Moral or other question regarding visits into lower COVID tier area.

[Paul_B]

It's not a special case it's simply that the application of tier boundaries hace no basis in science if that science is based on infection rates. If that really is the criteria then apply it on that criteria everywhere. Publicise the rate reaches for each tier and use n that for the boundaries in a more realistic way.

In fact my view is that tiers based systems don't work. I still believe that full national lockdown is the only way to operate.

Why is my view like this? Well Liverpool was under threat of a higher tier so what happened before that higher tier was set? Apparently our local Tesco's had a big influx of scousers having their last day out and clearing the shelves of items sold out at home!! Seriously! They left a very high infection rate area on the last weekend before the heavily trailed new restrictions were to be put in place to an area of very low infection rates. Shortly after there's been signs that this area has been increasing infection rates faster than prior to that influx.

The truth is we're in the grips of a pandemic that's going to be around for a long time, possibly a generation. We're not handling it we're playing around the edges trying to be both hard on the virus and trying to preserve our economy. We're not getting the best of any of those goals. Staying open in lower infection areas will I'm time only create new high infection areas I reckon. The virus takes time to show up after spreader events. Spreader events like mass movement from high to low infection rates areas prior to am increase in restrictions.

Right now economic impact happens in high tier areas but also low tier areas. Cumbria reckon a third of the economy will have disappeared because of these restrictions but they're only tier 1 so no support to try to reduce that effect. Biggest autumn bookings in the lakes comes from Lancashire apparently. It accounts for significant proportion of bookings.

So right now we have a system that's so flawed that it allows super spreader events to go ahead before application of localised lockdowns. Such lockdowns harms the economies of the area locked down but wider areas that aren't so don't get the same support.

Wales is having a circuit break lockdown. IMHO that's the only thing that can and will work. It's time we acknowledge that the pandemic has changed our economy irreversibly. We've made the decision to deal with the pandemic by locking down at the expense of the economy so let's just follow that completely.

Btw there's plenty of loopholes in the restrictions. Traveling for work, travelling or mixing for childcare reasons, passing through different tier (would you know when driving through Nottinghamshire whether you're ok to stop for food or whether the area is in a higher tier?), Etc. If the infection rate is rising everywhere and as the experts say deaths will follow this rise, then why aren't we going with what seemed to work earlier, a complete lockdown??

 

[Paul_B]

Picking up the slack isn't what this country does in these pandemic days. First hint the government was planning on easing restrictions during first lockdown everyone started to ignore social distancing in the majority. Special cases for low infection areas were not in place first lockdown and it shouldn't really be this lockdown. The only reason it is is economy. Either you fight the rise in infection rates or you don't. Everywhere us rising so everywhere should lockdown.

 

[Toddy]

Cavilling protests don't in any way contradict the present results.

761 dead. This week. Because folks didn't stay socially distant enough.

That's it.

 

[Robbi]

100% Toddy

It's a shame some people can't see the nose on their face

 

[Broch]

@Paul_B You're right, loads of people have assumed they know better and not been sensible about it - that's why we are where we are.

 

[Toddy]

367 deaths with covid_19 as the cause, in the UK, in the last 24 hours.

 

[Corso]

They'd have gone with the swedish approach except they would have put their voting demographic at too much risk

 

[Corso]

@Paul_B You're right, loads of people have assumed they know better and not been sensible about it - that's why we are where we are.

We are here because its a common cold virus - a bad one yes

something we can protect a population from no

 

[TLM]

Now that Imperial College has found out that after infection immunity is so short lived that herd immunity is apparently unattainable Britain is probably lucky not to have followed Sweden and Doctor "Tengele".

 

[Corso]

Now that Imperial College has found out that after infection immunity is so short lived that herd immunity is apparently unattainable Britain is probably lucky not to have followed Sweden and Doctor "Tengele".

It more complicated than that. There are three main types of antibody produced in response to infection; IgA, IgG, and IgM. IgM rises soonest and typically declines after infection. IgG and IgA persist and usually reflect longer term immune response. The main tests currently used in the UK are the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 assay, which detects IgG, so they arn't even testing two layers of the direct immune respose.

Even those who have had C19, shown antibodies, and then shown to loose them seem to be able to gain them again when exposed to the virus - without symptoms.

It happened to a mate at work both of them medical staff, he caught it in May/June and then his misses caught it last month - oddly she didn't catch it from him first time round

The only reason herd immunity might not work is population mutation - but then a vaccine won't work either...

 

[TLM]

The short news story did not elaborate which antibody was tested but their conclusion still was that a renewed infection within some months was possible though as apparently weakened. Weather these second rounders are infectious or not is apparently not established. If not it is good news if yes it is bad news.

The mathematics of Wuhan virus pandemic is not very complicated, the biology much more so and not at all my field.

 

[Paul_B]

Cavilling protests don't in any way contradict the present results.

761 dead. This week. Because folks didn't stay socially distant enough.

That's it.

