[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by JNW1

But the culture in countries like, say, China and Singapore is completely different from ours; rules are rules and non-compliance is met with the sort of reaction that would have human rights lawyers queuing-up for a pay day over here. And it's not just the UK, look at the response to the curfew in the Netherlands in the last few days and also the protests against restrictions that have taken place in other European countries as well - you see nothing like that in China or Singapore because the people there know the consequences of public dissent.

The comparison with countries like New Zealand isn't especially fair either IMO. By dint of its geography it's a country that's naturally socially distanced from the rest of the world and, combined with the low population density, it couldn't be much more different from the UK. That's not to say the Kiwis haven't done a good job of controlling the virus - they have - but in my view the challenge facing them was much easier than that facing the UK government.

I think when we finally come out of this we need a critical review of our handling of the whole pandemic and I'm sure it will show we've got lots of things wrong. However, that review and its conclusions needs to be based on facts - at the moment all we've got is for the most part speculation and guesswork.

I don’t think we have got just speculation and guesswork.

On the old thread someone posted a list of twenty odd countries that locked down hard, that didn’t wait for it to be out of control, that didn’t delay and dispute the effectiveness of certain measures. They all got on top of it in a similar short time and they were all on different locations, different populations, some western, some Asian.

We have one of the highest death rates in the world, and it’s as bad as it’s ever been. We created the new strain by letting the old one spread again. We created our own downfall. We are not special, we are ponderous and indecisive.

[KRS_SN]

people are mostly similar worldwide. governments are (except China Russia etc) mostly similar worldwide. Here is a thought. The NHS and social care and benefits system etc is good at protecting the weak and the vulnerable in the UK compared to many countries hence this specific virus which takes a toll in exactly that group finds UK its natural preferred home.

[pmgreenwood]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

I don’t think it is a combination of all the comparatives.

Vastly different countries, with higher ages, more population density, worse health etc all have examples where it’s been controlled better.

There was a report right at the start of last year from some scientist that said stop thinking about the nuances of your individual countries. Wear masks, lockdown fast, trace and isolate. Don’t try and be cleverer than that with strategies, the virus isn’t listening.

Most countries, whether high population or low population, centre around cities. The fact that New Zealand has more empty countryside is irrelevant. Schools, colleges, workplaces, bars, restaurants all will be similarly busy in most countries, and that’s where it’s being caught. It’s more about social interaction than anything else. And as other countries have proved, it doesn’t matter how densely populated your cities are, if you limit that interaction you slow/stop the virus. If you do it late and less severe you don’t.

So we end up with one long seemingly endless versions of lockdown or restrictions, and other countries have one hard one and have much more normal a life the rest of the time.

but the number of Schools, colleges, workplaces, bars, restaurants is directly related to population density. Also what matters is the average house size. eg China one kid rule for years, look at the infection rates in the like of Burnley and Blackburn with far greater multi occupation in houses.

All the evidence form the heat maps of infection rate by age group and time is the latest peak grew in the 15 to 30-year-olds who then took it home to the elderly

Yes culture, rule imposition and compliance matters but the ultimate outcome also depends on the economic, demographic, health and social structure of a particular country. I am no defender of Boris, the exact opposite but wit a scientific training I would hope to look at all the factors that add up to a particular outcome

[pmgreenwood]

Originally Posted by DougMcL

Anyone watching 54 days on BBC2 right now?

No, the football but have downloaded from Iplayer and will record rest of series

[Wills2]

Originally Posted by ZedsRedBaby

I still think it's a combination of factors. If you turn the question round and ask "How could the UK avoid having high Covid mortality?" my answer would be "I wouldn't start from here if I was you."

Well I think the statement that it's a combination of factors is if you don't mind me saying bleeding obvious...hence my post.

I didn't actually ask that question, however you state you wouldn't start from here in answer to a question you pose, so where would you start...(seems reasonable that you explain the answer to your own question...)

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

people are mostly similar worldwide. governments are (except China Russia etc) mostly similar worldwide. Here is a thought. The NHS and social care and benefits system etc is good at protecting the weak and the vulnerable in the UK compared to many countries hence this specific virus which takes a toll in exactly that group finds UK its natural preferred home.

I think that's the sort of thing a post-pandemic review will need to look at. On the face of it the UK ranks far worse in terms of death rate per million of population than it does in terms of infection rate per million of population; some of that might be a failure to record infections accurately in the early stages - and hence the figure's understated - but even allowing for that there's a discrepancy between our position on deaths and infections relative to other countries. Perhaps the scenario you describe might be a factor in that?

[ZedsRedBaby]

Originally Posted by Wills2

Well I think the statement that it's a combination of factors is if you don't mind me saying bleeding obvious...hence my post.

I didn't actually ask that question, however you state you wouldn't start from here in answer to a question you pose, so where would you start...(seems reasonable that you explain the answer to your own question...)

