Lockdown #2

[MrWolf]

21 minutes ago, Steadfast said:

I've heard this from a few people, but I've yet to see it sadly. Not trying to stir things, but I genuinely wonder if different age groups are seeing things from different angles?

As a 31 year old, I've seen a lot less 'hellos' etc whilst on walks and a lot less manners whilst going round supermarkets, leaving people a 2m gap and waiting patiently then left wondering why as people either glare at you or dive in to the gap. When everything else is so stressful at the moment, it just feels like further negativity when you try to be sensible and do the right thing. This has been right since the early days in March way before all the mandated face mask wearing came in and doesn't seem to have changed. The people that have seemed to maintain the pleasantries have been the older folk (probably 60+ as rough guess).

My other half can't wear anything on her face, she's tried and ends in a panic attack. Most recent attempt, the staff at the garden centre were wonderful looking after her. She now wears a government issue 'I can't wear a mask' label on a lanyard, and despite that some of the snide comments we have heard, especially from people not wearing their own mask properly have been sad and disappointing. She's not taking the Mick, has printed the government card out yet despite messages to be nice to people on shop tannoys etc, it all seems to go over people's heads. Yet the groups like those mentioned else where in the thread have the freedom to do what they like.

I hate wearing a mask, I can't go more than about an hour before it makes me feel really stressed and I just have to pay and get out, so I avoid shopping unless I really have to. Sad state of affairs feeling like a kid about to have a tantrum at age 31. I know it's not coming any time soon, but I want normality back, and soon, for state of both of our minds. 

Please be nice to everyone folks

 

Jo

 

I agree with you completely, I am having much the same experience and I fall into the gap between young and old at 49

[Derekstuart]

DELETED

Edited November 1, 2020 by Derekstuart

[Joseph_Pestell]

Just now, phil-b259 said:

 

So SAGE is a group of amateurs is it?

 

I much prefer to trust Science rather than  'opinion' of idiots who don't know the first thing about the subject.

 

Of course not. And nor did I suggest that they were. If you want intelligent discussion (about this or anything else), misrepresenting what people say is very unhelpful.

 

There are many other very eminent epidemiologists and statisticians who are not on SAGE. Not being a member does not make them "amateurs" either.

 

Even within SAGE, there are clearly some differences of opinion. It would be better if members of SAGE confined themselves to briefing the Government rather than the media.

[Rivercider]

Funny but I thought that after the first lockdown was introduced the rate of infection dropped markedly.

Lockdown was never meant to eradicate Covid, merely to slow the rate of infection in the UK to allow the NHS to cope, and for a reliable track and trace system to be established.

 

Undoubtedly we are in this for the long haul. Hopefully restrictions might be relaxed a little over the Christmas/New Year period, and we the public can then act sensibly.

Thereafter I see another lockdown in January/February after the infection rate inevitably has risen again. Hopefully warmer weather and a viable vaccine might mean some improvement by the end of March. Perhaps even the first hope of some small railway exhibitions to visit!

 

cheers

 

['CHARD]

2 minutes ago, Rivercider said:

Funny but I thought that after the first lockdown was introduced the rate of infection dropped markedly.

Lockdown was never meant to eradicate Covid, merely to slow the rate of infection in the UK to allow the NHS to cope, and for a reliable track and trace system to be established.

 

 

 

I can't be alone in wondering if they will ever give this the attention it deserves.

[AY Mod]

2 hours ago, Derekstuart said:

Lockdowns aren't working.

 

Taken in isolaion I feel that is a flippant and dangerous statement if someone were to read and actually believe it.

 

Graphs for March to June record the degree of effectiveness and the evidence of other nations' approaches are obvious, for good or bad. Therefore they can work and could have been more effective here had people made better choices whether they were part of the solution of the problem or the solution through their actions or inactions. To say lockdowns aren't working can only be considered correct if you accept they didn't work because of the people rather than the process.

 

There are too many failings from too many people for too much of the time, let's not add to being part of that. Going back to whether you are part of the solution or the problem it doesn't matter which policy you advocate you are still one or the other.

 

But, please, do not let statements which cannot be factually evidenced look like a fact when it's just an opinion.

 

You ain't doing my blood pressure much good winding things up over the weekend.

[polybear]

 

6 hours ago, APOLLO said:

Also 1918 was the time of the far more deadly Spanish Flu, which saw off my Mums mum when she was an infant. Her dad fought in WW1, got gassed and shrapnel wounds but lasted through to the mid 60's. Much harder times (and people) back then.

