The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
tailwindhome said:
I'd prefer it if the government messaging had been clearer throughout and there were fewer dickheads.Stevo_666 said:
So you'd prefer it if we had a French/Spanish/Italian style lock down?tailwindhome said:
I'm not convinced the UK messaging has been great in getting 'buy in', partly I suspect due to a British instinct for pushing their luck and seeking out loopholes meaning time is spent clarifying and explaining.Stevo_666 said:True, but the countries I mentioned do seem to have taken a more dictatorial route compared to others (including the UK) where there is more of an element of trust, self-policing and getting public 'buy-in'.
See below
V
I hope a stronger lockdown won't be necessary, but that curve needs to flatten soon to avoid it.
I don't think messaging from any government has been clear as that would basically be an impossible task especially with rushed legislation.
There is no evidence that a stronger lockdown will have that much of a difference.0 -
The Prime Minister, his SPAD, his chief medical advisor, his health minister, and the next in line to the throne have all tested positive.Stevo_666 said:
The dickhead factor probably increases infections. Could that partly explain why we have less than some other countries?tailwindhome said:mrfpb said:
I'm pretty sure the government advice and policy takes into account the "dickhead factor" - some of the UCL assumptions included up to 50% of the population ignoring at least some of the advice.tailwindhome said:
I'd prefer it if the government messaging had been clearer throughout and there were fewer dickheads.Stevo_666 said:
So you'd prefer it if we had a French/Spanish/Italian style lock down?tailwindhome said:
I'm not convinced the UK messaging has been great in getting 'buy in', partly I suspect due to a British instinct for pushing their luck and seeking out loopholes meaning time is spent clarifying and explaining.Stevo_666 said:True, but the countries I mentioned do seem to have taken a more dictatorial route compared to others (including the UK) where there is more of an element of trust, self-policing and getting public 'buy-in'.
See below
V
I hope a stronger lockdown won't be necessary, but that curve needs to flatten soon to avoid it.
Building the 'dickhead factor' into the model doesn't reduce the deaths it just makes the forecast more accurate.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Fewer...Stevo_666 said:
The dickhead factor probably increases infections. Could that partly explain why we have less than some other countries?
Fewer in which way? We have been trailing religiously the curve of Italy, being 2 weeks behind for now over two weeks...
And bear in mind we are not doing as many tests as Italy was doing 2 weeks ago.
Same applies to deaths... 15-16 days behind Italy, same curve same trajectory, we'll end up in the same place... it's just a question whether it will appear as chaotic from the outside or more orderly, but numbers will be pretty much identical
left the forum March 20230 -
Spanish flu evidence suggests it does, but whatever.nickice said:tailwindhome said:
I'd prefer it if the government messaging had been clearer throughout and there were fewer dickheads.Stevo_666 said:
So you'd prefer it if we had a French/Spanish/Italian style lock down?tailwindhome said:
I'm not convinced the UK messaging has been great in getting 'buy in', partly I suspect due to a British instinct for pushing their luck and seeking out loopholes meaning time is spent clarifying and explaining.Stevo_666 said:True, but the countries I mentioned do seem to have taken a more dictatorial route compared to others (including the UK) where there is more of an element of trust, self-policing and getting public 'buy-in'.
See below
V
I hope a stronger lockdown won't be necessary, but that curve needs to flatten soon to avoid it.
I don't think messaging from any government has been clear as that would basically be an impossible task especially with rushed legislation.
There is no evidence that a stronger lockdown will have that much of a difference.0 -
Not necessarily. It's up to 14 days to show symptoms and then a few days potentially to become ill enough to go into hospital, another day or two before treatment fails to work and then a day or so for the death to get recorded. That's why the talk is of this next week showing whether the restrictions have helped. If it is slowing before that it is hopefully a positive sign.rick_chasey said:
You would hope so given we've all been staying at home (in theory anyway) for the past two weeks.kingstongraham said:Even based on yesterday's "low" starting point, the doubling time is 4.7 days with today's large sounding daily number. It definitely feels like it's started slowing.
