When will this shit end?

[Homer]

1 hour ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

Why the fixation on schools? There were links posted yesterday that their rates of infection were inline with the community. Teachers I know are doing self tests multiple times a week. 

Toiletduck shared information from Ireland showing transmission in schools was lower than other settings. 

 

I'm no expert (I don't have any) - but I think the rumour is that children can be really f@cking annoying.

[Mr.Tease]

33 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Fewer deaths per head than us despite maintaining normality throughout while we’ve been locked down for most of the year 

It's been very varied star to state. A few of the US forums I frequent have been quite sad with people mums and dad's dying, and some posters getting very ill and hospitalised with it- weirdly at the same time the 'maintaining normality' hasn't been enough for anti lockdown folk, so doesn't seem like anyone's been happy with the response, seems very polarised. 

What's surprised me with the US response is how slow covid has been to go through the population - I always assumed it would burn much quicker with few restrictions, but its been a long slog. Now the vaccines are starting to roll out I just feel a lot of deaths could have been avoided with just a few more restrictions. 

[steviewevie]

We all knew opening up was going to be gradual but people seem to be upset. And they are being extra cautious because of new variants. The kent variant this winter really screwed us, and is probably why we are in a worse state than other places like US, and why they are still worred about a new variant popping up that vaccines we have are not so good at protecting us against. We're just going to have to be patient...we can have that overpriced pint in a pub in May.

[blackred]

9 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

It's been very varied star to state. A few of the US forums I frequent have been quite sad with people mums and dad's dying, and some posters getting very ill and hospitalised with it- weirdly at the same time the 'maintaining normality' hasn't been enough for anti lockdown folk, so doesn't seem like anyone's been happy with the response, seems very polarised. 

I think this is it, the US is much less densely populated and (ignoring the current freak storm) 3 of its most populous states have very mild winters. The north eastern states are closer to the uk in terms of climate and density - there are 15 states with higher death rates than the UK currently - 10 in the north (and largely east)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/

Also, if Florida is anything to go by - the reporting in some states is not to be trusted.

 

[Zoo Music Girl]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

We all knew opening up was going to be gradual but people seem to be upset. And they are being extra cautious because of new variants. The kent variant this winter really screwed us, and is probably why we are in a worse state than other places like US, and why they are still worred about a new variant popping up that vaccines we have are not so good at protecting us against. We're just going to have to be patient...we can have that overpriced pint in a pub in May.

I'm fine with waiting until May for pubs, although I hope we can meet more people outside before that. It was just more the idea of being restricted indefinitely because of new variants I was reacting to. Seems bonkers to me with open borders. But I actually don't think that will be the case. I think we need to wait and see what's said. 

[SheffJeff]

 

[Mr.Tease]

3 minutes ago, SheffJeff said:

 

I like that they thought he was 6.2cm but were still going to try and inject him with a normal size syringe 

[squirrelarmy]

I wonder if my vaccine is going to be delayed because I’m a skinny twat and those with a higher BMI will move up in the priority list. 

[Ozanne]

16 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

I'm fine with waiting until May for pubs, although I hope we can meet more people outside before that. It was just more the idea of being restricted indefinitely because of new variants I was reacting to. Seems bonkers to me with open borders. But I actually don't think that will be the case. I think we need to wait and see what's said. 

I think we’ll be able to meet people outside by Easter, weather will be nicer, cases should hopefully still be fairly low by then and more will be vaccinated. 

[hodgey123]

27 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

We all knew opening up was going to be gradual but people seem to be upset. And they are being extra cautious because of new variants. The kent variant this winter really screwed us, and is probably why we are in a worse state than other places like US, and why they are still worred about a new variant popping up that vaccines we have are not so good at protecting us against. We're just going to have to be patient...we can have that overpriced pint in a pub in May.

I think people are upset and frustrated because of the way in which the vaccines have been presented beforehand as the route out of this. Until they aren’t, because new vaccine-resistant variants may develop, so onerous restrictions are still needed. That is certainly what is driving my reaction to the slow speed of relaxation. 

[Fuzzy Afro]

45 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

It's been very varied star to state. A few of the US forums I frequent have been quite sad with people mums and dad's dying, and some posters getting very ill and hospitalised with it- weirdly at the same time the 'maintaining normality' hasn't been enough for anti lockdown folk, so doesn't seem like anyone's been happy with the response, seems very polarised. 

What's surprised me with the US response is how slow covid has been to go through the population - I always assumed it would burn much quicker with few restrictions, but its been a long slog. Now the vaccines are starting to roll out I just feel a lot of deaths could have been avoided with just a few more restrictions. 

