<snip>A total lockdown at a time you suggest would not have been accepoted by the public because thay had not seen sufficient evidence of the danger. There had been very few deaths<snip>
1. I think you’re mistaken, there’s considerable evidence that people were going into self-imposed lockdown if they could, and some were pressing for a lockdown because contractually they couldn’t without a government order.
2. Even if there might have been resistance to a lockdown, it was the right thing to do and should have been tried.
I have given my opinion. I don't claim to be right.
As promised: A Blog post demonstrating the effect of the timing of Lockdown
I've explained in the post why this is just a rough approximation but the concept is solid. If you just want the headline, it's this chart. The blue line is the official English Hospital Deaths figures. The two green lines represent the effect of a lockdown 1 and 2 weeks earlier. Essentially the earlier you act, the smaller the peak...
AFZ
That's all very interesting and no doubt correct but it's all hindsight.
Why, thank you.
However, the observation that it's 'hindsight' a complete cop-out for two reasons:
1. There were a very large number of experts at the time screaming (metaphorically) at the government to act sooner. The whole 'following the science' argument was always bogus but even if you accept in February that there were reasonable alternatives, by March it was crystal clear that radical action was needed. Spain and Italy to name but two examples showed what was needed. And the nature of pandemics makes it obvious that the sooner you lockdown, the sooner you can unlockdown too.
2. (Arguably this is the more important part:) We are not out of this crisis. It is deeply foolish not to learn from past mistakes. This government will not even admit that mistakes were made: to quote Mr Johnson "The world is looking with envy at our success." And as these data clearly show, future mistakes will probably cost thousands of lives thus to not be prepared to consider such lessons (because that would mean admitting past mistakes) is to be playing with the lives of thousands of citizens.
So, I say bollocks to Hindsight. It's time to take these facts seriously.
AFZ
A total lockdown at a time you suggest would not have been accepoted by the public because thay had not seen sufficient evidence of the danger.
The public had started to go into lockdown about a week before the government announced the official lockdown. Compliance was also way better than anything the ‘nudge’ unit predicted. There is no evidence for your argument and plenty against.
I started to lockdown before a single case in the UK but I am classed as vulnerable. You need to remember that nobody forced people to cram into Football stadiums, pubs, clubs and racecourses.
A total lockdown at a time you suggest would not have been accepted by the public because they had not seen sufficient evidence of the danger. There had been very few deaths.
However we were far too slow to close down pubs, clubs etc and all sporting events involving crowds
There's a case. For the argument to hold, you do need to establish that compliance has a complex relationship to the sense of danger and deaths.
Boris's (apparent) argument in April that you had a 'fixed' amount of compliance (and a fixed peak), and that therefore you had to time that to match the peak, was utter bollocks, getting cause and effect backward. And as long as we have 'fixed' (or even proportionate?) compliance (for reasons I hope you can see) then you want to use that allowance effectively ASAP.
In practice, I think it was pretty clear that we nationally recognised the danger (definitely by that time we on the ship had), you could argue that we may not have gone far enough (we were still discussing schools).
And that the government was following the people (notably in the case of pubs, we also had them playing "we want you to decide to close", rather than giving any support)
You're right. The old saying " Be sensible and use your common sense" is not good enough for a lot of people.
<snip>You need to remember that nobody forced people to cram into Football stadiums, pubs, clubs and racecourses.<snip>
But those who worked in such places had to go to work or lose their jobs. People who worked in towns and cities had to travel in to work on crowded transport to crowded workplaces. Hardly anyone in employment could voluntarily lock down without risking their livelihood.
Plus folk, quite reasonably, tend to assume that if something is legal it's not expected to lead to a national disaster (unless you're an investment banker).
Also, people would have bought their tickets for the races at Cheltenham (and other events) months in advance, when they'd have no indication that going would be a really bad idea. Without those events cancelling they'd have been throwing that money away if they decided to not go - and, while the government is saying it's safe to take place very few people will put their money on the line in calling them liars. If the government had said at the end of April that they were banning events with more than, say, 500 people in attendance then there'd be automatic refunds for tickets (whether that would also cover hotel rooms and train tickets without there being a more comprehensive lockdown is a different question).
Just to complete the story... this shows that there was contemporaneous advice and evidence that the government needed to act at the beginning of March, not the 23rd.
As I said above, the consequence of this delay is tens of thousands of deaths that could have been avoided.
If that's not a resignation issue for the Secretary of State for Health, what the hell is?
Get back to work in person, get back to school, ‘eat out to help out’, open the bars and pubs. Then they are surprised the virus spreads far and wide and the testing regime can’t cope?
I saw Dido Harding on TV say, we didn't expect an increase in demand for testing. Then what the hell is your job for? Not only had there been a relaxation of restrictions, we are now in the period when respiratory illness begin to increase. Wouldn't colds and flu make people want tests?
Back in March Boris Johnson said that they were ramping up testing to 250,000 a day (a figure still not reached). So even he was expecting a rise. All Dido Harding had to do was listen to the PMs briefing. The only question is whether she or Matt Hancock is the most useless.
Back in March Boris Johnson said that they were ramping up testing to 250,000 a day (a figure still not reached). So even he was expecting a rise. All Dido Harding had to do was listen to the PMs briefing. The only question is whether she or Matt Hancock is the most useless.
Just to complete the story... this shows that there was contemporaneous advice and evidence that the government needed to act at the beginning of March, not the 23rd.
As I said above, the consequence of this delay is tens of thousands of deaths that could have been avoided.
If that's not a resignation issue for the Secretary of State for Health, what the hell is?
AFZ
Perhaps not pertinent in terms of current resignation calls. But Tory governments have had several years in which to plan for pandemic situations, including the storing of PPE, creating adequate lab and testing facilities etc. Since the last viral tickle with some form of bird 'flu was it?, or a SARS thing around about 2010, NHS scientists have been alerting the authorities about the The Next Big Thing, and what kind of preparations need to be in place. Disaster planning is supposed to be part and parcel of Big Government's remit; as in 'if a nuclear missile is launched' or 'if there's a large-scale terrorist attack' or 'if the Thames barrier breaks down during a flood'. Home safety or security issues for which there are meant to be clear flow-charts of who does what, when, and how the response is charted out in terms of practical provisions, budgeting etc.
We've already seen in the press, release of documents were senior Tory leadership in past administrations made their choices for short-term party policy over long-term NHS provision and pandemic planning, effectively gambling that nothing like that would happen during their time of office. In a sense the diabolically incompetent response of Johnson and his cronies over the current crisis has at least a good part of its origin in many years of blinkered neglect. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
Ironically, in the famous film Threads, there was indeed a planned response to deal with the nuclear attack, involving Sheffield City Council officials, and many others.
They were all dead within a few days of the bombing...suffocated in their bunker IIRC...
Last Sunday, Ricardus plus Ricardling #2 both have a fresh cough. Mrs Ricardus works for the NHS and can therefore access the NHS staff tests for us (because if we can't get a test, she can't go to work).
By Monday evening the NHS service hasn't called back to give us a test time, so we decide to try the government testing service (i.e., the one open for the plebs). This is stuck in a cycle of a.) your nearest testing service is in Bolton (18 slots available) > input some details > your nearest service is in Bolton (9 slots available) > input some more details > there are no tests available, try again later > your nearest testing service is in Bolton (18 slots available) ... it does that on several different computers (i.e. it's not some weird caching issue on my browser). Which makes me think a chunk of the problem is that the website code is screwy.
Rinse and repeat all through Tuesday (occasionally swapping Bolton for Deeside; both are at least an hour's drive away). Tuesday evening I get a call from the ONS, because I happen to have signed up for their survey. We're coming to test you tomorrow, doesn't matter that you've got symptoms because the whole point is to test you. Hooray! Except, after this test has been administered on Wednesday, with a promise of results by the weekend, it turns out they only notify you if the result is positive. You're not notified if you're negative (because the ONS don't have unlimited texts???), so it's 100% useless for getting Mrs Ricardus back to work and either Ricardling back in education.
Sudden success! NHS staff test available on Thursday afternoon. Afterwards, one text message is received in the middle of the night, confirming a negative result. No indication of whether that is for both of us, or for only one of us with the other result to follow. Unable to get through to the NHS test people until about an hour ago to confirm that in fact both tests are negative.
So 3 of the 4 testing pillars are screwy in different ways and in practice we might as well be back at the start of the pandemic - self-isolate for a week if you have symptoms and any contact tracing is of limited value because it would be based on contacts I had over a week ago.
