I genuinely don’t get it?!

[Rapphue]

Hopeful for balanced and sincere posts here rather than the assumption that I’m ‘playing ignorance’ or some other accusation because my question undermines the government narrative.

FWIW I’m educated and well read, albeit I don’t have huge in depth knowledge politics, nor do I claim to!

But I don’t understand why we are having restrictions imposed for a virus that is no worse than other illnesses. Even if I accept that it is harmless to the NHS should it escalate fast and make many ill at the same time (so far no hospitals have been maxed out with corona - my SIL works as a hospital doctor in intense care and has said there hasn’t been even 50% corona patients in any ward at one time. She works in a busy London hospital)...even if I accept it could escalate and we don’t want that, then:

1. Why is there suddenly a lack of concern about public health in general? People are dying because they are having treatment postponed due to Coronavirus. Hospitals are not busy and certainly not full of corona patients. It seems crazy to me that anyone who may fall ill non corona related is now at the back of the queue. Tough shit if that ends in your death.

1. Pubs open until 10pm. I use this as one example of many arbitrary rules. Why does the virus suddenly operate after 10pm? Is it a vampire? Surely you can infect just as many people at 9:59pm as you can at 10pm. Is it just to reduce risk overall? If so then I think someone needs to read a gcse science textbook... the risk has already been taken if the pub is open full stop.

1. Cashless society...erm. Why?

I’m not trying to incite some sort of dramatic post. I hope there are honest reasons for operating as we have the last few months. I hope I am wrong to feel cynical. I hope - and suspect - I’m not knowledgeable enough to understand why this is happening how it is.

As far as I can tell this is very much about controlling people’s lives to their detriment. If it was about health why on Earth are we letting people get sick and delaying treatment because of a virus?

Is there something in the London protests yesterday? Am I missing something medical, political or scientific here?

Not more ButSweden please.

If (if!) Sweden did better than us without lockdown it was because they had voluntary compliance. However since I hear most ButSweden-ing from those who didn't want to be locked down because they didn't want to be restricted (I.e a group who were never going to restrict themselves voluntarily) it's a moot point.

Yep. Sweden doesn't matter. Let's ignore it.

Im not sure how you claim to be educated and well read then ask questions that have been covered a million times before.

@Ophelia2020

Tajikistan, Sweden and Korea did not impose lockdowns.

Sweden appears to have under 6,000 deaths.

South Korea had an excellent test, trace and isolate system in place. U.K. didn’t and still don’t.

@Ophelia2020

There are many well qualified experts who had serious concerns about his figures. Do you think that they also have a nonsense argument?

I think it's really quite simple. Several countries did not have a lockdown. Did they have the figures he predicted?

Countries that didn't have lockdown did other things. Measures that would get more tantrums here than our half-hearted lockdown got.

Which countries are you referring to?

Sweden? They did have a form of lockdown. Just not mandatory. Because there was no need. People are more civic minded and followed the guidelines.

How do you propose we get half the population living in single person households overnight?
How do we magically get our healthcare system up to the same standard of theirs (well funded through higher tax) very very quickly?

Or do you mean some of the Asian countries. Where society complies with strict track and tracing - the kind that would have the civil liberties lot here in uproar.

Oh - and those countries that didn't have lockdown, including those in Asia. What they did have is closed borders (with proper quarantine for essential travel).

@Ophelia2020

Yep. Sweden doesn't matter. Let's ignore it.

Yes. The UK is not Sweden. We are not Swedish people. Our culture is not that of Sweden. Our co-morbidities are not those of Sweden. Our healthcare system is not that of Sweden.

I think if there was any way possible to keep economy moving without hospital admissions descending in to chaos then boris would definitely have done that. They really do not want to close everything down

@Orphelia2020

Quote 1: Fergusons predictions were wildly inaccurate

Quote 2: Its impossible to prove something that didn't happen.

