Lockdown #2

[simontaylor484]

I suppose at the end of the day all the Government can do is plan for the worst case scenario and just hope things dont get that bad. 

 

Scientists have been predicting a flu epidemic/pandemic for afew years now happen this is it.

 

 

[phil-b259]

8 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

 

One of the primary authors, although not announced as such, was interviewed as part of the background material during the BBC news of the PM's announcement yesterday, and I thought that for such an eminent person she came across as terrifyingly detached/impractical/overly theoretical, and unable to handle practical questions, not put aggressively. Another professor, from a Scottish Uni I think, was also interviewed and she seemed far better informed about the range of approaches available, the differences between approaches taken by different countries  and their effectiveness etc, and genuinely practical I know which one I would have preferred to be advising HMG.

 

We are talking about dealing with a virus here - not auditioning for Britons got Talent.

 

Being able to sound good on TV is not what being a good scientist (or any technical profession to be fair) is about. Sure it might help, but its not essential to the primary business of being a good scientist.

 

All that really should be concerning News organisations with respect to scientists is the hard data - and its a poor reflection on how shallow society has become if how 'good' someone is on TV is the yardstick by which we judge their work.

 

If we only listened to scientists who were good at PR then the world as a whole would be worse off - many of those behind some of our greatest scientific discoveries were most certainly not, 'people' persons.

 

 

 

 

[phil-b259]

12 minutes ago, simontaylor484 said:

 

 

Scientists have been predicting a flu epidemic/pandemic for afew years now happen this is it.

 

 

 

They have - and as much as Holywood likes to think its going to be something big (asteroid, nuclear war, the rise of AI, etc) that will threaten the existence of the human race, science has known for decades that humans are FAR more likely to become extent through bacteria / viruses. Hence their very real fear about the misuse of antibiotics and the emergence of drug resistance strains or things that jump species...

[Nearholmer]

Phil,

 

Fair comment up to a point, but she does seem to be advocating a course of public policy action that she then can't effectively defend under even pretty gentle cross examination.

 

Having googled both profs, I’m heartened to learn that the one that sounded to me grounded and practical is indeed an adviser to government in Scotland, and the one who sounded to me detached from practicalities doesn’t seem to be an adviser to government about Covid.

 

Back to the content of the document. 

 

Kevin

 

 

Edited November 2, 2020 by Nearholmer

[Steadfast]

1 hour ago, Big James said:

As team leader for one of the major retailers I know from here till after xmas I’m gonna be in for a long hard slog. 

Having been through many Christmasses in a large supermarket before I joined the railway, from 'till boy' to team leader, you have my thoughts. Good luck!

For those who have never  seen it from that side of the checkout, Christmas in retail is bad enough on a normal year, a bit of support and respect for the super humans keeping the supermarkets going this year would be welcomed by them I am sure.

 

Jo

[Markwj]

I did note at the end of the conference Boris did try to give some positivity that things may be returning to normal (ish) by Spring. Maybe a vaccine in the system by then along with the seasonal change.

 

Maybe a model railway exhibition by August?..

 

 

[PatB]

It's rather notable that Sweden's "shield the vulnerable but otherwise carry on as normal" approach has failed by pretty much every objective measure. High death rate (including among the supposedly shielded vulnerable) and major economic damage. So a pretty good example of what not to do. 

[kevinlms]

Earlier comments were made about Australian truck drivers and state border crossings.

 

On cue, here is the story on one such driver.

 

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/we-call-it-a-brain-swab-the-truckies-who-are-covid-tested-each-week-20201030-p56a64.html

[Joseph_Pestell]

8 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

- if you have a look at the Wikipedia entry about it, there is a long commentary about criticisms of it.

 

 

 

Oh, that's OK then. Wikipedia says so. Anyone, professionally competent or total nutcase, can edit entries on Wikipedia.

[Nearholmer]

Read it. I’m sure you and I can both tell the difference between a dodgily-edited Wikipedia entry and one containing a set of properly referenced quotations, which is what it is.

[Rivercider]

15 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Oh, that's OK then. Wikipedia says so. Anyone, professionally competent or total nutcase, can edit entries on Wikipedia.

I think pretty much all of us would agree that it is better to get back to as normal life as possible, while protecting the vulnerable.

The trouble is the 'vulnerable' are found right across society, in all age groups, occupations, and sections of society.

It is simply not possible for those of us not considered vulnerable to carry on anything like a normal life while at the same time not compromising those who are vulnerable because we all interact so much.

A properly equipped fast and efficient track and trace system might make it easier, but we are nowhere near that so far.

