The inevitable second lockdown

[paddycanary 538]

Yeah, we're going back into a six-week lockdown here in Ireland. I think they're trying to save Christmas and all the associated expenditure. At the moment schools are staying open, but that will depend on numbers. Many over here are pointing the finger at "da young folk", which might have a bit of truth, but I think everyone is just sick to the teeth of Covid-19 at this stage. Talk too of trainee nurses & doctors being transferred away from studies and into the hospitals. Learning at the coal-face. Strange times we live in. 

[Teemu’s right foot 53]

Has the first lockdown not created enough economic destruction, death and future death from illness other than covid and a potentially catastrophic mental health crisis, that we need to go into another one then? 

[The Real Buh 3,423]

10 hours ago, Essjayess said:

Ya i would not worry about football being stopped in anyway, even if  there was a complete UK lockdown lasting months again. Despite a fair few league clubs outside the Prem in perilous situations financially to, things will roll on and the football organisations  will continue to protect and mollycoddle the rich elite clubs, watching more lesser clubs go to the wall while murmuring a token "aww how sad" out of the corner of their mouths.

“I remember playing them in the cup, how sad. Never mind, we’ve got two weeks off, yay!”

[Capt. Pants 4,202]

1 hour ago, Teemu’s right foot said:

Has the first lockdown not created enough economic destruction, death and future death from illness other than covid and a potentially catastrophic mental health crisis, that we need to go into another one then? 

So what are you going to do when the hospitals get full then? Force people to die at home? The economic impact is of secondary importance compared to the lives of ordinary people and the doctors and nurses who have to treat them. Unfortunately it is the carelessness and selfishness of many that has led us to where we are now. 

[Well b back 3,190]

16 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I'm prepared to have a little bet with you that it will be announced this week. A bet for charity obviously 

There won’t be a lock down but there maybe a circuit breaker. Unfortunately the virus is so out of control 2 weeks will have no effect, the scientists are going as far as saying it would take 2 months.

Many people do not even know they have it and lots who have symptoms do not get tests, so as at 8/10 it was believed 40-50,000 per day were being infected, not the headline figure you see every day. His way out will be to blame Burnham for the national circuit break.

[ron obvious 1,501]

2 hours ago, Capt. Pants said:

So what are you going to do when the hospitals get full then? Force people to die at home? The economic impact is of secondary importance compared to the lives of ordinary people and the doctors and nurses who have to treat them. Unfortunately it is the carelessness and selfishness of many that has led us to where we are now. 

So at what point does the NHS become unsustainable through lack of revenue?

[BroadstairsR 2,138]

32 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

So at what point does the NHS become unsustainable through lack of revenue?

Exactly, the economy can only be strained so much before the pressure negatively impacts upon vital spending eg. NHS.

Edited October 20, 2020 by BroadstairsR

[chicken 2,605]

And yet austerity was meant to save us a lot of money, not to mention other political things that are probably best avoided on a football forum.

 

[canarydan23 4,060]

3 hours ago, Well b back said:

There won’t be a lock down but there maybe a circuit breaker. Unfortunately the virus is so out of control 2 weeks will have no effect, the scientists are going as far as saying it would take 2 months.

Many people do not even know they have it and lots who have symptoms do not get tests, so as at 8/10 it was believed 40-50,000 per day were being infected, not the headline figure you see every day. His way out will be to blame Burnham for the national circuit break.

What I don't get about the circuit breaker argument is that surely within those two weeks, people who caught it prior to the mini-lockdown will get their test results, the badly-affected will be going into hospital and even if the circuit breaker works, the figures will continue to get worse throughout those two weeks and then the line will be, "We can't ease restrictions as the numbers are getting worse" even though the benefits of the circuit breaker won't yet have borne fruit.

So if they pull the trigger on a two-week circuit breaker, I'm doubtful that it will be two-weeks.

[Well b back 3,190]

2 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

What I don't get about the circuit breaker argument is that surely within those two weeks, people who caught it prior to the mini-lockdown will get their test results, the badly-affected will be going into hospital and even if the circuit breaker works, the figures will continue to get worse throughout those two weeks and then the line will be, "We can't ease restrictions as the numbers are getting worse" even though the benefits of the circuit breaker won't yet have borne fruit.

So if they pull the trigger on a two-week circuit breaker, I'm doubtful that it will be two-weeks.

You have it spot on as Oxford and Sage are predicting. 4 weeks ago the numbers were low enough that a circuit breaker could at least buy a bit of time and then maybe have another one at Christmas. The scientists are now saying transmission is such that in 2 weeks time we would be exactly where you have pointed out we would be and a 2 week circuit breaker would have little or no effect, it would need to be nearer 2 months to break the chain. 
Only time will tell and we all have differing opinions. There will never be agreement on the right or wrong action to take, if we were to lock down I would be in the group saying excellent that will save lives as I am 60 with type 2 diabetes, those with businesses or livelihoods at stake will say what are you doing closing the economy down. We all ‘ up ‘ our own arguments as well, I will point to nobody knows the long term effect on your body, the other argument will be it only kills the over 80’s who are going to die from their underlying conditions anyway, history may or may not prove both those arguments wrong.

