Circuit breaker

Machiavelli · Oct 14, 2020

Reddleman said:
Who are you to dictate the data points I should use which by the way don’t support your argument. Given we didn’t have mass testing back in March/April we have no comparison for how the current rate compares to then. The data point I chose to you use is the average age of death and that supports my view that a circuit breaker/lockdown that impacts everyone isn’t proportionate.

And here’s a lite pointer to you. If you are going to be so patronising I strongly urge you to recommend data points that can support your answer. Makes you look pretty silly.

P.s. The SAGE modelling predicted a circuit breaker could save between 3000 and 107000 thousand lives. In the real world if your ‘model’ has a range that wide most people would laugh you out the room. So excuse me if I have my doubts about its validity. If you think that range is acceptable to dictate policy fine, but I’m pleased the government is applying some common sense.

I'm not dictating anything. The data points do support my argument (I was referring to both current numbers, and drawing comparisons with prior numbers, not one or the other). Those are not my ranges. I asked you to provide what seem to me (and others) to be the most valid data points, and you have failed to do so, and then say that I look silly. Anything else?

Weststander · Oct 14, 2020

5live just had an epidemiologist on, interviewed by Tony Livesey.

He was in favour of 'circuit breakers' but made it clear that they work in a localised manner, targeted to an area with high and/or significantly rising metrics. That there's no point in applying them to regions where the virus is in relative control. Not for economic/mental heath reasons, but purely from an epidemiological standpoint.

e77 · Oct 14, 2020

Weststander said:
5live just had an epidemiologist on, interviewed by Tony Livesey.

He was in favour of 'circuit breakers' but made it clear that they work in a localised manner, targeted to an area with high and/or significantly rising metrics. That there's no point in applying them to regions where the virus is in relative control. Not for economic/mental heath reasons, but purely from an epidemiological standpoint.

There is a lot to be said for this but it would need to be supported by people not leaving areas with high levels of infection (which the Welsh are trying to bring in).

vegster · Oct 14, 2020

e77 said:
If a million people catch it that is still 20,000 deaths.

It could easily be a lot more than that if ICU's are swamped and staff are lost to self isolation. Remember it was only 8 months or so back that Itallian doctors had to allocate ventilators to those who they thought had the best hope of survival, what a horrible situation to be in. New cases today almost 20,000, if it keeps increasing it won't take long before we run out of ICU beds and our doctors are asked to play God.

BLOCK F · Oct 14, 2020

vegster said:
It could easily be a lot more than that if ICU's are swamped and staff are lost to self isolation. Remember it was only 8 months or so back that Itallian doctors had to allocate ventilators to those who they thought had the best hope of survival, what a horrible situation to be in. New cases today almost 20,000, if it keeps increasing it won't take long before we run out of ICU beds and our doctors are asked to play God.

If we get to such a scenario, what about the Nightingale hospitals? I thought this is exactly what they were constructed for.

e77 · Oct 14, 2020

vegster said:
It could easily be a lot more than that if ICU's are swamped and staff are lost to self isolation. Remember it was only 8 months or so back that Itallian doctors had to allocate ventilators to those who they thought had the best hope of survival, what a horrible situation to be in. New cases today almost 20,000, if it keeps increasing it won't take long before we run out of ICU beds and our doctors are asked to play God.

I was just picking 1,000,000 out of the air to illustrate that while 2% sounds low it isn’t in terms of actual deaths if it is widely spread.

vegster · Oct 14, 2020

BLOCK F said:
If we get to such a scenario, what about the Nightingale hospitals? I thought this is exactly what they were constructed for.

They did not have enough trained staff to run them though.

Ron Manager · Oct 15, 2020

nicko31 · Oct 15, 2020

It will be a lot less pain to do it now or in a week than doing it halfway through November at at Christmas. 20k cases and still rising, half term travel needs to be curbed at a minimum

Yoda · Oct 15, 2020

nicko31 said:
It will be a lot less pain to do it now or in a week than doing it halfway through November at at Christmas. 20k cases and still rising, half term travel needs to be curbed at a minimum

Stop focusing on the date the cases are announced and look at the figures from when the sample was taking. Gives a much more balanced and accurate figure.

