If we don't see a new case figure above 50k and numbers in hospital north of 30k before New Year I'll be very surprised, with daily deaths peaking above 1000 by mid-January.
The hospital figures went missing for about a week (28th December to 4th January) but the 4th has them above 30 000, and new cases topped 50k comfortably before the 1st. Deaths, meanwhile, passed 1000 today. I hope, but have no reason to believe, that that's the peak.
I don't want to underplay this at all - we are in a perilous situation - but the 1000/day figure is not correct.
The figure widely reported in the media will be the number of deaths recorded today - added to the total but the day of death will be spread over several days. This matters because it makes the numbers confusing and doesn't show the trends properly.
Start with the chart (Figure 1). Note that they use different coloured bars to show the numbers added to each day of death. The downside of these numbers is that they are only England (and thus ~80% of figures). Plus they are only the in-hospital numbers. (The non-hospital data are collated on a weekly basis). As I have said before, the excess death figure is the one you need to see the real human cost. However only daily figures enable proper tracking. The figures for England (in Hospital) are about 400/day. There's always a 48-72hr lag in getting that accurate. This lag is longer at weekends / after public holidays. I.e. the headline 1000 figure has indeed been added to the,~50,000 total but many of them were over the long weekend. Wednesday is a high day, Sunday a low day. Not in actual deaths but in reporting. If past performance of lockdowns is maintained then the peak of deaths will be in about 10 days' time. The rate of rise seems to be lower than in the spring (we weren't starting from nowhere pre-lockdown this time) so probably (Probably!) the peak won't be as high.
One big caveat to this. Many hospitals are struggling. If that gets worse then health care delivery* becomes a problem and mortality rates will go up more than expected.
Does that make sense?
AFZ
*this is speculation but I think the 'new' strain must be less deadly. It is significantly more infectious but mortality hasn't followed (as yet) so I think the case-mortality rate must be lower. This (if correct) is good news but means that when comparing data from the spring to now, the daily infection numbers don't necessarily mean what we think they do. It's a complicated question and in real-time everything is provisional. In a couple of years, it will be much clearer.
People have known of the dangers for 10 months. There is no excuse for not acting responsibly.
People are stupid - at least in so far as the average person doesn't have much understanding of how viruses work, or even that an antibiotic won't help you with one. The average person doesn't have the background to form their own reasonable assessment of how safe, or unsafe, particular things are, so they rely on being told what to do.
The Prime Minister has spent a long time telling people that schools are safe, only to qualify that what he meant by "safe" is very different from what normal humans understand it to mean. The guidance about "bubbles" has been confusing, and changed for no obvious reason. First 2 metres was a safe distance, then 1 metre was a safe distance, basically because owners of pubs and restaurants liked that number better. Outdoor meetings were safer than indoor ones, and then they weren't. And of course, everyone likes to point out the confusing variation in which shops are deemed "essential" and open, and which shops are closed, and how that variation doesn't seem to align with a normal person's idea of "essential". Over the summer, instead of trying to consolidate the gains and reduce the incidence of Covid to a level that's manageable with track, trace, and quarantine, the government was encouraging people to go back to work in their office so that the local Pret and the guy shining shoes at the station could stay in business.
Is it any wonder that, faced with this confusion of messaging, people's idea of "acting responsibly" is a little woolly?
When people started being hospitalised and dying, it told me all I needed to know about how dangerous it was. If people are too stupid to understand this, no wonder we have such a big problem.
People like cabinet, the 'Covid Research Group' of Tory MPs, the Prime Minister's advisor, the Prime Minister's father, the Prime Minister... that's where the problem is. Obviously, there's individual behaviour, but there's corporate behaviour that is much more important.
When people started being hospitalised and dying, it told me all I needed to know about how dangerous it was. If people are too stupid to understand this, no wonder we have such a big problem.
That's rather disingenuous. If you're a young adult, then seeing a bunch of old people in hospital with some illness doesn't tell you everything you need to know. It doesn't tell you anything about the role that you have in not spreading the virus and killing off a bunch more old people.
It doesn't tell you anything about what behaviour is likely to be dangerous and what behaviour is likely to be safe. If you know that there's a dangerous disease around, but not how it spreads, how do you know what to do to protect yourself?
And critically, it says nothing at all about the fact that Covid is at its most infectious in the pre-symptomatic phase, so you can be happily infecting people whilst feeling perfectly healthy. It's this that makes traditional "stay home if you're sick" advice comparitively ineffective against Covid spread.
When people started being hospitalised and dying, it told me all I needed to know about how dangerous it was. If people are too stupid to understand this, no wonder we have such a big problem.
That's rather disingenuous. If you're a young adult, then seeing a bunch of old people in hospital with some illness doesn't tell you everything you need to know. It doesn't tell you anything about the role that you have in not spreading the virus and killing off a bunch more old people.
It doesn't tell you anything about what behaviour is likely to be dangerous and what behaviour is likely to be safe. If you know that there's a dangerous disease around, but not how it spreads, how do you know what to do to protect yourself?
And critically, it says nothing at all about the fact that Covid is at its most infectious in the pre-symptomatic phase, so you can be happily infecting people whilst feeling perfectly healthy. It's this that makes traditional "stay home if you're sick" advice comparitively ineffective against Covid spread.
It was all over the news, night after night. If these people don't pay attention to the news, what hope is there. YOu are right about one thing. Young people were told that they were not likely to be seriouisly ill and this no doubt has influenced their conduct ever since
The thing is, if it is so easy to work out what acting responsibly consists of, why can't Johnson's excuse for a government get its message straight and stick to its message instead of mucking about with different tiers?
When people started being hospitalised and dying, it told me all I needed to know about how dangerous it was. If people are too stupid to understand this, no wonder we have such a big problem.
That's rather disingenuous. If you're a young adult, then seeing a bunch of old people in hospital with some illness doesn't tell you everything you need to know. It doesn't tell you anything about the role that you have in not spreading the virus and killing off a bunch more old people.
It doesn't tell you anything about what behaviour is likely to be dangerous and what behaviour is likely to be safe. If you know that there's a dangerous disease around, but not how it spreads, how do you know what to do to protect yourself?
And critically, it says nothing at all about the fact that Covid is at its most infectious in the pre-symptomatic phase, so you can be happily infecting people whilst feeling perfectly healthy. It's this that makes traditional "stay home if you're sick" advice comparitively ineffective against Covid spread.
It was all over the news, night after night. If these people don't pay attention to the news, what hope is there. YOu are right about one thing. Young people were told that they were not likely to be seriouisly ill and this no doubt has influenced their conduct ever since
This is a nonsense argument whichever way you want to take it. We do not have to rely on your intuition about the 'common sense' or whatever of our fellow citizens. There is a stack of empirical evidence about communication of public health messaging and group and individual behaviour.
It boils down to this: Public health messages must be clear and consistent.
(For example, I give you the Back To Sleep Campaign which is based on complex, detailed evidence but is really simple, easily understood and consistently communicated.
So, let's take this step by step:
1) We have a highly infectious virus in the community
2) This virus is also deadly (only to a minority but to a lot of people given the mass infections levels
3) Behaviour change makes all the difference in the world to the spread of the virus.
4) The Prime Minister would have been briefed (probably repeatedly) on the importance of clear and consistent public health messaging.
5) No sane person could describe the actions of Mr Johnson as communicating a clear and consistent message.
The thing is, if it is so easy to work out what acting responsibly consists of, why can't Johnson's excuse for a government get its message straight and stick to its message instead of mucking about with different tiers?
Different tiers is a perfectly reasonable response to differing levels of Covid prevalent in the local area. Because all the lockdowns do have a cost, so it's not as simple as just saying "do the safe thing", because the safe thing is to batten down the hatches and hibernate. And people need to get food, they need to work to have income, they need to care for relatives, get an education, and so on.
Tiers are a natural consequence of the tradeoff between the harm of locking down and the harm of spreading Covid in the presence of differing amounts of Covid in different areas.
Different tiers is a perfectly reasonable response to differing levels of Covid prevalent in the local area.
Certainly, though Johnson's government's implementation of them leaves something to be desired. But Telford is maintaining that knowing the responsible thing to do is common sense, which is not consistent with thinking that different things are responsible in different tiers.
Also, common sense doesn't work. Health and Safety regs in workshops, labs, and factories don't run on common sense, they run on iron rules that will get you suspended or sacked if you don't follow them.
That's how people stay safe, not by using their 'common sense'.
Also, common sense doesn't work. Health and Safety regs in workshops, labs, and factories don't run on common sense, they run on iron rules that will get you suspended or sacked if you don't follow them.
That's how people stay safe, not by using their 'common sense'.
Plus there are plenty of rules that are exactly counter to 'common sense' because the government insists on keeping much of the economy open.
If you are a zero hours worker who is commuting into work on crowded public transport, you may be forgiven for wondering why it matters if you wear a mask when you go shopping, or if you meet an extra friend or two.
I’m talking about forming exclusive bubbles that may be a tad larger than is technically allowed, which while it may mean a larger risk to those within the bubble isn’t any more of a threat to anybody outside it.
I’m talking about forming exclusive bubbles that may be a tad larger than is technically allowed, which while it may mean a larger risk to those within the bubble isn’t any more of a threat to anybody outside it.
Hospital overload is the biggest threat to the people outside the bigger bubble - unless whomsoever gets really sick in the bigger bubble does so with a “fuckit don’t treat me” note stapled to their chest,
When people started being hospitalised and dying, it told me all I needed to know about how dangerous it was. If people are too stupid to understand this, no wonder we have such a big problem.
That's rather disingenuous. If you're a young adult, then seeing a bunch of old people in hospital with some illness doesn't tell you everything you need to know. It doesn't tell you anything about the role that you have in not spreading the virus and killing off a bunch more old people.
It doesn't tell you anything about what behaviour is likely to be dangerous and what behaviour is likely to be safe. If you know that there's a dangerous disease around, but not how it spreads, how do you know what to do to protect yourself?
And critically, it says nothing at all about the fact that Covid is at its most infectious in the pre-symptomatic phase, so you can be happily infecting people whilst feeling perfectly healthy. It's this that makes traditional "stay home if you're sick" advice comparitively ineffective against Covid spread.
It was all over the news, night after night. If these people don't pay attention to the news, what hope is there. YOu are right about one thing. Young people were told that they were not likely to be seriouisly ill and this no doubt has influenced their conduct ever since
This is a nonsense argument whichever way you want to take it. We do not have to rely on your intuition about the 'common sense' or whatever of our fellow citizens. There is a stack of empirical evidence about communication of public health messaging and group and individual behaviour.
It boils down to this: Public health messages must be clear and consistent.
(For example, I give you the Back To Sleep Campaign which is based on complex, detailed evidence but is really simple, easily understood and consistently communicated.
So, let's take this step by step:
1) We have a highly infectious virus in the community
2) This virus is also deadly (only to a minority but to a lot of people given the mass infections levels
3) Behaviour change makes all the difference in the world to the spread of the virus.
4) The Prime Minister would have been briefed (probably repeatedly) on the importance of clear and consistent public health messaging.
5) No sane person could describe the actions of Mr Johnson as communicating a clear and consistent message.
Hence Johnson (and his government) are culpable.
AFZ
I knew about 1) and 2) 10 months ago. Didn't you ?
The messages have been clear and consistent but I don't recall people being told to crowd beaches, attend illegal raves and crowd into house parties.
The government have made mistakes, mainly in respect of the timing of decisions. However I do reckon that selfish and irresponible people are also culpable.
I’m talking about forming exclusive bubbles that may be a tad larger than is technically allowed, which while it may mean a larger risk to those within the bubble isn’t any more of a threat to anybody outside it.
Of course it is, unless no-one in that bubble has any contact with anyone outside it by, for example, going to work or school.
When people started being hospitalised and dying, it told me all I needed to know about how dangerous it was. If people are too stupid to understand this, no wonder we have such a big problem.
That's rather disingenuous. If you're a young adult, then seeing a bunch of old people in hospital with some illness doesn't tell you everything you need to know. It doesn't tell you anything about the role that you have in not spreading the virus and killing off a bunch more old people.
It doesn't tell you anything about what behaviour is likely to be dangerous and what behaviour is likely to be safe. If you know that there's a dangerous disease around, but not how it spreads, how do you know what to do to protect yourself?
And critically, it says nothing at all about the fact that Covid is at its most infectious in the pre-symptomatic phase, so you can be happily infecting people whilst feeling perfectly healthy. It's this that makes traditional "stay home if you're sick" advice comparitively ineffective against Covid spread.
It was all over the news, night after night. If these people don't pay attention to the news, what hope is there. YOu are right about one thing. Young people were told that they were not likely to be seriouisly ill and this no doubt has influenced their conduct ever since
This is a nonsense argument whichever way you want to take it. We do not have to rely on your intuition about the 'common sense' or whatever of our fellow citizens. There is a stack of empirical evidence about communication of public health messaging and group and individual behaviour.
It boils down to this: Public health messages must be clear and consistent.
(For example, I give you the Back To Sleep Campaign which is based on complex, detailed evidence but is really simple, easily understood and consistently communicated.
So, let's take this step by step:
1) We have a highly infectious virus in the community
2) This virus is also deadly (only to a minority but to a lot of people given the mass infections levels
3) Behaviour change makes all the difference in the world to the spread of the virus.
4) The Prime Minister would have been briefed (probably repeatedly) on the importance of clear and consistent public health messaging.
5) No sane person could describe the actions of Mr Johnson as communicating a clear and consistent message.
Hence Johnson (and his government) are culpable.
AFZ
I knew about 1) and 2) 10 months ago. Didn't you ?
The messages have been clear and consistent but I don't recall people being told to crowd beaches, attend illegal raves and crowd into house parties.
The government have made mistakes, mainly in respect of the timing of decisions. However I do reckon that selfish and irresponible people are also culpable.
Unexpectedly I find myself kind of agreeing with Telford, kind of.
Working in catering in retail I have seen numerous people not following the rules. Even when there are signs everywhere. People being asked to leave shops and even trains because they have no mask. People being stupid people s part of the problem, not the whole. People also forget things, they have had to buy masks because I forgot one. People in a queue often act like they did before COVID out of habit and change when reminded. So yes people are stupid but also forgetful
They'd be less forgetful if the government had its act together. The notoriously undisciplined French know how to keep their masks on for the most part, because our political authorities had the good sense not to rely on our better nature. I had to laugh at Macron's speech at the end of the first lockdown when he congratulated us on being more disciplined than everyone says. Well yes, Mr President, that €135 fine was quite persuasive.
So what do we think of Johnson's bike ride? Seven miles away from home doesn't seem unreasonable for a good cyclist, my husband goes out three or four times a week and could easily get seven miles away and back in an hour. However I get the feeling the Mr Johnson actually drove to the Queen Elizabeth park for his little jaunt, which doesn't exactly seem within the spirit of the lockdown rules.
I've not heard the rules spelled out in detail, but the language of the current lockdown (stay at home, local exercise only etc) is very similar to that of the lockdown in March and April. Then the rules were that local exercise should ideally start and end at your own home, if necessary a short journey (less than 5 miles) to a suitable location. So, a drive 7 miles for a bike ride would be against the rules - though, how practical it is for him to get on his bike from No 10 with security considerations could give him a get out for going somewhere else first ... but London is full of parks with cycle routes, many much closer. Also, exercise is exercise ... if you arrange to meet someone else then you're organising an out of door meeting which isn't just exercise, if you stop to get a coffee on the way, sit on a park bench etc then that's not going out just to exercise.
I have every sympathy for him, and this is almost the first time I have thought that. He is not wrong in law; the guidance is rubbish. The guidance should say, "Do not meet people." It needn't say anything about where or when or how.
There does seem to be some doubt as to how he got to the place where he was seen cycling.
I agree that the *rules* are difficult to comprehend - and I note that the two ladies who drove 5 miles to get to a place for a walk in Derbyshire have had their £200 fines withdrawn...
There is a grave danger that people will perceive "one law for them another for us." And will then rebel by ignoring the rules themselves, using the behaviour of such-and-such a person as their "excuse".
That is why people in charge (and the rich and famous) need to observe the rules even more strictly than everyone else.
They won't of course. Setting an example is well out of fashion. 40-odd years of encouraging selfish individualism have seen to that.
Yes, the guidance is rubbish. If only Johnson had some way of sorting that out, but alas, he's as powerless as the rest of us peons in the face of an uncaring government.
The guidance is a nonsense - the fact you can drive to get exercise means that the car parks of my nearby open space are packed and the paths are full of people who won't socially distance (joggers hogging paths, I'm glaring at you). This is my nearest walking area which avoids wading through mud and I walk to and from my front door to reach. Those car parks were shut and barred for the first lock down.
I can and do walk 10-12 miles for exercise, not every day, but once or twice a week. Those routes are planned across country avoiding villages, but that can take me outside my local area, even though I'm avoiding people this way and reducing my risks of encountering Covid19, which I can't pacing the pavements at home. Longer walks contravene the 1 hour limit on exercise, but I can't walk 10 000 steps in a hour, it's nearer 1h 30m to 2 hours depending on conditions, and my daughter needs that as a minimum of regular daily exercise to maintain her mobility.
If I was cycling for exercise, I'd easily be covering 10-15 miles in an hour and also struggling to remain within area.
(No, before anyone asks, first floor flat with no garden, so it's walking or cycling or nothing.)
So what do we think of Johnson's bike ride? Seven miles away from home doesn't seem unreasonable for a good cyclist, my husband goes out three or four times a week and could easily get seven miles away and back in an hour. However I get the feeling the Mr Johnson actually drove to the Queen Elizabeth park for his little jaunt, which doesn't exactly seem within the spirit of the lockdown rules.
Hard to say. If two women aren't allowed to drive five miles for a walk in remote countryside, it's hard to justify someone cycling seven miles for exercise purposes. Ideally, neither of those cases seem unreasonable as neither Johnson nor the women were breaking distancing rules or the meeting-with-too-many-other people rules. So the issue must be about travelling a distance to get exercise. Therefore, if the women transgressed, then of course Johnson has transgressed, also.
Personally, I wouldn't have worried that much about either case, except for the usual 'them and us' scenario being set up. However, the one thing that does strike me about the issue of travelling from home in any kind of vehicle, on an unnecessary journey, is the risk that one runs if there is an accident. Emergency services are then pulled away from other urgent situations to have to cater for someone on a leisure spree, which arguably is irresponsible just at this time.
I could probably manage a 7 mile bike ride, and without riding circuits (which isn't necessarily a problem) stay within a couple of miles of home. When I take a local walk (as was my almost daily routine in the early lockdown) I managed 2-3 miles, again staying less than a mile from home. It's probably only possible to put in 50 mile cycle, or training for marathons with 10+ mile runs etc, by setting a circuit where you travel part of the route more than once, which is fine as the intention is exercise not sight seeing.
@Boogie so many assumptions - how many people are you now telling can't go outside have landings do you think? Nope, shared staircase, shared landing, no room for a bike set up inside, not and do anything else.
You are making the same mistake the Government keeps doing as they cannot envisage people not living in comfortable detached houses with gardens, then set rules based on their comfortable circumstances and limited imaginations.
Boogie has consistently pushed the idea that if you are incapable of obeying covid rules then tough shit, stay inside until the pandemic is over, no exceptions. She’s the same with those who can’t wear masks for medical reasons.
Put another way, the problem is the knowledge gradient. We all know so much more about our own circumstances, and are much more willing to make allowances where they matter to us. If you choose not to cycle on British roads, then why would you now? If you don't need to or want to, why would anyone else? The more limited your options, the greater the impact of rules which may well suit the average case, but make already difficult circumstances harder. On the other hand, the virus doesn't care about our individual circumstances. On the contrary, it will take every advantage it can of those circumstances to propagate itself as widely as possible. For that reason, it can't be an issue of justice; it's an issue of avoiding an infection with unpredictable and potentially life-changing effects by any means available.
@Alan Cresswell I managed regular walks through the last lock down without problem with the same staying fairly close to home and different circuits. The problem is it's winter and the fields are muddy, slippery and unpleasant to walk and that this is a small town. I have to take several circuits or loops to achieve any distance on the pavements, along with the rest of the inhabitants, joggers, elderly, mothers with buggies and all, who are also trying to get their daily exercise in. There are no pavements on most of the busy roads out of town, so those that exist are lethal with determined joggers not moving aside.
And @Boogie before you come back suggesting online exercise classes, no jumping, dancing, skipping or any other leaping around is possible in a first floor flat with other residents below also trying to stay in and work and/or complete school work, I can't have the washing machine on high spin or move furniture without getting complaints.
Pilates and yoga are contra-indicated for Ehlers-Danlos as overextending too stretchy joints unless in the room with a specialist, rare as hens' teeth, tutor. Walking and swimming are recommended.
@Boogie so many assumptions - how many people are you now telling can't go outside have landings do you think? Nope, shared staircase, shared landing, no room for a bike set up inside, not and do anything else.
You are making the same mistake the Government keeps doing as they cannot envisage people not living in comfortable detached houses with gardens, then set rules based on their comfortable circumstances and limited imaginations.
I said Johnson could use a turbo trainer if he was so keen on cycling as exercise. He could afford the most expensive available, could he not?
I did not mention or suggest it for anyone else. Of course I know that many don’t have the means.
Where did you get the idea I was ‘telling’ anyone such a thing (apart from saying that Johnson could very easily use one and has no excuses)?
@Alan Cresswell I managed regular walks through the last lock down without problem with the same staying fairly close to home and different circuits. The problem is it's winter and the fields are muddy, slippery and unpleasant to walk and that this is a small town. I have to take several circuits or loops to achieve any distance on the pavements, along with the rest of the inhabitants, joggers, elderly, mothers with buggies and all, who are also trying to get their daily exercise in. There are no pavements on most of the busy roads out of town, so those that exist are lethal with determined joggers not moving aside.
