Exhibition cancellations (not much to do with that anymore!)

[Pete the Elaner]

35 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Well, I read the slightly misleading titled* Great Barrington Declaration (https://gbdeclaration.org/) made by those "alternative view" scientists who have concluded that the best way to respond to covid is to protect the vulnerable and allow everyone else to get on with life while building herd-immunity, rather than to use lock-downs.

 

 

On a sort of related note to that, is it really best for those who have recovered to hide?

Like many others, I got a dose of Covid back in March, so should that have taught my immune system how to protect me from it?

How long does this protection last? Instead of hiding away, would I have been better off with regular exposure to the virus & therefore keeping my immune system working well?

 

Does anyone actually know the answers? I doubt it...

[Nearholmer]

2 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

It is also, in my view , aimed in large part at the USA,

 

Yes, I think so too. The analysis of it that I highlighted makes the point that what it advocates is pretty close to where the UK seems to be trying to be anyway.

 

I'm very wary of things that originate with US economic think-tanks, which this did, especially right now, because its never quite clear whether they are deeply serious, or simply weapons of mass-influence in the election campaign.

[woodenhead]

Frightened us to go out, then bribed us to go out, now blame us for going out.

 

Students didn't have to go back to university but they did, could this be because the universities and local landlords needed the cash they bring.  Schools could have found a way to spend less time in classrooms but they all went back - is that because it cost money.

 

The public cannot win, I don't think we see the whole picture.

 

PS. I don't go to pubs and I've only eaten out twice since March.

[Ravenser]

Just now, woodenhead said:

Frightened us to go out, then bribed us to go out, now blame us for going out.

 

Students didn't have to go back to university but they did, could this be because the universities and local landlords needed the cash they bring.  Schools could have found a way to spend less time in classrooms but they all went back - is that because it cost money.

 

The public cannot win, I don't think we see the whole picture.

 

PS. I don't go to pubs and I've only eaten out twice since March.

 

There's a lot of evidence that when children weren't in the classroom they got minimal teaching . Online teaching doesn't seem to work here

 

As far as the students are concerned, I think teenagers would have mingled without social distancing at least as much , if not more if they had been left at home. From my observation, social distancing amongst teenagers broke down in the latter part of May. But at home, they would have been mixed up with the older generation (their parents)

 

It's an awkward reality that the virus only spreads among and between the public. Therefore only the actions of the public can influence its spread. The government can only try to act on/influence  the actions of the public.

[woodenhead]

3 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

There's a lot of evidence that when children weren't in the classroom they got minimal teaching . Online teaching doesn't seem to work here

 

As far as the students are concerned, I think teenagers would have mingled without social distancing at least as much , if not more if they had been left at home. From my observation, social distancing amongst teenagers broke down in the latter part of May. But at home, they would have been mixed up with the older generation (their parents)

 

It's an awkward reality that the virus only spreads among and between the public. Therefore only the actions of the public can influence its spread. The government can only try to act on/influence  the actions of the public.

But had they stayed at home university students would have mingled less and in usual social bubble rather than the uncontrollable urges that come from being a student away on campus.

 

Schools is a difficult one I agree, I don't believe long term closure is in anyone's interest but the Government were making all sorts of noises and promises in the summer and the reality was actually they could do very little other than open the schools almost like they were before lockdown.  My wife sees it, she is looked at strangely by both pupils and staff because she has to wear PPE.  But whilst at first she wasn't too happy being in scrubs and PPE, having seen the mixing and inability to distance she is quite glad of it when facing teenagers.  She's happy being back in the schools, it's where she enjoys her job the most, but she is glad of the protection.

[Nearholmer]

One thing that hasn't been much mentioned in all this is the weather, which may be highly relevant.

 

If these chaps are right https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969720330047 then the UK in Autumn and Spring provides the plague with an ideal environment in which to spread.

 

I just checked the temperatures and humidities they cite for maximum spread, and they fit the UK, almost perfectly right now.

 

If you factor this with the growing evidence of air-borne transmission through very tiny droplets (aerosols) that carry on a breeze, you begin to:

 

- wonder whether it is a very good idea to be down-wind of other people, even at distances significantly greater than 2m at the moment; and,

 

- wonder whether it might be a good idea for us all to wear masks everywhere outdoors; and,

 

- to pray for a long, hard, cold, dry winter (the bug seems to survive less well below 5 degreesC and when humidity drops very low, the bad news being that humidity in the UK very rarely drops low enough to really help).