 

 

We've been in this six months, whilst those in WW2 had six years of it - whilst being bombed, shot, blown up, torpedo'd, kids evacuated, rationing.....  I'll say they were much harder back then.

[Crisis Rail]

Well.

 

At least Hornby shares will be on the up again 

[Bernard Lamb]

5 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

.. can't you claim a hire car? I had a circular a while ago about "essential workers" in which it stated that various categories of worker, including jurors could claim the cost of a hire car or approved taxi, for that reason. Or does it vary in different regions?

 

I would think so. I was informed that I could claim reasonable costs. That was described as bus or train fare where possible. The hint was that a taxi for the full journey would not be acceptable. However a taxi from an isolated village to the nearest station would be.

Bernard

[Bernard Lamb]

30 minutes ago, polybear said:

 

 

We've been in this six months, whilst those in WW2 had six years of it - whilst being bombed, shot, blown up, torpedo'd, kids evacuated, rationing.....  I'll say they were much harder back then.

Don't forget that some people were POWs who had most of that done to them by their own side a well as by the enemy.

For most people the so called lock down has very little effect and takes little effort to comply with.

When given a plastic bucket in Nepal one night and told to use it if I needed to and not to turn the light on as there were Maoist snipers waiting for some target practise I think I do know a little bit about a real lockdown.

Bernard

[Ravenser]

7 hours ago, 30801 said:

I think it’s worth calling out. Many on here will look at his website anyway and he’s using his reputation as top bloke who makes great kits to peddle nonsense.

 

 

 

Perhaps the most relevant point on that website is this, dated yesterday:

 

Quote

Our Business is Open & We Are All Well"
But Backorders Have Reached November &
December Sales Limit Thresholds
So “Sorry Folks” No more mail order sales
are possible until January 2021

 

There is therefore no real point in visiting Connoisseur Models' site until after Christmas

 

As a more general point, the now notorious SAGE document suggesting - amongst various options to reduce infections - a possible short lockdown also noted remarked that transmission in shops was thought to be slight . Given all the precautions in place, and the fact that with the exceptions of supermarkets, model shops and bookshops you don't  spend long in a shop, and you don't  generally visit one every day, that seems logical .

 

I'm therefore slightly disappointed they've decided to close most shops, and I'm hopeful that shops at least will reopen promptly in early December. Nothing bad happened to infections when they reopened in mid June : in fact infections seem to have carried on falling for another month or so, and closing retail must represent the biggest economic damage.

 

There are signs that Tier 3 measures have actually brought infections down a little after they have been in place for a little while, and one or two places seem to have stabilised things even under Tier 2. That isn't enough:  if you stabilise at a level high enough  that the hospitals  can't cope with it on an on-going basis, and they are eventually swamped, you're eventually stuffed . But I do suspect that most people may spend most of December and January under something looking rather like "Tier 3 with knobs on" once infections have been reduced to a manageable level through lockdown.

 

In that respect it will be interesting to see how things pan out over the next 6 weeks in Northern Ireland , Scotland, Germany and Austria where something like "Tier 3 with knobs on" is currently in place. That would be a real -life experiment to see whether something might less than a lockdown can keep a lid on the virus (but not necessarily reduce it much)

 

One point worth making - hospital treatment cancelled in the present crisis is a consequence of the virus, not of lockdown.  Melbourne has just been through an extremely long and punishing lockdown, but I doubt it had any effect on things like cancer treatments because by European standards there were a tiny number of cases, and that won't have stretched the  hospitals. On the other hand you could do nothing at all, have a huge number of virus cases - and medical care for everything other than the virus would collapse as the hospitals were swamped. Shutting pubs and shops doesn't stop hospitals treating cancer patients or heart attacks

 

This time round the Government is clearly trying to protect NHS treatment for other things. Unfortunately that means keeping the levels of the virus even lower... You can treat a lot more coronavirus patients if you shut down everything else

Edited November 1, 2020 by Ravenser

[ejstubbs]

7 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

As a group of diseases, Coronaviruses mutate readily - which is why we still are still susceptible to catching the common cold or flu multiple times within one calender year.

 

Influenza is not caused by a coronavirus: the viruses which cause 'flu are genera of the family Orthomyxoviridae.  As for the common cold, many different viruses from a number of different families can be responsible for the set of symptoms which we collectively refer to as the "common cold".  The most common of these are rhinoviruses of the Picornaviridae family; only ~15% of common colds are caused by viruses of the Coronaviridae family.

