No Scientific Evidence for 2m Distancing

Perhaps they won't because he's not a nutter peddling lies.

as usual the boffins are arguing; i wonder if he's in SAGE?

He’s an advisor to SAGE.

oh damn; i very nearly got excited then

But it would appear they ignore him!

hence my erection flopping

read it again Baph and tell me where he's arguing?

He's pretty much in agreement with the Government and Sage line reading that.

then i think you should read it again

When the wife says she'll be home in half an hour.  I double it to an hour.  It's a made up rule of thumb.

Stands to reason if there is scientific evidence for one metre, with a very dangerous virus I'd increase that as a precaution.  2 metres is the obvious practical figure.  I There's nowt to say he's in disagreement fundanmentally with anyone on Sage based on the opening post.  His second point 'We cannot sustain [social distancing measures] without causing serious damage to society, to the economy and to the physical and mental health of the population." is pretty much in line with the vast majority of plotical scientific and public opinion.

Seems to me there's a bit of wanting to read into something that isn't there going on.

obvious to whom exactly? Pedantic; but thanks for your opinion

2m is a safe distance, that's all it means. So is 3m, so is 4 etc. The CDC in the US advise 6 feet which is about 17cm shorter distance.

People running should be told to keep at least 4m tho. Some fat bird brushed off my shoulder running the other day, on the footpath waving to a neighbour on the other side of the street. Running throws your breath a fair distance as your breath is traveling at the same speed you are running and you are breathing more heavily too.

The WHO recommends 1m

'Physical distancing means being physically apart. WHO recommends keeping at least 1-metre (3 feet) distance from others. This is a general measure that everyone should take even if they are well with no known exposure to COVID-19.'

Can WHO let us know what SD was followed by the Chinese that seems to have worked ..

How many people will die from not being diagnosed with cancer as those rates of referrals are well down, and how much will that affect/cost the NHS/tax payer in the long run? how many people will suffer life long mental anguish after an increase in domestic abuse? How many will die from cirrhosis of the liver after picking up/catalysing drinking habits in the long run thanks to lockdown?

end this lockdown madness, if not it will make the government look weak as more and more people now breaking it anyway thanks to spring springing, more consistent warmer weather.

1m is for inside. Outside must be less!

Who needs scientific evidence? Just mere common sense eg sputum can travel further than 2m thus virus being much lighter and less dense ought to be able to travel further than 2m as it can easily blown by the wind and speed of travel of person responsible. This assumption is not rocket science just sheer common sense, I firmly believe. Also, prudent to err on the side of caution.

What ever is being done is Not working we now have the Highest daily amount of deaths world wide And we have also been implementing Some measure from other countries The 1000 a day figure looked to be Gone , but after todays Numbers , it now looks certain to be hit on Tuesday / Wednesday

casemoney. We reached the peak of deaths on 8th April. No reason at all to think we will suddenly shoot up to 1000 especially as hospital numbers are shrinking.

it was around 500 deaths per day 5 or 6 days ago. many of these daily deaths being reported now happened days or even weeks ago

NHS england figures clearly show a declining trend. They are better figures to look at rather then the daily release which depends on how many the administrators have got round to registering and are pretty meaningless.

How many people will die from not being diagnosed with cancer as those rates of referrals are well down, and how much will that affect/cost the NHS/tax payer in the long run? how many people will suffer life long mental anguish after an increase in domestic abuse? How many will die from cirrhosis of the liver after picking up/catalysing drinking habits in the long run thanks to lockdown?
____________________

probably  100,000  ...however , for those who qualify in taking this government 12 week holiday will see a lot of benefits ...lower stress ,more sleep ,more sunshine and loads more fresh air and exercise ...not to mention lower pollution will help asthma cases  ...overall a net gain for the NHS

mental health will probably be a 50/50

people with stroke /cancer symptoms need to get themselves checked ...hospitals say they are still dealing with those cases  .and  not delay  ...some people will delay anyway without this situation  ...

cancer teams painting a worst case scenario  ...stroke situation i think is worse for the NHS if anything

probably  100,000  ...however , for those who qualify in taking this government 12 week holiday will see a lot of benefits ...lower stress ,more sleep ,more sunshine and loads more fresh air and exercise ...not to mention lower pollution will help asthma cases  ...overall a net gain for the NHS


how do you work all this out, kids at home permanently would drive parents crazy, those facing financial ruin, those who had GCSE's, A levels, Degrees, Masters to take/finish, all that stress and worry with teachers talking about predicting their grades instead, that would be a an epic disaster for all sorts of reasons, TAX will have to rise to help recover this economic crash in the long run.