 

To me, that seems to fit with the pattern for colds, and the old saying "a green winter makes a fat churchyard".

 

 

Edited October 8, 2020 by Nearholmer

[Andy Hayter]

  1 hour ago, Andy Hayter said:

Can I suggest that a major contributor to the 42% could well be NFI (No factual information - other interpretations available).

 

1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

It's a big gap to be an unknown.

 

I can understand why you think that but consider this:

 

If you are tested positive for Covid, there is no little marker that says "caught in the supermarket".  The decision of where you caught it can be quite difficult.

 

Test and trace does allow the route of infection to be identified with a degree of confidence.

 

If dad goes down with C19 and tests positive and then mum and the two teenage kids go down with it 7 days later, there is a good degree of confidence that they caught it from dad*.  But where did dad get it?  At work?  No signs of any major outbreak and none of his colleagues have tested positive for it (which is not the same as not having had it).  At the supermarket?  (again no signs).  At the pub?  No one there has tested positive who was there when he was.  So where did dad get it?  NFI.

 

The truth is that test and trace is Ok for identifying the most likely reasons why people have caught the virus when they are the person being traced.  This is forward tracking.  Backward tracking is much more difficult.

 

Given the success (and I use the word in its loosest possible way) of test and trace it should be no surprise that there is a huge raft of people where we cannot with any confidence say how they contracted the virus.  

 

* But the reality might be that mum caught it from her lover and the kids caught it at school.  By unlikely coincidence they all go down with the virus just 7 days after dad has tested positive.

 

Edit to add:  With my little example of a family you already have a 25% NFI rate.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Andy Hayter

[Wheres_Wally]

There is some interesting editorial in The Lancet

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(20)30151-8/fulltext

 

"Often it is difficult to offer solutions, but it is straightforward in this case: interventions that have been in use since early in the pandemic, most crucially physical distancing and hand hygiene, must continue indefinitely. "

 

" It is time to forcefully impress on people that basic measures to limit the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 are here to stay. This is the new normal."

 

If this is what medical science is saying, is there any point in more discussion? Model railway shows are history. 

[Dunsignalling]

8 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

There's a lot of evidence that when children weren't in the classroom they got minimal teaching . Online teaching doesn't seem to work here

 

As far as the students are concerned, I think teenagers would have mingled without social distancing at least as much , if not more if they had been left at home. From my observation, social distancing amongst teenagers broke down in the latter part of May. But at home, they would have been mixed up with the older generation (their parents)

 

It's an awkward reality that the virus only spreads among and between the public. Therefore only the actions of the public can influence its spread. The government can only try to act on/influence  the actions of the public.

The entirely predictable University outbreaks have arisen from the instant mixing of large numbers of students who spent the summer spread across the country and beyond, inevitably including almost all the areas of highest incidence.

 

As a result, our county town of Exeter has gone from having almost no Covid to being the eighth worst hot-spot in the country in less than a month. The local powers-that-be are desperately playing it down by telling us that 80-90% of those infected are within the university. I don't find that at all reassuring. Given the previous minimal levels of infection, the remaining 10-20% (who now alone constitute an infection rate at or close to the national average) strongly suggests that most of those cases will have arisen from direct or indirect student contact.   

 

This is having a visible effect on the city centre, I'm steering well clear (Exeter's loss is Amazon's gain) but a neighbour who has to go there for work estimates footfall has dropped by more than half in the last two weeks. A view on the local TV news a couple of nights ago (admittedly without stating the time of day it was shot) showed the place almost deserted.

 

Now we are told that students "must" be allowed to go home for Christmas... OK, but if they do, it "must" be a one-way trip and they shouldn't return until vaccination is well advanced, which is likely to be September 2021 at the very soonest. If they all go home, "celebrate" and come back in January, the cycle will just begin again.

 

Getting back on-topic, I still retain some faint (but fading) hope that the local Model Railway Exhibition usually held at the beginning of July might happen....

 

John

Edited October 9, 2020 by Dunsignalling

[TheQ]

The big problem with children is the educated parents,  educated or tried to, their children.  The uneducated often poor did not, continuing the cycle.

 

As for covid isolation,  the over 65s in England  are 18.1% of the population , Norfolk 24.5%, North Norfolk 33%. This may explain why North Norfolk has such a low covid rate,  with almost double the national average of pensioners, people here are much more likely to be isolating, and taking proper precautions.. 

