The thing is, every country right now is pursuing a herd immunity strategy, just not the one you read about in books and journals. We can't keep everyone locked up for 18 months for a vaccine. The only thing we can do is try to mitigate as much risk as possible, protect vulnerable people and hopefully that way we can beat the virus and it slows down its lethalality. There's mass risk involved in opening even small parts of the country up again and with how badly the government screwed up before you would expect them to massively air on the side of caution, hence why I suspect we will have another 3 weeks of lockdown.

 

Our government messed up because they announced it to the general public and they took for granted how ill-prepared we were.

 

I agree, though I don't see that as "herd immunity" (ie do nothing) the key part is "mitigating risk". They singularly failed to do that until forced to by circumstances they could no longer ignore (which would have been dead bodies piled up in the street had they done nothing). Want to see what Covid-19 mass -death looks like? Africa is heading that way, they dont have the infrastructure to support the poor and vulnerable who have no choice but to try and find food any way they can.

 

Councils have strategies for pandemics, as I've said before. The strategy is what to do with all the dead bodies and sending out advice on how to avoid becoming one of the dead bodies. Government responsibility is to make sure Councils have enough funding to deal with the latter issue first before the former becomes the only strategy in town. They have failed abysmally. An extra 1.6b in cash doesnt in any way make up for the slash and cut funding they have forced onto Councils. I'm living with the fall-out of that at work right now, backlogs are enormous and it's fire-fighting.

 

We have to take sensible precautions as much as possible to pop down Tesco. I don;t see why that couldnt have been the policy from day one, and I dont see why all shops cant do the same for the next few months/years. If we are in this for long haul, then the government needs a strategy for vulnerable people over that period. It's not just Covid-19 that is the ongoing problem, it's the loss of medical staff, the backing-up of procedures for other things, the likelihood that serious medical problems become fatal because the system isn't working properly. Until we have the correct equipment generally available for a planned long-term response we ain't goin' nowhere notime soon. Any opening up will just lead to headlines of a thousand dying every day again and the Tories will look even more incompetent and heartless than they already do. People who voted Tory for Brexit weren't agreeing for being killed by a vicious infectious disease any more than idiot Boris was planning on having a bout of anything more than a week in bed with flu. Priorities have changed absolutely for the world, politicians who fail to recognise that are delusional and will be kicked out at the first opportunity one way or another, democratically or otherwise. Piss off the people enough and they respond, and not always pleasantly.

I still don't understand why the idea of releasing strict lockdown for those at lowest risk and maintaining it for those at highest risk draws such ire. If its literally protecting people from a high chance of death if they break it.

I still don't understand why the idea of releasing strict lockdown for those at lowest risk and maintaining it for those at highest risk draws such ire. If its literally protecting people from a high chance of death if they break it.

 

It draws up way too many blurred lines, e.g you might have a really healthy 70 years old who is not allowed to enter outside, but then you may have a 69 year old who is as vulnerable as they come. The bigger problem though then comes with managing who interacts with who, as it's pretty much confirmed there are a lot of people who carry the virus without displaying any symptoms so it just creates more problems than it actually solves. I also don't think we understand enough about the virus yet.

 

The best way imo, is buying time then gradually re-opening the country so people gradually get the virus in cases where it cannot be avoided and then hopefully there will be as little loss to life as possible.

I still don't understand why the idea of releasing strict lockdown for those at lowest risk and maintaining it for those at highest risk draws such ire. If its literally protecting people from a high chance of death if they break it.

 

Because it's difficult to classify who is lowest risk - as there would still a significant amount of people who will require hospitalisation who are lowest risk/healthy. There's also the fact there are many peope with underlying health conditions who don't realise they have them. Additionally, having a lockdown for some but not others will increase the likelihood of people breaking the lockdown.

Death total today is 449. Whether there's a weekend lag (100% there will be) or not that's still quite a drop in hospital recorded deaths, which even though the number is still high it just shows what an amazing job everyone is doing by staying indoors and of course the NHS as well.

 

 

Haven't we already identified that by far the biggest risk factor IS age?

 

Idk, just keeping the whole population under strict lockdown when you could be keeping just a percentage under strict lockdown for the same net result seems counterproductive to me.

Edited April 20, 20205 yr by fl00zy*

Haven't we already identified that by far the biggest risk factor IS age?

 

Idk, just keeping the whole population under strict lockdown when you could be keeping just a percentage under strict lockdown for the same net result seems counterproductive to me.

It's a tough decision. You might have thought the phrase "We're all in this together" had been discredited by its constant (and rather dishonest) use by George Osborne but it seems to be working quite well at the moment because it is seen as largely true. Any deviation from that could lead to resentment. It may be that it's the right way to go (there are some strong arguments for it) but they need to tread carefully. Rules that are largely ignored (as could be the case if there is a lot of resentment) would be utterly useless.

You have a point, but I feel there's already resentment. It's hard to deny that we already live in an incredibly divided society.

 

Even now with how we are experiencing lockdown, with a vast majority of retired homeowners experiencing it in a large and comfortable space with a garden and little change to their existing routine, while workers living in shared flats in the inner city are having a completely different experience.

 

The argument currently sits that the latter should continue indefinitely to live as such in service of the former - otherwise the former will feel it's unfair. I feel like that will hold as an argument for a time, but won't forever, unless some kind of leeway or middle ground is found.

Haven't we already identified that by far the biggest risk factor IS age?

 

Idk, just keeping the whole population under strict lockdown when you could be keeping just a percentage under strict lockdown for the same net result seems counterproductive to me.

