Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

I'm so angry...

419 replies

MaryShelley1818 · 05/10/2020 14:22

We are in an area with local restrictions so high transmission rates in the North East of England.

Someone I know had her 40th at the weekend and photos on FB of her having a party in a pub, cake presents, her and kids, her parents, her sister who works at a local University in a very high position, and about 4-5 friends. No Social Distancing, drinking, cuddling, shots, photos.
How are people just carrying on as normal??!! How can you be so bloody thick as to post all the photos on FB. Am I missing something?? I'm furious.

We've followed every single rule but seems I'm in the minority and the longer people just do whatever they want for, the longer I'll have to go without seeing my friends and family.

OP posts:
BikeTyson · 07/10/2020 08:43

There’s a middle ground between doing whatever you want and it being illegal to go for a cup of tea at your mum’s house.

TheKeatingFive · 07/10/2020 09:11

There’s a middle ground between doing whatever you want and it being illegal to go for a cup of tea at your mum’s house.

Quite

annabel85 · 07/10/2020 09:38

@BikeTyson

There’s a middle ground between doing whatever you want and it being illegal to go for a cup of tea at your mum’s house.
I know, but the problem is the household restrictions are brought in to stop people taking the piss (house parties and the like) when cases start getting out of hand, rather than designed to stop someone going to see their Mum.

However, these restrictions come and a lot of people may follow them and stop going to see their Mum, but the people who take the piss will still take the piss so it makes fuck all difference. Either people give a shit or they don't.

A lot of these measures are pointless if they're not enforced which the police just don't have the resources/manpower/will for. And when they do it's often the easy target.

AgentCooper · 07/10/2020 09:43

@annabel85

why should they ruin their lives for 6 months when the virus will just spread again once anything is eased a little?

Because if everyone just does what they want then the NHS will not be able to cope over the winter.

It's true that full lockdowns aren't feasible and this is why the government are keeping things open (schools, shops, pubs, restaurants, universities, offices, factories etc) but are relying on the public to socially distance, keep to the rule of 6 and wear a mask if they can. If they do then although cases might still be high then the health service could cope.

@annabel85 are universities and offices open where you are? I work for a uni in Scotland and all teaching is online, plus the vast majority of us staff are wfh.
BikeTyson · 07/10/2020 09:56

I know, but the problem is the household restrictions are brought in to stop people taking the piss (house parties and the like) when cases start getting out of hand, rather than designed to stop someone going to see their Mum.

That’s my point. If the problem is illegal raves and house parties then focus on policing them, rather than imposing ever more draconian rules on everyone. If the problem with pubs is those having illegal lock ins and not following precautions then focus on them, not shut down the entire hospitality sector. As you say, those who didn’t give a shit before don’t give a shit now, and the goodwill of people who do give a shit is fading fast. If it’s illegal to sit in a friend’s garden then it’s a short step to say, fuck it, we’ll sit inside. And then it’s a short step to 3 friends sitting inside, then 4. The local lockdown rules are setting people up to fail, and then we get blamed.

TheKeatingFive · 07/10/2020 10:04

As you say, those who didn’t give a shit before don’t give a shit now, and the goodwill of people who do give a shit is fading fast.

This is the pertinent point, right here.

If there is no end in sight to restrictions around having cups of tea with family, then the ‘fuck it’ mentality will kick in.

Watermelon999 · 07/10/2020 10:06

@annabel85

why should they ruin their lives for 6 months when the virus will just spread again once anything is eased a little?

Because if everyone just does what they want then the NHS will not be able to cope over the winter.

It's true that full lockdowns aren't feasible and this is why the government are keeping things open (schools, shops, pubs, restaurants, universities, offices, factories etc) but are relying on the public to socially distance, keep to the rule of 6 and wear a mask if they can. If they do then although cases might still be high then the health service could cope.

Well said @annabel85
Wherrsmaclickypen · 07/10/2020 10:26

A question for everyone

Its February 2020.

Imagine the government announces after careful consideration that they are not going to lockdown. Contrary to other countries and WHO advice, they will pursue a herd immunity strategy, because they cannot risk the economy. They will pump money into the NHS and vaccine development, but warn that the NHS will inevitably become overwhelmed and that some people will die. Yes its tough. Those at highest risk should really stay in and shield. Everyone else should protect yourself best you can with masks, hand sanitisers and social distancing but we are not going to curb your freedom to work, travel, play or congregate (with maybe the exception of very large gatherings).

