Go to the cinema!

Main subforum for all things Southport FC
Redrobe fan
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:51 am

Re: Go to the cinema!

Post by Redrobe fan »

Exiled wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 2:42 pm
Redrobe fan wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 2:05 pm Make no mistake, I ‘want’ football to continue.

However, what we ‘need’ is a total, and I mean absolutely total, lockdown all over the UK for two weeks. Exceptions only for utilities, food delivery and urgent medical and criminal emergencies. Then back to normal with environmental controls, with further severe lockdowns if found necessary.

While I’m pontificating, it is daft to have this devolved to the semi-autonomous regions. There should be a single National UK strategy, albeit with some differences in application at very local level as and when necessary.
I'm afraid I don't agree about the regional lockdowns. I live in the southwest, where case numbers and infection rates have been consistently the lowest of any region in England. Why should we be forced into lockdown because people in other cities and regions can't follow the guidelines?
Because you have the disease in your area and its necessary to take comprehensive simultaneous concerted action across the whole of the UK. Who is to blame has nothing to do with it.
bnek
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:43 am

Re: Go to the cinema!

Post by bnek »

Meanwhile, we can't go and watch Premier League football but you can go to the cinema and watch it...

https://www.myvue.com/big-screen-events/sports

:roll:
Liamisdoingagreatjob
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2020 4:55 pm

Re: Go to the cinema!

Post by Liamisdoingagreatjob »

bnek wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 5:57 pm Meanwhile, we can't go and watch Premier League football but you can go to the cinema and watch it...

https://www.myvue.com/big-screen-events/sports

:roll:
Maybe the club should put a big screen up and become an outdoor cinema on non match days....
Exiled Port Fan
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2020 3:50 pm

Re: Go to the cinema!

Post by Exiled Port Fan »

Redrobe fan wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 2:05 pm Make no mistake, I ‘want’ football to continue.

However, what we ‘need’ is a total, and I mean absolutely total, lockdown all over the UK for two weeks. Exceptions only for utilities, food delivery and urgent medical and criminal emergencies. Then back to normal with environmental controls, with further severe lockdowns if found necessary.

While I’m pontificating, it is daft to have this devolved to the semi-autonomous regions. There should be a single National UK strategy, albeit with some differences in application at very local level as and when necessary.
We didn't even do a full lockdown you describe last time! Interacting with friends across the UK I can't see people obeying such rules. There is not the broad enough appetite for a shutdown, todays Daily Mail a case in point. In March the press and much of the same people I mentioned earlier were calling for a lockdown; now it really is a polar opposite.

There will only be a bits n pieces lockdown for the coming months and there will be growing resistence as we move into November and more political rebellion until these restrictions vanish by Christmas. Unless we see the huge spike in deaths. Given SAGE estimates last month inficated they think we will see 40% the rate of deaths we did in March you'd need a huge infection rate to generate that spike.
YellowNomad
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2020 1:55 pm

Re: Go to the cinema!

Post by YellowNomad »

Maybe we could put a big rectangular frame behind the goal, become a cinema on matchdays....
Paulisi
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2020 12:40 pm

Re: Go to the cinema!

Post by Paulisi »

Full lockdowns only delay the virus. They don't shut it down..
Spain had stricter lockdowns than us and it didn't work
The government cannot afford a full lockdown. They are borrowing heavily to fund the pandemic and this borrowing is not sustainable and at some stage taxes will go up to compensate.

Parts of London are closing on herd immunity numbers.
Liverpool, Newcastle, Manchester won't be far behind soon.
Liamisdoingagreatjob
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2020 4:55 pm

Re: Go to the cinema!

Post by Liamisdoingagreatjob »

In my book the Government lost the trust of the people and respect the day the Dominic Cummings drive to barnard castle came out. They could have addressed It but didn’t. that whole farce ended credibility amongst many and meant future full lockdowns are almost impossible to make work as well as before.

That one incident has, in my view, led to a lot of pain for many on both jobs and health front by giving the go ahead to those who don’t give a damn about others to do as they please...
Ste_B
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2020 6:19 pm

Re: Go to the cinema!

Post by Ste_B »

Liamisdoingagreatjob wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:26 pm In my book the Government lost the trust of the people and respect the day the Dominic Cummings drive to barnard castle came out. They could have addressed It but didn’t. that whole farce ended credibility amongst many and meant future full lockdowns are almost impossible to make work as well as before.

That one incident has, in my view, led to a lot of pain for many on both jobs and health front by giving the go ahead to those who don’t give a damn about others to do as they please...
Agreed 100%. As some would say around these parts, they've completely lost the dressing room.
Port on the Kent
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2020 1:20 pm

Re: Go to the cinema!