 

This is the problem, age certainly is a factor, in a regular flu season normally it is the old that are the most vulnerable. Naturally there are more health problems there so it can lead to a greater risk when contracting the virus.

 

There’s a worrying theory at the moment that ethnic minorities might be at greater risk. I’m sure I read in the UK 1/4 of deaths have been from BAME which is massively disproportionate when balanced against the U.K. population. But then what they don’t know is whether this is because more BAME are classed as key workers so their exposure to the virus is greater or whether it could be something to do with genetics. There’s all sorts of theories and tests, but I just don’t think we know enough yet.

Haven't we already identified that by far the biggest risk factor IS age?

 

Idk, just keeping the whole population under strict lockdown when you could be keeping just a percentage under strict lockdown for the same net result seems counterproductive to me.

Its not just age though.

Anyone with a compromised immune system, cancer patients, diabetics, heart patients etc all have a higher risk

Did I read that Germany is opening small business this week or something like that?

Its not just age though.

Anyone with a compromised immune system, cancer patients, diabetics, heart patients etc all have a higher risk

 

Yes: but age is the most common factor that may go co-morbid with the above - or may be more likely to.

 

Re BAME people, wasn't there rumblings that it was due to Vitamin D deficiency which was more common in people from those social groups in the UK?

Yes: but age is the most common factor that may go co-morbid with the above - or may be more likely to.

 

Re BAME people, wasn't there rumblings that it was due to Vitamin D deficiency which was more common in people from those social groups in the UK?

 

That’s the problem though- nobody really knows. Lots of theories but no concrete proof. The lockdown is just a way to bide time to prepare for the next 6-12 months. The nightingale hospitals are up and running and we at least know a little bit more about the virus.

 

I just can’t see an age-controlled model to lifting the lockdown, no other country is doing that yet and I don’t think they will.

Why is there a delay in distributing PPE to hospitals?

Why is there a delay in distributing PPE to hospitals?

 

I don't think they have the supply and nobody knows what the hold-up with Turkey is. I suspect Turkey made a promise but probably told a few white lies and now it seems we have sent an RAF plane to pick the supplies up.

 

News from the Telegraph tonight that "Downing Street sources" (aka Dominic Cummings and his team) think the figure of 100,000 tests is unachievable. Hanock obviously been set up as the fall guy once all this is out of crisis mode..

A report on Sky overnight that the "delayed" PPE was delayed because they didn't order it until Sunday.

 

When this is over, there needs to be some serious headrollings in the corridors of the UK Gov and it needs to start with the PM.

 

 

The PPE crisis isn't impacting the devolved nations, just England. NI is sharing resources and purchases with Ireland. Scotland said f*** it and chartered a 747 flew it to China and rammed it full of PPE and medical equipment and brought it back to Prestwick. I dunno what Wales is up to but I've heard they're fairing better than England.

 

Did I read that Germany is opening small business this week or something like that?

Yes. Retail stores under 800 sq m (8160 sq ft) were allowed to reopen from Monday with a few exceptions. As Germany is a federal country, the states have applied this slightly differently. Some states are allowing larger stores to reopen if they block off parts of their store so the active sales space is under 800 sq m, NRW appears to have allowed everything to open and Berlin has allowed nothing to reopen - but may do so from later this week.

According to Sky News and several newspapers today, the Government wants to ban the words EXIT STRATEGY. They don't like it now and prefer people to refer to the NEXT PHASE. There's a small group of 4 senior cabinet ministers meeting twice a day 7 days a week, morning and early evening at present. They are Sunak, Gove, Raab and Hancock, chosen by Boris. Apparently Priti Patel is angry that she isn't present as she's in charge of the police who have to enforce the lockdown. Wonder if he's starting to sideline her a bit and will move her eventually.

According to Sky News and several newspapers today, the Government wants to ban the words EXIT STRATEGY. They don't like it now and prefer people to refer to the NEXT PHASE. There's a small group of 4 senior cabinet ministers meeting twice a day 7 days a week, morning and early evening at present. They are Sunak, Gove, Raab and Hancock, chosen by Boris. Apparently Priti Patel is angry that she isn't present as she's in charge of the police who have to enforce the lockdown. Wonder if he's starting to sideline her a bit and will move her eventually.

 

Well I'd like to think there was probably a lot of truth in both those statements - the lexis of exit strategy implies that this is all over, so next phase would be the right thing to go with (and you would expect there would be 2/3/4 phases.. although who knows with this government).

 

Priti Patel has appeared once to the media, got absolutely slaughtered and she has an unfair dismissal against her, which despite best efforts is probably going to be difficult to bury in the media, despite most news being about Covid-19. I'd say she's pretty much toast.

I think that there has been a general sense of ineptness which has permeated the Government's response. The fallout, once the dust has settled (so to speak), will be huge, and it will probably provide the Labour party and Keir Starmer with their best opportunity to persuade millions of voters to move back to their party. The saving grace for the Tories has been that their most enigmatic figure has been absent during the period where a lot of the shit has hit the fan. Nevertheless, it speaks volumes about his judgement that he surrounded himself with cabinet ministers who have little backbone, credibility or authenticity - undoubtedly, this strategy helped him[/] look better, but when he isn't there... well, they're not exactly men for a crisis.

 

Speaking of Patel, here's a rare video she once did for That Mitchell and Webb Look:

 

That’s the problem though- nobody really knows. Lots of theories but no concrete proof. The lockdown is just a way to bide time to prepare for the next 6-12 months. The nightingale hospitals are up and running and we at least know a little bit more about the virus.

 

I just can’t see an age-controlled model to lifting the lockdown, no other country is doing that yet and I don’t think they will.

 

Spain is starting in 9 days