For everyone who is so fervently supporting TheDailyCarbuncle's articulate position, you do realise that this is effectively her position? I ask only because there was so much uproar at letting nature take its course back in the day, so clearly opinions are changing.

TheDailyCarbuncle is not alone. Some scientists are now also supporting this approach news.sky.com/story/scientists-and-politicians-split-over-how-to-tackle-rising-covid-infections-as-northern-leaders-say-restrictions-are-not-working-12096597

(Back in March, to say this possible 'survival of the fittest' was not a popular option with the electorate is an understatement, and scientists did not support e.g.www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-uk-scientists-letter-government-plan-herd-immunity-a9402661.html)

We know governments cannot effectively tighten restrictions now as there will not be the required compliance (if this thread is anything to go by). So a nation that decried a herd immunity strategy as government policy is going to get it anyway.

Cant help thinking we have come this far with one strategy, to be forced into a damaging volte face and we will end up with the worst of all worlds. Am I wrong?

NRatched · 07/10/2020 10:38

I am going to answer this from how I have seen things turn among my friendship groups. This is largely from social media, but some of it in convos and such too. I make no comment on the things that seemed to change minds, nor the positions some moved to, I am simply posting how I saw it happen. I feel I have to pre-empt with that, as a lot of the views will cause those skim reading to maybe think thats my thoughts or something.

Did they comply in March and April because they had to (i.e. it was actually policed) or did they comply because they were weary of catching the virus?

I think its more, more people were totally terrified on the whole, given the news was constantly focussing on doom and gloom at that stage, making out it was hugely dangerous to even step foot out of the door. As we have learnt more, obviously the illness is not safe in any sense, but its really not the second coming of the plague that it was looking to be for a little, then made out to be for longer by the media.

Among my friends to start with, it was probably a 90/10 split, those who were in favour of lockdown and those who weren't. Despite this, from the limited parts I could see it seemed there was almost 100% compliance with the 'rules'. Many were going over and above the rules and literally confining themselves to their homes and not leaving at all, for anything. This was the case for maybe 2 months. Those not leaving the house at all were always small, but there were many many very nervous. I kew 3 people in total who broke the lockdown from an early stage. All 3 were over 60. And the reason was largely that they didnt want to be isolated (which I understand) rather than just disagreed.

At around the 2 month stage, those on my list who have their own businesses, many just starting out, meaning had only just put all their money into opening somewhere after working for someone else since school and only just getting the money/courage to open on their own (my 'circle' is largely 30-40s due to my own age) started worrying online about their own livelihoods, and questioning if them basically losing their whole life was worth it, when whilst figures look bad when taken alone, when compared to other stuff, is it really that bad? They got pushback at first, cries about how selfish they were for thinking of their own situation when 'people are dying!' and such. This pushback significantly lessened over the next week or so, and more started seeing their point of view and seemed to soften a little.

At the same time, a minority seemed to get even more scared, for seemingly no reason, or no reason I could tell anyway. It was weird, seemed to come from nowhere specific, just a random small explosion on people who are massively low risk thinking again, that they would die the second they stepped out the door. Which in turn, seemed to either 'turn' more people towards 'for most its not serious, chill out a bit' which turned those few people even worse! Accusations of 'murderers' were rife with those people, they commented on normal statuses saying the weekly shop had been done with ridiculous comments. Which again, in turn appeared to either 'turn' more a little, or bring out people who had been quiet for a while. I would estimate at this stage it had shifted a bit to maybe 70/30. I should maybe say here that not all of those with their own businesses that had had to close were against it. A few were still saying 'its worth it for the good of the country' and such. Despite a obvious shift though, only a couple actually broke the lockdown that I know of, ontop of the 3 I knew that did it pretty much from the start.

