Covid / Experts / Pressure groups

[Reorte]

58 minutes ago, stewartingram said:

As I posted on the other thread, the local TV news thish morning showed a press release from Cambs Police. They stated that they will not be having roadblocks, or entering people's houses to break up gathering, but just attending mass gatherings if they occur.

I think both the Police and the TV are wrong in publicising this; it just encourages the "do-as-we-want-brigade" to go ahead anyway.

 

I think the hardcore ones of those will do so regardless. Then there are those who'll just stay apart from everyone even if the rules don't say they can't. It's hard to influence the behaviour of either group, not that the latter ones cause problems. It's the people in the middle you need to be more careful about and need to keep broadly on your side, the ones who might stick two fingers up at you and work out ways around if you're seen as being too over-the-top strict, not to mention the greater level of general support you'll get if you're perceived as being more interested in the spirit and purpose of rules than the exact letter. Some may condemn that but the practical reality is that the police need to work with human nature of the general population and keep their support.

[teaky]

I can't find anything to disagree with in your post Reorte but I do feel that Stewart has a point.  The police do not have the time or resources to cover every example of law breaking but why publicise it?

Edited December 23, 2020 by teaky

[Reorte]

Just now, teaky said:

I cant find anything to disagree with in your post Reorte but I do feel that Stewart has a point.  The police do not have the time or resources to cover every example of law breaking but why publicise it?

I don't entirely disagree with his post, I think there are factors on both sides. Policing must surely be a lot easier when the public supports the police and a message that'll give the impression that they're not a bunch of arbitrary rule-enforcing killjoys (I'm not saying they are, just how I think they might be regarded by some without care) might well help that and actually increase compliance in some cases - after all one way to make sure some people do something is to tell them they can't. So it might all be good for PR and hence behaviour.

 

I wouldn't like to guess for certain whether it'll work out like that in reality though.

[teaky]

One thing I can guarantee is that as much as I try there will be a proportion of the population whose behaviour over Xmas I will be completely unable to fathom.

 

I have family and friends all over the UK and a few other countries and for the most part they are acting sensibly.  There is one glaring exception though: six households together for Xmas dinner in a tier 4 area anyone?

[brianusa]

This situation can't successfully be rationalised; some people are stupid and in their stupidity make it more difficult to ever improve their lot or that of other people.  No vaccine will ever cure this problem.

     Brian.

[hayfield]

Locally we have been hit very hard with infections as covid has run riot through our two local state schools. though seemingly not the local private school. Seemingly the village ae acting like they did at the start of the first lockdowns, certainly very few children about. I think even those who have been against lockdown rules have have come to realise they need to conform to the rules.

 

The action taken by the French may actually be a blessing, surely with infection rates soaring in many European countries, perhaps its wise to test lorry drivers going both ways. Given that the new variant has been found in Sweden and soaring infection rates in other European countries its probably safe to assume its at large within Europe, just not detected. What ever the case is all governments should be working together to bring an end to the pandemic

[black and decker boy]

3 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

The action taken by the French may actually be a blessing, surely with infection rates soaring in many European countries, perhaps its wise to test lorry drivers going both ways. Given that the new variant has been found in Sweden and soaring infection rates in other European countries its probably safe to assume its at large within Europe, just not detected. What ever the case is all governments should be working together to bring an end to the pandemic

Of the major EU countries, many such as France, Spain, Italy & Belgium)  have brought their pandemic back under control (and remain in lockdown of some kind).
 

Only Germany & Netherlands have long term ongoing upward trend in case numbers. Plus the U.K. naturally.

Ireland seems to be starting a new upward trend.

Edited December 24, 2020 by black and decker boy
Typo

[hayfield]

I think you may have Italy in the wrong column, locked down till January, now have the highest death rate in Europe.

[black and decker boy]

4 hours ago, hayfield said:

I think you may have Italy in the wrong column, locked down till January, now have the highest death rate in Europe.

No, Italy is trending downwards, we are trending upwards so will soon re-pass them in the count. We are also likely to re-pass France soon in the case count as they too are trending downwards.

 

obviously if our newest export gains traction in the EU then their trend lines could swing steeply  upwards once more but currently, they appear to have more control than we do.