<snip>You need to remember that nobody forced people to cram into Football stadiums, pubs, clubs and racecourses.<snip>
But those who worked in such places had to go to work or lose their jobs. People who worked in towns and cities had to travel in to work on crowded transport to crowded workplaces. Hardly anyone in employment could voluntarily lock down without risking their livelihood.
That is correct. That's why specific places should have been closed earlier. I have said this many times.
I would be interested to know much how much of this a capacity issue and how much of it is in fact an it processing issue.
They seem to be saying it’s both. It’s a worry as we seemed to be getting somewhere knowing where the local outbreaks were. Now we could easily be back to having no idea. It’s useless when people have to wait days to get a test, then days to get the result.
I would be interested to know much how much of this a capacity issue and how much of it is in fact an it processing issue.
A very large number of computer systems are just not designed to cope with the idea that multiple people might have the same contact details. So the stupid text that doesn't tell you who it's referring to is depressingly familiar.
Pity Mr Purcell is not around at the moment. I am invisaging a smallish opera. It will have a set with several circular layers which will rotate in the manner of the set for Oliver. Along the front of stage will come Virgil, and Dante, explaining their journey (or perhaps, less operatically, Bill and Ted). On the levels will appear in sequence the dramatis personae listed above, explaining the reason for their being there, somewhat in the manner of the king of Boetia (sp) in Orpheus in the Underworld. And then, across the backdrop, via CGI will appear the countless innocents dead before their time, mounting stairs copied from "A Matter of Life and Death" and singing of their unfinished lives before they are raptured into a great light. And the Hell trapped Tories sing in answering chorus, that they followed the science, they did what they thought was best. And Satan, triumphant, points out that it was what they thought was best for their pockets and not for the people. And even then, the Tories do not despair, do not repent. Jacob Rees-Mogg steps forward and sings that all were carping, none recognised how much good they had done, and anyway he had been to confession. But Satan pulls him back on to the rotating set and sings that that only works if you really mean it.
Dante and Virgil exit stage left, with Dante singing that nothing ever changes, and Virgil agrees.
I’d pay to see that. We would need a solo for Boris though. Maybe in the style of Pagliacci. Singing about he was happy to be PM on the outside, but on the inside had no idea what he was doing
Boris is one those appearing in sequence, early on. But perhaps after his solo, in a duet with Cummings, who is then welcomed as one of his own by Satan.
ION, it seems as though the little Door Matt (thank you, John Crace of the Grauniad, IIRC) has taken over as PM, as it appears to be he who is telling us all what a *tipping point* we've arrived at.
It's such a privilege to have someone as obviously bright as the Door Matt to tell us something we otherwise wouldn't have a clue about...
Comments
Yet we still managed to have about 45, 000 die here.
I have given my opinion. I don't claim to be right.
I started to lockdown before a single case in the UK but I am classed as vulnerable. You need to remember that nobody forced people to cram into Football stadiums, pubs, clubs and racecourses.
You're right. The old saying " Be sensible and use your common sense" is not good enough for a lot of people.
You may have missed my point, which was that we didn't need lots of deaths here to explain a lockdown to the public; we could point to Italy.
As I said above, the consequence of this delay is tens of thousands of deaths that could have been avoided.
If that's not a resignation issue for the Secretary of State for Health, what the hell is?
AFZ
What are they being paid for?
Equally bad. I call a tie
Perhaps not pertinent in terms of current resignation calls. But Tory governments have had several years in which to plan for pandemic situations, including the storing of PPE, creating adequate lab and testing facilities etc. Since the last viral tickle with some form of bird 'flu was it?, or a SARS thing around about 2010, NHS scientists have been alerting the authorities about the The Next Big Thing, and what kind of preparations need to be in place. Disaster planning is supposed to be part and parcel of Big Government's remit; as in 'if a nuclear missile is launched' or 'if there's a large-scale terrorist attack' or 'if the Thames barrier breaks down during a flood'. Home safety or security issues for which there are meant to be clear flow-charts of who does what, when, and how the response is charted out in terms of practical provisions, budgeting etc.