[Nearholmer]

If you look at the maps, it’s evident that the bug spreads along major travel corridors - inside people going up and down the M1, A1, ECML and WCML for instance.

 

I would suggest that Norfolk and Devon have been slower to rise simply because, in the nicest possible way, they are backwaters.

 

The danger for these places is that with high % >65yo and relatively poor access to hospitals, if people do carry the bug in in volume, things could get very uncomfortable, so battening down the hatches must be a very good idea indeed.

[TheQ]

See, on a Friday evening and Monday morning hoards of second homers heading or returning from London,  and those who have a home in Norfolk but live in digs in London during the week. 

It's only just over 100 miles.  But these are the more educated, more wealthy people of a higher than average age,  much more likely to keep themselves and others safe. 

 

Yes transport is a factor,  it's the movement of people between places, local commuting,  working in packed factories, even visting different towns for bar crawls. 

When this started the government got a hammering because of the huge incidence in London,  but with the immediate pre covid through put of just Heathrow was 80,000,000 per year or the population of Scotland per month, all travelling in covid breeding aluminium tubes. Then add gatwick, Luton, stanstead,  and southend.  That area of the UK was always going to get it. 

 

Yes if it gets into the population here we have a problem,  the influx of non mask wearing grockles during the summer was a particular worry.  I think  most locals shielded, didn't go into the grockle infested areas,  only shopping in the morning before the grockles emerged. 

 

For example 

Tomorrow we are going shopping,  not to Norwich 47 per 100,000 cases, definitely not to Great Yarmouth 85 cases per 100,000, but Cromer staying  in North Norfolk 16 cases per 100,000 fully masked, before the main busy times..  Then getting home. 

[Dunsignalling]

18 minutes ago, TheQ said:

See, on a Friday evening and Monday morning hoards of second homers heading or returning from London,  and those who have a home in Norfolk but live in digs in London during the week. 

It's only just over 100 miles.  But these are the more educated, more wealthy people of a higher than average age,  much more likely to keep themselves and others safe. 

 

Yes transport is a factor,  it's the movement of people between places, local commuting,  working in packed factories, even visting different towns for bar crawls. 

When this started the government got a hammering because of the huge incidence in London,  but with the immediate pre covid through put of just Heathrow was 80,000,000 per year or the population of Scotland per month, all travelling in covid breeding aluminium tubes. Then add gatwick, Luton, stanstead,  and southend.  That area of the UK was always going to get it. 

 

Yes if it gets into the population here we have a problem,  the influx of non mask wearing grockles during the summer was a particular worry.  I think  most locals shielded, didn't go into the grockle infested areas,  only shopping in the morning before the grockles emerged. 

 

For example 

Tomorrow we are going shopping,  not to Norwich 47 per 100,000 cases, definitely not to Great Yarmouth 85 cases per 100,000, but Cromer staying  in North Norfolk 16 cases per 100,000 fully masked, before the main busy times..  Then getting home. 

Ditto Devon - several HST/IEP/159 loads of second-homers would previously have been going east on a Sunday afternoon but many more are now travelling by car for their own protection. Probably fewer casual weekenders as most B&Bs have been fully pre-booked for whole week stays, but outbound traffic on the M5/A35 is nearly back to pre-Covid levels as the weekend winds down. 

 

My grocery shopping has been undertaken at 07.30 since lockdown began. More frozen, less fresh to keep it to once a week. I've picked one supermarket where behaviour/organisation is good and stuck with it.

 

Fortunately the legions of the unmasked are rapidly dwindling as autumn sets in - most of the daft bu**ers didn't seem to have steering that worked either....

 

John 

Edited October 9, 2020 by Dunsignalling

[john new]

As another permanent resident of a touristy area, fully agree with the two posts immediately above. There is also the extra factor that if/when we do go out we have low density areas to walk in for exercise compared to many of the urban areas with high % transmission. Nearholmer mentioned air-borne transmission earlier, if that is a risk then more likely in higher footfall areas than a country footpath with only an occasional pedestrian, dog walker, rambler etc.

[Phil Parker]

2 hours ago, TheQ said:

This may explain why North Norfolk has such a low covid rate,  with almost double the national average of pensioners, people here are much more likely to be isolating, and taking proper precautions.. 

