Coronavirus

Originally Posted by jfman

In what sense? Less cases, less deaths, greater population?

We’ve had areas under lockdown restrictions for months now. They’re being proactive and, all going well, such measures will be taken at an appropriate time. On the other hand we continue to ignore scientific advice.

If, or more likely when, Germany ease restrictions we will likely be in the mire for a further period of time due to not taking quick and decisive action.

---------- Post added at 08:18 ---------- Previous post was at 08:16 ----------



Only interesting in the sense the British press usually enjoy stoking fear.

Struggling to reconcile points 2 and 4

“Second, all lives should be of equal importance and everyone should have a right to hospital treatment. “

“And in the case of Covid you are typically talking about lives which have already been long. “

So not equal then?

"Dr" Jon Dobinson isn't a doctor - he's a Marketing Executive...

(amusingly, for a Marketing/Creative company, the latest news on their web-page is two years old..)

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Yay for Taiwan!

Not so much “open up” but don’t “shut down”. Have sensible consistent restrictions and guidance that people will adhere to.

---------- Post added at 11:02 ---------- Previous post was at 10:52 ----------



No denying that they are going up, but currently on a shallow trajectory.

In regards to “opening up”. As I said in the previous post I just don’t think that shutting down is the answer.

We also need to remove inconsistencies, how can theatres/ cinemas be allowed to open and outside sporting venues not?

Inside only families be allowed around a table, outside 6 from different households around same size table. Is a marquee inside or outside? My local thinks it’s outside.

I could go on, the contradictions in regards to kids/schools......

Shut downs are not the answer. I don’t think there is an answer, so we have think differently

Taiwan did "shut down" to people coming into the country. Having a population that is much more likely to behave responsibly also helps enormously.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Everybody is seeing more “cases”, which has already been shown to be a red herring of a metric that doesn’t really tell you anything useful, only just how non-lethal the virus really is.

That graph shows deaths which is a much better metric to use.

Surely hospital cases would be better - treatment is better, but people are surviving with medium to long-term effects.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Yay for Taiwan!

Not so much “open up” but don’t “shut down”. Have sensible consistent restrictions and guidance that people will adhere to.

So, what is wrong in the UK. Do we?

1. have sensible restrictions but a degree of the population fail to follow them because <answers on a postcard>

2, We don't have sensible restrictions a degree of the population fail to follow them because they're not sensible.

My thoughts are that as a society the UK is quite immature compared to other nations.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Yay for Taiwan!

Not so much “open up” but don’t “shut down”. Have sensible consistent restrictions and guidance that people will adhere to.

---------- Post added at 11:02 ---------- Previous post was at 10:52 ----------



No denying that they are going up, but currently on a shallow trajectory.

In regards to “opening up”. As I said in the previous post I just don’t think that shutting down is the answer.

We also need to remove inconsistencies, how can theatres/ cinemas be allowed to open and outside sporting venues not?

Inside only families be allowed around a table, outside 6 from different households around same size table. Is a marquee inside or outside? My local thinks it’s outside.

I could go on, the contradictions in regards to kids/schools......

Shut downs are not the answer. I don’t think there is an answer, so we have think differently

But this is the thing - the inconsistencies aren’t because activity X is safer than activity Y. It’s about minimising unnecessary social interactions while keeping open sectors that have been been deemed to be critical. A range of activities on any scale have to be discounted because of the numbers of people involved rather than the inherent risk involved in the activity.

If everyone lived their life on the basis of what they are doing in schools there’d be effectively no restrictions at all and we know where that leads.

Perhaps Nomadking is right and it’s our population that’s the problem. Instead of generally working within guidance we look for loopholes in legislation. Which is why any kind of Swedish approach appealing for people to take individual responsibility is doomed from outset.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

So, what is wrong in the UK. Do we?

1. have sensible restrictions but a degree of the population fail to follow them because <answers on a postcard>

2, We don't have sensible restrictions a degree of the population fail to follow them because they're not sensible.

