Generic Virus Thread

[Davkaus]

 

2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

There has been a strangely consistent number of road traffic related deaths in the UK, between 2012 and 2018 the highest recorded number was 1,793 and the lowest recorded number was 1,754

This year, could be interesting, and I guess it’s another stat we’ll need to throw in to the mix. We potentially have hundreds of road deaths that have been prevented this year.

This is the kind of thing that got brought up pre lockdown when discussing whether locking down was worth the cost. Some people tried to jump on the moral high ground and insist human lives are worth more than money, but clearly, we collectively make the decision otherwise all of the time. There's just a disagreement about where to draw the line. 

It might actually not be as you expect in terms of reduced road fatalities though, if my anecdotal evidence is anything to go by. I suspect with people continuing to walk in the roads, new and inexperienced cyclists encouraged to commute, and new or otherwise out of practice drivers returning to the road, we might see a bit of a spike. Discouraging use of public transport may end up raising road deaths.

[chrisp65]

In that the figures have been so weirdly consistent for 6 or 7 years, it should be one that’s relatively simple to observe.

Others will be more nuanced I’m sure, people missing medication or treatments or check ups that would have spotted something. But equally, there will be some people that have used the ‘scare’ to get more healthy in order to have a better chance of surviving getting the virus.

People will debate for years all the data on whether it was ‘worth’ 3 months of economic stop.

[blandy]

20 hours ago, KentVillan said:

How does persisting with lockdown minimise deaths caused by lockdown?

You’re asking me a question based on something I haven’t said. I've said lockdown was necessary in the UK, and necessary before it was implemented. I’ve said ending it too soon without the virus being got on top of is high risk. I’ve repeatedly mentioned and discussed the negative aspects of lockdown. Lost as to what you’re thinking tbh.

[KentVillan]

14 minutes ago, blandy said:

You’re asking me a question based on something I haven’t said. Ive said lockdown was necessary in the uk, and necessary before it was implemented. I’ve said ending it too soon without the virus being got on top of is high risk. I’ve repeatedly mentioned and discussed the negative aspects of lockdown. Lost s to what you’re thinking tbh.

I'm not trying to misrepresent you, so apologies if I have.

My understanding is that you think lockdown is still necessary. Is that fair? I am struggling to see how the current number of Covid-19 infections and deaths justifies it, in light of all the negative consequences.

I think people are digging their heels into what was initially a very rational position, even as evidence grows that this virus is less dangerous than originally feared, and fewer people are susceptible to catching it than initially feared.

Here's an interesting thread from a virologist:

He isn't (afaik) a lockdown sceptic or a "get the economy going again!" type. He's just saying the evidence seems to be shifting against the usefulness of many lockdown measures.

Here's a piece in the Guardian by Larry Elliott: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/14/the-past-three-months-have-proved-it-the-costs-of-lockdown-are-too-high

Quote

Evidence of the harmful side-effects of the lockdown have also emerged. The number of suicides is up. Domestic violence has increased. Mental health is suffering. Unemployment figures out this week will illustrate the human cost of a 20.4% drop in national output in just one month. The jobless total is heading for 3 million this summer despite the fact that the government is currently paying a third of the workforce.

As the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out last week, the crisis has deepened Britain’s class, ethnic, gender and generational divides. Young people are the least likely demographic group to be infected with Covid-19 but they are being particularly hard hit by the lockdown. The cost of school closures for all children, but especially those from poorer households, will be high. The 18-24 age group are most likely to end up unemployed because many of them work in hospitality, retailing and leisure.

The likelihood that Covid-19 will resurface a second and perhaps a third or fourth time makes the case for a measured approach to future lockdowns even stronger. All the evidence is that six months without going to school is more than twice as damaging as three months. The same applies to youth unemployment. The longer the spell out of work the deeper the scars.

More and more people on the left are going to start putting their head above the parapet and making this point. Prolonging lockdown is not a "better safe than sorry" measure - it is political cowardice that will wreak enormous damage on people's lives.

[Stevo985]

6 hours ago, Genie said:

He does my **** head in on the daily briefing.

Govt: Ok, lets got to Robert Peston for a questions

Peston: 10 minute monologue before getting to his question.

