Cycling UK Forum

Now the minds of politicians and scientists seem to be turning to how the lockdown can be ended.

One very worrying message now emerging (reported from PM and repeated often on news e.g. Radio 4 this morning) is that the antibody test will enable people who've caught it and have immunity to return to normal life. So message becomes that the responsible who do social distancing, etc. and don't catch it end-up under lockdown with restrictions for longer. Is that a fair way to treat the responsible members of society? and will it encourage people to maintain the distancing?

Ian

Playing with a time bomb purely for economics

Psamathe wrote:Now the minds of politicians and scientists seem to be turning to how the lockdown can be ended.

One very worrying message now emerging (reported from PM and repeated often on news e.g. Radio 4 this morning) is that the antibody test will enable people who've caught it and have immunity to return to normal life. So message becomes that the responsible who do social distancing, etc. and don't catch it end-up under lockdown with restrictions for longer. Is that a fair way to treat the responsible members of society? and will it encourage people to maintain the distancing?

Ian

You want people who have no medical need to suffer the inconveniencies of social distancing and isolation to continue to do so just because you have to?

And it's not fair?

carpetcleaner wrote:

Psamathe wrote:Now the minds of politicians and scientists seem to be turning to how the lockdown can be ended.

One very worrying message now emerging (reported from PM and repeated often on news e.g. Radio 4 this morning) is that the antibody test will enable people who've caught it and have immunity to return to normal life. So message becomes that the responsible who do social distancing, etc. and don't catch it end-up under lockdown with restrictions for longer. Is that a fair way to treat the responsible members of society? and will it encourage people to maintain the distancing?

Ian

You want people who have no medical need to suffer the inconveniencies of social distancing and isolation to continue to do so just because you have to?

And it's not fair?

It's not about medical need. Somebody who has done responsible distancing has no medical need just as somebody who has not (and spread) and caught it and has immunity.

The message such proposed ideas have is that be responsible and distance and don't catch/spread and you'll stay in lockdown longer than those who don't distance and catch and spread it. Do you think that a fair or helpful message?

Or should I go out there now (for no good reason) and catch the disease (and probably spread it around) so I can gain my freedom?

Ian

Psamathe wrote:Now the minds of politicians and scientists seem to be turning to how the lockdown can be ended.

One very worrying message now emerging (reported from PM and repeated often on news e.g. Radio 4 this morning) is that the antibody test will enable people who've caught it and have immunity to return to normal life. So message becomes that the responsible who do social distancing, etc. and don't catch it end-up under lockdown with restrictions for longer. Is that a fair way to treat the responsible members of society? and will it encourage people to maintain the distancing?

Ian

The basic notion that a lockdown can't go on forever if we want society to keep functioning as such is surely one that needs addressing. There seems to have been little thought by Bokum and The Fools about anything much beyond a knee-jerk reaction to this minute's events, which often ends up a bit doors-fall-off-the-car. (Well, they are klowns).

Perhaps the complete focus on COVID-slowing is now becoming a slow realisation that there are other matters of social wellbeing and interaction that need to be considered besides slowing the virus' spread? No doubt Bokum's backers in business will have been at him regarding their various loss of profits. But there are far wider implications to an extended lockdown than just that, serious though potential collapse of business-borne goods & services is. The wage-replacement bill is growing apace, for example. Totalitarianistas are emerging from the woodwork and calling for a police state (or the beginnings of one). Respect for many government institutions and agents is dropping another few notches, despite the supportive cheers of loyal Bokum fans.

On the other hand, respect for some government agents & public services - ones they have been trying to destroy for some time such as the NHS, for example - is being greatly increased. And there are some beneficial effects of lockdown such as lower air pollution & car reduction. But these won't compensate for the damaging effects of lockdown in any long-term continuation of that policy.

As ever, Bokum & Co will make a hash of any tactic or strategy for reducing lockdown or it's deleterious effects on society (including but not only the economic effects). They will knee-jerk away so that more car doors fall off and perhaps the engine explodes. But there is a more and more obvious set of socio-economic costs to lockdown, becoming more obvious and pressing as time passes, so ...... tactics and strategies for emergence from lockdown must be found.