We've already seen in the press, release of documents were senior Tory leadership in past administrations made their choices for short-term party policy over long-term NHS provision and pandemic planning, effectively gambling that nothing like that would happen during their time of office. In a sense the diabolically incompetent response of Johnson and his cronies over the current crisis has at least a good part of its origin in many years of blinkered neglect. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
(sigh)
AFZ
Ironically, in the famous film Threads, there was indeed a planned response to deal with the nuclear attack, involving Sheffield City Council officials, and many others.
They were all dead within a few days of the bombing...suffocated in their bunker IIRC...
Last Sunday, Ricardus plus Ricardling #2 both have a fresh cough. Mrs Ricardus works for the NHS and can therefore access the NHS staff tests for us (because if we can't get a test, she can't go to work).
By Monday evening the NHS service hasn't called back to give us a test time, so we decide to try the government testing service (i.e., the one open for the plebs). This is stuck in a cycle of a.) your nearest testing service is in Bolton (18 slots available) > input some details > your nearest service is in Bolton (9 slots available) > input some more details > there are no tests available, try again later > your nearest testing service is in Bolton (18 slots available) ... it does that on several different computers (i.e. it's not some weird caching issue on my browser). Which makes me think a chunk of the problem is that the website code is screwy.
Rinse and repeat all through Tuesday (occasionally swapping Bolton for Deeside; both are at least an hour's drive away). Tuesday evening I get a call from the ONS, because I happen to have signed up for their survey. We're coming to test you tomorrow, doesn't matter that you've got symptoms because the whole point is to test you. Hooray! Except, after this test has been administered on Wednesday, with a promise of results by the weekend, it turns out they only notify you if the result is positive. You're not notified if you're negative (because the ONS don't have unlimited texts???), so it's 100% useless for getting Mrs Ricardus back to work and either Ricardling back in education.
Sudden success! NHS staff test available on Thursday afternoon. Afterwards, one text message is received in the middle of the night, confirming a negative result. No indication of whether that is for both of us, or for only one of us with the other result to follow. Unable to get through to the NHS test people until about an hour ago to confirm that in fact both tests are negative.
So 3 of the 4 testing pillars are screwy in different ways and in practice we might as well be back at the start of the pandemic - self-isolate for a week if you have symptoms and any contact tracing is of limited value because it would be based on contacts I had over a week ago.
Makes yer proud to be English, so it does.
That is correct. That's why specific places should have been closed earlier. I have said this many times.
I did look at Italy and I took care of myself.
Thankyou . That's very pleasing to read
I refer you to my answer on this thread - https://forums.shipoffools.com/discussion/2902/telford#latest so that we can get back to talking about CockHand.
Thanks.
They seem to be saying it’s both. It’s a worry as we seemed to be getting somewhere knowing where the local outbreaks were. Now we could easily be back to having no idea. It’s useless when people have to wait days to get a test, then days to get the result.
Will Dido be sacked?
A very large number of computer systems are just not designed to cope with the idea that multiple people might have the same contact details. So the stupid text that doesn't tell you who it's referring to is depressingly familiar.
No, not the same one, unless our Dido is also moonlighting as Queen of Carthage...
Yes I studied Dido and Aneous at the OU but that is not the Dido I expected people to think of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dido_(singer)
At the risk of going off on a tangent, which other Dido did you mean?
I have already explained that I am ignoring your ego trip.
Dido Harding - https://tinyurl.com/yy8t5o9s
She fails, then gets promoted. Rather like Grayling et al.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/18/matt-hancock-test-and-trace-dido-harding
She of Carthage sings 'Dido's Lament' in the opera by Henry Purcell, a song not noted for its optimism...
Sorry about the tangent, but maybe both Didos (Didoes?) can be seen as unfulfilled and tragic characters...
Being part of the same social circle as Hancock may help. Definitely all very normal.
Dante and Virgil exit stage left, with Dante singing that nothing ever changes, and Virgil agrees.
Nice one, @Penny S!
Quotes file for @Penny S
To quote Toby Zeigler...
"[He's] the guy that runs into the 7-11 to get Satan a pack of cigarettes."
ION, it seems as though the little Door Matt (thank you, John Crace of the Grauniad, IIRC) has taken over as PM, as it appears to be he who is telling us all what a *tipping point* we've arrived at.
It's such a privilege to have someone as obviously bright as the Door Matt to tell us something we otherwise wouldn't have a clue about...