Anyway, the over the top terrified reaction from the minority eventually got to the point where it became knowledge that one woman I know (fit, very young, gym type) had her family extremely concerned as it turned out she had no shopping in after runing out, she had been in since lockdown and not left at all, was unwilling to order any (as covid might be on it), was unwilling to allow anyone to bring it to her (because you might put covid on it, or it might be there already and washing it means bringing it into the house first), was not answering the door and her phone seemed to be not working, but she totally shut herself off from everything. Was only commnicating on FB, and sporadically too which concerned her family and others even more. She was getting more and more irrational, she had apparently at oe stage been picking up post with bbq tongs and burning it instead of touching it (but she also felt unsafe with it in her house at all) and had ended up taping up her letterbox completely. These concerning things came out over about a week, many on my list all know each other, and at that stage this seemed to set a few off checking, and there were a few 'you are massively low risk pet, this is largely dangerous to the elderly and very ill' type comments which got huge pushback by people putting stories of individual younger people who had died, and so on. The original commenters buckled sometimes to 'be nice' (although personally, I do question what is 'nice' about allowing a young woman to believe she is so at risk she is not currently eating and thought it rational to set fire to her mail), but a couple stood firm on that stats did not say she was at risk and the odd story about someone does not prove she is at risk either. And so on. Given the commenting, yes unfortunately much of this was a very public spectacle. I don't think it should have been, but her family members had no way to speak to her, she was ignoring private messages, so a lot played out on FB as it were. Thankfully, this woman has since had help, shes both let her family help her and has been speaking to a professional (privately, NHS care apparently was not available according to one update) and as I understand it, the help is ongoing, both for severe anxiety and depression. It is no longer playing out on facebook in realtime.

This one girls case appeared to set off a bit of a chain reaction among friends. While I didn't participate in discussions about her/her situation and how on earth it had got to that stage (in honesty, largely as I was not posting at all as my opinions were all over the place and I didn't want to anger one side or the other!), a lot did. Over the course of maybe a week, this switched a huge amount into 'ok lockdowns gone on enough and the media should stop scaremongering!'. It became 'acceptable' to sympathise with those who were potentially looking at closed businesses forever, those who had already lost jobs, those on furlough who knew they were going to lose theirs most likely, and many started getting quite vocally anti lockdown. It was at about this stage too that people started to realise we had been told it was about flattening the curve, but this had been done a while back, why still so harsh? 60/40 ish, still in favour. Amount flouting the rules seemed the same though, there was no noticible increase there, just in anti lockdown sentiment.

The emergence of a lot of people who were saying 'enough', seemed to make those still supporting lockdown go into a slight frenzy. However, unfortunately the arguments tended to be along the lines of 'it was to flatten the curve, but people are still catching it' which did not really go down very well at all. I do wonder if the choice for so many to instantly switch to 'but deaths are happening, we need none!' (when there were many other arguments that made sese that would have gone over much better, most knew eradication was not realistic at that stage at all) was a factor in how quickly more seemed to switch at around that time. Much bickering. 50/50. A few more breaking the rules too..

It stayed at about 50/50 levels until lockdown eased. And for quite a while afterwards actually.

It wasn't until more restrictions were on the horizon before I noticed seemingly large changes in attitudes since then.

One marked difference in those I know came maybe 2 months or so ago. When a lot of people who previously supported lockdown, some extremely enthusiastically, seemed to realise (no particular trigger that I noticed) a very obvious shift away from reporting 'deaths' to instead reporting 'cases', and publically wondered about this. I know I saw a LOT of facebook posts along the lines of 'so once death rates are too low to scare anyone, they switch to infection numbers? But if infection rates are so high, where are the many deaths that we were told would come with such rates?' and stuff like that. Swiftly followed by a few picking up on how longcovid seemed to suddenly be picked up on, again when death/serious illness rates were extremely down. While of course its possible (and IMO likely) that 'longcovid' was just picked up on/spoken about more at that stage, this seemed to switch another few to an almost conspiracy like 'so longcovid comes out of nowhere now that deaths are nonexistent despite high numbers, and the majority find out that this is not as high risk as we were told for anyone under 80?! How convenient' - So yes, a lot seemed to switch about this point, and (again among those I know, not necessarily universal) for most of these it seemed to be reading beyond the headlines and looking into things slightly more themselves. Some were sharing various articles by that 'other group of scientists' who disagree with lockdown too. The sharing of this seemed to take off quickly. One of such articles I recall hitting 40 shares in an hour, which is massive numbers for those I know!