Post by Port on the Kent »

As others have said, even a lockdown tighter than a pair of cycling shorts only delays the problem. When restrictions are lifted the virus spreads again.

Ultimately, to reduce thousands of articles, hundreds of thousands of posts and millions of conversations down to one succint point; Covid is not over until enough of the population are immune. That can be achieved in two ways, a) naturally, through 'herd' immunity or b) when a vaccine is readily available and those at risk have received it.

There is too much political resistance to the first option, which leaves only option B. The consequences of such, are that the country will stagger on as a Frankenstein's monster of patchwork restrictions, regulations and public frustration until that point is reached. The obvious follow up question is how far are we from that point? I don't know, ask the scientists, but I would say a year or more?

All other details and how come we are allowed to do x but not y are very interesting and often valid, but it boils down to that point I'm afraid. Happy Christmas.
Redrobe fan
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:51 am

Re: Go to the cinema!

Post by Redrobe fan »

Port on the Kent wrote: Fri Oct 09, 2020 12:05 am As others have said, even a lockdown tighter than a pair of cycling shorts only delays the problem. When restrictions are lifted the virus spreads again.

Ultimately, to reduce thousands of articles, hundreds of thousands of posts and millions of conversations down to one succint point; Covid is not over until enough of the population are immune. That can be achieved in two ways, a) naturally, through 'herd' immunity or b) when a vaccine is readily available and those at risk have received it.

There is too much political resistance to the first option, which leaves only option B. The consequences of such, are that the country will stagger on as a Frankenstein's monster of patchwork restrictions, regulations and public frustration until that point is reached. The obvious follow up question is how far are we from that point? I don't know, ask the scientists, but I would say a year or more?

All other details and how come we are allowed to do x but not y are very interesting and often valid, but it boils down to that point I'm afraid. Happy Christmas.
Quite a few issues here.

Lockdowns do not ‘only delay the problem’, they save lives and reduce the incidence of severe disease. If linked with effective contact tracing and follow up, this is a powerful strategy to end an epidemic. Providing that the public complies.

Lockdowns alone are not designed to ‘solve the problem’. The aim is to reduce transmission and thereby reduce morbidity and mortality and relieve stress on the health service in the short term.

Herd immunity is not generally achieved ‘naturally’, but through vaccination policies. Depending on the infectivity of the particular disease organism, it is usually only necessary for about 75% or so of the population to be immunised or to have recovered from the disease with immunity, to achieve herd immunity. The indications are that this disease is highly infectious so a figure nearer 90% may be required.

The concept of ‘herd immunity’ has been misrepresented in the press and by some politicians. It has been put forward by some that it means allowing the disease to run riot – ie laissez-faire - allow the exposure of as many people as possible so that those who are highly susceptible will die and the rest will recover with immunity. Fortunately, this is not how public health agencies achieve herd immunity!

The problem with vaccination strategies is of course that we don’t yet have a safe and effective vaccine for this virus that gives immunity for a reasonable period of time.

I must admit that I have been pessimistic that one will be found, as we have been trying to achieve this for similar viruses for over a century. However, there are promising indications that effective vaccines have indeed been found, but safety has not yet been assured and there is some evidence that the immunity achieved may be short lived only. Let us hope not, and that a vaccine will be available within a few months.

There then is the problem that apparently a very high proportion of the population have indicated that they will not consent to vaccination. Without at least 75% we won’t achieve anything like ‘herd immunity', though vaccinated individuals will be protected.

In the long term I expect the virus to evolve to become less virulent and to be ever-present like its cousin the common cold.

You said ‘ask the scientists’, well I am one.
Port on the Kent
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2020 1:20 pm

Re: Go to the cinema!

Post by Port on the Kent »

Redrobe fan wrote: Fri Oct 09, 2020 5:24 pm
Port on the Kent wrote: Fri Oct 09, 2020 12:05 am As others have said, even a lockdown tighter than a pair of cycling shorts only delays the problem. When restrictions are lifted the virus spreads again.

Ultimately, to reduce thousands of articles, hundreds of thousands of posts and millions of conversations down to one succint point; Covid is not over until enough of the population are immune. That can be achieved in two ways, a) naturally, through 'herd' immunity or b) when a vaccine is readily available and those at risk have received it.

There is too much political resistance to the first option, which leaves only option B. The consequences of such, are that the country will stagger on as a Frankenstein's monster of patchwork restrictions, regulations and public frustration until that point is reached. The obvious follow up question is how far are we from that point? I don't know, ask the scientists, but I would say a year or more?