 

That might be the case  in Norfolk, but the three people who couldn't wear a mask properly a week ago as I waited for an eye-test in Boots were well into their retirement year - as was the woman screeching at an assistant in another shop that hand sanitiser was poison and she never used it.

 

This bloke appearing in the daily Mirror is no spring chicken either:

[john new]

Just now, Phil Parker said:

 

That might be the case  in Norfolk, but the three people who couldn't wear a mask properly a week ago as I waited for an eye-test in Boots were well into their retirement year - as was the woman screeching at an assistant in another shop that hand sanitiser was poison and she never used it.

 

This bloke appearing in the daily Mirror is no spring chicken either:

Sadly Phil age does not seem, of itself, to bring sanity and around here we also see lots of d*** heads like the bloke above who forget the nose needs to be covered too! I posted recently about the pub and shoulder to shoulder sitting, that group were not youngsters either.

[woodenhead]

10 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

  1 hour ago, Andy Hayter said:

Can I suggest that a major contributor to the 42% could well be NFI (No factual information - other interpretations available).

 

 

I can understand why you think that but consider this:

 

If you are tested positive for Covid, there is no little marker that says "caught in the supermarket".  The decision of where you caught it can be quite difficult.

 

Test and trace does allow the route of infection to be identified with a degree of confidence.

 

If dad goes down with C19 and tests positive and then mum and the two teenage kids go down with it 7 days later, there is a good degree of confidence that they caught it from dad*.  But where did dad get it?  At work?  No signs of any major outbreak and none of his colleagues have tested positive for it (which is not the same as not having had it).  At the supermarket?  (again no signs).  At the pub?  No one there has tested positive who was there when he was.  So where did dad get it?  NFI.

 

The truth is that test and trace is Ok for identifying the most likely reasons why people have caught the virus when they are the person being traced.  This is forward tracking.  Backward tracking is much more difficult.

 

Given the success (and I use the word in its loosest possible way) of test and trace it should be no surprise that there is a huge raft of people where we cannot with any confidence say how they contracted the virus.  

 

* But the reality might be that mum caught it from her lover and the kids caught it at school.  By unlikely coincidence they all go down with the virus just 7 days after dad has tested positive.

 

Edit to add:  With my little example of a family you already have a 25% NFI rate.

If I could see care home in patient infections and education facilities on that list I would agree with you, but their very omission makes me very suspicious.   Just because it isn't in the news nor is in in the diagram doesn't mean it isnt happening.  But it would destroy the messaging if it was disclosed because they want to tell us it's all our fault.

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

If I could see care home in patient infections and education facilities on that list I would agree with you, but their very omission makes me very suspicious.   Just because it isn't in the news nor is in in the diagram doesn't mean it isnt happening.  But it would destroy the messaging if it was disclosed because they want to tell us it's all our fault.

Irrespective of to whom HMG might or might not be trying to apportion "fault", it is everybody's responsibility to do something about it.

 

The reason it's all turning to sh1t again is that  too many people have begun to think they won't get it, or it won't be that bad if they do, and they aren't too bothered about anybody else. 

 

Wrong on all counts, but today's news is full of a living example oafishly proclaiming that he and (by extension) enough of them will get away with it to fuel their delusions of invincibility for a while longer.

 

John

Edited October 9, 2020 by Dunsignalling

[PenrithBeacon]

I don't think they're telling us it's all our fault, but I do think there is a limit to what governments can do and then it's up to the individual citizen.

 

This isn't to say that errors have been made and are still being made, but there is a lot of shear stupidity out there

[woodenhead]

6 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Irrespective of to whom HMG might or might be trying to apportion "fault", it is everybody's responsibility to do something about it.

 

The reason it's all turning to sh1t again is that  too many people have begun to think they won't get it, or it won't be that bad if they do, and they aren't too bothered about anybody else. 

 

Wrong on all counts, but today's news is full of a living example oafishly proclaiming that he and (by extension) enough of them will get away with it to fuel their delusions of invincibility for a while longer.

 

John

They expect everyone to change, but do so in ways that actually drives people in the opposite direction and for 99% of people it not an illness that will kill them - that's the awful truth.  Most people will therefore believe, especially under 40, that they have nothing to worry about and it's not their generation that is being impacted.