So which of these two positions is it? You’re contradicting yourself!

There are many well qualified experts who had serious concerns about his figures. Do you think that they also have a nonsense argument?

I think it's really quite simple. Several countries did not have a lockdown. Did they have the figures he predicted?

His model had flaws, I’m not doubting that. The main flaw I’m aware of is that lockdown restrictions were needed to achieve the social distancing necessary to constrain exponential growth. Sweden showed that this wasn’t necessarily the case, and that less severe measures with citizens broadly taking advice and socially distancing without being mandated to do so would be sufficient. However, it’s easy to criticise with hindsight. Back in early March, UK and other European politicians weren’t confident that the public would even obey lockdown restrictions, let alone voluntarily do so.

It doesn’t mean that his forecasts for an unmitigated Covid outbreak were “wildly inaccurate”. To date, the death figures are consistent with his March forecast.

I’m fine criticising Ferguson where I think it’s due - as I have done above. And certainly he should never have broke lockdown restrictions. However, for Covid sceptics, it seems criticising Ferguson is an “article of faith”. It’s part of their creed, whether or not the facts actually support it.

I don’t know what to make of Ferguson’s prediction. But even countries who have managed the pandemic even worse than us and with much bigger populations haven’t racked up 500000 deaths (I appreciate the pandemic is still ongoing but was Ferguson’s prediction not over a relatively short time frame?)

If (if!) Sweden did better than us without lockdown it was because they had voluntary compliance. However since I hear most ButSweden-ing from those who didn't want to be locked down because they didn't want to be restricted (I.e a group who were never going to restrict themselves voluntarily) it's a moot point.

The irony lost on the “But-Sweden” crew is that if Sweden was populated by them, they’d have used the latitude given to them to do their own thing, and Sweden would probably have had to lock down!

I actually think we can learn from Sweden - even if we can’t emulate them entirely due to societal
and demographic differences, and really don’t want us to lock down again as a country. We need to keep the economy and education running as far as we can. Treating Covid as a “bit of flu” that requires no restrictions won’t help us achieve that - quite the opposite.

@Ophelia2020

Tajikistan, Sweden and Korea did not impose lockdowns.

Sweden appears to have under 6,000 deaths.

Sweden's population is only 10 million against the UK's circa 60 million.

The UK is not Sweden
in particular Sweden has a high proportion of 1 person households, this is a big factor in limiting transmission, we know that much of it occurs in the home
ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/DDN-20170905-1
'Over half of Sweden's households made up of one person'

@MadameBlobby

No country has carried on as normal though. Even in places such as Belarus (whose excess deaths are about 10 times more than the official death figures) - perhaps the country that has done least officially - bars and restaurants had to lay off staff in April as they were deserted and football crowds dwindled from 10,000+ to a few hundred.
People took measures themselves.

Slums that covid has swept through tend to have much younger populations, so deaths will be far lower.

However, very early in the pandemic in Europe we do have the best indication that Ferguson’s forecasts of the impact on an unmitigated covid outbreak wasn’t far off. Bergamo, the epicentre in Italy where it took hold before people were doing anything more than wash their hands a bit more, recorded excess deaths of 6,000 in March-April, out of a population of 1.1 million. That scales up to 350,000 deaths in the U.K. Of course, there was a belated lockdown there, so we’ll
never know what the full impact of an unmitigating outbreak.

there’s just something not adding up now in the whole way this is being managed by our governments.

Around the world, different governments have done different things, with varying degrees of success. They are managing a crisis unlike any other we have seen, reacting to changing information, and trying to protect the economy and health at the same time. The reason it seems off, is, nobody has the right answer and they have to make decisions based on what they don not know. I don’t defend our governments by saying that, there have been some glaring errors which even without hindsight were monumentally stupid. But the reason they aren’t acting in a way you recognise us that nobody knows what to do for the best, and we’ve never seen this in a government before.

