Ignoring lockdown in ED

[jimlad48]

Well you're a miserable person. Perhaps you should stay indoors and accept that if people are following guidelines, or trying to, there isn't that much of an issue.

Sorry, but if you're going to moan about people being outside, you need to accept that by going outside you are part of the problem.

lindylou Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Had enough now. I started this thread about the

> people sitting on the benches outside the

> Palmerston on Lordship Lane. Once again, I had to

> go to Lloyds pharmacy on North Ross Road to

> collect a prescription. 3.20om, every bench

> outside the pub was taken up by luvvies with their

> takeaway coffees, 3 or 4 at each table, enjoying

> the sun. Not at all bothered. Well Palmerston pub,

> your benches might be fixed to the ground but

> there's no excuse. Enjoy your fine. Reporting you.

[seenbeen]

Yeslovewhatcanigetu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We?ve been failed by a government bathing in the

> glow of British exceptionalism and not enacting

> sensible measures at the appropriate time. We?ve

> suffered from underfunding essential services, not

> providing appropriate PPE and leaving care homes

> out to dry as the residents are old and therefore

> not seen as a priority. This has got very little

> to do with people jogging, walking, sitting in

> parks enjoying a bit of sunshine or buying ice

> creams and respecting distancing measures as they

> do it.

>

> edcam Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > There are no soft options. This country is

> > failing badly. In no small part due to the

> lack

> > of observation of the rules. This mentality of

> > "being kind" about it and "what's the problem

> if

> > people are distancing" is one of the reasons we

> > have one of the worst death rates in Europe.

> It's

> > not OK to go out unless you are exercising or

> > shopping and even then you need to be careful.

> > Why is your exceptionalism more important than

> > anything else? Go to the park but don't sit

> > around in it.

> >

> > binkylilyput Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > The point being that those with available

> > outside

> > > space need to be kinder and stop finger

> > pointing

> > > at those who choose to sit down in a park

> within

> > a

> > > safe distance from others for a little bit.

> > >

> > > Not having outside space available (which the

> > vast

> > > majority of East Dulwichers do) during this

> > time

> > > is really harsh.

> > >

> > > As with most things, this lockdown is hitting

> > the

> > > socially disadvantaged hardest.......and the

> > > judgements and scandal from people who have

> no

> > > need to sit in a park is really shameful.

Care homes are either privately owned and run- (I know 2 people who worked in those and they were woefully deprived by their money-grabbing owners). And other forms of care, both care homes and care givers in peoples' own homes, are run by local councils under the adult social care departments of your local council. Therefore the PPE should have been bought in by themselves - the government provided extra for local councils

https://www.local.gov.uk/our-support/coronavirus-information-councils/covid-19-council-finances

However the PPE was a GLOBAL crisis as is the Covid 19....it is an unprecedented disaster that should have been averted after the SARS outbreak in 2002.

[PnB]

lindylou Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Had enough now. I started this thread about the

> people sitting on the benches outside the

> Palmerston on Lordship Lane. Once again, I had to

> go to Lloyds pharmacy on North Ross Road to

> collect a prescription. 3.20om, every bench

> outside the pub was taken up by luvvies with their

> takeaway coffees, 3 or 4 at each table, enjoying

> the sun. Not at all bothered. Well Palmerston pub,

> your benches might be fixed to the ground but

> there's no excuse. Enjoy your fine. Reporting you.

Who are you reporting a currently defunct business to? What fine do you reckon they'll get?

Earlier today i was quite shocked to see a fellow human being leaning against a railing. I've had enough and i am calling the council to have the railing removed and whoever put it there hopefully fined.

[alice]

Ll good post. Providing seating encourages and legitimises people breaking our current regulations.

[jimlad48]

alice Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ll good post. Providing seating encourages and

> legitimises people breaking our current

> regulations.

They're not regulations, they are advice and guidance. An important distinction.

[dbboy]

When you eventually catch CV 19, can't breath and subsequently die, don't moan, because you didn't follow the guidance.

The guidance wasn't published for fun, theirs a very good reason why it's been put out.

AS of TODAY, 28,000+ people in the UK have died from covid 19.

Stay at Home, Protect the NHS and Save Lives. It's really not difficult to understand.

[IlonaM]

jimlad48 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

>

>

> They're not regulations, they are advice and

> guidance. An important distinction.

I'm afraid jimlad48 they are enforceable public health regulations. Advice and guidance would not be enough in a national emergency and the police would not be able to enforce them, issue fines or take you to court if your trangression were serious enough. You can read about them here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/police-given-new-powers-and-support-to-respond-to-coronavirus and https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/c19/coronavirus-covid-19/the-new-police-powers/.