You're only allowed 1 form of exercise a day for 1 hour so not sure where all the extra sunshine is coming from especially in a country that has Britain's inclement climate, not everybody has gardens.

When Cancer referrals rates get going again, it wont just get back to it's normal levels, it will surge to make up for those not coming forward or not allowed to as many screenings cancelled, people also much more likely to take up smoking and drinking more -sales already up with 1/5 admitting to increasing drinking levels according to the mail.

I will give you pollution though, that has dropped of course.

I think youre being a bit hysterical .... as a percentage  of the population very few will be affected at all by all this ...tax may or may not go up ,it's not a given   .... all countries are affected not just UK  ...so it's a level playing field ...some businesses will go under sadly but many of them  were struggling before ...there has been  plenty of help for businesses .   Tax doesn't have to rise at all  ...it's Darwin at work ,,,those businesses able to cope will weather the storm and it will all be OK again .

there will be as many losers as there are winners .

If someone wanted to buy a mattress or fridge last month they still need that mattress .... demand hasn't suddenly gone into a black hole .   

I think you present a naive picture   ...people aren't just getting 1 hour of exercise  ...i don't know if you live in Norway or Scotland   but we have like 40 consecutive sunny days ...and almost everyone has a garden  ....  the cancer story is alarmist

Other diseases are awful and could be eventually deadly. However, Covid-19 is invisible, very contagious, indiscriminate and can kill within days/weeks unlike other diseases. Also, it's the one disease presently killing many thousands throughout the world and paralysing economies of every country.

I'd like to see the NHS deal with all other diseases and ailments asap, but at the moment the risk is too high for other patients to be in hospital for fear of infection. Hopefully in the next few days or so certainly when the Covid-19 cases and deaths rates are on a sharp decline.

At the moment Covid-19 is top priority.

Hospitals emergencies dept's are still taking calls  ...it's the public who are not responding since they don't want to apply any more pressure, but workers i know tell me the hospital seems to be running at less than 50% capacity

people are scared of  getting the virus ...the  real danger was weeks ago when folk were out in pubs and at race meetings lol   

it's all in the head

Covid cases should have been packed away by now   but  too many people are still meeting up  ...not in parks but around houses  ...  go onto the estates and see where the dangers lurk and where this virus will 'sleep' for a few weeks

TV news more concerned with people sitting on benches or sunbathing in parks   ...ironically it's the  UVA destroys  the fooker

with all due respect coach you've ignored everything I said and just rambled, all those things I said are happening, not will or could. Lay off the BEER imo

'I' rambled ?    ffs  ...  i answered your ramble more like

I think like most you are maybe looking at the news and govt guidelines and reading into them ....


look at society around you for life's answers 


1 hour was the funniest one ....   i can imagine now ....'right OK ,stop watch on timer ...it's now 2.14  .... home at  3,14 precisely'   like some sort of army drill 

most of the normals go out twice a day or out for the entire afternoon (unless the weather is poor) ...those that don't go out opt to stay in and smoke puff or get drunk and eat pizza ...but that's the other end of the social scale

but stress levels going through the roof, everyone in academia worried, anxious and stressed with current situation not knowing what's going to happen with their future, many people have been put off or put of themselves getting health scare signs and staying away from hospitals, grandparents all over the country especially the single ones are very lonely and sad not being able to see children/grandkids. I would imagine many people will be happy to get back to work as well.

there will be plenty sat on their arris thinking lifes great getting 80% of their wage

everyone in academia worried
___________________

I would be more worried about the general situation ahead, not whether they're getting a B in social anthropology .