I think they show remarkable self restraint with the media sometimes. I’d be cutting him short and reminding him people have things to do and to get to the point quicker.

It’s annoying because I often agree with his point of view. But **** hell get to the point. 
 

you’ve had all day to prepare for this moment, Robert. Try writing down your question and reading it out. You don’t need to umm and ahh for 2 minutes before you ask a question. 
 

He’s like a stoned Hugh Grant

[maqroll]

I haven't seen anyone in my family since Christmas. 

[KentVillan]

It's puzzling to me that so many people, who I think have a lot of respect for human rights, are so accepting of those rights being restricted for a long period of time https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-8-respect-your-private-and-family-life

Quote

Article 8 protects your right to respect for your private and family life

Article 8 protects your right to respect for your private life, your family life, your home and your correspondence (letters, telephone calls and emails, for example).

 

What is meant by private life?

You have the right to live your life privately without government interference.

The courts have interpreted the concept of ‘private life’ very broadly. It covers things like your right to determine your sexual orientation, your lifestyle, and the way you look and dress. It also includes your right to control who sees and touches your body. For example, this means that public authorities cannot do things like leave you undressed in a busy ward, or take a blood sample without your permission.

The concept of private life also covers your right to develop your personal identity and to forge friendships and other relationships. This includes a right to participate in essential economic, social, cultural and leisure activities. In some circumstances, public authorities may need to help you enjoy your right to a private life, including your ability to participate in society.

This right means that the media and others can be prevented from interfering in your life. It also means that personal information about you (including official records, photographs, letters, diaries and medical records) should be kept securely and not shared without your permission, except in certain circumstances.

 

What is meant by family life?

You have the right to enjoy family relationships without interference from government. This includes the right to live with your family and, where this is not possible, the right to regular contact.

‘Family life’ can include the relationship between an unmarried couple, an adopted child and the adoptive parent, and a foster parent and fostered child.

See also the right to marry.

 

What is meant by home?

The right to respect for your home does not give you a right to housing. It is a right to enjoy your existing home peacefully. This means that public authorities should not stop you entering or living in your home without very good reason, and they should not enter without your permission. This applies whether or not you own your home.

See also the right to peaceful enjoyment of property.

 

Are there any restrictions to this right?

There are situations when public authorities can interfere with your right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. This is only allowed where the authority can show that its action is lawful, necessary and proportionate in order to:

• protect national security
• protect public safety
• protect the economy
• protect health or morals
• prevent disorder or crime, or
• protect the rights and freedoms of other people.

Action is ‘proportionate’ when it is appropriate and no more than necessary to address the problem concerned.

The last sentence seems really important to me. "Proportionate" is not about whether we've reduced road traffic deaths or air pollution or any of the other happy side effects of lockdown. It's about whether restricting people's fundamental human rights is still required to address the original problem concerned.

I imagine most people accept that government sometimes has to restrict people's rights temporarily to deal with an emergency, but these powers have to be used very sparingly, and without mission creep setting in.

No economic cost/benefit model will really reflect the intangible value of being able to exercise your human rights. Not being able to see friends and family, build new relationships, mourn loved ones... all of these things are enormous impositions on people's lives which won't appear in any spreadsheet.

Combine that with the tangible costs of suicide, domestic violence, child abuse, delayed cancer treatment, unemployment, lost months of education, etc. and I think it's time to lift lockdown. Face masks on public transport, maybe limit crowd sizes at large events. Continue with handwashing guidelines, and advice for vulnerable people to take extra precautions. But otherwise we need to get back to normal life.

[snowychap]

39 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

It's puzzling to me that so many people, who I think have a lot of respect for human rights, are so accepting of those rights being restricted for a long period of time

I'm not sure that so many people who think that are 'so accepting'. Simply because they might not subscribe to the same timings as you suggest doesn't mean that their commitment to human rights can necessarily be downplayed.

Some of us who are just generally wary of what governments enact, full stop, were talking about the issues to do with legislation before the lockdown even began.

More worrying than any potential Article 8 infringements is the idea that we still have a Government enacting emergency powers by secondary legislation when Parliament is sitting.

It's almost like they don't want any debate on the matters even to the extent that obvious flaws or potential stupidities are pointed out before they go on the statute books.