Nothing will change those deaths now but perhaps taking harder decisions sooner might have prevented them. Take now for example. A few months back other countries had increasing infection rates and IIRC over 100 infections per 100,000 got a country taken off the flight corridor list and returning holiday makers in 14 day quarantine. That infection rate doesn't get your area into the restrictions certainly only tier 1 if at all. Why? How many deaths will tiered restrictions result in when you factor in the out of area rush people go on before an impending increase in lockdown?

Those deaths might have been prevented or not. The deaths from tiered system of restrictions rather than other possible and expert advised actions like universal circuit break lockdown are another set of tragedies. The truth is all avoidable days are tragedies particularly for relatives but that doesn't mean decisions on actions shouldn't be clearly made and based on his advice not political or mostly economic advice. The tiered system is to alleviate economic damage. That's going to result in extra deaths.

From a purely selfish point of view how many local deaths will be caused by high infection areas coming here because it's a nice part of the country and its still in the same tier 3 area? How many cases of COVID from the sudden rush passing through just before they got put into tier 3 restrictions before Lancashire read in that tier? The Scottish idea in the first lockdown of no travel further than 5 miles from home is a good idea right now across the UK. Complete lockdown circuit breaker. This current situation is against expert advice and AIUI was a result of the chancellor of the Exchequer getting his economic arguments across more strongly than the medical experts. Is that right?

 

[Paul_B]

There's also something called long COVID which is when people have health issues long after recovering from the main attack. Two types of this, AIUI one type had has serious implications to bodily organs from over, kidneys to brain? That brain fog could actually be because of the virus effectively hiding out in the brain. Yes, there's evidence suggesting it can pass through the brain membrane and hide out escaping the immune system. It can remain and come out as new symptoms. I think if it's like chicken pox virus in the way that virus goes dormant in the nervous system then comes out years later in the adult as shingles then how will that change things?

Whatever the action to be taken do we agree that it should be taken by those who know the science behind it not politicians or economists? Or perhaps you don't, why not? If the sage panel, as made public by two prominent members, advised circuit break lockdown everywhere then why didn't that happen?

Btw I am coming to the opinion that this virus will sooner or later have to be lived with. By that I mean find a way to live with it in the community around you. It will not be beaten for years of at all.

Btw anyone heard of the k factor? App it has more of an input into modelling than R factor. Countries that initially handled the outbreak better like Japan modelled based more on k factor. Those that did not handle it well like Italy, UK, Spain modelled more using the R factor. K factor predictions. There's a lot to be learnt about pandemics and this COVID is unlikely to be the last. AIUI that's something like 200 viruses in other animals that show indications they could and will one day mutate into something novel that would affect humans. I think I heard that this one wasn't even on their radar as a potential virus X.

 

[Corso]

The short news story did not elaborate which antibody was tested but their conclusion still was that a renewed infection within some months was possible though as apparently weakened. Weather these second rounders are infectious or not is apparently not established. If not it is good news if yes it is bad news.

The mathematics of Wuhan virus pandemic is not very complicated, the biology much more so and not at all my field.

I know it didn't, I read the published paper and probably a dozen others currently debating the subject

including those complaining that there is no independant validation of any of the tests out there that are by their own admission of varying accuracy

 

[Broch]

Whatever the action to be taken do we agree that it should be taken by those who know the science behind it not politicians or economists? Or perhaps you don't, why not? .

No, I don't - this isn't just a science or health matter; it's a survival matter that is far more complicated than any of us have the experience or knowledge to deal with. I wouldn't trust scientists to run a commercial company; I don't trust them to run a country (and that's what a modern country is, a world competing commercial organisation). We have to take a balanced approach otherwise the outcome will be very difficult to live with anyway. I suspect you would also be someone that complained if your job was lost because of the action taken, that taxes had to go up because of the action taken, that welfare support was reduced and other restrictions due to lack of funds because of the loss of the UK's global competitiveness. Without commerce there is no money, without money there is no health service or education. The road out of this is a complex and involved and needs a balanced strategy - you may choose a different balance but you don't have the data or the resources to make that decision.

But we've already been through all this discussion; you're just venting because you feel personally restricted in what you consider to be an unjustifiable way.

Your opening post asked a simple question and nearly everyone has given you the answer you didn't want.

 

[Van-Wild]

@Broch bang on there matey.

Going back to the OP and not commenting on the science or political views of individuals and taking a pause to think more on this question of 'should I, shouldn't I go here or there?'...... I completely stand by my first response and would like to add my actual experience of the C19 restrictions since it all began way back.....(when was it again?) So anyway, back at the beginning.........

When the first lock down came in, I was originally of the opinion 'oh bugger..... is this really what they're saying it is? I dunno.... I'll not do owt and wait it out for a bit, see what we say at work'. In this approach I took the option of not making knee jerk decisions, I followed Gov guidance and took direction from my boss at work about my job. I didn't start panic buying, I didn't start buying military chem suits and I didn't start sharpening my axe.....

Then lockdown came in force. No move by anyone for what was it? Two, three weeks? Whatever I cant remember..... at work in the managers meeting we drew up a operations plan, alternative and contingency plans so that those that could, worked from home immediately, those thst couldn't were properly protected. We didn't even look at an emergency plan because we went about it logically and without panic. So I worked from home. I didn't whinge, or kick off about having my liberty taken from me. I wore a mask when I went out, I followed the guidelines. Whats more, I'm a glass half full kinda guy so I took the time to enjoy the slower pace of life and I worked from home, drank decent coffee, had lunch with my wife and kids, did that chore in the garage.... in short, I made the most of it.