 

That may all sound like gobbledygook, but what it means is that while there may be similarities, the behaviour of the viruses which cause colds and 'flu - and the human body's response to them - cannot necessarily be used as a reliable guide to the behaviour of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (despite what certain public figures stated early in the pandemic).

[Ravenser]

1 minute ago, ejstubbs said:

 

Influenza is not caused by a coronavirus: the viruses which cause 'flu are genera of the family Orthomyxoviridae.  As for the common cold, many different viruses from a number of different families can be responsible for the set of symptoms which we collectively refer to as the "common cold".  The most common of these are rhinoviruses of the Picornaviridae family; only ~15% of common colds are caused by viruses of the Coronaviridae family.

 

That may all sound like gobbledygook, but what it means is that while there may be similarities, the behaviour of the viruses which cause colds and 'flu - and the human body's response to them - cannot necessarily be used as a reliable guide to the behaviour of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (despite what certain public figures stated early in the pandemic).

 

There are however 4 coronaviruses in the grab-bag we call the common cold.

 

I do not have a medical background so am under correction, but - I understand one of these 4 coronaviruses is labelled OC43 and is potentially relevant. They think it came from cows, and the best estimate based on mutation of when it split from the animal virus is 1890...

 

In 1889-92 there was a pandemic called "Russian flu" which had apparently 3 big waves , then minor waves for the rest of the decade. It has often been assumed to be flu, and it's been suggested that the reason Spanish flu mostly killed the under 30s was that the over 30s had some immunity from catching Russian flu. But the fit in dates is striking and suggestive, and Russian flu apparently had some nasty side effects in some people, a bit like Covid

 

Of course in 1889-92 life expectancy was much lower and there were far far fewer people over the age of 70 around. The age profile of Victorian Britain would have reduced the death toll from the present coronavirus substantially.

 

However it may be that we have been here before , and therefore have some clue as to how this plays out. OC43 certainly isn't a killer nowadays, whatever it may have been in the 1890s

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Of course not. And nor did I suggest that they were. If you want intelligent discussion (about this or anything else), misrepresenting what people say is very unhelpful.

 

There are many other very eminent epidemiologists and statisticians who are not on SAGE. Not being a member does not make them "amateurs" either.

 

Even within SAGE, there are clearly some differences of opinion. It would be better if members of SAGE confined themselves to briefing the Government rather than the media.

 

Firstly, as far as I am aware SAGE exists to bring together the best experts in the field of infectious diseases to advise the Government. What they say is thus has far more importance than what those outside it may say.

 

Secondly, while individual members of SAGE may express their own views, we should be listening to the majority view.

 

If you recall a committee was set up to examine HS2 yet one of their number disagreed most forcefully with the outcome, should we have discarded what the rest of the comitee said on that basis? Courts are also quite happy to go with the majority view while medical research does not use the outcome of individual patients to decide if something is effective - the results are collated and a 'majority view' outlook taken.

 

Finally, this is not some sort of academic argument, following the best practice is literally a mater of life and death. Every time someone starts questioning the advice coming forward from SAGE gives licence for the believers of crackpot ideas / conspiracy theories to pedal their own nonsense as fact. At this time the country needs unity - not endless political (or scientific) point scoring.

 

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

2 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

 

 

Finally, this is not some sort of academic argument, following the best practice is literally a mater of life and death. Every time someone starts questioning the advice coming forward from SAGE gives licence for the believers of crackpot ideas / conspiracy theories to pedal their own nonsense as fact. At this time the country needs unity - not endless political (or scientific) point scoring.

 

 

 

An academic argument is precisely what it is (or should be). What worries me is a certain lack of intellectual rigour in the way that statistics are being used (on both sides of the argument).

Gone, hopefully, are the days in which this country achieved unity by suppressing any divergent views. That is a very dangerous course to embark on.

[monkeysarefun]

6 hours ago, kevinlms said:

In Australia we had no new cases at all today - based on the tests carried out by Saturday. In Victoria we had quite strong restrictions on travelling and curfews and compulsory face masks. 

 

So while it's certainly not over, there can be light at the end of the tunnel. 

 

 

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.

Edited November 1, 2020 by monkeysarefun

[Nearholmer]

7 hours ago, hayfield said:

My own observations is that too many have not been following the rules either through stupidity or gross selfishness. Where as the vast majority have been doing their best

Agree, but I do seriously wonder whether “seasonal affect” is much stronger than is generally thought.