0 -
The spread needs to be maintained to allow the virus to spread amongst the healthy on our way to 60%+ population infected.tailwindhome said:mrfpb said:
I'm pretty sure the government advice and policy takes into account the "dickhead factor" - some of the UCL assumptions included up to 50% of the population ignoring at least some of the advice.tailwindhome said:
I'd prefer it if the government messaging had been clearer throughout and there were fewer dickheads.Stevo_666 said:
So you'd prefer it if we had a French/Spanish/Italian style lock down?tailwindhome said:
I'm not convinced the UK messaging has been great in getting 'buy in', partly I suspect due to a British instinct for pushing their luck and seeking out loopholes meaning time is spent clarifying and explaining.Stevo_666 said:True, but the countries I mentioned do seem to have taken a more dictatorial route compared to others (including the UK) where there is more of an element of trust, self-policing and getting public 'buy-in'.
See below
V
I hope a stronger lockdown won't be necessary, but that curve needs to flatten soon to avoid it.
Building the 'dickhead factor' into the model doesn't reduce the deaths it just makes the forecast more accurate.
That means there are going to be a lot more deaths from this virus.
It's simply just about managing the utilisation of the NHS. The extra capacity being added to the NHS will mean more deaths being recorded
This is unless we lockdown until a vaccine arrives and that is 18+ months away0 -
What evidence? There was a study of Spanish flu to see if banning, or severely limiting, outdoor exercise led to a decrease in transmission?rick_chasey said:
Spanish flu evidence suggests it does, but whatever.nickice said:tailwindhome said:
I'd prefer it if the government messaging had been clearer throughout and there were fewer dickheads.Stevo_666 said:
So you'd prefer it if we had a French/Spanish/Italian style lock down?tailwindhome said:
I'm not convinced the UK messaging has been great in getting 'buy in', partly I suspect due to a British instinct for pushing their luck and seeking out loopholes meaning time is spent clarifying and explaining.Stevo_666 said:True, but the countries I mentioned do seem to have taken a more dictatorial route compared to others (including the UK) where there is more of an element of trust, self-policing and getting public 'buy-in'.
See below
V
I hope a stronger lockdown won't be necessary, but that curve needs to flatten soon to avoid it.
I don't think messaging from any government has been clear as that would basically be an impossible task especially with rushed legislation.
There is no evidence that a stronger lockdown will have that much of a difference.0 -
Sweden just announced a daily increase of 114 deaths to 591 total.
How long now before they tighten their restrictions?0 -
coopster_the_1st said:
The spread needs to be maintained to allow the virus to spread amongst the healthy on our way to 60%+ population infected.tailwindhome said:mrfpb said:
I'm pretty sure the government advice and policy takes into account the "dickhead factor" - some of the UCL assumptions included up to 50% of the population ignoring at least some of the advice.tailwindhome said:
I'd prefer it if the government messaging had been clearer throughout and there were fewer dickheads.Stevo_666 said:
So you'd prefer it if we had a French/Spanish/Italian style lock down?tailwindhome said:
I'm not convinced the UK messaging has been great in getting 'buy in', partly I suspect due to a British instinct for pushing their luck and seeking out loopholes meaning time is spent clarifying and explaining.Stevo_666 said:True, but the countries I mentioned do seem to have taken a more dictatorial route compared to others (including the UK) where there is more of an element of trust, self-policing and getting public 'buy-in'.
See below
V
I hope a stronger lockdown won't be necessary, but that curve needs to flatten soon to avoid it.
Building the 'dickhead factor' into the model doesn't reduce the deaths it just makes the forecast more accurate.
That means there are going to be a lot more deaths from this virus.