The point of my post is that with our combination of age and obesity we're pretty much doomed to fail. Even with effective lockdown and border controls, which I agree would have been a bit of a help, we're still going to come out of this on the wrong side of average.

So where would I start? About 2 stone lighter in my case.

[JD6]

I think we probably have to compare ourselves with similar European countries rather than China / NZ etc where other factors apply. Doing that, our death stats are still worse, but not vastly so.

However it’s also worth considering the other impacts of the stricter rules that were imposed, and that’s harder to examine than deaths. In Spain for example people were literally confined to their homes for a significant period, even if a family was squashed into a tiny apartment. One person could leave to shop, but the rest of the family were effectively imprisoned for many weeks at a time. That’s a very high price to pay for the whole of society to prevent a relatively small number of deaths.

In France during the earlier lockdowns, people could leave once a day for one hour, and had to carry a document detailing the times to produce on request. In the later lockdowns you could select the hour on your app, but it was just an hour and you were liable to be stopped by the police. Probably ok in a nice house with a garden. Not great if you’re in a tiny apartment as some friends were.

The U.K. in my view took a sensible liberal approach to outdoor exercise and I expect the mental health impact will be less than in countries which were stricter. I’m no fan of this government, but to me they got that part right, even if it cost some lives.

[ZedsRedBaby]

Originally Posted by JD6

I think we probably have to compare ourselves with similar European countries rather than China / NZ etc where other factors apply. Doing that, our death stats are still worse, but not vastly so.

However it's also worth considering the other impacts of the stricter rules that were imposed, and that's harder to examine than deaths. In Spain for example people were literally confined to their homes for a significant period, even if a family was squashed into a tiny apartment. One person could leave to shop, but the rest of the family were effectively imprisoned for many weeks at a time. That's a very high price to pay for the whole of society to prevent a relatively small number of deaths.

In France during the earlier lockdowns, people could leave once a day for one hour, and had to carry a document detailing the times to produce on request. In the later lockdowns you could select the hour on your app, but it was just an hour and you were liable to be stopped by the police. Probably ok in a nice house with a garden. Not great if you're in a tiny apartment as some friends were.

The U.K. in my view took a sensible liberal approach to outdoor exercise and I expect the mental health impact will be less than in countries which were stricter. I'm no fan of this government, but to me they got that part right, even if it cost some lives.

I think this is the problem. In some countries lockdown means lockdown. Here it seems to mean would you mind awfully if you stayed in for a couple of hours a day? If there are fewer than 100 people in a room it will probably just get overlooked. Hence my earlier comment that non-compliance is the biggest issue.

Will we reap the benefits through better mental health? I'm struggling to see that tbh.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by pmgreenwood

but the number of Schools, colleges, workplaces, bars, restaurants is directly related to population density. Also what matters is the average house size. eg China one kid rule for years, look at the infection rates in the like of Burnley and Blackburn with far greater multi occupation in houses.

All the evidence form the heat maps of infection rate by age group and time is the latest peak grew in the 15 to 30-year-olds who then took it home to the elderly

Yes culture, rule imposition and compliance matters but the ultimate outcome also depends on the economic, demographic, health and social structure of a particular country. I am no defender of Boris, the exact opposite but wit a scientific training I would hope to look at all the factors that add up to a particular outcome

Your post sort of proves my point. China with one child rule was rife with it until they locked down.

The only thing that mattered at the start was stopping interaction and exchange of virus particles. Forget demographics. Stay at home, and when you absolutely must go out wear a mask.

Countries that did that sooner managed better, whether that be Japan with a higher population density or New Zealand with less. And there were loads more examples.

We were slow to act. We didn’t impose hard enough or follow the rules we did have.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by ZedsRedBaby

I think this is the problem. In some countries lockdown means lockdown. Here it seems to mean would you mind awfully if you stayed in for a couple of hours a day? If there are fewer than 100 people in a room it will probably just get overlooked. Hence my earlier comment that non-compliance is the biggest issue.

Will we reap the benefits through better mental health? I'm struggling to see that tbh.

Me too, mental health service is having tonnes of Covid patients added to it, and having resource diverted to start brand new services supporting ICU workers.

They’re even having psychologists all over the country heading up campaigns to combat the anti vax movement.

Covid itself is talking a huge toll on mental health and the NHS mental health service.

[Ronstein]

Originally Posted by JD6

I think we probably have to compare ourselves with similar European countries rather than China / NZ etc where other factors apply. Doing that, our death stats are still worse, but not vastly so.

However it’s also worth considering the other impacts of the stricter rules that were imposed, and that’s harder to examine than deaths. In Spain for example people were literally confined to their homes for a significant period, even if a family was squashed into a tiny apartment. One person could leave to shop, but the rest of the family were effectively imprisoned for many weeks at a time. That’s a very high price to pay for the whole of society to prevent a relatively small number of deaths.

