To be very concerned that Boris Johnson said this

[Worriedmum54321]

From the Guardian:
Responding to the argument that a more stringent lockdown should have been imposed sooner, he said: “Don’t forget, it’s a very very demanding thing to ask a population to do – very tough – and so I think it was completely right to make our period of lockdown coincide as far as possible with the peak of the epidemic.”

They weren't though, were they? Not close

Umm. Cheltenham?

www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/apr/02/cheltenham-faces-criticism-after-racegoers-suffer-covid-19-symptoms

They weren't though, were they? Not close

The bloke can not do right for doing wrong can he? I mean had he locked down sooner everybody would be complaining about that! He has done a very good job considering this has never happened before!

26,000 dead and you think he's done a good job, if we're just peaking now then I'm guessing it'll be another 26,000 dead as the numbers go down again in a similar trajectory.

He even managed to contract the virus himself, and wasn't protecting the nhs when he was shaking hands with everyone he met.

And whilst it hasn't happened before we weren't the first country to get the virus, so there was plenty of information available beforehand from other countries who were already ahead of us, and yet we've managed to not only catch up with their numbers but complete overtake them 🤦‍♀️

They weren't though, were they? Not close

Is this close?

They weren't though, were they? Not close

The point was about NHS. NHS were not even close to being overwhelmed.

Umm. Cheltenham?
No mention of NHS services being overwhelmed in that Guardian link. In fact the final paragraph says there was only one case linked to the festival - which I know was later not the case - but I wonder if you actually read the article because it doesn't support your argument at all.

www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/revealed-three-uk-sporting-events-may-have-led-coronavirus-death/

In fact the final paragraph says there was only one case linked to the festival - which I know was later not the case - but I wonder if you actually read the article because it doesn't support your argument at all

Did you see the date of the article?

And the local services weren't overwhelmed - but it was one hell of a gamble.

Why take the risk?

Mortality figures compiled by the Health Service Journal show that Gloucestershire hospitals NHS trust, which covers Cheltenham, has recorded 125 deaths, roughly double that in two nearby trusts at Bristol (58 each), and those covering Swindon (67) and Bath (46).

Officials at Gloucestershire council say there were “many factors” that could have influenced the death totals.

In fact the final paragraph says there was only one case linked to the festival - which I know was later not the case

How do they know? Is somebody tracking all the people who went to Cheltenham and all their contacts?

1forsorrow I think the issue with PM is not that he challenges as he's right to do so but the way he's doing it. The Ofcom didn't uphold a complaint and he got all arrogant (shock ) about it and actually tipped into bullying. ** All this "are you smirking, why are you smirking - do you find this funny" is what school playground bullies do to humiliate people. It's not constructive or challenging and certainly doesn't get the answers we need.
Then we get some real numbskulls like the journo who asked during briefing "how do keyworkers get a test if they are all gone by 10am. They can't sit pressing refresh all day because they work shifts" 🤦‍♀️

There is definitely questions to asked after all this. The enquiry needs to help form better planning for any future pandemics or even epidemics but also to find out if mistakes were made because advice wasn't followed. It should be made public. But right now we need to get through this. When government are managing to do what they haven't done so far we shouldn't be wasting time asking (at this time) why it wasn't done 3 weeks earlier.

Same with lockdown. The community were either isolating themselves, making service level decisions or begging government to lockdown. Then they want it lifted when they decide they've had enough.
They said they weren't following science if other countries (which may be true) and locked down too late but now they are saying they are following science and won't release quickly they are being criticised.

Everyone's a critic. I may not agree with everything they do or say, or believe it or think they've got things perfect. But I genuinely do believe they are doing what's best. You couldn't afford not to.

My argument is that it does not seem to be a good idea to have had large gatherings when there is a virus which can be easily spread and which can lead to complications and death.

You seem to think that it was ok to go ahead with such events.

Why would it be a good idea?

If you read the NervTag minutes on 21st Feb, you will see what they said about the infection rates and the CFR

app.box.com/s/3lkcbxepqixkg4mv640dpvvg978ixjtf/file/640968322003

I agree@ winter they were not overwhelmed, and have a lot of capacity, however for me the no.s in hospital ( and possibly who have been to hospital but i can find data) are shockingly low. I would have preferred to see hospitals fuller and the death rate lower. Obviously there is a balancing act between this and surge but the death rate is high.