[fishbiscuits]

So which is it? The government brought in restrictions too late, and haven't been strict enough? Or picnics, games of football, and going out for coffee on Lordship Lane are all fine?

Can't have it both ways.

[jimlad48]

And tens of thousands have died from other illness too. Its a nasty bug, but lets be clear, the way cause of death is recorded in the UK is where COVID-19 may have played a part, not the sole reason for death. Flu kills tens of thousands every year, but we don't react with panic.

My honest view is that we've significantly over reacted here relative to the actual threat, which seems to be of risk to certain groups. I don't think the price we've paid of utterly destroying our economy is worth it, given many of those who died would quite possibly have passed on this year anyway.

I'm sorry to sound harsh but I just think the response is too much, for too long and I think its not worth paying.

dbboy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> When you eventually catch CV 19, can't breath and

> subsequently die, don't moan, because you didn't

> follow the guidance.

>

> The guidance wasn't published for fun, theirs a

> very good reason why it's been put out.

>

> AS of TODAY, 28,000+ people in the UK have died

> from covid 19.

>

> Stay at Home, Protect the NHS and Save Lives. It's

> really not difficult to understand.

[Blah Blah]

But you are wrong Jimlad. Pandemics left to spread freely also destroy economies, because so many people get ill, they contract very quickly.

This is not Influenza (for which we have vaccines btw). This has a higher infection and death rate. We have already surpassed the annual death rate caused by the flu virus in just six weeks. The annual average for flu related deaths is around the 12,000 range and that is across 12 months.

Covid is not simply a nasty bug. It is a very infectious SARS virus. It IS the cause of death because it attacks the ACE2 receptors in human cells which is what allows pneumonia to take hold, or for cytokine storms to cause organ failure. I take it you are not a doctor Jimlad, or medically trained. If you were, you would not be trying to compare this virus to flu in the way your post seems to seek to do.

[lindylou]

jimlad48 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well you're a miserable person. Perhaps you should

> stay indoors and accept that if people are

> following guidelines, or trying to, there isn't

> that much of an issue.

>

> Sorry, but if you're going to moan about people

> being outside, you need to accept that by going

> outside you are part of the problem.

>

> lindylou Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Had enough now. I started this thread about the

> > people sitting on the benches outside the

> > Palmerston on Lordship Lane. Once again, I had

> to

> > go to Lloyds pharmacy on North Ross Road to

> > collect a prescription. 3.20om, every bench

> > outside the pub was taken up by luvvies with

> their

> > takeaway coffees, 3 or 4 at each table,

> enjoying

> > the sun. Not at all bothered. Well Palmerston

> pub,

> > your benches might be fixed to the ground but

> > there's no excuse. Enjoy your fine. Reporting

> you.

I already said...the reason I was out was to collect a prescription from the pharmacy.

[jimlad48]

I've spoken to enough doctors I know socially and professionally to hear that many feel the threat is not as bad as some people make it out to be. Its hitting people who are either on their way out anyway, or its hitting people who are made worse by very poor lifestyle choices.

I'm sorry, I know its a nasty illness, but lets be clear, its mainly hitting people who are already at risk of infection anyway due to underlying conditions. Haven't you noticed how many of the death figures contain thewords 'all but X had underlying health conditions' -thats the thing, it was a factor, it was not the sole factor.

I genuinely think we're overreacting here and my worry is the medium term ability to pay for an NHS to cope for future outbreaks is at risk. The sooner we relax the restrictions the better, and get on with our lives.

[JohnL]

jimlad48 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And tens of thousands have died from other illness

> too. Its a nasty bug, but lets be clear, the way

> cause of death is recorded in the UK is where

> COVID-19 may have played a part, not the sole

> reason for death. Flu kills tens of thousands

> every year, but we don't react with panic.

>

> My honest view is that we've significantly over

> reacted here relative to the actual threat, which

> seems to be of risk to certain groups. I don't

> think the price we've paid of utterly destroying

> our economy is worth it, given many of those who

> died would quite possibly have passed on this year

> anyway.

>

> I'm sorry to sound harsh but I just think the

> response is too much, for too long and I think its

> not worth paying.

>

> dbboy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > When you eventually catch CV 19, can't breath

> and

> > subsequently die, don't moan, because you

> didn't

> > follow the guidance.

> >

> > The guidance wasn't published for fun, theirs a

> > very good reason why it's been put out.

> >

> > AS of TODAY, 28,000+ people in the UK have died

> > from covid 19.

> >

> > Stay at Home, Protect the NHS and Save Lives.

> It's

> > really not difficult to understand.

we don't yet know what impact this bug has on people long term - what if it reduced everybodes life expectancy by 5 years due to organ damage - would that be acceptable. or 10 or 20 ? wheres the line. or just everybody over 40 has a reduced life expectancy of 5 years.