[iL Dottore]

To be very pessimistic, I think there are only two surefire ways to bring the pandemic to an end.

The first is to have a total and complete one month lockdown with imprisonment and/or mandatory quarantine in a well guarded camp of anyone breaking the lockdown, for whatever reason (some really authoritarian regimes would probably add summary execution to the list of punishments for serious transgressors) This approach has worked in a number of countries with authoritarian or semi authoritarian regimes.

 

The other way is to say we will accept that there will be human casualties and let the virus rip through the population removing the sick, the infirm and the elderly. The surviving population will, of course, have (greater or lesser) immunity to the virus. Apart from the human cost, such an approach would radically alter the social, economical and political landscape beyond almost all recognition (as happened after the Black Death killed off a huge percentage of Europe’s population- estimated to be up to 60% of the population of the time). I don’t see any country taking this approach - even the  most despotic. The cost (political and economical) would be too great.

 

So the likelihood is we will muddle along, indulging in transgressors (who, I argue, should be punished much more severely than they are) and hoping that there won’t be too many anti-vaxxers around to dilute the effect of mass vaccination.

 

But I remain sceptical of any non-authoritarian country to effectively manage the pandemic (although Australia and New Zealand have almost completely pulled it off)

Edited December 25, 2020 by iL Dottore
Typo

[hayfield]

Certainly a lot of the waivers to the rules in Essex seem to have taken notice, owing to the severity of the infection rate and towed the line. There will always be those who flout the rules which is how the virus gets a larger foot hold in society. Even talking about restrictions in schooling in areas of high infection, which even a week ago was taboo  

[Pete the Elaner]

11 hours ago, iL Dottore said:

To be very pessimistic, I think there are only two surefire ways to bring the pandemic to an end.

The first is to have a total and complete one month lockdown with imprisonment and/or mandatory quarantine in a well guarded camp of anyone breaking the lockdown, for whatever reason (some really authoritarian regimes would probably add summary execution to the list of punishments for serious transgressors) This approach has worked in a number of countries with authoritarian or semi authoritarian regimes.

 

The other way is to say we will accept that there will be human casualties and let the virus rip through the population removing the sick, the infirm and the elderly. The surviving population will, of course, have (greater or lesser) immunity to the virus. Apart from the human cost, such an approach would radically alter the social, economical and political landscape beyond almost all recognition (as happened after the Black Death killed off a huge percentage of Europe’s population- estimated to be up to 60% of the population of the time). I don’t see any country taking this approach - even the  most despotic. The cost (political and economical) would be too great.

 

So the likelihood is we will muddle along, indulging in transgressors (who, I argue, should be punished much more severely than they are) and hoping that there won’t be too many anti-vaxxers around to dilute the effect of mass vaccination.

 

But I remain sceptical of any non-authoritarian country to effectively manage the pandemic (although Australia and New Zealand have almost completely pulled it off)

 

I believe Australia & NZ have been helped by the weather. It is summer there now & the world has had a few months more to learn about how to deal with the virus than we had when it was summer in the north.

Thailand has only had 60 deaths in total even though there is almost a political revolt there right now...but it is always hot there.

I don't think weather is the only factor, but a big one.

[Ravenser]

On 17/12/2020 at 10:34, hayfield said:

 

Look at the pictures of parties, street gatherings and parties, uni parties,  raves etc mostly all young people. Just look at the weekend nights with throngs of drunk youngsters in masses in the streets. The testing regime is showing the latest spike is with younger people, all of these are facts not myths

 

I do accept there are many older people who also flout the rules, also many young people are adhering to the rules, but this spike according to the data has been led by the younger generation

 

As for children claiming immaturity as a defence, I get fed up with this, I was taught right from wrong which I passed on to my daughter. Yes I did a few stupid things like most folk, but I knew where the line was drawn 

 

 

How on earth does closing the schools stop " parties, street gatherings and parties, uni parties,  raves etc mostly all young people. Just look at the weekend nights with throngs of drunk youngsters in masses in the streets."  ???   That is what teenagers do when left to their own devices outside school

 

I tend to believe that keeping the schools open is the lesser evil, because in the classroom teenagers are in a structured environment operating under "COVID-safe" procedures, with some kind of enforcement mechanisms. If someone gets it, their absence will be noted, and contact -tracing within the school is reasonably straightforward. The whole environment serves as a daily, hourly reminder that social distancing is necessary and there is a risk, with consequences

 

Shut the schools and you immediately turn them all loose, to gather informally in parks and streets, go round people's houses, party and all the rest of it. The whole lot under the radar, without formal structure or precautions and concealed under a thick fog of teenage omerta.