 

Take care - stay safe.

cheers

[Neil]

This debate reminds me of the whole sorry DJ Models saga in that we often believe what we want to believe even when  evidence is stacked up against it. Those that wanted an APT or an N gauge King blinded themselves to the increasing evidence that it was all going to end in tears because the 'want' overcame reason. I see the same thing happening here but magnified because the outcomes are more fundamental than toy trains. It's understandable that if your livelihood is threatened you will be drawn to theories or a course of action which would spare your sector. I think this is why we see so many pleas for exemptions, the problem being that all these small exemptions add up. Even if your livelihood isn't threatened there are ones own inbuilt preferences and prejudices to overcome. If by nature you're cooperative or collectivist you'll find the strictures of lockdown easier to get behind than individualists or libertarians, even though both groups will be faced with the same evidence. It would also be foolish to think that scientists are immune from 'want' skewing reason. They're human just like the rest of us and their prejudices, even their politics, will have an impact on their interpretation of the evidence, the evidence which they deem significant and their conclusions they draw. I believe that this is how we end up with stuff like the Great Barrington Declaration.

[Chris M]

Regardless of any discussion, in England we are in lockdown for the next four weeks at least. Luckily for me this is the right hand end of my layout. I can't wait to see what it will look like in four weeks time without social interruptions getting in the way! Life is finding what is good.

 

[hayfield]

10 hours ago, Big James said:

I went to Asda to do my biweekly shop. It was like the end of the world. Some people are just selfish. Literally everything fresh had been emptied and the people were crammed in like sardines. The supermarkets won’t be closing. As team leader for one of the major retailers I know from here till after xmas I’m gonna be in for a long hard slog. 

 

Big James

 

Its always the same either at Christmas or the start of lockdown, I have been there at the receiving end and feel for the staff. All you can do is your best, which sadly for a few will never be enough. Good luck and keep well

 

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

16 hours ago, monkeysarefun said:

 

 

An interesting date is 30 july. 

 

On that day, Australia reported 721 new cases, while  the UK reported  846, just 125 more.

 

Yesterday, Australia reported zero new cases. while the UK had 21,915.

 

The difference between the two countries was that at that time much of Victoria  where the second wave was occurring was enacting another  lockdown, while at the same time  the UK started relaxing restrictions.

 

So it is possible to get things back under control, albeit with a large degree of financial and emotional pain  so best wishes to all there at the moment.

Another difference is that the UK is entering winter, which on the face of it, seems more amenable to transmission of the Covid virus.  On the opposite hand Australia is beginning to emerge from winter into a period when the natural transmission of the virus seems to cecline.  add some strict, aussie style, control measures and you can. perhaps, explain a drop in the number of cases.

 

Another point is in respect of the NHS where the N word appears not to apply with things very much down to local management attention and the approach of individual GPs.  For example our GP surgery has never closed all the way through and that will continue to be the case from later this week.  Yet other people I know couldn't access their GP at all during Lockdown and in some cases only with considerable difficulty since then.

 

Similarly my daughter works on a ward in an orthopaedic hospital which normally performs only elective surgery.  Last week the surgeons were getting through so many operations that the wards were running out of beds and the rate of surgery had to be slowed down down for a couple of days.  They did stop elective surgery during the first lockdown but that was basically to allow them to take over urgent trauma surgery in order to release high dependency beds in the other local hospital which used those beds to create part of its Covid patient capacity.  A few weeks after lockdown ended they restarted elective surgery.  The other hospital in the trust is a centre of excellence for cancer treatment and it did not cancel prearranged cancer patient review appointments during lockdown. 

[Gwiwer]

8 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

add some strict, aussie style, control measures

So strict, in fact, that the "second wave" through Melbourne is alleged to have begun when the security guards responsible for ensuring no-one left infected residential blocks enjoyed intimate personal relations with some of the tenants they were "securing".  

 

 

 

 

[tomparryharry]

On 31/10/2020 at 19:08, AY Mod said:

 

 

On 31/10/2020 at 22:31, AY Mod said:

I'm already having to remove posts and access to the topic by regular conspiracy theorists.

 

Yes, you're quite right!  There is a conspiracy!  Oh, hang on, someone at the door.... Thwack!...Thud!... OUCH!    Gett off!... Ouch!... Argh!... Gurgle!... Thwack!... Thud!......

 

No, there's no conspiracy here.....

[rocor]

A subject for discussion?.

 

We may have had a lucky break with Covid-19 due to its comparatively low mortality rate. One other droplet spread human to human virus, smallpox was a lot more lethal, but thanks to a vaccine being developed in the 20th century it is possibly eradicated now.

