Two week circuit breaker - who's in favour?

[zafferana]

Keir Starmer is in favour - so are you?

If they did it over the next two weeks I actually wouldn't mind that much, as it's half term.

No lives get saved by a 2-week lockdown. Just pushed back 2 weeks.

I’m not convinced two weeks would be long enough but on the other hand our cases in March were projected to be much higher than we are seeing now so maybe it would, especially as reopening would be with social distancing and masks...

I’m undecided.

I'm in favour of a circuit breaker, but I think they need to include schools - do it over the half term break, and do another week of remote for schools (apart from vulnerable/keyworker kids). Schools need a run at getting the levels down too, levels have been rising rapidly since schools went back and I don't think it's coincidence.

I would hope that a circuit breaker, as well as getting the levels down generally, would mean they could get track and trace sorted. And lower levels will mean track and trace could cope better too. (I know that might be a bit hopeful with the lot we have got in charge).

If we had a competent government, ideally what I would like to see is a short, hard lock down, efficient test and trace, and proper border controls that would keep levels at an elimination level. We can but dream!

It won’t work IMHO

I understand the idea and agree it could work, in theory. However, in practice it won’t work as, for it to work, absolutely every single person would have to lockdown for 21 days, without exception.
This obviously isn’t possible, as we need essential services and for those to run, we need the workers who support them.
Every single person is a possible incubator and conductor of this virus and it simply isn’t possible for life to continue and function without people being in contact with other people.
It would reduce numbers, temporarily, but as soon as it’s relaxed, we’ll be in exactly the same position we’re in now.

Depending on how strict it is I wouldn't necessarily comply: as a teacher the only thing getting me through this challenging half term is the idea of doing nice things with my son during half term. If I lose that what message am I being given along with other teachers? Go to work, accept that risk but in half term stay indoors doing nothing before repeating for the next half term?

So no, not in favour.

I wouldn't support it, no. I really don't see what it would achieve, other than disruption.

What's the point? Every child in school at the moment could theoretically could be incubating covid (I'd hope not, but I'm sure some will be this said )....so what... We shut the schools and then the illness is at home anyway.

That weird theory aside no, I think it's totally pointless, wouldn't achieve anything and I think it's just turned into a political fight between Boris and Kier as to who can do this better (I do think Boris is utterly useless and Kier would be better in charge, but I think this "circuit breaker" is just being used as something to bicker over).

This said, if it happened, I'd happily go in and teach key worker / vulnerable kids, and would be happy to send my kids to their school whilst I did. Or I'd teach from home, which one of my schools is setting up with us all at the moment, in case of class groups isolating, or indeed this.

I really don't support it though, but to be honest I don't support much of any of the guidance/ laws anyway. I think it's all a performative waste of everyone's time which is driving the economy and people's mental wellbeing into the ground. Doesn't mean I don't follow the rules but I think it's mostly pretty stupid. Sorry!

I wouldn't support it, no. I really don't see what it would achieve, other than disruption

It'll cut deaths by up to half.

Can you really not see the benefit of halving the dead bodies?

@OpheliasCrayon I don't think every child in school has it.. but if we closed the schools for 2/3 weeks it would stop the transmission from an infected pupil or teacher to others in school and then from others to their families too.

[quote monkeytennis97]@OpheliasCrayon I don't think every child in school has it.. but if we closed the schools for 2/3 weeks it would stop the transmission from an infected pupil or teacher to others in school and then from others to their families too. [/quote]
No I don't think that every child in school has it either. But I just can't see what good shutting the schools for two weeks would do . Surely if you shut them it needs to be longer than the incubation time of the virus to have any effect

@catsarecute If we keep schools open for key workers during the 2nd week of a circuit breaker I think some schools will have in lots of children as the list of key worker jobs is huge.

The first day of school closures on March we had in a third of our children on key worker places (approx 150 children.) This is when people were scared and we knew a lot less about the virus and in particular children’s role in transmitting it. These numbers reduced drastically the next day down to 20 children as Boris announced lockdown that evening and carried on until June on approx 20 a day.

I think with the worry about jobs and the fact that schools will open again normally the following week, lots of people would take up KW spaces making it pretty pointless shutting the school to others for that week. Therefore we either keep the schools open as they are now or shut them completely but then you have thousands of front line workers without childcare for that week or people not being paid for that week plunging them further into debt. It’s a no win situation.