What must be remembered is the figures we are being told are far from reality, the 18,000 ish figure for new infections per day is only the people that have symptoms or actually get a test, it is estimated to be 3 x this figure, but who knows ?. I am a great advocate of the vaccine ( which will be here soon ) but even that is not a short term answer and things like crowds and social distancing will not alter till the middle of next year.

[JB 115]

21 hours ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Will most likely happen over Christmas to limit any damages.

 

That and the Tories/Boris will never want to admit they are wrong and value money and the economy over lives so no major countrywide lockdown during peak Christmas shopping peroids

Ok, so reverse the priority then, hypothetically. Say we DID value lives over the economy. The country's economy collapses, millions unemployed. Personal debt rises, homelessness increases and the strain on people's mental health hits an all time high. The levels of suicide and deaths of people from the cold from losing their homes would be of staggering quantities. Couple that with higher amounts of benefit claims and strain on the NHS for the aforementioned mental health problems.

Nobody wants anyone to die of Covid, nor for any other reason, of course, but by saying that lives should be prioritised over the economy would result in lives being lost anyway, along with so many other catastrophic social factors. There is no winning priority or situation unfortunately BUT keeping the economy going is extremely important, for my above stated reasons as well as being in a good enough position to get out of this when the time comes. 

Edited October 20, 2020 by JB
Addition

[Capt. Pants 4,202]

2 hours ago, ron obvious said:

So at what point does the NHS become unsustainable through lack of revenue?

So who decides who dies because the hospitals are full, which is almost the case in Manchester? 

I take your point but as a country we have spectacularly pissed this is up. We're not in control now, Boris can't even persuade some nortern monkey to close his pubs. It's a shambles.

[Teemu’s right foot 53]

Just now, Capt. Pants said:

So who decides who dies because the hospitals are full, which is almost the case in Manchester? 

I take your point but as a country we have spectacularly pissed this is up. We're not in control now, Boris can't even persuade some nortern monkey to close his pubs. It's a shambles.

Are hospitals almost full in Manchester or are the beds that have been allocated for covid patients almost full but there is still plenty of capacity? The bbc led with a story similar to this during the week, it was then disclosed that only 8 beds had been allocated for covid patients. As for your previous reply, if the economy tanks, the repercussions will be significant for everyone

[ron obvious 1,501]

3 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

So who decides who dies because the hospitals are full, which is almost the case in Manchester? 

I take your point but as a country we have spectacularly pissed this is up. We're not in control now, Boris can't even persuade some nortern monkey to close his pubs. It's a shambles.

Not at all sure about Manchester:

 

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/secrecy-spin-surrounding-greater-manchesters-19131905

[Nuff Said 5,092]

12 minutes ago, JB said:

Ok, so reverse the priority then, hypothetically. Say we DID value lives over the economy. The country's economy collapses, millions unemployed. Personal debt rises, homelessness increases and the strain on people's mental health hits an all time high. The levels of suicide and deaths of people from the cold from losing their homes would be of staggering quantities. Couple that with higher amounts of benefit claims and strain on the NHS for the aforementioned mental health problems.

Nobody wants anyone to die of Covid, nor for any other reason, of course, but by saying that lives should be prioritised over the economy would result in lives being lost anyway, along with so many other catastrophic social factors. There is no winning priority or situation unfortunately BUT keeping the economy going is extremely important, for my above stated reasons as well as being in a good enough position to get out of this when the time comes. 

My initial reaction was to say you are making a lot of assumptions about what *might* happen if we lock down, but on second reading, wild fantasy seems more appropriate.

 

"The levels of suicide and deaths of people from losing their homes would be of staggering quantities" - eh? And strain on the NHS from mental health problem? What do you think is happening now - and is getting worse every day we don't restrict activity further?

 

Obviously there's a balance to be struck between stopping all activity and trying to retain as healthy an economy as possible, but let's try not to panic eh? I have as much faith in this government as I do in Liverpool and Manchester City making proposals for the good of the game, but they have the numbers and the experts to advise them, we don't. The fact that pretty much every government around the world is taking lockdown type measures would suggest that it is the right thing to do. And countries where they have been the strictest are seeing the fastest recovery, and hence the least long-term economic impact.

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

2 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

What I don't get about the circuit breaker argument is that surely within those two weeks, people who caught it prior to the mini-lockdown will get their test results, the badly-affected will be going into hospital and even if the circuit breaker works, the figures will continue to get worse throughout those two weeks and then the line will be, "We can't ease restrictions as the numbers are getting worse" even though the benefits of the circuit breaker won't yet have borne fruit.

So if they pull the trigger on a two-week circuit breaker, I'm doubtful that it will be two-weeks.

Welcome to the world of Boris Go to work dont go to work Johnson.

