Advanced search

To think the govt timed the lockdown about right

(53 Posts)
Coffeeandgin24 Fri 01-May-20 07:59:56

With more and more people flouting the rules for lock down, it seems the government were about right as to when to call it. There is a limit to how long people will isolate for.

OP’s posts: |
leafygarden Fri 01-May-20 08:04:26

Yeah right - whatever

AmelieTaylor Fri 01-May-20 08:07:35

About right for what?

Minimising deaths - no
Maximising compliance - no
The Peak - you don't understand the science

missnevermind Fri 01-May-20 08:08:23

It's not a popular opinion but I agree.
Any earlier and people would have been bored and flouting the rules sooner, before the peak therefore pronging it all.

mynameiscalypso Fri 01-May-20 08:09:43

It's impossible to say really because you're dealing with so many unknowns but broadly, yes. I think they always knew that 6 weeks was about the max they'd get without some major flouting of the rules so had to delay that for maximum impact.

Hermano Fri 01-May-20 08:15:35

Given we're fast catching up with Italy'snumbers and will soon be the worst hit in Europe, and given:
We're an island
We have a good healthcare system

I don't see how our covid numbers are anything other than a complete disaster.

This begs the question - who is to blame? Either the government fuckrd this up good and proper, or the British people are a bunch of idiots. Or possibly a bit of both.

I'm looking forward to people finally beginning to turn on the government over this, though I won't hold my breath, people seem to love this bunch of nasty self serving elitist tax dodging near fascists beyond any reason, 20-30,000 deaths higher than needed may not be a stumbling block. After all, many of the dead are BAME / working class and therefore useless humans angry sad angry sad angry

Hermano Fri 01-May-20 08:18:27

And I don't see why 'people would have broken the rules' is a good excuse for causing thousands of unnecessary deaths. Who are Brits the worst behaved citizens in Europe? Is that a good thing? Other countries managed to persuade their citizens not to be morons, again surely our government has to take some responsibility for not managing that with their citizens.

I feel were heading to some kind of dumb US style redneck culture quicker and quicker, it terrifies me

lifestooshort123 Fri 01-May-20 08:20:14

I agree. In Spain they are controlled by the police in a military fashion so had to accept total lockdown, here our police have lost their teeth and are laughed at so we think it's voluntary. 6 weeks is about right but our big mistake is allowing passengers through our airports without enforced quarantine in detention centres.

mynameiscalypso Fri 01-May-20 08:21:57

But I don't think we do have a particularly good healthcare system do we? Our cancer survival rates, for example, are some of the lowest in Europe. There are all sorts of areas where our healthcare provision has been woefully underfunded over years and years. I think it's also a bit misleading to say that Brits are the worst behaved in Europe - 350,000 people have been fined in France for example!

mynameiscalypso Fri 01-May-20 08:22:41

And 650,000 fines (at least) issued in Spain.

CaptainMerica Fri 01-May-20 08:24:47

I don't really understand talk of "The Peak" as if it is a naturally occurring event. Surely it is what happens 2 weeks after you bring R0 below 1. So if we'd locked down earlier then the peak would have happened earlier, and with much lower numbers like other countries who took action early, and we would be easing lock down by now.

MarshaBradyo Fri 01-May-20 08:25:41

Hard one. Yes some people aren’t lasting too well but if it had happened very early perhaps track and trace would have been easier.

But yes they did say there’s be a limit and there is, also due to economic hit,

daisymay133 Fri 01-May-20 08:29:06

For sure yes

The lockdown was never about stopping people getting it

We have to get it and unless we lockdown for ever - or at least 2 years IF they can get a vaccine then really we are relying on people getting it gradually so a lockdown to protect everyone was never going to happen

daisymay133 Fri 01-May-20 08:30:21

What the gov probably hasn’t said is what people don’t want to hear and that ms that really we want the healthy to get it

We need the healthy to get it

No one just wants to admit it

PaddyF0dder Fri 01-May-20 08:31:22

Well, let’s see.

- UK on track for the worst death toll in Europe
- British people far more likely to die of covid than neighbouring countries

No. They fucked up and killed people.

Tarararara Fri 01-May-20 08:37:50

Exactly @CaptainMercia - perfectly put.

The relatively late lockdown happened because the govt were still pursuing herd immunity at that stage. So they timed it to prevent overwhelming the NHS, without regard for deaths (and timed it pretty much perfectly on that basis).

