Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 01:07:46 PM

Login with username, password and session length

UK alert level reduced [split topic]

Started by olliebean, June 19, 2020, 11:39:19 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

olliebean

The arbitrary alert level has been reduced to 3. Presumably in preparation for some further massive easing of restrictions. My money's on the 2m social distancing rule being reduced.

BlodwynPig

Quote from: olliebean on June 19, 2020, 11:39:19 AM
The arbitrary alert level has been reduced to 3. Presumably in preparation for some further massive easing of restrictions. My money's on the 2m social distancing rule being reduced.

First time out of village since lockdown to get a lift to a farm for some supplies. Chock full of Olds, but I was warmed by their resolute adherence to 2 metre rule and all wearing masks and gloves. In fact, I was the only one without a mask. If society can be like these "gammon" olds, then I have some hope that I will survive.

shiftwork2

Quote from: olliebean on June 19, 2020, 11:39:19 AM
The arbitrary alert level has been reduced to 3. Presumably in preparation for some further massive easing of restrictions. My money's on the 2m social distancing rule being reduced.

Far be it from me to defend the current government's lamentable performance but isn't three supposed to mean 'circulating' and not exponentially increasing?  As I understand it it's not arbitrary at all, quite important in fact.

BlodwynPig

Quote from: shiftwork2 on June 19, 2020, 09:52:48 PM
Far be it from me to defend the current government's lamentable performance but isn't three supposed to mean 'circulating' and not exponentially increasing?  As I understand it it's not arbitrary at all, quite important in fact.

A based on no reality.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

If 4 is the most severe category then it obviously needs lowering to 3 given that infections and deaths are falling to pre-lockdown levels, otherwise the relatively vague guide means even less than it did anyway*. Not worth expending too much physical or mental energy on either way.


*We have history with this based on our inability to change the Terror Threat Alert level to anything less than 'another 9/11 will occur in the next 25 minutes in the west Cheshire area'

ollyboro

Phew!! Just as I was staying alert, but  less alert than before, it turns out it was okay to be less alert. I've never surfed the zeitgeist so successfully. Apart from  last week when I took my On The Buses posters down.

bgmnts

Boris, are you absolutely sure? does mean changing the bulb.

Captain Z

Highest level is 5 I think? That's "Risk of unwashed plebs breaking through the Downing Street gate". It was set at 3.5 initially wasn't it?

Sheffield Wednesday

'circulating' means 'it is literally EVERYWHERE in the UK and the world and could be on ANY surface or pocket of air you breathe'.

olliebean

Quote from: shiftwork2 on June 19, 2020, 09:52:48 PM
Far be it from me to defend the current government's lamentable performance but isn't three supposed to mean 'circulating' and not exponentially increasing?  As I understand it it's not arbitrary at all, quite important in fact.

I guess it's probably not entirely arbitrary or they'd have lowered it to 3 earlier than now to justify the easing they've already done. But they haven't made public the details of how it's calculated, which presumably means there's a certain amount of discretion involved. The fact that it's 3 now probably means it satisfies the absolute minimum possible requirements to justify lowering it to 3.

weaseldust

when we went into lockdown on 23rd march, there were about 40-50 deaths per day and less than 1000 cases per day. maybe the statistics are misleading but we haven't got back to that point yet. and i thought everyone now admits we went into lockdown too late? i know we have some rules in place now but my town has given up, they're bored of it

Quote from: weaseldust on June 20, 2020, 10:31:12 AM
when we went into lockdown on 23rd march, there were about 40-50 deaths per day and less than 1000 cases per day. maybe the statistics are misleading but we haven't got back to that point yet. and i thought everyone now admits we went into lockdown too late? i know we have some rules in place now but my town has given up, they're bored of it

This is what I don't understand. The charitable explanation I came up with was that maybe the significance of the daily infection/death rates alters depending on whether we are on an upwards or downwards curve. I'm not sure why that would be the case, though.

olliebean

It's based on the R value, I think. Presumably the idea is that by keeping social distancing and masks on public transport and stuff like that, along with track and trace, other restrictions can be eased whilst keeping R below 1. Personally I'd feel happier if the target threshold had been set somewhat lower than 1, both to reduce the possibility of it slipping back over 1, and to reduce infection numbers more quickly and hence reduce the overall final death toll.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

Quote from: weaseldust on June 20, 2020, 10:31:12 AM
when we went into lockdown on 23rd march, there were about 40-50 deaths per day and less than 1000 cases per day. maybe the statistics are misleading but we haven't got back to that point yet. and i thought everyone now admits we went into lockdown too late? i know we have some rules in place now but my town has given up, they're bored of it

Worth considering that cases-per-day is now influenced by the testing (some) going on versus March (hardly any), but even then, it's around 1000 a day at the minute despite testing increasing which is less than 24th March onwards.

Likewise, 970 deaths in the last 7 days is fewer than the period of March 23-30 and remember, we were going into lockdown in preparation for a spike (we can both agree we did that far too late at massive cost of life).

