Forum menu
If you suppress something very, very hard, when you release those measures it bounces back and it bounces back at the wrong time,” he said.
Be interesting to see the basis for that statement. Is it consistent with previous experience of, say, SARS ?
I've no idea if there's evidence but it sounds totally plausible to me. If you totally protect your population from exposure to a virus when you end that protection, as end it you must, they all catch it.
Total isolation kept Incas and Native North Americans safe from European Diseases for centuries. ...but at first exposure they died by the million.
Current average temp in Lombardy is 16 degrees – its actually over 20 in Milan right now. You might want to ask the locals how that’s going with the seasonal thing.
What has the weather in Italy got to do with Winter pressure in the UK?
Be interesting to see the basis for that statement. Is it consistent with previous experience of, say, SARS ?
Isnt the unique thing about Covid-19 that its much more easily caught than SARS or MERS, as well as being equally deadly?
Isnt the unique thing about Covid-19 that its much more easily caught than SARS or MERS, as well as being equally deadly.
pretty much
all the doctors in my lab are being pulled back from research for training, consensus is that unless the government can magic up a lot of ITU beds very quickly 1/4 million figure sounds plausible
no wonder Johnson looked so worried yesterday
I think when the dust settles a lot of questions will be asked
oldagedpredator
Subscriber
Removing the minimum floor income on UC will help a bit if I need to claim, but it’s not really enough to survive on if this last for a protracted period.Does UC work like Tax Credits – initial assessment made on previous year’s income? If your income over the year goes up above the one your payouts are calculated on you are asked to pay it back. It would seem more like a lot of people are going to effectively end up with a loan that they will need to pay back.
Anyone with savings is going to have to chew through those before they qualify for any benefit? Yes savings are for situations like this as well as fun stuff. Potentially this could chew through what people had set aside for retirement.
Could have a financial aftershock the actual event goes through?
I was on it for a bit when my company got liquidated end of 2018, I had to cause they'd have deducted benefits from my gov redundancy payouts.
Way it works, if you've more that 6k in savings, you'll probably get nothing.
The minimum floor income is usually about 1.1k, where they'll not even consider you as self employed if you aren't earning that. So you get nothing. which is ridiculous, cause if you earn 1.1k, you'll most likely not get anything from them anyhow.
But I was on a thing called NEA, new enterprise allowance for 6 months, where the minimum floor isn't applied for a year.
basically, the max you can get on benefits, in scotland anyhow, is £350 housing, £317 income support. so £667 total. Without the minimum floor, you'll basically be able to claim if you are earning less than £1058 and they'll top you up a bit. They basically take off 63p from your benefits for every £1 you earn.
Example, you earn nothing in a calendar month (that's how it works, month to month), you'll get the £667 if you qualify for income and housing support.
If you earn say £300 they'll take £189 of you benefits, so you get the £300 you've earned, and £478 benefits. totalling £778.
if you earn say 900 quid, you'll get 100 quid (667 - 900 x 0.63) in benefits. So basically, you'll get topped up up you are earning about 1058, which is the zero point.
it's a shit system, but might be needed to string things out a bit longer if things collapse.
When I was only it, i'd about 6 months of getting about 2/300 quid a month from the brew as I was earning a bit(I also got the NEA month regardless on top, which was 66 quid a week for 3 months then 33), soon as i started earning they closed my account, luckily, I've been earning a wage ever since..
That's for a single claimant, rules are different for couples.
It works on a month to month basis, ie it's just relevant for that month, it's not a yearly thing and you'll not pay it back.
It was alright for me just being paid off, and starting up, but stuff being on it longer term. I can't imagine being on the brew long term, it must be grim as hell.
Actually thats a fair point Drac. The seasonal thing is what I was disputing i.e that Covid 19 is a bit like the flu and that it goes into abeyance in the summer - when clearly it won't. But yes you are right - the NHS is under more pressure over here in the winter due to actual seasonal illness.
Like do you really think the government has a piggy bank and puts it’s tax in from your petrol money and then saves it up for something like HS2?
Oh I'm disappointed now. I assumed it was one of those plastic houses I got when I opened my Halifax account back in the 80s.
I mean, where do you think it comes from?
Borrowing, largely, no I don't think it's actual money but nor do I think that the BoE or anyone else for that matter just says "let's have another few billion quid today" with no ramifications.
