When will this shit end?

[Ozanne]

The ONS has released their latest set of data in COVID for the period 25th Sept to 1st Oct, here are some of the headlines:

An estimated 224,400 people within the community population in England had the coronavirus (COVID-19) during the most recent week, from 25 September to 1 October 2020, equating to around 1 in 240 people.

The estimate shows the number of infections has increased rapidly in recent weeks.

 

There is clear evidence of variation in COVID-19 infection rates across the regions of England, with highest rates seen in the North East, North West, and Yorkshire and The Humber.

During the most recent week (25 September to 1 October 2020), we estimate there were around 3.16 new COVID-19 infections for every 10,000 people per day in the community population in England, equating to around 17,200 new cases per day.

 

There has been a marked increase in the incidence rate over the last six weeks.

 

I’ve included a graph showing fortnightly estimates in England from the report too.

 

It backs up what we’ve been seeing, cases are rising rapidly in the past 6 weeks, with some regions in the North looking like they are the epicentre of our 2nd wave. Hope this helpful!

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

3 minutes ago, FestivalJamie said:

Unfortunately, yes. But for some reason most people have just decided the whole situation doesn’t concern them anymore.

Is this actually the case though? I'm actually more often than not impressed by the number of people following the rules. Yesterday I met up with a former colleague for some lunch and both commented how many folk were wearing masks when outside shops on the high street so actually going over and above the requirements! 

Everyone slips up occasionally because it's not normal to wear a past when your walking to the toilet in a pub and truth be told if someone does slip up and do that the risk is tiny anyway. 

 

[squirrelarmy]

9 minutes ago, st dan said:

My main issue with the ‘middle ground’ approach is that you’re not effectively tackling either end of the stick (fighting the virus vs the economy/livelihoods) so then neither end up winning and you’ve somehow managed to mess everything up from all angles. 
For me I would prefer either one or the other, if we’re going to lockdown again then let’s do it properly. If not, then let’s try to live as much of a ‘normal’ life as we can.
It’s clear that as a nation we cannot effectively manage this ‘middle ground’ approach we are currently in. 

This is what we should be doing. I’ve been saying this since before the original lockdown in March. We either lockdown hard or we don’t bother. Trying to pick and choose what we do hasn’t worked. 
 

Everyones confused, neighbouring towns have different restrictions, lots of businesses have shut down and many jobs have been lost and it still hasn’t prevented a huge loss of life. 
 

It’s been badly handled from the start with the worst possible government we could have had at this time. 

[zahidf]

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

to be fair, it's hard to back a plan that clearly hasn't/isn't working. 

 

Yeah. Its been around 7 months and people are just sick and tired of it.

I think mask wearing and hygiene is important and should be emphasised. And WFH as much as possible. But closing places down to prevent people mixing won't cut it. And sort out the track and trace ffs

[Toilet Duck]

2 minutes ago, Field Commander Jefferson said:

Its a valid question as to when that would end but when does the current scenario end anyway?

At the moment we have students who are totally unaffected by this locked up in their dorms.

Where is this 30% figure coming from, the stats simply don't support that.

Please believe I'm not being contrary or flippant about the seriousness of the virus to some people but there has to be some perspective and a more sensible approach taken in line with the bigger picture

 .

 

That's age-stratified predicted fatality rates not the percentage of the population that are at risk (though I understand that you can draw a line from one to the other in a sense)...So, yes, from that, males over 80 with 1 or more underlying risk factors would have a 20(ish)% chance of dying if they contracted SARS-CoV-2. Some in the at risk population are obviously higher risk than others, but where would you draw the line in terms of risk?  Most of the arguments that support shielding vulnerable populations while letting the rest of society carry on back it up with a statement that we don't shut down society because of flu. So, seeing as similar populations are at risk, to use this argument, let's assume that the fatality rate of a vaccine controlled flu is what we have deemed acceptable as a society and go with that (around 0.1-0.2% CFR most years). 