[jimlad48]

I think we are overreacting. There arew plenty of bad bugs out there, and in time we will agree a death rate that is acceptable including this one. The harm it is doing is to our economy and community and the sooner we stop hiding away and going back to work, the more likely it is we will survive.

I absolutely agree vulnerable people should shield, as they should for any nasty bug/virus - but this is getting silly now.

[JohnL]

jimlad48 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think we are overreacting. There arew plenty of

> bad bugs out there, and in time we will agree a

> death rate that is acceptable including this one.

> The harm it is doing is to our economy and

> community and the sooner we stop hiding away and

> going back to work, the more likely it is we will

> survive.

>

> I absolutely agree vulnerable people should

> shield, as they should for any nasty bug/virus -

> but this is getting silly now.

I see your point but this isn't variant of flu and there's a lot we still don't know about it.

we are quite lucky in UK as we can see what happens in other countries as we leave 'lockdown'

[Cyclemonkey]

I don't see how it is the Palmerstons fault people are sitting on fixed benches outside their closed pub. What exactly have you reported them for? Owning outdoor furniture?

[JohnL]

Cyclemonkey Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't see how it is the Palmerstons fault people

> are sitting on fixed benches outside their closed

> pub. What exactly have you reported them for?

> Owning outdoor furniture?

I assume the police would turn up with a loud speaker and move people on rather than do anything with the owners.

[Jules-and-Boo]

So it's the government's fault people are still going out and they are at fault?

Do those who believe this also believe people cannot be responsible? Are you actually endorsing a nanny state?

The arrogance of people is astounding.

[KidKruger]

Fair play to jimlad for stating his view on this virus situation even if it may come across as topical.

Problem with opening-up right now would be that virus can transmit and more people will die, it's not just a case of whether as individuals we think WE are safe/resistance but the vulnerable people who will inevitably be infected, many of whom are not old and in the 'departure lounge already'.

Personally I'd prefer the entire population get rid as best and as quick as it can, so I'd go the other way and enforce a proper lockdown for a few weeks (I doubt this will ever happen here until 2nd wave becomes unmanageable and we've lost several weeks pussy-footing around playing at pandemics).

Whatever is decided, there are already a minority of people who are intent on maintaining no or limited distance, apparently convinced that they are above the regulation or cannot catch or carry the infection to others.

[binkylilyput]

Interesting (if unpopular) viewpoint from jimlad. I?d say you?ll get mobbed for expressing it but it?s good to question and have alternative perspectives

It has got me thinking about how the government hasn?t banned the sale of cigarettes despite being the biggest health threat we have

But anyways, this is maybe going off topic from the OP and I fear lindylou might report us!!!

[malumbu]

In a zoom catch up with ex-colleagues one considered that we should be taking a life years lost approach rather than total deaths. We'd worked in both radiation protection and in air pollution. Here you take a whole population approach as with sub critical exposures it is difficult/impossible to identify exposure from the pollutant as the principle cause of death, as opposed to other factors. In turn you monetise the costs and benefits. So for example air pollution is caused by construction, transport, farming, energy, industry. Which all benefit society in various ways = ?X. Across the population there will be a total of Y years of life lost = ?Z detriment. X should be >>> Z

So in a most simplistic cost benefit analysis the economic hit from lockdown should be less than the cost in terms of life years across the population. Which brings us back to the argument that most of those deaths were going to happen anyway sooner or later.

It may have appealed to me a couple of months when I was quite happy for life to go on near normal. But not sure that any serious government would countenance the mass fatalities, impact on social cohesion, collapse of the NHS leading to other deaths etc etc. Ultimately it will be interesting to compare the actions of Italy, Germany and the like with those who didn't go into full lock down - Sweden probably being the best example. One of our group now works in Vienna, 50 days plus lockdown and apart from shopping they are in total isolation. But very impressive in handling the pandemic. And deserve greater liberty as the Austria starts to reduce restrictions.

This thread has become more interesting with some good debate rather than berating others.

[jimlad48]

For whats its worth, my view on the situation is that lockdown is becoming increasingly untenable. I don?t doubt Corona is a horrible virus/bug/thing and it can be truly awful for some people, but we need to have a national conversation around the risk we want to take here.

I?m concerned that we have potentially overplayed the fatality figures by adding Corona as a cause of death, not as the sole cause of death unlike other countries. For example you could have terminal cancer in its final stages, and very mild corona symptoms, but if you died, you?d be recorded as a corona victim ? even if you only had it in the mildest of ways.

While there is no suggestion that having it is not a factor in these deaths, it makes people assume that its perhaps more lethal than may actually be the case compared to other reporting rates. There is some good work done on this by the Guardian around how nations record fatalities in very different ways.