More worrying than the issue with a Public Health crisis is that this is likely to be even more frequently used as the m.o. by the current government (one which has an 80 seat majority remember so shouldn't struggle to get legislation through even apace) when/if other crises and emergencies arise especially as the scope open to them is much wider than in this emergency.

[bannedfromHandV]

8 hours ago, maqroll said:

I haven't seen anyone in my family since Christmas. 

For some of us, that’s a bonus.

But I appreciate some people actually like their families.

[Davkaus]

10 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

For some of us, that’s a bonus.

But I appreciate some people actually like their families.

After the news of the "social bubble" for people who live alone, my mum was excited I'd be allowed to visit and stay over for the weekend. Nah, you're alright. 

[blandy]

11 hours ago, KentVillan said:

I'm not trying to misrepresent you, so apologies if I have.

My understanding is that you think lockdown is still necessary. Is that fair? I am struggling to see how the current number of Covid-19 infections and deaths justifies it, in light of all the negative consequences.

I think people are digging their heels into what was initially a very rational position, even as evidence grows that this virus is less dangerous than originally feared, and fewer people are susceptible to catching it than initially feared.

Here's an interesting thread from a virologist:

He isn't (afaik) a lockdown sceptic or a "get the economy going again!" type. He's just saying the evidence seems to be shifting against the usefulness of many lockdown measures.

Here's a piece in the Guardian by Larry Elliott: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/14/the-past-three-months-have-proved-it-the-costs-of-lockdown-are-too-high

More and more people on the left are going to start putting their head above the parapet and making this point. Prolonging lockdown is not a "better safe than sorry" measure - it is political cowardice that will wreak enormous damage on people's lives.

I think we have to be led by information and facts. The virus has not gone away, it is still significantly present in the uk, with thousands of new infections every day being detected. I don't see it being left wing or right wing to follow the data and act. From the USA to scandi and s American nations, different lockdown have been imposed or not.  If we look at the uk, we at every stage were too slow. We saw the hospital situation in Italy and China and did nothing. An early lockdown would have likely, very likely meant far fewer deaths and cases, far fewer infections and have been able to be ended quite soon. As it is the government utterly **** up everything, meaning more deaths, more cases, more damage to the economy. Where we are now, yes I strongly suspect the easing will lead to an uptick in new cases. That could be managed locally, but again the capability isn't there and hasn't been put in place. TTI is not ready either.

Absolutely no one wants a longer lockdown than necessary. Sadly we have had a long one because of **** ups. They are easing it because they are desperate to change the narrative, not because it is remotely the wise thing to do at this point. There are more daily cases now than when it was first imposed. Deaths lag by around 3 weeks. The stats will be revealing over the next 6 to 8 weeks.

[choffer]

9 hours ago, maqroll said:

I haven't seen anyone in my family since Christmas. 

Same here. Boris did allow me to see my partner and the wee one at the weekend though so the rest of my family can wait. 

[KentVillan]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

There are more daily cases now than when it was first imposed.

I think this is purely a consequence of testing being ramped up. Better to look at a more stable indicator - deaths.

When lockdown was first imposed on 23 March, there were 335 deaths reported. We are significantly below that now (7-day average is 165).

When you factor in the infection-to-death time lag as well, the death totals suggest we have been below that 23 March level since early May (assuming a 2-week average time to death).

It is literally the information and facts that are pointing towards lifting lockdown. Prolonging lockdown no longer makes any rational sense.

[Davkaus]

Stay Alert, consumers.

 

[Follyfoot]

12 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Stay Alert, consumers.

 

Drove past New Life in Cannock this morning, queuing round the block and beyond. Wow that is what I call a multiracial customer base 

[KentVillan]

https://www.politico.eu/article/norway-suspends-contact-tracing-app-over-privacy-concerns/

Quote

Norway suspends contact-tracing app over privacy concerns

The regulator said the app presented a disproportionate risk to privacy given low download rates.

By VINCENT MANANCOURT 

6/15/20, 12:15 PM CET

 

Updated 6/15/20, 12:44 PM CET

Norway's public health body has suspended its coronavirus contact-tracing app and deleted all data collected by the technology following an order from the country's data protection body.

