Are we on high alert?

[steve yates]

It is totally relevant. Lockdowns (or other social restrictions) do nothing to get rid of the virus, they simply delay the likelihood of people catching it, whilst in the process bankrupting our country.

They are not supposed to get rid of the virus, they never were. Their function is to prevent the health service from collapse. They are supposed to suppress transmission to allow authorities time to put the measures in place that do work. The same ones the WHO has been telling governments to do from the start.

Get an effective track trace and isolate system going.

Lockdowns are a result of failure of authorities to act decisively and promptly to contain viral spread. The first one could possibly be excused by ignorance, but the second one thats coming is solely due to the abject failure of our government to get proper control measures in place.
Economic activity will collapse regardless of lockdown once health services are overrun and cannot cope, so it's pointless for the economic band to carry on playing as the ship goes down.

 

[steve yates]

That's merely alarmist talk. The vast majority of people catching coronavirus will either have no symptoms, or will have mild symptoms. Very old people, and those with serious existing health problems, are more vulnerable. We could easily shield these vulnerable people, without closing the economy down, but nobody seems to have thought of that.

Yes they have, they know it cannot be done and the death toll will be far too high fior public consumption.

 

[Capt Popeye]

Because it's a tiny country, with a tiny population, in the middle of nowhere. Very easy to lock it down. However, it's now in the deepest economic recession for decades.

Lucky ole them then, would have been far better if we had indeed acted like a tiny country away from that Europe and instigated our severe lock down earlier?

 

[pvb]

Yes they have, they know it cannot be done and the death toll will be far too high fior public consumption.

It can be done, although with the track record of PHE/NHS doing anything it might be unlikely to work. And the death toll from the "Protect the NHS" fiasco is already far too high.

 

[steve yates]

You can't "protect our fellow citizens", it's impossible. The virus won't go away. Some people will catch it; the vast majority will be OK, a few won't.

Pete, just run the maths. Pick any % of pop required for the mythical unicorn of "herd immunity", then run any % of case fatality rates you please on those numbers. Regardless of whether that death toll would be acceptable to you, it's simply a fact that our hopsitals physically cannot handle those numbers.

Plus with so many ill and dying, the public will lock themselves away and shut the economy down anyway.

 

[pvb]

Pete, just run the maths. Pick any % of pop required for the mythical unicorn of "herd immunity", then run any % of case fatality rates you please on those numbers. Regardless of whether that death toll would be acceptable to you, it's simply a fact that our hopsitals physically cannot handle those numbers.

Plus with so many ill and dying, the public will lock themselves away and shut the economy down anyway.

That's the line the "scientists" would have you believe. Right now, with half the country under lockdown, and dire predictions of doom and gloom, there are 503 patients on ventilators in hospital. The NHS has around 30,000 ventilators at its disposal, so there's considerable scope for looking after people.

 

[Capt Popeye]

That's merely alarmist talk. The vast majority of people catching coronavirus will either have no symptoms, or will have mild symptoms. Very old people, and those with serious existing health problems, are more vulnerable. We could easily shield these vulnerable people, without closing the economy down, but nobody seems to have thought of that.

Think kind Sir that you do not take into account the fact that it was and still is in some conditions a result of our poor and inefectual safety ecconomic practices that allowed that Virus plus any further Virs /Bug into this country so endagering our Population, Health Service, Health Service employees etc etc; its absolute madness to allow people to fly to Hot Spot countries on the equivilant of a Bus Fare without having due proper Health Checks including a quarantine in place at the Airports.
This Virus being active in our country is a real result of ecconomic greed and folly by certain Travel Industry companies and being Asleep on the Job government, who has run down our Heallth Service to a point of not beeing able to cope with any Pandemic or surge in infection or deaths; we are well rid of any Traveling Companies plus a system of Easy No Cares Willy Nilly Travel where the Bottom Line of such businesses is really a form of Pyramid Selling, a 'Buy Now Pay Later On Perhaps' in practice and not a properly set up company; so the failing business model that of the failing businesses is well rid of

 

[steve yates]

That's the line the "scientists" would have you believe. Right now, with half the country under lockdown, and dire predictions of doom and gloom, there are 503 patients on ventilators in hospital. The NHS has around 30,000 ventilators at its disposal, so there's considerable scope for looking after people.

