Well, forgive me for thinking critically.. but lockdown evidently hasn’t worked has it, as we’re back in lockdown again?
Regarding Hitchens. We agree on that, Christopher Hitchens was a great man.
Boris Johnson to hold press conference at 4pm
- Thread starter TomandJerry
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Well, forgive me for thinking critically.. but lockdown evidently hasn’t worked has it, as we’re back in lockdown again?
Regarding Hitchens. We agree on that, Christopher Hitchens was a great man.
GT49er
Well-known member
Leave him alone! 'Boris is bad, anything else better', is his mantra. He is trapped in some kind of horrendous void without it. He 'knows' that without Boris we'd have sailed through Coronavirus fine, with far fewer problems. Leave him to his dreams. He needs our sympathy and help.
jessiejames
Never late in a V8
One thing that hasn't helped is that when we had the first lockdown we had to queuing to get into supermarkets, as soon as the law regarding the mandatory wearing of face coverings came in the queuing stopped, and social distancing went out the window.
The only time I queued now is when I go into the CO-OP.
The only time I have que
The only time I queued now is when I go into the CO-OP.
The only time I have que
W.C.
New member
- Oct 31, 2011
- 4,927
In a nutshell.
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,501
Of course, but he has form and it's hardly new science.
I'll repeat, he accused the leader of the opposition of "wanting to cancel Christmas" to appease the frothing at the mouth neo liberal wing of his party and has done so tonight.
Simply to protect his own position. Complete buffoon.
GT49er
Well-known member
I just read as far as 'Jeremy Corbyn has the power' - and then realised somebody is trying to project their ideas in a parallel universe.
March to June was a pretty restrictive lockdown, it worked at the time and for a couple of months afterwards.
Restrictions since haven’t been a lockdown.
Just to say, literally everyone other than Covid deniers, always said that there would be further waves starting this autumn. So it proved.
How could it have been prevented? Lockdowns proper perhaps, but were the populaces of western Europe willing to be stuck indoors again for months, could entire economies have taken a second hit?
jessiejames
Never late in a V8
My company gave all our staff that worked throughout lockdown a £250 Christmas bonus. Unfortunately it did not go down with those who were furloughed.
I don’t pretend to be an expert on pandemics or the control of viruses, but I do think it’s reasonable to question if lockdowns have worked. Given we’ve had one already.
I do agree with you and hold those who flouted rules in contempt.
But I just wonder if a lockdown now is truly necessary, given there’s vaccinations on the way. I would like to see a bit more reasoning and evidence from the government.
Lockdown did work. It was the subsequent relaxing of restrictions that didn’t work.
pastafarian
Well-known member
I am struggling to understand why, given todays announcements by Westminster, Scotland and Wales, some people dont seem to realise that something has changed quite dramatically according to the scientific data and we now have a sudden change thrust upon us.
Some people seem to be suggesting Boris, Sturgeon and others knew all along (actually just Boris apparently) about the transmissibility of the new strain but deliberately didnt bother to announce changes until today because (insert conspiracy)
Really not sure how you can say that, although I don't know what your success criteria is for determining whether it worked or not.
When it comes down to it, the science of this is pretty bloody simple: minimise social interactions as much as possible.
That's it. Literally no social interactions at all would mean the virus dies out, but that is an extreme that is just not possible, although the measures taken in Wuhan were not too far away.
"Lockdown" is an emotive word, with no commonly understood definition, but if we take it to mean broadly "a harsh restriction on social interactions" then they will always work, where I define "working" as slowing the spread of the virus relative to fewer/looser/no retractions on social interactions at all.
Now, if anyone expects a lockdown to completely drive the virus out of circulation then you will always determine them to be a failure, since social interactions, at a very low level, still continue, which will allow the virus to maintain low background levels, which will then begin to grow once restrictions are lessened in the future.
What we, and pretty much every other country around the world, is trying to do is keep kicking the can down the road until such time as vaccines give us an exit route. Here, in the west, that has meant trying to find a level off economic, educational and social interactions that can take place whilst still maintaining a control, of sorts, on the virus.
Unfortunately we, and pretty much every other country, has found out that this is really, really difficult to achieve, leading to us, and almost every other country, having to make urgent decisions, that often look like policy u-turns, in order to stem the spread.
Lockdowns work. They slow the spread, They come at great cost too.
So, why did Sturgeon act tonight, by shortening Xmas from 5 to 1 day?
There must be new information eg on the virulence of the new strain.
This afternoon Italy changed tack completely, with a full lockdown over Christmas and separately over New Year.
Wales followed by bringing in tough restrictions tonight.
It’s a fluid situation, non-Tory administrations across Europe are making an awful load of u-turms. Perhaps Johnson, Sturgeon and the rest shouldn’t make promises. But then they are criticised for not giving certainty for the weeks and months ahead. I recall in November the media and Labour clammer for Uni students to be given the go ahead to see Granny and parents at Xmas ... it was inhumane to prevent that. Sturgeon in particular was lambasted as particularly nasty.
Urban Dictionary:
Word
1) well said
2)said in a agreement
My 52 year old self agreeing with you and trying to be down with the kids as the same time!
schmunk
"Members"
Lockdown did work; basic evidence of case and death numbers proves that.
Coming out of lockdown reversed that trend, which is exactly why we're going back into lockdown.
Anyone arguing against this is either a bit simple or has a malevolent agenda.
Because the hospitals are full already eg Manchester region.
I think you need to share what your success criteria is, as I'm not sure how anyone of sane mind could argue they don't work if they are measuring their ability to slow viral spread.
How are you measuring effectiveness?
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,501
I think there is a general misunderstanding of what lockdowns are for.
No-one suggest that boarding up your doors and windows stops the hurricane.
pastafarian
Well-known member
I was always under the impression the success criteria for the first UK lockdown was to stop the NHS being swamped and buy us some time.
In that regard it worked.
I was always acutely aware of Prof Whitty warning months and months ago the second wave could be far worse and there was a real possibility covid would be seasonal and ongoing.
And here we are.
Never bought into the theory lockdowns would help eradicate covid, simply not possible given global travel and people shuffling about. A global vaccine will go some way to winning this thing, but even then there could be localised outbreaks. The good news at that stage would be that localised hard lockdowns could prevent further spread.
This whole thing is an ongoing learning experience for every country with numerous unexpected twists and turns