Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I had a look at their graphs and wasn't sure the numbers backed up their points.

They were talking about doubling every week with approx 50k case by end of next month. Yet the figures on their graph showed cases have been static for about the last 9 days?
 
I think a second lockdown is going to be an absolute disaster and could absolutely have been avoided, but if the alternative is the same as / worse than what we saw late March / early April with 900-odd dying a day (or worse) then the government is going to have to do it.

Think a second lockdown leads to a lot more problems than the first though.

I know it seems daft to say, but even things like the weather. We were lucky in the UK to have nice weather in April to June and if you were fortunate to have an outdoor space or able to get out on a walk/bike, it kept a lot of people sane (I feel so sorry for people - like yourself I believe - who lived in major cities, but I'm not a city person as it is).

Switch that to a lockdown for November-December, with the pressures of Christmas (just socially it's a thing isn't it), the strain on families, not being able to get out in dark nights and cold weather. It's a recipe for disaster on a very individual level - mental health, physical health etc if gyms have to close.

That's not even counting the financial implications which then go on to impact a lot more lives.

I guess the initial steps will be curfew on bars/restaurants etc. More limits on numbers mixing in households (then again it's much more dangerous going into asda even with everyone wearing a mask).

They'll do all they can - and I do think rightly so - to avoid that second lockdown. NHS should also be able to handle it. I know there was talk the Nightingale etc had been decommissioned, but I was surprised to learn last week that it's ready and waiting if needed. Hopefully it won't be.
 
I think a second lockdown is going to be an absolute disaster and could absolutely have been avoided, but if the alternative is the same as / worse than what we saw late March / early April with 900-odd dying a day (or worse) then the government is going to have to do it.

With you.

Both sides of the scientific argument are in favour of more restrictions, so I don’t think it’s a daft one and I’m not sure your analogy makes sense in this situation.

Some health experts want a lockdown. Some want tighter restrictions but to still allow work and school to continue. There is a huge difference between those two positions but both would be significantly more restrictive than today.
 
I had a look at their graphs and wasn't sure the numbers backed up their points.

They were talking about doubling every week with approx 50k case by end of next month. Yet the figures on their graph showed cases have been static for about the last 9 days?

Couple of things, the case rate is doubling every week or so, looking at the 7 day average on Worldometers. Today will be a big indication as there is always a lag on weekends. If we see over 5000 we’ll know the forecast is accurate.

But also, there is a difference between proven cases and actual cases. You can guarantee that if we do get to 50,000 cases per day, there will not be anywhere near that many confirmed cases via a positive test. There simply aren’t enough tests to achieve that, which is part of our problem currently.
 
So basically we've had a press conference but the announcement has been embargoed?

*bombards No. 10 Twitter with "Announce Restrictions", "don't have alerts on for this Boris ffs"*
 


And this point of view unfortunately remains.

I know Joe's a good Evertonian, he may even be on here. I'm just using this tweet as an example.

It's such a daft statement. The economy and people's lives are intrinsically linked. It's not right wing to think that.

There has to be a way forward without another full lockdown. Because it will do tons of damage going forward that industries (not just the hospitality trade) will never recover from, not least after the first one.
 
Think a second lockdown leads to a lot more problems than the first though.

I know it seems daft to say, but even things like the weather. We were lucky in the UK to have nice weather in April to June and if you were fortunate to have an outdoor space or able to get out on a walk/bike, it kept a lot of people sane (I feel so sorry for people - like yourself I believe - who lived in major cities, but I'm not a city person as it is).

Switch that to a lockdown for November-December, with the pressures of Christmas (just socially it's a thing isn't it), the strain on families, not being able to get out in dark nights and cold weather. It's a recipe for disaster on a very individual level - mental health, physical health etc if gyms have to close.

That's not even counting the financial implications which then go on to impact a lot more lives.

I guess the initial steps will be curfew on bars/restaurants etc. More limits on numbers mixing in households (then again it's much more dangerous going into asda even with everyone wearing a mask).

They'll do all they can - and I do think rightly so - to avoid that second lockdown. NHS should also be able to handle it. I know there was talk the Nightingale etc had been decommissioned, but I was surprised to learn last week that it's ready and waiting if needed. Hopefully it won't be.

Again, this is making the mistake of thinking this can be managed without the means to do the managing.

To avoid a second lockdown you have to have people able to identify infected / potentially infected moving around and stop them infecting others, which requires a lot of people and a lot of effort at responding quickly in every instance. This is not something the system these idiots have put together does anything like good enough and it doesn't deal with the issues that make those people move around either (ie: the financial pressures that a lot of people are under - gig work, renting, debt - that mean they cannot drop everything for two weeks).
 
Again, this is making the mistake of thinking this can be managed without the means to do the managing.

To avoid a second lockdown you have to have people able to identify infected / potentially infected moving around and stop them infecting others, which requires a lot of people and a lot of effort at responding quickly in every instance. This is not something the system these idiots have put together does anything like good enough and it doesn't deal with the issues that make those people move around either (ie: the financial pressures that a lot of people are under - gig work, renting, debt - that mean they cannot drop everything for two weeks).

I agree.

But there will have to be another way out of it than another full lockdown. Even if it is a 2-3 week period in October/November. Another two month lockdown is gonna put us in even more ruin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top