Yes, right now. Do nothing and in 6-8 weeks time it will be a different picture and in 3-4 months time it will be chaos. Plus what counts is the number of available icu beds, to actually use the ventilators.

edited to add: There were 5200 critical care beds in the uk in January, while there may be more now, its nowhere near enough to handle the serious case volume that just living with the virus would create.

 

[pvb]

edited to add: There were 5200 critical care beds in the uk in January, while there may be more now, its nowhere near enough to handle the serious case volume that just living with the virus would create.

What happened to all those thousands of beds in Nightingale hospitals?

 

[steve yates]

What happened to all those thousands of beds in Nightingale hospitals?

They weren't used because there was no staff for them. The uk is short of 40,000 nurses as it is!

 

[CLB]

They weren't used because there was no staff for them. The uk is short of 40,000 nurses as it is!

Im not arguing about nurse numbers, but the Nightingales were only used for small numbers, mainly because there were not the patients to fill them.

 

[pvb]

They weren't used because there was no staff for them. The uk is short of 40,000 nurses as it is!

Ah, I see, so the NHS thought it would be a good idea to spend £250 million on Nightingale hospitals, whilst knowing that they couldn't staff them. This is the sort of stuff you couldn't make up!

 

[Stork_III]

Im not arguing about nurse numbers, but the Nightingales were only used for small numbers, mainly because there were not the patients to fill them.

And they are still there if needed.

 

[Biggles Wader]

And there still are not enough staff for the nightingales unless you take them from other workplaces. The real crisis in the NHS is not about beds, ITU or otherwise, but people and covid really exposes that very quickly.

 

[Chalk]

Most people on here are generally sensible but there is a terrible amount of irrationality in the general public. It is a bit of a strange site, but I would advise anyone with an open mind to read Mike Yeadon. There is something very odd happening in this country - and globally.
What SAGE Has Got Wrong – Lockdown Sceptics

 

[steve yates]

Two things strike me, the fact that he bemoans the lack of immunoligists and lists all sorts of other sage members, conveniently leaving out the inclusion of epidemiologists, who are surely more relevant than immunologists? And his claim that 30% of the pop has prior immunity. It is completely impossible to ascertain this, and the only method availabl is the one he decries sage for using to calc % of pop infected.

Actually the third thing is more telling, why call for the immediate dissolution of Sage if he just thinks they have made two wrong assumptions? Instead of trying to convince others the starting point is wrong? That smells very political to me.

Scientists disagree all the time, which is great, it's what makes them research and research ad test and test again so they can prove their theories and persuade their peers.

The body of science currently believes otherwise, so I think I will err on the side of caution and go with their assumptions rather than his.

But even more telling, is the fact that a Tory government, the party of austerity, the party of winner takes all and damn the losers, has spent soooo much money on what are basically socialist projects. That on it's own is enough to make me think this stuff is very serious indeed, otherwise they simply wouldn't give a shit!

 

[pvb]

But even more telling, is the fact that a Tory government, the party of austerity, the party of winner takes all and damn the losers, has spent soooo much money on what are basically socialist projects. That on it's own is enough to make me think this stuff is very serious indeed, otherwise they simply wouldn't give a shit!

Simple reason is that they were scared silly by Ferguson's initial "prediction" that 500,000 people would die.

 

[steve yates]

yet his prediction of the death rate if we locked down wasn't far off, best case scenario said 20k. Out of curiosity, what sort of figs would you think would have resulted from not locking down and carrying on as normal?

 

[seivadnehpets]

Plus with so many ill and dying, the public will lock themselves away and shut the economy down anyway.

Depressing but good point.
We're buggered regardless.
I'm glad I went sailing this summer.

 

[seivadnehpets]

yet his prediction of the death rate if we locked down wasn't far off, best case scenario said 20k. Out of curiosity, what sort of figs would you think would have resulted from not locking down and carrying on as normal?

The furlough scheme was a massive premature ejaculation. The weather warmed up, we went outside and the problem was solved.