All other details and how come we are allowed to do x but not y are very interesting and often valid, but it boils down to that point I'm afraid. Happy Christmas.
Quite a few issues here.

Lockdowns do not ‘only delay the problem’, they save lives and reduce the incidence of severe disease. If linked with effective contact tracing and follow up, this is a powerful strategy to end an epidemic. Providing that the public complies.

Lockdowns alone are not designed to ‘solve the problem’. The aim is to reduce transmission and thereby reduce morbidity and mortality and relieve stress on the health service in the short term.

Herd immunity is not generally achieved ‘naturally’, but through vaccination policies. Depending on the infectivity of the particular disease organism, it is usually only necessary for about 75% or so of the population to be immunised or to have recovered from the disease with immunity, to achieve herd immunity. The indications are that this disease is highly infectious so a figure nearer 90% may be required.

The concept of ‘herd immunity’ has been misrepresented in the press and by some politicians. It has been put forward by some that it means allowing the disease to run riot – ie laissez-faire - allow the exposure of as many people as possible so that those who are highly susceptible will die and the rest will recover with immunity. Fortunately, this is not how public health agencies achieve herd immunity!

The problem with vaccination strategies is of course that we don’t yet have a safe and effective vaccine for this virus that gives immunity for a reasonable period of time.

I must admit that I have been pessimistic that one will be found, as we have been trying to achieve this for similar viruses for over a century. However, there are promising indications that effective vaccines have indeed been found, but safety has not yet been assured and there is some evidence that the immunity achieved may be short lived only. Let us hope not, and that a vaccine will be available within a few months.

There then is the problem that apparently a very high proportion of the population have indicated that they will not consent to vaccination. Without at least 75% we won’t achieve anything like ‘herd immunity', though vaccinated individuals will be protected.

In the long term I expect the virus to evolve to become less virulent and to be ever-present like its cousin the common cold.

You said ‘ask the scientists’, well I am one.
Interesting response and if your insight into epedemiology comes from personal expertise then I appreciate your greater understanding and hope you will show patience with a layman.

With regards to the efficacy of a second lockdown, I am glad we share the view that they are short term measures which reduce pressure on health services temporarily. This was the stated aim of the first lockdown and as a sidenote, I believe it was a mistake for both the Government and medical officials to present this as some sort of silver bullet. Like it or not, there was a sense in the country that if we subject ourselves to misery for a few weeks, "it will all be over by summer." I believe this misrepresentation caused a lot of angst down the line. You will remember that "we have three weeks to save the NHS" and the inordinate number of graphs, charts and scare stories suggesting ICU beds would be overwhelmed in a matter of days. In reality, this did not happen and it did not even come close to happening; most Nightingale hospitals did not see a single patient. Prophesying the worst case scenario heightens public concerns at the time, but sows mistrust when people are asked to repeat these measures again.

The concept of herd immunity has been totally misrepresented from the beginning; it was seized upon by certain outlets as the personification of an evil Cummings plot. A hideous form of medical neo-liberalism, where a cold focus on economic interests is placed above public health. In reality, it was never this bogeyman, it was (and is) the only game in town. There does now seem to be a growing realisation of this. At this juncture, I do not feel we are far apart, what matters is how we conduct ourselves until this point is reached.

Given you suggest that even after a vaccine is available, there will still be many vulnerable individuals susceptible to the disease, there needs to be much deeper thought on how we order society whilst the virus is present. It is here I grow weary with the "let's just have a strict lockdown" line, as it offers no answers beyond the period it is in effect, no answers to the economic damage to the country and no answers to ruination of people's livelihoods. Every country grappling with the pandemic is trying to find the balancing act between keeping death rates low, while ensuring there is still something to live for, such as employment prospects and a meaningful existence. Advocating a full lockdown approach is, in my view, every bit extreme as doing away with all restrictions, just in the opposite direction. We require a measured response that takes into account both public health and economic factors and produces the best outcome. Finding a middle way will ultimately create some inconsistencies and frustrations, of which there are many.

I take on board your points about vaccinations and their uptake - I have no more insight into how close one is to distribution than what is reported in the press. Nor do I have any scientific insight to whether this will "evolve to be less virulent" so I won't take up any more bandwidth.
Redrobe fan
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:51 am

Re: Go to the cinema!

Post by Redrobe fan »

Thank you very much for your considered response.

What I was suggesting was a short but strict and comprehensive lockdown to stop the current exponential growth. It would save lives. Hopefully this would be supplemented with contact tracing and follow up.
Post Reply