It's simply just about managing the utilisation of the NHS. The extra capacity being added to the NHS will mean more deaths being recorded
This is unless we lockdown until a vaccine arrives and that is 18+ months away
Sorry, what?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Earlier in the thread I posted two studies that examined the timing, severity and duration of public health interventions and how they impacted the economy.nickice said:
What evidence? There was a study of Spanish flu to see if banning, or severely limiting, outdoor exercise led to a decrease in transmission?rick_chasey said:
Spanish flu evidence suggests it does, but whatever.nickice said:tailwindhome said:
I'd prefer it if the government messaging had been clearer throughout and there were fewer dickheads.Stevo_666 said:
So you'd prefer it if we had a French/Spanish/Italian style lock down?tailwindhome said:
I'm not convinced the UK messaging has been great in getting 'buy in', partly I suspect due to a British instinct for pushing their luck and seeking out loopholes meaning time is spent clarifying and explaining.Stevo_666 said:True, but the countries I mentioned do seem to have taken a more dictatorial route compared to others (including the UK) where there is more of an element of trust, self-policing and getting public 'buy-in'.
See below
V
I hope a stronger lockdown won't be necessary, but that curve needs to flatten soon to avoid it.
I don't think messaging from any government has been clear as that would basically be an impossible task especially with rushed legislation.
There is no evidence that a stronger lockdown will have that much of a difference.
They both look at deaths as a figure since, it turns out, predictably, places which had higher death rates, which tended to be the places which had slower, weaker or shorter duration of public heath interventions.
Places which had earlier, stricter and more severe public health interventions tended to have fewer deaths and rebounded much more equity economically.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=35615600 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
The problem with this is that a full lock down during the swine flu pandemic would not have been a good idea, so government response does need to vary depending on the virus itself.rick_chasey said:
Earlier in the thread I posted two studies that examined the timing, severity and duration of public health interventions and how they impacted the economy.nickice said:
What evidence? There was a study of Spanish flu to see if banning, or severely limiting, outdoor exercise led to a decrease in transmission?rick_chasey said:
Spanish flu evidence suggests it does, but whatever.nickice said:tailwindhome said:
I'd prefer it if the government messaging had been clearer throughout and there were fewer dickheads.Stevo_666 said:
So you'd prefer it if we had a French/Spanish/Italian style lock down?tailwindhome said:
I'm not convinced the UK messaging has been great in getting 'buy in', partly I suspect due to a British instinct for pushing their luck and seeking out loopholes meaning time is spent clarifying and explaining.Stevo_666 said:True, but the countries I mentioned do seem to have taken a more dictatorial route compared to others (including the UK) where there is more of an element of trust, self-policing and getting public 'buy-in'.
See below
V
I hope a stronger lockdown won't be necessary, but that curve needs to flatten soon to avoid it.
I don't think messaging from any government has been clear as that would basically be an impossible task especially with rushed legislation.
There is no evidence that a stronger lockdown will have that much of a difference.
They both look at deaths as a figure since, it turns out, predictably, places which had higher death rates, which tended to be the places which had slower, weaker or shorter duration of public heath interventions.
Places which had earlier, stricter and more severe public health interventions tended to have fewer deaths and rebounded much more equity economically.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3561560
0 -
No beaches in Leicester so not quite sure what it has to do with them?tailwindhome said:0 -
Which was why I said "Spanish flu evidence".TheBigBean said:
The problem with this is that a full lock down during the swine flu pandemic would not have been a good idea, so government response does need to vary depending on the virus itself.rick_chasey said:
Earlier in the thread I posted two studies that examined the timing, severity and duration of public health interventions and how they impacted the economy.nickice said:
What evidence? There was a study of Spanish flu to see if banning, or severely limiting, outdoor exercise led to a decrease in transmission?rick_chasey said:
Spanish flu evidence suggests it does, but whatever.nickice said:tailwindhome said:
I'd prefer it if the government messaging had been clearer throughout and there were fewer dickheads.Stevo_666 said:
So you'd prefer it if we had a French/Spanish/Italian style lock down?tailwindhome said:
I'm not convinced the UK messaging has been great in getting 'buy in', partly I suspect due to a British instinct for pushing their luck and seeking out loopholes meaning time is spent clarifying and explaining.Stevo_666 said:True, but the countries I mentioned do seem to have taken a more dictatorial route compared to others (including the UK) where there is more of an element of trust, self-policing and getting public 'buy-in'.
See below
V
I hope a stronger lockdown won't be necessary, but that curve needs to flatten soon to avoid it.
I don't think messaging from any government has been clear as that would basically be an impossible task especially with rushed legislation.
There is no evidence that a stronger lockdown will have that much of a difference.
They both look at deaths as a figure since, it turns out, predictably, places which had higher death rates, which tended to be the places which had slower, weaker or shorter duration of public heath interventions.
Places which had earlier, stricter and more severe public health interventions tended to have fewer deaths and rebounded much more equity economically.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=35615600 -
You are applying evidence from the Spanish flu pandemic to the approach taken to the Corona virus pandemic. I am saying that this would not have worked if it had been applied to the Swine flu pandemic, hence it should be questioned whether it is appropriate for this pandemic rather than blindly accepted.rick_chasey said:
Which was why I said "Spanish flu evidence".TheBigBean said:
The problem with this is that a full lock down during the swine flu pandemic would not have been a good idea, so government response does need to vary depending on the virus itself.rick_chasey said:
Earlier in the thread I posted two studies that examined the timing, severity and duration of public health interventions and how they impacted the economy.nickice said:
What evidence? There was a study of Spanish flu to see if banning, or severely limiting, outdoor exercise led to a decrease in transmission?rick_chasey said:
Spanish flu evidence suggests it does, but whatever.nickice said:tailwindhome said:
I'd prefer it if the government messaging had been clearer throughout and there were fewer dickheads.Stevo_666 said:
So you'd prefer it if we had a French/Spanish/Italian style lock down?tailwindhome said:
I'm not convinced the UK messaging has been great in getting 'buy in', partly I suspect due to a British instinct for pushing their luck and seeking out loopholes meaning time is spent clarifying and explaining.Stevo_666 said:True, but the countries I mentioned do seem to have taken a more dictatorial route compared to others (including the UK) where there is more of an element of trust, self-policing and getting public 'buy-in'.
See below
V
I hope a stronger lockdown won't be necessary, but that curve needs to flatten soon to avoid it.
I don't think messaging from any government has been clear as that would basically be an impossible task especially with rushed legislation.
There is no evidence that a stronger lockdown will have that much of a difference.
They both look at deaths as a figure since, it turns out, predictably, places which had higher death rates, which tended to be the places which had slower, weaker or shorter duration of public heath interventions.
Places which had earlier, stricter and more severe public health interventions tended to have fewer deaths and rebounded much more equity economically.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=35615600 -
I see you're still capable of missing a tongue in cheek comment...ugo.santalucia said:
Fewer...Stevo_666 said:
The dickhead factor probably increases infections. Could that partly explain why we have less than some other countries?
Fewer in which way? We have been trailing religiously the curve of Italy, being 2 weeks behind for now over two weeks...
And bear in mind we are not doing as many tests as Italy was doing 2 weeks ago.
Same applies to deaths... 15-16 days behind Italy, same curve same trajectory, we'll end up in the same place... it's just a question whether it will appear as chaotic from the outside or more orderly, but numbers will be pretty much identical"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
okTheBigBean said:
You are applying evidence from the Spanish flu pandemic to the approach taken to the Corona virus pandemic. I am saying that this would not have worked if it had been applied to the Swine flu pandemic, hence it should be questioned whether it is appropriate for this pandemic rather than blindly accepted.rick_chasey said:
Which was why I said "Spanish flu evidence".TheBigBean said:
The problem with this is that a full lock down during the swine flu pandemic would not have been a good idea, so government response does need to vary depending on the virus itself.rick_chasey said:
Earlier in the thread I posted two studies that examined the timing, severity and duration of public health interventions and how they impacted the economy.nickice said:
What evidence? There was a study of Spanish flu to see if banning, or severely limiting, outdoor exercise led to a decrease in transmission?rick_chasey said:
Spanish flu evidence suggests it does, but whatever.nickice said:tailwindhome said:
I'd prefer it if the government messaging had been clearer throughout and there were fewer dickheads.Stevo_666 said:
So you'd prefer it if we had a French/Spanish/Italian style lock down?tailwindhome said:
I'm not convinced the UK messaging has been great in getting 'buy in', partly I suspect due to a British instinct for pushing their luck and seeking out loopholes meaning time is spent clarifying and explaining.Stevo_666 said:True, but the countries I mentioned do seem to have taken a more dictatorial route compared to others (including the UK) where there is more of an element of trust, self-policing and getting public 'buy-in'.
