An English lockdown in November?

[Workingman]

Cromwell, what these fools fail to realise, and they are from all walks of life and of all ages, is that if we had carried on with the minor inconveniences from the initial lockdown of washing hands, wearing a mask and staying apart once things started to open up we would not have this new version.

We were asked, advised, requested, cajoled and pleaded with but, no, we knew better. The ones to blame for the mess we are now in are those who just couldn't be bothered yet they are the loudest moaners.

[Gal2]

Absolutely Frank.

[TheOstrich]

Cromwell, what these fools fail to realise, and they are from all walks of life and of all ages, is that if we had carried on with the minor inconveniences from the initial lockdown of washing hands, wearing a mask and staying apart once things started to open up we would not have this new version.

Yes, but I still think that the way mask-wearing was promoted by the Government/media meant that many people in a mask then regarded themselves as invincible. So social distancing went out of the window, and that has fuelled the rise in cases more than non-compliance with any of the other protective measures.

[Workingman]

Yes, Ossie, I take your point about the invincibility thing. I got caught with the slogan 'Hands. Face. Space' when I meant to put working from home in the middle of my list.

[Suff]

Suff, when I mentioned Spring I meant it in the sense of that is what we are being sold by the talking heads: "If we get through till Spring all will be well" It is not that far away and is believable / acceptable to many of us compared to say The true nature of the lockdown is to get the R number below 1

Yes but is that 1 at 250,000, 1 at 20,000 or 1 at 10???

Because the R number is relative. It is a number of growth.

So the lockdown is, in reality, to get the number of new cases down to a level which can be sustained, short term, so that a R number of 1 (no growth or loss), is not a problem.

An R number of 1 at 20,000 means that we get 20,000 new cases a day. Not some magic, not some weird statistics, simple. Over 1 it is growing, below 1 it is shrinking. The BIG issue is that 1.1 can lead to 20,000, but it will take 0.5 or less to really drop numbers. Because whilst 1.2 will expand very rapidly, 0.8 reduces less every day. Because it is 0.8 of a smaller number whereas 1.2 is 1.2 of an ever growing number.

The truth is hard to come by but R numbers float everywhere without the slightest bit of explanation. An R number of 1 with 10 cases a day is not an issue.

Sometimes it is hard not to break the PC. We should be talking about reducing the daily number of cases. Not about a letter which scientists use in scientific calculations.

[Workingman]

I don't get it.

We apparently have a "medical and moral disaster" unfolding, yet the lockdown will end on Dec 2, by law. Surely, in the face of a disaster, we should be locking down for as long as is necessary to try to mitigate it and not be bound to some arbitrary date set in stone.

[cromwell]

The only way it makes sense is if they fully intend to keep us locked down for longer, but don't want to say so.
I'm really fed up.
We are throwing the economy under the bus on the basis of what might happen, on predictions given by people who have already been proved wrong.
Madness.

[miasmum]

I have a theory, which is probably completely wrong but i will share it anyway

I think we are having this lock down now, to get the R number as low as possible going into December. We will come out of lock down because December is such an important month for shops, hospitality and beauty, even though none of us have anywhere to go and very few people to see. This will boost the economy hugely and be a massive help to business. Aside from that families do need to be together, those that are probably not going to see another Christmas, grandparents with their grandchildren, the lonely, mental health cant take a lockdown Christmas. But the pay off will be that come January we will be hit with a really heavy lock down from January until Spring.

Thats my more than likely completely half baked theory

[jenniren]

Thats my more than likely completely half baked theory

I think you could well be right.

[Suff]

Almost certainly mm. If we bring cases back down to the middle hundreds per day by mid December, they will be able to unlock fully for Christmas.

Of course Christmas will ensure a huge jump in cases 2 months later even if we have an active vaccine program going by them. However with an active vaccine program going, we won't need to lock down again even with a jump in cases.

Because a vaccine immunisation program is far more effective than a lockdown.

The thing is we are sacrificing the economy now for a tiny bounce at Christmas and a feelgood factor. If we could be 100% certain that they would start a vaccination program in the next 7 weeks, then this lockdown would make a bit more sense. But nobody is going to promise that vaccination, just in case something else goes wrong to block it. We will find out when the ramp up to roll out starts to leak.