Its total hogwash – they are saying anything to reduce panic. The government has an agenda and your/my health isn’t really on it.
I am not sure about this. As much as I despise Boris I think he is being driven by the scientists at the moment.
You can see the fear in Chris Witty’s face. He knows whats coming.
. Agreed, but thats because of the science, not which chump is in government.
This also makes me even madder at Corbyn for his incompetence that got the Tories back into govt when we should have been turning round the NHS 5 years ago, but I think this is now beyond politics.
So. When it all started kicking off in China they started a massive building programme to create more hospitals and beds. Given we all seem pretty certain an awful lot of people are going to get ill, why aren't we doing the same?
Surely any measures to 'flatten' the curve are a good idea to implement immediately, so I don't subscribe to the theory shutting schools etc... is more effective when we are at the peak. I thought the strategy was to delay the peak, in which case shutting stuff down now is what is needed.
I could absolutely work from home in my current role, my company is not encouraging at all, if the gov came on a recommended it, it would force them to offer it.
but nor do I think that the BoE or anyone else for that matter just says “let’s have another few billion quid today” with no ramifications.
You might want to read up on Quantitative Easing. That's exactly what they did for years following the banking and Greek debt crisis.
why aren’t we doing the same
Nimbys
COVID19 has R0 of 2-3, so ~70% of population need to be infected to get herd immunity
At the current rate of spread we reach that point before the end of May. It will probably be a bit later than that as the rate of increase will slow once we get over 20%. Things like this usually double every 6 days - current stats are a bit faster than that, but let's say 6.
5000 today - the low estimate from the Science advisor yesterday
10,000 in 6 days time
20,000 19th March
40,000 25th March
80,000 31st March
160,000 6th April
320,000 12th April
640,000 18th April
1.28M 24th April
2.56M 30th April
5.12M 6th May
10.24M 12th May
20.48M 18th May
40.96M 24th May
Exponential growth is a bitch. And bear in mind that if even only 4% need ICU beds, we run out in March, and only last that long by kicking all the people already in ICU out. It really isn't pretty.
I think regardless of where you stand on the politics, the fact that it's fallen to the football association to call off matches rather than the government just seems crazy.
I think he is being driven by the scientists at the moment.
This. There's going to be a massive enquiry into this when it's over whatever happens. With the benefit of hindsight any decision will be seen to be flawed in some way. A politician's only defence is going to be that he followed the best advice available. So that's what politicians will do.
If you suppress something very, very hard, when you release those measures it bounces back and it bounces back at the wrong time,” he said.
Be interesting to see the basis for that statement. Is it consistent with previous experience of, say, SARS ?
I’ve no idea if there’s evidence but it sounds totally plausible to me. If you totally protect your population from exposure to a virus when you end that protection, as end it you must, they all catch it.
How is that worse than them all catching it now? In fact the population aren't all totally protected. Some will continue to get it (see Taiwan etc) but the number of respirators etc will not impose a limit on the number of survivors - the peak is flattened over a long period.
Think the comms strategy and plan is terrible. They could be much clearer telling people about what their readiness plan is and what steps they are taking. They struggle to even meet the commitment to update the numbers at 2pm each day.
@Drac why does this forum kick me back 5 pages each time I post?
hes being driven by some scientists, not all agree with him
if cummings isnt as clever as he believes he is it may not be so good
This also makes me even madder at Corbyn
Binners - you need to up your game - someone blamed Corbyn before you did. The only way to save your reputation is a quick flurry of Monty Python pictures.
The benefits questions are all dependent on circumstances - if you have any specific questions then @ me and I'll try to point you in the right direction on here so others can see. (Edit: or PM if you'd rather not disclose circumstances on here)
..and this thread is a shit show!
Given we all seem pretty certain an awful lot of people are going to get ill, why aren’t we doing the same?
SO you'll build empty hospitals, considering we already have a shortfall of 100,000 NHS staff, where are you going to find the people to staff them if we cant recruit ones into the current hospitals
How is that worse than them all catching it now? In fact the population aren’t all totally protected. Some will continue to get it (see Taiwan etc) but the number of respirators etc will not impose a limit on the number of survivors – the peak is flattened over a long period.
Peak flattening *is* the UKs plan. If instead of peak flattening you suppress hard with strict isolation (close your borders) you just delay the problem.
Hence "If you suppress something very, very hard, when you release those measures it bounces back and it bounces back at the wrong time,” is totally plausible.