See below
V
I hope a stronger lockdown won't be necessary, but that curve needs to flatten soon to avoid it.
I don't think messaging from any government has been clear as that would basically be an impossible task especially with rushed legislation.
There is no evidence that a stronger lockdown will have that much of a difference.
They both look at deaths as a figure since, it turns out, predictably, places which had higher death rates, which tended to be the places which had slower, weaker or shorter duration of public heath interventions.
Places which had earlier, stricter and more severe public health interventions tended to have fewer deaths and rebounded much more equity economically.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=35615600 -
I'm sure they are included in the totals, which are less than some other countriestailwindhome said:
The Prime Minister, his SPAD, his chief medical advisor, his health minister, and the next in line to the throne have all tested positive.Stevo_666 said:
The dickhead factor probably increases infections. Could that partly explain why we have less than some other countries?tailwindhome said:mrfpb said:
I'm pretty sure the government advice and policy takes into account the "dickhead factor" - some of the UCL assumptions included up to 50% of the population ignoring at least some of the advice.tailwindhome said:
I'd prefer it if the government messaging had been clearer throughout and there were fewer dickheads.Stevo_666 said:
So you'd prefer it if we had a French/Spanish/Italian style lock down?tailwindhome said:
I'm not convinced the UK messaging has been great in getting 'buy in', partly I suspect due to a British instinct for pushing their luck and seeking out loopholes meaning time is spent clarifying and explaining.Stevo_666 said:True, but the countries I mentioned do seem to have taken a more dictatorial route compared to others (including the UK) where there is more of an element of trust, self-policing and getting public 'buy-in'.
See below
V
I hope a stronger lockdown won't be necessary, but that curve needs to flatten soon to avoid it.
Building the 'dickhead factor' into the model doesn't reduce the deaths it just makes the forecast more accurate.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The paper that you cite is what worked in 1918, what's to say it's applicable now?rick_chasey said:
Earlier in the thread I posted two studies that examined the timing, severity and duration of public health interventions and how they impacted the economy.
They both look at deaths as a figure since, it turns out, predictably, places which had higher death rates, which tended to be the places which had slower, weaker or shorter duration of public heath interventions.
Places which had earlier, stricter and more severe public health interventions tended to have fewer deaths and rebounded much more equity economically.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3561560
I don't think we have the same type of economy as 1918, certainly not the manufacturing that was around then.
The older I get, the better I was.0 -
Yeah let's just ignore everything that's more than 50 years old. Who needs evidence if it's in the past, eh?0
-
Managed, not maintained surely. They need to have been testing more before now to know how far the spread already is for this to work don't they? And definitely to test test test still.coopster_the_1st said:
The spread needs to be maintained to allow the virus to spread amongst the healthy on our way to 60%+ population infected.tailwindhome said:mrfpb said:
I'm pretty sure the government advice and policy takes into account the "dickhead factor" - some of the UCL assumptions included up to 50% of the population ignoring at least some of the advice.tailwindhome said:
I'd prefer it if the government messaging had been clearer throughout and there were fewer dickheads.Stevo_666 said:
So you'd prefer it if we had a French/Spanish/Italian style lock down?tailwindhome said:
I'm not convinced the UK messaging has been great in getting 'buy in', partly I suspect due to a British instinct for pushing their luck and seeking out loopholes meaning time is spent clarifying and explaining.Stevo_666 said:True, but the countries I mentioned do seem to have taken a more dictatorial route compared to others (including the UK) where there is more of an element of trust, self-policing and getting public 'buy-in'.
