There is no test and trace. With the difficulty in getting tests and the delays in getting results, it's utterly meaningless. There's universal agreement with experts that, if you cannot identify positive results and contacts within 72 hours at an absolute maximum, there is zero hope of containment.
Daughter in Atlanta was showing symptoms yesterday, got a test and in under 24 hours result came back negative (thank god). Drive through centre 5 miles from her home, booked online, had an appointment 3 hours later. Is it that easy all over the US?
I don’t know if I mentioned it on here, but I think an opportunity was missed by not utilising empty dental practices for doing tests. Plenty of surgeries with hand washing facilities all over the cities/towns that could have been used by postal code, to get tests done, instead of sending people halfway across the country. My dentist has been operating as an emergency dentist for all of Southampton, but are reverting back to normal practices next month, so I guess others will be too, so the opportunity will no longer be there.
Depressing to hear Boris's statement this evening even if most rational people had anticipated this would happen. Radio 4 was stating that the infection levels are anticipated to match the levels of the previous outbreak by mid-October. I have to admit that the proposed solutions are confusing. The same pattern is being witnessed in countries which had previously been deemed to have managed the virus better so that it does seem that there is no hard and fast rule regarding how heavily a country will be punished in relation to the measures taken. It does make you feel that democratic Western government are somewhat powerless as to how they can mitigate the outbreak. The other thing which really concerns me is that the idea of local lockdowns has become increasingly widespread over the last week. What I cannot understand is the fact that the areas most affected are those where the level of income is lowest yet the government's best solution if the notorious "Rule of Six." In my opinion, any redistribution of money would be better served by supplementing the incomes of those on minimum wage or even banning zero hours contracts so that people do not feel obliged to risk their lives or spread the virus by going to work. I agree that there is an "economic solution" yet I am not sure bailing out businesses ensures that the money goes to the right people. At the end of the day, the money the government pays to large companies will ultimately end up in the hands of the shareholders. It is also quite staggering to pick up a text from Southampton FC to advise that it will be possible for season ticket holders to apply to watch games at St Mary's stadium. I do not see this happening this side of spring if I am honest. Loads of industries seem to be of the same position whereas the catering industry and pubs in particular appear even at this point to be slightly reckless in opening when infection rates are climbing at such a rate. I think another lockdown will materialize across the country quicker than people might think. However essential this is, I think the impact will be only to reduce the potency of the virus and not preclude it to a noticeable degree. As long as there are avenues for people to contact each other, I think a repeat of the spring is certain and I also think it will be more prolonged.
It isn’t here. We still need a doctor’s note to get an appointment. I assume you get that by calling because you sure can’t go see them.
The main Hampshire testing site for covid, is being moved to Southampton Airport. Can’t believe, although I can if being honest, that this is also the main testing site for the IOW. Surely they can set something up on the island to stop people having to get the ferry over. More needless expense when funds are low for so many. https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/18...19-testing-centre-moving-southampton-airport/
Overall, I feel that all European Governments eased up far too soon in the spring. Spain was doing brilliantly for 5 or 6 weeks with a very strict lockdown. I just feel the lid should have been kept tight for another two months to have squeezed COVID out of the system. Lifting the restrictions resulted in more mobility, increasing socialization and hence the spikes and general upward trend again. What the economic results of a further two months would have been, I do not know, but we are all going to pay a heavier price this autumn for lifting the restrictions far to soon. Furthermore, I feel the Governments of Europe should have got their heads together for a coordinated response to COVID.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54212291 Three million people have missed cancer screenings since March. Estimated that 350,000 less people than normal have been referred for urgent investigation. But yeah, let's have another lockdown. Seems sensible.
And that is just cancer related. How many other types of illness has fallen behind, and the number of people involved, is anyone’s guess. But while this is going on, I have received a letter, today, from NHS England inviting me to arrange a FREE Lung Health Check. I appreciate the offer, but can’t help feel that this time could be better used on people who actually have health concerns, rather than inviting random people for a test/consultation that will take 30 minutes. I don’t have any health issues, only a loss of fitness owing to my increased sedentary life style, brought about by isolating to safeguard my wife, although I am tackling that through doing step aerobics everyday. It is voluntary, so I will have to talk to them and find out why they can’t donate the time to people who know they are unwell.
As anyone with any sense knows, it’s not an either-or situation. Of course anyone who dies because they haven’t had an investigation in time is a tragedy, but if you think life for everyone would have somehow been magically better if we hadn’t had a lockdown you are deluded.
I don't think that, and I'm not sure I even suggested it, but I would be very against another one and think it would cause more harm than good. The first one possibly may well have too, think it'll be years before we find out for sure though as I've said before.
There are lockdowns, and then there are "lockdowns". The first is a sharp, relatively brief (say, a month) shutdown of damned near everything, with internal controls on movement of people, where the aim is to reset the curve. The second is a less dramatic effort allowing for some normalcy, where the curve is flattened/diminished. The available evidence is that the former type works, and the latter type doesn't, and part of the reason the latter type doesn't is that there's no evident end: it's just an extended period of heavy restrictions and people will understandably chafe against that. The hard lockdown --> significant relax --> potential hard lockdown cycle isn't an enormous amount of fun either, but it does allow for lengthy periods of normal-adjacent in between. That said, there are two things that if we're going to have any grip on this, are simply going to need to be a feature of life for the next several months: mask mandates, and bans of indoor restaurants/bars/nightclubs. The latter is going to be a hardship for a lot of businesses, but it's not like people are flocking to pack them anyway, and government really does need to consider a bailout of the hospitality industry in particular.
The government furlough scheme ends next month, unless they decide to extend it. We’re looking down the barrel of an economic catastrophe when that happens. Maybe we ought to be giving a bit of thought to that wave, plus the wave of depression and mental illness it’ll bring in it’s wake.
Or, I dunno, the government could choose not to end the furlough scheme. There's simply no option here that, without major government supports, will not be economically devastating. Anyone who thinks that they can snap their fingers and the consumer economy will go back to normal is utterly mad. Instead, the choice is all of the economic devastation, plus people having to go to work fearing for their lives. Wonderful compromise.
People have been going to work every day for the last 6 months mate, how do you think the lights have stayed on and the food has reached the shops? Are you suggesting the entire world now hides indoors until a vaccine arrives? You need a working economy for that to happen anyway.
Does a hard lockdown work permanently...no, it doesn’t...because it can never be total. There are always jobs with inevitable contact that have to continue. And the mental and economic downside is too great. This is something we have to live with and at least we have better ways of treating it now. Will the government return to lockdown....I think they will under pressure. Will it be the right thing to do....not in my opinion.
So which is it? Is the economy functioning okay as is, or is the economy in imminent danger of collapse, causing a wave of mental illness? There's a reason why the predictions if the furlough scheme is ended are extremely grim: in all sectors, economic activity is down. Government supports are the only thing keeping it teetering along. And it will remain down, yes, until there is a vaccine. There is no government edict that will change that. There is no way to simply will our way back to normalcy here.
Not just the furlough system ending, but the amnesty on evictions is also coming to an end. Around 330,000 tenants have fallen into arrears, since the pandemic started, with around 174,000 of them having been threatened with eviction. Something needs to be done to prevent thousands of families being forced onto the streets or into inadequate temporary housing. Labour’s idea, under Corbyn, of requisitioning long term empty properties, to reduce the number of homeless people, is looking like a really attractive option, but one that is unlikely to be used.