At the same time as this seemingly sudden change in a lot of peoples opinions, MANY were still on furlough or had already lost jobs and were starting to resign themselves to the fact that their jobs are basically gone for the foreseeable future. Those I know who were able to reopen businesses were not able to actually make enough money to meet costs without dipping into savings if they had them. A few have closed indefinitely as its not feasible for them to run at all. A lot of those I know seem extremely stressed about mortgages taken out recently, when they could afford them, but now really cannot, ontop of general job losses. I do not think this helped one bit, and did seem to drive many towards a bit more of a 'I will care about me, I have done enough for others' type attitude, understandably, losing ones job/house would have a bit of a knock on effect on a lot of things, including how much you were 'personally willing to lose for the so called greater good before it gets a bit much'. A few, again, at this stage were flouting various restrictions.

And thats how we ended up at todays position. A story of my friends and their slow change from 90/10 in favour of lockdown, to something like 20% in favour of lockdown.

Its important to note at this stage that the above, is my perception on how people I know have reacted over time, and why they seem to have switched so much. I do say though, that while it seemed about 50/50 by nearing the end, most were still following the lockdown. It was just a lot of moaning at that stage. As more and more restrictions piled on, a few more broke some of the rules. Even the though, it was a small minority.

In our area, we were then put onto 'local restrictions' which included you cannot mix at all outside your own hosehold, regardless of number of people involved. This undoubtedly opened the floodgates to a HUGE degree and I suspect Boris and his 'do this dont do this' messages over time did not help either. But this was for sure the moment the dam broke here.

People were largely following when it was about smaller gatherings, meet in your garden but not inside, and so on. The main resistance was definitely when we were told to not mix households at all, regardless of group size, even 2 people from different households are currently not allowed to meet. And told this would likely be the case until after xmas. Thats when people 'turned off in droves' among my contacts. A LOT are following the other rules, no issues with masks, distancing etc, staying away from public places unless necessary and so on. Would have been ok with rule of 6 too. Its the not seeing anyone outside your household that 'did it' here it seems. And thats the one rule thats being broken constantly. By near everyone I know. Rightly, in my opinion. Thats the one I find shitty, unsustainable and quite lacking in evidence too. The one I find counterproductive but affects me not one bit as I don't go, is the pub curfew at 10pm. I believe a few officials have said the same thing. Many now comment on how previously empty buses around the new closing time are packed and such. Where 11 closing, and 11.20 out, those who couldn't walk home got taxis, was too late to cram on buses.

NRatched · 07/10/2020 10:39

I think part of the issue now is people don't give a shit if they do get it, unless clinically vulnerable, because they just think it's a cold (regardless of who they pass it on to)

I don't think people think its 'just a cold' but there is a lot of truth to this. I don't necessarily agree, but when your life is in tatters and you have lost your business, savings and potentially your house due to the previous lockdown, and people (generally those WFH, or lucky enough to have a decent amount of savings from what I have seen) keep cheerleading for another lockdown, that will generally turn a few quite sour to the idea. And even to those who are still scared of it or 'vulnerable', it becomes a more attractive option to just get it and take your chances than to continue watching your life burn around you for the apparent good of everyone else.

I am lucky enough to have a decent safety net. I can isolate a few times if necessary without it really affecting me. I have not lost significant amounts of money, though our income is lower due to DHs job being..not good right now. We can weather that though as we were lucky enough to build a half decent savings amount before all this and not to have invested it in a business (which scarily for us now, was a considered option in only December, so glad we didn't) which is now dead/dying/closed/losing. I am a bit inbetween on covid topics tbh, and do change my mind on some things regarding it all quite often. Despite how comfortable I am at the moment (couldn't sustain it over about a year though, to many that will sounds like a boast, its not, its to try and explain my opinion) I am still against a national lockdown as things stand. I am not anti restriction and broadly agree with many of them, though I do think some of the measures are harsh or nonsensical in relation to data, and one is even totally couterproductive in my opinion. I have multiple family members that are very vulnerable to this. My sister is a nurse, who worked on the covid ward at the peak so that factors into it all too to me. My mother works in a carehome also. I do not agree at all that we should 'do nothing' but luckily I don't see that said that often anyway, its assumed a lot, but being against some measures does not mean that someone wants to play 'survival of the fittest'. Some who are against lockdowns will, no doubt. But it seems rare on here, and on my FB also.

Veering offtopic as am rambling now. This is probably the longest post I have ever put anywhere and honestly, its only here as my meds are refusing to work, I have had exactly 0 sleep ad seem in a weird trace like state tbh.

