Lockdown extended

Btw, apologies for the repeated error appearing in your username janeainsworth, autocorrect keeps changing it despite my correction at least once. Looks correct this time.

To answer your enquiry janeansworth, yes that is what I am saying, with an additional caveat. That caveat being - if the current trend in the death rate remains stable. This, ironically, was the original projection from the scientific advisors. Btw, whilst I still don't remember the name of the scientist that was quoted in the BBC report I do remember that he was a scientist at the centre for control of infectious diseases.

I hope this answers your query sufficiently.

I, like all of us I'm sure, hope that the trajectory of infection rate and the death rate does not remain stable but declines. It is much needed to get the economy and the population's wellbeing back on track.

I apologise if I am misunderstanding you Cherrycezzy but I would like to be clear about what you’re actually saying. When you say I stated that if the current trend (as it is under lockdown) remains stable then the number of deaths would be in the region of what I have stated and
At a consistent rate, until a vaccine (many scientists and the WHO are saying) a year from now = 6 × 33,000 plus the 33,000 we have already had does it not? That means a death toll of 231,000 does it not?

do you mean that even if lockdown continues, this will be the death toll if it takes a year to develop a vaccine?

I'm not envisaging any scenario janeansworth. If you read my last post you would realise that I was referring to the trend in statistics over the last couple of months, whilst there has been lockdown. I also referenced the fact that many scientists think a vaccine will not be available for a year. I stated that if the current trend (as it is under lockdown) remains stable then the number of deaths would be in the region of what I have stated. I am neither proposing lockdown remains in it's current form nor proposing a complete removal of lockdown.

We need a healthy work force and we need businesses to survive and thrive so the economy recovers from this shock and there remains work for people to do so the population can thrive too.

I had the what I called the lurgy in December January where I had similar symptoms to Covid 19 but nothing was seriously noted then I consumed honey and cinnamon drinks alongside paracetamol which did the trick and I’m pleased to say there were little anxieties around then and I’m just fine now

Cherrycezzy the scenario you are envisaging is what might happen if lockdown was completely lifted and everyone immediately went back to work, stopped social distancing and congregated in crowded pubs & restaurants and at football matches and rock concerts.
No one is suggesting that at all.

It’s a very difficult decision because on one hand individuals can decide their own risk factor, on the other, employers are liable for harm to employees.
There are already law suits in the US by employees that were allegedly not adequately protected. The level of PPE available is simply appalling, even for those in high risk situations.

It doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
I think the govt is going to be bowing to pressure if they do too much, too soon.

Having different rules regarding lockdown in the countries which make up the U.K. is as practical as having a section for peeing in a swimming pool.

I suppose the more complex the easing off is, the more chance of people misunderstanding, or just thinking they've had enough and going out anyway.

I like that Gabriella

The areticle i read yesterday said the Government were considering extending lockdown for 65s ,70s and 80s, to 17 weeks, but Iain Duncan Smith argued that it is unfair to trat people of those ages all the same,as a lot of that age group are healthier than some younger people
I don't particulary like him but this makes sense to me,
I believe it should focus more on the health of people of these ages
If this goes on too long, many people will have died before lockdown ends anyway

A reminder as to what to say if lockdown is eased and someone who should be in, is out.

It's a crime to state a fact then question it.

Everything seems so disjointed.

I have only this week as a support worker (my company followed govt guidance) been instructed to wear full ppe when I'm on shift.

One of the houses I go to also have another agency who do more of the personal care, and their workers have been wearing ppe, but stopped this week!!

I saw that article a few days ago too janeansworth . Thanks for the screenshot Gabriella. The most recent article may or may not be the case.
As I stated earlier, my reference was to a poster on GN who related her personal experience. She had the virus (tested positive) and was off work. She recovered. She was retested -negative. She returned to work. A couple of weeks later she had symptoms and tested positive.

jainainsworth , am I making an assumption? You ask for a reference, where's yours to the contrary?
I read it this morning, there was an article on the BBC. Sorry if it doesn't suit you when I openly state that I do not remember the name of the medical scientist. Yes, it was a projection and evidently projections are not facts but extrapolated from evidence, since crystal balls do not actually see into the real future. I will however state that if, counting the stats from the Office for National Statistics and the official figures released by the Government, the current total of deaths from Covid-19 is above 33,000 under current lockdown measures and much of the population are rarely venturing outside then it is highly likely that, since the virus will still be present, the rate of increase in infections and deaths will increase. In two months of lockdown 33,000 lives. At a consistent rate, until a vaccine (many scientists and the WHO are saying) a year from now = 6 × 33,000 plus the 33,000 we have already had does it not? That means a death toll of 231,000 does it not? Not far off 250,000 under existing measures.

janeainsworth
The article you quote from is dated April 25th.
Mine is dated today 7th May.
A lot can happen in 2 weeks. ??
Opinions change.
New facts come to the fore.
New tests produce different results.

Gabriella either the DM has got it completely wrong, or the WHO has changed its opinion according to this article from Reuter’s

“No evidence' that recovered COVID-19 patients cannot be reinfected - WHO”

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKCN2270FD

CU UC

We can afford to lose some people, unfortunately, the people dying are majorly assets to the community, not the people we could do without.
No good saving people if there are no jobs, a crumbling economy and everyone on JSA or CU.

Here's the article.

Read the article. Having once had C-19 you may test positive after recovery but that is explained in the article. I cannot link via mobile but will put a screenshot up.

CherryCezzy
It was an article by the WHO.

Cherrycezzy Espousing utilitarian principles is all very well and good and it can be argued that out of a population of 66 million the loss of 250,000 people is "for the greater good", however this misses out more than mere statistics

I’m afraid you’ve lost me there. You seem to be making an assumption that if lockdown is eased, the death toll will be 250,000.
Has anyone actually said that gradually opening up the economy will lead to that?
If so, on what basis? Do you have a reference?
Other countries like Spain and Italy are taking a pragmatic approach and if there is an increase in the number of people contracting the virus, they will reimpose restrictions. That seems a very reasonable thing to me and I hope our government will do something along those lines.

I read scientific modelling the uk possible deaths today. 250,000. Could be prevented but won't be because England's out of lockdown
You may be right, but even “scientific” modelling is not the same as facts at the present.
And incidentally, England's not out of lockdown