Yes, lots of local (and personal) circumstances determine what options are available. Here, no such problems because we have lots of wide pavements and walk/cycle routes away from roads in a basically sub-urban new town. Also, those problems wouldn't apply in London which also has a lot of parkland - and with Johnson telling everyone they should be working from home there shouldn't be lots of cars on the road or pedestrians on the pavements adding to the options for exercise from/to his front door (even given that it would be necessary for him to exercise within a group of police officers).
The problem isn't the rules being too difficult to follow. Far from it. The rules for lockdown in France were much stricter - one hour's exercise, and no more than 1km from home. You had to make a certificate every time you left the house to say why you were outside. The vast majority of us complied, first time round at least (second lockdown, everyone was sick of it, and I think people were more inclined to stay out more than an hour).
The problem in the UK is that the rules aren't properly enforced, and people in authority are seen flouting them too often so other people don't see the point of staying indoors either. I despair when I hear things like, "the Metropolitan police are going to start issuing fines soon" or "supermarkets have announced they won't let customers inside without a mask". Why haven't they been doing those things for bloody months?
The problem in the UK is that the rules aren't properly enforced
Too many of the "rules" are not actually legally enforceable. They are framed as "guidance" rather than obligations: things that you "should" do, rather than things that you "must" do. Plus many of the things that you "must" do are hedged round with exemptions.
Guidance means "rules that the government can't be arsed to pay to enforce". The absolute curse of guidance makes it impossible to regulate many things properly, because breaching guidance has no particular penalty. Other than potential death in this case, obviously.
The problem in the UK is that the rules aren't properly enforced, and people in authority are seen flouting them too often so other people don't see the point of staying indoors either. I despair when I hear things like, "the Metropolitan police are going to start issuing fines soon" or "supermarkets have announced they won't let customers inside without a mask". Why haven't they been doing those things for bloody months?
Whilst there is a certain element of fatigue studies indicate that compliance with the lockdown is actually quite high.
I feel very strongly on this topic, as I believe this narrative has been central to the government managing to successfully pushing blame onto the topic.
Infection rates and deaths are lagging indicators -- the current rates of both are down to the lax regime prior to Christmas (which were linked to a lot more workplaces and businesses remaining opened, with a knock on impact in terms of people coming into work) and schools remaining opened. Both "Eat Out to Help Out" and the messages to get workers back into offices were the background to the rise in infections during August through to November that created the crisis before Christmas.
The current lockdown is significantly laxer than the previous one; with larger numbers of employers classifiying their workers as 'essential' with a subsequent impact in terms of increased school attendance compared with the original lockdown. In my occasional trip outside, and observing the area in which I live, it seems that most increased activity is due to people going to and from work, there's little evidence of a generalised lack of compliance.
Comments
I don't want to underplay this at all - we are in a perilous situation - but the 1000/day figure is not correct.
The figure widely reported in the media will be the number of deaths recorded today - added to the total but the day of death will be spread over several days. This matters because it makes the numbers confusing and doesn't show the trends properly.
This is the English daily figures:
https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/01/COVID-19-total-announced-deaths-6-January-2021.xlsx
Start with the chart (Figure 1). Note that they use different coloured bars to show the numbers added to each day of death. The downside of these numbers is that they are only England (and thus ~80% of figures). Plus they are only the in-hospital numbers. (The non-hospital data are collated on a weekly basis). As I have said before, the excess death figure is the one you need to see the real human cost. However only daily figures enable proper tracking. The figures for England (in Hospital) are about 400/day. There's always a 48-72hr lag in getting that accurate. This lag is longer at weekends / after public holidays. I.e. the headline 1000 figure has indeed been added to the,~50,000 total but many of them were over the long weekend. Wednesday is a high day, Sunday a low day. Not in actual deaths but in reporting. If past performance of lockdowns is maintained then the peak of deaths will be in about 10 days' time. The rate of rise seems to be lower than in the spring (we weren't starting from nowhere pre-lockdown this time) so probably (Probably!) the peak won't be as high.
I am looking at the figures closely and plan to provide a follow-up to this blog post: http://alienfromzog.blogspot.com/2020/09/covid-19-and-why-timing-of-lockdown.html not looking at the effect of lockdown timing here so much as the rate of change. Watch this space (or rather the Covid thread!).