 

Reputable scientific studies identify two things which might be working together, and very much against us: the fact that the virus survives best in cool temperatures (5 to 15 degrees) and the very range of  humidity we experience in U.K. in autumn and winter; and, the possibility of airborne transmission by aerosols (tiny particles of a size similar to those in fag smoke) that can drift over considerable distance.

 

To me it seems uncomfortably likely that cases have shot up at least partly because the conditions for virus transmission are now perfect outdoors, possibly at distances >2m, whereas in summer the issue was really only indoors and/or close proximity - biggish particles of snot/spit (sorry!) travelling short distances, with the combination of higher temperature and higher UV killing the bus in the tiny particles before they could cause trouble.

 

Anyway, whether that is so or not, it’s been blindingly obvious for weeks that more drastic action was necessary, so I sort-of welcome it, but I have to say that it still landed with a thud in my mind - it does not induce cheerfulness to be reminded of what we are up against and what we have to (not) do to get through it.

 

 

Edited November 1, 2020 by Nearholmer

[sandwich station]

6 hours ago, Gwiwer said:

 Truck drivers are apparently not allowed to do so.  

 

That's not strictly true Rick. Where I work out trucks have been going from Melbourne to Sydney and Adelaide, you just need a travel permit for that trip. 

[hayfield]

2 hours ago, Derekstuart said:

 

 

I'm not sure if you're aware of this but there IS another lockdown coming. The last one didn't work, but somehow there are those who think this one will. If the government statistics are to believed then, if unchallenged, ALL life in UK- all 65 million of us- will be extinct by Easter. Does anyone really believe that?

 

 

 

Derek

 

I am in agreement with most of what you say, but lockdowns do work but are as good as their weakest link. Australia has just had its first Covid free day, plus most countries use lockdowns, most experts are in agreement that lockdowns work, but from the beginning they were always going to be a sticking plaster until vaccines become available

 

As for the Human race becoming extinct, firstly herd immunity works, most people who are infected by Covid survive. I listened to one expert in viruses state, a virus does not go out to kill its host as its sole purpose is to survive, the deadlier strains tend to die out with their hosts.

 

Unlike influensa we need to control its spread, presumably due to its effect in not only being more deleberating but  by clogging up the health system people will be more at risk of dying from other curable illnesses.

 

We all need to calm down, do as we are asked and get on with a bit of extra railway modelling, for many its a blessing in disguise  

[hayfield]

54 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Agree, but I do seriously wonder whether “seasonal affect” is much stronger than is generally thought.

 

Reputable scientific studies identify two things which might be working together, and very much against us: the fact that the virus survives best in cool temperatures (5 to 15 degrees) and the very range of  humidity we experience in U.K. in autumn and winter; and, the possibility of airborne transmission by aerosols (tiny particles of a size similar to those in fag smoke) that can drift over considerable distance.

 

To me it seems uncomfortably likely that cases have shot up at least partly because the conditions for virus transmission are now perfect outdoors, possibly at distances >2m, whereas in summer the issue was really only indoors and/or close proximity - biggish particles of snot/spit (sorry!) travelling short distances, with the combination of higher temperature and higher UV killing the bus in the tiny particles before they could cause trouble.

 

Anyway, whether that is so or not, it’s been blindingly obvious for weeks that more drastic action was necessary, so I sort-of welcome it, but I have to say that it still landed with a thud in my mind - it does not induce cheerfulness to be reminded of what we are up against and what we have to (not) do to get through it.

 

 

 

I believe you are spot on with your thoughts on cool temperatures increasing the risk of catching the virus, it just means we have to manage the risk of catching it better

 

Its exactly the same for food hygiene. I believe the food industry requires temperatures for food safety to be outside the 15 to 55 degree temperatures, this is what they call the danger zone. 

 

Whilst we cannot change the climate, we should manage our safety when at greater risk, basically we should keep our distance, wearing masks where and when required and increase our hygiene standards

[Ravenser]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

Agree, but I do seriously wonder whether “seasonal affect” is much stronger than is generally thought.

 

Reputable scientific studies identify two things which might be working together, and very much against us: the fact that the virus survives best in cool temperatures (5 to 15 degrees) and the very range of  humidity we experience in U.K. in autumn and winter; and, the possibility of airborne transmission by aerosols (tiny particles of a size similar to those in fag smoke) that can drift over considerable distance.