...but I accept your point there may not be good evidence for that.
Actually thats a fair point Drac. The seasonal thing is what I was disputing i.e that Covid 19 is a bit like the flu and that it goes into abeyance in the summer – when clearly it won’t. But yes you are right – the NHS is under more pressure over here in the winter due to actual seasonal illness.
Yes it’s not expected to drop because of the weather.
if cummings isnt as clever as he believes he is it may not be so good
I pray they arent letting Cummings anywhere near this and its the medical science pros that are driving it!!
hes being driven by some scientists, not all agree with him
So we can only take actions that *all* scientists agree with? That limits us to washing our hands, and nothing more.
Borrowing, largely, no I don’t think it’s actual money but nor do I think that the BoE or anyone else for that matter just says “let’s have another few billion quid today” with no ramifications.
That's exactly what they do. Money is created 'with the stroke of a pen' and it is destroyed/cancelled out through taxation. Monetary supply in modern economies is hard to get your head around, but once you do you realise why there is always hundreds of billions for certain things, like Trident or HS2, bailouts or perpetual war, but not enough money for social housing, roads, etc. For an advanced food secure nation like the UK which creates its own money, it's a political choice, nothing more. When Tory politicians talk about maxing credit cards or saving up, it's pure horseshit designed to justify not/spending to a misinformed and confused population.
Where did China find all its doctors?
NHS staff wise if it gets that bad some sort of conscription could be in order. I think whilst you can't magic up doctors there is stuff you could do. Plenty of people could get involved and help out with the less technical roles (if that's the right phrase). They are already taking about retiree docs and final year nurses.
But lots of extra NHS help means nowt if you don't have the beds and kit to deal with it
And that herd immunity thing - does that only really work by the bit of the herd that is 'weak' being dead, hence the rest of the herd is now 'immune'
Peak flattening *is* the UKs plan.
So people keep saying, but as I asked before, how is our "peak flattening" action (as opposed to "plan") different from what the Italians were doing 2 weeks before their cases spiked?
Think the comms strategy and plan is terrible.
It's not terrible, it's non-existant. The entire approach is don't worry your little heads about it. People are not stupid, when they see the chief scientific advisor on the telly saying he wants 60% of the country to be infected they quite rightly do the very simple maths which tells them that at least hundreds of thousands will die, maybe even millions. Then they realise that will be the elderly relatives, friends, and perhaps even themselves. But the government won't even admit that will happen, and are effectively saying there's nothing we can do. And then people look at other countries and see them throwing everything at it in a massive collective effort and wonder why we aren't doing the same. The result is fear, anxiety, hopelessness and anger. If the govt don't start being honest and treating us like adults this is going to go south very quickly. How long before social unrest and disorder?
Covid 19 is SARS. SARS proper name was SARS-COV - this is SARS-COV2. The main differences between them is both the incubation period (6 days for SARS, 14-20 for COV19) before symptoms are shown and the amount of infection transfer needed to truly infect. For SARS that was something like a 20% lung infection - meaning you needed a prolonged period in the presence of someone who was obviously sick. For COV19, it's a lower percentage (they don't know exact numbers) and you don't know people are sick. As such it was easier to quarantine those with SARS as they were obviously ill.
How long before social unrest and disorder?
I predict a bit of tutting, some eye rolling, a bit of mild head-shaking and a sternly worded letter to the Daily Telegraph
when they see the chief scientific advisor on the telly saying he wants 60% of the country to be infected they quite rightly do the very simple maths
Yep, this is the point at which they lost me. Making it sound like they are letting it spread at speed, rather than doing everything they can to delay and control it, sounds like inhumane game theory has taken over from any sensible epidemiology medical science and is driving the government response. I have at risk people in the house, and won’t be doing the stiff upper lip thing, and instead will be cancelling all leisure travel and not attending indoor gatherings. Yes the virus is here… yes it will spread… but delaying it is key… even if you intend to rely on people developing immunity as part of your response… this needs to happen steadily and locally.
Did they ever fess up who the Cabinet Minister was who tested positive? Wasnt Raab as he bowled into work the following day.
"You can see the fear in Chris Witty’s face. He knows whats coming."
