Was Sweden right after all ?

I think you will find that most of us have already said that. and it means that COMPULSORY lockdown is pointless.

Even Sweden have had to make some parts of lockdown compulsory and they've got a much more disciplined and educated public (overall) than we have Cyndy?
 
Upvote 0
No easy answers to the covid problem. We kill people or we kill people or we kill people.

Exactly.


. At best the politicians (and all sides are included here) doing a delicate balancing act.

Suppression is not a balancing act. A balanced response would be something like protecting the most vulnerable - not doing things like closing schools, locking down when the NHS is able to cope, etc.

We now have evidence that the original lockdown, which was imposed because it looked like the NHS would be unable to cope, actually costs lives.

Supressions delays infections, not prevents them.
 
Upvote 0
Gpietersz

You said most pubs are full

That's just not true at all. So far off the mark.

Do you actually believe that?

Some pubs might be full on the odd night.

Many have never even re-opened when they were allowed to and yet the ones that left are still trading at 50 per cent of previous year's turnover

Even with no lockdown rules in place?

You are out of touch with what's happening in hospitality even in the places that are open.
 
Upvote 0
The below figures are from 12th August article:


Sales at pub, restaurant and bar chains halved in July compared to last summer, as almost two-thirds of restaurants remained closed and consumer wariness sparked a surge in home deliveries.

Sales in July were down 50.4% year-on-year, with restaurants worse hit than pubs and London suffering more than the rest of the UK.

Bar sales fell 63%, restaurants 60% and pubs 45%, according to the Coffer Peach business tracker, which collates figures from 49 group-owned and managed companies that run more than 7,500 sites.
 
Upvote 0

You said compulsory lockdown is pointless?

Even the countries that have tried to avoid making stuff compulsory have had to do that with some things

You can't just leave people to make their own rules up

What would HR be like working in without any rules to follow?
 
Upvote 0
The fact
You said compulsory lockdown is pointless?

Even the countries that have tried to avoid making stuff compulsory have had to do that with some things

You can't just leave people to make their own rules up

What would HR be like working in without any rules to follow?
that some random country has made something comulsory does noit make it right.

As I told you before I DO NOT WORK IN HR. Please make some effort to keep up.
 
Upvote 0
Exactly.




Suppression is not a balancing act. A balanced response would be something like protecting the most vulnerable - not doing things like closing schools, locking down when the NHS is able to cope, etc.

We now have evidence that the original lockdown, which was imposed because it looked like the NHS would be unable to cope, actually costs lives.

Supressions delays infections, not prevents them.

At what point should locking down take place?
If waiting until NHS unable to cope then its weeks too late - hospital admissions won't be at the same time the virus is caught.

So far we have had no prevention of infection. We have restriction of people's movements and we have had restrictions on where they can go - lock down a gift shop and people can't go in it for example - but prevention of infection? We didn't go that far.
At best we reduced ability to transmit as it had been.

And what would have been the impact on lives if we had not done lockdown? You think people would go for routine surgery to a place rammed full of covid patients? You think that people with certain types of chemotherapy would not have been impacted by a rapidly spreading virus anyway? You think nursing care would be the same with more staff off sick? You think the NHS could have coped with 10 times the numbers needing hospitalisation than we actually had?
 
Upvote 0
At what point should locking down take place?
If waiting until NHS unable to cope then its weeks too late - hospital admissions won't be at the same time the virus is caught.

When there is a high rate of hospitalisations and a high rate of increase - i.e. you can reasonably anticipate the NHS being unable to cope. Conditions like last March, for example.
 
Upvote 0
You think the NHS could have coped with 10 times the numbers needing hospitalisation than we actually had?

Do you have any reason to think it would have been that bad? The latest analysis of the Imperial model (see my link earlier) suggest it would have been nothing like as bad. Growth in hospitalisations had started flattening out prior to lockdown.
 
Upvote 0
When there is a high rate of hospitalisations and a high rate of increase - i.e. you can reasonably anticipate the NHS being unable to cope. Conditions like last March, for example.

And how long afterwards did the numbers peak?
Work backwards - if you want the same peak then same numbers apply, however if you want a lower peak then you want a lower point at which to impose lockdown.

No lockdown of any sort appears remote. Some sort of lockdown.... like we have now or like we had 2 months ago or whatever....

Government aren't saying there won't be lockdown, they are fiddling about with what elements to include and where.

If in early April anyone had suggested local lockdowns would be a good idea it would have been jumped on. Now.... is it the lockdown that is not working or is it the people that are ignoring it?