They are absurd. I can chase a fox with a group of friends but I can't see my mum? You think that makes sense?

If you are going to frame your questions like this, you show a wilful ignorance of the situation, biased by your leanings and in order to support your “absurdity” claim.

You can take part in an activity, outside, with a group of friends, be it fox hunting, playing golf, cycling or knitting, if that keeps you at a safe distance from each other and the group is small. You can’t sit inside your mum’s semi detached house having a chat over a cup of tea. You can see her outdoors, though. I presume you know the difference between indoors or out doors and why the rules are not the same?

The eat out to help out was introduced after the predictions. The gov could have given the hospitality industry a boost in various ways. Wild idea, but they could have just given them the money directly. There is no way of knowing whether that contributed to a rise in cases or not

Of course there is. Cases are tracked to their source. If EO2HO was responsible for the rise, restaurants would have been traced as the source and the scheme would have been stopped (probably). Certainly, if restaurants were a key factor, they would be closed now. The reality is, there are not thousands of cases being traced to restaurants.

Hopeful for balanced and sincere posts here rather than the assumption that I’m ‘playing ignorance’ or some other accusation because my question undermines the government narrative.

Most governments have used the same, or similar, tactics of lockdown

FWIW I’m educated and well read, albeit I don’t have huge in depth knowledge politics, nor do I claim to!

But I don’t understand why we are having restrictions imposed for a virus that is no worse than other illnesses.

It is worse because

1. the rate at which can spread
2. the incubation period, and amount of young people who are asymptomatic, means that it can affect a lot people in a short period of time
3. It is airborne and can survive on surfaces for hours
4. It has a higher mortality and infection rate than flu

Even if I accept that it is harmless to the NHS should it escalate fast and make many ill at the same time (so far no hospitals have been maxed out with corona - my SIL works as a hospital doctor in intense care and has said there hasn’t been even 50% corona patients in any ward at one time. She works in a busy London hospital)...even if I accept it could escalate and we don’t want that, then:

1. Why is there suddenly a lack of concern about public health in general? People are dying because they are having treatment postponed due to Coronavirus. Hospitals are not busy and certainly not full of corona patients. It seems crazy to me that anyone who may fall ill non corona related is now at the back of the queue. Tough shit if that ends in your death.

People are not having treatments for serious illness postponed. If they have been it was only for a matter if weeks. Two people I know have serious health conditions and their appointments resumed after a couple of weeks

2. Pubs open until 10pm. I use this as one example of many arbitrary rules. Why does the virus suddenly operate after 10pm? Is it a vampire? Surely you can infect just as many people at 9:59pm as you can at 10pm. Is it just to reduce risk overall? If so then I think someone needs to read a gcse science textbook... the risk has already been taken if the pub is open full stop.

Because there has to be a balance between lockdowns and the economy

3. Cashless society...erm. Why?

Because its cleaner than money

I’m not trying to incite some sort of dramatic post. I hope there are honest reasons for operating as we have the last few months. I hope I am wrong to feel cynical. I hope - and suspect - I’m not knowledgeable enough to understand why this is happening how it is.

As far as I can tell this is very much about controlling people’s lives to their detriment. If it was about health why on Earth are we letting people get sick and delaying treatment because of a virus?

Without lockdowns, the virus has the potential to infect and make a lot people very ill in a short space of time. This would mean the collapse of the health services, and probably other services too, the police, social services etc. There would be no ambulances, no hospital beds, no one would answer the call. People would be dying alone, without any medical help

Without lockdown half a million would have died in a matter of weeks in the UK alone, and many more would require hospital treatment. This would have happened very quickly. All this was explained repeatedly in March by all governments in Europe. It was explained over and over again

It is about slowing the spread down in order to save the health services. This is the reason across the globe but lifting lockdown, to test the waters, is also about saving the economy, because we need the economy to have functional services as well

It's a balancing act ATM. We will probably have rolling lockdowns. Strict then light then strict and repeat, for however long it takes

Is there something in the London protests yesterday? Am I missing something medical, political or scientific here?