Theres certainly something to it that many have decided the risk of covid is small, and the damage already done (to them) is very high. It would be naive to say it was only those not vulnerable, or only the young though. I know plenty on the shielding list who are not following the 'rules'. And plenty 'elderly' who aren't following them all too. Infact come to think of it, of the very few who were breaking the original lockdown restrictions, it was only people over 60 that I knew who were breaking it right from the start. Of course that doesn't mean it WAS only that group, but among people I know, it was (again, to start, they were joined slowly by others over time)


This was all one reply, but it seem I breached a limit I did't know MN had! Thats shows how much I have overtyped..wow.

IrmaFayLear · 07/10/2020 10:42

Had everyone complied, then I think the virus would have died down. Not gone away, but been significantly dampened.

I don't think ordinary pub going has been a problem, but obviously raucous large gatherings have been a conduit, and also the lack of compliance in various communities. It was reported that a funeral was attended by 300 in Dunstable last week.

When you have disregard on that level it is impossible to stem the tide, and as a result we all suffer with attempted local lockdowns and rising infections. Looking at the current situation I think there is no alternative to herd immunity, because a significant proportion of the population will not social distance or exercise any caution.

MadameBlobby · 07/10/2020 10:46

Had everyone complied, then I think the virus would have died down. Not gone away, but been significantly dampened

But this happened in Scotland and it still roared back. We had days of 4 cases across the whole country. The problem is not raucous parties but people going to school and college and then taking it home

IrmaFayLear · 07/10/2020 10:47

I think you are right, NRatched, that there has been a sea change in proportions of lockdowners, with the True Lockdowners going a bit loopy, especially if they live in a low-incidence area and have no vulnerabilities! Whilst other people seem to have thrown caution to the wind.

NRatched · 07/10/2020 10:50

While there are more than enough of my words on here now, embarassingly so Blush I feel the need to defed some wording in the first post that may sounds over the top to those thinking I mean 'those supporting lockdown'

Anyway, the over the top terrified reaction from the minority

That kind of thing, the minority does NOT mean people in support. I realise on reading back it comes across like that. What I meant is people clearly going over the top, calling people murderers, quite literally terrified of leaving the house but while having no actual reason for this, on the whole very young people with no medical issues, not being scared for others, but being terrified that they would be 100% sure to drop dead if they went to the shop.

I think that would be clear to some readers, but not quite so to others. People like that were very much in the minority, while those supporting lockdown were very much in the majority. I would never class someone who is/was simply in favour of lockdown as 'over the top terrified', I did mean a very specific kind of person, that I would assume a lot, if not most recognise from their own circles.

LangClegsInSpace · 07/10/2020 10:53

@Wherrsmaclickypen

A question for everyone

Its February 2020.

Imagine the government announces after careful consideration that they are not going to lockdown. Contrary to other countries and WHO advice, they will pursue a herd immunity strategy, because they cannot risk the economy. They will pump money into the NHS and vaccine development, but warn that the NHS will inevitably become overwhelmed and that some people will die. Yes its tough. Those at highest risk should really stay in and shield. Everyone else should protect yourself best you can with masks, hand sanitisers and social distancing but we are not going to curb your freedom to work, travel, play or congregate (with maybe the exception of very large gatherings).

For everyone who is so fervently supporting TheDailyCarbuncle's articulate position, you do realise that this is effectively her position? I ask only because there was so much uproar at letting nature take its course back in the day, so clearly opinions are changing.

TheDailyCarbuncle is not alone. Some scientists are now also supporting this approach news.sky.com/story/scientists-and-politicians-split-over-how-to-tackle-rising-covid-infections-as-northern-leaders-say-restrictions-are-not-working-12096597

(Back in March, to say this possible 'survival of the fittest' was not a popular option with the electorate is an understatement, and scientists did not support e.g.www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-uk-scientists-letter-government-plan-herd-immunity-a9402661.html)

We know governments cannot effectively tighten restrictions now as there will not be the required compliance (if this thread is anything to go by). So a nation that decried a herd immunity strategy as government policy is going to get it anyway.

Cant help thinking we have come this far with one strategy, to be forced into a damaging volte face and we will end up with the worst of all worlds. Am I wrong?

I see we're back to pretending lockdown measures or 'herd immunity' are the only two options.

Whether we end up with further restrictions or not, whether people comply or not, we have to sort out testing, contact tracing and support to isolate.

