The big Coronavirus thread

rick_chasey

Oh I’m resigned to the fact. But that doesn’t mean I want to let them off the hook.

I don’t care how long their term is or what people voted for; the public deserved better than this, given the resources available.

Stevo_666

nickice said:

So, if the lockdown were lifted tomorrow, and work excepted, how many people would go back to bars, restaurants etc?

Good question and this will be a big challenge for a lot of countries - and people.

Not sure yet what I would do. I think I will assess more closely based on the situatuon when the time comes.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

Oh I’m resigned to the fact. But that doesn’t mean I want to let them off the hook.

I don’t care how long their term is or what people voted for; the public deserved better than this, given the resources available.

I think your position amounts to "life went on as normal, until it didn't".

Priti Patel is well worth your ire though. She is a toxic and vile individual and hopefully won't last long in front line politics. She's been given the home secretary job, which is normally a short lived exercise in looking for things to "get tough on", for any good Tory, before cocking up and being made a peer. We will need immigrants after all this has died down, but there will be plenty of unemployed people to get tough on, I'm sure. Just watch her go.

She was staggering insincere when she did the press conference on Sunday and, despite lacking his natural warmth, seems hell bent on channeling the life force of Norman Tebbit.

tailwindhome

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Having just read the pages since I last posted (then spent a productive afternoon power hosing the patio and driveway) I can tell you there's a lot more agreement on this thread than you'd think as to the situation and the way out of this.

There's general agreement that just allowing the virus to spread (even within the capacity of the NHS) is an outlier opinion with an unacceptable death toll

That the current lockdown can't go on indefinitely and an exit strategy must be found

That the objective is to minimize the death count to buy more time, while causing the least amount of other harms

That the only 'final solution' is a vaccine whether a single vaccine, repeated or evolving.

That in the 'long run', in the absence of a vaccine, the virus will spread until herd immunity is achieved and this will come with a huge death toll (equal in the long run to just letting it spread but under NHS capacity)

That comparing to other countries isn't as straightforward as just comparing lines on a graph, there are reasons countries differ over and above government policy, but in there may be lessons to be learnt even in looking at these differences.

That the virus is widely spread through the UK so any exit strategy is going to be a huge undertaking


...


On tracing, testing & isolating I know we can't ever find 100% off the contacts (you wouldn't even know that you had) or stamp out the virus (no one ever claimed it would) but may, combined with social distancing and ongoing restrictions on our day to day life, be the only path out [accepting that just allowing the virus to spread (even within the capacity of the NHS) is an outlier opinion with an unacceptable death toll]

Apart from anything else it's going to be the best way to direct testing resources.

Some of that summarises pretty well, although the 'outlier' disagreement has already been mentioned.



It's not so much much question of allowing the spread - I don't believe it can be stopped, only slowed or managed. And on that basis, keeping it within NHS capacity is key.
.

As it see it

The 'mainstream' theory on here is minimizing the number of deaths by slowing the rate of infection and not breaching the NHS capacity constraints while trying to restore some semblance of normality

The 'outlier' theory treats the capacity of the NHS as a throughput target and includes deliberately loosening the social distancing rules in order to keep the infection rate high enough to 'process' the x thousand deaths to get to the target of 60% having had the virus and reaching theoretical herd immunity ASAP.

I don't believe a theory that includes, as part of a plan, 2000 deaths and 400,000 new cases daily can or should be considered mainstream

Stevo_666

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Having just read the pages since I last posted (then spent a productive afternoon power hosing the patio and driveway) I can tell you there's a lot more agreement on this thread than you'd think as to the situation and the way out of this.

There's general agreement that just allowing the virus to spread (even within the capacity of the NHS) is an outlier opinion with an unacceptable death toll

That the current lockdown can't go on indefinitely and an exit strategy must be found

That the objective is to minimize the death count to buy more time, while causing the least amount of other harms

That the only 'final solution' is a vaccine whether a single vaccine, repeated or evolving.

That in the 'long run', in the absence of a vaccine, the virus will spread until herd immunity is achieved and this will come with a huge death toll (equal in the long run to just letting it spread but under NHS capacity)

That comparing to other countries isn't as straightforward as just comparing lines on a graph, there are reasons countries differ over and above government policy, but in there may be lessons to be learnt even in looking at these differences.

