic and social considerations would dictate the need to reopen aspects of society to maintain long term adherence to restrictions on civil liberties and protect some level of economic health. Eradication was impossible based on the degree of community spread and suppression was beyond the public will. This is part of mitigation.But, again, the argument that I'm making is that everything about their response and the mitigation they put in place (none), followed by national lockdown in November when cases inevitably surged suggests cases rose to numbers as a result of those sets of decisions to levels they weren't happy with. Nobody is saying that schools in isolation are responsible for it, but it played a part in that rise along with sectors they left untouched.
The circle I'm trying to square is how that is compatible with your insistence that this is possible if the government had a correct grasp on the level of risk their decision making in the summer had opened us up to, unless you think a month lockdown was the trade off and the reluctance to do it an act of political theatre.
I don't see what the problem is to have the army enforce an all nighttime curfew on New Years Eve.I think the army on the streets was the important bit.
It’s a bit extremeI don't see what the problem is to have the army enforce an all nighttime curfew on New Years Eve.
UK’s COVID-19 predicament in general and specifically right now is also very extreme too.It’s a bit extreme
Tbh I don't live in UK and I can't give specific answers to your questions. But as I've always said in this thread, there's no "one model fits all" solution to this pandemic due to different socioeconomic backgrounds. A successful strategy in one country could result in a total disaster in another. The only thing that I can confidently criticize is the reluctancy of countries to issue a travelling ban and/or close borders against China at the first place, which leads to the irreversible widespread of the virus worldwide. (The way these countries are reacting to the new strain makes it look even more ridiculous.) After that point, all efforts are only meant to limit the damage. It's a huge ask and you can't really blame governments failing to do so.Thanks for explaining. All makes total sense and also doesn’t sound that hard either, so long as a Government has the political will to strictly and quickly enforce.
meanwhile Boris ignored the threat for 3 months and then implemented a very weak and half hearted ‘lockdown’. And carried on making such bungled decisions since. Even this Xmas lockdown is a a diluted joke. So many quick and easy things could be done to make it more difficult for people to break the law:
- why didn't Boris implement the no travelling mandate immediately instead of allowing people 12 hours to get out?
- Shut down all major motorways which can access London and other hotspots? Dramatically reduce intercity trains?
- why not shut major roads between tier zones so people physically can’t drive outside their tier zone?
The U.K. feels like it’s become the new ‘Wuhan’ but we dont have the political will to deal with this threat like the Chinese Government did.
According to the WHO, its one and only mission is to "promote health, keep the world safe, and serve the vulnerable". Yet it still fails to achieve, and one of the most successful regions combating the pandemic (Taiwan) is banned from the WHO. What an irony. Trump might be wrong in many things but you can't really blame him for withdrawing from this corrupted organization.1. Re Germany, they have just failed to act for some reason. https://interaktiv.tagesspiegel.de/lab/karte-sars-cov-2-in-deutschland-landkreise/
Look at "altersgruppen", no excuse to come with a lot of restrictions on 19.10. at the latest (restaurants closed on 2.11.) And full lock-down on 2.11. at the latest should have happened. Per capita 80+ years olds have most infections in Germany now(!), so deaths follow.
2. The debate from the summer whether or not the virus has weakened was one of the silliest during this whole thing. No, it was always obvious or at least very very likely that it was because it was mainly young people infected. Somehow the governments didn't understand it will have quadruple effect when the cases keep increasing AND average age of infected gets older.
3. Acting soon is better for economy AND health. How is this still so hard to understand. Why has Europe set the limit at staying below ICU capacity. Set the limit much lower, like 10x lower (or to zero), there is no benefit in letting cases grow, none. At least to alow enough a level were test and trace works.
4. It is impossible to keep cases level for more than 2 weeks. Either they go up or down. So if they have been going up for 3 weeks, act. No matter how low you are when you started. Growth will not stop without action, and I repeat there is no benefit in acting late.
5. As I said before, Europe has accepted and normalised failure. One of the brightest posters we have @Brwned is doing this very same thing. Looking at all the big European countries and saying they can't all be incompetent, so this must be the best we can do. No, they all have failed. And others failure has helped them normalise their own failure.
6. @hmchan is correct about everything he says regarding China and WHO and Taiwan. How the hell corrupt Tedros still has his job. (Or narcissist Tegnell or incompetent Boris)
7. The cases started to increase in Europe already in July, people still don’t understand exponential growth.
8. Saying that Europe doesn't have experience in pandemics is okayish excuse for first wave. Second wave demonstrates that we learned nothing.
9. @Wibble was right and I was wrong regarding Australia's strategy. I thought they would fail and that Europe could control second wave in a reasonable manner.