IrmaFayLear · 07/10/2020 10:59

But a lot of people won't play ball with the tracing. Look at a thread running here with people trumpeting that they would give a false number or no number to a restaurant etc. For every person who will comply and supply names and numbers of people they've been in contact with, you get masses who insist that they have a right to privacy, or they just won't cooperate.

A system can only work if people buy into it. You can have the best track and trace system in the universe, but if I'm contacted and fail to mention that I've been on a pub crawl, to a rave and wandered round three supermarkets without a mask, and then onto a funeral and then visited my grandma, there isn't a hope for it.

luckylavender · 07/10/2020 11:02

@mumof2exhausted - do you basically do what you want? Selfish.

NRatched · 07/10/2020 11:12

I really do not think test and trace would work anyway given current levels. I was reading the minute by minute sage report article earlier and it seems when it was first mentioned as a idea, it was for a maximum 500 infections and 8000 contacts or something along those lines. It was apparently not feasible to do more than that.

When we are starting off with so many infections, and many many people asymptomatic also, I cannot see how it could possibly work. Thats kind of why it was all meant to be up and running properly, with QUICK test results too (that was also mentioned by sage IIRC, they said 24 hour maximum) when the lockdown ended. Multiple fuckups in multiple areas have prevented this. People not willing to leave details are but a tiny part of the problem I think. Most anger should be directed at those who can/could help, but don't/won't in any meaningful way (as an example, its painfully clear a lot of people simply cannot afford to isolate even if they are a contact. Calling such people names and guilting them won't suddenly make it possible for them to do. A support system might, so should be at least bloody talked about surely..but not an acknowledgement that I have seen from those in charge, too busy blaming people who did what they told and 'ate out to help out' for spreading covid it seems Hmm )

LangClegsInSpace · 07/10/2020 11:15

A test and trace system that people won't comply with is not the best system in the universe, it's a crap system. It's not just about getting the technical stuff right (although that would be a start!), you have to have public trust and you have to have the right support in place so people are not made worse off by doing the right thing.

I think the whole thing needs handing over to local authorities asap. Scrap serco and that dildo woman. Do it door to door, face to face. Humanise the process, talk to people and address their concerns. Make sure people who need to isolate have all the support they need - practical and financial - and make sure they have solid employment protection.

It will take a while to rebuild public trust so we should start immediately.

TheKeatingFive · 07/10/2020 11:22

I think Lockdown was an appropriate response when we knew so little about the disease and it was very widespread (without us really understanding where).

But it was only ever sold as a temporary measure, to get things under control, flatten the curve and so on.

Lockdown (or semi Lockdown) as a way of life, lasting potentially years is a totally different proposition - and not one that people thought they were signing up to in March.

We are in a different position now.

We know that the fatality rate is low, at risk groups are clearly identifiable, social policies like mask wearing/SD/WFH help (at little cost).

We also know that the social and economic impact of lockdown is enormous

We know that lockdown doesn’t work in the long term to suppress

We know that maintaining ordinary relationships with family/friends without spreading Covid is an enormous challenge. Ditto students living in university accommodation.

We know a vaccine hasn’t materialised yet. We know there are no guarantees here either (though we’d hope there’ll be one in the next year). We also know that it won’t be a silver bullet when it does come.

I suppose my point is that we should be reacting to the situation as it is now. It’s too simplistic to suggest that if people were in favour of lockdown in March, they should be now. The picture looks very different.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think test and trace is the answer either. It hasn’t worked anywhere in Europe (despite decent looking systems). It’s only worked in Asian countries with small outbreaks and VERY different attitudes to data privacy.

NRatched · 07/10/2020 11:22

A test and trace system that people won't comply with is not the best system in the universe, it's a crap system. It's not just about getting the technical stuff right (although that would be a start!), you have to have public trust and you have to have the right support in place so people are not made worse off by doing the right thing.

The depressing thing is, despite clear changes in a lot of opinions, I really do think that when lockdown ended there was enough 'trust' (maybe that is the wrong word, 'hopefullness among the public that our fantastic test and trace along with our 'world class testing system' would help enormously, is maybe a better way of putting it) for it to work. The endless bollocks since then has just..took things to a level I have never seen.

Wherrsmaclickypen · 07/10/2020 11:24

LangClegsInSpace

ah, not the intention of question. Totally agree that effective testing, tracing and support is the critical adjunct to enabling freedoms and moving forward. Its just we dont have that currently.