Once you get over 60, then you go from a 0.05% fatality rate in females 60-69 with no underling conditions (pretty low risk, below what we think is ok for flu, though what percentage of 60-69 females have no underlying conditions becomes the next important question), all the way up to 20(ish)% in males over 80 with 1 or more co-morbidities (10x-100x what we accept for flu in bad years (and notably, we don't accept it, we try to prevent it with a vaccine)). ONS data shows nearly 12 million people over 65 in the UK. They are mostly in the 2%-20% chance of dying range (again, 10x-100x what we accept for flu)...that's a lot of people to put at risk so that students can leave their dorms (your reason, not mine, I happen to feel exceptionally sympathetic towards our students, it's been a bloody horrible year for them). If the rest of society goes about their business and just catches the virus, how confident would you be that those 12 million+ people could be hermetically sealed off and not catch it? (some of the 60-65 age folks have co-morbidities and are in a vulnerable population too (risk >2%, or 10x the risk from flu), so, it's more than 12 million). And, even if the rest of society does go on and catch the damn thing, to advocate this, you must know something more about immunity to this virus than the rest of the scientific community does as we have no idea how long it lasts, or even if it provides any sterilising protection to prevent you from catching it and spreading it (hence it doesn't go away and will spill into this vulnerable population of 12m+ people anyway) . 

It also assumes that all co-morbidities carry the same risk, which they don't. So, the 30% numbers come from estimating the at risk group (who have varying degrees of risk I'll accept) as including those that are overweight, those of different ethnic origin, different genders, those with chronic cardiac problems, those with chronic respiratory problems, those with diabetes, and a myriad other things (in addition to age of course). It also looks at fatality as the only outcome of note. We still don't know loads about the pathology of this disease and until we do, until we fully understand the long term impact of catching it no matter what age you are or what risk you have of dying from it, then it would be entirely irresponsible of any government to promote a strategy that leads to as many people catching it as possible. 

[ace56blaa]

28 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

But the age is important, if the cost of lockdown is an increase in suicide for example, you are saving a 80 year old who has maybe 5 years of possibly poor quality life left, at the cost of a young man of say 25, who has a whole life left to live. (just quoting a typical suicide case), it would be nice to not have any of these deaths but we are having to make hard choices and not all lives saved are the same. (and I say this as one of the older ones on here).

We already spent a lot of yesterday talking about how lockdown could affect suicide, how there's no data for recorded suicides this year, so no way to possibly support that query. I'm not saying it's not a possibility, but we are not just sacrificing you're one perfect example of a vulnerable person. A) It's incredibly disgusting to speak about these decisions as trading lives. If someone is getting to a point where they are suicidal, it's not just because the government locked down. There would be tons of issues that we should address, financial support, mental health support. It's incredibly insensitive to use suicide as your point of argument against locking down when you don't know in reality the effect lockdown would have. Who knows how many people might feel suicidal because their loved one died or will be in constant pain from long covid. 

We should do everything we can to give support and help to everyone where we can, we don't know what effects a second lockdown will have. It won't be good for a lot of reasons. But this speculative reasoning is just insensitive and discounts thousands of people who could die from covid, not least the people who don't fit into the 85 year old with a chronic disease you are dreaming up. There's plenty of people in vulnerable categories who aren't a pensioner.

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

1 minute ago, ace56blaa said:

We already spent a lot of yesterday talking about how lockdown could affect suicide, how there's no data for recorded suicides this year, so no way to possibly support that query. I'm not saying it's not a possibility, but we are not just sacrificing you're one perfect example of a vulnerable person. A) It's incredibly disgusting to speak about these decisions as trading lives. If someone is getting to a point where they are suicidal, it's not just because the government locked down. There would be tons of issues that we should address, financial support, mental health support. It's incredibly insensitive to use suicide as your point of argument against locking down when you don't know in reality the effect lockdown would have. Who knows how many people might feel suicidal because their loved one died or will be in constant pain from long covid. 

