"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

[Fjell]

I believe there should have been a pause button pressed far earlier. Food Rationed, and a ban on all financial transactions with the stock market closing.

For any "pause" to be effective it needs public support. If the road outside my house (in the south west) or my brother's house (in London) is anything to go by, public support for the lockdown is already dwindling.

Had these, or more draconian measures as you suggest above, been introduced too early, I can't imagine the same level of public support as there has been so far and I can't imagine it would have lasted so long either. Ultimately this could have lead to more deaths, not fewer, but this is pure speculation.

Regarding deaths from the inevitable recession, it's very hard to speculate what measures could be put in place now to reduce that. The furlough scheme is clearly helping out some people who can't work, but how long can it be kept up for? What next? The economy, as it has been built, relies on consumer confidence and spending. If people are out of work, or worried about work, they don't spend, therefore they don't create jobs and the cycle continues.  I can't see this being over any time soon

There is of course other things the government could have put in place that aren?t ?draconian measures?. Things like a mandatory self isolation for those travelling into the UK from abroad. Things like testing those who would be working with the vulnerable. I wouldn?t consider either of these draconian

The problem is the logic would suggest you would be better isolating any randomly selected person to isolate for 2 weeks rather than someone from abroad.

 

[JoshW]

You're being unfair Josh, we did all we could: when travellers landed from infected areas we gave them a leaflet! 

I landed from abroad 2 days before official ?lockdown? and you wouldn?t have even known there was something going on, except for the fact it was a little quieter!

 

[JoshW]

I believe there should have been a pause button pressed far earlier. Food Rationed, and a ban on all financial transactions with the stock market closing.

For any "pause" to be effective it needs public support. If the road outside my house (in the south west) or my brother's house (in London) is anything to go by, public support for the lockdown is already dwindling.

Had these, or more draconian measures as you suggest above, been introduced too early, I can't imagine the same level of public support as there has been so far and I can't imagine it would have lasted so long either. Ultimately this could have lead to more deaths, not fewer, but this is pure speculation.

Regarding deaths from the inevitable recession, it's very hard to speculate what measures could be put in place now to reduce that. The furlough scheme is clearly helping out some people who can't work, but how long can it be kept up for? What next? The economy, as it has been built, relies on consumer confidence and spending. If people are out of work, or worried about work, they don't spend, therefore they don't create jobs and the cycle continues.  I can't see this being over any time soon

There is of course other things the government could have put in place that aren?t ?draconian measures?. Things like a mandatory self isolation for those travelling into the UK from abroad. Things like testing those who would be working with the vulnerable. I wouldn?t consider either of these draconian

The problem is the logic would suggest you would be better isolating any randomly selected person to isolate for 2 weeks rather than someone from abroad.

What logic is that? The whole point of lockdown is containment and restricting the further spread.

Ideally the UK (and all other countries) would have grounded all flights, and stopped internal travel to prevent the spread

 

[PeteHall]

There is of course other things the government could have put in place that aren?t ?draconian measures?. Things like a mandatory self isolation for those travelling into the UK from abroad. Things like testing those who would be working with the vulnerable. I wouldn?t consider either of these draconian

"Self isolation" by it's very definition would appear to suggest that people isolate themselves, rather than being put into a quarantine facility. Making it "mandatory" would only be as effective as either public buy-in or monitoring and enforcement. I'm not sure we have the available kit to radio-tag everyone entering the country, therefore, you would again be relying on public buy-in...

Initially, tests weren't available as it is a new disease, so the vulnerable should have received no care until tests were available?

Not saying the government got it right, but I don't think there was (or is) such a simple answer.

 

[PeteHall]

The problem is the logic would suggest you would be better isolating any randomly selected person to isolate for 2 weeks rather than someone from abroad.

What logic is that? The whole point of lockdown is containment and restricting the further spread.

Ideally the UK (and all other countries) would have grounded all flights, and stopped internal travel to prevent the spread

The logic that anyone in this country is just as likely to have it as someone landing from overseas perhaps?

 

[alastairgott]

Ah fjell, partial lockdown of the economy, like it!

1/3 of workforce allowed to work and the other 2/3 isolating. Work 2weeks in every 6. It is crazy though, the official line is still work from home unless you can?t. Ergo, my internet is rubbish at home for having several screens open at the same time. So I?ve been in the office since the 1st of April.

 

[JoshW]

The problem is the logic would suggest you would be better isolating any randomly selected person to isolate for 2 weeks rather than someone from abroad.

What logic is that? The whole point of lockdown is containment and restricting the further spread.

Ideally the UK (and all other countries) would have grounded all flights, and stopped internal travel to prevent the spread

The logic that anyone in this country is just as likely to have it as someone landing from overseas perhaps?

That depends on how early you decide to implement it surely?

If somebody flew into Vietnam and tested positive, they would trace everybody who was on their flight, and people who had been in contact with them and quarantine them. Now whilst I don?t entirely believe the figures that have come out from Vietnam, undeniably their hands on approach has restricted the spread of the virus

 

[pwhole]

I was working in London for most of the week from 29th Feb to 22nd March, the day before the lockdown, on a listed office building in the City near Moorgate station, and staying in Air BnBs around Whitechapel as it's close. The first week was relatively 'normal' in terms of pedestrians and traffic - after that it dropped rapidly. On 9th March I met my oldest friend for a drink on The Strand - it was literally deserted. The bar was empty, we sat well apart and didn't hug or anything like that, even though we hadn't seen each other for five years. We went to another bar near the river which was also mostly empty and then walked across Charing Cross footbridge, also empty. I've never seen London remotely close to being empty in the past - it really was like a movie, as only a film company could afford to close off streets like that.

After that, we pretty much observed social distancing wherever we could - in the building we worked in, on the streets, and in the remaining flats we had over rest of the month - none of which we could obviously know had been 'deep cleaned'. Brick Lane food market disappeared and many of the shops and stall on Whitechapel Road closed voluntarily. The building gradually emptied of tenants leaving only us on the roof in a totally silent city. Eventually the company pulled us out and brought us home the day before lockdown.

My point here is that in some areas, lockdown began quite early as a self-determined action, long before the government plucked up courage to ask people to do it. I think it was obvious to many (it certainly was to me) that they didn't have a clue what they were doing on this problem, as is the case with all their other problems. And that was in what you'd call 'busy' areas of London, and both rich and poor, and with very varied cultures - in particularly close proximity in this part of town.

Whether the office rental company who own the building stay in business long enough to re-open is a moot point at the moment - also the Air BnBs and cheap hotels workers like me would rely on to work away from home. But if we all go back to work and catch it either from a toilet door handle on the job, or from a kitchen surface in the flat we stay in, we'll all be off work for weeks at best, and they'll all have to shut again. It could be argued that staying shut at the moment is the least worst of those options, despite the lack of income for all. Endless fresh outbreaks will surely be worse for the economy than one slow managed outbreak? And knowing how many people have actually died from what specific illness (whether Covid-19 or their 'other' pre-existing illnesses) will be much easier with one long dataset that spans a year or so.

I'm not a medical expert, but neither is Bojo the Clown, and my feeling is that I might be smarter than him, despite his posh waffle and the easy-riding lickspittle culture he's been able to grease his way along so far.

 

[royfellows]

Ergo, my internet is rubbish at home for having several screens open at the same time. So I?ve been in the office since the 1st of April.

Off topic but mines a greased ferret whatever is open, hardwired you see. Sorry if yours is as well and I am second guessing you.

 

[kay]

A partial lockdown of the most vulnerable is probably what we will try and do but it will be very hard as the vulnerable will have to interact with the non-vulnerable. Also, if you were 75 and had to stay indoors, would you do that if your 74 year old friend could go caving?

The temptation is to think of the "extremely vulnerable" as elderly. But they're not. Many of them are young, many are people who in normal times are supporting the non-vulnerable. You can identify places where nearly everyone will be "vulnerable" or "extremely Vulnerable" - care homes for example. But to try to lock down all the "vulnerable" on age rounds will not work, and a prolonged isolation of the "extremely vulnerable - ie those of all ages who have received an NHS letter - will be challenging - house arrest (no being allowed out to shop or for exercise) for people who may well be perfectly fit in their day-to-day life. It's  not just "do not leave your home", it's not having anyone able to come to your home, not having access to any services. manageable for a few weeks, really difficult for 18 months or two years

The question is not just "Also, if you were 75 and had to stay indoors, would you do that if your 74 year old friend could go caving? " but also "If you were 45 and had to stay indoors, would you do that if your 45 year old friend could go caving"

 

[mikem]

The problem is that your whole life should be a risk management job, but it's becoming more & more risk avoidance. Not that I think the current virus isn't worth avoiding, but it may not prove to be possible - depends what happens in the coming months.

 

[Jenny P]

Re: Kay's comment:
"But to try to lock down all the "vulnerable" on age grounds will not work, and a prolonged isolation of the "extremely vulnerable - ie those of all ages who have received an NHS letter - will be challenging - house arrest (no being allowed out to shop or for exercise) for people who may well be perfectly fit in their day-to-day life."

For what it's worth, I received an NHS letter.  It was addressed to my late husband, who died in September 2017, telling him that he had been identified as vulnerable.  I was very angry and upset and returned it to the sender as URGENT, with a note scrawled across it that it was addressed to a person who had been dead for two and a half years. 

But what sort of confidence does it give me that "they" have the slightest clue?

 

[mikem]

I'm afraid they are making it up as they go along, just like the rest of us. They have a choice of sending letters out, or waiting to check data is up to date, as it's still not fully centralised.