I feel sorry for the  youngsters  in the years ahead ...no meaningful work for 80% of them (mainly outsourced) ,no chance of owning a house ,no chance of social housing, no chance of starting up a small business, retirement at 70 , ...  maybe a few more virus's to come   ...even trying to make money on here nowadays is a non runner

there will be plenty sat on their arris thinking lifes great getting 80% of their wage
___________________

that will be all of them

kids not that bothered about seeing their grandparents on the whole unless they're getting something lol ...that's a one way love i'm afraid , a bit  like supporting a football team ...but nice for the grandparents if they get that special feeling  of course

not nice being contained either  although i have seen a few oldies out today  ...

have a day off coachbuster

Believe nothing from the media . They knew about Saville and other paedos for well over 40 years .

They print what they want you to hear .

Those numbers they give out every day are about as believable as the moon landings .

Next episode ;  well done public you done brilliant on lockdown . We are easing now .

There has been no lockdown - people have been out and about for weeks , partys , work , visiting , drinking etcetc .

POPPYCOCK .

Darren why are you going on about the consequences of a lockdown, some of which aren't the consqequence of a lockdown, on a thread about physical distancing?

People are not avoiding treatment because they are locked down. They are avoiding hospitals because there's an epidemic and an infectious disease out there. A lockdown reduces spread, reduces their chances of getting it and they still aren't going for treatment. It would only be worse if we weren't locked down and they weren't turning up either before lockdown. The head of the NHS has encouraged referals and for them to seek treatment. Stop blaming this on lockdown, it is a consqeuence of the epidemic, not the lockdown.

Domestic abuse will rise, yes, but it's hard to police and not really a priority in normal times, certainly doesn't take precedence over the general public's health or reducing the spread of an epidemic. People drinking more is their own choice. It's pretty important to be healthy, keep exercise levels and immune system up. And you are talking a matter of a few months. You make it sound like it will never change.

The UK has three cancer screening programmes for breast, bowel and cervical cancer. Because of COVID-19, invitations and follow-up appointments for all these programmes are being delayed.

The NHS has had to make difficult decisions. Delaying screening invitations and follow-up appointments mean the NHS staff who run screening programmes can be there to support critical services needed at this time. It’s also to protect you from unnecessary risk.

Cancer screening doesn't actually save any lives. In the case of some cancers, fewer people die of the particular cancer being screened for. But there is no difference whatsoever in overall mortality rates.

People either die of something else or die because of unnecessary treatment.

A systematic review of meta-analyses of cancer screening trials found that three of 10 (33%) showed reductions in disease specific mortality and that none showed reductions in overall mortality.

https://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.h6080.full

This panel looked at four different screening schedules: annual and biennial faecal immunochemistry testing (FIT), single sigmoidoscopy, and single colonoscopy, each compared with no screening. ...
They find that screening does not reduce all cause mortality whichever test is used, but it does reduce cancer specific mortality.

https://www.bmj.com/content/367/bmj.l5931

My weekend walks spoilt by paranoid fellow ramblers moving yards out of my way. Some stop completely letting us through a wide path.

It’s collective neuroticism. A fear based paranoia. A paralysis of sensible reasoning. For many 2m has become 5 or 6 such is there fear of the air around them.

If 2m was ‘conjured out of nowhere’ what is happening to the public??

^^
I love those people...I like my space when I'm walking to the shops.

Apr 26, 2020 -- 10:20AM, darren_discombobulates_sports wrote:

The UK has three cancer screening programmes for breast, bowel and cervical cancer. Because of COVID-19, invitations and follow-up appointments for all these programmes are being delayed.The NHS has had to make difficult decisions. Delaying screening invitations and follow-up appointments mean the NHS staff who run screening programmes can be there to support critical services needed at this time. It’s also to protect you from unnecessary risk.

Because of covid-19, not because of the lockdown. It was the same before lockdown and it will be the same afterwards for a while at least. Lockdown reduces spread and increases hospital capacity compared to not locking down. You are not making any sense.

what about gun crime, knife crime, car accidents, drug abuse & dealing, all non-domestic violence generally, A&Es are empty etc etc. Just ignore all those and cherry pick the relatively few things that have gone up.

"Unemployment and reduced public-sector health spending following the 2008 global economic crisis were associated with increased cancer mortality, according to a new study published in The Lancet. The study estimates that the recent economic crisis was associated with over 260000 additional cancer deaths in countries within the Organisation for Economic Development (OECD) by 2010, of which 160000 were in the European Union."

However accurate that study was in the leading medical journal, 2020 will almost certainly have much bigger ramifications, and that study purely refers to cancer deaths.

The point I'm making is that many people will die from other things as a result of concentrating on the virus alone, many more people than usual will now die from cancer now as screenings have been delayed or symptoms ignored as they don't want to bother doctors or cant get appointments, knife crime amounts to about 200 deaths per year, gun crime deaths in Britain is extremely low anyway, what about people's mental health issues, exasperated by the lockdown, or people with never before issues.

The studay into the effects on cancer was purely from the economic effects.  The general consensus this is that those effects this time round could be considerably worse.  That "many more people than usual will now die from cancer now as screenings have been delayed or symptoms ignored as they don't want to bother doctors or cant get appointments" is only going to ramp up cancer deaths even further.

The point you are making is that the lockdown is the reason more people will die from cancer etc when it isn't. The virus is the reason. The lockdown has had negligible effect on it compared to the virus itself.

Nearly everything is affected when there's an epidemic. Some positive effects some negative. You are ignoring the positives and cherry picking the negatives. Swings and roundabouts. Do you think an increase in domestic violence is worse than the decrease in non-domestic violence? No, of course it isn't.

You are in a lockdown because the govt allowed the spread to get out of hand. Releasing it at this level will only make it worse and require another lockdown in the short-term and make it worse overall. When you let it spread and are on course for a big spike in numbers, it takes a long time to flatten that curve. You are suggesting releasing lockdown at peak, precisely the worst time to release it and it will take even longer to flatten overall if you do that. Be angry at the mugs who let this happen at the start. What you are seeing today is the consequence of incompetent inaction months ago, not the measures introduced to remedy it.

"The point you are making is that the lockdown is the reason more people will die from cancer etc when it isn't."

Not sure if that relates to me but that wasn't my intention.  Left unchecked the virus would kill 250k to 500k in the UK imo.

I'm not cherry picking either.  I'm using cancer, and nowt else, as there was a Lancet study on it.  My view has always been the number of deaths indirectly will vastly outweigh the number of deaths directly from the virus, but that doesn't mean I don't agree with the lockdown.  I do, and I made the point, at the time Rory Stewart did, that we should be locking down then.

And whilst I think the government and it's advisers made big mistakes, I personally think the 2008 recession, the February floods and BREXIT preparations, all played a large part in the UK not being prepared. 

And if we are going to play politics, the only politician to put his head above the parapet and forcibly call for lockdown earlier was Rory Stewart.  My personal angst at the time, was not so much with the government, but rather the scientific model that ICL were working on, and the advice for herd immunity from the scientific advisers.  Even then I recognise that the scientific advisers were acting in good faith.  Having said that, I wish the government had the competence and fortitude to realise the model was flawed, and followed the scientific advice given to most of the rest of Europe.

Quarantine is normally only used for sick people. Putting most of the world under house arrest may have short term benefits. Long term it could be catastrophic for many.

When talking about the affects of the lockdown I was mostly talking about the long term effects of alcohol uptake/cirrhosis of the liver, emotional/mental affects of domestic/child abuse increases etc

yes with the lack of cancer referrals it's because of the virus, but that's the thing, 1.5 million people in high risk groups were told to isolate for 12 weeks, majority of people who have died from the virus were elder people with health issues, a lockdown for this long seems too long for vast majority of people in normal health to the point where the number of people who will die from lack of cancer screening/early diagnoses during this period will be substantially higher that usual, where do you draw the line, May 7th could be extended as well.

Because those in high risk groups were told to self isolate for 3 month I don't think 250k people would have died if there was no lockdown.

People are pushing for the lockdown to end now. I'm not concerned here whether they're right or wrong. The fact is that they are - you can read them on this thread.