 

Perhaps the answer is, and HMG are now talking about this, is helping people in the actual vulnerable groups to be safer.  I'm over 50, I have in laws to keep safe, my own father died last November Covid would have really spoilt his quality of life as he only ever ate out.  I am in that more vulnerable group and I know to keep away from people, it not the best thing in life but it has worked for me so far, though having a wife working in schools and an adult child working in the supermarket/commuting on a tram means I know I am not completely safe.  I have a mother in law, shielding since March, only seen her young grandchildren once since then, she's not seen my offspring once.  She is awaiting now a serious operation for an illness unrelated to Covid - she's at risk not having the operation but it may yet get cancelled when in the next two weeks the hospitals switch back to being Covid battlegrounds and all the other things like cancer and other serious illnesses that kill as many or more than Covid get ignored.

 

And yes I am angry, angry that an illness that kills a small number of people is affecting the whole world in such draconian ways, that it is setting up a new normal where no-one will feel safe, that our lives will be monitored ever more, our travel rights curtailed and unemployment will soon be rife because the economy is in tatters and our children will be paying the cost through lost education and taxes when they are earning to pay for all the bailouts.   The elderly and vulnerable will have even less support going forwards as the care sector will face even more cuts in the future as councils and central government are forced to make more savings to help pay off the debts that extremely rich around the work will reap benefit from.

 

Deep breath time and back to work..

 

4 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

I don't think they're telling us it's all our fault, but I do think there is a limit to what governments can do and then it's up to the individual citizen.

 

This isn't to say that errors have been made and are still being made, but there is a lot of shear stupidity out there

But they are and encouraging things like snitching on your neighbour, that's out of a 1984 novel or worse from the GDR.

[70000 Britannia]

On 08/10/2020 at 17:55, Roger Sunderland said:

I think there is clear evidence that primary school children have a very low incidence of catching Covid and don’t seem to pass it on. There is a clear correlation with age so same doesn’t apply to secondary schools and, most definitely, doesn’t apply to university students.

...

... Who thought it was a good idea to get hundreds of thousands of students to travel over the whole country for a piss up? All University degrees could and should have been done on line from home - but then it is  their birthright  and part of that thing called growing up, so who are we to deny them?

 

Totally agree.  Have just finished as lecturer at a Northern university, having had to switch to online teaching in March.  I enjoyed face-to-face; communication was so much easier and effective - online was a poor substitute and a pain.  However, I was horrified when many universities decided to get students back on campus, even with phased daily attendance intensions.  Sadly, the level of irresponsibility demonstrated by thousands of students has frankly been shocking, but not surprising (Apologies to those students that have shown responsibility and common sense).

 

Many universities developed a 'blended' teaching strategy for this academic year, probably as a compromise to give students the campus experience.  Of course, having students in accommodation then also maintains estate income.  However, the recent mass infections will likely be repeated throughout the year (after all how many quotes have we heard about "1st year is all about partying and having a good time").  Next, we will have hundreds of thousands returning home for christmas and, the inevitable infections being transported across the country.

 

Whilst home-based students will socialise with friends, cross-infections would likely be less wide-ranging, compared to the environments in large student villages like Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham etc.  I fear universities will rue the day they chose not to [sadly] go online.

 

In the meantime, and from a totally selfish standpoint, the developing debacle being witnessed in this 2nd wave, will further delay our ability to once again enjoy our hobby and exhibition environments, quite apart from the crippling impact on people's livelihoods/businesses.

Edited October 9, 2020 by 70000 Britannia
grammar

[Dunsignalling]

47 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

They expect everyone to change, but do so in ways that actually drives people in the opposite direction and for 99% of people it not an illness that will kill them - that's the awful truth.  Most people will therefore believe, especially under 40, that they have nothing to worry about and it's not their generation that is being impacted.

 

Perhaps the answer is, and HMG are now talking about this, is helping people in the actual vulnerable groups to be safer.  I'm over 50, I have in laws to keep safe, my own father died last November Covid would have really spoilt his quality of life as he only ever ate out.  I am in that more vulnerable group and I know to keep away from people, it not the best thing in life but it has worked for me so far, though having a wife working in schools and an adult child working in the supermarket/commuting on a tram means I know I am not completely safe.  I have a mother in law, shielding since March, only seen her young grandchildren once since then, she's not seen my offspring once.  She is awaiting now a serious operation for an illness unrelated to Covid - she's at risk not having the operation but it may yet get cancelled when in the next two weeks the hospitals switch back to being Covid battlegrounds and all the other things like cancer and other serious illnesses that kill as many or more than Covid get ignored.