One big caveat to this. Many hospitals are struggling. If that gets worse then health care delivery* becomes a problem and mortality rates will go up more than expected.
Does that make sense?
AFZ
*this is speculation but I think the 'new' strain must be less deadly. It is significantly more infectious but mortality hasn't followed (as yet) so I think the case-mortality rate must be lower. This (if correct) is good news but means that when comparing data from the spring to now, the daily infection numbers don't necessarily mean what we think they do. It's a complicated question and in real-time everything is provisional. In a couple of years, it will be much clearer.
That's rather disingenuous. If you're a young adult, then seeing a bunch of old people in hospital with some illness doesn't tell you everything you need to know. It doesn't tell you anything about the role that you have in not spreading the virus and killing off a bunch more old people.
It doesn't tell you anything about what behaviour is likely to be dangerous and what behaviour is likely to be safe. If you know that there's a dangerous disease around, but not how it spreads, how do you know what to do to protect yourself?
And critically, it says nothing at all about the fact that Covid is at its most infectious in the pre-symptomatic phase, so you can be happily infecting people whilst feeling perfectly healthy. It's this that makes traditional "stay home if you're sick" advice comparitively ineffective against Covid spread.
It was all over the news, night after night. If these people don't pay attention to the news, what hope is there. YOu are right about one thing. Young people were told that they were not likely to be seriouisly ill and this no doubt has influenced their conduct ever since
This is a nonsense argument whichever way you want to take it. We do not have to rely on your intuition about the 'common sense' or whatever of our fellow citizens. There is a stack of empirical evidence about communication of public health messaging and group and individual behaviour.
It boils down to this:
Public health messages must be clear and consistent.
(For example, I give you the Back To Sleep Campaign which is based on complex, detailed evidence but is really simple, easily understood and consistently communicated.
So, let's take this step by step:
1) We have a highly infectious virus in the community
2) This virus is also deadly (only to a minority but to a lot of people given the mass infections levels
3) Behaviour change makes all the difference in the world to the spread of the virus.
4) The Prime Minister would have been briefed (probably repeatedly) on the importance of clear and consistent public health messaging.
5) No sane person could describe the actions of Mr Johnson as communicating a clear and consistent message.
Hence Johnson (and his government) are culpable.
AFZ
Different tiers is a perfectly reasonable response to differing levels of Covid prevalent in the local area. Because all the lockdowns do have a cost, so it's not as simple as just saying "do the safe thing", because the safe thing is to batten down the hatches and hibernate. And people need to get food, they need to work to have income, they need to care for relatives, get an education, and so on.
Tiers are a natural consequence of the tradeoff between the harm of locking down and the harm of spreading Covid in the presence of differing amounts of Covid in different areas.
That's how people stay safe, not by using their 'common sense'.
Plus there are plenty of rules that are exactly counter to 'common sense' because the government insists on keeping much of the economy open.
If you are a zero hours worker who is commuting into work on crowded public transport, you may be forgiven for wondering why it matters if you wear a mask when you go shopping, or if you meet an extra friend or two.
Most people I’ve spoken to tend to refer to behaviour that’s legally permitted as “a risk worth taking” rather than “safe”.
There are those, for instance, who consider their mental health more important than their physical health and make decisions accordingly.
Ok, boomer.
Hospital overload is the biggest threat to the people outside the bigger bubble - unless whomsoever gets really sick in the bigger bubble does so with a “fuckit don’t treat me” note stapled to their chest,
I knew about 1) and 2) 10 months ago. Didn't you ?
The messages have been clear and consistent but I don't recall people being told to crowd beaches, attend illegal raves and crowd into house parties.
The government have made mistakes, mainly in respect of the timing of decisions. However I do reckon that selfish and irresponible people are also culpable.
Of course it is, unless no-one in that bubble has any contact with anyone outside it by, for example, going to work or school.
Unexpectedly I find myself kind of agreeing with Telford, kind of.
Working in catering in retail I have seen numerous people not following the rules. Even when there are signs everywhere. People being asked to leave shops and even trains because they have no mask. People being stupid people s part of the problem, not the whole. People also forget things, they have had to buy masks because I forgot one. People in a queue often act like they did before COVID out of habit and change when reminded. So yes people are stupid but also forgetful
I agree that the *rules* are difficult to comprehend - and I note that the two ladies who drove 5 miles to get to a place for a walk in Derbyshire have had their £200 fines withdrawn...
Coincidence?
Hmm...