That the virus is widely spread through the UK so any exit strategy is going to be a huge undertaking


...


On tracing, testing & isolating I know we can't ever find 100% off the contacts (you wouldn't even know that you had) or stamp out the virus (no one ever claimed it would) but may, combined with social distancing and ongoing restrictions on our day to day life, be the only path out [accepting that just allowing the virus to spread (even within the capacity of the NHS) is an outlier opinion with an unacceptable death toll]

Apart from anything else it's going to be the best way to direct testing resources.

Some of that summarises pretty well, although the 'outlier' disagreement has already been mentioned.



It's not so much much question of allowing the spread - I don't believe it can be stopped, only slowed or managed. And on that basis, keeping it within NHS capacity is key.
.

As it see it

The 'mainstream' theory on here is minimizing the number of deaths by slowing the rate of infection and not breaching the NHS capacity constraints while trying to restore some semblance of normality

The 'outlier' theory treats the capacity of the NHS as a throughput target and includes deliberately loosening the social distancing rules in order to keep the infection rate high enough to 'process' the x thousand deaths to get to the target of 60% having had the virus and reaching theoretical herd immunity ASAP.

I don't believe a theory that includes, as part of a plan, 2000 deaths and 400,000 new cases daily can or should be considered mainstream

OK, that's clear now. I don't disagree.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:

kingstongraham said:

morstar said:

I can’t help but feel your outlier policy is very close to our actual policy.
We are aiming to be testing enough to understand what is happening and protect NHS capacity. No more.
GB testing will ramp up massively only when it is an antibody test they are happy with.

This is true, and I don't think it's really an outlier on here.

I just don't know.

I’d say we cover a broad spectrum and are fairly evenly distributed. There are two obvious outlier opinions, one at either end of the spectrum.

If that is a reference to me, I’m nowhere near as extreme as you make out, I’m just a lot angrier at how the govt has fumbled it than most people, and i can’t get my head around why more people can’t see it, so I’ve kicked off a bit to try and show you lot why you should be angry.

What I guess I hadn’t expected is most people are much more forgiving of their govt in the middle of a crisis or don’t find it helpful at all.

I can only hope that a) the bungling is mitigated by better action from now on and b) they get their comeuppance, though I am deeply sceptical of both right now.

Just on the Government thing, I don't think it's unreasonable to cut them some slack when they are dealing with something no Western country has dealt with in 100 years. Mistakes are being made as they are with most countries. There also doesn't seem much consistency in what does and doesn't work.

I also know there's an argument that we had the advantage of a couple of weeks seeing how it affected other countries but that really isn't much time to develop and implement policies on a massive scale. If they aren't better prepared for a second wave I'll be less generous.

Yeah I don’t cut them that slack. Absolutely not. Especially as others have done it better.

I do find it hard to separate it from the fact that going into this, multiple people in cabinet already had a reputation for being various shades of incompetent. I don’t care what colour your rosette is, I have never wanted low talent people in charge and this is why. Let alone two people including the PM who have lost jobs for lying.

I could also do without the dodging the questions and the lying about when BoJo was and wasn’t doing work; it leads me to believe they do not have the right priorities.

Same goes for not being part of the bulk EU PPE order. Their priorities were wrong.

When this was kicking off over in China Priti Patel was briefing against the civil service so badly to the point that he is sueing her!!!! Someone who lost her job once already for breaking the rules.

All of that stuff erodes the slack I would give them. I’m fairly confident they have made bad decisions and they have led to thousands more deaths than had they made better decisions. I also believe, though am less confident, that it was the hostile environment to advisors, civil servants and experts that they created that significantly impaired the decision making progress.

I am absolutely furious about it and I will do what little I can to make sure they are not let off the hook. I fear and think it is likely they will.

I find it hard to see why this is unreasonable as more or less everything I have pointed to is well documented. It just depends on whether you want to engage with it or not.

I'm not sure it's about cutting people slack - there will be plenty of time to pick over this and apportion blame where it's due in years to come. That said, even then the priority should be to learn from the mistakes which will save far more lives in future than destroying a few political careers. At the risk of sounding like some old hippy, getting angry in itself is useless.

coopster_the_1st

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Having just read the pages since I last posted (then spent a productive afternoon power hosing the patio and driveway) I can tell you there's a lot more agreement on this thread than you'd think as to the situation and the way out of this.

