Coronavirus

[Nearly Sane]

Govt not to blame, fat people are.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/uk-covid-death-toll-obesity-government-fault-a4550866.html

[Harrowby Hall]

And COVID-19 is busy creating fat people. What else is there to do under lockdown than eat .... ?

[Nearly Sane]

And COVID-19 is busy creating fat people. What else is there to do under lockdown than eat .... ?

Drink and toke

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/sep/09/almost-half-of-britons-drinking-more-due-to-covid-survey-finds

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

While I would agree that the government has little control over whether people become obese, and apparently Covid-19 hits obese people disproportionately hard, no matter their income, the government can't escape responsibility for the massive spike in Covid deaths that happened in care homes because older people were sent from hospitals to care homes without being tested for Covid first. And the lack of testing capacity, which means we cannot contain and isolate infectious people (especially asymptomatic people) and thereby reduce transmission is the responsibility of the government.

We should have been testing in March when the WHO told us to. Though having said that, per capita the UK seems to now be doing more testing than any other country bar Israel.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104645/covid19-testing-rate-select-countries-worldwide/

The main cause of obesity is diet rather than exercise. I lose weight every Ramadan because for large parts of the day I am not able to consume anything. I obviously have no idea what it feels like to be unable to stop yourself consuming excessive amounts of food or alcohol or why some people's brains cannot limit consumption while others can. But I sympathise as craving food or alcohol to the point where you unable to stop yourself consuming them even though you know it could lead to your death is a very unfortunate position to be in. But I agree that the government cannot be held responsible for deaths caused for these reasons. 

[Nearly Sane]

But it can't be despicable to question govt action as the claim was.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But it can't be despicable to question govt action as the claim was.

Yes I don't think it's despicable to question mortality rates where these are due to lack of testing which allowed people who had Covid-19 to transmit to people in vulnerable categories rather than quarantining themselves.

Once vulnerable people got Covid they had a high mortality rate - but there was not much the government could do about that.

I heard  Angela Rayner I think it was on Radio 4 today claiming that our ambition should be zero Covid deaths going forward and the government was not doing enough to achieve that. The interviewer pointed out that measures to contain Covid-19 could mean people are economically and emotionally damaged to the point where they cannot cope. Angela Raynor's response consisted of meaningless platitudes and sound bites without offering any actual solutions - she said we are ready to support the government in coming up with measures to protect the people ....or some such nonsense.   

[SusanDoris]

But it can't be despicable to question govt action as the claim was.

From what I hear from a couple of friends who follow political ins and outs, it is not so much the actual testing but getting the results that is the main problem.

[Nearly Sane]

From what I hear from a couple of friends who follow political ins and outs, it is not so much the actual testing but getting the results that is the main problem.

No, the availability of the testing is also a huge problem. It's all a bit of a post code lottery and Dido Harding seems surprised that the return of schools has lead to an increase in demand.

[Nearly Sane]

I think a lot in this about society living with Covid makes sense. The original lockdown made sense because we knew very little about it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54228649

[Udayana]

I think a lot in this about society living with Covid makes sense. The original lockdown made sense because we knew very little about it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54228649

Of-course there are good points and we will have to learn to live with the virus, preferably with vaccines and treatments at hand, but what actual measures does Heneghan propose to contain the possible exponential rise over winter clearly described by Vallance and Whitty in this mornings presentation? 

Aside, I thought they did much better on this than in the previous briefings : concentrating on factual information and being careful with their wording.
 

[jeremyp]

The report doesn't say that he was solely responsible so not sure what you are arguing about

It gives the impression that it was all his fault. The danger is that the people of Bolton will say "it was all that idiot" and not take the measures that they need to  to stop it.

[jeremyp]

Of-course there are good points and we will have to learn to live with the virus, preferably with vaccines and treatments at hand, but what actual measures does Heneghan propose to contain the possible exponential rise over winter clearly described by Vallance and Whitty in this mornings presentation? 

Aside, I thought they did much better on this than in the previous briefings : concentrating on factual information and being careful with their wording.