The trick will be to find them without re-animating COVID to a more lethal degree. The policy of slowing it to allow health services to cope without collapse or being overwhelmed is surely a very good one to aim for. The means to achieving it, it turns out, are not so obvious or simple as a simple lockdown policy suggests they might be. What, then, would be a sensible set of options for reducing lockdown effects (or lockdown itself) without serving up a big new opportunity for COVID to wax once more?

Cugel

There is also the reliability of the tests. Studies vary, but all have recognised a proportion of false negatives, and the suggestion is that this could be as much as 70%


An article highlights the issue

Therein lies the problem, if we accept the article's premise then for every 1,000 people released from isolation, there will be 300 positives, unwittingly and unknowingly spreading the virus to the rest of the population.


(Note: there are other articles. and papers that support this premise - this one was chosen as it is accessible and does not need registration, or accounts to access)

reohn2 wrote:Playing with a time bomb purely for economics

but if we lock down till the economy collapses we will have more deaths than from the virus. its a balancing game.

NUKe wrote:

reohn2 wrote:Playing with a time bomb purely for economics

but if we lock down till the economy collapses we will have more deaths than from the virus. its a balancing game.

We can manage with less,much less FTM,we can't manage C19 if the NHS is overwhelmed and it's staff going down like nine pins.

I'm amazed that some people want others to remain in social isolation and to practice social distancing when there is no need to do so just because it is not fair on those who need to.

Life's not fair. Most adults know that.

Should we not be using a term such as limited or restricted movement instead of Lockdown?
The Govt,or rather Boris,never actually said Lockdown in his address to the nation!Lockdown is what was on everyone's mind when it was announced that Boris would address the public rather than the press(maybe all part of the plan?) and that's how it was interpreted.
The press and internet then ran with it despite the word never actually being used in his speech.

Let's be honest here.We can go outside.There are no restrictions on how many times you can leave your property but there are guidelines as to what you can do when outside.

That is not a Lockdown!

What ever you choose to call it there will be resistance to it.Sooner or later,and I think sooner,the public will start a backlash.It's already starting on social media.
Has anyone seen this?
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-b ... 09524.html
I suspect it's not the only one!

Money, bloody money! Obsessional for some folk.
Beat the virus then sort out the financial mess. Remember there's no pockets in shrouds! MM

T-800 wrote:Should we not be using a term such as limited or restricted movement instead of Lockdown?
The Govt,or rather Boris,never actually said Lockdown in his address to the nation!

No. Bodge may have shirked the word so he could sacrifice more plebs on his "herd immunity" altar, as they would have understood "lockdown" and stayed in, but it is a lockdown as most media and Scotland's First Minister said.

So how do we end it? I see no end game until there's widespread immunity from a vaccine, survival or virus mutation.

carpetcleaner wrote:I'm amazed that some people want others to remain in social isolation and to practice social distancing when there is no need to do so just because it is not fair on those who need to.

Life's not fair. Most adults know that.

Lockdown is not easy for anybody. Telling people to be responsible and endure and maintain distance so they can stay under lockdown longer than those who behave irresponsibly is a daft way to go about anything. If that is what is going to happen the message to me is, want to get your freedom back then go catch the bug otherwise you stay under lockdown. Is that message going to encourage people to be responsible and keep going with the distancing when their reward is longer lockdown?

If life is "not fair" then under your ethic I should go out there now and get infected (which will of course result in my spreading it to others), justifying my actions as "life is not fair" or even that those I then infect will be allowed out of lockdown sooner thanks to my irresponsibility.

There other ways to relax lockdown that don't mean punishing the responsible.

Ian

merseymouth wrote:Money, bloody money! Obsessional for some folk.
Beat the virus then sort out the financial mess. Remember there's no pockets in shrouds! MM

Quite!

reohn2 wrote:

NUKe wrote:

reohn2 wrote:Playing with a time bomb purely for economics

but if we lock down till the economy collapses we will have more deaths than from the virus. its a balancing game.

We can manage with less,much less FTM,we can't manage C19 if the NHS is overwhelmed and it's staff going down like nine pins.

I think that both perspectives are valid. Ultimately, in social terms, the cure must not be worse than the sickness. The economy will almost certainly tank after the ‘shut down’ and that will have consequences that in a multitude of ways result in hardships and premature deaths. In avoiding a cure that is worse than the sickness it is necessary to get the economy up and running again earlier than would be ideal for (instead) minimising immediate deaths. That’s not a pleasant thought but, like deferred gratification, it is responsible.