The Norwegian data protection watchdog on Friday gave the public health body (FHI) until June 23 to stop all collection of data via the app called Smittestopp.

The regulator said the app presented a disproportionate risk to privacy given low download rates, which currently stand at around 14 percent of over 16s.

Norway's move comes after Lithuania's privacy watchdog ordered a stop to a quarantine app for suspected violations of EU privacy rules, and as Germany prepares to roll out its contact-tracing app this week. In France and the U.K., privacy concerns have plagued the rollout of similar tools.

Norway's privacy regulator took particular issue with the app's collection of location data, pointing out that other contact-tracing apps do not collect this type of information.

The FHI said it had gone one step further than ordered — deleting all data already collected — and suspended use of the app while it resolves the issues.

However, the FHI said it disagreed with the data watchdog's assessment and said the order had weakened its ability to fight the spread of the virus.

"Without the Smittestopp app, we are less equipped to prevent new outbreaks that may occur locally or nationally," FHI director Camilla Stoltenberg said in a statement.

The health body urged people to keep the app on their phones so that the scheme can be reactivated once it has resolved the issues.

You have to wonder if track and trace will work at all in the UK.

It might make more sense to just have local alert levels based on passively collected data - e.g. recent test results, samples from sewage (apparently this is very accurate and very quick to detect changes), 999 / 111 call data, Google Trends, and so on.

The idea that a large enough % of British public will actively and competently cooperate with track and trace seems pretty optimistic.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, KentVillan said:

It is literally the information and facts that are pointing towards lifting lockdown. Prolonging lockdown no longer makes any rational sense.

Yes, pointing towards lockdown, I agree. Lifting lockdown today, or whenever the date is/was, not so much. There is no wide scale, fast, Track and trace, there is no (as we've seen) readiness with schools etc. to take kids back in to free parents from childcare and so on. There is also as we've mentioned, disparity in where is over the worst of it, and where is still struggling with higher rates of infection. Lifting lockdown in London looks less unwise than (say) Manchester or Newcastle.

Lockdown takes a high toll, it had to be done and should have been done sooner. Lifting it only makes sense when/if things are in place to manage the situation. They are not. lifting it nationwide carries a high risk of second lockdown being necessary. It is much preferable to have a week or whatever extra now, than to have to re-impose it for another N weeks down the line (say September) because not only will that be longer overall, but it will prolong the overall time during which the UK is operating under virus conditions.

The UK in the past few years has gone from having a broadly positive view of it in the eyes of the world (or most of it) to a nation which has a massively more negative view of it and our competency, trustworthiness, values and nature. Brexit (more so the way it has been managed, whether people are pro or anti) and now virus handling have made us pitied, rather than admired. Funny how it's the same people responsible for both those things. The had enough of experts bunch, the "never mind the rules" bunch, the "lies" bunch.

Arguments against lockdown are to an extent valid - it hurts. But they're

"I don't like the taste of this hospital medicine, I want something nice",

"Yeah, I know, but until we can give you a safe place to recover out of hospital, sorry, you need to stay there and continue a bit longer"

[KentVillan]

How is Brexit relevant to whether or not we should lift lockdown?

Those last couple of sentences suggest you aren’t even trying to understand the opposing viewpoint on lockdown.

[blandy]

59 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

How is Brexit relevant to whether or not we should lift lockdown?

The actions of the Brexit campaign people, who now are at the heart of our government have led to the UK ignoring offers of help from the EU, they've led to catastrophic outcomes, both in terms of deaths and (forecast) economic damage being very close to the world's worst, they've led to as I said the view of the UK from abroad going from one of respect to pity.

You don't have to agree with that, and that's fine if you don't (though it would take a degree of denial not to see it is so), but to ask why the Government's chief SPAD bloke, Cummings the so called mastermind from the Brexit campaign, Boris Johnson who was the face of Brexit, but who went AWOL during the virus crisis in Jan Feb and who has lied and over-promised repeatedly, are surely a significant part of the virus response we've taken as a nation.

In my opinion, trusting those people, Patel, Raab and Gove etc is very much a mistake. They are the ones pushing reducing safe distancing, proposing lockdown end despite medical and scientific advice that  this is the wrong move. So how is that relevant? Really. Not trying to understand - again, Really?

[bickster]