If they government aren't prepared to lock down very hard in the first place I think lurching to a military enforced state of emergency might be a bit too drastic and just isn't going to happen.I don't see what the problem is to have the army enforce an all nighttime curfew on New Years Eve.
Yeah he’s a cnut but if he’d have done this he’d have been an even bigger cnut.Thanks for explaining. All makes total sense and also doesn’t sound that hard either, so long as a Government has the political will to strictly and quickly enforce.
meanwhile Boris ignored the threat for 3 months and then implemented a very weak and half hearted ‘lockdown’. And carried on making such bungled decisions since. Even this Xmas lockdown is a a diluted joke. So many quick and easy things could be done to make it more difficult for people to break the law:
- why didn't Boris implement the no travelling mandate immediately instead of allowing people 12 hours to get out?
- Shut down all major motorways which can access London and other hotspots? Dramatically reduce intercity trains?
- why not shut major roads between tier zones so people physically can’t drive outside their tier zone?
The U.K. feels like it’s become the new ‘Wuhan’ but we dont have the political will to deal with this threat like the Chinese Government did.
you’re right we needed a properly thought out plan ... and all my suggestions are off the top of my head and without much thought. Perhaps @Wibble list is a lot better. But none of it will happen under Boris.Yeah he’s a cnut but if he’d have done this he’d have been an even bigger cnut.
A lot of people who were in London when we went into that immediate shutdown don’t live in London and had responsibilities and their actual homes outside London. A shit load of people would have been going back to their homes outside London due to the Christmas break. Telling these people completely out of the blue that they are not allowed to leave London would have been completely unacceptable.
I work with one person who cares for his elderly living alone mother in Cambridge and he lives in Peterborough, there’s no way he could have remained in London. He had to get out asap and he literally left work as soon as he saw the news flash on the screen and I don’t blame him and the many others who were in similar situations and so had to rush to leave.
What should have happened was an actual well thought out plan with dates and clear instructions on a pre Christmas lockdown and then we wouldn’t have gotten a big rush.
They acted - they just acted too soft and thought that keeping open shops and schools and only cutting some things like restaurants and theatres would be enough. But it was not and the numbers did not go down - that is why the lockdown from last week on until January 10th includes schools as well as all non-essential shops. You are not supposed to leave your house after 9 p.m. despite for important reasons and Xmas is restricted to one household + max. 4 close family members from other households (kids below 14 aren't counted).1. Re Germany, they have just failed to act for some reason. https://interaktiv.tagesspiegel.de/lab/karte-sars-cov-2-in-deutschland-landkreise/
Look at "altersgruppen", no excuse to come with a lot of restrictions on 19.10. at the latest (restaurants closed on 2.11.) And full lock-down on 2.11. at the latest should have happened. Per capita 80+ years olds have most infections in Germany now(!), so deaths follow.
Christ. I think some of you lot have lost the plot.I don't see what the problem is to have the army enforce an all nighttime curfew on New Years Eve.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Jenrick doing the media rounds this morning. They are definitely planning something, but obviously we know that.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I think that would be the best idea personally. I also think it’s the smart move here. I also think that’s why they won’t do itBunch of idiots. I don't doubt they need to do something but I'm not having this has suddenly appeared two days before Christmas. Their planning and foresight throughout has been ridiculous and now everyone faces an even tougher end to this year and start to the next.
My money is on a full lockdown from boxing day.
I think they will. Or put everyone on tier 4 which is basically that anyway. I've been fine about lockdowns so far but really don't want to head back into this. I've never been out of 3 so the only bit of solace since the last lockdown has been having the gym open and been able to visit non essential retail a couple of times. Stripping that away again will kill me off.I think that would be the best idea personally. I also think it’s the smart move here. I also think that’s why they won’t do it
I read this and I didn't find anything in the article that was particularly new or thought provoking with the exception of the seriously flawed idea, in my view, of using up all the vaccine we have in one go, rather than holding vaccine back for second doses. We know for a fact that the first dose followed by the second dose, 7 days later, has an average 95% efficacy. With just one dose the efficacy rate averages drops to around 52%. This would expose the most vulnerable to a considerable delay in getting an excellent level of protection in exchange for more people getting a far lower level of protection. There is an argument that this is, at least, as good as the efficacy of the flu vaccine but we all know the dangers when drawing comparisons between seasonal flu and this virus. This virus is far and away more hazardous and far more infectious than seasonal flu.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
So by that logic going into my work place means I’m going to kill someone then? Or am I only going to kill someone when it’s my own free time? I’m confused? Does covid take time off 8-4 on weekdays?You are very much going to kill someone. You just might not know them personally. The person who dies got it from someone who got it from someone else etc. If you don't get it then you can't pass it on directly or indirectly to someone who dies or suffers serious long term illness.
