I'm calling it - people aren't complying.

[TheFormattingIsWrong]

Local lockdowns aren't working. The North has proven that. Why would it be different in London or anywhere else for that matter? People have stopped complying. They did it in March when it was implied by Bojo that it was going to be a 3 month thing, but as it has become abundantly clear that that this is going to be a way of living until there is a vaccine, and there is no guarantee on a vaccine, people have just said sod it then, I'm not living that way.

I won't be complying. I'll be continuing to see my mum and my sisters. I'd obey it to the letter if it was a 2 week circuit breaker, but as it's clear we're going to have to live this way until at least next Spring, no, I won't be complying.

And for those who say "oh well that's why cases are going up" - until this government kicks itself up the arse and gets a functioning test and trace system in place, they always would anyway. Either it's lockdown or it's cases rising. And most of us aren't prepared to live without seeing family or friends (yes, indoors!) until Spring.

Restrictions work.

Unless people don't follow them.

Then the restrictions don't work.

Everyone who is not complying- be it blatantly, using loopholes or justifying reasons is a part of the reason why restrictions aren't working.

You can argue all you like but it's that simple.

Whilst people don't comply, restrictions won't work. Hospitals will gradually fill up. Then people will die without medical care in corridors, in their own homes- wherever they find themselves. This includes non Covid patients- so that means your partner if they have a stroke, your children if they are in an accident and you if you need urgent medical care.

On your heads be it.

My thread wasn't saying "oh no one should abide by the rules"

My thread was saying that, as I see it, people aren't complying with the rules. Generally people aren't having massive parties etc, but they are still seeing family.

What is controversial about saying that, I really don't understand, unless you think I am making it up, in which case that's your prerogative.

What I do begrudge is then coming on a public forum and supporting anyone who does whatever they want because ‘it’s all rubbish’ or whatever.

Good thing that isn't what I said then, isn't it.

@NotAnActualSheep the average lag from infection to hospitalisation is 3 weeks. So the politicians are looking ahead.

It's way way way too late to act once ICU gets almost full! What would you do at that point- stop caring for people who are taking up a bed and looking worrying but might take another 2 weeks to die?

I know some people don't believe this and of course that is their prerogative. All the medical people that I know are extremely worried, and also tired of putting themselves at risk.

I desperately hope that they and I are wrong.

@Chaotic45 completely agree

@RC000 thank you, nice to know I'm not alone.

@TheFormattingIsWrong

The thing is that yes, if I passed covid onto my father (or whoever) and he died, yes I would feel bad.

But I would also feel bad if I'd passed flu, norovirus or chickenpox (he hasn't had it) on to him and he'd died.

Someone please tell me what the difference is, on a personal level.

@TheFormattingIsWrong surely if you knew you might be carrying chickenpox or flu you'd stay away from him though?

[quote Chaotic45]@NotAnActualSheep the average lag from infection to hospitalisation is 3 weeks. So the politicians are looking ahead.

It's way way way too late to act once ICU gets almost full! What would you do at that point- stop caring for people who are taking up a bed and looking worrying but might take another 2 weeks to die?

I know some people don't believe this and of course that is their prerogative. All the medical people that I know are extremely worried, and also tired of putting themselves at risk.

I desperately hope that they and I are wrong. [/quote]
So why not say that, then, rather than say "critical care units are full"? "We are worried about the rate of increase and thank critical care may be overwhelmed if we don't do something drastic". Even the BBC article recognises that Welsh rates do seem to be slowing with the local lockdowns, so the decision that they have made is that rates aren't slowing quickly enough. Hence the need for more stringent measures. But if rates are slowing, the capacity will still be there in 2-3-4 weeks compared to now, as people recover.

On the main point of the OP, the WG view may be that people aren't complying enough...and they need to physically stop people from congregating indoors (by closing places where people do that) and by changing the status quo to people being inside their homes rather than being wherever they choose to be. I still don't think you'll stop people meeting family in their own homes, but ultimately that's going to be less risky if they just limit themselves to those contacts, compared to that, plus pubs, plus public transport, plus hairdresser plus shopping plus school/uni/work...

The early noughties called and wants its slang back.

You really are losing your ‘argument’ OP.

My thread was saying that, as I see it, people aren't complying with the rules. Generally people aren't having massive parties etc, but they are still seeing family.

What is controversial about saying that, I really don't understand, unless you think I am making it up, in which case that's your prerogative.

But you had to go further and announce that you wouldn’t be complying. But of course you didn’t realise that would be ‘controversial’. 🙄

Again, why do you feel the need to tell people that you won’t be complying? Just get on with it.

surely if you knew you might be carrying chickenpox or flu you'd stay away from him though?

For both illnesses you're contagious before symptoms start.

Over the past two days I've read up to page 24 of this and can read no more without sticking my oar in.

The one point that nobody is getting angry about is the deadlock/gridlock in hospitals. If the NHS was not so grossly understaffed and unfit for purpose even without a pandemic, we would not have the problems with deaths and concerns about public health in general. THAT is what you should all be getting angry about. Yet not one person yet has mentioned it. If there was capacity for both this pandemic and normal everyday healthcare, none of us would be arguing. Start getting fucking angry at the right thing for God's sake. And that is the government. I think I watched the goings on in the HoC on Thursday and 2 people (one a doctor - of what I don't know) raised the only pertinent issue at this point. What is the government doing about A. Beds B. Equipment and C. Staff. Obviously Boris waffled about Nightingale hospitals and recruiting ex-retired staff, but had fuck all else to say. This is the issue we should all be in uproar about as if they sorted this, then we could all live happily knowing that whatever care we need would be provided.

Totally agree with OP btw. Lots of nasty abuse thrown about too calling people idiots and worse collectively when it's clearly aimed at specific posters.

