ENTERTAINMENT

No10 & # 39; could drive BAN in and out of local restricted areas & # 39;


The government may be ready to cordon off regions affected by corona viruses by imposing domestic travel bans, as was announced last night.

The radical proposal is currently under discussion as Downing Street shakes up its crisis response after localized spurts.

To avoid further national closures and to prevent the economic recovery, a "flexible" strategy for areas with high infection rates is being developed in Whitehall.

Ministers appear to be considering the possibility of restricting movement in and out of areas with high infection rates.

The Times reports that in recent days, the idea of ​​domestic travel bans, initially advertised in the early stages of the pandemic when London bore the brunt of the case and was feared to be an epicenter, has reappeared in the government.

Plans to isolate capital to curb the spread of Covid-19 have been postponed, but have been revived as part of Boris Johnson's new targeted approach.

Increased powers have already given ministers the opportunity to enforce such travel bans with the police.

The radical proposal is currently under discussion as Downing Street shakes up its crisis response after a localized flare (Manchester in the picture).

The government may be ready to block areas affected by corona viruses with domestic travel bans, as was announced last night (Boris Johnson in picture).

The government may be ready to block areas affected by corona viruses with domestic travel bans, as was announced last night (Boris Johnson in picture).

It is because officials have worked out plans to ask millions of people to stay home when a second wave of coronavirus infections sets in.

Under one option, people between the ages of 50 and 70 would receive personalized risk assessments as part of a significant expansion of the shielding program.

But after a weekend when the boys across the country violated distance rules, the proposals met with a storm of protest last night.

Critics warned that they did not recognize the important contribution of over 50s to the economy and risk stigmatizing older people in the workplace.

Regulate? What rules? Youngsters pack up for afternoon drinks in central London

Regulate? What rules? Youngsters pack up for afternoon drinks in central London

Former government advisor Joan Bakewell said ministers first need to address the issue of social distance between young people.

Baroness Bakewell, who was tsarist for the elderly in the last Labor government, said: “Certainly the elderly have to be careful – I took great care of myself – but what happens is that young people don't distance themselves and don't wear masks . The boys have to pull themselves together.

“Young people assume that it's over and don't distance themselves as they should. They know they should, they have been told they should, but they cannot be disturbed. That's the whole point. & # 39;

The 87-year-old warned that asking large sections of the population to stay home was problematic. She said, "It is difficult, I have been isolated for 115 days, and it is hard and quite an obligation. Doing it again may put too much pressure on us. & # 39;

Former Tory Minister Ros Altmann described the proposals as "dangerous and wrong" and warned: "The age of 50 is not old, it is not half of your adult life."

She said the coronavirus crisis "introduced into society a worrying element of ageism that we have worked very hard to overcome."

Baroness Altmann said: “We are talking about a group in society that may be selected for different treatments based on their age.

"It is not the case that the over 50s are somehow old and therefore at risk and the under 50s are young and therefore not at risk."

Labor peer Lord Foulkes said: “It is both alteristic and poorly thought out. Some under 50s have health problems, while others over 50 are key to our economy. & # 39; Dame Esther Rantzen said that people of the same age cannot be summarized as identical.

But the 80-year-old said she was ready to stay home to prevent another blockage for all ages.

She said, "As wild as I am when it comes to protecting the rights of older people, I think it would make sense to differentiate between people in my twenties and people like me in my eighties.

Young people cannot distance themselves socially when they gather on Soho Square in the capital

Young people cannot distance themselves socially when they gather on Soho Square in the capital

“I don't want people in their twenties, thirties and forties to be limited in their options because they want to protect me.

"It is too high a price for the nation, it is too high a price for our young people to imprison them for me. I will lock myself up and if the government makes me because I am 80 it should be like this. & # 39;

Official figures show that nearly three quarters of the 51,264 coronavirus deaths in the UK were people over the age of 75, with mortality rates being much lower among the younger ones.

According to the Office of National Statistics, only 4,895 people aged 45 to 64 died and 7,549 aged 65 to 74, compared with 16,586 aged 75 to 84 and 21,766 aged over 85.

Housing secretary Robert Jenrick tried to defuse the line last night when he insisted that talk about expanding the screening program was "just speculation."

Sun, sea and strife: two women are quarreling on the ground on the south coast while the minds flare up among the drinkers packed on benches

Sun, sea and strife: two women are quarreling on the ground on the south coast while the minds flare up among the drinkers packed on benches

He added, "You would expect the government to consider all available options."