They are stubborn idiots with an axe to grind. Ignore them

Where the actual fuck do people get off on coming up on phrases like Butswedeners?

People are allowed to discuss what's happening in other countries without being mocked and insulted. Perhaps I should start calling people who beleive it's safe and reasonable to chase a fox in a pandemic a Butboris or some other offensive name.

For the people leaping down my fucking throat for daring to mention Sweden, here's a real whacky idea. Why don't we, um, I don't know, do some of the things that those countries are doing?

@MadameBlobby

I don’t know what to make of Ferguson’s prediction. But even countries who have managed the pandemic even worse than us and with much bigger populations haven’t racked up 500000 deaths (I appreciate the pandemic is still ongoing but was Ferguson’s prediction not over a relatively short time frame?)

Ferguson’s estimate of 500,000 was over 2 years if no one took any measures, voluntary or mandatory.

People don't want to discuss Sweden and try to be more like them. They generally don't want to be told they can't do whatever they like so want us to be like Sweden to facilitate them doing whatever the hell they please.

I don't hear any suggesting that they should lose weight or eat better to be more like a swedish person.

You can take part in an activity, outside, with a group of friends, be it fox hunting, playing golf, cycling or knitting, if that keeps you at a safe distance from each other and the group is small

No I can't. I have local restrictions and am not able to see other households indoors or outdoors. I presume you understand that different areas have different restrictions?

But I am allowed to chase a fox with a group of friends.

To be honest this all boils down to people's lack of understanding of maths and numbers.

When the numbers were rising sharply in march people criticised BJ (rightly) for not locking down sooner. If he had locked down sooner another group would have criticised him for shutting the whole country down for just a few hundred cases. Look how many cases we are recording a day now.

If he did nothing we know deaths every day would be reaching the numbers they did earlier which was 900+ a day. At its worse flu kills 100+ a day on average but that's literally the worse year flu ever recorded (quick Google tells me this) cancer kills roughly 450 people a day in the uk.

We can't let this thing kill all those people without doing something. I don't care if they are old and vulnerable, they are human beings with as much right not to catch a nasty disease as everyone else.

I'm all for people acting more Swedish.

And their government did stop older students attending in person and stopped large gatherings. All while their numbers were at a low base. Probably plenty of other things I never heard of too.

Sweden appears to have under 6,000 deaths.

Don’t compare Sweden with U.K., compare them with other counties like them. Their scandic neighbours have had many fewer deaths and despite what everyone wants to claim, their economy has suffered worse than other Scandinavian countries. The reason their financial figures look better than many countries in Europe is, they don’t have the same levels of tourism. So Sweden have neither protected their people, nor their economy. Their neighbours have started easing restrictions which means now Sweden have stricter rules than their neighbours.

@Orphelia2020

I think we can learn stuff from Sweden. The U.K. government are trying a Sweden-like approach.... keep schools and businesses open whilst taking measures to contain spread.

My issue is with those that use Sweden as an argument for getting rid of all restrictions and going back to normal, which is a complete misrepresentation of their approach.

Yanbu - I could've written that myself op! Nothing more infuriating than those 3 words... "due to COVID!"

@MintyMabel

Sweden appears to have under 6,000 deaths.

Don’t compare Sweden with U.K., compare them with other counties like them. Their scandic neighbours have had many fewer deaths and despite what everyone wants to claim, their economy has suffered worse than other Scandinavian countries. The reason their financial figures look better than many countries in Europe is, they don’t have the same levels of tourism. So Sweden have neither protected their people, nor their economy. Their neighbours have started easing restrictions which means now Sweden have stricter rules than their neighbours.

Swedes are also significantly less likely to be overweight, spend alot more on healthcare, have lower incidence of respiratory diseases to start with, and generally better health and life,expectancy.