Talking of herd immunity, has anyone else noticed the govt scientists and politicians, when talking about death rate comparisons between countries, keep saying no one can say which approach was best until 2 years in the future when all excess deaths are recorded. They are clearly still following the herd immunity plan! Only time will tell if they are right (i.e. if all these other countries who locked down earlier/harder so have lower death rates now will overtake us in the years to come through multiple subsequent outbreaks as they have not developed the herd immunity we have).

LastTrainEast Fri 01-May-20 08:42:50

"I don't see why 'people would have broken the rules' is a good excuse for causing thousands of unnecessary deaths."

You can't see cause and effect between people going down the pub "as it's the last chance" and people getting infected? People saying "it's my human rights to visit friends" and getting infected?

In that case no wonder you're upset with the way it went. It must look crazy to you.

Still you might want to show your evidence for the thousands of unnecessary deaths. No youtube videos please.

happinessischocolate Fri 01-May-20 08:54:49

*It's not a popular opinion but I agree.
Any earlier and people would have been bored and flouting the rules sooner, before the peak therefore pronging it all.*

But if we'd locked down sooner the peak would have arrived sooner and at a much lower number and lockdown would have been lifted sooner.

Also lockdown only happened when it did because many people were already staying at home, especially teachers, and Boris had no choice, he originally didn't want to lock down until Easter.

27,000 deaths and still rising is not a good outcome unless you're Dominic Cummings

Coffeeandgin24 Fri 01-May-20 08:57:34

We were always going to have some of the largest numbers of deaths in Europe as of all the large countries in Europe we are the most densely populated

OP’s posts: |
mynameiscalypso Fri 01-May-20 09:16:32

But lockdown was only ever really about stopping the NHS from being overwhelmed - which it has done so in that sense, it worked perfectly well and was timed right. I'm (obviously) not a scientist but I also wonder whether locking down early and then releasing early would mean that the second wave was much more damaging?

nellodee Fri 01-May-20 09:20:03

The peak was not some fixed point, like a rainy season, or midsummer night. The peak was determined by the time when R went from above 1 (growth) to below 1 (decay). The R is determined by what you do, so lockdown.

So, you go into lockdown, R goes below 1, there's a bit of a delay between people catching the virus and actually detecting it, and bingo, there's your peak.

If you go into lockdown early, you get the peak early. If you don't go into lockdown at all, you have to wait until R comes down because it runs out of people to infect (a.k.a. herd immunity).

1981m Fri 01-May-20 09:22:32

No, I disagree. I think if we had gone into lockdown earlier and been stricter we would have had less deaths AND not had the strain on the nhs. We would have achieved both aims. As for people breaking the rules, I think we should have had the police and military involved like in Italy and then less people would have gone against the rules too. We were too soft imo and many people have died unnecessarily because of that. We would have been out of lockdown earlier. Other countries who did this and have reopened haven't seen another peak in cases.

1forsorrow Fri 01-May-20 09:22:36

Absolutely, letting Cheltenham, Crufts, Stereophonics etc etc etc go ahead was brilliant planning. Johnson should get a medal.

Thisdressneedspockets Fri 01-May-20 09:47:41

Why did the timing matter? A week earlier would have meant a week less people contracting it.
We'd have hit a smaller peak around the same number of weeks after going into lockdown.
There'd now be fewer cases circulating in public and more of a chance of getting a handle on it. So we'd meet more of the 5 point critters earlier in the game. A week earlier at the beginning could make more than a week difference in how much less time we spend in this lockdown situation.

Fair enough, we'd be a week behind on getting testing in place, but how much difference will that make in reality compared to needing to get circulating numbers lower?

Let's not blame the public for getting fed up when a majority are doing what they need to do. I've had enough because we're 6 weeks in with no cohesive plan.

Meredithgrey1 Fri 01-May-20 09:59:16

It's not a popular opinion but I agree.
Any earlier and people would have been bored and flouting the rules sooner, before the peak therefore pronging it all

They'd have been flouting the rules earlier in time (so, a few weeks ago rather than now), but not earlier into the lockdown. And the peak would have done the same (been earlier in the year but the same amount of time into the lockdown). It's not like the peak would always have been that specific date regardless of what we'd done. The peak was caused by the lockdown, when the lockdown made the cases start to decline.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Get started »