So how stupid and disastrous would it have been to have started the lockdown even earlier? The government explained again and again that they wanted to leave it as late as possible, because they knew there was a limit to how long the public would stand for it.

Turns out that Boris and the government got the timing exactly right. Absolutely spot on.

Apr 26, 2020 -- 9:59PM, screaming from beneaththewaves wrote:

People are pushing for the lockdown to end now. I'm not concerned here whether they're right or wrong. The fact is that they are - you can read them on this thread.So how stupid and disastrous would it have been to have started the lockdown even earlier? The government explained again and again that they wanted to leave it as late as possible, because they knew there was a limit to how long the public would stand for it.Turns out that Boris and the government got the timing exactly right. Absolutely spot on.

Lol, what next?

Clydebank, I was discussing with Darren, wasn't directed at you.

I don't think they got the timing exactly right or right at all. I think they had herd immunity in mind and let it spread, meaning a higher peak than if they hadn't let it spread and that higher peak means it takes longer to flatten, thus a longer lockdown than if they hadn't encouraged the spread and a longer lockdown than if they'd put restrictions in place earlier and a much longer lockdown than if they hadn't encouraged the spread AND had put restrictions in place earlier.

They let the cat out of the bag by coming out with the herd immunity policy. Saying they waited before locking down is nonsense. They waited because they wanted more people infected than other countries were willing to let happen and the spread got more out of control than in those countries. Their lockdown is longer than it needed to be because of that alone. And if by a stroke of luck Arteta hadn't got infected when he did they'd have had another weekend of football all over the country and it would have been even worse again.

Good points.

The government's goal was to prevent the healthcare system from being overrun. It hasn't been. Conventional healthcare systems have been used to capacity, and the overflow systems (the Nightingale facilities) haven't been required. Spot-on planning.

Locking down earlier would have led to the public simply refusing to comply after a couple of weeks. Why should they? The hospitals would have been virtually empty. The result right now would have been thousands of trolleys queuing up outside the Excel centre, and the Remainers on this thread demanding that Bozo should have listened to the experts, listened to the scientists, who told him not to lock down when he did.

'The result right now would have been thousands of trolleys queuing up outside the Excel centre' - no it wouldn't. They'd have locked down earlier and/or not encouraged the spread if they were on the ball and had realised at that stage that that was a bad idea. They didn't then but they do now.

It is not proposed to let it spread unrestricted or to encourage it to spread again once they release the current lockdown. They realise now that that would be, and was at the time, a bad idea. They would only have locked down earlier and/or not encouraged the spread if they had realised this at the time. It will be released gradually and they will closely monitor the spread, aggressively track and trace, quarantine contacts etc. They are not going to make the same mistake again.

Locking down earlier would have led to the public simply refusing to comply after a couple of weeks. Why should they? The hospitals would have been virtually empty. The result right now would have been thousands of trolleys queuing up outside the Excel centre

It's not a matter of what you think would be best, or how you think the public should behave. This thread is a testament to how a huge portion of the public actually are thinking and do behave. They are demanding an end to the lockdown despite hundreds of ongoing daily deaths. How do you think they would have been reacting with an earlier lockdown and a dozen daily deaths?

And how would you have been reacting to the press conference, if Boris had indeed announced an earlier lockdown, when there were hardly any cases?

Kuenssberg: Does the Chief Medical Officer support a lockdown at this stage?
Boris: No. He doesn't. But I'm doing it anyway.

Peston: Has your Chief Scientific Adviser told you to lock down now, despite the apparent lack of serious cases?
Boris: No. He hasn't. But I'm doing it anyway.

Lurka and politicspunter: Hurrah for Bojo!

Yeah. Right.

We havn't had a proper lockdown,that's why there's 45,000+ deaths,still waiting on a proper one.

whichever way the government went the anti tory & anti Boris brigade wouldn't of been happy

proper lockdown wouldve been the way italy have done it

15000 people a day were flying into the UK and there was no testing for them, Hancock said they'd have little impact on the spread (amazing), no quarantining and doesn't sound like aggressive track and trace or close monitoring is on the cards either.