The next question is how many who have died of Corona would have died anyway, probably in fairly short order? It?s a blunt question but when you listen to accounts of people in their late 90s dying (or in one case I heard a 105 year old) then you need to ask if we?re overemphasing the impact its having. Many of those impacted would almost certainly have had underlying health conditions that probably played a very significant part here ? not COVID itself.

The other question to ask, particularly of care homes is how many of those whose cause of death was listed as COVID related would have passed on anyway? I have a relative who spent their career working in social care and they said the long held view was that the majority of people sent into care homes (not all, but a majority) usually died within 3 months of moving ? we have to have the awkward conversation around if many of those in care homes would have died.

The next question we have to ask is ?what is an acceptable COVID death rate?? We accept that even with a vaccine, each year thousands of people will die of flu, yet continue business as usual. What is the number we are prepared to accept for COVID and how do we decide that 19,999 is fine, 20,001 is a disaster? Ultimately this will drive all other measures?

The final view we have to take is what matters more -COVID or the economy? I?ve got friends who?ve lost jobs and businesses that were doing well, because they?ve been impacted so badly by this. How many more will be, and how long will we need to pay the bill for the lockdown ? years, decades, centuries and do we accept that there will need to be huge spending cuts in essential services to pay for this ? the longer this goes on, the more damage is being done to the ability to raise funds to pay for the NHS and other essential services in the future.

For whats its worth I think the time has come to treat people like grown ups and let them decide. I would advise those in high risk categories to remain indoors and isolate, but for those who are not, let them get on with their lives again because the long term costs are far too grave to warrant the price we are paying.

My local postcode has, last time I checked, 6 deaths linked to COVID-19 ? how many people have died in car crashes, of smoking, drugs, violence and other issues in the same time frame ? probably a lot more. At some point we need to return to normalcy, and the sooner the better in my book.

[Spartacus]

Jim lad, as part of your people's decision are you going to ask the opinion of staff in hospitals who have been working day and night to make sure the numbers of people who die are lower than predicted ? Who have been getting Covid as a result of looking after people who thought the lock down didn't apply to them till they became ill, and who are looking forward to being able to take a bit of time off to catch up on rest, get counselling for PTSD type symptoms after seeing so many extra people die because of Covid ?

Or care home workers who, whilst they expect the people they look after to die, are also seeing them die prematurely and the workers are also catching covid either from their patients or from idiots who ignore the lock down ?

What about bus drivers, shop staff, restaurant and pub staff and so on who will catch it from someone who didn't isolate when they have symptoms ?

Your suggestion of a people's decision makes a mockery of the hard work and sacrifice everyone has made so far to keep the peak low and to try and save the system from being overwhelmed ! Just so that people can get back to work, to stop being inconvenienced and to enable them to go to the pub, watch a football game or other selfish things. Do the lessons from the Spanish Flu pandemic not serve as a warning ?

Yes when the time is right, the numbers of new infections are so low that a second wave is not on the horizon then, and only then should we really consider relaxing the lock down in controlled and measures phases, but doing it for any other reason is blatant stupidity and selfish in my opinion.

[keano77]

Posted by Spartacus Today, 02:25PM

?... Yes when the time is right, the numbers of new infections are so low that a second wave is not on the horizon then, and only then should we really consider relaxing the lock down in controlled and measures phases, but doing it for any other reason is blatant stupidity and selfish in my opinion.?

My reading of jimlad48?s post was an attempt to ask the question when is the time going to be right to relax lockdown? Many European countries are about to start to do so in some limited fashions.

Unfortunately Spartacus the emotive argument you present will only go so far. The longer lockdown continues in the U.K. the danger is the economy will collapse, house prices and pensions will collapse and unemployment will be unprecedented.

A destroyed economy will be no reward for the carers who are sacrificing so much nor for the rest of us.

[malumbu]

Rereading my post a point that I did not raise was my work on air and radioactive pollution was very different to the risks from coronavirus. If you are poorly due to radiation (cancer) or breathing polluted air (mainly cardiovascular) you will not pass this onto those in the NHS and bus drivers. It may sound like I am taking about cross purposes but this links to the discussion above, essentially why are we so worried about bringing deaths forward when many will die sooner rather than later? In case I wasn't clear it is right to go into lockdown etc etc.

The one thing I am missing is rigorous discussion so please keep it coming. I'm going to make some subtle enquiries about how much we got caught with our pants down in terms of health emergency planning. I suspect not in terms of identifying the risk. But not so in terms of the capabilities and structures. I recall that much of the focus ten years ago was about the likelihood of terrorism and mass casualties eg https://www.londonambulance.nhs.uk/calling-us/who-will-treat-you/hazardous-area-response-team/