See below
V
I hope a stronger lockdown won't be necessary, but that curve needs to flatten soon to avoid it.
Building the 'dickhead factor' into the model doesn't reduce the deaths it just makes the forecast more accurate.
That means there are going to be a lot more deaths from this virus.
It's simply just about managing the utilisation of the NHS. The extra capacity being added to the NHS will mean more deaths being recorded
This is unless we lockdown until a vaccine arrives and that is 18+ months away
Also, it's not the only way out. I think more likely is they will relax the lockdown gradually, and let people know that whether it gets relaxed more or tightened will be guided by the testing and the impact that the spread will have on the NHS. Not going all out for herd immunity, but a pragmatic approach. There's also going to be people working on treatments that will hopefully reduce the severity, so any delay will allow those deaths and hospitalisations to be reduced.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/apr/06/what-are-the-uks-options-for-exiting-the-coronavirus-lockdown
It's a complex problem, so I think it's unlikely to have a simple solution.0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
Forgetting about the arguments that the the two aren't similar enough to draw any firm conclusions (e.g. Spanish flu tended to be worse amongst different demographics to coronavirus) there isn't any evidence that banning or limiting outdoor exercise has any effect on transmission. Therefore, it can't really be concluded that it's a public health measure other than the 'people might come close to each other' which is equally applicable in other areas where there have been fewer limitations.rick_chasey said:
Earlier in the thread I posted two studies that examined the timing, severity and duration of public health interventions and how they impacted the economy.nickice said:
What evidence? There was a study of Spanish flu to see if banning, or severely limiting, outdoor exercise led to a decrease in transmission?rick_chasey said:
Spanish flu evidence suggests it does, but whatever.nickice said:tailwindhome said:
I'd prefer it if the government messaging had been clearer throughout and there were fewer dickheads.Stevo_666 said:
So you'd prefer it if we had a French/Spanish/Italian style lock down?tailwindhome said:
I'm not convinced the UK messaging has been great in getting 'buy in', partly I suspect due to a British instinct for pushing their luck and seeking out loopholes meaning time is spent clarifying and explaining.Stevo_666 said:True, but the countries I mentioned do seem to have taken a more dictatorial route compared to others (including the UK) where there is more of an element of trust, self-policing and getting public 'buy-in'.
See below
V
I hope a stronger lockdown won't be necessary, but that curve needs to flatten soon to avoid it.
I don't think messaging from any government has been clear as that would basically be an impossible task especially with rushed legislation.
There is no evidence that a stronger lockdown will have that much of a difference.
They both look at deaths as a figure since, it turns out, predictably, places which had higher death rates, which tended to be the places which had slower, weaker or shorter duration of public heath interventions.
Places which had earlier, stricter and more severe public health interventions tended to have fewer deaths and rebounded much more equity economically.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3561560
0 -
What other areas?nickice said:
Forgetting about the arguments that the the two aren't similar enough to draw any firm conclusions (e.g. Spanish flu tended to be worse amongst different demographics to coronavirus) there isn't any evidence that banning or limiting outdoor exercise has any effect on transmission. Therefore, it can't really be concluded that it's a public health measure other than the 'people might come close to each other' which is equally applicable in other areas where there have been fewer limitations.0 -
Highly contagious respiratory ailments that have to killed and overwhelmed health systems all around the globe.capt_slog said:
The paper that you cite is what worked in 1918, what's to say it's applicable now?rick_chasey said:
Earlier in the thread I posted two studies that examined the timing, severity and duration of public health interventions and how they impacted the economy.
They both look at deaths as a figure since, it turns out, predictably, places which had higher death rates, which tended to be the places which had slower, weaker or shorter duration of public heath interventions.