A dozen daily deaths? You had a lot more than that when you locked down and when you lock down deaths rise dramatically, not because of the lockdown but because nothing can be done at that stage to prevent those deaths, they are already going to happen because of the spread you have already let happen and encouraged.

What do you mean by hurrah for Bojo? That mug said he was shaking hands with people in hospitals, didn't pracice solcial distancing at press conferences and then caught the virus. Do you think he's worthy of praise? The media seem to be treating him like a hero for surviving the virus.

He waited a week until after Ferguson had revised his 250k figure to 500k before locking down. Whitty doesn't support a release of lockdown now.

Boris locked down when Whitty told him to.

You reckon he should have locked down BEFORE Whitty told him to. You reckon he should have ignored Whitty.

So, if he had, and had locked down earlier, that means you would have been praising Boris Johnson and cheering him on for ignoring his Chief Medical Officer.


Yeah. Right.

Kuenssberg: Does the Chief Medical Officer support a lockdown at this stage?
Boris: No. He doesn't. But I'm doing it anyway.

Whitty is the CMO. You said above that he locked down when Whitty told him to. So which is it?

That's the interview that would have taken place if Johnson HAD ignored Whitty.

If Johnson had ignored Whitty, and had locked down earlier as you believe he should have, then he would have been torn to shreds for ignoring the scientists. And I find it impossible to believe that you wouldn't have been among those joining in the shredding.

And to clarify, I wouldn't be praising a guy who shook hands with people in hospital, didn't physically distance at press conferences while telling the public to physically distance at the same press conferences, for anything.

I am not singling out BoJo. If you read my posts above, I repeatedly said 'they'. Collectively 'they' have got it wrong is my point and you are saying they got it exactly right.

So, you're making up quotes as well that didn't happen? FFS

And how would you have been reacting to the press conference, if Boris had indeed announced an earlier lockdown, when there were hardly any cases?


Conditional tense. How would you have reacted to the press conference that would have ensued if the government had done what you are now demanding?

Christ. It's like explaining perspective to Father Dougal.

Nearly forgot.

FFS.

Yes I understand plain English and and understood you question, which I've answered above. No need to make up quotes that didn't happen though.

Time to, er, shake hands and move on. Because Frankie Boyle has the answe

@frankieboyle
Surely the best way for Britain to decide whether to come out of lockdown is through some kind of referendum

Apr 27, 2020 -- 12:26AM, screaming from beneaththewaves wrote:

Time to, er, shake hands and move on. Because Frankie Boyle has the answe@frankieboyleSurely the best way for Britain to decide whether to come out of lockdown is through some kind of referendum

Yeah fair enough mate

I thought the reason for the 2m distance.....

Is because when people cough there is often a small of spittle in it.....the virus will be in the spittle

so we don't want it reaching anyone else

You got to follow the science

Apr 26, 2020 -- 10:44PM, screaming from beneaththewaves wrote:

The government's goal was to prevent the healthcare system from being overrun. It hasn't been. Conventional healthcare systems have been used to capacity, and the overflow systems (the Nightingale facilities) haven't been required. Spot-on planning.Locking down earlier would have led to the public simply refusing to comply after a couple of weeks. Why should they? The hospitals would have been virtually empty. The result right now would have been thousands of trolleys queuing up outside the Excel centre, and the Remainers on this thread demanding that Bozo should have listened to the experts, listened to the scientists, who told him not to lock down when he did.

Remainers? You seem obsessed with the EU. It's irrelevant right now.

Lurka does post 'FFS' quite a lot

"The government's goal was to prevent the healthcare system from being overrun."

Sir Patrick Valance has continually said his goal is to save lives.

You can't seriously think our government and advisers have done a good job.  There are plenty of mitigating factors why they haven't, and they have done their best in good faith, but they haven't done a good job.  I don't even think it's debatable.

They were dealing with floods and getting BREXIT done in the crucial period in February.  It's almost impossible imo, when your so mentally focused on one thing, to focus in a strong way on anything else.

We'd just had an election and the pressing thought was fulfilling election pledges.  The timing was awful.