Just Seen the Covid 2nd Wave Projections

I agree. I've never seen anyone say that myself but I'll take your word that there are "hundreds, if not thousands" saying the same thing.

The point is the virus is still too rife in our society
As for as all "being able to make our own decisions" you may be an epidemiologist but I'm not. That's why I'd rather listen to a scientific committee rather than think "oh it must be ok"
I'm not but I'm basing my judgements on many different groups, not just the SAGE of this country.
 
The Gov have handled much of this badly, not all of it though they've been wrong too many times - especially about stopping mass gatherings & testing. However it was always & still will be us that are responsible for reducing the risk of infection & spreading the virus - better hygiene practices & more giving personal space.

We can't stay locked down forever & not only for the economy, but for mental health too.

I fully expect the 2nd spike to be worse than the first - the track & trace does not seem to be ready & you have idiots like this lot - https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/n...s-fury-hordes-flock-richmond-north-yorkshire/

How could it be worse though? I’m not sure I understand the science.

If everyone works at home, pubs/restaurants without outdoors areas stay shut, and sporting events are all behind closed doors, then how could it be worse second time around?

I appreciate there will be a second wave of sorts, but I genuinely don’t understand how it could be worse.

I am worried about easing lockdown too easily in some ways, but by the same token my son has spent 7% of his life basically living under house arrest, and I have concerns that that can’t go on too much longer as well.
 
Answer me this, take the politics and the science out of this and focus on been a human. What decent human would say it was ok for children to go back to school if they were at a higher risk of dying than say walking to school or driving to school?

Problem is, the people making these decisions, ie Johnson, Cummings etc are NOT decent humans. I agree you should listen to as much scientific advice as possible, and the counter arguments, but god knows who Johnson and compare listening to regarding schools reopening because it doesn’t seem to be the people they have tasked with ‘the science’ any more -

http://www.independentsage.org/gove...own-school-advice-review-by-independent-sage/
 
A respirator for each individual would reduce risk of infection!
This whole scenario has been a complete mess from the beginning.
 
Last edited:
How could it be worse though? ....
I appreciate there will be a second wave of sorts, but I genuinely don’t understand how it could be worse...

I think it - could - be worse second time around, August / Sept as too many people, I fear, will just go about as if the virus has gone away. I doubt the Gov has care homes secured enough & think infection rates will rise sharply - as it's already in the population - when restrictions are eased again, people return to work & use public transport & most of all - stop good hygiene & distancing practices.

I hope I'm wrong though I don't have much faith in the masses to follow good common sense measures.. we will see in a few months..

May 30th Tests People tested, Positive, Deaths in Hosp, Deaths all
Daily 115,725, Unavailable 1,936, 119.........................113
Total 4,285,738,Unavailable 274,762, 30,861,..................38,489
 
I completely agree that we have to resume some form of normal at some point, and believe people want the government to succeed in managing this (although sometimes the tone would suggest otherwise). Timing is vital so as not to just waste the last 10 weeks efforts.

The difficulty with the changes in lock down and information is that it is ultimately inconsistent and does not appear to make sense if the aim is to protect people while reducing a lockdown.

E.g Shielding people to be able to meet a single person- In theory this is great news, however guidance on the protection 1-5 scale suggested we would only do that at Risk score 1. (unless there is a document I missed saying otherwise).

Return to schools and reducing lockdown would be based on 5 factors- one being track and trace up and running effectively (this hasn't happened, but we are cracking on anyway) and R consistently below 1 (this is an argument that may continue for a while as we are not testing enough to get an accurate R still).

I think for the general population we need to get people working again, and getting back to some normality- and if you live in rural Yorkshire you may not come into contact with many people at all in your normal activity. If you live in a central city and rely on public transport however you are going to be coming across a lot of people. (A mask policy would be sensible here, rather that encouragement. There isnt much evidence to suggest masks are effective, but minimal to say they are not either as with 1m or 2m social distancing- academic guess work).

For what its worth, the government and NHS were going to change social distancing to 1m in March (an official doc came out I believe, but it was decided 2m would be better to keep consistency). I expect it to become 1m imminently.

I feel for GPs today, who found out about the changes in Shielding advice from the government via a late Saturday night tweet. How do you support the most vulnerable if goverment strategy is via press release, rather than via collective decision and strong communication to the relevant parties. Crazy times.
 
I'm pretty sure some countries had a very very tight lockdown for a week or two before lifting in an attempt to stifle the virus more.

We all know, though, that announcing a tighter lockdown for a a week or too wouldn't have taken headlines away from Dominic Cummings. which is why it didn't happen.

The government are actively killing us to save Cummings. Be angry people, be very angry.
 
I'm not missing the point at all.
You are saying it's not safe because science says so basically yeah?

Others are also saying it IS safe because science says so.

This is fundamentally why people should be able to choose for themselves after seeing the facts, figures, projections, hypothesis from ALL parties not just the ones the media for example deem fit enough.

Want to hear something really depressing that I've had to deal with today, my wife's 8 year old niece was given a journal to fill out at the start of the lockdown to keep track of her feelings etc. You know what she wrote one day last week?

"I want to die"

This is a little girl who hasn't seen her friends in 2 months. How many more kids of that age are feeling like that right now. It's angered me beyond belief.
That is heartbreaking Randy and I am sorry to hear it.

I am not saying it is not safe to end lockdown because the science says so. That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying ending lockdown is a risk and if you cannot manage that risk then you shouldn't take the risk. Right now we cannot manage the risk due to crappy track and trace.

