I can’t be bothered to explain further sorry.

I’m confused myself, I’m not really sure what your point is? Your initial post was that they are announced essentially every 3.5 weeks but that was only initially because there was no legislation in force.

 

The legislation requires the lockdown to be reviewed, at the minimum, every third Thursday. It can be earlier than this, but naturally the Government will likely be stretching it to the last minute if lockdown will still be required. They may announce next Thursday that it is until June 1st but they would still need to complete the review by 28 May.

Anyone else who would like to explain to a poor foreigner? I'm literally just trying to understand lmao

The confusion, I think, stems from the fact that the lockdown was announced on a Monday with a three-week review period. As the measures were meant to be observed immediately, there was an assumption that the first review period ended three weeks after that even though the legislation was not enacted until the Thursday. The first review started on the Monday with the conclusion announced on the Thursday,

I have to rate when it became evident that this was a big one to the original Wuhan lockdown though. No one locks down a city like that for anything normal. And at that point, the governments of the world had over a month, almost two months in some cases, to draw up a plan of action for making sure the same didn't happen in their countries.

 

But instead the media and governments were portraying it as something that was happening Over There, even as cases began to show up all over the world here and there, while in China and Italy, they were portraying it as apocalyptic, now it's worse in the USA and the UK than it ever got there and the number of deaths is a footnote on our newspaper articles. But even as late as the end of February you had senior American politicians talking about hoaxes, you had this complacency, you had world leaders declaring business as normal and it's hurt them.

 

Agreed.

 

People are more than happy to discuss how the Chinese death toll is obviously fake, and then explain why the UK death toll is probably mostly correct — the lack of self-awareness. Clearly it's far easier to be critical of what is happening Over There than see that your own government has helped facilitate the deaths of tens of thousands of people. I know it's a tired hypothetical, but Corbyn and Labour would be facing far different — and deserved — scrutiny had they done the same before and during this crisis.

 

(Unrelated, but you and Suedehead are two of the most articulate consistent voices of reason on this forum and I look forward to every post you make).

Edited April 30, 20205 yr by blacksquare

The confusion, I think, stems from the fact that the lockdown was announced on a Monday with a three-week review period. As the measures were meant to be observed immediately, there was an assumption that the first review period ended three weeks after that even though the legislation was not enacted until the Thursday. The first review started on the Monday with the conclusion announced on the Thursday,

 

Thanks not sure why people found this so difficult to understand when it is as clear as day what I was talking about.

It's easy to say that but there is one question I haven't even seen asked, let alone answered. It is similar to what happens after almost every terrorist attack. Within days it becomes evident that the suspect was on a list of potential terrorists. Very occasionally, it becomes clear that the suspect was on a list of tens of thousands of people thought to present a similar risk. The overwhelming majority of those people (about 99.99%) do NOT commit a terrorist act. Thereforre, for the police to monitor all of them closely would cost a massive sum of money and achieve almost nothing.

 

The same applies here. If China had alerted the WHO at the first sign of the virus, would the response have been on the lines of "Thanks for letting us know. We'll keep an eye on it in the same way we kept an eye on the dozens of other viruses that eventually came to naught"? In other words, it isn't entirely clear when it became evident that this virus really was "the big one" the world has been anticipating for decades rather than another false alarm.

 

Just to go back to the apparently low German death rate, one of the reasons is that they have tested more people.

 

While I get your point about China- and Wuhan in particular. I personally took a lot of that out as Chinese PR to demonstrate to the world, not how bad it was, but how they were containing the virus. Let's be clear as well, as far as I can recall it took until the end of January for it to be confirmed this virus was transmitted between person to person. Now OK I get they need more data, but there was clearly a lack of solid information being shared between agencies and governments across the world. Clearly corinavirus is not as deadly as SARS for example- the issue with Covid-19 is that it is hidden and unless you test yourself regularly you are transmitting the virus when it is at its most effective in the early stages.

 

And to answer blacksquare's point - I don't think anyone here is arguing that the British government did not mess up, they did. In the key window from all the different press releases it seems they dithered in a key time period. Stats of death statsitics tell a story, but with anything you can maniuplate measures to show a story, which I think the British givernment are doing, but I also believe this is true of the rest of the world too. We do need to understand the economical impact as clearly this will have a large social effect, but imo the biggest falt of the government and what will come up is the fact they planned for a flu pandemic and not shutting down large gatherings and bars & resturaunts sooner.

Thanks not sure why people found this so difficult to understand when it is as clear as day what I was talking about.

Because that’s exactly what I said in my first post and then you replied that it’s confusing the public who think the next announcement is coming next Thursday... which is likely correct? So the public are aware the announcements are likely coming on Thursdays?

I’m confused myself, I’m not really sure what your point is? Your initial post was that they are announced essentially every 3.5 weeks but that was only initially because there was no legislation in force.

 

The legislation requires the lockdown to be reviewed, at the minimum, every third Thursday. It can be earlier than this, but naturally the Government will likely be stretching it to the last minute if lockdown will still be required. They may announce next Thursday that it is until June 1st but they would still need to complete the review by 28 May.

 

Boris announced the lockdown for 3 weeks on 23rd March.

The next lockdown was then not announced until 3 weeks and 3 days later on 16th April where it was then announced the lockdown would be in place for a further 3 weeks which takes you to Thursday 7th May. This is however a review date not when the lockdown is extended until.

 

My point is I have seen many posts online and speaking to people where they do not understand the additional days added on to the 3 weeks so we have effectively had two 3 weeks of lockdown that covers 7 weeks.

 

Apologies but I am really not clear how this is hard for people to understand the point I am making.

Edited April 30, 20205 yr by Alex P

Because that’s exactly what I said in my first post and then you replied that it’s confusing the public who think the next announcement is coming next Thursday... which is likely correct? So the public are aware the announcements are likely coming on Thursdays?

 

The announcement is not expected on Thursday that’s when they start their review so the extension of the lockdown is likely to be announced on Monday 11th May.

Thanks not sure why people found this so difficult to understand when it is as clear as day what I was talking about.

There's no need for you to be this condescending and rude lmao

 

Anyway people counting down the days is kinda extra anyway. If you just go with the flow and just keep up with the news when it arrives, this lockdown is a lot easier

81,000 tests yesterday, fair play to Hancock. Every chance we will hit 100,000. I didn't think it was possible, a hail Mary or what.

There's no need for you to be this condescending and rude lmao

 

Anyway people counting down the days is kinda extra anyway. If you just go with the flow and just keep up with the news when it arrives, this lockdown is a lot easier

 

There are no days to count down when there isn’t an end point and this wasn’t what I was questioning in the first place. It is clear you can’t hold a proper discussion so I am ending this discussion now.

From the daily briefing we will get a roadmap next week.

The R in London is between 0.5-0.7, interesting as this is currently a lower rate than Germany.

There are no days to count down when there isn’t an end point and this wasn’t what I was questioning in the first place. It is clear you can’t hold a proper discussion so I am ending this discussion now.

This has to be one of the most ironic posts I have ever seen on my days on this website

This has to be one of the most ironic posts I have ever seen on my days on this website

 

Thankfully I have now put your posts on ignore.

Good for you, taking the moral highground and all.

 

Anyway, I'm gonna have to pass a closed border in a days to get back to Belgium for my exams :cheeseblock:

Thankfully I have now put your posts on ignore.

 

In which case, why was there a need to respond further ?

 

Please can I remind everyone of the rules, thank you.

From the daily briefing we will get a roadmap next week.

The R in London is between 0.5-0.7, interesting as this is currently a lower rate than Germany.

 

Germnay have relaxed their lockdown though, so this is to be expected. The key for us now is to try and get the figure as low as possible. Will be interesting to see the plans next week- looks like Premier League football will be back on 8th June, so would could probably expect some minor relaxations for the rest of May with a view to begin opening up a little more freely in June.

In which case, why was there a need to respond further ?

 

Please can I remind everyone of the rules, thank you.

 

The user is extremely childish and looking to antagonise which you would see if you read their posts.

No, I am trying to have a civil discussion with you and trying to understand your posts. My opinion however doesn't fit your narative and thats why you "end" the discussion. I have not antagonised you in any way

81,000 tests yesterday, fair play to Hancock. Every chance we will hit 100,000. I didn't think it was possible, a hail Mary or what.

That's still not 100,000 PER DAY. That's what they promised and they have failed to deliver it.