Gladys

I would suggest that guidance relates to measures you must take to isolate rather than what you must do on your journey. The guidance on the covid website is clear - you must go straight home or to your place of isolation. Does the direction say anything different?

Agreed. As I said above, I may not agree with some measures but I will comply, mainly because it's the law, but also out of respect for those who have been living under severe strictures.

Was the possibility of institutional lockdown ever mooted?

Of course a return to Uni will result in spread. But a return has a number of knock-on benefits, not least for the coffers.

Yes, there are probably quite a few other factors which have helped, but the Prof's message was that we have to live with this and test, track and isolate rather than lockdown in response. He us a member of SAGE,so I wonder how many other members agree and if their views have been ignored.

Prof Mark Woolhouse doesn't agree, (article in the Evening Standard where he argues that lockdown only postpones, not eradicates and the Sweden model of 'soft' measures has worked) and there was a piece in today's Sunday Telegraph by a journalist who lives in Sweden observing the 'surprisingly upbeat mood' as opposed to the 'raised tempers, blame, hysteria and sense of panic in the UK'.

More to the point, medical services were curtailed, less so here, but definitely in the UK and where our services interfaced with the UK, we have felt the impact. I don't know how anyone can argue that that was a result of the pandemic rather than the measures taken against it is beyond me.

I will give you another example. I have a genetic condition which means my body stores too much iron. The effect is catastrophic damage to organs such as heart, pancreas and liver, often leading to premature death. This is treated by frequent blood removal, or venesection, of 500ml until the ferritin levels reduce and then periodic venesections to keep the levels safe. When I was first diagnosed, that meant weekly venesections. My levels are such that I have venesection every couple of months. My treatment has not been altered during lockdown, although I did have a "just in case" venesection at the start of lockdown in case that service would be suspended. However I am a member of a FB support group for this illness and the number of non-IOM members who have not had this vital treatment, or had just been diagnosed and were concerned was staggering. It is a devastating condition that is relatively easily treated, but there seems to be no treatment in the UK, so wait for that backlog to surface.

It is directly due to the measures - they weren't "being encouraged" because the aim was to protect the health service so it could cope with. Routine treatment had been abandoned. I had the dubious pleasure of receiving the routine letter regarding bowel cancer screening in February this year. By the time of my 60th birthday in mid March, I then received a letter to say the testing was not to proceed as the testing lab in the UK was not taking samples due to covid. I eventually got the test kit a month ago, almost 5 months after. All clear, but who else celebrating their 60th this year have also had the bad news that they have bowel cancer?

Ooh, get you with your alfresco facilities!

Well, there's the dilemma. You could have had low excess deaths but to achieve that, you had lock down and the consequent economic fallout and a general lack of support. I would suggest that the starting point should be which countries have general support for their measures (how the people feel) and then look at their cv figures and economic position.

It is hard to say without actually living in those countries and understanding how the measures impact on a microcosm angle. It is also difficult to measure a "success" ' is it cv numbers, is it economic, is it just how the population "feels".

Re anecdotal evidence - you have just repeated what I said but with more words. People are seeing and hearing lots of anecdotal evidence and what most want is for some definitive information on how to interpret it, how it is impacting and whether it indicates a different approach. Re politicising - I think you have put up very politically biased posts, accusing people who disagree with your position of right wing bias, constantly referring to Boris Johnson rather than the reported science behind this (continually calling him Bozo is indicative of your own political bias, btw). I watched the Labour Party's broadcast the other night supposedly in response to the Tory message of the previous day, hoping for some commentary on the new stats and measures, but all it amounted to was a message that Labour was ready to step in to lead the country. BTW, I suspect the approach of the Tory government is not sophisticated enough, but that is not because I am left or right wing, I just think it is inadequate.

Two issues PJ: 1. Anecdotal evidence is useful if it throws up something unexpected that can then be subjected to gathering emprical evidence to explain the cause. 2. You continue to make this a political matter which closes off consideration of information that does not follow your political leaning.

That is the most helpful comparator I have seen and is very pertinent. Thank you.