Government can say what they want. Does not mean people will listen. Or care.
 
Upvote 0
The fact

that some random country has made something comulsory does noit make it right.

As I told you before I DO NOT WORK IN HR. Please make some effort to keep up.

So you honestly believe lf left to their own devices the business and the public will make the right decisions and know exactly when and where to go out and what to do in order to prevent our NHS getting overrun and keep the economy to the max at the same time

Why do we have any rules at all in life?

Why do we have Governments?

And why do we need employment law?

If everybody when left to their own devices can individually figure out the best way forward for the country and the NHS?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
Do you have any reason to think it would have been that bad? The latest analysis of the Imperial model (see my link earlier) suggest it would have been nothing like as bad. Growth in hospitalisations had started flattening out prior to lockdown.

Numbers were on the increase still in March? There is an absolute limit to the numbers - but thats pretty bad for the country.
And for those left outside. Though closing a hospital pushes numbers elsewhere to already pressed hospitals.
 
Upvote 0
So you honestly believe lf left to their own device the public will make the right decisions and no exactly when and where to go out and what to do in order to prevent our NHS getting overrun and keep the economy to the max at the same time

Why do we have any rules at all in life?

Why do we have Governments?

And why do we need employment law?

If everybody when left to their own devices can individually figure out the best way forward for the country and the NHS?

Heh - we know the public don't make the right decisions.
Otherwise they'd already have done it.

They don't appear to follow government guidance on masks, hand washing after using the loo or social distancing. Perhaps they will ignore lockdowns too.
 
Upvote 0
When there is a high rate of hospitalisations and a high rate of increase - i.e. you can reasonably anticipate the NHS being unable to cope. Conditions like last March, for example.

25% the other day, 12% today
At 12% we will be higher than April within a fortnight
 
Upvote 0
Once again, they’re not cases, they’re positive tests.

Which is a good thing is it not? The more positives, the more people will be highly likely to be out of the chain of transmission before winter kicks in.

This is increasingly nothing to do with ‘protecting the nhs’ and more like the government running scared of being exposed for its failings.
 
Upvote 0
25% the other day, 12% today
At 12% we will be higher than April within a fortnight

Which suggests that to keep below April figures then we impose further measures on the 6th October.
Such as further lockdown or other methods to disrupt virus transmission.

Reminds me, must pick up some more ethanol tomorrow.
 
Upvote 0
Work backwards - if you want the same peak then same numbers apply, however if you want a lower peak then you want a lower point at which to impose lockdown.

What would be the benefit of a lower peak? The NHS was able to cope with the last one.

Once again, they’re not cases, they’re positive tests.

and with the current scale of testing, false positives become significant.
 
Upvote 0
What would be the benefit of a lower peak? The NHS was able to cope with the last one.



and with the current scale of testing, false positives become significant.

Lower peak- More staff time and resources to be used for other urgent stuff? Perhaps even treat some people / run scans that are needed / replace pacemakers / do organ transplantation.


Or how about not repeatedly loading stress onto staff? Not repeatedly exhausting staff?

How many times a year should we hit a particular peak?

And what if happen to be wrong about the when to impose measures and go over the peak by say 25 percent?

Sometimes in planning besides factoring in Murphy it can be useful to not blow past capacity at high speed. The whooshing sound as all the hospitals in an area shut down to all patients due to being full..... The whooshing is the target figure being passed at high speed... With further increase.

Oh and false negatives also count. Can spread the virus to dozens!
 
Upvote 0
@Mr D I agree in principal but the previous peak was much less than feared at the time the lockdown was imposed so I think imposing lockdown when patients in hospital with covid is at 15% of the peak and rising slowly is not justified.

What timescale for the other 85% at current rates?
 
Upvote 0
Take a look at the graphs on this page:

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare

I would say that looks like a matter of months, possibly many months, assuming exponential growth.

Look at the data on that page,
there has been a steady rise since late September

What is the % rise in the last week?

Then add that percentage rise on todays figure

Do that 3 times (3 weeks to end of month)

What figure do you get?
 
Upvote 0
UKSBD and yourself both right?
Both wrong?
Or answer depends on something?


Anyone know what the doubling number of days is at the moment?

Hopefully we won't find out.

The Government will do something, plus we have half term end of next week.
Edit to add: the timing corresponding with half term is probably no coincidence
 
Upvote 0
Hopefully we won't find out.

The Government will do something, plus we have half term end of next week.
Edit to add: the timing corresponding with half term is probably no coincidence

Half term north of the border is earlier in some areas - government gets to see how the public take a measure before implementation in England.

