Independent Leyton Orient Forum

BoniO
When I said we have to live with it on a previous thread , I meant that we behave just as we should have done from the outset. That is to wash hands regularly and keep our distance. We have backed that up with masks.
That appears to be our only choice. Lockdown will not end the problem. It will slow it’s spread. But that’s just saving it for another day.
So far today , those who are calling for another lockdown , will still get paid ridiculous ammounts for doing nothing. I would prefer representation from the business world. I suspect they would offer different options

Even the WHO say lockdown is not the answer.

Story of O wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 9:23 pm Even the WHO say lockdown is not the answer.

So, I'll ask again, what do you mean by "live with this"?

George has given you your answer in the post above.

Anyone fancy a circuit breaker lockdown then? I can see how it makes sense, lives would be saved, but to what end?

BoniO wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 9:29 pm

Story of O wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 9:23 pm Even the WHO say lockdown is not the answer.

So, I'll ask again, what do you mean by "live with this"?

Sorry, I did not answer i was at work. I am no expert but I feel this will be around for some time, so we either live as we are now for the foreseeable future or we somehow manage it. Don't ask me how.

I know it's not flu, but I imagine we'll live with covid in the same way. Business as normal and vaccination for the vulnerable.

Story of O wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 9:44 pm

BoniO wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 9:29 pm

Story of O wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 9:23 pm Even the WHO say lockdown is not the answer.

So, I'll ask again, what do you mean by "live with this"?

Sorry, I did not answer i was at work. I am no expert but I feel this will be around for some time, so we either live as we are now for the foreseeable future or we somehow manage it. Don't ask me how.

OK - thanks for the response. I'd love to know how we could "live with this" without throwing the vulnerable under the bus.

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 9:47 pm I know it's not flu, but I imagine we'll live with covid in the same way. Business as normal and vaccination for the vulnerable.

So there's a vaccine ?? Why didn't you say?

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 9:47 pm I know it's not flu, but I imagine we'll live with covid in the same way. Business as normal and vaccination for the vulnerable.

That may well work when we have a vaccination, if we get a vaccination......

How long do we give the boffins to come up with one? Taking into account we may have regular lockdowns until then.

BoniO wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 9:49 pm

Story of O wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 9:44 pm

BoniO wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 9:29 pm

So, I'll ask again, what do you mean by "live with this"?

Sorry, I did not answer i was at work. I am no expert but I feel this will be around for some time, so we either live as we are now for the foreseeable future or we somehow manage it. Don't ask me how.

OK - thanks for the response. I'd love to know how we could "live with this" without throwing the vulnerable under the bus.

I wish I knew, even the best minds in the world don't know.

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 9:41 pm Anyone fancy a circuit breaker lockdown then? I can see how it makes sense, lives would be saved, but to what end?

But won't it just come back again when it is lifted.

Yes

BoniO.
It’s not about throwing the vulnerable under the bus. Most successfully shielded last lockdown. Others in care homes were let down by lack of testing. We locked down the first time when it was too late to save most. By that I mean that with no knowledge of the virus , no understanding of its prevalence already in the UK , and taking action much later than we should have done , we had no choice.
We have a much better understanding now. It doesn’t kill fit and healthy people. The ones that should and need to be working. It does harm the old and vulnerable. But the old and vulnerable understand more now also. They are already distancing, washing more , wearing masks. That’s why the numbers infected , and the rise in hospitalisation, is rising slower than the first time.

And do you have any thoughts yourself about that or do you prefer to post things you have absolutely no view on?

Mick McQuaid wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 7:47 am And do you have any thoughts yourself about that or do you prefer to post things you have absolutely no view on?

I primarily posted it as a reference and to contextualise given it had been mentioned above by others without linking to it.

However, given you want my opinion (thank you) ....

It was an interesting video as it made me think about the devastating effects lockdowns in our country have on the vulnerable in the developing world. Something I should've given more thought to.

What absolute morons.

Story of O wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 9:23 pm Even the WHO say lockdown is not the answer.

Not quite, the position outlined by David Nabarro was that lockdowns can't be the primary means of controlling the virus. His very next sentence was the conditions under which they do advocate using lockdowns, which are pretty much as stillspike said on the previous page.

The fire brigade isn't and shouldn't be the primary means of protecting people from the risk of fire but to thoroughly mix my metaphors, when there's a great big fire you do need to call them rather than checking the batteries in the track and trace and installing fire doors to keep your nan safe because she can't get down the stairs quick enough.

We're going to end up with one anyway, whether in name or by default when the local measures mean it's 6 people in Cornwall who are still in tier 1. We're going to do it too late again though, which means a longer lockdown and that all the damage that comes with it will be worse than if we'd acted sooner.

Unfortunately I have absolutely no hope that the time will be used to actually put in a proper strategy which would allow a more normal life for everyone and would prevent having to use lockdowns as a solution.

It may just be that that effective governance of this crisis will require greater devolution of powers and control to local and regional authorities. The current stripped-back centralised model seems to lack agility and capacity. But that's a real head-scratcher for traditional small-state proponents.

London tier 2 from Saturday. Essex voluntarily putting themselves in tier 2 despite cases being roughly half the threshold to trigger it

Dunners wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 10:08 am It may just be that that effective governance of this crisis will require greater devolution of powers and control to local and regional authorities. The current stripped-back centralised model seems to lack agility and capacity. But that's a real head-scratcher for traditional small-state proponents.

Or it could simply be that this government didn't get to to grips with this in the beginning when it really mattered. Then having failed to show strong leadership, or acted decisively and promptly, it has just meandered along making knee-jerk decisions every now and then in a totally unplanned and meaningless fashion.

There's no need for a change in how we're governed in order to combat this disease more effectively. We just needed a strong and competent government but instead we have Boris & chums.

The reason we've responded so badly is because of how are governed. The Tories have spent the last decade further centralising the most centralised state in the developed world. And when a crisis comes along that requires the state to be agile, utilise local knowledge and expertise, and generate genuine local consent, it has shown up all the shortcomings that power hoarding at the centre brings.

It's worth remembering that the organisation that the Tories are inexplicably pinning this all on (Public Health England) is a Tory creation from 8 years ago, when they abolished regional health boards.