There's general agreement that just allowing the virus to spread (even within the capacity of the NHS) is an outlier opinion with an unacceptable death toll

That the current lockdown can't go on indefinitely and an exit strategy must be found

That the objective is to minimize the death count to buy more time, while causing the least amount of other harms

That the only 'final solution' is a vaccine whether a single vaccine, repeated or evolving.

That in the 'long run', in the absence of a vaccine, the virus will spread until herd immunity is achieved and this will come with a huge death toll (equal in the long run to just letting it spread but under NHS capacity)

That comparing to other countries isn't as straightforward as just comparing lines on a graph, there are reasons countries differ over and above government policy, but in there may be lessons to be learnt even in looking at these differences.

That the virus is widely spread through the UK so any exit strategy is going to be a huge undertaking


...


On tracing, testing & isolating I know we can't ever find 100% off the contacts (you wouldn't even know that you had) or stamp out the virus (no one ever claimed it would) but may, combined with social distancing and ongoing restrictions on our day to day life, be the only path out [accepting that just allowing the virus to spread (even within the capacity of the NHS) is an outlier opinion with an unacceptable death toll]

Apart from anything else it's going to be the best way to direct testing resources.

Some of that summarises pretty well, although the 'outlier' disagreement has already been mentioned.



It's not so much much question of allowing the spread - I don't believe it can be stopped, only slowed or managed. And on that basis, keeping it within NHS capacity is key.
.

As it see it

The 'mainstream' theory on here is minimizing the number of deaths by slowing the rate of infection and not breaching the NHS capacity constraints while trying to restore some semblance of normality

The 'outlier' theory treats the capacity of the NHS as a throughput target and includes deliberately loosening the social distancing rules in order to keep the infection rate high enough to 'process' the x thousand deaths to get to the target of 60% having had the virus and reaching theoretical herd immunity ASAP.

I don't believe a theory that includes, as part of a plan, 2000 deaths and 400,000 new cases daily can or should be considered mainstream

To put it in a bluntly 'The cure cannot be worse than the disease'.

Only this week the messaging has changed and now the 'cure' is leading the headlines ahead of the disease. The first question in yesterday's press conference was about the 'cure'. The pressure on the cure will further increase with time as more people wake up to effects of the 'cure'

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:

kingstongraham said:

morstar said:

I can’t help but feel your outlier policy is very close to our actual policy.
We are aiming to be testing enough to understand what is happening and protect NHS capacity. No more.
GB testing will ramp up massively only when it is an antibody test they are happy with.

This is true, and I don't think it's really an outlier on here.

I just don't know.

I’d say we cover a broad spectrum and are fairly evenly distributed. There are two obvious outlier opinions, one at either end of the spectrum.

If that is a reference to me, I’m nowhere near as extreme as you make out, I’m just a lot angrier at how the govt has fumbled it than most people, and i can’t get my head around why more people can’t see it, so I’ve kicked off a bit to try and show you lot why you should be angry.

What I guess I hadn’t expected is most people are much more forgiving of their govt in the middle of a crisis or don’t find it helpful at all.

I can only hope that a) the bungling is mitigated by better action from now on and b) they get their comeuppance, though I am deeply sceptical of both right now.

Just on the Government thing, I don't think it's unreasonable to cut them some slack when they are dealing with something no Western country has dealt with in 100 years. Mistakes are being made as they are with most countries. There also doesn't seem much consistency in what does and doesn't work.

I also know there's an argument that we had the advantage of a couple of weeks seeing how it affected other countries but that really isn't much time to develop and implement policies on a massive scale. If they aren't better prepared for a second wave I'll be less generous.

Yeah I don’t cut them that slack. Absolutely not. Especially as others have done it better.

I do find it hard to separate it from the fact that going into this, multiple people in cabinet already had a reputation for being various shades of incompetent. I don’t care what colour your rosette is, I have never wanted low talent people in charge and this is why. Let alone two people including the PM who have lost jobs for lying.

I could also do without the dodging the questions and the lying about when BoJo was and wasn’t doing work; it leads me to believe they do not have the right priorities.

Same goes for not being part of the bulk EU PPE order. Their priorities were wrong.