What we're actually seeing is a guy who along with Patrick Vallance and their team have been working crazy hours since January to build the models and analytics required to make informed decisions. This is familiar ground to Whitty - he is one of the main reasons that Ebola was stopped in its tracks in 2009:
https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/ebola-emergence-epidemic-and-the-global-response
Whitty is quite literally one of the best epidemiologists in the world and the government is doing what they should be doing - listening to the experts who've spent their whole careers studying this sort of stuff - rather than making policy decisions that satisfy the siren cries of shouty people on the internet / Daily Mail.
Did they ever fess up who the Cabinet Minister was who tested positive?
The ‘other’ health minister… I forget his name.
And that herd immunity thing – does that only really work by the bit of the herd that is ‘weak’ being dead, hence the rest of the herd is now ‘immune’
Not quite.
A virus only survives in a host for a few weeks, and is viable in terms of onward infection for a shorter period than that. So it needs lots of different targets to ensure that it can continue to infect new people, and not die out. When more people have had it, there is a lower chance an infected person will encounter an uninfected one.
Over time, a large enough 'herd' of immune people gives the virus effectively no room to circulate, as even though there are still plenty of uninfected out there, the chances of infected meeting uninfected is much lower, and the chance of infecting them lower still.
That is the ethos behind mass vaccination. There are some people you can't vaccinate - those with no immune system, some for whom the vaccine doesn't work, and some who don't get it. The point is that if the herd of vaccinated is big enough, it works to protect the unvaccinated.
For highly contagious diseases, the herd needs to be bigger, because of the greater chance that it will be transmitted if the opportunity arises. Eg measles, which is massively more infectious than Covid-19, and requires a herd of 85%+, IIRC. Not sure what the estimate would be for Covid-19, should be a bit lower.
But even a substantial but smaller % herd should help the NHS by significantly slowing the rate of infection, coupled with isolation/social distancing and the rest.
Haven’t we shut loads of wards that are effectively mothballed?
What we’re actually seeing is a guy who along with Patrick Vallance and their team have been working crazy hours since January to build the models and analytics required to make informed decisions. This is familiar ground to Whitty – he is one of the main reasons that Ebola was stopped in its tracks in 2009:
https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/ebola-emergence-epidemic-and-the-global-response
Whitty is quite literally one of the best epidemiologists in the world and the government is doing what they should be doing – listening to the experts who’ve spent their whole careers studying this sort of stuff – rather than making policy decisions that satisfy the siren cries of shouty people on the internet / Daily Mail.
+1
These guys need knighthoods not a bunch of armchair epidemiologists slagging them off on the internet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Whitty
Not quite.
A virus only survives in a host for a few weeks, and is viable in terms of onward infection for a shorter period than that. So it needs lots of different targets to ensure that it can continue to infect new people, and not die out. When more people have had it, there is a lower chance an infected person will encounter an uninfected one.
Over time, a large enough ‘herd’ of immune people gives the virus effectively no room to circulate, as even though there are still plenty of uninfected out there, the chances of infected meeting uninfected is much lower, and the chance of infecting them lower still.
That is the ethos behind mass vaccination. There are some people you can’t vaccinate – those with no immune system, some for whom the vaccine doesn’t work, and some who don’t get it. The point is that if the herd of vaccinated is big enough, it works to protect the unvaccinated.
For highly contagious diseases, the herd needs to be bigger, because of the greater chance that it will be transmitted if the opportunity arises. Eg measles, which is massively more infectious than Covid-19, and requires a herd of 85%+, IIRC. Not sure what the estimate would be for Covid-19, should be a bit lower.
But even a substantial but smaller % herd should help the NHS by significantly slowing the rate of infection, coupled with isolation/social distancing and the rest.
+1
I have at risk people in the house, and won’t be doing the stiff upper lip thing, and instead will be cancelling all leisure travel and not attending indoor gatherings.
You're delay it, not avoiding it, which is exactly what the people who know are suggesting.
Isnt the unique thing about Covid-19 that its much more easily caught than SARS or MERS, as well as being equally deadly?
This current virus isn't even close to being as deadly as those 2. Sars is close to 10% and mers close to 35% fatality. And that's with adequate levels of health care available.
If it was mers spreading as fast as coronavirus it wouldn't just be your 80 year old nan we'd be worried about...basically the entire human race would be pretty much fxxxxd
You’re delay it, not avoiding it, which is exactly what the people who know are suggesting.
It is exactly what epidemiologists are suggesting.
It’s exactly what the government is not currently doing.
The government seems to be relying on organisations, business and individuals to take their own actions, rather than coordinating the response as in other countries. Number 10 is briefing that they are holding back on acting, so that the public will do as they are asked when action is deemed most advantageous by their team. There appears to be no strong basis for this low expectation that people can’t accept measures lasting more than a few weeks. They also have their medical experts talking about allowing a quick spread to gain herd immunity in the country at large, relatively quickly, which seems at odds with what other experts are saying, and at odds with the idea that we should be delaying the spread.
^^ This.
The mixed messages are confusing - on the one hand 60% of the country "needs" to get it to build immunity, on the other hand as soon as you show symptoms, you have to self-isolate to prevent it spreading.
Some companies, businesses etc are shutting down/WFH, some are carrying on "as normal" (with extra hand sanitisers), some people are obviously still travelling around, some are quite strict about self-isolation. It's all a mess.
Ooof! From the Guardian live feed..
A councillor in an English village where one of the first UK cases of coronavirus was confirmed has described the government’s strategy of tackling the disease as “a crime against our country”.
Samantha Flower, who is a member of the Conservative party and a social care manager for Sheffield City council, said: “I’m very concerned. They [the UK government] are saying they want as many people to get this disease to create a herd immunisation. But it won’t. My suspicion is that they don’t have the money for social care or NHS so that the weak and the old die.
“I’m saying that as a Conservative councillor and I don’t care if I get sacked. You judge a society by how they treat their vulnerable people. You judge leadership by how it treats its most vulnerable people.
“How do we care for them – by saying it would be better for pretty much everyone to get this disease when we know that our loved ones are going to die? It’s not OK.”
Flower is a Conservative councillor on High Peak borough council and represents the Derbyshire village of Burbage, where one of the first known UK cases of Coronavirus was confirmed. Burbage primary school and a nearby medical centre were temporarily closed after a parent tested positive for the virus on 27 February, when just 15 cases had been confirmed in the UK.
She added: “We could follow the World Health Organization’s advice and stop this now but the government’s chosen not to. Our prime minister has just said to us ‘your loved ones are going to die’ and that’s not OK. It’s abhorrent. It’s a crime against our country. We have the measures and capabilities to prevent this.
“I’m not trying to be an alarmist but the World Health Organization has set very comprehensive guidance and we’re not following it.”
You might want to read up on Quantitative Easing. That’s exactly what they did for years following the banking and Greek debt crisis.
That’s exactly what they do. Money is created ‘with the stroke of a pen’
Happy enough to have that discussion but this thread isn't the place, probably the pub is. Suffice to say, I disagree, I might be wrong.
they quite rightly do the very simple maths which tells them that at least hundreds of thousands will die, maybe even millions
So what do you/others recommend we do instead and how will it work out longer term say over the next 12 months ?
My uni is closed from Monday but I'm still going on placement to school. No plans to shut schools at the moment.
Flower is a Conservative councillor on High Peak borough council
And a leading epidemiologist in her spare time? If not, who gives a flying fig what she says?!
This thread is so so so bad...
“You can see the fear in Chris Witty’s face. He knows whats coming.”
What we’re actually seeing is a guy who along with Patrick Vallance and their team have been working crazy hours since January to build the models and analytics required to make informed decisions. This is familiar ground to Whitty – he is one of the main reasons that Ebola was stopped in its tracks in 2009:
https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/ebola-emergence-epidemic-and-the-global-response
Whitty is quite literally one of the best epidemiologists in the world and the government is doing what they should be doing – listening to the experts who’ve spent their whole careers studying this sort of stuff – rather than making policy decisions that satisfy the siren cries of shouty people on the internet / Daily Mail.
bears repeating given signal/noise ratio on this thread. As do explanations of herd immunity. Doesn't mean the CMO's beyond challenge - but google to see who you're challenging, and his track record, as an academic, clinician (still practising fwiw) and adviser on science and policy to handle earlier epidemics. It's his job in this situation to advise the govt on what to do, not to help them do what they've already decided on for whatever nefarious reasons.
So what do you/others recommend we do instead and how will it work out longer term say over the next 12 months ?
We follow official WHO advice to do everything we can to contain it, and follow other countries such as China, Italy and Denmark in mobilising a massive collective effort to minimise the spread, with transparent information sharing, mass testing, social distancing and avoidance of mass gatherings. And we do it for as long as it takes to prevent the exponential infection of the greater population and the subsequent collapse of health and social care systems. If we do that people will respond positively, because they don't want their relatives and friends to die. They will also feel engaged and useful, rather than powerless and fearful. No one is pretending that it can be stopped entirely, but it can be delayed, and it can be fought, and lives can be saved.
Or we can just let people die in the hope that it will eventually die out through lack of people to infect.
Which of these strategies seems most sensible?
Or we can just let people die in the hope that it will eventually die out through lack of people to infect.
No one is suggesting that at the moment are they?
If not, who gives a flying fig what she says?!
She may well have an insight into how the care system in her area will cope with the various scenarios.
Questioning why the WHO isn’t being listened to (they have experts as well you know) by the government is exactly what a ‘politician’ with responsibility towards the elderly and other at risk groups should be doing.
From the WHO epidemic status announcement :
The second reason is that despite our frequent warnings, we are deeply concerned that some countries are not approaching this threat with the level of political commitment needed to control it.
Let me be clear: describing this as a pandemic does not mean that countries should give up. The idea that countries should shift from containment to mitigation is wrong and dangerous.
On the contrary, we have to double down.
This is a controllable pandemic. Countries that decide to give up on fundamental public health measures may end up with a larger problem, and a heavier burden on the health system that requires more severe measures to control.
Which of these strategies seems most sensible?
I have no idea mate, but i'm hoping the science nerds telling the government what to do have a pretty decent idea. I honestly doubt they're doing it just to kill people off simply because they just don't matter any more.
No one is suggesting that at the moment are they?
It's the logical end result of pursuing 'herd immunity'.
I honestly doubt they’re doing it just to kill people off simply because they just don’t matter any more.
I don't think that either, and I'm not pretending to know more than Boris's advisors, but I am questioning why we're not doing what other countries are. We probably will end up doing all that, so why the delay? And why are they keeping information from us and not being honest about what they think will happen?
It’s the logical end result of pursuing ‘herd immunity’.
I am not so sure. I trust that the NHS, lead by Vallance and Witty have a better understanding of this than you and I and they are trying to manage this to spread the infection and manage the long term recurrence.
I agree with you though that the communication has been terrible. I do wish you would keep the cheap political shots off this thread. It doesnt really help people?
Self important ignorance seems to reign on this thread now
Suffice to say, I disagree, I might be wrong.
You are, but so are most people. Money is something everyone uses but no one understands.
if you borrow £100 from the bank, and it credits your account with the amount, ‘new money’ has been created. It didn’t exist until it was credited to your account.
This also means as you pay off the loan, the electronic money your bank created is “deleted” – it no longer exists. You haven’t got richer or poorer. You might have less money in your bank account but your debts have gone down too. So essentially, banks create money, not wealth.
That quote is from the well-known conspiracy website, the Bank of England. Banks create money as debt and a central bank is the government's bank. Money is created and then circulates around the economy, before being cancelled out through taxation. Governments can print as much as they like, and so long as there is demand in the economy, it will not cause inflation (although it does debase a currency over time, hence why my dad earned 10 pounds a week in 1960, etc.) Again, a struggling NHS or schools having to beg pens off parents because they don't have any money is a political choice not an economic one, despite propaganda convincing people otherwise. But you're right, not the time and place. If you're interested in how it works, check out the documentary Money As Debt. It looks dated but the content is accurate and it's pretty mindblowing.
Vallance and Witty have a better understanding of this than you and I
Of course they do. Now consider what the WHO are also saying.
…we are deeply concerned that some countries are not approaching this threat with the level of political commitment needed to control it.
The idea that countries should shift from containment to mitigation is wrong and dangerous.
This is a controllable pandemic.
Christ, this thread is moving faster than I can read it.
I am questioning why we’re not doing what other countries are.
Because we aren't other countries?
I'm far from an expert on such matters, but is it not perhaps over-simplistic to assume that the correct measures in a country with our unique healthcare system and given population density would be identical to those in, say, the USA? I mean, they may well be, but they might not.
China went into lockdown because it could, if Westmonster tried a stunt like that most of the UK would go "bugger that" and be off down to the Winchester for a pint waiting for it all to blow over.
And why are they keeping information from us and not being honest about what they think will happen?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6530867.stm
Westfield shoppers injured in midnight stampede chaos were trying to get their hands on vouchers for COFFEE and free parking hidden in balloons (from the DM so I won't link)
No idea why you wouldn't want to to tell people.
UK postpones local elections. France's to go ahead.
How does this fit the narrative of mainland europe closing anything and everything, while Britain soldiers on towards the cliff?
Just told my lad it's not a good idea that he brings round my new grandson to see his nan.
It's an utterly crap decision to have to make but my 90 year old mother is genuinely scared of the three of them coming into see her as much as she wants them to.
So... video calling will take its place. My lad totally understands as i said this might be coming.
60% infection needed for herd immunity..ok fine,I do get it.... but I'm determined that I'll do all I can to make sure my mother isn't one of the many that will pay the price for that immunity.
If anyone says my morality is questionable or I'm being overly paranoid I don't really care at this stage.
Good luck all and just try and look after each other as best we can, eh, even on here.
UK postpones local elections.
I heard, and posted, the opposite earlier today.
Electoral Commission proposed that they should be postponed, but “Number Ten” briefing that wouldn’t be happening.
Has there been an update?
How does this fit the narrative of mainland europe closing anything and everything, while Britain soldiers on towards the cliff?
It doesn't. But it does fit the narrative of the EU being more democratic than the UK, and of Tories being quite keen to dismantle democracy.
We probably will end up doing all that, so why the delay?
They said this in the press conference - they have modelled the behaviour of the British public and they are not confident people will stick to isolation for long enough.
And why are they keeping information from us and not being honest about what they think will happen?
If 80% of the population get it, and 1% of them die, that's half a million people. If you put that number out there, the Mail and Express latch onto that instead of telling people the messages needed to be got into the populations head.
I heard, and posted, the opposite earlier today.
Electoral Commission proposed that they should be postponed, but the “Number Ten” briefing that wouldn’t be happening.
Has there been an update?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51876269
they have modelled the behaviour
As Jeremy Hunt said… show us that modelling if you’re using it in such a risky fashion.
Has there been an update?
Oh, a wise turn around. We should be glad they’re thinking on their feet I suppose. A bit of coordination in Number Ten might be wise though.
I heard, and posted, the opposite earlier today.
Electoral Commission proposed that they should be postponed, but “Number Ten” briefing that wouldn’t be happening.
Has there been an update?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51876269
Good luck all and just try and look after each other as best we can, eh, even on here.
Yep
If you put that number out there,
Err, it's already out there. People can do primary school maths.
People can do primary school maths.
Not as common as you might hope, IME.
From that reliable source FB:
Rory Stewart, the Independent London Mayoral candidate, a former tory, is saying plainly that the WM policies on COVID 19, are not, in fact, based on science, but on social modelling, and that they are finding it preferable to allow some half a million vulnerable patients to die quickly, rather than have it drag out.
That’s what gov sources have been saying… no? Depending on the way the wind is blowing that moment of course.
Rory Stewart, the Independent London Mayoral candidate
And an epidemiologist, I presume?
Anyone thinking of not sending their kids into school next week?
Governments can print as much as they like, and so long as there is demand in the economy, it will not cause inflation.
In a nutshell you are so correct.
But the book balancing liars of the Tory party don't want to be part of this.
Money isn't finite - resources are.
But they sure as hell could put the money into economy very rapidly if they wanted to.
Politicians across the spectrum struggle with how the money system works. They describe the system like a Household and it's nothing like.
There has to be the resources and employment available - but like the fed they can be instructed to crack on. Fed does it all the time for the military. Let's vote on what to spend the money on - ding.
The market has demonstrated it's failure and clearly will not solve human needs I'm this sort of scenario. As with the smack down of 2008 the Government will have to step in.
It could and it should.
The Tories just simply don't want to act big Government about it - but it's exactly want we need.
What about the epidemiologists at the WHO and other countries? Or are ours better
Doesn't matter really, if people on here seem to put more trust in Rory Stewart, Brenda from Bristol and Mystic Meg
Put your trust in 2 definites?
Hygiene and staying away from people as much as you possibly can.
Doesn’t matter really, if people on here seem to put more trust in Rory Stewart, Brenda from Bristol and Mystic Meg
People are listening to experts all over the world… fight to contain this, and reduce the extend and speed of the epidemic, or pay the price.
Hygiene and staying away from people as much as you possibly can.
Yep. Within sensible reason. Particularly old folks if you feel rough.
Twodogs
And an epidemiologist, I presume?
A bloke with better connections to what the thinking is in the inner circles of the govt than an epidemioligist maybe?