Complete and utter waste of time. As soon as the two weeks is over the numbers will simply creep back up again! The only way to tackle the virus effectively without totally killing the economy is herd immunity, which is what the government wanted in the first place.

@peasoup8

Complete and utter waste of time. As soon as the two weeks is over the numbers will simply creep back up again! The only way to tackle the virus effectively without totally killing the economy is herd immunity, which is what the government wanted in the first place.

Yeah?

Please point to a country which has done that.

And then, please explain why you would prefer thousands of British people to die unnecessarily rather than set up an adequate Test and Trace system and manage it like the countries of the world who have healthy economies and very few deaths?

No. Many areas, including where I live, the rate of infection is still very low. No point in lockdown in these areas at all.

It needs to be a balance between the economy and health and it’s not an easy balance to strike.

Herd immunity is not very reassuring to the clinically vulnerable at the moment as we’re no where near the levels yet where these people would be protected by the immunity of others. We also don’t know how long antibodies and therefore immunity lasts for.

Test, trace and isolate was the only way forward in my opinion but the numbers are far too high fir this to work effectively now even if we did have a decent system in the first place which clearly we don’t.

Herd immunity is going very well in the US I see

Of course it is worth it, but many clearly struggle to get their heads round this stuff.

I'm past saying opinion x is equal to opinion y. No, some opinions are wrong.

People are entitled to say they don't want a circuit breaker but they are wrong to say it won't do anything.

I'm wondering whether the over emphasis on Test and Trace is due to the government overselling the efficacy of it, or if its based on empirical evidence? Did you believe Bojo and Diildo capable of delivering the 'world class system' ? is it now that any other measures to contain the virus are contingent upon our government upholding their promise?

It'll cut deaths by up to half

Steady on. The headline is that it MAY halve deaths, and here's the important part... "between now and the end of the year". So really what it MAY do is delay half of this year's deaths into next year. Doesn't seem particularly worth the financial hardship, unless there are just so many deaths right now that morgues and other death-related services can't cope and we desperately need to delay some deaths for a few weeks. But that's not the case.

@TwistAndTout

It'll cut deaths by up to half

Steady on. The headline is that it MAY halve deaths, and here's the important part... "between now and the end of the year". So really what it MAY do is delay half of this year's deaths into next year. Doesn't seem particularly worth the financial hardship, unless there are just so many deaths right now that morgues and other death-related services can't cope and we desperately need to delay some deaths for a few weeks. But that's not the case.

So

• I think we should have locked down when the scientists originally advised, in September

• We had a really large death toll last time, on the balance of probabilities it would have been a lot lower had we locked down a week earlier

• the economy is really damaged by a lot of illness and death, economy and health aren't separate entities

• a lot of people are not inevitably going to die short term. It isn't just postponing deaths for 2 weeks.

• exponential growth means we can get a lot of deaths down the line even if there aren't many now. We can act now to limit those deaths.

Had Bojo done the lockdown when advised by SAGE in Sept, we'd now be coming out of it, rates would be down and hospitalisations lower.

Giving him an extra few weeks to get Test, Track and Trace working but as usual he dithers and we all pay.

Now we will get a national lockdown by default, lasting months.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8846593/SAGE-expert-says-two-week-lockdowns-breaks-disrupt-coronavirus-spread-vaccine.html

The government is planning to have a circuit breaker lockdown every school holiday.

Disastrous for travel, hospitality and events and the mental health of teachers, parents and pupils.

Where does it say that the government will do that in that article myrtilles?

Did you even read it?

They really need to come to their senses.

Shield the elderly and be done with it. There are bigger risks in life

@ChardonnaysPetDragon

They really need to come to their senses.

Shield the elderly and be done with it. There are bigger risks in life

Yeah we had that discussion and it seems impractical (according to the balance of UK medical opinion).

As there are too many vulnerable people who 'd need shielding and they don't separate neatly from the rest of society.

@FourTeaFallOut Ok it is a sage professor rather than the government but they are advising the government.

"He said the upcoming October half-term, the Christmas holiday, and next year's February break could all be used as dates to base the circuit-breaker lockdowns around."