I just wanted to understand the support for TheDailyCarbuncle's position which I trust I havent misinterpreted. I understand the reasoning just not sure how palatable it is or was, and the impact of thr timing of a possible restrategising now
.

LangClegsInSpace · 07/10/2020 11:31

I really do not think test and trace would work anyway given current levels. I was reading the minute by minute sage report article earlier and it seems when it was first mentioned as a idea, it was for a maximum 500 infections and 8000 contacts or something along those lines. It was apparently not feasible to do more than that.

It was feasible, they just didn't want to.

SAGE discussed contact tracing on 11 February. They didn't discuss how to build an effective contact tracing system or how to increase capacity. They asked SPI-M and PHE to work out when they could stop doing it.

We had 8 confirmed cases on 11 February.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/sage-minutes-coronavirus-covid-19-response-11-february-2020

PHE reported back on 18 February and said they could cope with tracing the contacts of five cases a week, based on an estimated 160 contacts per case (!) Again, there was no discussion of how to scale up the system or who else might be able to help besides PHE (e.g. local government - www.local.gov.uk/lga-statement-coronavirus-contact-tracing-strategy ). There was no discussion of how to work out which of the ~160 contacts were the most important to trace. Once again it was all just 'when can we stop doing it?'

We had 9 confirmed cases on 18 February.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/sage-minutes-coronavirus-covid-19-response-18-february-2020

Of course it works better when cases are lower and we probably do need further restrictions to get back to that point because we haven't sorted this out, but if we just do more restrictions and still don't sort this out then we'll just be back to square one and we'll need restrictions again. And again, and again, and again ...

LangClegsInSpace · 07/10/2020 11:41

Dr Mike Ryan in the most recent WHO press conference on why Africa appears to be doing surprisingly well:

There are many other reasons but I think I would point you back to some of the positive reasons. I remember again speaking with Chikwe and others during the week and people were asking, in terms of Africa's first reaction how did you manage to keep a lid on this?

I think Chikwe said, we just treated this like any other outbreak, we went after the virus, we investigated, we detected the cases, we identified the contacts, we isolated the cases, we asked the contacts to stay at home, we tracked and traced because we've had lassa here, we've had cholera here, we've had monkey pox here, we've been doing this for years and years and years and years.

What it probably demonstrates is that in many countries in Africa there is a very well-practised, well-trained core of public health people. It may not be a huge army of people but if we take polio eradication, something again which in Africa has generated huge numbers of individuals who know how to investigate cases, they know how to respond to clusters of disease.

So paradoxically countries in Africa may actually be well ahead of countries in the rest of the world in terms of their instinctive response to how to deal with an epidemic and countries in the industrialised west and north may have lost that muscle memory.

NRatched · 07/10/2020 11:44

@LangClegsInSpace

I really do not think test and trace would work anyway given current levels. I was reading the minute by minute sage report article earlier and it seems when it was first mentioned as a idea, it was for a maximum 500 infections and 8000 contacts or something along those lines. It was apparently not feasible to do more than that.

It was feasible, they just didn't want to.

SAGE discussed contact tracing on 11 February. They didn't discuss how to build an effective contact tracing system or how to increase capacity. They asked SPI-M and PHE to work out when they could stop doing it.

We had 8 confirmed cases on 11 February.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/sage-minutes-coronavirus-covid-19-response-11-february-2020

PHE reported back on 18 February and said they could cope with tracing the contacts of five cases a week, based on an estimated 160 contacts per case (!) Again, there was no discussion of how to scale up the system or who else might be able to help besides PHE (e.g. local government - www.local.gov.uk/lga-statement-coronavirus-contact-tracing-strategy ). There was no discussion of how to work out which of the ~160 contacts were the most important to trace. Once again it was all just 'when can we stop doing it?'

We had 9 confirmed cases on 18 February.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/sage-minutes-coronavirus-covid-19-response-18-february-2020

Of course it works better when cases are lower and we probably do need further restrictions to get back to that point because we haven't sorted this out, but if we just do more restrictions and still don't sort this out then we'll just be back to square one and we'll need restrictions again. And again, and again, and again ...

I maybe misread the sage thing, it was on no sleep (like currently!) and at about 5am.

Its doable, but would take a lot of time and cash and effort basically? I which case, that will be a computer says no from Boris and co I reckon. Again, fucking depressingly.

Swipe left for the next trending thread