Re: Coronavirus
 

Not as badly as yours, it seems, as there is nothing in that article regarding "extremely small cohort" of long COVID (or at all), and the data was from February, before the Delta Variant struck…

Regarding "common sense", I’m sure you’ll remember last September, Boris said that ‘common sense’ is the ‘single greatest weapon’ against the coronavirus. In October, as cases soared in the second wave, Boris told people to ‘live fearlessly but with common sense,’ dismissing the case for a two-week ‘circuit-breaker’ lockdown - he announced a four-week national lockdown a few weeks later. In late November, he assured us that a regional ‘tier system’ guided by ‘common sense’ would end the need for national lockdowns; in February, during a three-month national lockdown, Johnson said the tier system was no more…

The problem with the Government saying "use common sense and take personal responsibility" is that they can then blame the population when things go wrong…

Anyhoo, back to our home-grown Kent Variant - I’m interested in your reasoning of why the Kent Variant overcame peoples’ "common sense"?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think the general point was more that restrictions and what people were doing was probably more likely to have carried on working with the 3 tier system and whatever mitigations we had. (Which I don't agree is correct, I'll go into that later). But when we had the new variant which let's not forget took control in what people would call "lockdown" (even though we were under some form of such from March all the way to this July) and then spread over December pretty much unchecked in the SE and then over the whole country due to Christmas mixing and then the whole country basically being put in tier 4, then took some while of lockdown to get down again. So the "commonsense" measures had to be replaced by something formal because they didn't work. But this wasn't anyone's fault really I don't think let alone Johnson's and I don't really agree with the suggestion anyway.


But let's be clear here. Lockdown I and subsequent easing did work, it worked without masks, it worked with staying at home, thinking of others, and keeping your distance when you were out. We weren't doing so much testing then, but correlate to hospitalisations and then look at the rough proportions we did get it under control but then allowed foreign holidays. So it spiked again in Europe and people brought it back. That stage perhaps shouldn't have been allowed, we then get the spike of younger people who'd been away going back to school, university, work etc.


These autumn measures from last year look very similar to what slippery slope some think we should go down now, in that they were never going to control it.


So we had masks in shops in July, about 2 weeks after a lot had opened (but not freely - we still had distancing, and a lot of things like singing in churches was restricted to defined groups only, this only got lifted this July), then rule of 6 from early September, which was never going to work, which then became the lowest tier, no way that was going to keep anything in check because there was no herd immunity (nowhere near) and no protection for a susceptible population, with no ability really to get a test either. Tier 2 restrictions were probably not enough either, given that the main restriction on there was banning indoor mixing entirely. Tier 3 didn't do much either other than cripple hospitality with the "substantial meal" rule. None of it worked, and even the tightened 2nd version led to a 4th tier going in front of it. It was also easy for them to escalate but there wasn't a clear motive to de-escalate - Nottm had the highest rate in the country when the universities went back, it calmed down there but then spread over the wider city area, so they were eventually going to put 4 areas of Notts as well as the city into tier 3, but then looking at the stats, they then put the whole county in instead, after some delay - if it's bad enough to consider it do it then and then add the rest later. Like red listing countries which was also too slow. In the mean time they had worked hard here to get the levels down but then Hancock wouldn't change it "in case it went back up" so the tiers basically became an excuse to add more restrictions on more areas until we had national stay at home again. It didn't work, and you can see the same dithering around and the same poking with no de-escalation with "Plan B". I think that even tier 1 was a lockdown of some sorts (face coverings, rule of 6, curfews on hospitality) and then you consider places like Leicester were never taken out of restrictions in July 2020 and then a lot of the NW was put under more later. It was also a bit vulnerable to political posturing from people like Andy Burnham - whose point about supporting affected businesses I totally agree with, but wasn't the time to argue with lives at risk. The situation is much different now, but yet we look to fart about with half-arsed measures which most of us are already doing.