When this was kicking off over in China Priti Patel was briefing against the civil service so badly to the point that he is sueing her!!!! Someone who lost her job once already for breaking the rules.

All of that stuff erodes the slack I would give them. I’m fairly confident they have made bad decisions and they have led to thousands more deaths than had they made better decisions. I also believe, though am less confident, that it was the hostile environment to advisors, civil servants and experts that they created that significantly impaired the decision making progress.

I am absolutely furious about it and I will do what little I can to make sure they are not let off the hook. I fear and think it is likely they will.

I find it hard to see why this is unreasonable as more or less everything I have pointed to is well documented. It just depends on whether you want to engage with it or not.

I'm not sure it's about cutting people slack - there will be plenty of time to pick over this and apportion blame where it's due in years to come. That said, even then the priority should be to learn from the mistakes which will save far more lives in future than destroying a few political careers. At the risk of sounding like some old hippy, getting angry in itself is useless.

Most things are useless re politics during social distancing.

Shrugging your shoulders is equally useless.

In hindsight there has always been an acceptance of mediocrity so I should have figured.

rick_chasey

What I don’t quite understand is why in Italy and Spain the death rate isn’t dropping faster.

Surely if the majority of the nation is being quite strict with social distancing, after 3-4 weeks there should be a really big drop off. Yet they’re still running at 500 deaths a day.

morstar

rick_chasey said:

What I don’t quite understand is why in Italy and Spain the death rate isn’t dropping faster.

Surely if the majority of the nation is being quite strict with social distancing, after 3-4 weeks there should be a really big drop off. Yet they’re still running at 500 deaths a day.

So here’s the thing, you are judging the government on absolutes when so much of this is completely unclear as per this point.

I actually think your passionate ‘rant’ about our cabinet makes more sense than your arguments over the last few days. Whether I agree or not.

However, to add into the mix of random consequences...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-52230081

Only mild at the minute but this sort of thing is going to get more and more problematic as time goes on.

First.Aspect

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

What I don’t quite understand is why in Italy and Spain the death rate isn’t dropping faster.

Surely if the majority of the nation is being quite strict with social distancing, after 3-4 weeks there should be a really big drop off. Yet they’re still running at 500 deaths a day.

So here’s the thing, you are judging the government on absolutes when so much of this is completely unclear as per this point.

I actually think your passionate ‘rant’ about our cabinet makes more sense than your arguments over the last few days. Whether I agree or not.

However, to add into the mix of random consequences...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-52230081

Only mild at the minute but this sort of thing is going to get more and more problematic as time goes on.

I can help here - that is Morningside. People act like that towards each other anyway.

sungod

rick_chasey said:

What I don’t quite understand is why in Italy and Spain the death rate isn’t dropping faster.

Surely if the majority of the nation is being quite strict with social distancing, after 3-4 weeks there should be a really big drop off. Yet they’re still running at 500 deaths a day.

afaik 3-4 weeks isn't long enough

one factor may be that as the pressure eases and experience is gained they are keeping people alive for longer but without a major improvement in recovery rate, i.e. the daily death rate drops, but a similar proportion of people still die, giving a long tail in the numbers

Pross

Trump suspends funding to the WHO for failing in their duties. Of only they had dealt with it as well as Trump has. Definitely one for the irony thread.

Jeremy.89

rick_chasey said:

What I don’t quite understand is why in Italy and Spain the death rate isn’t dropping faster.

Surely if the majority of the nation is being quite strict with social distancing, after 3-4 weeks there should be a really big drop off. Yet they’re still running at 500 deaths a day.

There was exponential growth in the number of deaths. It appears this is no longer the case.

More and more I'm thinking the death count is a terrible measure of how we're doing, you need accurate case data. At the moment we have more deaths than country x, but is that just because we have more cases, or is it because more of our cases are dying or is it because...

rick_chasey

For those who can read it, a deep dive into the battle at the heart of the of British science on Corona

https://www.ft.com/content/1e390ac6-7e2c-11ea-8fdb-7ec06edeef84

kingstongraham

rick_chasey said:

For those who can read it, a deep dive into the battle at the heart of the of British science on Corona

https://www.ft.com/content/1e390ac6-7e2c-11ea-8fdb-7ec06edeef84

That one is free to all, I think. Interesting reading.

kingstongraham

Pross said:

Trump suspends funding to the WHO for failing in their duties. Of only they had dealt with it as well as Trump has. Definitely one for the irony thread.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't know what they do.