We should do everything we can to give support and help to everyone where we can, we don't know what effects a second lockdown will have. It won't be good for a lot of reasons. But this speculative reasoning is just insensitive and discounts thousands of people who could die from covid, not least the people who don't fit into the 85 year old with a chronic disease you are dreaming up. There's plenty of people in vulnerable categories who aren't a pensioner.

September 2021 you should see the suicide data for 2020.

[Ayrshire Chris]

We have a new definition up here. The ripple effect. Our region has been included in the areas for the toughest restrictions yet cases arnt huge in comparison with Glasgow etc. For instance the Isle of Arran hasn’t had a single case since May but pubs etc have to shut down.  Because we are adjacent to Glasgow, Lanarkshire etc it’s possible folk might travel between the areas .  That’s the ripple effect. 

[stuartbert two hats]

28 minutes ago, zahidf said:

I think the lockdown until there is a vaccine and ITS JUST THE FLU crowds probably need some sort of middle ground

 

What about blaming the govt for fucking up track and trace?

I'm not sure there is a "lockdown until there is a vaccine" crowd.  More a "keep the infection level under control until there is a vaccine" crowd.  If that means a lockdown, then yes - but I don't think anyone was advocating a harsh national lockdown in early August.  Use the measures that work.  If the current measures aren't working, then use harsher measures.  Very few people *want* to be locked down. 

[DeanoL]

 

27 minutes ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

Except it isn't wrong though is it? 86% of people don't know they have it. 

So while I'm incredibly sorry to hear about your aunt and friend, they are in a very small minority and I totally understand the reasons and passion in your post it is a fact that most people are unaffected by Covid, and many of those who are affected by it aren't severely poorly there are unfortunately always exceptions to the rule. You almost have to look at the numbers as just that numbers and take the personal element out of it - and I know that sounds horrible and harsh but it's what people have to do when making decisions. 

I hope both your aunt and your friends health improves. 

How far do you take this though? One thing we could do is have a 2 month "full lockdown" - none but essential workers can even leave the house, government pays furlough for all those who can't work from home, food packages delivered to everyone on a weekly basis.

The kicker: it's totally optional. You can go work if you want, go see friends, pubs can open if they want. But there's no COVID-19 treatment for anyone but essential workers. You get it, if you get really ill, you die. What would you do in that situation? Would you go out? 

Because anyone that is advocating the entire "cure worse than the disease" and "herd immunity" approach that wouldn't go on with life as normal in those circumstances is a hypocrite. 

I mean I'm sure some of the conspiracy nutters would still be taking to the streets, but I'd bet a hell of a lot of people who "can't cope" with lock down would suddenly find they were actually quite able to.

[Toilet Duck]

5 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

I'm not sure there is a "lockdown until there is a vaccine" crowd.  More a "keep the infection level under control until there is a vaccine" crowd.  If that means a lockdown, then yes - but I don't think anyone was advocating a harsh national lockdown in early August.  Use the measures that work.  If the current measures aren't working, then use harsher measures.  Very few people *want* to be locked down. 

Yes, I should clarify my earlier posts by stating that I'm no lockdown hawk. It's the nuclear option when there's nothing else that can be done. I'm fully in favour of smarter, more nuanced management.   

[ace56blaa]

2 minutes ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

September 2021 you should see the suicide data for 2020.

Wait are you saying there's already data for this. Or wait for the data in September? how do you know it's bad or gotten worse? It realistically might have but you don't know. There could be reasons it hasn't escalated, like everyone having more time with their families rather than working long hours 6 days a week. WFH certainly could have improved a lot of mental health. Someone was saying on here yesterday that their wife worked for a support line and they had less calls than usual. Anecdotal evidence but thats the only thing I have to go on. 

