ChatterBank2 mins ago
Looks Like Lancashire Could Be Next.
Following on from the North East, it looks like Lancashire could be next in line for the Covid lock down. How do they know it's spreading if they are not doing the testing?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Barsel. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//To contain the spread of Covid19.//
Then the strategy is failing. All it is doing is delaying the spread, not containing it. That's why a fresh approach is necessary. Containing it is impossible without a 24/7/365 lockdown until it either disappears from the face of the Earth, mutates into something else or an effective vaccine is discovered (and the minor problem of treating the entire global population with it is overcome).
Then the strategy is failing. All it is doing is delaying the spread, not containing it. That's why a fresh approach is necessary. Containing it is impossible without a 24/7/365 lockdown until it either disappears from the face of the Earth, mutates into something else or an effective vaccine is discovered (and the minor problem of treating the entire global population with it is overcome).
//Any ideas?//
Yes (as I have mentioned many times before on here).
Those vulnerable to developing serious symptoms which may lead to serious illness or death should be identified. They should be given the choice to properly shield themselves if they wish and if they do they should be properly provided for (priority for home deliveries of essentials, etc.).
Everybody else should be provided with sensible advice to help them avoid catching the disease (hygiene, distancing etc.) which they can follow if they wish. They can then get on and do what they like. If they don't like crowded places, don't go; if they can work at home and their employer agrees they can do so; if they want to remain indoors forever they can. They might contract the virus but the vast, vast majority of those who do will see no serious symptoms. The country can then stop trying to fight the virus (damaging the country's economy, health and social fabric for an indefinite period) and simply live with it and treat it as necessary.
Yes (as I have mentioned many times before on here).
Those vulnerable to developing serious symptoms which may lead to serious illness or death should be identified. They should be given the choice to properly shield themselves if they wish and if they do they should be properly provided for (priority for home deliveries of essentials, etc.).
Everybody else should be provided with sensible advice to help them avoid catching the disease (hygiene, distancing etc.) which they can follow if they wish. They can then get on and do what they like. If they don't like crowded places, don't go; if they can work at home and their employer agrees they can do so; if they want to remain indoors forever they can. They might contract the virus but the vast, vast majority of those who do will see no serious symptoms. The country can then stop trying to fight the virus (damaging the country's economy, health and social fabric for an indefinite period) and simply live with it and treat it as necessary.
NJ //Those vulnerable to developing serious symptoms which may lead to serious illness or death should be identified//
They already are, I received a letter from NHS informing me that I should shield with all the rules/advice that goes with it.This was in March and I have been shielding ever since.I presume that lists of vulnerable patients was supplied to the NHS by GP's.
They already are, I received a letter from NHS informing me that I should shield with all the rules/advice that goes with it.This was in March and I have been shielding ever since.I presume that lists of vulnerable patients was supplied to the NHS by GP's.
That's Day 1 of Lockdown 2 fully utilised and not over yet, I've unpacked what we were taking to Morpeth and put them all away till it's possible to mix households, I've installed a brand new printer, went online to set up our DD for a TV licence ,took Lola around the block for a walk, phoned my daughter, now sitting having a nice coffee and some cake, tomorrow I'll sort all my holiday clothes out into separate vacuum pack bags, the jobs are endless :0))
///NJ //Those vulnerable to developing serious symptoms which may lead to serious illness or death should be identified//
They already are, ///
Yes I know that, Danny. The problem is what they’ve done with the rest of the population – i.e. scared them witless when the risks to them are in fact incredibly small, virtually closed the economy for three months and continue to threaten it indefinitely.
//The infection rates are an indicator of future hospital admissions and deaths. The pattern is well known from across the world for those who acre to follow the details//
Well I care to follow the details and they don’t quite support that contention. In the UK from 1st May to 1st June total infections rose by 55.7% whilst total deaths rose by 37.3%. In June those figures were 13.4% and 7.9%. July saw increases of 7.0% and 1.7% and August was 10.9% and 0.7%. Bringing us right up to date, Since 1st September total infections have risen by 14.5% whilst total deaths have risen by just 0.5%. The UK is not alone in showing that the relationship between the increase in infections and the increase in deaths is by no means steady and in fact relative to the number of new infections, deaths are declining considerably. Using the same indicators as were evident in May, this month’s increase in infections (14.5%) should have seen an increase in deaths of almost 10%. The fact that there was only a 0.5% increase in deaths dispels the idea that the increase in infections can be an indicator of future deaths unless that decline can be accurately forecast
The figures for hospital admissions are not so easy to find but I would imagine that they follow somewhat the number of deaths (since I suspect that most Covid deaths occur in hospital). I know that the government has warned hospitals to be prepared for a large increase in the number of admissions in two week’s time. We’ll have to see whether that turns out to be correct but if it is that decision cannot have been made solely on the basis of the forecast increase in infections.
They already are, ///
Yes I know that, Danny. The problem is what they’ve done with the rest of the population – i.e. scared them witless when the risks to them are in fact incredibly small, virtually closed the economy for three months and continue to threaten it indefinitely.