I think we'll get to the point where there is no alternative but to live with the virus. It looks increasingly likely that people do not become permanently immune to the disease and that would probably spell doom for any vaccine too.

Either we'll lose our squeamishness about death from the disease or we'll learn to live permanently with some lockdown measures or most probably some combination of the two.

[Nearly Sane]

I think we'll get to the point where there is no alternative but to live with the virus. It looks increasingly likely that people do not become permanently immune to the disease and that would probably spell doom for any vaccine too.

Either we'll lose our squeamishness about death from the disease or we'll learn to live permanently with some lockdown measures or most probably some combination of the two.

Agree. The whole go back to the office thing has been an utter disaster of a message though. The worrying thing is that apart from the pubs and restaurants opening hours thing most of the new English restrictions have applied in Scotland already and we may well have a higher R number.

That said I really think we need to look to live with it more than we have. 

[Nearly Sane]

Why have other countries, like Italy & Germany, recovered better? PM: "There is a difference between our country and others. Ours is a freedom-loving country... It's very difficult to ask the British population uniformly to obey guidelines in the way that is necessary".

[jeremyp]

The whole go back to the office thing has been an utter disaster of a message though.

I cannot believe that Boris even opened his mouth to suggest that.

The worrying thing is that apart from the pubs and restaurants opening hours thing most of the new English restrictions have applied in Scotland already and we may well have a higher R number.

I think the pub opening hours restriction will have a greatly beneficial effect. Other than that, I think it's good that England is coming more into line with Scotland. Most of the country's population is in England and it is more densely packed than other parts of the UK. If anything the restrictions need to be more restrictive than Scotland.

I think they will have an effect. In fact, I think the rule of six will probably have an effect, but we haven't given it time to work yet.

That said I really think we need to look to live with it more than we have.

Agreed. And we will, one way or another. In days gone by, humans lived with the possibility of death by disease as an ever present threat. Obviously, we don't want to go back to that if we can avoid it and I think we an - to an extent. I think our best chance is not a vaccine but improving hospital care to get the mortality rate down. If we can get it down to flu like levels of mortality, we can start thinking of it more like we think of flu. In a bad year, flu kills about 20-30 thousand people in the UK and we put up with it.

[jeremyp]

Why have other countries, like Italy & Germany, recovered better? PM: "There is a difference between our country and others. Ours is a freedom-loving country... It's very difficult to ask the British population uniformly to obey guidelines in the way that is necessary".

Have other countries recovered better? We can cite Italy and Germany, but they have both had their upturns in cases. If we cite Italy and France, both of these countries seem to be in worse trouble than us now.

ETA: Boris's answer to the question was still bollocks.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think the pub opening hours restriction will have a greatly beneficial effect.

I'm sceptical - I really don't see why closing pubs at 10am is going to have a major impact. People will either just move their pub-going earlier, potentially you'll end up with more people packed in during the hours of 8-10pm. And of course once kicked out of the pub people will head to the park (if weather permits) or back home in groups to continue drinking. Not allowed in the rules, of course, but how on earth are they going to be enforced.

I think these changes are going to make very little difference, and are probably designed to have limited effect on most people's lives. Problem is that in a couple of weeks when things are still getting worse (as they will inevitable be due to the flywheel effect) we'll be getting a new announcement with more strict measures. Frankly better to bring these into effect now than in two weeks.

[jeremyp]

I'm sceptical - I really don't see why closing pubs at 10am is going to have a major impact.

Because people will be less pissed.

People will either just move their pub-going earlier, potentially you'll end up with more people packed in during the hours of 8-10pm.

Some will. Some won't. Some will look at the busy pub at 8pm and say "no thanks".

And of course once kicked out of the pub people will head to the park

Which is at least outdoors and hence a lower risk.

I think these changes are going to make very little difference, and are probably designed to have limited effect on most people's lives. Problem is that in a couple of weeks when things are still getting worse (as they will inevitable be due to the flywheel effect) we'll be getting a new announcement with more strict measures. Frankly better to bring these into effect now than in two weeks.