Peak currently showing 7th October just over 18,000 and 7 day average just over 15,000 and levelling off.

e77 · Oct 15, 2020

Ron Manager said:
View attachment 129487

Problem is if we don't get control of it now and have to have a full lockdown nationally again the economy will enter full depression mode.

nicko31 · Oct 15, 2020

Yoda said:
Stop focusing on the date the cases are announced and look at the figures from when the sample was taking. Gives a much more balanced and accurate figure.

Peak currently showing 7th October just over 18,000 and 7 day average just over 15,000 and levelling off.

Where did you get that data from?

beorhthelm · Oct 15, 2020

e77 said:
Problem is if we don't get control of it now and have to have a full lockdown nationally again the economy will enter full depression mode.

the real problem is this "circuit breaker" according to Sage is full lockdown: no houshold meeting, closing pubs, resturants, gyms etc. for 2-3 weeks. maybe 28 days, or more if needed (honestly, that is what they ask for). for Starmer it sounds like restrictions for very high but across the whole country. 2/3rd the country are at medium level, some even reducing, so why do we need to lockdown?

the data suggests the main spread of virus is in work, homes, care homes and schools. if people actually did thethings they were supposed to, limiting groups, socially distancing, wearing masks, cleaning hands, etc, rate would come down.

Is it PotG? · Oct 15, 2020

beorhthelm said:
the real problem is this "circuit breaker" according to Sage is full lockdown: no houshold meeting, closing pubs, resturants, gyms etc. for 2-3 weeks. maybe 28 days, or more if needed (honestly, that is what they ask for). for Starmer it sounds like restrictions for very high but across the whole country. 2/3rd the country are at medium level, some even reducing, so why do we need to lockdown?

You'll still get the d1ckheads who assume it doesn't apply to them, whatever restrictions you put in place.

Especially the 'look for a loophole' merchants.

e77 · Oct 15, 2020

beorhthelm said:
the real problem is this "circuit breaker" according to Sage is full lockdown: no houshold meeting, closing pubs, resturants, gyms etc. for 2-3 weeks. maybe 28 days, or more if needed (honestly, that is what they ask for). for Starmer it sounds like restrictions for very high but across the whole country. 2/3rd the country are at medium level, some even reducing, so why do we need to lockdown?

the data suggests the main spread of virus is in work, homes, care homes and schools. if people actually did thethings they were supposed to, limiting groups, socially distancing, wearing masks, cleaning hands, etc, rate would come down.

TBF he suggested two to three weeks.

Problem is some people aren't doing what they should. I know ultimately it can't be Policed but I think it is time that when you see a group of young men together all not wearing masks as a society we start calling a spade a spade and admit there is nothing wrong with them and they are breaking the rules.

beorhthelm · Oct 15, 2020

e77 said:
TBF he suggested two to three weeks.

yep, which is not the Sage recommendation. they call it a "short period" then go on to detail it as restrictions to get R below 1, so is open ended. Starmer has latched onto something he can make a political position of, without real qualification, confident wider public wont read the Sage recommendation.

e77 · Oct 15, 2020

beorhthelm said:
yep, which is not the Sage recommendation. they call it a "short period" then go on to detail it as restrictions to get R below 1, so is open ended. Starmer has latched onto something he can make a political position of, without real qualification, confident wider public wont read the Sage recommendation.

I am undecided at the moment. I think we were two weeks late bringing in lockdown in March and don't want to repeat that but we should be better placed to deal with it now and there are economic consequences (although there would be worse economic consequences if it got really bad again and we had no choice later in the winter).

Yoda · Oct 15, 2020

nicko31 said:
Where did you get that data from?

The governments COVID-19 reporting website.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/cases

If you change the cases to UK total, it gives you the 7 day average too.

nicko31 · Oct 16, 2020

Yoda said:
The governments COVID-19 reporting website.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/cases

If you change the cases to UK total, it gives you the 7 day average too.

Thanks I've been looking at world meters. I really doesn't feel like things are leveling off...

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Circuit breaker

Two week circuit breaker?

Yes

No

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Sanity Clause

Well-known member

Well-known member

Sanity Clause

Oooh, wasn't it?

Well-known member

English & European

Well-known member

Well-known member

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Thrifty non-licker

Well-known member

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Well-known member

English & European

Well-known member

Share this page