 

Rabies left untreated has a 100% mortality rate, fortunately it is less easy to contract (mode of transmission, bodily fluids) and there is a vaccine for it.

 

The next global pandemic could be a lot more deadly. On the basis that a lock down is an effective method of controlling the spread of virus's, In the future it may be a good policy to increase the control/curtailment of international travel.

[iL Dottore]

I think that humanity, in dealing with the pandemic, has to deal with three - conflicting - considerations:

1. Humanitarian: a civilised society will protect and care for its' sick, vulnerable and elderly as far as it is able to do so. Not to do so invites opprobrium. As John Donne wrote "Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee".
2. Biological/evolutionary: every animal species on the planet has its' elderly, vulnerable, sick and unfit (not to mention the unlucky) removed from the population by Disease, Predation or Starvation. As David Attenborough could have put it "it's what Nature intends". Although humans have managed (more or less) to avoid starvation and predation over the centuries, only since the onset of modern, science based, medicine has mankind been able to affect the predations of disease to a noticeable degree. But even so, as late as the 1950s, diseases and conditions that are now well managed, but which leave the individual concerned vulnerable to CoVID-19, would have killed the individual afflicted much, much earlier in their life.
3. Societal: Society is truly where the total is more than the sum of its' parts and actions that favour society can be detrimental to the invidual (and vice-versa).

So there you have it: a three way balancing act with no easy answers. At what point does caring about the individual become detrimental to the society that the individual lives in? Is using technology and science to circumvent the inexorable laws of nature a cost (both biological and financial) that society should afford and if "yes" at what point does the cost become too much. And finally, what is better? to let society direct the individual in a society's response to the pandemic or vice versa? Should the survival of society be favoured over the survival of the individual?

 

These, I think, are important questions and require cool-headed and analytical discussion - where nothing is accepted as the gospel truth and nothing is excluded from consideration (tin-foil hat theories excepted). Unfortunately, humanity's assessment of, and response to, the pandemic has been - in too many countries - badly affected by how the media reports the situation. Apart from the often sensationalistic reporting ("if it bleeds, it leads"), very few of those informing the general public have a decent understanding of science and can communicate that understanding (just think of all the brouhaha surrounding "herd immunity" - which is a very specific thing to an epidemiologist and requires varying assumptions depending upon what disease is being studied. A sensationalistic headline and a few badly written paragraphs won't even begin to come close to describing the complexity of epidemiological modelling).

 

As the English physician, Thomas Sydenham, wrote: "primum non nocere" - first do no harm. Which is, I would argue, a good step forward.

[spikey]

2 hours ago, Gwiwer said:

So strict, in fact, that the "second wave" through Melbourne is alleged to have begun when the security guards responsible for ensuring no-one left infected residential blocks enjoyed intimate personal relations with some of the tenants they were "securing". 

 

How do you know they enjoyed them?  I think we should be told ...

[admiles]

On 01/11/2020 at 14:44, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

You may disagree with this "declaration". But when you look at the identity of the original signatories, I don't think that it can be dismissed as "nonsense".

 It's also Jim's own website and he's entitled to put on there what he wishes (within certain legal constraints).

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

13 minutes ago, admiles said:

 It's also Jim's own website and he's entitled to put on there what he wishes (within certain legal constraints).

 

I think that you have replied to the wrong post.

[PatB]

3 hours ago, Gwiwer said:

So strict, in fact, that the "second wave" through Melbourne is alleged to have begun when the security guards responsible for ensuring no-one left infected residential blocks enjoyed intimate personal relations with some of the tenants they were "securing".  

 

 

 

 

Turns out that story is, at best, questionable. https://junkee.com/horny-security-guards/266156

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, admiles said:

 It's also Jim's own website and he's entitled to put on there what he wishes (within certain legal constraints).

 

He certainly can. My point was actually that mixing your business with your own weird opinions is not a good idea. I previously only thought of Jim as a bloke who made good kits. Now I think of him as a bit of a tool who makes good kits.

A bit like the model shop owner who went off on one about single sex couples on Strictly and 'poofters demanding equal rights'. If he'd kept his views to himself he's still have a customer.

[admiles]

20 minutes ago, 30801 said:

 

He certainly can. My point was actually that mixing your business with your own weird opinions is not a good idea. I previously only thought of Jim as a bloke who made good kits. Now I think of him as a bit of a tool who makes good kits.

A bit like the model shop owner who went off on one about single sex couples on Strictly and 'poofters demanding equal rights'. If he'd kept his views to himself he's still have a customer.

 

I agree. Personally I don't think it was the cleverest thing to do but it's his (the website) to do as he wishes with it. These strange days bring out the best and worse in people I suppose....