My thoughts are that as a society the UK is quite immature compared to other nations.

Surely the UK population knows the score on CV. But are they immature as a whole? No, of course not. And I don't consider other European nations to be any different in that sense.

The immature minority, however, can cause infection chaos through their casual carelessness.

With regard to whether or not we have sensible restrictions:

I would say that the tiering system is eminently sensible as it does not introduce more restrictions than are necessary across the country. The challenge is, as you say, with maturity so that people in a a higher tier area don't go round contaminating their lower tier neighbours.

Because that can't be controlled, let it rip is the answer with special protection and support given to vulnerable people. That way the economy can continue recovery etc.


ns

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

So, what is wrong in the UK. Do we?

1. have sensible restrictions but a degree of the population fail to follow them because <answers on a postcard>

2, We don't have sensible restrictions a degree of the population fail to follow them because they're not sensible.

My thoughts are that as a society the UK is quite immature compared to other nations.

We have inconsistent, sensible and not so sensible restrictions.

[jfman]

They’re only inconsistent if people are being wilfully ignorant.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by jfman

They’re only inconsistent if people are being wilfully ignorant.

And some as we know are being wilfully ignorant.

[Carth]

The number of professional footballers contracting the virus would suggest imposing tighter restrictions on the sport, but that would upset Sky and the big money boys, so it's exempt I guess

No problem with those traveling the length and breadth of the country at least once a week, from Tier 3 areas too . . . essential business to whom? 'sigh'

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

We have inconsistent, sensible and not so sensible restrictions.

They're inconsistent restrictions because in England we don't have the medically-advised single circuit break, we have on paper three levels in England with further sub-levels eg Nottingham 9pm alcohol rule plus autonomy in the four nations with different tiers in those nations too.
Plus a lot of the legislation is being made on the hoof hence how open does a marque need to be open to count as being inside and not outside?

[Carth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

They're inconsistent restrictions because in England we don't have the medically-advised single circuit break, we have on paper three levels in England with further sub-levels eg Nottingham 9pm alcohol rule plus autonomy in the four nations with different tiers in those nations too.
Plus a lot of the legislation is being made on the hoof hence how open does a marque need to be open to count as being inside and not outside?

Apply the same logic to a smoking shelter, there's your answer

[jfman]

Originally Posted by denphone

And some as we know are being wilfully ignorant.

A classic example just coming up there from a journalist in the Scottish press briefing.

At one level serving alcohol is permitted with a substantial meal. Now, any reasonable person would concede the intention isn't to spend 12 hours in a pub with a packet of crisps or a sausage roll.

However here in the UK we will see many people flouting this until they put it in legislation.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Surely the UK population knows the score on CV. But are they immature as a whole? No, of course not. And I don't consider other European nations to be any different in that sense.

The immature minority, however, can cause infection chaos through their casual carelessness.

With regard to whether or not we have sensible restrictions:

I would say that the tiering system is eminently sensible as it does not introduce more restrictions than are necessary across the country. The challenge is, as you say, with maturity so that people in a a higher tier area don't go round contaminating their lower tier neighbours.

Because that can't be controlled, let it rip is the answer with special protection and support given to vulnerable people. That way the economy can continue recovery etc.


ns

Then we need to consider how do we ensure that the percentage of the population that aren't adhering to restrictions are 'brought to heel' so to speak. The police service is in no way shape or form able to deal with that.

There's questions around the let it rip argument

a. How do you decide who needs be be shielded ? How far do you take it? Do the carers of those that are for example in nursing homes also need to shield?
b.How do you enforce that those who are required to shield do so?
c. How do we ensure that by allowing the virus to let rip that we don't overload the NHS
d. Would is be reasonable to say that by allowing the virus to burn through we risk civiil unrest due to lack of manpower in emergency services such as those in the police who have to either self isolate, or those that unfortunately die

[Sephiroth]

It's a conundrum, isn't it?