In France during the earlier lockdowns, people could leave once a day for one hour, and had to carry a document detailing the times to produce on request. In the later lockdowns you could select the hour on your app, but it was just an hour and you were liable to be stopped by the police. Probably ok in a nice house with a garden. Not great if you’re in a tiny apartment as some friends were.

The U.K. in my view took a sensible liberal approach to outdoor exercise and I expect the mental health impact will be less than in countries which were stricter. I’m no fan of this government, but to me they got that part right, even if it cost some lives.

Agree. The UK statistics are also distorted by the new variant which is a factor that has massively increased infections and deaths here but not elsewhere (yet). It's possible that the peak we're seeing now will be replicated elsewhere as this or other mutations spread/occur. If we weren't ahead of the game for vaccinations, the situation would be far worse.

And as ever, retrospect is a wonderful thing especially if you're not the one having to make decisions in the moment without the benefit of it.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by Ronstein

Agree. The UK statistics are also distorted by the new variant which is a factor that has massively increased infections and deaths here but not elsewhere (yet). It's possible that the peak we're seeing now will be replicated elsewhere as this or other mutations spread/occur. If we weren't ahead of the game for vaccinations, the situation would be far worse.

And as ever, retrospect is a wonderful thing especially if you're not the one having to make decisions in the moment without the benefit of it.

It wasn’t retrospect. Countries and experts all around the world were telling us to act, telling us to wear masks, telling us to limit interaction, telling us to lockdown.

We pondered and did what we thought worked. Obviously it didn’t.

We created the new variant. If we’d kept levels low like we eventually did last summer, then it couldn’t have existed.

The summer weather wasn’t the main reason for our success, or Brazil, Mexico, hot US states would see the same, but they’re not. It was our lockdown that eventually helped.

A virus that’s almost gone is not going to mutate easily. There’s no new variant from countries that have low infection rates.

[pmgreenwood]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

Your post sort of proves my point. China with one child rule was rife with it until they locked down.

The only thing that mattered at the start was stopping interaction and exchange of virus particles. Forget demographics. Stay at home, and when you absolutely must go out wear a mask.

Countries that did that sooner managed better, whether that be Japan with a higher population density or New Zealand with less. And there were loads more examples.

We were slow to act. We didn’t impose hard enough or follow the rules we did have.

You are getting two issues crossed. None of us are saying a country does not need to lockdown or for individuals must wear masks in public indoor areas. Even New Zealand had a period pre lockdown. All we are saying is that what happens regarding infection rates etc in the period up to lockdown depends on the wider comparative factors has impact on the comparative number of deaths. Also if key workers etc are still working (and it is hard to lockdown key workers) the number in a typical property etc and the other comparative factors during lockdown has impact on infection rates. Period to lockdown is just another factor in the many comparatives it is not the sole comparative.

[HighlandPete]

What happened to "track, trace and isolate". Has been proposed from the beginning, as the key to controlling spread, including from the WHO.

My understanding, some of the greatest success stories (if we can call them that) is from countries where they have been more prepared in advance. Where, for example, SARS was a serious problem. They could implement measures much more speedily, including "T,T & I".

Many countries had not taken the advance warnings seriously, that there would be a viral outbreak, something like Covid.

The sobering thing is, Covid won't be the last, it has been a wake up call to how vulnerable we all are. The amount of International travel (even in the midst of the pandemic), highlights it's still not really taken seriously.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by pmgreenwood

You are getting two issues crossed. None of us are saying a country does not need to lockdown or for individuals must wear masks in public indoor areas. Even New Zealand had a period pre lockdown. All we are saying is that what happens regarding infection rates etc in the period up to lockdown depends on the wider comparative factors has impact on the comparative number of deaths. Also if key workers etc are still working (and it is hard to lockdown key workers) the number in a typical property etc and the other comparative factors during lockdown has impact on infection rates. Period to lockdown is just another factor in the many comparatives it is not the sole comparative.

I understand exactly what you’re saying. And I’m saying I don’t agree.

New Zealand wasn’t the only country that managed it, plenty of others did too. They all had their differences in population, locations etc etc. The only thing they had in common was fast action, clear policies, and less doubt.

From today’s news.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55820178

[pmgreenwood]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

I understand exactly what you’re saying. And I’m saying I don’t agree.

New Zealand wasn’t the only country that managed it, plenty of others did too. They all had their differences in population, locations etc etc. The only thing they had in common was fast action, clear policies, and less doubt.

I have never said poor UK decision making and timing was not a reason in the death numbers, all I am saying is that is not the sole reason.

And did none of those other quick lockdown countries had any variations in their overall death rate versus NZ? If they did what caused the variations in your opinion?