The other thing is that I 100% believe it is in schools and on public transport and in shops that this is spreading. 100's of school-kids dandering along shoulder to shoulder with their peers for 8 hours a day is a sight to behold. Jane visiting her mother Lucy is not going to infect 10 people in one visit. But Maria (16), who has 10 close friends in school, can infect those 10 in one day of school who in turn infect their respective families. So Maria could have started an infection in 10 x say 4 people per student household in 48 hours. Jane visiting her mother Lucy who sees nobody else, will only infect Lucy, should she have COVID.

[quote lurker101]@roarfeckingroarr did you not see the documents shared earlier in the year for prioritising healthcare in the event the NHS would become overrun? Aside from that large swathes of the U.K. have hospitals that are reaching high occupancy. Another thread quoted that NI had 12 ICU beds available - it doesn’t take more than a couple of large motorway accidents and a couple more Covid admissions to fill that capacity at which point there would be no more ICU beds available and alternatives or prioritisation would be applied. I would not want to be the 13th person. If health services become overwhelmed, it will not “just” be the elderly and vulnerable suffering, it will be our pregnant friends unable to get appropriate post emergency c section care, young men injured in RTCs unable to get care. We need to work as a country and make sacrifices now for the benefit of those we don’t know, in the hope that others are also making those sacrifices for our loved ones.[/quote]
Spot on.

@Lowkee

Over the past two days I've read up to page 24 of this and can read no more without sticking my oar in.

The one point that nobody is getting angry about is the deadlock/gridlock in hospitals. If the NHS was not so grossly understaffed and unfit for purpose even without a pandemic, we would not have the problems with deaths and concerns about public health in general. THAT is what you should all be getting angry about. Yet not one person yet has mentioned it. If there was capacity for both this pandemic and normal everyday healthcare, none of us would be arguing. Start getting fucking angry at the right thing for God's sake. And that is the government. I think I watched the goings on in the HoC on Thursday and 2 people (one a doctor - of what I don't know) raised the only pertinent issue at this point. What is the government doing about A. Beds B. Equipment and C. Staff. Obviously Boris waffled about Nightingale hospitals and recruiting ex-retired staff, but had fuck all else to say. This is the issue we should all be in uproar about as if they sorted this, then we could all live happily knowing that whatever care we need would be provided.

Totally agree with OP btw. Lots of nasty abuse thrown about too calling people idiots and worse collectively when it's clearly aimed at specific posters.

The other thing is that I 100% believe it is in schools and on public transport and in shops that this is spreading. 100's of school-kids dandering along shoulder to shoulder with their peers for 8 hours a day is a sight to behold. Jane visiting her mother Lucy is not going to infect 10 people in one visit. But Maria (16), who has 10 close friends in school, can infect those 10 in one day of school who in turn infect their respective families. So Maria could have started an infection in 10 x say 4 people per student household in 48 hours. Jane visiting her mother Lucy who sees nobody else, will only infect Lucy, should she have COVID.

Exactly. DSis and I have kept our distance from our parents since the start of this. We sat at opposite ends of garden when we could visit and did so only for birthdays and when kids were not at school.

We have kids in 4 different schools, in 3 different local authority areas, all high covid areas and all.schools have had cases.

Just found out DM has cancer and will be operated on next week. So keeping our distance has not only kept parents safe from covid, but also means DM is able to get treatment quickly, doesn't have covid as an extra complication/delay and we wont be passing anymore viruses on as DM prepares for next stage in treatment.

shushymcshush Sorry your DM has cancer at this awful time when the government are running around like headless chickens shoving patients from pillar to post. I really hope her treatment is swift and effective.

The only long-term solution (and medium term) is to up the efficacy of the NHS. Take whatever drastic recruitment measures that requires. But do it bloody quickly before the country is kaput.

The only long-term solution (and medium term) is to up the efficacy of the NHS.

Well, quite.

@Lowkee

The only long-term solution (and medium term) is to up the efficacy of the NHS. Take whatever drastic recruitment measures that requires. But do it bloody quickly before the country is kaput.

Do you realise that you can't train nurses that quickly!

You don't keep filling an overflowing jug with milk, telling people to stop pouring milk in and crying over the spilt milk. You buy a bigger jug.
The jug is the NHS, the milk are our citizens. Fix the fucking core problem - the capacity of the jug and stop trying to desperately salvage the overflowing milk. You can't.

Do you realise that you can't train nurses that quickly!

A bit of intelligent thought put into it and they could quickly recruit what's required. Overseas being an obvious source to tap into. But they don't want to spend the money there. They'd rather spend billions on furlough schemes and hair-brained lockdowns.

This willingness to accept an inadequate health service is baffling. There needs to be short and long term recruitment put in place.

In order to recruit more nurses (which I agree is badly needed), the role will have to become more attractive. Nursing is not a profession young people seem keen to get into now. The current COVID crisis is going to put even more people off.

@gypsywater

In order to recruit more nurses (which I agree is badly needed), the role will have to become more attractive. Nursing is not a profession young people seem keen to get into now. The current COVID crisis is going to put even more people off.

Then you do whatever it takes to attract them. It's got to be cheaper than this shambles.

@Lowkee
I agree completely. I dont think anything will attract young people into the profession tho now, sadly. Even massive pay increases! (which the media would have an absolute field day about anyway).

Obviously the rules are there to keep the case numbers down. So if you don't care about that, that's up to you.

But don't you realise that what that actually means in real terms is that they don't want YOU and your family to become one of those case numbers?

So what you're actually saying is fuck it, you're going to risk spreading it to your family, because you're not going to let the government tell you you can't.

Good luck to you.

Paying 100k nurses an extra 10k per annum is cheaper than paying 80% of salaries for millions.