The media are suggesting 'from Boxing Day'
I don't even think it will be national. I think they'll feck about again wasting more time.
SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)
- Thread starter Don't Kill Bill
- Start date
I don't even think it will be national. I think they'll feck about again wasting more time.
The numbers in Germany have been getting steadily worse over the last few weeks. Deaths noticibly over the last 10 days or so.
This has surprised me as for most of the year Germany has been widely applauded as one of if not the 'best' European countries regarding how they have dealt with the pandemic.
I have wondered how they could open up sports grounds early and have only limited restrictions with apparently no consequence.
It seems to me that maybe around a month ago they reached a tipping point and rapidly lost control, perhaps test and trace were swamped, maybe fatigue set in and people were not so vigilant.
It could also be that perhaps they also have the new easily passed version of the virus, but did not detect it which accelerated quickly.
They have acted firmly though and its no surprise to me that they announced another, harder lockdown in the last week or so, and further ones I think after that. Also no surprise at all that no flights etc from the UK until they get a handle on what is happening.
The scary thing from my perspective is that we in the UK will be looking at higher numbers than 944 deaths in a day in the UK unless something drastically changes
If the UK locked down for ages and instead of the money they wasted, gave it to every citizen based on previous income... would that be possible like?
The briefing continues 
I may have been wrong to say the thought it would "no effect" although thankfully I prefaced that with "seemed" which it certainly did seem.
But, that they woefully underestimated the testing capacity required is well documented. And as their modelling for testing capacity was based on SAGE figures, it's fair to say they underestimated the impact schools would have, not just on testing requirements, but on the R Number too.
As I said, every mother I spoke to at the time said the same thing: "Wait until the schools go back."
Anyway, - let's call a truce on a single point in a 1285 page thread.
I think UK Government should order a national army enforced curfew on New Years Eve!
I'm pretty sure we don't have the manpower for that.
Pubs are closed and I am sure that there are enough grasses neighbours to keep everyone in check. Feck me this isn’t the Philippines in the 70s.
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.
No, we are just one of the very highest deaths : per population ratio nations on the planet.
Non compliance of the population will surely be one of the major contributors for that.
Let's not get carried away.
There is no reason to believe that this new variant will stop a vaccine from working at this stage.
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.
Maybe not (yet), but the paranoid side of me can't help but think possible dejavu from "this new virus shouldn't be a problem" talk last January. I've tried to take a glass half full approach for pretty much the whole of this (even the first peak) but this is deflating.
Yeah but let the dickheads be dickheads but not let our kids open the curtains on Christmas morning and see the Army out patrollping the streets.
I said New years Eve, not xmas eve or xmas day!
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.
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.
I think the army on the streets was the important bit.
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.
That is the reason Germany had two lockdowns too. Not because they wanted to but because despite their best efforts, it was a necessary evil to contain a virus that spreads so easily under conditions that our society and economy is designed around, particularly in certain weather and in certain cultural conventions. It is a normal part of the mitigation strategy outlined from the very beginning. But yes it is politically unpalatable and it is very arguable that people prefer the optimistic messaging that “if we do so and so, we will be able to get through this without more severe restrictions on civil liberties”, rather than the brutal realism that “all evidence points to the fact we will not be able to do so and so, which means more severe restrictions on civil liberties are inevitable”.
The fact is after that surge and during that lockdown they kept schools open. They saw what you saw. They looked at it in more detail than any of us have. If you believe they made the wrong evaluation, I’m cool with that. I was never arguing against it. I was simply arguing against the notion that they couldn’t see what the man on the street could see. They could see it and they would deal with it differently. Just like many of the teachers would deal with it differently to you.
I don't see what the problem is to have the army enforce an all nighttime curfew on New Years Eve.
Last edited:
It’s a bit extreme
UK’s COVID-19 predicament in general and specifically right now is also very extreme too.