Not to mention that I doubt in some cases even the "tier 4" controls would stop Delta quickly. Given the vaccines it does have to - within reason - be allowed to run its course a bit.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well it would be a drastic diversion from your usual position, to not provide any evidence whatsoever, ever, ever, ever,………………..ever, to back up any of your assertions.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think you mean *IF*, not 'when'. ;)
There is currently no indication its going to be implemented.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Indeed.


Especially given that over the last few days there has been a marked decrease in new infections.


Although we don't know if this trend is due to continue, given that we do know some potential reasons behind the infection figures, and that these are now under control more, there's no indication that trend is unlikely to continue at least until the schools are all back from half term.



The important thing is that the Government shouldn't cave in to people demanding restrictions if they don't believe that overall they are the right thing. The NHS asking for it is logical as more restrictions being there will definitely ease pressure on the hospitals but for a relatively lower level of hospitalisations it is less obvious a decision to make overall.


Starmer is finally doing his job and supporting it for now probably to make the gov think. But what he (and Ashworth) should be doing is challenging their counterparts, saying what in the figures don't justify Plan B if they don't believe it is right now, and what they think will justify it. Even if he does agree with them, if he is making them justify it he is making them think and challenging their decisions.



There's no guarantee the measures will come in - they might do but we don't know what they are working to - and no guarantee they will actually work if they do.

Re: Coronavirus
 

When they say “now is not the time” that isn’t dismissing the idea altogether. We can only wait and see but the nuance between saying restrictions aren’t required to aren’t required *now* isn’t lost on me.

As I said earlier, wishful thinking hasn’t served the UK position well to date.

---------- Post added at 14:57 ---------- Previous post was at 14:55 ----------

Still here not caring, I see.

Grateful if you’d not selectively quote me I think you’ll find the complete quote was

Re: Coronavirus
 

Was making.

And much like your predictions what you said was completely wrong

Re: Coronavirus
 

Experts at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) have predicted that - even without the government's 'Plan B' - COVID cases, hospital admissions and deaths in England will peak in November and start to fall rapidly to much lower levels by Christmas.

According to their modelling, if the government reintroduces restrictions, delaying 'back-to-normal' behaviour until the spring, there will still be a drop in the coming weeks, but rates will rise again much faster next year.

Professor Paul Hunter, an epidemiologist at the University of East Anglia, told Sky News the modelling suggests the UK is close to 'endemic equilibrium'.

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...gests-12444117

Re: Coronavirus
 

No matter how you try to spin it, the fact remains there is currently no indication Plan B going to be implemented.


As an aside, I notice Wales (which still requires masks) now has record case numbers, so thats obviously working well for them.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-59050903

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don’t know what the point is that you are making here, if there is/was one. You haven’t said what is/was wrong and frankly I’m not going to try to get blood out of a stone. I know there is/was none there to be squeezed.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m not spinning anything - the language politicians use is important. It’s the difference between an “embarrassing climbdown” and “this was the plan all along”. I’m more than happy to revisit this at a later point rather than go round in circles.

Wales with masks having record numbers compared to Wales with masks plus restrictions greater than masks is completely unsurprising. Schools reopening without vaccination is having an affect all around the UK. If the rest of the UK follows Scotland where schools reopened first in August cases will come back down, but hospitalisations and deaths will remain high which is why the booster campaign is to important.

Across the UK the deaths figure reported today is the highest since March, and will likely be linked to case numbers 2/3 weeks ago. So pulling them back down slightly - due to half term in all likelihood - isn’t going to cut it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

But the modelling suggests that the figures will go in the right direction with existing Plan A and that Plan B will make it worse. Only time will prove them right, but it's the best scientific advice out there. Therefore, we should go for it as there is no better option that I can see.

Don't forget that despite the four-tier lockdowns we had last year, the number of cases remained persistently high in some areas and went up and down in others. You have to wonder what real impact they had.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There’s one lockdown, there’s three tiers of varying restrictions that work to varying degrees despite your scepticism.

I don’t, at all, wonder about the impact of restrictions on case numbers. It has always been the case that if restrictions aren’t strict enough case numbers can continue to rise and that inevitably leads to lockdown.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If you can catch it again . . and again . . and again . . won't case numbers always be high?

Re: Coronavirus