[ron obvious 1,501]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-likely-is-the-nhs-to-be-overwhelmed-by-covid-

[The Bristol Nest 513]

The gov should have locked down 4 weeks ago when it may have slowed transmission. It chose to ignore Sage again with the same predictable needless deaths. To be fair March does seem like a long time ago. Maybe they have forgotten about it.

[JB 115]

4 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

My initial reaction was to say you are making a lot of assumptions about what *might* happen if we lock down, but on second reading, wild fantasy seems more appropriate.

 

"The levels of suicide and deaths of people from losing their homes would be of staggering quantities" - eh? And strain on the NHS from mental health problem? What do you think is happening now - and is getting worse every day we don't restrict activity further?

 

Obviously there's a balance to be struck between stopping all activity and trying to retain as healthy an economy as possible, but let's try not to panic eh? I have as much faith in this government as I do in Liverpool and Manchester City making proposals for the good of the game, but they have the numbers and the experts to advise them, we don't. The fact that pretty much every government around the world is taking lockdown type measures would suggest that it is the right thing to do. And countries where they have been the strictest are seeing the fastest recovery, and hence the least long-term economic impact.

I'm certainly respectful of your view of this, but to suggest I am living in fantasy is a tad bit over the top. Poor economy and social wellbeing must be at least partly linked to the issues I make references to. A country is happier in its population and output when the economy is doing well - the two correlate. If we suddenly locked down again, more people will suffer as a consequence, possibly less obviously and more in the long-term than they would if they made the, let's face it, awful decision in its own right, to not lock down fully should cases rise to higher levels. Its my view anyway and a bit of healthy debate on the matter is good for everyone too.

Edited October 20, 2020 by JB
Addition

[The Bristol Nest 513]

True but the trauma of unrestrained covid 19 will be even worse. People will stop attending shared spaces anyway, stop spending and stay at home as they start to see the reality of serious covid and know the names of the casualties. We have been spared much of this so far as the government attempts to control it.

As stated previously, every country uses lock down measures as it's pretty much all we have in our armoury at the moment.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

21 hours ago, Essjayess said:

Ya i would not worry about football being stopped in anyway, even if  there was a complete UK lockdown lasting months again. Despite a fair few league clubs outside the Prem in perilous situations financially to, things will roll on and the football organisations  will continue to protect and mollycoddle the rich elite clubs, watching more lesser clubs go to the wall while murmuring a token "aww how sad" out of the corner of their mouths.

Prior to this season the average salary in League Two was £2200 a week. 

That's £114,400 a year.

There were 11 League Two sides with an average attendance of below 4000 last season. 

According to Glassdoor the average NHS GP salary is just over £80,000 a year; it takes about 10 years to train as a GP.

Please tell me how the Premier League is to blame for League Two sides paying their players too much, then we'll talk about whether Premier League sides should be expected to bail them out.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

On 19/10/2020 at 17:49, cambridgeshire canary said:

Wales going into two week lockdown and Ireland into six weeks.

Wales aren't really going into lockdown though are they, schools are still going to be open.

It was opening the schools and universities which kickstarted the second wave, pretty sure closing pubs and restaurants isn't going to make the blind bit of difference. 

But back on topic, the public needs football and other forms of entertainment as a distraction and for our mental health. It should continue.

Picking my fantasy team, watching the odd live game on the telly, its a valuable distraction from constant bombardment of covid-19 news and associated doom and gloom.

Football should continue. 

[Nuff Said 5,092]

55 minutes ago, JB said:

I'm certainly respectful of your view of this, but to suggest I am living in fantasy is a tad bit over the top. Poor economy and social wellbeing must be at least partly linked to the issues I make references to. A country is happier in its population and output when the economy is doing well - the two correlate. If we suddenly locked down again, more people will suffer as a consequence, possibly less obviously and more in the long-term than they would if they made the, let's face it, awful decision in its own right, to not lock down fully should cases rise to higher levels. Its my view anyway and a bit of healthy debate on the matter is good for everyone too.

Fair enough, I’m all for respect for each other and reasoned debate. It’s a subject that seems to result in some extreme views on things like not wearing masks which to many of us are completely incomprehensible, so maybe I jumped to opposition to where I thought you were coming from too quickly.

 

Having said that, you have no evidence that there would be “staggering” quantities of suicides and deaths from cold due to repossessions, and to say so feels like scaremongering to me. Yes, lockdown will have an economic hit but any action hopefully is being taken in the expectation that if we don’t do it now, things will only be worse later.

 

[The Real Buh 3,423]

12 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Fair enough, I’m all for respect for each other and reasoned debate. It’s a subject that seems to result in some extreme views on things like not wearing masks which to many of us are completely incomprehensible, so maybe I jumped to opposition to where I thought you were coming from too quickly.

 

Having said that, you have no evidence that there would be “staggering” quantities of suicides and deaths from cold due to repossessions, and to say so feels like scaremongering to me. Yes, lockdown will have an economic hit but any action hopefully is being taken in the expectation that if we don’t do it now, things will only be worse later.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/24/10000-more-deaths-than-usual-occurred-in-uk-homes-since-june
 

people are dying in their thousands of trying to stop people from dying of covid