Boris’s refusal to take extreme actions is what has gotten the country into being one of the worst nations on the planet.
it won’t happen because too many think it’s too extreme but nations who did implement such strict measures are enjoying much more freedom right now than we are.
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.
That said, I still have friends studying in the UK and I follow this thread quite closely. To me, the most disappointing fact is that UK failed to provide sufficient testing capability for symptomatic individuals back then. I have no idea about NHS or the reason behind (lack of kits? lack of technologists?), but it seems a pretty simple problem to tackle. As for other policies and measures, I wouldn't go too hard on them. I'm sure they come up with them last minute and there are flaws in them definitely, especially with the surprise of the new strain. Many of them rely on citizens' self discipline, but (no offence) I still don't understand why is it so difficult for westerners to wear a mask properly (from my observation on TV and local society)......
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.
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.
It would be easy to say they should have locked down properly in the first place (and I think they should and that there is plenty of time for blame later, hopefully at the next election) but the most important ting now is how do the UK (and many other places) cope through winter and the roll-out of the vaccines. I don't have the information or knowledge to know the precise best course but I'm thinking after the woeful efforts of the government and confused messaging that you need a simple and clearly articulated plan that has a finite end.
I'm thinking full hard lock-down, close borders and compulsory police guarded quarantine for British people returning from overseas. Shut schools for all but essential workers and kids with particular needs (as some have mentioned in this thread), close pubs, restaurants etc for all but takeout food and everyone who can works from home again. Masks and stay at home orders except for very limited reasons and with the rules identical for everyone. Infection is so bad everywhere in the UK trying to differentiate is pointless.
Start between Christmas and new year. Set clear conditions on what will allow reduced restrictions e.g. infection and/or vaccination rates by the end of Jan. Reach them and restrictions reduce slightly. Then have limits for end of Feb etc. And you have to back this with the appropriate social help and the associated government spending. Promise and deliver large extra spending in education so that parents have some confidence that their kids will catch up and support those unemployed due to the pandemic. Online learning with parental assistance is fine for a while and particularly for kids in higher socioeconomic groupings but it isn't sustainable on its own for years but we can do another few months. Then vaccinate vaccinate vaccinate.
The aim is a short hard lock-down where everyone is actually "in it together" but with hope and a plan rather than yo yo incompetence and confusion. By the end of March summer and mass vaccination will at least be in sight (assuming the Oxford vaccine gets approval) and you can then keep relaxing regulations month by month and by the time the cold weather returns maybe, just maybe, sufficient people will have been vaccinated so lock-down doesn't have to occur again in winter. The problem is that leadership is required and the UK has Boris et al.
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.
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.
My point is I see no point in making rules and laws that are not enforced, like we’ve done since the very beginning. And right now, I don’t trust the entire U.K. public with self governance.
The Covidiots may be a minority but that’s enough to keep this virus at pandemic levels. They need to be forced to live by the law.
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).
The two next nursing homes in my vicinity - one in my village, the other one in the village next to mine - had a Corona outbreak in December with more than 50% of the old people and a lot of the staff members infected. The one here had 13 deaths until some days ago (or 80 old persons, I do not have new data) - the one in the neighbour town 7.
Some media sources running with ‘some areas’ of the England but some saying ‘National lockdown’
I guess we’ll see later.
I guess we’ll see later.
Christ. I think some of you lot have lost the plot.
Jenrick doing the media rounds this morning. They are definitely planning something, but obviously we know that.
Bunch 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 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
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%.
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 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 can't help but feel this could have been avoided had they not placed London and the South in 2 and allowed things like football events to resume in such places.
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.
Slightly off topic but when he was in office Blair didn't exactly have the best track record when it comes to following expert advice. The same man deliberately misrepresented intelligence information on " weapons of mass destruction" to obtain Parliamentary approval for the Iraq war. I tend to agree with one of the replies to this article that Blair should stick to what he's good at, giving after dinner speeches for large amounts of cash.
Last edited: