Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Virus |
| Jump to newest |  |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I genuine think that after xmas we will follow suit with the rest of the UK. And many other countries However we need an actual lockdown this time... not wishy washy half measures x " So what would you shut down that wasn't last time? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lockdowns don't work. This is the definition of insanity, we are repeating the same thing over and over anticipating a different result." The whole country needs to be in a FULL lockdown for it to work not tiers here there and everywhere. Take a leaf out NZ,s book | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lockdowns don't work. This is the definition of insanity, we are repeating the same thing over and over anticipating a different result. The whole country needs to be in a FULL lockdown for it to work not tiers here there and everywhere. Take a leaf out NZ,s book " Can't compare NZ to UK. Totally different countries and circumstances. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I genuine think that after xmas we will follow suit with the rest of the UK. And many other countries However we need an actual lockdown this time... not wishy washy half measures x " Agree it was busier on the streets first time round than a normal day | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For those that suggest a full lockdown doesn’t work, why do you say that? Because people still got infected and died? Do we know how they got infected? If people stay inside. If they wear masks. If they practice social distancing and hand sanitisation, how were they able to be infected and/or pass that infection on? Thats the information I want to see out of track and trace." Very strict lockdown in Spain masks worn from the start inside and out guess what virus is still there , Germany praised for Track and trace how. Well they controlled it Virus still there and rising | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In your opinion what should be done next by the government? In my opinion it should be a full lockdown like we had in Feb/March or everyone be in tier 3 for the foreseeable future until it get sorted, that's my opinion what's yours? "For them to at least aim for a degree of competency? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In your opinion what should be done next by the government? In my opinion it should be a full lockdown like we had in Feb/March or everyone be in tier 3 for the foreseeable future until it get sorted, that's my opinion what's yours? "Tier 4 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back in March, when Professor Ferguson's team at Imperial College produced their now discredited figure of 510,000 deaths unless drastic action was taken, they coupled it with a sombre warning which has been completely vindicated. Aggressive measures to reduce transmission of the virus, it said, "will need to be maintained until a vaccine is available (18 months or more) - given we predict transmission will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed". As a permanent lockdown would have been politically impossible, socially intolerable and economically terminal, the Government didn't try it. Instead, it adopted a succession of on-off lockdowns or semi-lockdowns, responding to each resurgence of the virus as it happened. We are forever being told not to blow it now by throwing away our past efforts. Truth is, our past efforts have been useless. They reduced infections and associated deaths while the lockdowns were in force, but only by shifting them into a later period. That is why we are where we are now. The prospect that a vaccine will be generally available in the next three months has changed the narrative. An indefinite lockdown may have been unrealistic in March when a vaccine seemed far away. But we are being told it would be fine now that vaccination is just round the corner. Easter, say ministers, can be the new Christmas. Too bad about the last nine months. This is big-stakes poker. The evidence is that the three leading vaccines are effective and safe. But we do not know how long it will take to vaccinate most of the population, how many refuseniks there will be, what take-up will be necessary for herd immunity, how long the immunity will last or whether vaccinated people can transmit the virus to others. Let us assume, however, that everything will be for the best. So what would be the moral case for more lockdowns? A lockdown cannot work, even temporarily, unless it is observed. It is unenforceable except with a degree of surveillance beyond the resources of the police and would quickly provoke a backlash. Ultimately, it depends on public willingness to comply. The Government knows that, which is why it doesn't dare to lock us down over Christmas. The first lockdown produced a high degree of compliance. But it has been less impressive since then, with evasion even among those who profess to support them. Looking at Europe and North America, two things occur. The first is that the virus has become endemic. The consensus of epidemiologists is that the vaccine will mitigate its impact but will not suppress it. The second is that the progress of the virus once it becomes endemic is broadly the same in populous countries, regardless of the policies of their governments. There have been savage lockdowns, as in Spain, which put the army on the streets to stop people going out, even for exercise. There have been purely advisory regimes, like Sweden's. Between these extremes there has been every possible variant. Some people, like the British, are said to be temperamentally resistant to being told what to do while others, like the Swedes or the Germans, are thought to be naturally compliant. The common factor is that they have failed. The Prime Minister's extravagant rhetoric ("wrestling the disease to the ground", etc) sounds increasingly ridiculous. Even with a vaccine as our exit route, this ought to make us pause before we start calling for more of a policy that has so demonstrably failed. Logically, there are only two possible explanations for its failure. One is that the virus is more potent than governments. It may be that even the minimum of human interaction is enough to defeat the policy. In London, infections actually went up in the second lockdown. The other is that, whatever we do, the basic instincts of humanity, which is fundamentally sociable, will reassert themselves. Governments and laws operate in a human environment. A policy that only works by suppressing our humanity is unlikely to work at all. Life is risky. A policy that seeks to eliminate risk ends up trying to eliminate life. We have to re-examine the whole concept that governments can simply turn social existence on and off at will, treating us as passive instruments of state policy. This is not just a practical problem. It is a moral problem. What moral right does the state have to expect us to forswear our humanity to achieve its objectives, however admirable? The pandemic perfectly illustrates this dilemma. Covid-19 is a serious threat to life and health for certain people: those over 65 and/or with identifiable clinical vulnerabilities. Encouraging the vulnerable to isolate themselves speaks to their instinct for self-preservation. It goes with the grain of human nature. It is also rational - the onus should surely be on those most at risk to modify their way of life so as to limit that risk. Ordering the young and healthy to isolate so as to avoid infecting the vulnerable, when the great majority of the vulnerable can keep themselves out of harm's way if they wish, is not rational, conflicts with every instinct of social animals and defies human nature. Worse than that, it is morally disreputable. If you doubt me, then pause to think about the damage all this is inflicting on the young. They are at virtually no risk of dying or even becoming seriously ill. "Long Covid" affects a small number and is not mortal. Yet the young and economically active are bearing the brunt of the Government's measures. They are seeing their careers and job prospects destroyed before their eyes. We will get over Covid-19 eventually. Many of them will never get over the long-term effects of the countermeasures. Inflicting serious mental problems on children whose parents are precariously employed or inadequately housed and teaching them that they are killing their grandparents is worse than cruel. Forcing talented engineering graduates to take jobs as delivery drivers is worse than wasteful. Destroying businesses that have taken a lifetime to build up in order to relieve the Government of the consequences of years of underfunding the NHS is worse than destructive. Saddling the upcoming generation with crushing personal debt and higher taxes to pay the cost of a few months or years of life for some of my generation is worse than oppressive. These things are also profoundly immoral. They are consequences not of the epidemic but of avoidable government policy. The vaccine may mitigate the disease. It may even do it in three months. But it will not mitigate the destructive consequences of government action. They will be with us for decades. The fanatical and the frightened are fond of saying that those who criticise or ignore the rules are selfish. The real selfishness is the selfishness of those who are willing to inflict all of these disasters on other people in the hope of enhancing their own security. " . What a fantastic post with such great points and so true | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Our Government should have gone hardcore and locked our whole Island country down for a while we may..just may have beat this virus!! "Just like Spain but oh dear it’s still there | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back in March, when Professor Ferguson's team at Imperial College produced their now discredited figure of 510,000 deaths unless drastic action was taken, they coupled it with a sombre warning which has been completely vindicated. Aggressive measures to reduce transmission of the virus, it said, "will need to be maintained until a vaccine is available (18 months or more) - given we predict transmission will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed". As a permanent lockdown would have been politically impossible, socially intolerable and economically terminal, the Government didn't try it. Instead, it adopted a succession of on-off lockdowns or semi-lockdowns, responding to each resurgence of the virus as it happened. We are forever being told not to blow it now by throwing away our past efforts. Truth is, our past efforts have been useless. They reduced infections and associated deaths while the lockdowns were in force, but only by shifting them into a later period. That is why we are where we are now. The prospect that a vaccine will be generally available in the next three months has changed the narrative. An indefinite lockdown may have been unrealistic in March when a vaccine seemed far away. But we are being told it would be fine now that vaccination is just round the corner. Easter, say ministers, can be the new Christmas. Too bad about the last nine months. This is big-stakes poker. The evidence is that the three leading vaccines are effective and safe. But we do not know how long it will take to vaccinate most of the population, how many refuseniks there will be, what take-up will be necessary for herd immunity, how long the immunity will last or whether vaccinated people can transmit the virus to others. Let us assume, however, that everything will be for the best. So what would be the moral case for more lockdowns? A lockdown cannot work, even temporarily, unless it is observed. It is unenforceable except with a degree of surveillance beyond the resources of the police and would quickly provoke a backlash. Ultimately, it depends on public willingness to comply. The Government knows that, which is why it doesn't dare to lock us down over Christmas. The first lockdown produced a high degree of compliance. But it has been less impressive since then, with evasion even among those who profess to support them. Looking at Europe and North America, two things occur. The first is that the virus has become endemic. The consensus of epidemiologists is that the vaccine will mitigate its impact but will not suppress it. The second is that the progress of the virus once it becomes endemic is broadly the same in populous countries, regardless of the policies of their governments. There have been savage lockdowns, as in Spain, which put the army on the streets to stop people going out, even for exercise. There have been purely advisory regimes, like Sweden's. Between these extremes there has been every possible variant. Some people, like the British, are said to be temperamentally resistant to being told what to do while others, like the Swedes or the Germans, are thought to be naturally compliant. The common factor is that they have failed. The Prime Minister's extravagant rhetoric ("wrestling the disease to the ground", etc) sounds increasingly ridiculous. Even with a vaccine as our exit route, this ought to make us pause before we start calling for more of a policy that has so demonstrably failed. Logically, there are only two possible explanations for its failure. One is that the virus is more potent than governments. It may be that even the minimum of human interaction is enough to defeat the policy. In London, infections actually went up in the second lockdown. The other is that, whatever we do, the basic instincts of humanity, which is fundamentally sociable, will reassert themselves. Governments and laws operate in a human environment. A policy that only works by suppressing our humanity is unlikely to work at all. Life is risky. A policy that seeks to eliminate risk ends up trying to eliminate life. We have to re-examine the whole concept that governments can simply turn social existence on and off at will, treating us as passive instruments of state policy. This is not just a practical problem. It is a moral problem. What moral right does the state have to expect us to forswear our humanity to achieve its objectives, however admirable? The pandemic perfectly illustrates this dilemma. Covid-19 is a serious threat to life and health for certain people: those over 65 and/or with identifiable clinical vulnerabilities. Encouraging the vulnerable to isolate themselves speaks to their instinct for self-preservation. It goes with the grain of human nature. It is also rational - the onus should surely be on those most at risk to modify their way of life so as to limit that risk. Ordering the young and healthy to isolate so as to avoid infecting the vulnerable, when the great majority of the vulnerable can keep themselves out of harm's way if they wish, is not rational, conflicts with every instinct of social animals and defies human nature. Worse than that, it is morally disreputable. If you doubt me, then pause to think about the damage all this is inflicting on the young. They are at virtually no risk of dying or even becoming seriously ill. "Long Covid" affects a small number and is not mortal. Yet the young and economically active are bearing the brunt of the Government's measures. They are seeing their careers and job prospects destroyed before their eyes. We will get over Covid-19 eventually. Many of them will never get over the long-term effects of the countermeasures. Inflicting serious mental problems on children whose parents are precariously employed or inadequately housed and teaching them that they are killing their grandparents is worse than cruel. Forcing talented engineering graduates to take jobs as delivery drivers is worse than wasteful. Destroying businesses that have taken a lifetime to build up in order to relieve the Government of the consequences of years of underfunding the NHS is worse than destructive. Saddling the upcoming generation with crushing personal debt and higher taxes to pay the cost of a few months or years of life for some of my generation is worse than oppressive. These things are also profoundly immoral. They are consequences not of the epidemic but of avoidable government policy. The vaccine may mitigate the disease. It may even do it in three months. But it will not mitigate the destructive consequences of government action. They will be with us for decades. The fanatical and the frightened are fond of saying that those who criticise or ignore the rules are selfish. The real selfishness is the selfishness of those who are willing to inflict all of these disasters on other people in the hope of enhancing their own security. " That seems to be a very well written post bringing up some very good points. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back in March, when Professor Ferguson's team at Imperial College produced their now discredited figure of 510,000 deaths unless drastic action was taken, they coupled it with a sombre warning which has been completely vindicated. Aggressive measures to reduce transmission of the virus, it said, "will need to be maintained until a vaccine is available (18 months or more) - given we predict transmission will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed". As a permanent lockdown would have been politically impossible, socially intolerable and economically terminal, the Government didn't try it. Instead, it adopted a succession of on-off lockdowns or semi-lockdowns, responding to each resurgence of the virus as it happened. We are forever being told not to blow it now by throwing away our past efforts. Truth is, our past efforts have been useless. They reduced infections and associated deaths while the lockdowns were in force, but only by shifting them into a later period. That is why we are where we are now. The prospect that a vaccine will be generally available in the next three months has changed the narrative. An indefinite lockdown may have been unrealistic in March when a vaccine seemed far away. But we are being told it would be fine now that vaccination is just round the corner. Easter, say ministers, can be the new Christmas. Too bad about the last nine months. This is big-stakes poker. The evidence is that the three leading vaccines are effective and safe. But we do not know how long it will take to vaccinate most of the population, how many refuseniks there will be, what take-up will be necessary for herd immunity, how long the immunity will last or whether vaccinated people can transmit the virus to others. Let us assume, however, that everything will be for the best. So what would be the moral case for more lockdowns? A lockdown cannot work, even temporarily, unless it is observed. It is unenforceable except with a degree of surveillance beyond the resources of the police and would quickly provoke a backlash. Ultimately, it depends on public willingness to comply. The Government knows that, which is why it doesn't dare to lock us down over Christmas. The first lockdown produced a high degree of compliance. But it has been less impressive since then, with evasion even among those who profess to support them. Looking at Europe and North America, two things occur. The first is that the virus has become endemic. The consensus of epidemiologists is that the vaccine will mitigate its impact but will not suppress it. The second is that the progress of the virus once it becomes endemic is broadly the same in populous countries, regardless of the policies of their governments. There have been savage lockdowns, as in Spain, which put the army on the streets to stop people going out, even for exercise. There have been purely advisory regimes, like Sweden's. Between these extremes there has been every possible variant. Some people, like the British, are said to be temperamentally resistant to being told what to do while others, like the Swedes or the Germans, are thought to be naturally compliant. The common factor is that they have failed. The Prime Minister's extravagant rhetoric ("wrestling the disease to the ground", etc) sounds increasingly ridiculous. Even with a vaccine as our exit route, this ought to make us pause before we start calling for more of a policy that has so demonstrably failed. Logically, there are only two possible explanations for its failure. One is that the virus is more potent than governments. It may be that even the minimum of human interaction is enough to defeat the policy. In London, infections actually went up in the second lockdown. The other is that, whatever we do, the basic instincts of humanity, which is fundamentally sociable, will reassert themselves. Governments and laws operate in a human environment. A policy that only works by suppressing our humanity is unlikely to work at all. Life is risky. A policy that seeks to eliminate risk ends up trying to eliminate life. We have to re-examine the whole concept that governments can simply turn social existence on and off at will, treating us as passive instruments of state policy. This is not just a practical problem. It is a moral problem. What moral right does the state have to expect us to forswear our humanity to achieve its objectives, however admirable? The pandemic perfectly illustrates this dilemma. Covid-19 is a serious threat to life and health for certain people: those over 65 and/or with identifiable clinical vulnerabilities. Encouraging the vulnerable to isolate themselves speaks to their instinct for self-preservation. It goes with the grain of human nature. It is also rational - the onus should surely be on those most at risk to modify their way of life so as to limit that risk. Ordering the young and healthy to isolate so as to avoid infecting the vulnerable, when the great majority of the vulnerable can keep themselves out of harm's way if they wish, is not rational, conflicts with every instinct of social animals and defies human nature. Worse than that, it is morally disreputable. If you doubt me, then pause to think about the damage all this is inflicting on the young. They are at virtually no risk of dying or even becoming seriously ill. "Long Covid" affects a small number and is not mortal. Yet the young and economically active are bearing the brunt of the Government's measures. They are seeing their careers and job prospects destroyed before their eyes. We will get over Covid-19 eventually. Many of them will never get over the long-term effects of the countermeasures. Inflicting serious mental problems on children whose parents are precariously employed or inadequately housed and teaching them that they are killing their grandparents is worse than cruel. Forcing talented engineering graduates to take jobs as delivery drivers is worse than wasteful. Destroying businesses that have taken a lifetime to build up in order to relieve the Government of the consequences of years of underfunding the NHS is worse than destructive. Saddling the upcoming generation with crushing personal debt and higher taxes to pay the cost of a few months or years of life for some of my generation is worse than oppressive. These things are also profoundly immoral. They are consequences not of the epidemic but of avoidable government policy. The vaccine may mitigate the disease. It may even do it in three months. But it will not mitigate the destructive consequences of government action. They will be with us for decades. The fanatical and the frightened are fond of saying that those who criticise or ignore the rules are selfish. The real selfishness is the selfishness of those who are willing to inflict all of these disasters on other people in the hope of enhancing their own security. . What a fantastic post with such great points and so true" We echo that. Superb post. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lockdowns don't work. This is the definition of insanity, we are repeating the same thing over and over anticipating a different result." Definitely | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lockdowns don't work. This is the definition of insanity, we are repeating the same thing over and over anticipating a different result." How on earth can you say the dont work the 1st one dramatically reduced transmission and deaths. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back in March, when Professor Ferguson's team at Imperial College produced their now discredited figure of 510,000 deaths unless drastic action was taken, they coupled it with a sombre warning which has been completely vindicated. Aggressive measures to reduce transmission of the virus, it said, "will need to be maintained until a vaccine is available (18 months or more) - given we predict transmission will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed". As a permanent lockdown would have been politically impossible, socially intolerable and economically terminal, the Government didn't try it. Instead, it adopted a succession of on-off lockdowns or semi-lockdowns, responding to each resurgence of the virus as it happened. We are forever being told not to blow it now by throwing away our past efforts. Truth is, our past efforts have been useless. They reduced infections and associated deaths while the lockdowns were in force, but only by shifting them into a later period. That is why we are where we are now. The prospect that a vaccine will be generally available in the next three months has changed the narrative. An indefinite lockdown may have been unrealistic in March when a vaccine seemed far away. But we are being told it would be fine now that vaccination is just round the corner. Easter, say ministers, can be the new Christmas. Too bad about the last nine months. This is big-stakes poker. The evidence is that the three leading vaccines are effective and safe. But we do not know how long it will take to vaccinate most of the population, how many refuseniks there will be, what take-up will be necessary for herd immunity, how long the immunity will last or whether vaccinated people can transmit the virus to others. Let us assume, however, that everything will be for the best. So what would be the moral case for more lockdowns? A lockdown cannot work, even temporarily, unless it is observed. It is unenforceable except with a degree of surveillance beyond the resources of the police and would quickly provoke a backlash. Ultimately, it depends on public willingness to comply. The Government knows that, which is why it doesn't dare to lock us down over Christmas. The first lockdown produced a high degree of compliance. But it has been less impressive since then, with evasion even among those who profess to support them. Looking at Europe and North America, two things occur. The first is that the virus has become endemic. The consensus of epidemiologists is that the vaccine will mitigate its impact but will not suppress it. The second is that the progress of the virus once it becomes endemic is broadly the same in populous countries, regardless of the policies of their governments. There have been savage lockdowns, as in Spain, which put the army on the streets to stop people going out, even for exercise. There have been purely advisory regimes, like Sweden's. Between these extremes there has been every possible variant. Some people, like the British, are said to be temperamentally resistant to being told what to do while others, like the Swedes or the Germans, are thought to be naturally compliant. The common factor is that they have failed. The Prime Minister's extravagant rhetoric ("wrestling the disease to the ground", etc) sounds increasingly ridiculous. Even with a vaccine as our exit route, this ought to make us pause before we start calling for more of a policy that has so demonstrably failed. Logically, there are only two possible explanations for its failure. One is that the virus is more potent than governments. It may be that even the minimum of human interaction is enough to defeat the policy. In London, infections actually went up in the second lockdown. The other is that, whatever we do, the basic instincts of humanity, which is fundamentally sociable, will reassert themselves. Governments and laws operate in a human environment. A policy that only works by suppressing our humanity is unlikely to work at all. Life is risky. A policy that seeks to eliminate risk ends up trying to eliminate life. We have to re-examine the whole concept that governments can simply turn social existence on and off at will, treating us as passive instruments of state policy. This is not just a practical problem. It is a moral problem. What moral right does the state have to expect us to forswear our humanity to achieve its objectives, however admirable? The pandemic perfectly illustrates this dilemma. Covid-19 is a serious threat to life and health for certain people: those over 65 and/or with identifiable clinical vulnerabilities. Encouraging the vulnerable to isolate themselves speaks to their instinct for self-preservation. It goes with the grain of human nature. It is also rational - the onus should surely be on those most at risk to modify their way of life so as to limit that risk. Ordering the young and healthy to isolate so as to avoid infecting the vulnerable, when the great majority of the vulnerable can keep themselves out of harm's way if they wish, is not rational, conflicts with every instinct of social animals and defies human nature. Worse than that, it is morally disreputable. If you doubt me, then pause to think about the damage all this is inflicting on the young. They are at virtually no risk of dying or even becoming seriously ill. "Long Covid" affects a small number and is not mortal. Yet the young and economically active are bearing the brunt of the Government's measures. They are seeing their careers and job prospects destroyed before their eyes. We will get over Covid-19 eventually. Many of them will never get over the long-term effects of the countermeasures. Inflicting serious mental problems on children whose parents are precariously employed or inadequately housed and teaching them that they are killing their grandparents is worse than cruel. Forcing talented engineering graduates to take jobs as delivery drivers is worse than wasteful. Destroying businesses that have taken a lifetime to build up in order to relieve the Government of the consequences of years of underfunding the NHS is worse than destructive. Saddling the upcoming generation with crushing personal debt and higher taxes to pay the cost of a few months or years of life for some of my generation is worse than oppressive. These things are also profoundly immoral. They are consequences not of the epidemic but of avoidable government policy. The vaccine may mitigate the disease. It may even do it in three months. But it will not mitigate the destructive consequences of government action. They will be with us for decades. The fanatical and the frightened are fond of saying that those who criticise or ignore the rules are selfish. The real selfishness is the selfishness of those who are willing to inflict all of these disasters on other people in the hope of enhancing their own security. " One of the most thoughtful and interesting posts i have read for a long time. Thank you for taking the time to share this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back in March, when Professor Ferguson's team at Imperial College produced their now discredited figure of 510,000 deaths unless drastic action was taken, they coupled it with a sombre warning which has been completely vindicated. Aggressive measures to reduce transmission of the virus, it said, "will need to be maintained until a vaccine is available (18 months or more) - given we predict transmission will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed". As a permanent lockdown would have been politically impossible, socially intolerable and economically terminal, the Government didn't try it. Instead, it adopted a succession of on-off lockdowns or semi-lockdowns, responding to each resurgence of the virus as it happened. We are forever being told not to blow it now by throwing away our past efforts. Truth is, our past efforts have been useless. They reduced infections and associated deaths while the lockdowns were in force, but only by shifting them into a later period. That is why we are where we are now. The prospect that a vaccine will be generally available in the next three months has changed the narrative. An indefinite lockdown may have been unrealistic in March when a vaccine seemed far away. But we are being told it would be fine now that vaccination is just round the corner. Easter, say ministers, can be the new Christmas. Too bad about the last nine months. This is big-stakes poker. The evidence is that the three leading vaccines are effective and safe. But we do not know how long it will take to vaccinate most of the population, how many refuseniks there will be, what take-up will be necessary for herd immunity, how long the immunity will last or whether vaccinated people can transmit the virus to others. Let us assume, however, that everything will be for the best. So what would be the moral case for more lockdowns? A lockdown cannot work, even temporarily, unless it is observed. It is unenforceable except with a degree of surveillance beyond the resources of the police and would quickly provoke a backlash. Ultimately, it depends on public willingness to comply. The Government knows that, which is why it doesn't dare to lock us down over Christmas. The first lockdown produced a high degree of compliance. But it has been less impressive since then, with evasion even among those who profess to support them. Looking at Europe and North America, two things occur. The first is that the virus has become endemic. The consensus of epidemiologists is that the vaccine will mitigate its impact but will not suppress it. The second is that the progress of the virus once it becomes endemic is broadly the same in populous countries, regardless of the policies of their governments. There have been savage lockdowns, as in Spain, which put the army on the streets to stop people going out, even for exercise. There have been purely advisory regimes, like Sweden's. Between these extremes there has been every possible variant. Some people, like the British, are said to be temperamentally resistant to being told what to do while others, like the Swedes or the Germans, are thought to be naturally compliant. The common factor is that they have failed. The Prime Minister's extravagant rhetoric ("wrestling the disease to the ground", etc) sounds increasingly ridiculous. Even with a vaccine as our exit route, this ought to make us pause before we start calling for more of a policy that has so demonstrably failed. Logically, there are only two possible explanations for its failure. One is that the virus is more potent than governments. It may be that even the minimum of human interaction is enough to defeat the policy. In London, infections actually went up in the second lockdown. The other is that, whatever we do, the basic instincts of humanity, which is fundamentally sociable, will reassert themselves. Governments and laws operate in a human environment. A policy that only works by suppressing our humanity is unlikely to work at all. Life is risky. A policy that seeks to eliminate risk ends up trying to eliminate life. We have to re-examine the whole concept that governments can simply turn social existence on and off at will, treating us as passive instruments of state policy. This is not just a practical problem. It is a moral problem. What moral right does the state have to expect us to forswear our humanity to achieve its objectives, however admirable? The pandemic perfectly illustrates this dilemma. Covid-19 is a serious threat to life and health for certain people: those over 65 and/or with identifiable clinical vulnerabilities. Encouraging the vulnerable to isolate themselves speaks to their instinct for self-preservation. It goes with the grain of human nature. It is also rational - the onus should surely be on those most at risk to modify their way of life so as to limit that risk. Ordering the young and healthy to isolate so as to avoid infecting the vulnerable, when the great majority of the vulnerable can keep themselves out of harm's way if they wish, is not rational, conflicts with every instinct of social animals and defies human nature. Worse than that, it is morally disreputable. If you doubt me, then pause to think about the damage all this is inflicting on the young. They are at virtually no risk of dying or even becoming seriously ill. "Long Covid" affects a small number and is not mortal. Yet the young and economically active are bearing the brunt of the Government's measures. They are seeing their careers and job prospects destroyed before their eyes. We will get over Covid-19 eventually. Many of them will never get over the long-term effects of the countermeasures. Inflicting serious mental problems on children whose parents are precariously employed or inadequately housed and teaching them that they are killing their grandparents is worse than cruel. Forcing talented engineering graduates to take jobs as delivery drivers is worse than wasteful. Destroying businesses that have taken a lifetime to build up in order to relieve the Government of the consequences of years of underfunding the NHS is worse than destructive. Saddling the upcoming generation with crushing personal debt and higher taxes to pay the cost of a few months or years of life for some of my generation is worse than oppressive. These things are also profoundly immoral. They are consequences not of the epidemic but of avoidable government policy. The vaccine may mitigate the disease. It may even do it in three months. But it will not mitigate the destructive consequences of government action. They will be with us for decades. The fanatical and the frightened are fond of saying that those who criticise or ignore the rules are selfish. The real selfishness is the selfishness of those who are willing to inflict all of these disasters on other people in the hope of enhancing their own security. " Perfect example of intellectual dishonesty, I almost have to admire your attempt to ‘seem’ logical. Sometimes you start at a true premise to arrive at a false conclusion, sometimes you start on false premises directly. So clever at first glance it all sounds reasonable, but most of this post can be unpicked point by point. Last paragraph is not only manipulative but insulting. Quite bold, accusing the ones with a social conscience of being the real selfish, as I said, I almost have to admire it. Hopefully some will see it for what it is, manipulative tosh | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lockdowns don't work. This is the definition of insanity, we are repeating the same thing over and over anticipating a different result. How on earth can you say the dont work the 1st one dramatically reduced transmission and deaths." They were in decline already before it was implemented and would have continued to do so as a combination of social distancing measures and warmer weather. Whilst the lockdown did speed this up it's not a sustainable policy in anything beyond short term. Additionally lockdowns inevitably result in their own fatalities, ill health (particularly mental) and increase in domestic violence. The main problem with Lockdown 1 is that it went on for far too long, people have developed Lockdown fatigue, we were told that another lockdown was not planned and was only a "nuclear" option. We are now on Lockdown 3. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lockdowns don't work. This is the definition of insanity, we are repeating the same thing over and over anticipating a different result." That seems to be in full contradiction of the results of the 1st lockdown.  . Remember when it started, at the end of March, with soaring infection and death levels - compared to how they were several weeks later, at the end?
The first lockdown was effective. The second so-called lockdown wasn't equally restrictive but came weeks after SAGE had called for it, due to high infection levels again - then ended with reductions too.
You may have a very selective memory or are biased for some reason - perhaps you prefer to put money first? Despite the economy needing healthy and living people - not the opposite  - to be employed, have income to enable their spending power etc.
To the OP - I'm uncertain what the solution is immediately. A fuller lockdown than at least no 2, possibly no 1, would suppress infection levels. Perhaps Tier 4 for all, for a few weeks could do it? We don't have any evidence of the effects of 4 yet, so we should probably be cautious to introduce it, until ee do.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lockdowns don't work. This is the definition of insanity, we are repeating the same thing over and over anticipating a different result. That seems to be in full contradiction of the results of the 1st lockdown. . Remember when it started, at the end of March, with soaring infection and death levels - compared to how they were several weeks later, at the end?
The first lockdown was effective. The second so-called lockdown wasn't equally restrictive but came weeks after SAGE had called for it, due to high infection levels again - then ended with reductions too.
You may have a very selective memory or are biased for some reason - perhaps you prefer to put money first? Despite the economy needing healthy and living people - not the opposite - to be employed, have income to enable their spending power etc.
To the OP - I'm uncertain what the solution is immediately. A fuller lockdown than at least no 2, possibly no 1, would suppress infection levels. Perhaps Tier 4 for all, for a few weeks could do it? We don't have any evidence of the effects of 4 yet, so we should probably be cautious to introduce it, until ee do.
"As acknowledged previously the first lockdown did speed up the already declining numbers. As I have previously opinioned, lockdown is not a sustainable policy. Lockdowns result in their own fatalities and ill health, continuous lockdowns run the risk of causing more death and ill health than Covid would even if left unchecked. Also a severely weakened economy leads to less well funded healthcare and more people dependant upon healthcare and welfare. What has become apparent is that certain industries and sectors are much less likely to cause spikes in transmissions. For example the number of infections linked to gyms is negliable. The number linked to restaurants is minimal. Yet gyms and restaurants are continually forced to close. Why?? Hence full lockdowns are not the solution. What we need is intelligent, targeted, thought out and coherently planned action. Not a ham fisted, unimaginative, unnecessarily damaging approach that those in the drivers seat seem so hellbent on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hopefully some will see it for what it is, manipulative tosh " Massively. It sounded good, but just became the normal drivel. Look, the intention of lockdown isn't to somehow end the covid pandemic, it's in order to reduce the rate of infection and allow the treatment of the disease. I don't get how people are still struggling with this, we're in month 9 or something now, it's not that hard. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lockdowns don't work. This is the definition of insanity, we are repeating the same thing over and over anticipating a different result. That seems to be in full contradiction of the results of the 1st lockdown. . Remember when it started, at the end of March, with soaring infection and death levels - compared to how they were several weeks later, at the end?
The first lockdown was effective. The second so-called lockdown wasn't equally restrictive but came weeks after SAGE had called for it, due to high infection levels again - then ended with reductions too.
You may have a very selective memory or are biased for some reason - perhaps you prefer to put money first? Despite the economy needing healthy and living people - not the opposite - to be employed, have income to enable their spending power etc.
To the OP - I'm uncertain what the solution is immediately. A fuller lockdown than at least no 2, possibly no 1, would suppress infection levels. Perhaps Tier 4 for all, for a few weeks could do it? We don't have any evidence of the effects of 4 yet, so we should probably be cautious to introduce it, until ee do.
As acknowledged previously the first lockdown did speed up the already declining numbers. As I have previously opinioned, lockdown is not a sustainable policy. Lockdowns result in their own fatalities and ill health, continuous lockdowns run the risk of causing more death and ill health than Covid would even if left unchecked. Also a severely weakened economy leads to less well funded healthcare and more people dependant upon healthcare and welfare.
What has become apparent is that certain industries and sectors are much less likely to cause spikes in transmissions. For example the number of infections linked to gyms is negliable. The number linked to restaurants is minimal. Yet gyms and restaurants are continually forced to close. Why?? Hence full lockdowns are not the solution. What we need is intelligent, targeted, thought out and coherently planned action. Not a ham fisted, unimaginative, unnecessarily damaging approach that those in the drivers seat seem so hellbent on."Agree with you Lockdowns will cause us all such problems in the future | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lockdowns don't work. This is the definition of insanity, we are repeating the same thing over and over anticipating a different result." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Vaccination priority should be given to those who are more likely to spread the virus rather than those who are vulnerable. And before the haters start, yes we have vulnerable/elderly people in our lives, but they are heavily isolated reducing the risk. The best way to protect them is reducing overall transmission. Hubby has had to keep travelling all over the country, along with thousands of others in construction and in manufacturing, healthcare and other ‘essential’ businesses. If the people likeliest to spread it were vaccinated the reinfection and spread rates would be reduced" Disagree Vacation should be as like now to all those that are really at risk , as we know those that are under 50 have such a minimal risk like 000.3 maybe they won’t be vaccinated why would they ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Vaccination priority should be given to those who are more likely to spread the virus rather than those who are vulnerable. And before the haters start, yes we have vulnerable/elderly people in our lives, but they are heavily isolated reducing the risk. The best way to protect them is reducing overall transmission. Hubby has had to keep travelling all over the country, along with thousands of others in construction and in manufacturing, healthcare and other ‘essential’ businesses. If the people likeliest to spread it were vaccinated the reinfection and spread rates would be reduced Disagree Vacation should be as like now to all those that are really at risk , as we know those that are under 50 have such a minimal risk like 000.3 maybe they won’t be vaccinated why would they ? " Because they are the likeliest to spread it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Vaccination priority should be given to those who are more likely to spread the virus rather than those who are vulnerable. And before the haters start, yes we have vulnerable/elderly people in our lives, but they are heavily isolated reducing the risk. The best way to protect them is reducing overall transmission. Hubby has had to keep travelling all over the country, along with thousands of others in construction and in manufacturing, healthcare and other ‘essential’ businesses. If the people likeliest to spread it were vaccinated the reinfection and spread rates would be reduced Disagree Vacation should be as like now to all those that are really at risk , as we know those that are under 50 have such a minimal risk like 000.3 maybe they won’t be vaccinated why would they ? Because they are the likeliest to spread it" Same reason frontline NHS workers are and absolutely should be a priority  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If lockdowns worked we wouldn’t be where we are now as there was too many people still doing what the heck they liked through them as they will this Christmas " Of course lockdowns work, however it has to be a complete lockdown and that is impossible, thousands would die. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Vaccination priority should be given to those who are more likely to spread the virus rather than those who are vulnerable. And before the haters start, yes we have vulnerable/elderly people in our lives, but they are heavily isolated reducing the risk. The best way to protect them is reducing overall transmission. Hubby has had to keep travelling all over the country, along with thousands of others in construction and in manufacturing, healthcare and other ‘essential’ businesses. If the people likeliest to spread it were vaccinated the reinfection and spread rates would be reduced Disagree Vacation should be as like now to all those that are really at risk , as we know those that are under 50 have such a minimal risk like 000.3 maybe they won’t be vaccinated why would they ? Because they are the likeliest to spread it Same reason frontline NHS workers are and absolutely should be a priority "The reason health care workers are getting the vaccine early is because we need them at work, not that it stops them spreading the virus. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In your opinion what should be done next by the government? In my opinion it should be a full lockdown like we had in Feb/March or everyone be in tier 3 for the foreseeable future until it get sorted, that's my opinion what's yours? "Nothing. Lockdowns don't stop death they just delay to a later date. Let vulnerable people take precautions and those fit get back to normal . One size fits all doesn't work. It doesn't take into consideration the individual's needs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In your opinion what should be done next by the government? In my opinion it should be a full lockdown like we had in Feb/March or everyone be in tier 3 for the foreseeable future until it get sorted, that's my opinion what's yours?
Nothing.
Lockdowns don't stop death they just delay to a later date.
Let vulnerable people take precautions and those fit get back to normal .
One size fits all doesn't work. It doesn't take into consideration the individual's needs."Contradiction at best. You say nothing then go in to suggest restrictions. Would you like to prove lockdown does not save lives? I think there were many lives saved as may stayed at home as a result and did not catch covid. Individuals needs over the needs of the community is exactly what has brought us where we are a year later. The selfish ones have been the cause of a lot of the issues. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Contradiction at best. You say nothing then go in to suggest restrictions. Would you like to prove lockdown does not save lives? I think there were many lives saved as may stayed at home as a result and did not catch covid. Individuals needs over the needs of the community is exactly what has brought us where we are a year later. The selfish ones have been the cause of a lot of the issues." If lockdowns worked then explain Leicesters situation. Tier 1 areas going into tier 3 would also suggest that there's evidence of failure as well. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Contradiction at best. You say nothing then go in to suggest restrictions. Would you like to prove lockdown does not save lives? I think there were many lives saved as may stayed at home as a result and did not catch covid. Individuals needs over the needs of the community is exactly what has brought us where we are a year later. The selfish ones have been the cause of a lot of the issues. If lockdowns worked then explain Leicesters situation. Tier 1 areas going into tier 3 would also suggest that there's evidence of failure as well. " Also explain Spain, masks inside and outside , really tough restrictions but virus still there | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Contradiction at best. You say nothing then go in to suggest restrictions. Would you like to prove lockdown does not save lives? I think there were many lives saved as may stayed at home as a result and did not catch covid. Individuals needs over the needs of the community is exactly what has brought us where we are a year later. The selfish ones have been the cause of a lot of the issues. If lockdowns worked then explain Leicesters situation. Tier 1 areas going into tier 3 would also suggest that there's evidence of failure as well. Also explain Spain, masks inside and outside , really tough restrictions but virus still there " Sadly people like us who question the science are branded as conspiracy nutjobs, usually because there's no actual tenable answer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Contradiction at best. You say nothing then go in to suggest restrictions. Would you like to prove lockdown does not save lives? I think there were many lives saved as may stayed at home as a result and did not catch covid. Individuals needs over the needs of the community is exactly what has brought us where we are a year later. The selfish ones have been the cause of a lot of the issues. If lockdowns worked then explain Leicesters situation. Tier 1 areas going into tier 3 would also suggest that there's evidence of failure as well. Also explain Spain, masks inside and outside , really tough restrictions but virus still there Sadly people like us who question the science are branded as conspiracy nutjobs, usually because there's no actual tenable answer. " And the people on here who brand you a nutjob are over opinionated sanctimonious narcissists who are deluded and who's opinion are of equal or even less than yours.... Have a nice xmas | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Contradiction at best. You say nothing then go in to suggest restrictions. Would you like to prove lockdown does not save lives? I think there were many lives saved as may stayed at home as a result and did not catch covid. Individuals needs over the needs of the community is exactly what has brought us where we are a year later. The selfish ones have been the cause of a lot of the issues. If lockdowns worked then explain Leicesters situation. Tier 1 areas going into tier 3 would also suggest that there's evidence of failure as well. Also explain Spain, masks inside and outside , really tough restrictions but virus still there " Indeed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back in March, when Professor Ferguson's team at Imperial College produced their now discredited figure of 510,000 deaths unless drastic action was taken, they coupled it with a sombre warning which has been completely vindicated. Aggressive measures to reduce transmission of the virus, it said, "will need to be maintained until a vaccine is available (18 months or more) - given we predict transmission will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed". As a permanent lockdown would have been politically impossible, socially intolerable and economically terminal, the Government didn't try it. Instead, it adopted a succession of on-off lockdowns or semi-lockdowns, responding to each resurgence of the virus as it happened. We are forever being told not to blow it now by throwing away our past efforts. Truth is, our past efforts have been useless. They reduced infections and associated deaths while the lockdowns were in force, but only by shifting them into a later period. That is why we are where we are now. The prospect that a vaccine will be generally available in the next three months has changed the narrative. An indefinite lockdown may have been unrealistic in March when a vaccine seemed far away. But we are being told it would be fine now that vaccination is just round the corner. Easter, say ministers, can be the new Christmas. Too bad about the last nine months. This is big-stakes poker. The evidence is that the three leading vaccines are effective and safe. But we do not know how long it will take to vaccinate most of the population, how many refuseniks there will be, what take-up will be necessary for herd immunity, how long the immunity will last or whether vaccinated people can transmit the virus to others. Let us assume, however, that everything will be for the best. So what would be the moral case for more lockdowns? A lockdown cannot work, even temporarily, unless it is observed. It is unenforceable except with a degree of surveillance beyond the resources of the police and would quickly provoke a backlash. Ultimately, it depends on public willingness to comply. The Government knows that, which is why it doesn't dare to lock us down over Christmas. The first lockdown produced a high degree of compliance. But it has been less impressive since then, with evasion even among those who profess to support them. Looking at Europe and North America, two things occur. The first is that the virus has become endemic. The consensus of epidemiologists is that the vaccine will mitigate its impact but will not suppress it. The second is that the progress of the virus once it becomes endemic is broadly the same in populous countries, regardless of the policies of their governments. There have been savage lockdowns, as in Spain, which put the army on the streets to stop people going out, even for exercise. There have been purely advisory regimes, like Sweden's. Between these extremes there has been every possible variant. Some people, like the British, are said to be temperamentally resistant to being told what to do while others, like the Swedes or the Germans, are thought to be naturally compliant. The common factor is that they have failed. The Prime Minister's extravagant rhetoric ("wrestling the disease to the ground", etc) sounds increasingly ridiculous. Even with a vaccine as our exit route, this ought to make us pause before we start calling for more of a policy that has so demonstrably failed. Logically, there are only two possible explanations for its failure. One is that the virus is more potent than governments. It may be that even the minimum of human interaction is enough to defeat the policy. In London, infections actually went up in the second lockdown. The other is that, whatever we do, the basic instincts of humanity, which is fundamentally sociable, will reassert themselves. Governments and laws operate in a human environment. A policy that only works by suppressing our humanity is unlikely to work at all. Life is risky. A policy that seeks to eliminate risk ends up trying to eliminate life. We have to re-examine the whole concept that governments can simply turn social existence on and off at will, treating us as passive instruments of state policy. This is not just a practical problem. It is a moral problem. What moral right does the state have to expect us to forswear our humanity to achieve its objectives, however admirable? The pandemic perfectly illustrates this dilemma. Covid-19 is a serious threat to life and health for certain people: those over 65 and/or with identifiable clinical vulnerabilities. Encouraging the vulnerable to isolate themselves speaks to their instinct for self-preservation. It goes with the grain of human nature. It is also rational - the onus should surely be on those most at risk to modify their way of life so as to limit that risk. Ordering the young and healthy to isolate so as to avoid infecting the vulnerable, when the great majority of the vulnerable can keep themselves out of harm's way if they wish, is not rational, conflicts with every instinct of social animals and defies human nature. Worse than that, it is morally disreputable. If you doubt me, then pause to think about the damage all this is inflicting on the young. They are at virtually no risk of dying or even becoming seriously ill. "Long Covid" affects a small number and is not mortal. Yet the young and economically active are bearing the brunt of the Government's measures. They are seeing their careers and job prospects destroyed before their eyes. We will get over Covid-19 eventually. Many of them will never get over the long-term effects of the countermeasures. Inflicting serious mental problems on children whose parents are precariously employed or inadequately housed and teaching them that they are killing their grandparents is worse than cruel. Forcing talented engineering graduates to take jobs as delivery drivers is worse than wasteful. Destroying businesses that have taken a lifetime to build up in order to relieve the Government of the consequences of years of underfunding the NHS is worse than destructive. Saddling the upcoming generation with crushing personal debt and higher taxes to pay the cost of a few months or years of life for some of my generation is worse than oppressive. These things are also profoundly immoral. They are consequences not of the epidemic but of avoidable government policy. The vaccine may mitigate the disease. It may even do it in three months. But it will not mitigate the destructive consequences of government action. They will be with us for decades. The fanatical and the frightened are fond of saying that those who criticise or ignore the rules are selfish. The real selfishness is the selfishness of those who are willing to inflict all of these disasters on other people in the hope of enhancing their own security. " Best post I've read in a while x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Contradiction at best. You say nothing then go in to suggest restrictions. Would you like to prove lockdown does not save lives? I think there were many lives saved as may stayed at home as a result and did not catch covid. Individuals needs over the needs of the community is exactly what has brought us where we are a year later. The selfish ones have been the cause of a lot of the issues. If lockdowns worked then explain Leicesters situation. Tier 1 areas going into tier 3 would also suggest that there's evidence of failure as well. Also explain Spain, masks inside and outside , really tough restrictions but virus still there " Obviously you're unable to read the reason I gave as to why they didn't work or simply ignored it as it doesn't fit with your view of tiers or lockdowns. If you ignore the obvious then there's little point in discussing as all you're doing is ramming Ur ideas instead of being open to others views. You haven't offered why they don't work I suggested why and tried to show it's not that lockdowns or tiers don't work in themselves but it's because so many people ignored them. Driving on the LHS of the road works here because everyone or 99.9% adheres to that restriction. If only 60% adhered to it then it wouldn't work. The system you suggested that everyone just get on with it except the vulnerable who should isolate would have crashed the health service. The knock on consequences of that would have been ire. Also half the workforce would be off sick , companies would struggle to operate etc etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In my opinion we have tried interfering with nature hasn't really worked might as well let it run it's course some will die some will survive but inevitably the virus will disappear and life will continue for some. " Agree in part, but I think the vulnerable should be the ones owning responsibility for their own health. I said this in a previous post.. If 99 swimmers go to the beach, is it their responsibility to protect the 1 that cannot swim, or for that person to recognise that fact and stay away ? My relatives in the vulnerable category stay away from potential danger, using their common sense and taking personal care of themselves. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In my opinion we have tried interfering with nature hasn't really worked might as well let it run it's course some will die some will survive but inevitably the virus will disappear and life will continue for some. " This is a very good thought have said this to my kids! X | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Vaccination priority should be given to those who are more likely to spread the virus rather than those who are vulnerable. And before the haters start, yes we have vulnerable/elderly people in our lives, but they are heavily isolated reducing the risk. The best way to protect them is reducing overall transmission. Hubby has had to keep travelling all over the country, along with thousands of others in construction and in manufacturing, healthcare and other ‘essential’ businesses. If the people likeliest to spread it were vaccinated the reinfection and spread rates would be reduced" Unfortunately. The few odd proposals to shield vulnerable people failed due to the sheer high volumes of 25-40% of the population being vulnerable. They are not magically separated from the rest and include Black And Minority Ethnic people. That is 1 huge group to separate from the rest. Who's to decide who the people are to vaccinate due to being high risk to spread the virus? Whilst you're vaccinating them, the vulnerable people increasingly die and get very ill. Not a good move. The supplies of vaccines won't all be immediate, they'll be phased. It makes greater sense to do as we are, to vaccinate those at highest risk, not throw them to the wolves. Lockdowns and restrictions may continue to have a part to play, to prevent greater rises, keep services running, whilst getting population immunity up. We're borrowing to pay for the costs of all of this and it's reasonable to keep as many of the people alive and free from the long term organ damage and failure that the virus can leave people with. We would have been better creating an effective test and trace system, rather than the 1 that's cost £22 billion and is a failure. It still must be made to work, to help to deprive the virus from infecting new healthy people. I'd pay people full wages to quarantine when infected and a minimum of furlough pay to isolate when essential. This will reduce infection levels. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In my opinion we have tried interfering with nature hasn't really worked might as well let it run it's course some will die some will survive but inevitably the virus will disappear and life will continue for some. Agree in part, but I think the vulnerable should be the ones owning responsibility for their own health. I said this in a previous post.. If 99 swimmers go to the beach, is it their responsibility to protect the 1 that cannot swim, or for that person to recognise that fact and stay away ? My relatives in the vulnerable category stay away from potential danger, using their common sense and taking personal care of themselves. " Therefore using your argument we shouldn't have the NHS as this is a collective on behalf of the masses to help those who can't, it's the way of supporting those who are suffering beyond what is easily managed. So everyone should have their own private healthcare and look after number one and fight for it themselves? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lockdowns don't work. This is the definition of insanity, we are repeating the same thing over and over anticipating a different result. The whole country needs to be in a FULL lockdown for it to work not tiers here there and everywhere. Take a leaf out NZ,s book " A FULL lockdown includes transport so no food delivered, supermarkets so no where to buy food. No take aways, no ambulances, no hospital availability, no pharmacy, nowhere else open or do you mean a partial lockdown where those are allowed? Calling for a FULL lockdown is simply impossible because nothing and nobody allowed out irrespective of circumstances.. Perhaps you need to think what you actually meant | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Boris and Hancock should go" There's an idea and who who you possibly suggest that could be any better? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To be honest We should have shut the schools 17th December. Woke places from to day for 2 weeks except food and emergency services. Food for 4 days as of lunch time tomorow. And schools not back till 10th of Jan A short sharb fire brake. But most would be off any way." Wales tried a 17 day fire break and how successful was that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Our Government should have gone hardcore and locked our whole Island country down for a while we may..just may have beat this virus!! "And millions starve. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lockdowns don't work. This is the definition of insanity, we are repeating the same thing over and over anticipating a different result. How on earth can you say the dont work the 1st one dramatically reduced transmission and deaths." For how long though. Oooops it's still here | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lockdowns don't work. This is the definition of insanity, we are repeating the same thing over and over anticipating a different result. The whole country needs to be in a FULL lockdown for it to work not tiers here there and everywhere. Take a leaf out NZ,s book A FULL lockdown includes transport so no food delivered, supermarkets so no where to buy food. No take aways, no ambulances, no hospital availability, no pharmacy, nowhere else open or do you mean a partial lockdown where those are allowed? Calling for a FULL lockdown is simply impossible because nothing and nobody allowed out irrespective of circumstances.. Perhaps you need to think what you actually meant " This is the stupid idea that people suggest we have a full lockdown like china did, forgetting of course it was a single area so all food, medical care, electricity and everything else was provided from outside the area and by people from outside wearing full hazmat suits. Those locked in just had to put up with it, folk in the western world would riot if the internet went down for a day. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe they should have a full lockdown to stop it...wait...that didn't work Maybe they should make us all wear masks...wait...that didn't work Maybe they should get everyone to work from home..wait...that didn't work Mayyyybe....they should just stay being a lot more truthful about the whole thing, because a lot just isn't adding up." Ohhh so this and more | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In your opinion what should be done next by the government? In my opinion it should be a full lockdown like we had in Feb/March or everyone be in tier 3 for the foreseeable future until it get sorted, that's my opinion what's yours? "Lockdown started 23rd March. Not February | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In your opinion what should be done next by the government? In my opinion it should be a full lockdown like we had in Feb/March or everyone be in tier 3 for the foreseeable future until it get sorted, that's my opinion what's yours?
Lockdown started 23rd March. Not February "Rude. And your point other than being argumentative? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back in March, when Professor Ferguson's team at Imperial College produced their now discredited figure of 510,000 deaths unless drastic action was taken, they coupled it with a sombre warning which has been completely vindicated. Aggressive measures to reduce transmission of the virus, it said, "will need to be maintained until a vaccine is available (18 months or more) - given we predict transmission will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed". As a permanent lockdown would have been politically impossible, socially intolerable and economically terminal, the Government didn't try it. Instead, it adopted a succession of on-off lockdowns or semi-lockdowns, responding to each resurgence of the virus as it happened. We are forever being told not to blow it now by throwing away our past efforts. Truth is, our past efforts have been useless. They reduced infections and associated deaths while the lockdowns were in force, but only by shifting them into a later period. That is why we are where we are now. The prospect that a vaccine will be generally available in the next three months has changed the narrative. An indefinite lockdown may have been unrealistic in March when a vaccine seemed far away. But we are being told it would be fine now that vaccination is just round the corner. Easter, say ministers, can be the new Christmas. Too bad about the last nine months. This is big-stakes poker. The evidence is that the three leading vaccines are effective and safe. But we do not know how long it will take to vaccinate most of the population, how many refuseniks there will be, what take-up will be necessary for herd immunity, how long the immunity will last or whether vaccinated people can transmit the virus to others. Let us assume, however, that everything will be for the best. So what would be the moral case for more lockdowns? A lockdown cannot work, even temporarily, unless it is observed. It is unenforceable except with a degree of surveillance beyond the resources of the police and would quickly provoke a backlash. Ultimately, it depends on public willingness to comply. The Government knows that, which is why it doesn't dare to lock us down over Christmas. The first lockdown produced a high degree of compliance. But it has been less impressive since then, with evasion even among those who profess to support them. Looking at Europe and North America, two things occur. The first is that the virus has become endemic. The consensus of epidemiologists is that the vaccine will mitigate its impact but will not suppress it. The second is that the progress of the virus once it becomes endemic is broadly the same in populous countries, regardless of the policies of their governments. There have been savage lockdowns, as in Spain, which put the army on the streets to stop people going out, even for exercise. There have been purely advisory regimes, like Sweden's. Between these extremes there has been every possible variant. Some people, like the British, are said to be temperamentally resistant to being told what to do while others, like the Swedes or the Germans, are thought to be naturally compliant. The common factor is that they have failed. The Prime Minister's extravagant rhetoric ("wrestling the disease to the ground", etc) sounds increasingly ridiculous. Even with a vaccine as our exit route, this ought to make us pause before we start calling for more of a policy that has so demonstrably failed. Logically, there are only two possible explanations for its failure. One is that the virus is more potent than governments. It may be that even the minimum of human interaction is enough to defeat the policy. In London, infections actually went up in the second lockdown. The other is that, whatever we do, the basic instincts of humanity, which is fundamentally sociable, will reassert themselves. Governments and laws operate in a human environment. A policy that only works by suppressing our humanity is unlikely to work at all. Life is risky. A policy that seeks to eliminate risk ends up trying to eliminate life. We have to re-examine the whole concept that governments can simply turn social existence on and off at will, treating us as passive instruments of state policy. This is not just a practical problem. It is a moral problem. What moral right does the state have to expect us to forswear our humanity to achieve its objectives, however admirable? The pandemic perfectly illustrates this dilemma. Covid-19 is a serious threat to life and health for certain people: those over 65 and/or with identifiable clinical vulnerabilities. Encouraging the vulnerable to isolate themselves speaks to their instinct for self-preservation. It goes with the grain of human nature. It is also rational - the onus should surely be on those most at risk to modify their way of life so as to limit that risk. Ordering the young and healthy to isolate so as to avoid infecting the vulnerable, when the great majority of the vulnerable can keep themselves out of harm's way if they wish, is not rational, conflicts with every instinct of social animals and defies human nature. Worse than that, it is morally disreputable. If you doubt me, then pause to think about the damage all this is inflicting on the young. They are at virtually no risk of dying or even becoming seriously ill. "Long Covid" affects a small number and is not mortal. Yet the young and economically active are bearing the brunt of the Government's measures. They are seeing their careers and job prospects destroyed before their eyes. We will get over Covid-19 eventually. Many of them will never get over the long-term effects of the countermeasures. Inflicting serious mental problems on children whose parents are precariously employed or inadequately housed and teaching them that they are killing their grandparents is worse than cruel. Forcing talented engineering graduates to take jobs as delivery drivers is worse than wasteful. Destroying businesses that have taken a lifetime to build up in order to relieve the Government of the consequences of years of underfunding the NHS is worse than destructive. Saddling the upcoming generation with crushing personal debt and higher taxes to pay the cost of a few months or years of life for some of my generation is worse than oppressive. These things are also profoundly immoral. They are consequences not of the epidemic but of avoidable government policy. The vaccine may mitigate the disease. It may even do it in three months. But it will not mitigate the destructive consequences of government action. They will be with us for decades. The fanatical and the frightened are fond of saying that those who criticise or ignore the rules are selfish. The real selfishness is the selfishness of those who are willing to inflict all of these disasters on other people in the hope of enhancing their own security. . What a fantastic post with such great points and so true We echo that. Superb post."
Post of the year! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection. Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed. Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza. As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity. The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection. Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals. Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity. " x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In your opinion what should be done next by the government? In my opinion it should be a full lockdown like we had in Feb/March or everyone be in tier 3 for the foreseeable future until it get sorted, that's my opinion what's yours?
Lockdown started 23rd March. Not February
Rude.
And your point other than being argumentative?"What was rude? Facts are classed as rude now? No argument, just pure and simple FACT Can you argue against fact? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first lockdown certainly helped to a certain degree. Mainly to allow the NHS to get on top of things at the time. Imagine how much better it could have been if some things had been made law with no excuses. Instead of warnings being given and a slap on the wrist." The first lockdown was entirely against the advice of the WHO (Paper released Nov 2019) and the predictions were based on a model which was unfit for purpose. It also coincided with seasonality at the time as well so the govt come a Chinese strategy that couldn't have worked in a democracy. The predicted figures were way off the mark, the government even admitted it had been using a worst case scenario model that was in no way realistic. All the lockdowns achieved was to scare people into believing they were at imminent risk of dying. We now have a situation were mental health, suicide, bankruptcy, and poverty (to name a few) have escalated on an enormous scale. Lockdowns have caused more damage than the virus. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first lockdown certainly helped to a certain degree. Mainly to allow the NHS to get on top of things at the time. Imagine how much better it could have been if some things had been made law with no excuses. Instead of warnings being given and a slap on the wrist. The first lockdown was entirely against the advice of the WHO (Paper released Nov 2019) and the predictions were based on a model which was unfit for purpose. It also coincided with seasonality at the time as well so the govt come a Chinese strategy that couldn't have worked in a democracy. The predicted figures were way off the mark, the government even admitted it had been using a worst case scenario model that was in no way realistic. All the lockdowns achieved was to scare people into believing they were at imminent risk of dying. We now have a situation were mental health, suicide, bankruptcy, and poverty (to name a few) have escalated on an enormous scale. Lockdowns have caused more damage than the virus. " Yup agree! X | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For those that suggest a full lockdown doesn’t work, why do you say that? Because people still got infected and died? Do we know how they got infected? If people stay inside. If they wear masks. If they practice social distancing and hand sanitisation, how were they able to be infected and/or pass that infection on? Thats the information I want to see out of track and trace." There was an opportunity for this data mining but it’s been lost because of how bad t&t was rolled out, they focussed on targets such as numbers of calls made and now the spreaders don’t use it because of the hassle it causes. No one wants to be contacted anymore and told to isolate of face fines | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection. Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed. Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza. As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity. The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection. Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals. Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity. " I assume you have copied and pasted, without providing references. It's not a fully thought through proposal, the likes of which have been evaluated and shown that they are lacking. Many claims are made in it, without substantiation - and thus it doesn't hold weight. There's no clear division between the vulnerable and the others either. The infrastructure to support more of the greater volume of 'healthy' who get ill doesn't exist. Who cares for the BAME population, who are disproportionately disadvantaged by this virus? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection. Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed. Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza. As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity. The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection. Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals. Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity. I assume you have copied and pasted, without providing references. It's not a fully thought through proposal, the likes of which have been evaluated and shown that they are lacking. Many claims are made in it, without substantiation - and thus it doesn't hold weight. There's no clear division between the vulnerable and the others either. The infrastructure to support more of the greater volume of 'healthy' who get ill doesn't exist. Who cares for the BAME population, who are disproportionately disadvantaged by this virus? " Most posts in here are not substantiated with any credible links either. Sound good on the surface untill you start looking behind the vale. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lockdowns don't work. This is the definition of insanity, we are repeating the same thing over and over anticipating a different result. How on earth can you say the dont work the 1st one dramatically reduced transmission and deaths." They only delay the inevitable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A full lockdown including borders , no flights in or out , this should have happened this time last year , we are an island and could have stopped it " It wasn't declared a pandemic till February/March and most people hadn't heard of it last year. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection. Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed. Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza. As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity. The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection. Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals. Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity. I assume you have copied and pasted, without providing references. It's not a fully thought through proposal, the likes of which have been evaluated and shown that they are lacking. Many claims are made in it, without substantiation - and thus it doesn't hold weight. There's no clear division between the vulnerable and the others either. The infrastructure to support more of the greater volume of 'healthy' who get ill doesn't exist. Who cares for the BAME population, who are disproportionately disadvantaged by this virus? Most posts in here are not substantiated with any credible links either. Sound good on the surface untill you start looking behind the vale." So because no credible links accompany a post, they cannot be deemed as authentic? I got a ban for posting a link from the BMJ which backed up my findings so I'd be reluctant to post anymore links. Many people have done some pretty forensic investigations, but get dismissed because they're not from the BBC,Sky,or PHE then flung into the tin foil hat category. A bold assumption though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection. Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed. Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza. As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity. The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection. Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals. Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity. I assume you have copied and pasted, without providing references. It's not a fully thought through proposal, the likes of which have been evaluated and shown that they are lacking. Many claims are made in it, without substantiation - and thus it doesn't hold weight. There's no clear division between the vulnerable and the others either. The infrastructure to support more of the greater volume of 'healthy' who get ill doesn't exist. Who cares for the BAME population, who are disproportionately disadvantaged by this virus? Most posts in here are not substantiated with any credible links either. Sound good on the surface untill you start looking behind the vale. So because no credible links accompany a post, they cannot be deemed as authentic? I got a ban for posting a link from the BMJ which backed up my findings so I'd be reluctant to post anymore links. Many people have done some pretty forensic investigations, but get dismissed because they're not from the BBC,Sky,or PHE then flung into the tin foil hat category. A bold assumption though. " Whatever you do, don't put real things on here. The bullies don't like the truth. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lockdowns don't work. This is the definition of insanity, we are repeating the same thing over and over anticipating a different result. How on earth can you say the dont work the 1st one dramatically reduced transmission and deaths. They only delay the inevitable. " Correct. They just delay. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Accept that humans need to be culled and let the virus do it’s job. We don’t need granny, she’s past it. People in the vulnerable category are a drain on our economy anyway. I am saying this with my tongue firmly in my cheek, but it does seem that this is what some people truly believe but try to couch in different terms." I think that letting granny take responsibility for her own health is a far better solution than making a whole country suffer is a far better solution. Sadly though the powers that be think its far more acceptable for people to lose their homes, businesses and liberty. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Accept that humans need to be culled and let the virus do it’s job. We don’t need granny, she’s past it. People in the vulnerable category are a drain on our economy anyway. I am saying this with my tongue firmly in my cheek, but it does seem that this is what some people truly believe but try to couch in different terms. I think that letting granny take responsibility for her own health is a far better solution than making a whole country suffer is a far better solution. Sadly though the powers that be think its far more acceptable for people to lose their homes, businesses and liberty. " I guess it all depends what's important to people. Lives, relationships, support, care or things that can be replaced? I know what's more important to me and no matter what people may say. You cannot replace a life but you can replace a job, a house, a car. This country was built by those that many of you are saying no longer matter. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Accept that humans need to be culled and let the virus do it’s job. We don’t need granny, she’s past it. People in the vulnerable category are a drain on our economy anyway. I am saying this with my tongue firmly in my cheek, but it does seem that this is what some people truly believe but try to couch in different terms. I think that letting granny take responsibility for her own health is a far better solution than making a whole country suffer is a far better solution. Sadly though the powers that be think its far more acceptable for people to lose their homes, businesses and liberty. I guess it all depends what's important to people. Lives, relationships, support, care or things that can be replaced? I know what's more important to me and no matter what people may say. You cannot replace a life but you can replace a job, a house, a car. This country was built by those that many of you are saying no longer matter. " In some ways that is true, but and it's a huge but all those things you say are important cost money a lot of money, there has to be a balance, one that is very very hard to judge. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Accept that humans need to be culled and let the virus do it’s job. We don’t need granny, she’s past it. People in the vulnerable category are a drain on our economy anyway. I am saying this with my tongue firmly in my cheek, but it does seem that this is what some people truly believe but try to couch in different terms. I think that letting granny take responsibility for her own health is a far better solution than making a whole country suffer is a far better solution. Sadly though the powers that be think its far more acceptable for people to lose their homes, businesses and liberty. I guess it all depends what's important to people. Lives, relationships, support, care or things that can be replaced? I know what's more important to me and no matter what people may say. You cannot replace a life but you can replace a job, a house, a car. This country was built by those that many of you are saying no longer matter. " So letting granny decide for herself is a non starter then ? A simple solution that keeps the vulnerable safe whilst the country gets back on its feet and builds herd immunity, reduces suicides and mental health cases whilst ensuring that the nation returns back to prosperity. Nah, scrap that idea, we all need to suffer so granny can still go for a walkabout. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back in March, when Professor Ferguson's team at Imperial College produced their now discredited figure of 510,000 deaths unless drastic action was taken, they coupled it with a sombre warning which has been completely vindicated. Aggressive measures to reduce transmission of the virus, it said, "will need to be maintained until a vaccine is available (18 months or more) - given we predict transmission will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed". As a permanent lockdown would have been politically impossible, socially intolerable and economically terminal, the Government didn't try it. Instead, it adopted a succession of on-off lockdowns or semi-lockdowns, responding to each resurgence of the virus as it happened. We are forever being told not to blow it now by throwing away our past efforts. Truth is, our past efforts have been useless. They reduced infections and associated deaths while the lockdowns were in force, but only by shifting them into a later period. That is why we are where we are now. The prospect that a vaccine will be generally available in the next three months has changed the narrative. An indefinite lockdown may have been unrealistic in March when a vaccine seemed far away. But we are being told it would be fine now that vaccination is just round the corner. Easter, say ministers, can be the new Christmas. Too bad about the last nine months. This is big-stakes poker. The evidence is that the three leading vaccines are effective and safe. But we do not know how long it will take to vaccinate most of the population, how many refuseniks there will be, what take-up will be necessary for herd immunity, how long the immunity will last or whether vaccinated people can transmit the virus to others. Let us assume, however, that everything will be for the best. So what would be the moral case for more lockdowns? A lockdown cannot work, even temporarily, unless it is observed. It is unenforceable except with a degree of surveillance beyond the resources of the police and would quickly provoke a backlash. Ultimately, it depends on public willingness to comply. The Government knows that, which is why it doesn't dare to lock us down over Christmas. The first lockdown produced a high degree of compliance. But it has been less impressive since then, with evasion even among those who profess to support them. Looking at Europe and North America, two things occur. The first is that the virus has become endemic. The consensus of epidemiologists is that the vaccine will mitigate its impact but will not suppress it. The second is that the progress of the virus once it becomes endemic is broadly the same in populous countries, regardless of the policies of their governments. There have been savage lockdowns, as in Spain, which put the army on the streets to stop people going out, even for exercise. There have been purely advisory regimes, like Sweden's. Between these extremes there has been every possible variant. Some people, like the British, are said to be temperamentally resistant to being told what to do while others, like the Swedes or the Germans, are thought to be naturally compliant. The common factor is that they have failed. The Prime Minister's extravagant rhetoric ("wrestling the disease to the ground", etc) sounds increasingly ridiculous. Even with a vaccine as our exit route, this ought to make us pause before we start calling for more of a policy that has so demonstrably failed. Logically, there are only two possible explanations for its failure. One is that the virus is more potent than governments. It may be that even the minimum of human interaction is enough to defeat the policy. In London, infections actually went up in the second lockdown. The other is that, whatever we do, the basic instincts of humanity, which is fundamentally sociable, will reassert themselves. Governments and laws operate in a human environment. A policy that only works by suppressing our humanity is unlikely to work at all. Life is risky. A policy that seeks to eliminate risk ends up trying to eliminate life. We have to re-examine the whole concept that governments can simply turn social existence on and off at will, treating us as passive instruments of state policy. This is not just a practical problem. It is a moral problem. What moral right does the state have to expect us to forswear our humanity to achieve its objectives, however admirable? The pandemic perfectly illustrates this dilemma. Covid-19 is a serious threat to life and health for certain people: those over 65 and/or with identifiable clinical vulnerabilities. Encouraging the vulnerable to isolate themselves speaks to their instinct for self-preservation. It goes with the grain of human nature. It is also rational - the onus should surely be on those most at risk to modify their way of life so as to limit that risk. Ordering the young and healthy to isolate so as to avoid infecting the vulnerable, when the great majority of the vulnerable can keep themselves out of harm's way if they wish, is not rational, conflicts with every instinct of social animals and defies human nature. Worse than that, it is morally disreputable. If you doubt me, then pause to think about the damage all this is inflicting on the young. They are at virtually no risk of dying or even becoming seriously ill. "Long Covid" affects a small number and is not mortal. Yet the young and economically active are bearing the brunt of the Government's measures. They are seeing their careers and job prospects destroyed before their eyes. We will get over Covid-19 eventually. Many of them will never get over the long-term effects of the countermeasures. Inflicting serious mental problems on children whose parents are precariously employed or inadequately housed and teaching them that they are killing their grandparents is worse than cruel. Forcing talented engineering graduates to take jobs as delivery drivers is worse than wasteful. Destroying businesses that have taken a lifetime to build up in order to relieve the Government of the consequences of years of underfunding the NHS is worse than destructive. Saddling the upcoming generation with crushing personal debt and higher taxes to pay the cost of a few months or years of life for some of my generation is worse than oppressive. These things are also profoundly immoral. They are consequences not of the epidemic but of avoidable government policy. The vaccine may mitigate the disease. It may even do it in three months. But it will not mitigate the destructive consequences of government action. They will be with us for decades. The fanatical and the frightened are fond of saying that those who criticise or ignore the rules are selfish. The real selfishness is the selfishness of those who are willing to inflict all of these disasters on other people in the hope of enhancing their own security. . What a fantastic post with such great points and so true We echo that. Superb post." I don’t recall the Imperial College 510k being discredited. It was what finally got Johnson off his arse and finally take some action. What that report also said was that the rate would swing up and down if periodic lockdowns were put in place. The “second lockdown” wasn’t a lockdown at all. It was a fudge unsupported by Sage and the tier system doesn’t up by Johnson et al. The first lockdown clearly worked as it brought the R rate down. What should have happened after that was bold and consistent leadership instead of the circus we had. My own view - with the benefit of that March report saying it would last 18 months (which it still will until almost this time next year) - would have been to manage it be scheduling regular, but full, lockdowns of say one week in four, or whatever may have been a recommendation. Security and clear way ahead for everyone to plan life, business etc. And overall probably better fir the economy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection. Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed. Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza. As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity. The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection. Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals. Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity. " Except the simple measures you describe pretty much sound like Tier 2 - which didn’t work. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My own view - with the benefit of that March report saying it would last 18 months (which it still will until almost this time next year) - would have been to manage it be scheduling regular, but full, lockdowns of say one week in four, or whatever may have been a recommendation. Security and clear way ahead for everyone to plan life, business etc. And overall probably better fir the economy. In the benefit of hindsight of course " I did say it at the time actually. You don’t know me do you would t have been aware. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection. Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed. Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza. As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity. The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection. Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals. Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity. I assume you have copied and pasted, without providing references. It's not a fully thought through proposal, the likes of which have been evaluated and shown that they are lacking. Many claims are made in it, without substantiation - and thus it doesn't hold weight. There's no clear division between the vulnerable and the others either. The infrastructure to support more of the greater volume of 'healthy' who get ill doesn't exist. Who cares for the BAME population, who are disproportionately disadvantaged by this virus? Most posts in here are not substantiated with any credible links either. Sound good on the surface untill you start looking behind the vale. So because no credible links accompany a post, they cannot be deemed as authentic? I got a ban for posting a link from the BMJ which backed up my findings so I'd be reluctant to post anymore links. Many people have done some pretty forensic investigations, but get dismissed because they're not from the BBC,Sky,or PHE then flung into the tin foil hat category. A bold assumption though. " It does help if copied and pasted texts are cited though. Otherwise, if bold claims are made, it's reasonable to have full substance. Obviously, if something has been lifted from somewhere, the substance would be elsewhere, including appendices. Fab only permits appropriate links but we can state the sources of material etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