They took the risk, probably after some risk assessment. No point trying to gain political capital now out of what might have been, but wasn't.

I don't know much about Cheltenham, but I get the impression from the Jockey club website's 2019 statistics that it isn't just attended by people who live in Cheltenham...

TRAVEL
134,600 people used the Cheltenham Spa train station over the four days
80,000 used the shuttle bus service between the Racecourse and town centre
36,500 vehicles parked over the four days
100 helicopter movements per day
50 staff coaches per day, sourced from all over the country, as far away as London, Cardiff, Swansea, Birmingham and Coventry
30 extra flights put on by Ryanair on the Dublin to Birmingham route during The Festival period (around 20,000 customers will use Ryanair)

You seem to think that it was ok to go ahead with such events.
My point is that we don't know yet. We won't know until about a year from now, when we can see the number of excess deaths over the long term norms, and whether a steeper initial wave resulted in a flatter second wave and/or lower numbers overall. I have not said it was okay, only that neither I nor anyone else can know that yet on the basis of the data we have.

This is from the 21st Feb

I wonder what the later meetings will reveal

My point is that we don't know yet

It's fairly common sense that stopping large gatherings is better than allowing them to go ahead when there's a virus going around.

No point trying to gain political capital now out of what might have been, but wasn't

It shows that whoever is making the decisions may not be capable of making sensible decisions.

There is an argument that says the same number of people will have to be infected eventually. This is why some people have chicken pox parties - they want it over with. There are also behavioural arguments about which is the best point to lock down. I don't know which is better. We'll know later.

There is an argument that says the same number of people will have to be infected eventually

True - but then we should just not have had a lockdown like we have now. Just go out, get infected and see who survives.

@Megan It is because i do listen to alternative POV's, as well as the Govt's, that i have an argument that they have made some fairly big mistakes. your argument just seems to be "i agree with the Govt whatever they say or do"

NHS ? we have halted almost all other healthcare, from cancer to mental health plus all elective surgery, on top of this, 111 has advised anyone with CV symptoms to stay at home and and only ring again if breathing is seriously impaired, even then only the very sickest go to hospital.
This is why the NHS isn't overwhelmed, it's not because of some genius pandemic strategy to avoid infection.

Many patients will suffer because of this, not least my Aunt who now isn't getting her regular cancer screening to see if she is still in remission :(

It shows that whoever is making the decisions may not be capable of making sensible decisions.
No it doesn't. How do you know that they didn't do a risk assessment and decide it would be better to have x infections before locking down, either for behavioural reasons or reasons related to infection rates? The fact that you assume that it was down to incompetence just shows that you prefer to believe that the government is incompetent. I prefer to believe they are following science until proven otherwise. I would not forgive if they were not following science, but I would certainly forgive anyone making decisions based on imperfect science which later turned out to be wrong.

I prefer to believe they are following science until proven otherwise. I would not forgive if they were not following science, but I would certainly forgive anyone making decisions based on imperfect science which later turned out to be wrong

Science is not perfect. Science has many different views.

I wonder when we will be able to see the minutes

There is also a difference between stopping large gatherings and going for full lockdown.

your argument just seems to be "i agree with the Govt whatever they say or do"
I have never said anything of the sort and it's pretty ridiculous that you can read that into what I have written. See above post (written before I read yours).
I am sorry to hear about your aunt, yes there will tragically be many people suffering because of delayed treatments. That is a separate issue to the question of Cheltenham though.

That is a separate issue to the question of Cheltenham though

Not really - because you said that the NHS hasn't been overwhelmed even though we had Cheltenham.

It's all interlinked. People have seen the high death rates, the daily death rates and are worried about going to hospitals for other treatments.

If events such as Cheltenham, the football etc hadn't gone ahead - and hadn't given the virus even more of a chance to spread around the country, then the death rates would have been lower and people may well have been less reluctant to access the NHS.

True - but then we should just not have had a lockdown like we have now. Just go out, get infected and see who survives.
Again, no. There was that little issue of trying not to overwhelm the NHS, remember?