Fast forward to UK population having been vaccinated, what do we think happens next?

[ordnance]

10 minutes ago, AVB said:

There is no downside to a doctor or scientist saying lockdown for ever. It makes their lives easier. They are still getting paid (until the money runs out of course). The rest of us have to deal with the consequences. The Government have got hung up on “following the science”, which is flawed for the reasons I state, and the media and a lot of the public have become convinced that people will live forever. 

Yes that's probably what it is, the doctor and scientist are just giving the advice to make their lives easier. 

[AVB]

26 minutes ago, ordnance said:

Yes that's probably what it is, the doctor and scientist are just giving the advice to make their lives easier. 

So what’s the downside for a scientist to say thousands/millions/billions will die unless you lockdown? Tell the PM that short notice and bounce him into another lockdown. Job done. 

[Scully]

I think we’re getting a little carried away with some aspects. We won’t be in lockdown forever; one way or another this will end and we’ll get back to a new kind of normality as we learn to live with it. Life goes on; we learn to adapt and move on. 

[Gordon R]

Quote

Yes that's probably what it is, the doctor and scientist are just giving the advice to make their lives easier. 

There are plenty of eminent scientists who disagree with the advice of Whitty and co, but they don't have the Governments ear. 

This is a bit like limiting immigration, where those, who are against any quota, refuse to say how many should be let in. At what point would members think that lockdown should be scrapped or watered down significantly? If we are waiting for Covid to go away or whole of the population to be vaccinated - it won't happen. There must come a point where you have to take the risk or face economic ruin. Not to mention those who are dying because they can't get treated for other more serious illnesses. No-one seems to care enough about them - perhaps because they aren't today's headlines.

 Labour clamour for total lockdown - in keeping with their tradition of economic suicide - they never have to pick up the bill - just leave it for the incoming government. Jimmy Krankie forgets her promise of no cranking (no pun intended) up the independence rhetoric until after the pandemic. 

Meanwhile the economy and businesses are going down the pan.

 

[ordnance]

11 minutes ago, AVB said:

So what’s the downside for a scientist to say thousands/millions/billions will die unless you lockdown? Tell the PM that short notice and bounce him into another lockdown. Job done. 

They give advice, politicians don't have to take it. I assume the doctors in most other countries are in on it, as they are giving the same advice and many are taking the same / similar measures as the UK. 

[mel b3]

17 minutes ago, Scully said:

I think we’re getting a little carried away with some aspects. We won’t be in lockdown forever; one way or another this will end and we’ll get back to a new kind of normality as we learn to live with it. Life goes on; we learn to adapt and move on. 

this is the reality , and the way that it will eventually happen .

[Mice!]

3 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

t what point would members think that lockdown should be scrapped or watered down significantly? If we are waiting for Covid to go away or whole of the population to be vaccinated - it won't happen. There must come a point where you have to take the risk or face economic ruin. Not to mention those who are dying because they can't get treated for other more serious illnesses. No-one seems to care enough about them - perhaps because they aren't today's headlines.

This latest Lockdown was always going to happen after xmas, everyone surely new that?

I'm still expecting things to go back to the tiers once the elderly and vulnerable have been vaccinated. 

People not getting treatment for the likes of cancer has to be an issue, hopefully if the nhs staff who look after the patients and do the treatments have had the vaccine then this can start again and soon.

[ordnance]

Quote

This latest Lockdown was always going to happen after xmas, everyone surely new that?

Yes we are paying the price for the Christmas restriction relaxation decision's, a blind man could see what the result would be. 

[AVB]

14 minutes ago, ordnance said:

Yes we are paying the price for the Christmas restriction relaxation decision's, a blind man could see what the result would be. 

The relaxation was for one day wasn’t it and even then many people didn’t mix. Are you saying that it all stems from one day? 

[Mice!]

18 minutes ago, AVB said:

The relaxation was for one day wasn’t it and even then many people didn’t mix. Are you saying that it all stems from one day? 

You could still eat out until January in some places couldn't you?

The Christmas relaxation of restrictions was always going to have an effect, do you really think that many people didn't mix?

We did, the mother in law came for the day,  she's been in our bubble,  and I know others did the same seeing family for the day and enjoying it.

Then you will have people who simply ignored the lockdown restrictions,  there has to be a reason why the same areas still have high rates, it can't be because they are all sat at home sticking to the rules.

[AVB]

4 minutes ago, Mice! said:

You could still eat out until January in some places couldn't you?

The Christmas relaxation of restrictions was always going to have an effect, do you really think that many people didn't mix?

We did, the mother in law came for the day,  she's been in our bubble,  and I know others did the same seeing family for the day and enjoying it.

Then you will have people who simply ignored the lockdown restrictions,  there has to be a reason why the same areas still have high rates, it can't be because they are all sat at home sticking to the rules.

So if there had been no relaxation people would have still broken the rules (as you claim they did). I know people who mixed. I know others that didn’t. Rates were increasing prior to Christmas and continued to increase afterwards. People who blame the ‘Christmas relaxation’ (which for a lot of the country was only one day) are just looking for somebody to blame. I suspect they are lockdown junkies who can’t get enough of it. 

[ordnance]

25 minutes ago, AVB said:

The relaxation was for one day wasn’t it and even then many people didn’t mix. Are you saying that it all stems from one day? 

Give some people a inch, and they will take a mile. Its either safe to meet or not, the virus didn't take a day off for Christmas. 

[Gordon R]

Quote

People not getting treatment for the likes of cancer has to be an issue, hopefully if the nhs staff who look after the patients and do the treatments have had the vaccine then this can start again and soon.

If all the NHS staff get vaccinated in the next month, will cancer patients restart treatment? I will check the skies for the Flying Pig Squadron.

Quote

People who blame the ‘Christmas relaxation’ (which for a lot of the country was only one day) are just looking for somebody to blame.

Correct.

I wonder if the people, who drove a coach and horses through the rules, will face unemployment with the same zeal.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

1 minute ago, ordnance said:

Give some people a inch, and they will take a mile. Its either safe to meet or not, the virus didn't take a day off for Christmas. 

Bang on the money!

[ordnance]

4 minutes ago, AVB said:

So if there had been no relaxation people would have still broken the rules (as you claim they did). I know people who mixed. I know others that didn’t. Rates were increasing prior to Christmas and continued to increase afterwards. People who blame the ‘Christmas relaxation’ (which for a lot of the country was only one day) are just looking for somebody to blame. I suspect they are lockdown junkies who can’t get enough of it. 

If you were in charge, how would you deal with the pandemic in the UK.

[AVB]

3 minutes ago, ordnance said:

If you were in charge, how would you deal with the pandemic in the UK.

Build more morgues. Create minimally equipped and staffed field hospitals (aka Nightingale) for those who have low chance of recovery, shield the vulnerable and let everybody else fill their boots. 

There is a post on another thread about Artificial Intelligence. I would like to put ALL the data into a sophisticated AI engine - and that’s all the data not cherry picked - and see what the computer says the answer is. It will take the emotion of of any decision. 

[ordnance]

1 minute ago, AVB said:

Build more morgues. Create minimally equipped and staffed field hospitals (aka Nightingale) for those who have low chance of recovery, shield the vulnerable and let everybody else fill their boots. 

Where would you get the staff for the Nightingale hospitals, and how would you shield the vulnerable. 

vulnerable)

You may be at high risk from coronavirus if you:

• have had an organ transplant
• are having chemotherapy or antibody treatment for cancer, including immunotherapy
• are having an intense course of radiotherapy (radical radiotherapy) for lung cancer
• are having targeted cancer treatments that can affect the immune system (such as protein kinase inhibitors or PARP inhibitors)
• have blood or bone marrow cancer (such as leukaemia, lymphoma or myeloma)
• have had a bone marrow or stem cell transplant in the past 6 months, or are still taking immunosuppressant medicine
• have been told by a doctor you have a severe lung condition (such as cystic fibrosis, severe asthma or severe COPD)
• have a condition that means you have a very high risk of getting infections (such as SCID or sickle cell)
• are taking medicine that makes you much more likely to get infections (such as high doses of steroids or immunosuppressant medicine)
• have a serious heart condition and are pregnant
• have a problem with your spleen or your spleen has been removed (splenectomy)
• are an adult with Down's syndrome
• are an adult who is having dialysis or has severe (stage 5) long-term kidney disease
• have been classed as clinically extremely vulnerable, based on clinical judgement and an assessment of your needs

[AVB]

3 minutes ago, ordnance said:

Where would you get the staff for the Nightingale hospitals, and how would you shield the vulnerable. 

vulnerable)

You may be at high risk from coronavirus if you:

• have had an organ transplant
• are having chemotherapy or antibody treatment for cancer, including immunotherapy
• are having an intense course of radiotherapy (radical radiotherapy) for lung cancer
• are having targeted cancer treatments that can affect the immune system (such as protein kinase inhibitors or PARP inhibitors)
• have blood or bone marrow cancer (such as leukaemia, lymphoma or myeloma)
• have had a bone marrow or stem cell transplant in the past 6 months, or are still taking immunosuppressant medicine
• have been told by a doctor you have a severe lung condition (such as cystic fibrosis, severe asthma or severe COPD)
• have a condition that means you have a very high risk of getting infections (such as SCID or sickle cell)
• are taking medicine that makes you much more likely to get infections (such as high doses of steroids or immunosuppressant medicine)
• have a serious heart condition and are pregnant
• have a problem with your spleen or your spleen has been removed (splenectomy)
• are an adult with Down's syndrome
• are an adult who is having dialysis or has severe (stage 5) long-term kidney disease
• have been classed as clinically extremely vulnerable, based on clinical judgement and an assessment of your needs

I said minimally staffed. Perhaps some of the 40,000 retired NHS workers who offered to come back but didn’t because of red tape. 

Shield - deliver food on doorstep. If personal care is needed then staff wearing hazmat suit. Perhaps housed in the Ritz as Mungler said. 

[Mice!]

4 minutes ago, AVB said:

Build more morgues. Create minimally equipped and staffed field hospitals (aka Nightingale) for those who have low chance of recovery, shield the vulnerable and let everybody else fill their boots. 

That would be political suicide,  they already have more morgues,  buildings were earmarked for this.

If they started sending patients to the minimally staffed and equipped Nightingale hospitals saying there is low chance of recovery while there is room in the hospitals how is that going to go down?

The Nightingales were for if things went Pete tongue big time, to stop patients being in corridors. 

I'd guess they were only built as a last ditch going off the predictions that the deaths would be much higher in number, but there's no one to staff them adequately, Army etc will be basic care only.

 

[AVB]

1 minute ago, Mice! said:

That would be political suicide,  they already have more morgues,  buildings were earmarked for this.

If they started sending patients to the minimally staffed and equipped Nightingale hospitals saying there is low chance of recovery while there is room in the hospitals how is that going to go down?

The Nightingales were for if things went Pete tongue big time, to stop patients being in corridors. 

I'd guess they were only built as a last ditch going off the predictions that the deaths would be much higher in number, but there's no one to staff them adequately, Army etc will be basic care only.

 

It may be political suicide but I was asked what I would do not what a Government would do whilst looking at opinion polls. 
 

We are told, again and again,  that if we don’t lockdown the NHS will be overloaded! So there won’t be empty hospitals will there. 

[ordnance]

3 minutes ago, AVB said:

I said minimally staffed. Perhaps some of the 40,000 retired NHS workers who offered to come back but didn’t because of red tape. 

Shield - deliver food on doorstep. If personal care is needed then staff wearing hazmat suit. Perhaps housed in the Ritz as Mungler said. 

You would wonder why the government never thought of that, looks like they would rather spend billions and put people out of work. They have to do what is practicable and what would be accepted by the population, putting people in tents to die would not be.  

[AVB]

4 minutes ago, ordnance said:

You would wonder why the government never thought of that, looks like they would rather spend billions and put people out of work. They have to do what is practicable and what would be accepted by the population, putting people in tents to die would not be.  

Yes that’s called popular politics. The problem is it shouldn’t be a popularity competition. It’s about doing what’s needed. And sometimes this things are hard and unpopular. 

[Mungler]

Just on the subject of morgues- do we have more or less morgues than say 2003 or 2008?

[AVB]

5 minutes ago, Mungler said:

Just on the subject of morgues- do we have more or less morgues than say 2003 or 2008?

We must have had even more morgues in the 50’s and 60’s. What on Earth did we do with them. 

[ordnance]

14 minutes ago, AVB said:

Yes that’s called popular politics. The problem is it shouldn’t be a popularity competition. It’s about doing what’s needed. And sometimes this things are hard and unpopular. 

Its called reality, you would maybe get away with what you are suggesting in China or similar.