 

To me it seems uncomfortably likely that cases have shot up at least partly because the conditions for virus transmission are now perfect outdoors, possibly at distances >2m, whereas in summer the issue was really only indoors and/or close proximity - biggish particles of snot/spit (sorry!) travelling short distances, with the combination of higher temperature and higher UV killing the bus in the tiny particles before they could cause trouble.

 

Anyway, whether that is so or not, it’s been blindingly obvious for weeks that more drastic action was necessary, so I sort-of welcome it, but I have to say that it still landed with a thud in my mind - it does not induce cheerfulness to be reminded of what we are up against and what we have to (not) do to get through it.

 

 

 

It is striking that almost every country in Europe and North America has been hit by a second wave at more or less the same time. With the exception of Ireland, no country in the Northern Hemisphere introduced a lockdown before they were hit by the surge. This time around, a number of countries already have case-rates well above ours, and some of them haven't yet introduced one or, like Belgium and the Czech Republic , did so only after cases had soared to levels several times ours.

 

This suggests strongly:

 

1. The second wave is being driven by natural forces across Europe, and whether a country gets a second wave has relatively little to do with the ins and outs of Government policy. If our government has "failed" because there is a second wave, then pretty well every government in Europe has "failed" just the same. Despite varied national policies, different cultures, opposite  sides of politics in power etc etc . This covers France, Spain, Italy, Poland, arguably Germany and Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Romania, the Ukraine, and quite possibly Denmark and Sweden. It's a long list. Track and trace doesn't seem to have saved anyone.

 

2. This time around, we haven't got the highest cases; we don't have anything like the steepest rise; we aren't later than others in locking down (indeed we are relatively one of the earliest); our controls have been and will be amongst the strictest; we test more than anyone else; and we have more field hospitals already in place than anyone else. Belgium I fear could become quite a mess.

 

Government responses may well affect how the second wave plays out, but they cannot prevent you getting one. On the other hand, any country whose hospitals collapse under the number of cases will certainly see mortality soar, and not just from this virus. 

 

This thing appears to be a bat-cold. Knowing what we now know, it must spread among bats when they are clustered together in their roosts . Which tend to be cool dark confined spaces like caves and belfries. The more we replicate conditions in a cave full of roosting bats the better the virus thrives....

Edited November 1, 2020 by Ravenser

[simontaylor484]

Could it be possible that a long freezing winter could be our friend this year and help with the virus 

[Nearholmer]

The way I read the science on the topic, there are multiple problems for us in Winter:

 

For minimum outdoor survival of the virus, a short autumn, a deep hard winter, and a short spring would be good, because that would get through the 5 - 15 degrees zone quickest, somewhere deeply continental like Russia maybe, and the worst climate, because it supports outdoor survival of the virus is a half-hearted cool, maritime one, where it never gets really cold, Britain and Ireland basically.

 

And, there is another factor, in that warm, centrally heated homes cause drying of the nasal passages, reducing their effectiveness at trapping and getting rid of incoming bugs before they can get on-board.

 

So, we live in a place where the bug survives well, and live mostly in homes which make it easy for us to catch it.

 

Whooppee!

 

[Ravenser's bat-roost analogy only holds good for bats' winter hibernation roosts, and possibly for male bat roosts it would seem, lady bats like it hot in their summer roosts https://www.bats.org.uk/our-work/buildings-planning-and-development/bats-in-buildings#:~:text=Hibernation roosts are often a cool space with,prefer slightly warnmer conditions of 6 - 10°C.]

 

 

 

 

[Big James]

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

[Nearholmer]

Re: The great Barrington Declaration:

 

7 hours ago, 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".

 

I don't think that who signed a document makes a jot of difference to whether or not it is nonsense. What decides whether or not a document is nonsense is the content. 

 

On that test, what it says, rather than who signed it, it raises some really important questions, but what it recommends is nonsense. It is nonsense primarily because it advocates a course of action that is more or less completely impractical to implement, separating the vulnerable from the far-less-vulnerable, and because it completely fails to recognise or account for outcomes of the illness that are debilitating but not fatal.

 

Plenty of properly competent people, not just me as a rank amatuer, have described it as nonsense, or in only slightly more polite terms - if you have a look at the Wikipedia entry about it, there is a long commentary about criticisms of it.

 

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.

 

 

Edited November 1, 2020 by Nearholmer