[JD6]

Originally Posted by ZedsRedBaby

I think this is the problem. In some countries lockdown means lockdown. Here it seems to mean would you mind awfully if you stayed in for a couple of hours a day? If there are fewer than 100 people in a room it will probably just get overlooked. Hence my earlier comment that non-compliance is the biggest issue.

Will we reap the benefits through better mental health? I'm struggling to see that tbh.

I think that there is a balance to be struck with lockdowns, particularly in the impact they have in the less well off. It's all very well to be sitting in a spacious house with a garden, with work that can be done from home, calling for tougher lockdowns, but the impact on some parts of society which aren't well represented on this forum could be quite significant.

I'm sure that Covid will have left us with some serious mental health issues in the UK, but in my view, the situation in France and particularly Spain, with effective imprisonment of the population could be more damaging. Hence the suggestion that looking at death figures in isolation doesn't give a full picture.

[Kendo67]

Originally Posted by ZedsRedBaby

I think this is the problem. In some countries lockdown means lockdown. Here it seems to mean would you mind awfully if you stayed in for a couple of hours a day?

Got to agree with this , in November we booked the boys car into a local bodyshop at some point in January to have a small dent in the rear quarter repaired and they contacted us last week to confirm the booking ?

His alloys also need refinished and i was astounded to see that the local wheel place is still trading as usual ?

Looking on Watchfinder this morning i was surprised to see that the Glasgow branch is open as per usual but with appointment only , AFAIK it has always been appointment only basis.

Roads are still busy around here so where are all the people going ?

Seems we are in a "soft" lockdown as opposed to a proper one like LD1.

K

[Nibbles]

Originally Posted by JD6

I think that there is a balance to be struck with lockdowns, particularly in the impact they have in the less well off. It's all very well to be sitting in a spacious house with a garden, with work that can be done from home, calling for tougher lockdowns, but the impact on some parts of society which aren't well represented on this forum could be quite significant.

I'm sure that Covid will have left us with some serious mental health issues in the UK, but in my view, the situation in France and particularly Spain, with effective imprisonment of the population could be more damaging. Hence the suggestion that looking at death figures in isolation doesn't give a full picture.

I think what everyone really needs now is some direction and visibility that a plan is actually in place. Everyone can manage restrictions on their lives if they know why and for how long and the government should be able to put something like that in place and announce it. I know there are lots of variable and it can change but most people are ok with change if it's explained why it's happening. Planning and being effective isn't even in the dot-to-dot playbook of this bunch of clowns.

Something like - the lockdown will need to last until hospital admissions have fallen to X and new infections are below y. Then areas will go into the tiered levels with tier 4 being whilst hospital admissions are at X-n and new infections are Y-m etc etc. If they go above that then you move into the next tier or we go back to a full lockdown. All the info will be published daily, if you're in an area in one tier and you see the rates rising, limit what you do yourself before we have to!

[pmgreenwood]

Originally Posted by Kendo67

Got to agree with this , in November we booked the boys car into a local bodyshop at some point in January to have a small dent in the rear quarter repaired and they contacted us last week to confirm the booking ?

His alloys also need refinished and i was astounded to see that the local wheel place is still trading as usual ?

Looking on Watchfinder this morning i was surprised to see that the Glasgow branch is open as per usual but with appointment only , AFAIK it has always been appointment only basis.

Roads are still busy around here so where are all the people going ?

Seems we are in a "soft" lockdown as opposed to a proper one like LD1.

K

Yes but if garage follows Covid safe operation rules, hand sanitiser, masks and distancing how high is the additional risk. It is nowhere near as high as a group of individuals sitting in a bar or restaurant for an hour..

As one of those likely to have to pick up the bill for this, there has to some sensible rules on who is eligible for furlow and support while off work.

[pmgreenwood]

Originally Posted by Nibbles

I think what everyone really needs now is some direction and visibility that a plan is actually in place. Everyone can manage restrictions on their lives if they know why and for how long and the government should be able to put something like that in place and announce it. I know there are lots of variable and it can change but most people are ok with change if it's explained why it's happening. Planning and being effective isn't even in the dot-to-dot playbook of this bunch of clowns.

Something like - the lockdown will need to last until hospital admissions have fallen to X and new infections are below y. Then areas will go into the tiered levels with tier 4 being whilst hospital admissions are at X-n and new infections are Y-m etc etc. If they go above that then you move into the next tier or we go back to a full lockdown. All the info will be published daily, if you're in an area in one tier and you see the rates rising, limit what you do yourself before we have to!

I would agree except that as there is nearly a one to one relationship between infection rate and hospital admissions 10 days later and deaths another 10 days later, in practice, sensible decisions and timely planning could be done just from reliable estimates of local infection rate. But the press and those who concentrate just on deaths figures will probably not let advantage be taken