Looking at the US and at Sweden, yes they’ve done worse than comparable countries, but in terms of deaths, we’ve been as much of a disaster as either of those countries have while spending roughly 2/3 of the past year in lockdown (and the other 1/3 still being under relatively draconian restrictions)

 

I think there are two valid approaches to managing covid, you go full Australia/NZ/Asia with an early lockdown to eliminate the virus, then you return to domestic normality with the borders closed. This is preferable as you get normality relatively quickly AND the added benefit of avoiding large numbers of deaths. The issue with this approach is that you need to act very quickly and that ship has long since sailed for the UK.

 

The other approach is to leave virus control down to individual risk perception like the US and Sweden have. It’s a free market method in a way because people will still choose to stay at home if they feel under threat, but it’s much better for the economy and more importantly for civil liberties. It’s NEVER been illegal to visit a friend for dinner in Sweden, whereas if you look at Leicester, it’s been illegal to do so for 34 days shy of a year now (and that isn’t ending any time soon)

 

The UK has gone with a half-arsed strategy of lockdowns that have damaging effects on the economy and civil liberties while being too late to work effectively. At least in the states or Sweden they’ve had to put up with the same levels of mass death as we have but have been able to maintain normality throughout that. 

[st dan]

Worst case scenario (and one that I think is becoming increasingly likely) is that lockdown fatigue gets to breaking point, and people just start seeing their friends and family again soon - both in indoor and outdoor setting at their homes. I think it’s a fact that this will start to happen once family members have been vaccinated, whether we are actually allowed to or now. 

This obviously brings the risk of increased spread of the virus etc, but without the bonus of the economy restarting as bars, pubs, restaurants etc may remain closed, and the furlough scheme will have to remain in place.
The government will desperately want to avoid this, as it is simply a lose/lose scenario for them. So you could argue it is actually in their best interest to open alternative settings up sooner rather than later. 

Edited February 17, 2021 by st dan

[Fuzzy Afro]

ZOE app suggesting cases have started to rise very slightly 

[Simsy]

14 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Looking at the US and at Sweden, yes they’ve done worse than comparable countries, but in terms of deaths, we’ve been as much of a disaster as either of those countries have while spending roughly 2/3 of the past year in lockdown (and the other 1/3 still being under relatively draconian restrictions)

 

I think there are two valid approaches to managing covid, you go full Australia/NZ/Asia with an early lockdown to eliminate the virus, then you return to domestic normality with the borders closed. This is preferable as you get normality relatively quickly AND the added benefit of avoiding large numbers of deaths. The issue with this approach is that you need to act very quickly and that ship has long since sailed for the UK.

 

The other approach is to leave virus control down to individual risk perception like the US and Sweden have. It’s a free market method in a way because people will still choose to stay at home if they feel under threat, but it’s much better for the economy and more importantly for civil liberties. It’s NEVER been illegal to visit a friend for dinner in Sweden, whereas if you look at Leicester, it’s been illegal to do so for 34 days shy of a year now (and that isn’t ending any time soon)

 

The UK has gone with a half-arsed strategy of lockdowns that have damaging effects on the economy and civil liberties while being too late to work effectively. At least in the states or Sweden they’ve had to put up with the same levels of mass death as we have but have been able to maintain normality throughout that. 

But if US & Sweden have done worse than comparable countries, surely there's a third option? What have places like Denmark or Norway done? How much has their economy been affected compared to Sweden? What are their deaths like? How strict has their lockdown been?

Trying to find a compromise between deaths & the economy is a valid option, it's just one that the UK seems to have fucked up.

[Zoo Music Girl]

21 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Looking at the US and at Sweden, yes they’ve done worse than comparable countries, but in terms of deaths, we’ve been as much of a disaster as either of those countries have while spending roughly 2/3 of the past year in lockdown (and the other 1/3 still being under relatively draconian restrictions)

 

I think there are two valid approaches to managing covid, you go full Australia/NZ/Asia with an early lockdown to eliminate the virus, then you return to domestic normality with the borders closed. This is preferable as you get normality relatively quickly AND the added benefit of avoiding large numbers of deaths. The issue with this approach is that you need to act very quickly and that ship has long since sailed for the UK.

 

The other approach is to leave virus control down to individual risk perception like the US and Sweden have. It’s a free market method in a way because people will still choose to stay at home if they feel under threat, but it’s much better for the economy and more importantly for civil liberties. It’s NEVER been illegal to visit a friend for dinner in Sweden, whereas if you look at Leicester, it’s been illegal to do so for 34 days shy of a year now (and that isn’t ending any time soon)

 

The UK has gone with a half-arsed strategy of lockdowns that have damaging effects on the economy and civil liberties while being too late to work effectively. At least in the states or Sweden they’ve had to put up with the same levels of mass death as we have but have been able to maintain normality throughout that. 

The problem with this though is what would our deaths have been like with no lockdown? For some reason they've been very high here even with the measures we've had (partly due to the half-araed approach, lateness etc, maybe in part due to demographics and climate). If we'd let the NHS just get overwhelmed surely they'd be even higher? I think Sweden and the US have benefited from things like lower population density that we might not have.

It's been handled terribly, but I'm far from convinced that letting it rip through the whole country would have been a better option.

[mcshed]

11 hours ago, gizmoman said:

And if they increase testing? they can keep this going as long as they want if they use "cases" as the metric, the original justification for lockdown was to prevent the NHS being unable to cope, that is the only valid reason, there have been warnings throughout this of the desire for social control re: vaccine passports and they were ridiculed, it's not so crazy now is it?

Nope it is still crazy, there is currently a debate about how soon to end lockdown but nobody is arguing for keeping it in perpetuity, do you still think post-Covid there will be another excuse to keep it going?

[Fuzzy Afro]

3 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

The problem with this though is what would our deaths have been like with no lockdown? For some reason they've been very high here even with the measures we've had (partly due to the half-araed approach, lateness etc, maybe in part due to demographics and climate). If we'd let the NHS just get overwhelmed surely they'd be even higher? I think Sweden and the US have benefited from things like lower population density that we might not have.

It's been handled terribly, but I'm far from convinced that letting it rip through the whole country would have been a better option.

I wonder if the whole idea of the NHS as an institution is a bit of an issue as well? I’ve always believed that healthcare works better when socialised, but then if you look at the US where healthcare is left to the free market, they don’t need to worry about locking down because there’s no NHS to overwhelm. If demand for healthcare rises due to a pandemic then an entrepreneur will simply open a new hospital and then you’re grand. 

[Chef]

11 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

ZOE app suggesting cases have started to rise very slightly 

Vaccine effect with some peoples guard dropping already? 

[MrBarry465]

41 minutes ago, hodgey123 said:

I think people are upset and frustrated because of the way in which the vaccines have been presented beforehand as the route out of this. Until they aren’t, because new vaccine-resistant variants may develop, so onerous restrictions are still needed. That is certainly what is driving my reaction to the slow speed of relaxation. 

It's always been an evolving situation and 2021 was a transitional year, people got ahead of themselves - or those people maybe not paying attention to the situation closely enough.

Edited February 17, 2021 by MrBarry465

[Fuzzy Afro]

1 minute ago, Chef said:

Vaccine effect with some peoples guard dropping already? 

I doubt it. They’re only rising by 100 a day or so. I think the issue as outlined by @BristOliver on twitter is roughly as follows:

 

During lockdown cases fall among the majority of the population but rise among the minority who are still attending crowded workplaces with poor covid control. Eventually once cases get low enough, that latter group become the dominant force on the population. So the R number can effectively increase despite no change in underlying behaviour. 

[MrBarry465]

Article today saying the government are going to advise that working from home should remain throughout the year, which I am happy about - I'll be happy to never set foot in the office again to be honest 🙂 I see no point being in London medium term now. 

[MrBarry465]

7 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

I wonder if the whole idea of the NHS as an institution is a bit of an issue as well? I’ve always believed that healthcare works better when socialised, but then if you look at the US where healthcare is left to the free market, they don’t need to worry about locking down because there’s no NHS to overwhelm. If demand for healthcare rises due to a pandemic then an entrepreneur will simply open a new hospital and then you’re grand. 

Socialised healthcare is not the issue, it's the amount of money that has been put into that socialised healthcare system that is the problem.

Please don't fall into the right wing trap of suggesting private healthcare can handle this pandemic better.... The US economies fallout is going to be just as fucked after this pandemic, as nearly everyone who went into hospitals as COVID patients now has to pay for it. 

[steviewevie]

46 minutes ago, hodgey123 said:

I think people are upset and frustrated because of the way in which the vaccines have been presented beforehand as the route out of this. Until they aren’t, because new vaccine-resistant variants may develop, so onerous restrictions are still needed. That is certainly what is driving my reaction to the slow speed of relaxation. 

they definitely are the way out of this...it's just going to be gradual. Maybe there is a bit of underpromising going on here too.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, MrBarry465 said:

Socialised healthcare is not the issue, it's the amount of money that has been put into that socialised healthcare system that is the problem.

or more correctly, the lack of money.

[stuartbert two hats]

1 hour ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

 

It took me a minute, but I think the point is that Matt made the above post in March 2020. So he was kind of... right?

Matt is right far more often than this board gives him credit for.  California dreaming aside 😉