That is why people in charge (and the rich and famous) need to observe the rules even more strictly than everyone else.
They won't of course. Setting an example is well out of fashion. 40-odd years of encouraging selfish individualism have seen to that.
I can and do walk 10-12 miles for exercise, not every day, but once or twice a week. Those routes are planned across country avoiding villages, but that can take me outside my local area, even though I'm avoiding people this way and reducing my risks of encountering Covid19, which I can't pacing the pavements at home. Longer walks contravene the 1 hour limit on exercise, but I can't walk 10 000 steps in a hour, it's nearer 1h 30m to 2 hours depending on conditions, and my daughter needs that as a minimum of regular daily exercise to maintain her mobility.
If I was cycling for exercise, I'd easily be covering 10-15 miles in an hour and also struggling to remain within area.
(No, before anyone asks, first floor flat with no garden, so it's walking or cycling or nothing.)
Hard to say. If two women aren't allowed to drive five miles for a walk in remote countryside, it's hard to justify someone cycling seven miles for exercise purposes. Ideally, neither of those cases seem unreasonable as neither Johnson nor the women were breaking distancing rules or the meeting-with-too-many-other people rules. So the issue must be about travelling a distance to get exercise. Therefore, if the women transgressed, then of course Johnson has transgressed, also.
Personally, I wouldn't have worried that much about either case, except for the usual 'them and us' scenario being set up. However, the one thing that does strike me about the issue of travelling from home in any kind of vehicle, on an unnecessary journey, is the risk that one runs if there is an accident. Emergency services are then pulled away from other urgent situations to have to cater for someone on a leisure spree, which arguably is irresponsible just at this time.
He’s doing it on his usual bike - on the landing, using a turbo trainer.
https://www.wiggle.co.uk/turbo-trainers
For fresh air he walks out from home every morning for about an hour, so five miles ish.
There’s no excuse for Johnson cycling seven miles - none.
You are making the same mistake the Government keeps doing as they cannot envisage people not living in comfortable detached houses with gardens, then set rules based on their comfortable circumstances and limited imaginations.
And @Boogie before you come back suggesting online exercise classes, no jumping, dancing, skipping or any other leaping around is possible in a first floor flat with other residents below also trying to stay in and work and/or complete school work, I can't have the washing machine on high spin or move furniture without getting complaints.
Pilates and yoga are contra-indicated for Ehlers-Danlos as overextending too stretchy joints unless in the room with a specialist, rare as hens' teeth, tutor. Walking and swimming are recommended.
I said Johnson could use a turbo trainer if he was so keen on cycling as exercise. He could afford the most expensive available, could he not?
I did not mention or suggest it for anyone else. Of course I know that many don’t have the means.
Where did you get the idea I was ‘telling’ anyone such a thing (apart from saying that Johnson could very easily use one and has no excuses)?
The problem in the UK is that the rules aren't properly enforced, and people in authority are seen flouting them too often so other people don't see the point of staying indoors either. I despair when I hear things like, "the Metropolitan police are going to start issuing fines soon" or "supermarkets have announced they won't let customers inside without a mask". Why haven't they been doing those things for bloody months?
Too many of the "rules" are not actually legally enforceable. They are framed as "guidance" rather than obligations: things that you "should" do, rather than things that you "must" do. Plus many of the things that you "must" do are hedged round with exemptions.
Whilst there is a certain element of fatigue studies indicate that compliance with the lockdown is actually quite high.
I feel very strongly on this topic, as I believe this narrative has been central to the government managing to successfully pushing blame onto the topic.
Infection rates and deaths are lagging indicators -- the current rates of both are down to the lax regime prior to Christmas (which were linked to a lot more workplaces and businesses remaining opened, with a knock on impact in terms of people coming into work) and schools remaining opened. Both "Eat Out to Help Out" and the messages to get workers back into offices were the background to the rise in infections during August through to November that created the crisis before Christmas.
The current lockdown is significantly laxer than the previous one; with larger numbers of employers classifiying their workers as 'essential' with a subsequent impact in terms of increased school attendance compared with the original lockdown. In my occasional trip outside, and observing the area in which I live, it seems that most increased activity is due to people going to and from work, there's little evidence of a generalised lack of compliance.
How dare he lead a government which has given the vacine to more people than in any other european country.
He has made many mistakes but I refuse to say that he always totally wrong.
(Can you BTW provide a link which bears out what you assert re the vaccine? I'm not disagreeing with you - merely wondering where you saw/read it.)