//The infection rates are an indicator of future hospital admissions and deaths. The pattern is well known from across the world for those who acre to follow the details//
Well I care to follow the details and they don’t quite support that contention. In the UK from 1st May to 1st June total infections rose by 55.7% whilst total deaths rose by 37.3%. In June those figures were 13.4% and 7.9%. July saw increases of 7.0% and 1.7% and August was 10.9% and 0.7%. Bringing us right up to date, Since 1st September total infections have risen by 14.5% whilst total deaths have risen by just 0.5%. The UK is not alone in showing that the relationship between the increase in infections and the increase in deaths is by no means steady and in fact relative to the number of new infections, deaths are declining considerably. Using the same indicators as were evident in May, this month’s increase in infections (14.5%) should have seen an increase in deaths of almost 10%. The fact that there was only a 0.5% increase in deaths dispels the idea that the increase in infections can be an indicator of future deaths unless that decline can be accurately forecast
The figures for hospital admissions are not so easy to find but I would imagine that they follow somewhat the number of deaths (since I suspect that most Covid deaths occur in hospital). I know that the government has warned hospitals to be prepared for a large increase in the number of admissions in two week’s time. We’ll have to see whether that turns out to be correct but if it is that decision cannot have been made solely on the basis of the forecast increase in infections.
Will people abide by a further lockdown?
I’m not so sure they will.
I ‘got’ the first lockdown, as its aim was not to overwhelm the NHS, but the continuing restrictions were entirely unnecessary; notwithstanding this, the country by and large complied.
We’re governed by consent, and if a further lockdown was enforced, I’d be extremely surprised if that consent wasn’t withdrawn.
I’m not so sure they will.
I ‘got’ the first lockdown, as its aim was not to overwhelm the NHS, but the continuing restrictions were entirely unnecessary; notwithstanding this, the country by and large complied.
We’re governed by consent, and if a further lockdown was enforced, I’d be extremely surprised if that consent wasn’t withdrawn.
//I’d be extremely surprised if that consent wasn’t withdrawn.//
I'm not so sure, dd. There are large numbers of people who believe that such measures will eventually wipe out the virus. Of course they are mistaken. Unless everybody stays indoors for a very long period that is not going to happen.
The problem is, of course, that lockdowns may involve the closure of businesses and although people may not obey the instructions to remain at home, they will have nowhere in particular to go anyway.
Quite honestly the handling of this matter has been the biggest political ba11s up I have seen for a long time. Nobody seems to have a viable game plan, nobody knows what the aim is and nobody knows what to do next. It is quite obvious that spread of this disease cannot be prevented. It will spread whatever measures are in place (the latest increase demonstrates this quite clearly). The government needs to devise ways to cope with the spread of the virus, not to continue to try to prevent its spread. They need to keep the economy and normal life going, not continually try to suppress it. Politicians and the public need to accept that the virus will spread but the vast, vast majority of those who contract it will see no serious symptoms. Until that's accepted we will simply regress.
I'm not so sure, dd. There are large numbers of people who believe that such measures will eventually wipe out the virus. Of course they are mistaken. Unless everybody stays indoors for a very long period that is not going to happen.
The problem is, of course, that lockdowns may involve the closure of businesses and although people may not obey the instructions to remain at home, they will have nowhere in particular to go anyway.
Quite honestly the handling of this matter has been the biggest political ba11s up I have seen for a long time. Nobody seems to have a viable game plan, nobody knows what the aim is and nobody knows what to do next. It is quite obvious that spread of this disease cannot be prevented. It will spread whatever measures are in place (the latest increase demonstrates this quite clearly). The government needs to devise ways to cope with the spread of the virus, not to continue to try to prevent its spread. They need to keep the economy and normal life going, not continually try to suppress it. Politicians and the public need to accept that the virus will spread but the vast, vast majority of those who contract it will see no serious symptoms. Until that's accepted we will simply regress.
I'm providing this for information rather than discsussion. The restrictions were requested by Lancashire County Council in view of the increase in infection rates across the county. As for why Blackpool isn't included, apparently " As a unitary authority, it is separate from Lancashire County Council" and the infection rates are claimed to be lower overall. However I am reliably informed that infection rates in some areas of Blackpool are a cause for concern so I think they may face restrictions soon, but maybe the hotels/guest houses will want some advance notice
The whole thing is overdrawn. Why should places over 18 miles from a centre of infection be closed down? (Northumberland) and Bradford postcodes cover an enormous area. My sister is in a BD postcode and subject to the same rules as the centre of the city ---- she lives on the edge of Ilkley moor in an isolated farmhouse!
Even our quiet little E. Yorks. Wolds villages are now being targeted because a load of Wessies invaded Filey at Bank Holiday. All the visitors did around us was drive at high speed through the villages (one was clocked at 76 m.p.h.). We are being considered for lockdown along with Scarborough!!!!!!!! No-one, repeat no-one, is ill here. Some kids are at school in Filey (Yr 4 was sent home) but they are kept at home. Testing appears to be next to useless at the moment.
Even our quiet little E. Yorks. Wolds villages are now being targeted because a load of Wessies invaded Filey at Bank Holiday. All the visitors did around us was drive at high speed through the villages (one was clocked at 76 m.p.h.). We are being considered for lockdown along with Scarborough!!!!!!!! No-one, repeat no-one, is ill here. Some kids are at school in Filey (Yr 4 was sent home) but they are kept at home. Testing appears to be next to useless at the moment.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles84 mins ago
ChatterBank91 mins ago
ChatterBank96 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles99 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.