My point is though, that lockdown doesn't just suddenly make mentally healthy people suicidal, there is tons of factors that need to be addressed, financial help, support, social work. Simply not locking down won't save people alone. Especially now when it's almost too late to take that approach as the infections are already rampant, the hospitals in the north and nearly overwhelmed and many people have already lost their jobs or will no matter what. 

 

[Ayrshire Chris]

Pubs and sports bars in Scotland closed last night at 10pm 

in the middle of a penalty shoot out.  😲

[stuartbert two hats]

Just now, Toilet Duck said:

Yes, I should clarify my earlier posts by stating that I'm no lockdown hawk. It's the nuclear option when there's nothing else that can be done. I'm fully in favour of smarter, more nuanced management.   

Do you think there are many options left in the UK?  Social distancing and masks has reduced the R number, but it's clearly way too high at the moment.

[stuartbert two hats]

Just now, Ayrshire Chris said:

Pubs and sports bars in Scotland closed last night at 10pm 

in the middle of a penalty shoot out.  😲

And left the tellys on

 

[Fuzzy Afro]

I’ve seen videos of crowds watching the penalty shootout through pub windows 

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

5 minutes ago, ace56blaa said:

Wait are you saying there's already data for this. Or wait for the data in September? how do you know it's bad or gotten worse? It realistically might have but you don't know. There could be reasons it hasn't escalated, like everyone having more time with their families rather than working long hours 6 days a week. WFH certainly could have improved a lot of mental health. Someone was saying on here yesterday that their wife worked for a support line and they had less calls than usual. Anecdotal evidence but thats the only thing I have to go on. 

My point is though, that lockdown doesn't just suddenly make mentally healthy people suicidal, there is tons of factors that need to be addressed, financial help, support, social work. Simply not locking down won't save people alone. Especially now when it's almost too late to take that approach as the infections are already rampant, the hospitals in the north and nearly overwhelmed and many people have already lost their jobs or will no matter what. 

 

The data for suicides is released annually, it's on the ONS website I looked last night as I was on there for something else. 

Exactly, and that's why to me you can't just go around saying lockdown lockdown, Leeds has over 790k residents and there are 2883 positive cases in the last reporting period, that's 0.36 percent of the population of Leeds can you ruin businesses and lives of many thousands for that percentage? I'm not sure you can. I believe the focus should be on making sure those who test positive are staying home, and are supported if required e.g. additional sick pay, food deliveries etc.. etc..

Edited October 9, 2020 by RobertProsineckisLighter

[stuartbert two hats]

2 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

I’ve seen videos of crowds watching the penalty shootout through pub windows 

 

[DeanoL]

34 minutes ago, FestivalJamie said:

Wow, the level of insensitivity today on this forum is through the roof!

If people actually followed the current rules a lockdown wouldn’t be needed, the economy could stay open and such high volumes of people wouldn’t be being hospitalised.

All of this talk of do we lockdown or not lockdown is crazy. There’s a middle ground which germany and italy are achieving. There’s no reason why we can’t. But that starts with 100% of people masking up in indoor spaces, compared to the pathetic efforts we have at the moment. For test and trace to be resolved and for the problem with universities and schools to be addressed.

Closing things down is obviously not the ideal solution, but until people start to act responsibly, what choice do we have?

I don't know what it is, but there's something really weird about us as a country that we won't get behind sensible restrictions. Maybe it's the Cummings thing. About a month ago here I suggested that mask wearing just be compulsory and those that couldn't wear a mask just remain locked down (like people were proposing those at risk do, and like people living in many cities are now having to do anyway). I was basically told I was Hitler. But it seems to work elsewhere.

[Fuzzy Afro]

Just now, DeanoL said:

I don't know what it is, but there's something really weird about us as a country that we won't get behind sensible restrictions. Maybe it's the Cummings thing. About a month ago here I suggested that mask wearing just be compulsory and those that couldn't wear a mask just remain locked down (like people were proposing those at risk do, and like people living in many cities are now having to do anyway). I was basically told I was Hitler. But it seems to work elsewhere.

