The big Coronavirus thread

briantrumpet

TheBigBean said:

veronese68 said:

Looking at the 'travel to Italy' thread I was rather over confident, I also remember thinking it would blow over rather sooner.

You were not alone.

I probably ought to revisit that to see what I thought.

pblakeney

I did a complete U-turn on 9th March 2020.
Still quicker than some, and much quicker than BJ.

https://forum.bikeradar.com/discussion/13110319/would-you-travel-to-italy-with-your-family-in-4-weeks/p3

veronese68

Interesting rereading that thread as its' not too long, unlike this one.
We did travel to Italy in the summer of 2020 when things had opened up. We drove down and kipped in the car rather than staying in a hotel, stayed in a remote hilltop villa and only ever ate outside if we went to a restaurant. Mind you we always eat outside in an Italian summer. I reckon that was the safest way to have done it.
We did miss one year because of covid, think that was 2021 though. Of course i could have them the wrong way round, would need to check the Swiss carnets on the windscreen to confirm.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

briantrumpet said:

Phew, that's a relief.

The author is erm... hardly impartial.

My watch is completely broken. It is still right every single day.

rjsterry

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

briantrumpet said:

Phew, that's a relief.

The author is erm... hardly impartial.

It's certainly an interesting interpretation of Boris's indecisiveness and inability to grasp simple concepts. I guess one man's total incompetence is another man's fine mind asking questions to further their already impressive understanding of the situation.

I meant that Heneghan very much has his own particular axe to grind, being a leading proponent of copying Sweden and not having lockdowns.

briantrumpet

Just had a look back at this thread for March 2020, and relieved not to find myself being too silly.

Actually, to be fair to people, most of the commmentary wasn't too far of the mark, even in retrospect, though Coopster was a bit of an outlier...

rjsterry

😬 I'd forgotten about him.

photonic69

The wifey still has covid really badly. Test today was an almost instant line. Been ill since Wednesday last week!
I haven't tested positive but felt really rough and tired all week. Speaking to docs and he recons I've probably had/have it but just not testing for it or it's a different strain. Symptoms very different from the wife though. Ho hum.

TheBigBean

Hugo Keith keeps telling witness to speak more slowly and be more concise. He takes forever to ask questions and is incredibly annoying in style.

Pross

Hancock has been giving Sunak and the Government in general a bit of a kicking at the Inquiry.

briantrumpet

Pross said:

Hancock has been giving Sunak and the Government in general a bit of a kicking at the Inquiry.

Meh, he's just trying not appear as a total incompetent by blaming others. They're all as bad as one another.

TheBigBean

Pross said:

Hancock has been giving Sunak and the Government in general a bit of a kicking at the Inquiry.

He mostly kicked Cummings. Defended the actions of everyone else. Cummings got angry on twitter.

Pross

Any idea why Compo turned up to give evidence yesterday?

kingstongraham

Any idea what this enquiry is aiming to achieve?

I mean, I like the fact that all the "I can't answer that now, there's an enquiry that will determine that" responses from a couple of years ago are coming home to roost, but is it really going to improve the response to the next one for everyone to be doing the same but avoiding using WhatsApp?

rick_chasey

Documenting on record what actually happened.

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

Any idea what this enquiry is aiming to achieve?

I mean, I like the fact that all the "I can't answer that now, there's an enquiry that will determine that" responses from a couple of years ago are coming home to roost, but is it really going to improve the response to the next one for everyone to be doing the same but avoiding using WhatsApp?

I have posted before that I'm a bit sceptical, but the judge seems quite good. Hugo Keith KC is very annoying and seems to be trying to prosecute.

kingstongraham

rick_chasey said:

Documenting on record what actually happened.

To a degree, sure, but to what end?

TheBigBean

Part of the problem is something that Chris Whitty flagged - a lockdown was only the right solution for this particular virus with its combination of R0 and asymptomatic spread, and those things are hard to establish when the virus appears.

Pross

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

Documenting on record what actually happened.

To a degree, sure, but to what end?

Holding the decision makers to account? There certainly seemed to be decisions made that it will be hard to argue were made in the public interest.

TheBigBean

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

Documenting on record what actually happened.

To a degree, sure, but to what end?

Holding the decision makers to account? There certainly seemed to be decisions made that it will be hard to argue were made in the public interest.

Such as?

Pross

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

Documenting on record what actually happened.

To a degree, sure, but to what end?

Holding the decision makers to account? There certainly seemed to be decisions made that it will be hard to argue were made in the public interest.

Such as?

Eat Out To Help Out? Spending public money encouraging people to get back out in crowded venues when the virus was still at its peak and no vaccine had been developed just to stop the hospitality industry whinging always seemed a stupid move and it is very hard to see how it could have been made in the public interest when other, arguably less risky activities, were still not allowed. Sending old people back to care homes is also highly questionable although you could possibly argue it freed up hospital beds for others. School closures seemed to be done on a fairly ad hoc and inconsistent basis.

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

Part of the problem is something that Chris Whitty flagged - a lockdown was only the right solution for this particular virus with its combination of R0 and asymptomatic spread, and those things are hard to establish when the virus appears.