I think, whether they are successful or not depends on how well the restrictions are enforced. The rule of six and the reversal on the "go back to work" policy by themselves will make some difference. I think it's more a case of will they be enough to stop the rise in cases? Unfortunately, we won't know for two or three weeks.

[ProfessorDavey]

Because people will be less pissed.

Not necessarily - the earlier closing time may just increase the rate of drinking.

Some will. Some won't. Some will look at the busy pub at 8pm and say "no thanks".

Others will just turn up earlier - starting at 6pm rather than 8pm.

Which is at least outdoors and hence a lower risk.

Not if everyone is huddled together because it is getting parky at this time of the year at 10pm. Nor if groups larger than 6 get together which is easier outdoor in the dark rather than in a managed pub.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think, whether they are successful or not depends on how well the restrictions are enforced.

I agree, but I think the early pub closure is a sticking plaster on a wound that is bleeding at an increasingly rapid rate.

The rule of six and the reversal on the "go back to work" policy by themselves will make some difference. I think it's more a case of will they be enough to stop the rise in cases? Unfortunately, we won't know for two or three weeks.

The problem is that the government are looking reactive and ever changing - the rule of 6 was supposed to be the new clear (and preamble long range) message. Yet within days it is being superseded with new interventions. And I suspect in a couple a weeks today's announcements will be superseded again. The difficulty is that all this leads to is confusion rather than clarity and that leads to people failing to comply due to 'message fatigue' or genuinely being confused about what they can and cannot do.

[Aruntraveller]

The problem is that the government are looking reactive and ever changing - the rule of 6 was supposed to be the new clear (and preamble long range) message. Yet within days it is being superseded with new interventions. And I suspect in a couple a weeks today's announcements will be superseded again. The difficulty is that all this leads to is confusion rather than clarity and that leads to people failing to comply due to 'message fatigue' or genuinely being confused about what they can and cannot do.

I think this one of the biggest issues. The fact that the TV news presents at least 4 different sets of rules for the constituent parts of the UK is confusing enough. Then the govt. changes the instructions at regular intervals, and then add on the complexities of local and regional lockdowns it is no small wonder that the general population is confused as to what they are supposed to do.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think this one of the biggest issues. The fact that the TV news presents at least 4 different sets of rules for the constituent parts of the UK is confusing enough. Then the govt. changes the instructions at regular intervals, and then add on the complexities of local and regional lockdowns it is no small wonder that the general population is confused as to what they are supposed to do.

I think that's right.

I suspect policy/guidance restrictions will be a moving target for a while, with each new intervention rapidly superseded as government(s) recognise that the increase in cases, and in due course hospital admissions plus deaths isn't slowing or reversing rapidly.

That makes messaging very difficult. That contrasts with the situation in the Spring when the 'Stay at home; Protect the NHS; Save lives' message can in. That was clear, consistent and didn't change for a considerable amount of time. Getting nuance, local tweaking and changing messages right is very, very difficult.

[jeremyp]

Not necessarily - the earlier closing time may just increase the rate of drinking.

For some people it will. For others it won’t. Taking everybody into account which (you may be surprised to learn) includes a lot of people who aren’t there just to drink their drunkenness quota, it will improve the situation.

Not if everyone is huddled together because it is getting parky at this time of the year at 10pm. Nor if groups larger than 6 get together which is easier outdoor in the dark rather than in a managed pub.

If it’s parky they’ll go home. If they don’t go home, the police can fine them.

This is about changing the behaviour of the population in general. Some small proportion will not behave as we want, but most people will.

[jeremyp]

I agree, but I think the early pub closure is a sticking plaster on a wound that is bleeding at an increasingly rapid rate.
The problem is that the government are looking reactive and ever changing - the rule of 6 was supposed to be the new clear (and preamble long range) message. Yet within days it is being superseded with new interventions. And I suspect in a couple a weeks today's announcements will be superseded again. The difficulty is that all this leads to is confusion rather than clarity and that leads to people failing to comply due to 'message fatigue' or genuinely being confused about what they can and cannot do.

The rule of six hasn’t been superseded.

[Aruntraveller]

The rule of six hasn’t been superseded.

I rest my case.