Places which had earlier, stricter and more severe public health interventions tended to have fewer deaths and rebounded much more equity economically.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3561560
I don't think we have the same type of economy as 1918, certainly not the manufacturing that was around then.
Fortunately these kind of events are rare enough that we don't have a more recent good example.
Unfortunately we don't have a more recent example to learn from.
0 -
I don't think that's what is being said. Clearly a lockdown has some effect and it's worth bearing that study in mind but this isn't Spanish flu or even SARS, as SK are finding out, and the differences may be critical. There was a paper being discussed this morning arguing that school closures had minimal net benefit. Unfortunately it will be years before we really know what we should have done.rick_chasey said:Yeah let's just ignore everything that's more than 50 years old. Who needs evidence if it's in the past, eh?
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Stevo_666 said:
Every country has people like that. Why else would countries like France keep having to adjust the rules as mentioned above?tailwindhome said:
I'd prefer it if the government messaging had been clearer throughout and there were fewer dickheads.Stevo_666 said:
So you'd prefer it if we had a French/Spanish/Italian style lock down?tailwindhome said:
I'm not convinced the UK messaging has been great in getting 'buy in', partly I suspect due to a British instinct for pushing their luck and seeking out loopholes meaning time is spent clarifying and explaining.Stevo_666 said:True, but the countries I mentioned do seem to have taken a more dictatorial route compared to others (including the UK) where there is more of an element of trust, self-policing and getting public 'buy-in'.
See below
V
I hope a stronger lockdown won't be necessary, but that curve needs to flatten soon to avoid it.
I'm sure I saw somewhere that Italian police & mayors were seeing dogs that just didn't want to be walked any more, because they were being used as an excuse to beat the lockdown not just by family members but by non-dog-owning neighbours. As you say, dickheadedness is international.0 -
With caveats about cause & effect, maybe interesting: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/07/air-pollution-linked-to-far-higher-covid-19-death-rates-study-finds
Put that together with the much higher population density of the big cities, and (arguably) the more reluctance on sizeable parts of the population in big cities to observe the spirit of the lockdown, it could be a partial explanation of places such as London, Birmingham, and New York...0 -
Not at all. And that's not what i said.rick_chasey said:Yeah let's just ignore everything that's more than 50 years old. Who needs evidence if it's in the past, eh?
However, the way things are done now is different from how they were done in the 1918. Things moved slower then, stock could be in transit for longer, factories made things from raw materials that were coming in a steady pipeline and finished goods moved the same way. 50 years? Okay, just go back a bit longer, we were still using the canals until 1963, (they were largely on the decline by then and the big freeze of that year was the final death of them.) but raw materials could be weeks away.
Take a look at this from 1945
How a bike was made
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaxRQh03BOw
How much of that manufacturing process would you see now? They were making their own tubing from steel strip. These days, we don't make things this way, and firms don't carry the stock they used to even if they do make anything. It follows that if the way the industries run is not the same as in 1918, then the way they recover might not be if they have the same strictures put onto them as in 1918.
Your study might be right, who can tell? but it doesn't HAVE to be.
The older I get, the better I was.0 -
Think of all the non-essential food and drinks (and some other products) still being freely produced, delivered and sold including, dare I say it, alcohol. Amazon is still able to deliver freely and there has been a massive spike in orders (at least according to my brother who is a postman). I'm not saying any of these should be banned but there doesn't seem to be much evidence of why some things are allowed and some aren't.kingstongraham said:
What other areas?nickice said:
Forgetting about the arguments that the the two aren't similar enough to draw any firm conclusions (e.g. Spanish flu tended to be worse amongst different demographics to coronavirus) there isn't any evidence that banning or limiting outdoor exercise has any effect on transmission. Therefore, it can't really be concluded that it's a public health measure other than the 'people might come close to each other' which is equally applicable in other areas where there have been fewer limitations.
Going back to exercise, where I am cycling isn't allowed (for leisure), but running and walking are. No reasons have been given for this. In Paris, all joggers have to do is start walking (which is allowed) if they see the police.0
