Covid-19 Virus

Yes, you could be right.

It doesn't make sense at all then. They seem to favour these leaks just before weekends with press conferences on Mondays.

It just leads to lots of speculation and people trying to get one last trip or event in over the weekend in anticipation of the further restrictions.

As @a19tgg says, it does always seem to come with the message that "pressure is mounting" for the government to act. Perhaps the leaks are just to give the impression that the government is acting reluctantly and that will keep more of the lockdown sceptical voters on side.

 

Of course no one wants it, what a strange thing to say.

Doesn’t mean it isn’t needed though.

 

It will of course just delay all lives saved given we are all scheduled to meet our maker at some point.
"The scientists"are predicting considerably more deaths (4000 a day) this wave than last peak with NHS being overwhelmed, causing more non CV19 deaths. Rightly or wrongly, that would be the main reason for tighter national lockdown.

 

A big question now is whether schools and universities close with this lockdown. I think there is reason to consider not doing so unless evidence emerges that school transmission was (and is) how this second wave exploded as opposed to ‘eat out to help out’, the Government’s threats to people to return to work or university return etc. It’s likely it’s a combination of factors and that schools could stay open with most everything else closed on their behalf. That could well be worth it.

And students leaving closed universities could just be a vector for ensuring the virus spreads even further. They should stay put and carry on with their online lectures. The NHS must also continue to provide urgent treatment and not risk a second break in the treatment and detection of other serious illnesses.

It does seem like there is little alternative to a lockdown and once more you are left scratching your head at the muddle of approaches. Only two weeks ago Keir Starmer was a ‘shameless opportunist’ for suggesting a circuit break. Now the Government is briefing for full lockdown.

 

I don’t think schools and universities will (or should) close but it would be helpful if the government would state a clear position on whether all university teaching should move online, at least where possible. There seems to be a popular misconception that that is already the case: it isn’t, at least not in every university.

 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but, as a national lockdown looks more and more likely, it would have made more sense imo to have included the school half term (and maybe even extended it for a week).

 

The vast majority of people did comply with the first national lockdown though. Even if the numbers doing so are somewhat less the second time it should still have a positive effect. You’re not going to get crowds flocking to beaches now either.

 

Beaches were never an issue in the first place, though.

 

How do you know?

 

The data?

 

Which specifies that infections weren't caused by people getting too close to each other on beaches?

 

Mrs Willis works at LSE and there the proportion is roughly two thirds online and one third live attendance. Of the online students, some are in halls and local accommodation and some are at home, including abroad. The University has invested loads in facilitating improved online teaching.

 

Back in the summer when the weather was good and people were all packed on the beaches, cases were still declining even when testing was increasing at the same time. No doubt there was some infection between people on beaches, but clearly not enough to actually increase infections.

As you say, people aren’t going to be on beaches now, yet infections are going through the roof.

 

I wasn't talking about the summer. I was talking about the period around Easter at the beginning of lockdown when the weather was good.

 

It's similar for us (although I'm not convinced about the investment). Our union is campaigning for all teaching this term to be online, though.

 

I’m a firm believer that the main driver for the spread of the virus occurs in private, rather than public settings, i.e. mixing with family and friends. However all the government messages in recent months have pointed to the pandemic being almost over, so people have relaxed their vigilance over taking measures, as well as just being fed up with it all.

 

Surely people were only packed on beaches when we were allowed to be? We went into Lockdown in March, I don’t remember people packed on beaches then.

 

Admittedly this is the Daily Mail:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ers-ignore-coronavirus-lockdown-measures.html

Also:
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/health/people-braaking-lockdown-over-long-weekend-norfolk-1-6646359

And not beaches but parks:
https://www.ft.com/content/84d96dee-45f9-4870-88b5-d39f929c06be

Anyway, this is a bit of a drift from my point that most people did comply and that there wouldn't be this particular incentiive not to comply in November. But I think Willis is right, the main risk doesn't come from gatherings in public.