 

And yes I am angry, angry that an illness that kills a small number of people is affecting the whole world in such draconian ways, that it is setting up a new normal where no-one will feel safe, that our lives will be monitored ever more, our travel rights curtailed and unemployment will soon be rife because the economy is in tatters and our children will be paying the cost through lost education and taxes when they are earning to pay for all the bailouts.   The elderly and vulnerable will have even less support going forwards as the care sector will face even more cuts in the future as councils and central government are forced to make more savings to help pay off the debts that extremely rich around the work will reap benefit from.

 

Deep breath time and back to work..

 

But they are and encouraging things like snitching on your neighbour, that's out of a 1984 novel or worse from the GDR.

If the government are trying to scare people, it's clearly not scaring enough of them, is it?

 

Forget the 99%, it's probably true across the entire population (infected and not), but the level of asymptomatic cases remains unknowable without antibody testing of everyone. Once those are excluded, 95% is nearer the mark for those who know they have it. one in twenty sounds much less comfortable, doesn't it? 

 

Also, of course, even the younger and fitter who "get over" Covid are discovering it can leave them with very debilitating after-effects. The potential maximum duration of  those is uncertain because the thing hasn't yet been around long enough to know for sure.  It could affect some for the rest of their lives.

 

Those are the people whose stories the government needs to be pushing if they want those who are (still) ignoring every precaution going to sit up and take notice. 

 

And below what level of misdeed should drawing attention to those who threaten the health and wellbeing of  ones community start to deserve the epithet "snitching"? 

 

The alternative is to effectively imprison everyone of increased vulnerability and allow the rest, and those unwilling to be so restricted, to take their chances.  That may come eventually, but only if the search for vaccines proves fruitless. The general consensus is that (at least) one will be found, within the reasonable future, and that measures are required to limit the toll until greater safety, and minimum disruption for all becomes a possibility 

 

John

Edited October 9, 2020 by Dunsignalling

[woodenhead]

@Dunsignalling I won't say I am not scared of Covid, I am, I don't want it and I won't wish it on anyone else but I am starting to think that the approach being taken is imbalanced and not sustainable.  Never thought I'd be using Richard Madeley as a reference, but it does seem rather like WW1 trench warfare.

 

There needs to be a consistent approach to protecting the vulnerable that is sustainable, the people most at risk are the people most likely to follow guidelines, at the moment it seems to be going the wrong way trying to influence the masses via curtailing freedoms and fines - it will only end up in a massive kickback when people can take no more.

 

Even the Government's own MPs can recognise there is a real issue with diktats coming from cabinet, posted in the media rather than scrutinised by Parliament.  The media itself is constrained because the press conferences the government is hosting are not press conferences they are PR events that do not allow scrutiny by the press, just a single question which the speakers can choose not to answer without fear of being challenged.  Now we have a US style press person to host these events, recent experience in the US show this is not a good omen for open government.

 

In this thread we've talked about cancellations, such cancellations are not stretching into 2021, no individuals will have the confidence for a long time to plan an event.  I noted last night the government gave some good news about some holiday destinations, great, summer is over and would you want to risk booking anything at the moment when things can change again overnight.

[Dunsignalling]

Surely it depends on whether the current measures can be sustained for as long as they need to be. 

 

The point is to keep a lid on things until some form of protection can reduce the need for prevention. 

 

Unfortunately, it is clear across this debate (here and more broadly) that the government's critics hold an unspoken assumption that this is all going to continue for ever.  

 

Hopefully, it won't, and we'll all be able to heave a collective sigh of relief by this time next year. Equally hopefully, we'll not have lost any more of our fellows than is absolutely unavoidable in the meantime.

 

John

 

    

 

 

[Nearholmer]

The thing that hasn’t happened yet, and God forbid that it should, is a very visible over-whelming of the hospitals. 
 

That would certainly change perceptions, by making the ‘lives vs freedoms’ choices/balances very apparent.

 

I have a feeling that hospitals were overwhelmed in a practical sense in the worst hit areas in the Spring, but that we were somewhat protected from the full story. We were clapping, but I’m not sure we understood the detail of what we were clapping.

 

TBH, I really do wonder if HMG has any better idea Of how to navigate this than the rest of us - they are after all human beings - and I suspect that their ‘pulling the shutters down’ is because they know that, but can’t admit it to themselves.

 

We possibly need a ‘government  of all the talents’ right now, or at least a “grand committee of talents” to steer us through this dominant topic.