Coronavirus update - NO MORE RESTRICTIONS

[surge]

....

Personally I think the UK is too small for 4 home nations to play to different rules. Governments, particularly in Wales and Scotland have made this a political blame game.

But in practice does that mean:

- Places in Glasgow where average lifespan is closer to 60 than 90 are treated the same as the places in London where reverse is true? We know that things like age, health, wealth are useful predictors for worst effects of this virus.

- Central belt of Scotland which had measures put in place during winter much earlier than elsewhere has those measures delayed? We know that over half the death occurred based on spread around this time and England delayed action so much that schools went back for one day in the new year

- On the flip side Scotland was quickest to identify that children and outside were the safest. Does your one nation approach mean young children are more isolated because they still count to the rule of 6 as they did in England for far, far longer? If I remember correctly, young children had to wear masks in England at a much earlier stage too for similar reason.

Of course it makes it far simpler and easier to understand if the rules are the same across 4 nations, but I initially disagree strongly with your analysis (unless you're saying Boris would significantly change his approach to take into consideration the above?) and would be interested to know your answers to questions raised.

[lisvaneblue]

But in practice does that mean:

- Places in Glasgow where average lifespan is closer to 60 than 90 are treated the same as the places in London where reverse is true? We know that things like age, health, wealth are useful predictors for worst effects of this virus.

- Central belt of Scotland which had measures put in place during winter much earlier than elsewhere has those measures delayed? We know that over half the death occurred based on spread around this time and England delayed action so much that schools went back for one day in the new year

- On the flip side Scotland was quickest to identify that children and outside were the safest. Does your one nation approach mean young children are more isolated because they still count to the rule of 6 as they did in England for far, far longer? If I remember correctly, young children had to wear masks in England at a much earlier stage too for similar reason.

Of course it makes it far simpler and easier to understand if the rules are the same across 4 nations, but I initially disagree strongly with your analysis (unless you're saying Boris would significantly change his approach to take into consideration the above?) and would be interested to know your answers to questions raised.

As I said, some people are losing their perspective on this.

In board terms England has 80% population of UK, Scotland 10%, Wales & NI 5% each. What England does is having the biggest impact on UK simply because of the numbers.

Getting into sub groups of the population of Glasgow is the same as getting into sub-groups of the population of Cardiff...it is interesting information, but when you are talking of a virus that has infected 4.5million of us in UK it's hardly relevant.

As you say age, health, wealth are useful predictors and we have used these Uk wide to protect for example the elderly through lockdowns, but if you are suggesting that different rules should apply based on where you live in Cardiff or Glasgow, or London that's impractical and misses the point.

This virus has no regard for who we are, what we are, or our age. All it needs is human to human contact to infect. The rules that have helped keep it at bay are the simple rules that everyone can understand...hygiene, space, stay home etc.
Glad to say the whole of UK adopted these measures. Whether one country does it ahead of another is for debate, because when to comes to results in terms of population protection in UK the outcomes are similar.

[surge]

As I said, some people are losing their perspective on this.

.....

I don't think you've engaged with what I've said, but you might feel I didn't engage with you initially.

This article is interesting: https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/p...-most-20528778

Given list of issues raised, it's likely that a UK approach to engaging with firebreak or stronger restrictions afterwards would have produced a longer lasting dampening down of virus numbers in Wales but, based on the population numbers in each nation which you raised, it's far more likely that Wales would have been in worse position based on no firebreak and even later second lockdown. I would highlight that not testing those moving back into care homes was a one UK approach and is going to be the most difficult thing to explain in reviews.

But as you want to focus on the virus itself, I would agree that the virus isn't sentient and that one approach would have made things easier, and at times more effective, but saying the virus doesn't care about who we are, what we are, or our age suggests a skewed understanding on a) how it spreads and b) where it has the worst impact.

[lisvaneblue]

I don't think you've engaged with what I've said, but you might feel I didn't engage with you initially.

This article is interesting: https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/p...-most-20528778

Given list of issues raised, it's likely that a UK approach to engaging with firebreak or stronger restrictions afterwards would have produced a longer lasting dampening down of virus numbers in Wales but, based on the population numbers in each nation which you raised, it's far more likely that Wales would have been in worse position based on no firebreak and even later second lockdown. I would highlight that not testing those moving back into care homes was a one UK approach and is going to be the most difficult thing to explain in reviews.

But as you want to focus on the virus itself, I would agree that the virus isn't sentient and that one approach would have made things easier, and at times more effective, but saying the virus doesn't care about who we are, what we are, or our age suggests a skewed understanding on a) how it spreads and b) where it has the worst impact.

Thank you for the link to the Wales on line. Maybe Wales does have the worse outcomes, I don't know, but if so it's likely to be because of demographic factors more than anything else. You make some points about what may or may not have been happening in Wales because of political decisions, what Im saying is that these make marginal differences to the UK overall and in many instances are done just to be different. Tomorrow 30 people can gather in England. In Wales in the same circumstances 50 people can gather. Two governments looking at the same data and coming to very different decisions. Its just daft and confuses people.
Then last week our First minister boasting that we have the lowest rates in UK and the best vaccination rates...just politics and unnecessary and not strictly true.

Regarding the virus, I have a very good understanding of microbiology, having worked in the area for many years, and understand how Covid spreads and it's varying impact on individuals based on degree of exposure, age, individuals overall health and their environment.

[surge]

Thank you for the link to the Wales on line. Maybe Wales does have the worse outcomes, I don't know, but if so it's likely to be because of demographic factors more than anything else. You make some points about what may or may not have been happening in Wales because of political decisions, what Im saying is that these make marginal differences to the UK overall and in many instances are done just to be different. Tomorrow 30 people can gather in England. In Wales in the same circumstances 50 people can gather. Two governments looking at the same data and coming to very different decisions. Its just daft and confuses people.
Then last week our First minister boasting that we have the lowest rates in UK and the best vaccination rates...just politics and unnecessary and not strictly true.

Regarding the virus, I have a very good understanding of microbiology, having worked in the area for many years, and understand how Covid spreads and it's varying impact on individuals based on degree of exposure, age, individuals overall health and their environment.

So much to say and not enough time...

We don't know whether Boris would have changed his approach if UK was acting as one but it's likely that i) England would have loudest voice as majority of population lives there and ii) if Wales had more closely followed England's approach throughout Wales would have been in a worse position, as would have Scotland, based on different demographics of population.

There have been petty differences created which don't make sense (different take on what counts as a young person between Scotland and Wales, now crowds outside between Wales and England as you've pointed out in your post); and opportunities missed (we're now waiting for 4 weeks to be able to use the English NHS app for vaccine passports, stronger action after fire-break could have been taken); but also reasons to be happy a different approach was taken (children and outdoor activity recognised as being safer earlier in Scotland, a lower peak in Wales and Scotland during winter despite different demographics); and unhappy when each government acted together (not testing those going into care homes).

Drakeford and Sturgeon have been vocal about wanting a one UK approach but perhaps that's wanting a one UK approach and closer to what they've seen as being needed rather than what Boris has. Stating that you want one UK approach leads onto some big questions about who gets and who misses out on what they want and that follow up is rarely put to those calling for said one approach.

Regarding virus, maybe we're saying same thing from different angles. If who, what, where you are changes degree of exposure and impact on you if you catch it then, to me, the virus does care about those things even if it doesn't know it.

[lisvaneblue]

So much to say and not enough time...

We don't know whether Boris would have changed his approach if UK was acting as one but it's likely that i) England would have loudest voice as majority of population lives there and ii) if Wales had more closely followed England's approach throughout Wales would have been in a worse position, as would have Scotland, based on different demographics of population.

There have been petty differences created which don't make sense (different take on what counts as a young person between Scotland and Wales, now crowds outside between Wales and England as you've pointed out in your post); and opportunities missed (we're now waiting for 4 weeks to be able to use the English NHS app for vaccine passports, stronger action after fire-break could have been taken); but also reasons to be happy a different approach was taken (children and outdoor activity recognised as being safer earlier in Scotland, a lower peak in Wales and Scotland during winter despite different demographics); and unhappy when each government acted together (not testing those going into care homes).

Drakeford and Sturgeon have been vocal about wanting a one UK approach but perhaps that's wanting a one UK approach and closer to what they've seen as being needed rather than what Boris has. Stating that you want one UK approach leads onto some big questions about who gets and who misses out on what they want and that follow up is rarely put to those calling for said one approach.

Regarding virus, maybe we're saying same thing from different angles. If who, what, where you are changes degree of exposure and impact on you if you catch it then, to me, the virus does care about those things even if it doesn't know it.

The virus doesn't care about anything, just replication. The variable is the host. If a large amount of virus is inhaled, if the host immune system is compromised through disease or age, if the environment has continued exposure to it...these are the things that matter.

All this RNA virus needs is adsorption, then penetration into cell cytoplasm, to start its journey of replication.