Then I went back to work (im a 'key worker' and I travel a lot). I enjoyed the activity after such a while off and drive with the windows down, got my Vit D and spoke to people about stuff. It reinvigorated me. Again , everywhere I went I followed Gov Restrictions, I wore a mask, was mad keen about hygiene...... I enjoyed it.

So now I'm in the present. Same as everyone else. If England went full lockdown again, I'd love it. Back to WFH. Sweet. If we don't, good. I get to move around in what is the new normal. Cool. I'll continue to follow the Gov Restrictions to the letter, no whining, no 'oh I think this, we should do that, *** do the Gov know.....' all that stuff is too far above my pay scale and very complicated, not my job mate. So I dont get all worked up about it.

In a nutshell and sorry for the long post, but jeeez Louise, just follow the flipping Gov Restrictions! Stop being a 'glass half empty' douche look to the positive! Spend time with your wife and kids, or dog, cat, pet parrot whatever. Use your new found restrictions to your advantage and stop bloody whinging.

I refer the learned reader to my original reply to the OP. .......

Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk

 

[Corso]

Science is still in the theory and speculation phase whatever the media might be telling you, and its the media drivnig most of the drama

A peer reviewed scientific paper takes about a year to publish, and I know this as my name is on several

There were supposedly factual media reports and Covid papers out in January?

How because of the drive to understand something that will very likely take us years

Somone mentioned Long covid - its not a defined diagnosis its a grouping of several already known long tern issues into a media frendly sound bite.

 

[TLM]

In cases like this the problem is that science looks for 100% verified results, in matters like this it'll years. We don't have time like that if we want to keep society running. We need a kind of engineering approach, based on science known so far, best educated guesses by people who have shown to have the talent and clear realizable practical instructions and guidelines with maximised utility and minimised disturbance. The last is the point that very few people know how to do and even fewer politicians.

At least here no one has shown to have the gift of clear thinking, civil servants and politicians have had several fights over the restrictions.

 

[Paul_B]

Broch is probably right about me not getting the answer I wanted. I must admit that I didn't expect myself to be the only one thinking that the details of this tier system has not been well implemented. I know I have to obey the restrictions just like I did with the original lockdown, which I did think was well managed.

The only thing I am not sure we are complying with is a matter of having to cross the border to take our son to and collect from his school. I think that's covered by an exception but unless I'm missing something it's not explicit. Also, childcare has to involve his grandparents over the border.

BTW the sage committee AIUI does include economic experts not just medical. Including significant figures in treasury and/or BoE. If their combined medical, economic and other basis advice was for circuit breaker lockdown then why do you think politicians are better able to decide?

I know the system is civil servants advise and politicians decide but there's enough times when politicians aren't involved, they've devolved the power to those better placed to make the informed decisions. Perhaps the UK actions around a global pandemic might be something important enough to follow advise on rather than look to party gains. Sorry of that's getting political but if the sage committee is made up of the experts needed then I think it's got a better chance of making the best decisions on COVID issues. I believe we have several executive agencies making important decisions with oversight but still making those decisions. Just a thought.

BTW it seems it the politicians had followed advice we'd all be in lockdown which is stricter restrictions than now. Personally I think that's probably what's needed. People don't obey restrictions when they're half implemented like now but they did obey the initial lockdown. If it's all shutdown for a circuit breaker then there's a chance of it being followed. Unlike now where it's only advised not to leave tier 3 areas. You can't be fined or turned back. In effect it's likely not to be followed. Certainly the m6 and A6 routes over the border don't seem to have quietened down

 

[Paul_B]

Science is still in the theory and speculation phase whatever the media might be telling you, and its the media drivnig most of the drama

A peer reviewed scientific paper takes about a year to publish, and I know this as my name is on several

There were supposedly factual media reports and Covid papers out in January?

How because of the drive to understand something that will very likely take us years

Somone mentioned Long covid - its not a defined diagnosis its a grouping of several already known long tern issues into a media frendly sound bite.

Long COVID is a term that was being used by medical experts that the media took on. I first heard it on radio 4 in a current affairs stand where a few ournalists who had COVID and were struggling to being back to normal because of such a collection of symptoms went out to investigate. Several senior medical people working at the front line used the term as if it had become a medical term their teams were using.

As for papers, from very early days there's been a whole new tranche of money specifically for short term, fast reporting research. AIUI it was to fast track research results into the mainstream. I know enough academic researchers to know there's been a rush to get proposals out and research started. Indeed some had been started before money allocated which is not usual at all. I also know academics who get called on to do the peer reviews of research seeking publication. COVID research has been going through, fast tracked. It's that important I guess. Although the more important research you are right will take time to get published. The funding is however only for up to 18 months per project AIUI with many being a lot shorter. The idea is to fast track COVID research through the academic system. Researchers are seeing it as a research funding gold rush!!!