 

 At least while the schools are open you can stop that for 6-8 hrs a day , and it inhibits  their activities outside school hours  - "Don't drink on a school night!"

 

Teenagers don't socially distance - except in the classroon. They are inclined to assume that at the end of the day the virus is some else's problem. For teenage girls , seeing your mates in the open and refraining from hugging and kissing is full-on social distancing...

 

It's not really the schools that are problem it's everything else - so closing the schools would simply stoke the furnace of infection. Teenagers are not going to stay meekly at home for months. Inside 3 hrs they will be texting their mates to arrange to meet up somewhere.

[hayfield]

3 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

How on earth does closing the schools stop " parties, street gatherings and parties, uni parties,  raves etc mostly all young people. Just look at the weekend nights with throngs of drunk youngsters in masses in the streets."  ???   That is what teenagers do when left to their own devices outside school

 

I tend to believe that keeping the schools open is the lesser evil, because in the classroom teenagers are in a structured environment operating under "COVID-safe" procedures, with some kind of enforcement mechanisms. If someone gets it, their absence will be noted, and contact -tracing within the school is reasonably straightforward. The whole environment serves as a daily, hourly reminder that social distancing is necessary and there is a risk, with consequences

 

Shut the schools and you immediately turn them all loose, to gather informally in parks and streets, go round people's houses, party and all the rest of it. The whole lot under the radar, without formal structure or precautions and concealed under a thick fog of teenage omerta.

 

 At least while the schools are open you can stop that for 6-8 hrs a day , and it inhibits  their activities outside school hours  - "Don't drink on a school night!"

 

Teenagers don't socially distance - except in the classroon. They are inclined to assume that at the end of the day the virus is some else's problem. For teenage girls , seeing your mates in the open and refraining from hugging and kissing is full-on social distancing...

 

It's not really the schools that are problem it's everything else - so closing the schools would simply stoke the furnace of infection. Teenagers are not going to stay meekly at home for months. Inside 3 hrs they will be texting their mates to arrange to meet up somewhere.

 

 

`Firstly the vast majority of children are too young to be going to pubs etc so there are two sections, where the older ones either in work or further education need to be dealt with differently. Raves, parties, mass gatherings are both anti social and illegal. However your assumption is totally incorrect for the South East, with local health authorities claiming the new infection is mainly in the younger generation, sadly now spreading to older 

 

The previous theory was younger children are safer in school. in theory is a sound assumption, but with both socializing before and after school plus the new variant ,proves only controlling interaction in school just breeds the new infection

 

I have never said we should not be attempting to educate out children, but it has proved locally at all costs can be very dangerous, and the education zealots should be silenced, it should be led by the medical experts

 

Over two weeks ago our local Junior and senior schools were closed down due to both being covid hotbeds. Even a year one child went home and infected the whole family. Proves the all costs theory is both  unsound and dangerous

 

As a village 4 weeks ago we were virtually covid free, the parish now has peaked at about 1,200 per 100,000 infection rate over the past week, mostly down to infections at the local schools, for the past month Essex health authority has been concerned about infection rates in younger people, 2 weeks ago went public about their concerns about 11 to 18 year olds. All of these concerns are totally opposite to what we have been led to believe would happen. Seems that public health concerns are now being taken seriously as the return to school will be both staggered and monitored.

 

My niece who teaches in a junior school in Kent 2 weeks ago was like many of her colleagues have been infected at school, passing the infection to her partner. Thankfully both on the mend.

 

The parish infections are looking to be levelling off and hopefully in decline, for the past 2 weeks few children have been out in the village, sadly death rates are increasing in the borough slightly. With local Essex hospitals are at patient levels seen at the height of the 1st lockdown

 

The village has been a bit of a ghost town for a week or so, on my walk today only saw one family out with children. So thankfully its seeping in what needs doing

 

Yes educate children provided risks to the community are minimised, but not at all costs.

 

 

[Ravenser]

My point is simply that teenagers will spread it more insiduously left to their own devices than if they are kept in a "COVID-secure" school environment. (Even if that environment proves less than perfect - it's way better than the alternative)

 

Closing the schools will not stop teenagers getting and spreading it. School children may not be legally able to go to the pubs - but then the pubs are shut. However a 17 yr old can go round his mate's house to a party where the alcohol was bought from Tescos by his mate's 19 yr old elder brother......

 

I don't believe closing the schools in Essex will stop the spread of the virus amongst teenagers. What teenagers get up to out of school will still spread it far and wide.

 

I am not denying that infection starts with those 16-25. That has been shown repeatedly . I just think that schools may be acting as a brake on transmission rather than a vector

[hayfield]

17 hours ago, Ravenser said:

I don't believe closing the schools in Essex will stop the spread of the virus amongst teenagers. What teenagers get up to out of school will still spread it far and wide.

 

I am not denying that infection starts with those 16-25. That has been shown repeatedly . I just think that schools may be acting as a brake on transmission rather than a vector

 

Well those in charge of our health service totally disagree with you, as seemingly now does the government with their latest plans. Initially at the start of this rise of infections we were told not to worry as its mainly affecting the younger ones who only suffer mild infections, but if you look at both the spread and intensity plus rising hospital admissions , what was assumed, was in fact totally incorrect, especially with this new variant. 

 

Our two local schools have been shut for over two weeks. Parents have been keeping their children indoors. I assume both on the advice of local medical experts.

 

There was another bright spark making comments about children's education and wellbeing being more important than a few crinkles getting infected.  As it happens its probably quite right to shut down pubs and restaurants in the hope of keeping other areas operating. Now at the moment its only safe to stay at home

 

Where would I have been safer at the local gastro pub or school ? I chose neither, but if I had I would have kept clear of the school. What's happened has been anticipated by many for weeks, which is the virus being spread by lack of social distancing to and from school as well as mixing in groups by young adults  

 

You are right young adults and the way they socialise will aid the spread of the disseise, unless their attitudes and actions change. In our close we have a family with a couple of young adults who have a stream of friends visiting, initially this changed to the odd friend popping around,  I don't think I have noticed any of their friends cars  for quite a few days.

 

The attitude in the village as I have said has changed a lot, mostly older folk out for a walk or going to the local Co-oP. No children out and about at all 

[monkeysarefun]

On 26/12/2020 at 10:33, Pete the Elaner said:

I believe Australia & NZ have been helped by the weather. It is summer there now & the world has had a few months more to learn about how to deal with the virus than we had when it was summer in the north

 

The virus arrived here back in January, just like it did everywhere else in the  world and cases started to grow just like they did everywhere else in the world at the time, The difference here and  in  New Zealand was that instead of the politicians ignoring it or dabbling in herd immunity or whatever, they shut our borders and locked the place down straight away.  And instead of the population whinging and ignoring the regulations or turning up at protests at state capitals dressed as muppets in pretend soldier costumes or looking for loopholes we followed the directions. So much so that any individuals breaking them made national news.

 

Melbourne suffered a second outbreak in winter due to a slipup in hotel quarantine and at one point the daily new cases exceeded the UK. But again they locked down hard  for 111 days, businesses were shut, no one in Melbourne could go more than 5km from home. Masks were compulsorary.  They did it hard but again there were few if any protests, people  did it. , everyone followed the rules and now they've had 55 days of zero community transmission.

 

After several weeks of zero community spread a small outbreak has occurred in Sydneys northern beaches due to either international flight crew or diplomats - who both have laxer quarantine regulations stuffing things up for the rest of us. So we are again in limited lockdown, and on Christmas day were limited to groups of 10 socialising outsde.

 

Again, everyone is following the rules - except for several hundred bloody backpacker tourists who thought Bronte Beach would be a great place to all gather and have a huge party.  We should have sent them back home so they could enjoy tier 4 or whatever.