Mr. Jenrick insisted that the proposals would not be "actively examined" but did not rule out that they would be adopted in the event of a second wave.

However, he denied that ministers were planning to close pubs before the schools reopened in September to lower infection rates.

Now let's not panic – we CAN deal with this virus, says Professor KAROL SIKORA

comment by Professor Karol Sikora

Hardly imaginable, but it was only two weeks ago that Boris Johnson set the date on which the nation should cancel the previous "work from home" admonition and, if possible, return to the office.

This week should have been the crucial point where our national recovery started when we slipped off Covid-19 and started rebuilding the economy.

Instead, everything I've heard or read since last week – and especially over the weekend – suggests the opposite.

Indeed, the incoherent messaging seems almost uncannily designed to re-create a pervasive sense of panic, fueling fears that we are heading towards a far-reaching partial blockage – or even back to full national blockage.

The announcement of new restrictions in Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire and East Lancashire on Thursday, followed by the U-turn on Friday to lift restrictions on bowling alleys, ice rinks, wedding receptions and some beauty salon procedures, followed the loose speech of a "second wave" of the coronavirus.

Together they created exactly the wrong atmosphere, at a time when a sense of national renewal is urgently needed to get people from their sofas to their workplaces. What is most alarming, however, is that the Prime Minister and his cabinet have "war-wielding" anti-Covid nuclear options such as reintroducing a full quarantine regime for passengers, draconian restrictions on travel to London, and even "millions of people over the age of 50 were confined to their homes.

This is despite the fact that the probability that an otherwise healthy 50-year-old suffers from serious health consequences of an infection is statistically very low. And if you remove people over 50 from work, either on command or out of fear, you will effectively decapitate the workforce and condemn all of us to permanent economic impoverishment.

Panic is not only stupid at this stage, it is unnecessary. Most measures are going well. Hospital admissions for patients with Covid-19 complications are unchanged, as is the mortality rate. And far from being overwhelmed, the NHS is only about 50 percent full.

The most sensible individual measure the Prime Minister could take today would be to ban his Cabinet and Downing Street advisers from using the term "second wave."

It's a dangerous phrase because it prevents people from even thinking about returning to normal work – the only way the economy can recover.

It is also inaccurate: we neither experience a second wave nor the beginnings of one. We see geographically separated, localized peaks. We also know why and with whom they happen. These zip code blips mostly occur in communities where strong family values ​​mean that households are large and often span three or sometimes four generations with all of the comings and goings involved.

There are other marginal factors, including possibly greater genetic susceptibility to the virus and an above-average prevalence of diseases such as diabetes (a risk factor for Covid-19) in these communities.

Targeted measures can be used to flatten these peaks, and the model for this is Leicester, where interest rates began to fall rapidly after rigorous measures were taken locally, with everyone fully involved.

We know how to deal with corona viruses and we should have some confidence in our abilities, but national morals are reviving the depths.

I blame parts of the media – and especially the BBC – for giving too much importance to epidemiologists with a more pessimistic character. This science tracks epidemics and models worst-case scenarios. The danger is that other considerations will be neglected, such as the long-term economic consequences of mitigation efforts.

Only the Prime Minister can make well-rounded decisions about what risk is tolerable for the general good of society.

My area of ​​expertise is cancer and 360,000 cases are diagnosed in a normal year in the UK. Due to the collapse of the NHS diagnostic network during the pandemic and the fact that many people are reluctant to see a family doctor, we have about half of this diagnostic rate this summer.

As a result, tens of thousands of people who may have survived their cancers with early diagnosis may die. I don't want to depress or alarm anyone, but we can't ignore that the excessive countermeasures to fight a virus have serious consequences that are statistically unlikely to kill anyone other than the very old and those who have a higher degree Existing conditions are at risk.

And it is particularly stupid if a senior government scientific advisor – like Professor Graham Medley – thinks it appropriate to suggest that if schools are to reopen next month, we may have to close the pubs again in order to "compromise" enter into. The two options are not related, and making the wrong connection means spreading alarm and confusion. It would be disastrous if the hardliners in the teaching unions were given more ammunition to prevent them from returning to school, which is crucial not only for education but also for the mental health of our children.

Mr. Johnson had a bad seven days in his Covid 19 war. The nation cannot afford any further signs of lack of support or nerves.

  • Karol Sikora is a professor of medicine at the University of Buckingham Medical School and chief medical officer at Rutherford Health.

(tagsToTranslate) Dailymail (t) News (t) Boris Johnson (t) Coronavirus