There's no real value in trying to conceal the fact that infections and deaths are down considerably. On the current trajectory are at ie. barring anomaly, we will record fewer infections and deaths next week than the week we went into lockdown.

No-one wants to cause a 2nd spike but there is no alternative for the continuation of the current system* and with it the livelihoods of millions than to follow the lead of other countries who managed this better, but clamp down again if it doesn't work.


*which I appreciate some here may want to end anyway

Uncle TechTip

Any new lockdown won't be the same as this one, they won't be shutting shops for instance. And are people going to stop meeting up again? Seems unlikely to me.

shagatha crustie

This is absolutely the end of it. Things are essentially just back to normal around here. Peoples attention spans are too short and they're too used to the rapidity of a news cycle that wipes away new crises even as it invents them. Even a tiny sniff of officially sanctioned freedom and they'll come crawling. If deaths spike again, it'll just be airbrushed I the media. Boris and the media have taken the narrative full circle once with the closing and reopening and its too much risk and effort to do it again.

BlodwynPig

Quote from: Uncle TechTip on June 20, 2020, 05:35:22 PM
Any new lockdown won't be the same as this one, they won't be shutting shops for instance. And are people going to stop meeting up again? Seems unlikely to me.

Is this positive or negative or neutral for you? Say a second spike causes an increase in deaths. What would be an acceptable death toll to allow everyone to live the standard modern British capitalist life?

I can understand Shoulder's arguments, but we are missing an opportunity to move in a different trajectory than the one we were on pre-pandemic. All that talk of shaping a new green society seems to have been forgotten in the rush for shades, shandies and shagging.

Catalogue Trousers

We can talk about it being the absolute end of lockdown, but it's not. We haven't seen the last of Covid-19 or its effects on our society. A lot of government departments are still operating on vastly reduced levels, especially locally, and people are still catching and dying from coronavirus.

It amazes me that anyone can honestly think that their chance to get pissed in a pub or head mob-handed down to Sainsbury's is more important than keeping this fucker under control until we've got a reliable vaccine.

TL:DR - only fools think lockdown is useless and will be DEAD SOON

olliebean

Quote from: BlodwynPig on June 21, 2020, 12:16:48 PMI can understand Shoulder's arguments, but we are missing an opportunity to move in a different trajectory than the one we were on pre-pandemic. All that talk of shaping a new green society seems to have been forgotten in the rush for shades, shandies and shagging.

Were we on a trajectory towards a new green society before the pandemic? I know a lot of people (myself included) would have liked us to be, but I don't recall that we were, especially.

Quote from: Catalogue Trousers on June 21, 2020, 12:30:28 PM
only fools think lockdown is useless and will be DEAD SOON

John Sullivan unhappy with bleak first draft.

Catalogue Trousers

Applause. I like. Thanks for a decent smirk!

BlodwynPig

Quote from: olliebean on June 21, 2020, 12:33:30 PM
Were we on a trajectory towards a new green society before the pandemic? I know a lot of people (myself included) would have liked us to be, but I don't recall that we were, especially.

A lot more visible and the in the early days of the lockdown, even extremists making a nod towards changing of society. You saw the whites of their eyes on tv or on zoom.. "fucking hell, I'm scared...we must change".

Didn't take long to revert back to type "Bevvies and footie, only 50 quid to minorca, get innnnn"

Johnny Yesno

Quote from: Catalogue Trousers on June 21, 2020, 12:30:28 PM
We can talk about it being the absolute end of lockdown, but it's not. We haven't seen the last of Covid-19 or its effects on our society. A lot of government departments are still operating on vastly reduced levels, especially locally, and people are still catching and dying from coronavirus.

I still think the tories are banking on a second wave and a second lockdown late in the year to mask the economic effects of hard brexit.

Social distancing guideline has officially been reduced to 1.855 m

steveh

There's a growing view that the virus may not be seasonal like flu so we may not get distinct waves, just an ebb and flow as preventative measures kick in or are relaxed.

Captain Z

People need to move on from covid19 now, not doing anyone any good to keep going on about it.

olliebean

Gonna be embarrassing if we haven't moved on to Covid 20 by the end of the year.

Fambo Number Mive

Quote from: Pearly-Dewdrops Drops on June 21, 2020, 05:06:17 PM
Social distancing guideline has officially been reduced to 1.855 m

A welcome boost for the UK tape measure industry

Sheffield Wednesday

Quote from: steveh on June 21, 2020, 05:28:29 PM
There's a growing view that the virus may not be seasonal like flu so we may not get distinct waves, just an ebb and flow as preventative measures kick in or are relaxed.

Steve, just wanted to say big respect for your moderate tone and really useful posts on this subject.

Zetetic

I take the point about natural seasonality not being a factor, but the front part of an incoming flow would still seem to be a "wave".

Perhaps I'm wrong in thinking that most people understood subsequent "waves" (or whatever you want to call an anti-ebb) would result from changing restrictions and behaviour. I guess in some sense these aren't "inevitable", but they're also actually underway now.