 

Lockdown worked, regardless of flouting rules, as far as getting the virus down to very low levels. No doubt people flouting rules had a slight impact on how quickly we got it under control, but it would’ve been negligible. I’m pretty sure all the scientific modelling was based on something like 75% compliance and compliance was probably greater than that. People aren’t supposed to murder people or commit crimes where the punishment is years locked up in jail, yet people have and always will commit crime. So people have and always will flout a lockdown, but not in numbers that are high enough for it not to be effective at achieving its end game.

My point about beaches overall, was that once we exited lockdown and were actually allowed to go to beaches and people were photographed packed together like sardines on them, we still saw a decline in cases for several months while they were doing it.

I think the problem now if anything with a lockdown is that people won’t want to go to beaches or outdoor spaces in their droves to flout any lockdown, if they’re going to flout it whatever they end up doing will carry a far greater chance of spreading the virus more.

Not being able to flock to the beach is more a problem that a positive thing.

Either way though, I agree that the level of compliance will be fine.

 

People were never really packed on beaches. I’ve been on some busy beaches and yet never sat within two metres of anyone. It was camera foreshortening.

Not that there are no associated problems with large crowds, but these are more to do with toilets, places people eat and behaviour.

Pretty much anything done outside is ok, except where the space is enclosed, for example a football stand or risky stuff that puts pressure on the NHS or other services. Even so this lockdown’s message should be to be active.

 

Yes I agree with that, it was mostly the gutter press trying to whip people up into a frenzy. There were also a few good articles doing the rounds at the time highlighting how skewed the perspective was on some shots and of course the Daily Mail, photoshopping James Cracknell so he was sitting 1cm from his Dad.

Either way I don’t see it as an issue, the outside stuff was least of our worries and could’ve easily existed in its own and kept the virus at bay.

It seems pretty clear it’s close indoor contact that creates the biggest issue, something which obviously goes hand in had with the seasons changing.

I think a second lockdown will achieve its intention either way, but if people flout it then it will be meeting at each other’s houses, rather than meeting in the park or at a beach.

 

What good will it be to people who’ve been thrown on to the dole queue – or seen the businesses they’ve built up over decades go under – to sit around with their extended families on Christmas Day and pull a few crackers? Is Boris really so feeble-minded that SAGE scientists were able to persuade him to shut down the country, with catastrophic consequences for the economy, mental health and people suffering from any illness other than COVID-19, because doing so would “save Christmas”? Is he really such a sentimental buffoon?

 

You continue not to spot the Elephant in the room which is that the economy is wrong if it presents a choice between it and public health and that the two actually go hand in hand. Fail to contain the virus and the economy will tank sure as day follows night.

All the economy needs are measures to ensure that people have enough and that demand is maintained. Many consumables have seen big jumps. Those profits need to help maintain the unproductive sectors while they are mothballed. This doesn’t have to be an existential crisis unless you are determined to make it so. If you accept businesses going to the wall while Amazon goes stratospheric then you are a fool and so is every other free marketeer.

 

All good in theory, in reality how do you take profits off amazon and give them to the landlord of the Dog and Duck, though?

 

Press conference today at 4PM.

The useless fecks could have done this weeks ago when sage advised it, or a couple of weeks ago to take advantage of half term, but as usual have to be dragged screaming into action when the absolutely bleedin' inevitable happens.

 

Yeah, I don’t disagree, I was simply suggesting that one “reason” for breaching lockdown - good weather - no longer exists, which might assist compliance overall. But as you say, that aspect is likely to have been a relatively minor factor, anyway.

 

Tell the public that if they buy from Amazon and Amazon won’t pay its share, then they won’t afford furlough. I think the public mood towards Amazon could be changed overnight. It’s successful, but it’s not popular at all.

The point remains that there is oodles of wealth to support individuals and families through a series of breaks. ‘The economy’ is telling us that is impossible and it’s a lie.

Demand is a great thing. Just keep it up.

 

Not intentional according to this: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/31/downing-street-launches-covid-lockdown-leak-inquiry?

 

You credit them with too much thinking. They have as usual been winging it hoping against advice that it will die down with their half-arsed measures.

Christmas is off.

 

So the plan is to wait and see how much tax Amazon pays when it files the return 9 months after it’s next year end and then decide whether we can pay furlough money to the people who need it right now? Sounds like a genius plan.