Missing a few beers with mates is a minor annoyance in comparison.
Going to work is necessary.So by that logic going into my work place means I’m going to kill someone then? Or am I only going to kill someone when it’s my own free time? I’m confused? Does covid take time off 8-4 on weekdays?
I keep reading your comments and all I can think is you are a massive WUM, thats the only logical conclusion possible.So by that logic going into my work place means I’m going to kill someone then? Or am I only going to kill someone when it’s my own free time? I’m confused? Does covid take time off 8-4 on weekdays?
Going to work is necessary so that you can pay your taxes and keep the country steady. Why are you so concerned about yourself? Why don't you have some compassion to how your tax money is spent and wasted?So by that logic going into my work place means I’m going to kill someone then? Or am I only going to kill someone when it’s my own free time? I’m confused? Does covid take time off 8-4 on weekdays?
Not really. I have a laptop & a home internet connection..Going to work is necessary.
You’re the exact reason a common sense approach doesn’t work as you don’t seem to have any.So by that logic going into my work place means I’m going to kill someone then? Or am I only going to kill someone when it’s my own free time? I’m confused? Does covid take time off 8-4 on weekdays?
I mean, this reads ironically but I would agree that taxes are needed to keep a country steady.Going to work is necessary so that you can pay your taxes and keep the country steady. Why are you so concerned about yourself? Why don't you have some compassion to how your tax money is spent and wasted?
God. Youre so selfish!!!!
Can't run a country on 0% taxes. Can't run a country on 100% taxessI mean, this reads ironically but I would agree that taxes are needed to keep a country steady.
Wow.I don't see what the problem is to have the army enforce an all nighttime curfew on New Years Eve.
I worry a bit about these kinds of comments from Blair. Speed first, health effects second is not a reassuring message for many people. It may be the most pragmatic choice but it sends a signal that will alienate people. A lot of his comments suggested he had inside knowledge but then he said this:Fauci was on Radio 4 earlier saying he has no doubt that the Oxford vaccine will be approved in the next week in the UK. He said the data looks stronger than ever. Also heard some virologist agreeing with Tony Blair’s plan for vaccinations as the second dose only increases efficacy by 4%.
That would be great if it was a sterilising vaccine but it doesn’t have great sterilising effects, as far as I know. And presumably changing the dosing schedule would reduce those effects too. And given how little experimentation was done on the scheduling, whatever data we have that suggests we could do things differently will not be particularly robust. It isn’t necessarily wrong but we can’t know enough to know it’s right.“But if it is the spread we’re anxious about, then it makes sense to consider vaccinating those doing the spreading, in particular certain occupations or age groups such as students.”
And if people refuse to disperse? Open fire?I don't see what the problem is to have the army enforce an all nighttime curfew on New Years Eve.
Calm down WinstonNot really. I have a laptop & a home internet connection..
I’m done with this thread anyway. This place feels like such a bubble at times. Basically everyone just needs to stay at home at all times until the government allows them to go out, except to work of course, that’s fine. Gotcha.
Because we actually need them more than they need us. Despite what they have shouted for five years.How come France can shut the border when early on in the pandemic the UK allegedly couldn't because "the EU"?
Peston is that kind of daft cnut that doesn’t read to the end of everything, so thinks you need to point it out for important things.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I think it's fair to expect another full national lockdown. I just don't understand why it can't be imposed now rather than wait 2 weeks for it to get worse.Severity of this third wave seems like it could be worst than the first wave.
Am expecting much stricter restrictions than what tier 4 demands immediately after Xmas day.
It will happen before new year's I think.I think it's fair to expect another full national lockdown. I just don't understand why it can't be imposed now rather than wait 2 weeks for it to get worse.
That’s how it sounds to meCalm down Winston
The point is that without your job and other jobs the economy would crash and we’d be in a complete wasteland. Same with transport. Unfortunately we need that.That’s how it sounds to me
I know everyone in this thread thinks I’m some sort of tinfoil hat wearing “scamdemic” type, but I’m actually not. I know it’s very real & ive followed the rules. I just don’t see how we are doing anything other than going around in circles when I’ve been in my office & I see how there’s next to no social distancing, my friends have said similar, my girlfriend works in Morrison’s, she’s said similar, I walk past metrolinks every day & they are hammered. We had media encouraged mass gatherings for protests over the summer, that was fine too. It just seems odd to me that all of that is completely fine but how dare you go to see your friends for a drink.