British people don’t like rules. Within minutes of the first lockdown being announced you had memes popping up of people saying that they were going to go two walks every day just to spite the rules 

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

I don't know what it is, but there's something really weird about us as a country that we won't get behind sensible restrictions. Maybe it's the Cummings thing. About a month ago here I suggested that mask wearing just be compulsory and those that couldn't wear a mask just remain locked down (like people were proposing those at risk do, and like people living in many cities are now having to do anyway). I was basically told I was Hitler. But it seems to work elsewhere.

im still amazed at the people I work with looking for reasons not to wear one .... rather than people looking at the very simple reasons for wearing them ... protecting others !! and  that message that we took to pretty well back in March 

[squirrelarmy]

3 minutes ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

Exactly, and that's why to me you can't just go around saying lockdown lockdown, Leeds has over 790k residents and there are 2883 positive cases in the last reporting period, that's 0.36 percent of the population of Leeds can you ruin businesses and lives of many thousands for that percentage? I'm not sure you can. 

Just focusing on Leeds in particular. I know 6 people who have the virus currently. 2 from work, a friend and her housemate and another friend and her daughter. As well as another teacher friend whose currently isolating because her school bubble burst. 

All these groups are completely separate to each other and their only connection is me.

I could have quite easily being in close contact with any of these cases and seen more people and still kept within the government rules of socialising where money can be spent.

Other than the work people, I haven’t seen these people in person for weeks but I can see how easily a virus can spread if people don’t restrict their activities. 
 

 

[gizmoman]

11 minutes ago, ace56blaa said:

We already spent a lot of yesterday talking about how lockdown could affect suicide, how there's no data for recorded suicides this year, so no way to possibly support that query. I'm not saying it's not a possibility, but we are not just sacrificing you're one perfect example of a vulnerable person. A) It's incredibly disgusting to speak about these decisions as trading lives. If someone is getting to a point where they are suicidal, it's not just because the government locked down. There would be tons of issues that we should address, financial support, mental health support. It's incredibly insensitive to use suicide as your point of argument against locking down when you don't know in reality the effect lockdown would have. Who knows how many people might feel suicidal because their loved one died or will be in constant pain from long covid. 

We should do everything we can to give support and help to everyone where we can, we don't know what effects a second lockdown will have. It won't be good for a lot of reasons. But this speculative reasoning is just insensitive and discounts thousands of people who could die from covid, not least the people who don't fit into the 85 year old with a chronic disease you are dreaming up. There's plenty of people in vulnerable categories who aren't a pensioner.

But we do know what lockdown means, loss of employment, being isolated etc. it's hardly a stretch to believe there will be an increase in suicides this year, and that is precisely what mental health professionals have been warning about, it's not something I dreamed up, I wasn't advocating "trading lives" but if we are killing some younger people to save the very elderly we need to understand that.

[SheffJeff]

1 hour ago, stuartbert two hats said:

To be fair, I was taught at school that the mean, median and mode were all different kinds of averages.  I know that the mean is generally taken to be "the" average, but given the audience at what people learn at school, I think we can give them that one - especially since  they've clarified which average they mean (pun not intended).

My old man always used to tell my Mum 'Liz, you're a mean cook. And by mean I mean average'.

Sorry for the non relevant/interesting comment but this conversation just brought back a memory I'd not thought of for years.

[st dan]

2 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

im still amazed at the people I work with looking for reasons not to wear one .... rather than people looking at the very simple reasons for wearing them ... protecting others !! and  that message that we took to pretty well back in March 

I guess some will have issues with the mask wearing due to the governments initial reaction to them when this was first breaking out. We were constantly told that ‘there is no/mixed at evidence to support the wearing of masks’ and then suddenly it became an essential - seemingly for no other reason than every other country was wearing them as mandatory. 
I obviously wear one and have no issues with doing so in the slightest, but these mixed messages added to some people’s sheer arrogance and ignorance and that’s why it’s an issue for some.