Can pretty much bet they will have further limits / lockdown / shutting of places.
Not sure the rule of 6 has made any difference. Shutting hospitality may - but the cost to the industry.... Not sure many of those businesses negatively affected by lockdowns so far could survive even one more. Never mind multiple ones.
 
Upvote 0
Look at the figures rather than the pretty graphs and it is truly frightening.

Just got to hope some of the daily figures this week have skewed things and something happens to slow it down.
 
Upvote 0
Anyone know what the doubling number of days is at the moment?

If you are talking about people being hospitalized.

Going by last weeks figures you are looking at every 7 to 9 days.
(still got to hope that 25% was a blip)
 
Upvote 0
@Mr D I agree in principal but the previous peak was much less than feared at the time the lockdown was imposed so I think imposing lockdown when patients in hospital with covid is at 15% of the peak and rising slowly is not justified.

It's only October.

With flu in the past the worst months are normally December and January.

The worst is probably still to come and like Mr D says how long can NHS staff work under severe pressure
 
Upvote 0
It's only October.

With flu in the past the worst months are normally December and January.

The worst is probably still to come and like Mr D says how long can NHS staff work under severe pressure


Prior to this year the NHS had trouble recruiting staff to fill posts. If staff crack, die, become disabled or simply burn out due to pressure of work.....
There is not a large ready pool of experienced replacements.
Not sure there are any trained replacement available short of ex staff coming back.
 
Upvote 0
If you are talking about people being hospitalized.

Going by last weeks figures you are looking at every 7 to 9 days.
(still got to hope that 25% was a blip)

Even using 9 days figure - 15 percent to 100 percent figure is just a few steps....
 
Upvote 0
On the other hand patients in hospital doubled in 15 days, so we are looking at about a month and a half to get to 85%.

I was being too optimistic saying months.

At the time of the lockdown it was a similar number but doubling every 3 days. and it was four days immediately after lockdown and took another 7 days to double again.

So the situation now is less dangerous now than it was then with lockdown.

Also, its worth repeating, with new analysis showing that the lockdown cost lives, it should not be rushed into.
 
Upvote 0
On the other hand patients in hospital doubled in 15 days, so we are looking at about a month and a half to get to 85%.

I was being too optimistic saying months.

At the time of the lockdown it was a similar number but doubling every 3 days. and it was four days immediately after lockdown and took another 7 days to double again.

So the situation now is less dangerous now than it was then with lockdown.

Also, its worth repeating, with new analysis showing that the lockdown cost lives, it should not be rushed into.

So at this distance - and bearing in mind figures will change, up or down - figure a new lockdown or other major method of restrictions in about 4 weeks. And cancel bonfire night.

So at least one (maybe more) major lockdown or other breaking infection link method this year.
No matter what I cannot think of any method that could be made to work that will not negatively impact lives.
And not breaking infection link, simply allowing current methods to go on - also negatively impact lives.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't. With others paying whatever price.
 
Upvote 0
Damned if they do, damned if they don't. With others paying whatever price.

If they do nothing and figures go up - People will say the Government should have done something to stop it rising.

If they do something and figures drop - People will say, look, there was no need to do anything the figures haven't gone up like they said they would.
 
Upvote 0
So at this distance - and bearing in mind figures will change, up or down - figure a new lockdown or other major method of restrictions in about 4 weeks. And cancel bonfire night.

Assuming growth continues on the apparent current exponential trend we will be at the same level. Exponential growth does not usually continue indefinitely.

However, we will also have slower growth, so we will be better placed than we were at the time of the original lockdown.

On top of that, the political support for lockdown is much weaker than it was in march. The opposition has dropped its unconditional support for lockdown, there are Tory rebels opposing lockdown, the Barrington declaration has got media coverage, as have studies suggesting lockdown was not a good idea are getting more media coverage, and there is a lot more focus on the consequences of lockdown.
 
Upvote 0
The Covid figures from all over Europe are dire reading today.

And you've got Governments of all persuasions locking down. Many stricter lockdowns than us.

Left, right and centre Governments

Can all these Governments be wrong to lockdown?

What do some posters on here know that these Governments don't know?

We aren't an outlier. We are just doing what all of the rest are doing?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
Assuming growth continues on the apparent current exponential trend we will be at the same level. Exponential growth does not usually continue indefinitely.

Did you do the calculation I asked earlier, if so what figure did you get?
 
Upvote 0

Latest Articles