That defense of actions vanished once this information was available, and can't explain the 2-3 week delay between our lockdown and those elsewhere, based on comparable infection rates. It also can't explain how we failed to learn from others' misfortune as the wave crossed Europe.

TheBigBean

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

Part of the problem is something that Chris Whitty flagged - a lockdown was only the right solution for this particular virus with its combination of R0 and asymptomatic spread, and those things are hard to establish when the virus appears.

That defense of actions vanished once this information was available, and can't explain the 2-3 week delay between our lockdown and those elsewhere, based on comparable infection rates. It also can't explain how we failed to learn from others' misfortune as the wave crossed Europe.

My post related to the lessons learned aspect and what should be done next time i.e. it is unlikely a lockdown will be the answer.

You point relates more to the post-match analysis.

TheBigBean

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

Documenting on record what actually happened.

To a degree, sure, but to what end?

Holding the decision makers to account? There certainly seemed to be decisions made that it will be hard to argue were made in the public interest.

Such as?

Eat Out To Help Out? Spending public money encouraging people to get back out in crowded venues when the virus was still at its peak and no vaccine had been developed just to stop the hospitality industry whinging always seemed a stupid move and it is very hard to see how it could have been made in the public interest when other, arguably less risky activities, were still not allowed. Sending old people back to care homes is also highly questionable although you could possibly argue it freed up hospital beds for others. School closures seemed to be done on a fairly ad hoc and inconsistent basis.

Eat Out to Help Out was widely supported by Cake Stop experts. I'm also not sure it made much difference. It was done in the public interest though which was trying to restore a sector of the economy. Of course, you can argue it was against another public interest.

kingstongraham

I seem to recall I thought it was a stupid waste of money and a weird thing to be encouraging even if I tried to come up with some form of rationale behind it because it was only weekdays, but even so I don't think it made much difference because it was at a time that there wasn't a lot of virus around, and it was in summer time wasn't it?

I found it weird when my having a coffee outside was subsidised by the government.

TheBigBean

TheBigBean said:

Eat out to help out restaurant finder. It seems that far from every restaurant signed up.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/get-a-discount-with-the-eat-out-to-help-out-scheme

kingstongraham said:

My nearest is 0.04 miles away and has outdoor seating. I may participate!

kingstonian said:

It is a good initiative. We'll be using ours when we go on holiday.

TheBigBean said:

coopster_the_1st said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

Wahey, 100 registered establishments within striking distance of my house, including some of my regular spots. Thanks Uncle Rishi.

So I guess you approve of “socialist” measures when they’re not just aimed at poor people, is that about right?

Nope, I just approve of going out a for good cut price curry - bit of a one off as it finishes in 4 weeks, so go easy on the leftie jibes here. Thought you would approve of the govt spraying free money around?

Yeah it’s fine.

I’d rather they’d have made it simpler and just given them the cash but it’s fine.


I just find it remarkable you are in favour of this. If I could be bothered I’d dig all your posts espousing why this sort of thing is so awful but I can’t and you won’t play ball anyway.

I would propose a man of your self proclaimed means pays the savings as a tip to the staff who will have had it very tough recently.

unsurprisingly I think that it is stupidity of the highest order but then I did not like Gordon Brown or Ed Miliband either.

You may not like my opinions but at least they tend to be consistent.

and what sort of moron does not go out to eat because he may contract a potentially fatal infection but to save a fiver decides it is a risk worth taking?

I'm tempted.

Depending on where you live, as you are not in a locked down area, somewhere in the region of 1 in 10,000 people will be out and about asymptomatic with C19, so what is the chance you are in the same restaurant as that person and then close enough to catch it?

4 in 100,000 had it last week in my area. That's why I'm tempted.

Jezyboy

I thought it had been popular, in terms of take up, but quite a lot of people questioned whether it was a good idea.

pangolin

I remember questioning why it was eat in only, that seemed bizarre.

N0bodyOfTheGoat

Eat out to help Covid out was an absolute bonkers policy when vaccines were still not available for ~6 months in summer '20, when eating at a crowded pub/cafe etc. indoors with a load of strangers and we already knew asymptomatic covid positive was possible.

Those responsible for it shouldn't be anywhere near running the country, same goes for sending elderly patients in hospital back into care homes right at the pandemic start, when we didn't have test kits but showing typical symptoms didn't matter and no doubt causing numerous premature deaths of the elderly loved ones.

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

Part of the problem is something that Chris Whitty flagged - a lockdown was only the right solution for this particular virus with its combination of R0 and asymptomatic spread, and those things are hard to establish when the virus appears.

That defense of actions vanished once this information was available, and can't explain the 2-3 week delay between our lockdown and those elsewhere, based on comparable infection rates. It also can't explain how we failed to learn from others' misfortune as the wave crossed Europe.

My post related to the lessons learned aspect and what should be done next time i.e. it is unlikely a lockdown will be the answer.

You point relates more to the post-match analysis.

The whole thing is post match analysis at this stage. Yes, the idea is to inform future decisions, but whilst the assessment is correct that the required measures were specific to the R0 and death rate, the requirement not to ignore the science as and when it became available is universal.

Hindsight would be more about expecting all counties to have mass testing available, or the correct form of PPE. Foresight is don't dither when presented with the facts.