You do make an interesting point about allowing people to make their own minds up, I am not sure what I think of that idea. It may be viable so long as you educate people to allow them to make that decision based on facts, the problem with that is the government don't seem very trustworthy.

Alvez, your risk of dieing, based on excess deaths, is much higher from 45 years plus. It isn't a small risk, your risk is almost doubled, based on the 5 year average, and that does not include the extremely vulnerable.

Your argument about long term effects doesn't sit well with me. Yes you have to consider the long term effects, that is why we don't use asbestos or lead based paints anymore.

One final point, if the excess deaths not attributed to Covid, could be directly related to another cause, cancellation of surgery, failure to visit your gp etc, then that may support your argument as the cure being as bad as the disease. However, as far as I can tell, there are no solid statistics on why those additional deaths are occurring. Wouldn't that be absoloutely required to support your argument?
 
Some really thought provoking stuff on here.
I tend to agree for many (including me) it is easy to jump on selected data to back myself and the government into a corner.
The points about - we have to come out of this one way or another despite the known risk are valid too.
When I reflect on the reasons I’m so concerned I think it just comes down to trust. I’ve concluded this has been handled really shabbily and it is rare I can find the whole information for the decision making. Take the decision to allow those ‘shielded’ to go outside.
Information released late Saturday evening, as Tommy Cooper would say, ‘just like that’.
This was supposed to happen when we got down to risk rating 1 (not 4). As far as I can tell there was no information given to anyone as why this is now deemed safe. In effect, the decision makers are asking for blind trust.
For obvious reasons that is shot to bits.

I’m pretty relaxed about an adult conversation. Something along the lines of:
‘Look. We want to get people out and about, businesses up and running, kids playing with their mates and we are going to start. This virus is nasty but, on balance, we think we are doing the right thing. Yes, more people may get he virus and that would be awful but, more people will be out resuming their lives which has to be a good thing... please work with us’

The Swedish example is a good one. It looks as though it has cost more lives over there but their government has asked for, and received, trust.
 
Lockdown is no longer an option, whether it's what is needed or not. People are ignoring it. It's a card that has been played. The government, anticipated that it could only be maintained for so long; that's why they delayed the start.
 
Lockdown is no longer an option, whether it's what is needed or not. People are ignoring it. It's a card that has been played. The government, anticipated that it could only be maintained for so long; that's why they delayed the start.
The well put argument, based on the experience of other countries as well, was that we could have locked down earlier, come out of lockdown earlier and the number of deaths could have been much lower. Also, we would have come out with a death rate and infection rate much lower. The government got it totally wrong.
 
I've been indoors for 10 weeks, no walks, no shops, no outside (other than garden), I'm bored out of my mind.

Seeing the graphs going down was getting me through, seeing people largely staying at home and obeying lockdown brought hope.

All I see now is people taking the pi$$, bbq's yesterday with 10+ people, groups of young lads walking down my road with their tops off with no care in the world, beaches full of littering idiots.

So do please keep dismissing the point of the lockdown. I'll have plenty of time to think about it when I have to spend another 3 months at home with no income. Unfortunately the 60k or so people who have died wont have that luxary.
Youths without tops on!
People are allowed to go outside. Some folk have been going outside since this all started, they're going to work,many of them ensuring people who remain in lockdown can have food delivered to them.
Not to say that folk shouldn't be cavalier about social distancing.
 
I think it - could - be worse second time around, August / Sept as too many people, I fear, will just go about as if the virus has gone away. I doubt the Gov has care homes secured enough & think infection rates will rise sharply - as it's already in the population - when restrictions are eased again, people return to work & use public transport & most of all - stop good hygiene & distancing practices.

I hope I'm wrong though I don't have much faith in the masses to follow good common sense measures.. we will see in a few months..

May 30th Tests People tested, Positive, Deaths in Hosp, Deaths all
Daily 115,725, Unavailable 1,936, 119.........................113
Total 4,285,738,Unavailable 274,762, 30,861,..................38,489

I can see that but I would assume (hope) that anyone who can work from home is still encouraged to do so, public transport use still kept to a minimum, and that live sport continues to be played behind closed doors etc. Restaurants/bars should only open if social distancing is feasible. I'd have thought that if these basic things are adhered to there's no scientific possibility that a second wave can be worse than the first. The government cannot control whether people meet in the park but they can stop 80,000 people gathering in public for a gig or football match, which I'd imagine has a much bigger impact than 20 people meeting in the park for a barbecue.
 
The well put argument, based on the experience of other countries as well, was that we could have locked down earlier, come out of lockdown earlier and the number of deaths could have been much lower. Also, we would have come out with a death rate and infection rate much lower. The government got it totally wrong.

This. If you're going to lock down, do it before the virus has achieved widespread community transmission (like Denmark, Norway and Finland). Otherwise, it has limited value. Social distancing and travel restrictions are the important long term tools. The problem was that there were clearly a lot of people already infected during February, especially in London ... but also along the main transport arteries out of London. But at that point it was largely invisible. We did everything several weeks too late .... though we would now be facing the greater likelihood of a second large bout of infections.

Hope you are all well.
 
Could Covid 19 be weakening, some Italian doctors seem to think so?

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-h...potency-top-italian-doctor-says-idUKKBN2370OP

This is the standard for virus' which is actually a good thing about letting them spread... More spread, more mutation which tends to weaken the infection as the virus does not want to kill it's host.
Another problem with the lockdown could well be that this natural occurrence has been stifled prolonging the harsher strain of the virus within hospital and care home settings.
 
yes its all interesting stuff about the potential natural weakening of the virus. Do scientists still entertain that it could die out at 26 deg C too? I saw that a few weeks back.
 
Back
Top