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

Trump suspends funding to the WHO for failing in their duties. Of only they had dealt with it as well as Trump has. Definitely one for the irony thread.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't know what they do.

"Whu" is a Chinese word. That's a bad thing. A very bad thing. We are looking at that. We have some good people looking into that.

Can someone paraphrase the FT article? Not free.

kingstongraham

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

Trump suspends funding to the WHO for failing in their duties. Of only they had dealt with it as well as Trump has. Definitely one for the irony thread.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't know what they do.

"Whu" is a Chinese word. That's a bad thing. A very bad thing. We are looking at that. We have some good people looking into that.

Can someone paraphrase the FT article? Not free.

weird, I clicked through from twitter on my phone and read it, but not available on the browser.

tailwindhome

There's always a tweet

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1220818115354923009?s=20

rick_chasey

sungod said:

rick_chasey said:

What I don’t quite understand is why in Italy and Spain the death rate isn’t dropping faster.

Surely if the majority of the nation is being quite strict with social distancing, after 3-4 weeks there should be a really big drop off. Yet they’re still running at 500 deaths a day.

afaik 3-4 weeks isn't long enough

one factor may be that as the pressure eases and experience is gained they are keeping people alive for longer but without a major improvement in recovery rate, i.e. the daily death rate drops, but a similar proportion of people still die, giving a long tail in the numbers

It could also mean people are transmitters for a lot longer than 2 weeks.

We don't know because there isn't enough testing.

coopster_the_1st

For all those thinking that testing is way out of this:

I've been reading an account of someone who was hospitalised after 9 days with C19(all the symptoms), a chest x-ray confirmed it looked like C19 however the swab test performed in hospital around the same time came back negative.

If the 'has it' swab test cannot provide an accurate result for someone who has been hospitalised with the virus, the WHO advice is wrong. As has been stated before a wrong test result is worse than no test.

Stevo_666

Interesting article this morning about NHS capacity:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/14/just-19-patients-treated-easter-weekend-4000-bed-nhs-nightingale/

Not sure if people can read it but the text in the link gives a hint. Only 19 people were treated in the Nightingale hospital (London Excel) which has a 4,000 bed capacity. London hospital ICU capacity did not exceed 80% over that period, so the Nightingale must have been dealing with overspill in a few individual hospitals.

It appears that the strategy of keeping within NHS ICU capacity is working so far.

Pross

coopster_the_1st said:

For all those thinking that testing is way out of this:

I've been reading an account of someone who was hospitalised after 9 days with C19(all the symptoms), a chest x-ray confirmed it looked like C19 however the swab test performed in hospital around the same time came back negative.

If the 'has it' swab test cannot provide an accurate result for someone who has been hospitalised with the virus, the WHO advice is wrong. As has been stated before a wrong test result is worse than no test.

It will depend on how often it's wrong though. If it's right 99% of the time it shouldn't be a major issue (other than to the person with the virus of course) but if it is regularly wrong and leads to people going to work in a hospital or care home with the virus it becomes a big problem. I don't think the Government is overly confident in it at the moment though.

kingstongraham

coopster_the_1st said:

For all those thinking that testing is way out of this:

I've been reading an account of someone who was hospitalised after 9 days with C19(all the symptoms), a chest x-ray confirmed it looked like C19 however the swab test performed in hospital around the same time came back negative.

If the 'has it' swab test cannot provide an accurate result for someone who has been hospitalised with the virus, the WHO advice is wrong. As has been stated before a wrong test result is worse than no test.

That depends on how it is wrong, and how often it is wrong, and what you do based on the results.

Imagine that a test gives a positive 95% of the time if someone has the virus, and a negative 100% of the time if someone does not. If you test everyone who has come into contact with someone who has developed symptoms, you will isolate 95% of those who potentially have it. Some proportion of those 5% will still have it and not be isolated, and most will then develop symptoms, and you can detect their contacts etc.

Sounds better than waiting for the symptoms to develop in 100% of them.

Jeremy.89

coopster_the_1st said:

For all those thinking that testing is way out of this:

I've been reading an account of someone who was hospitalised after 9 days with C19(all the symptoms), a chest x-ray confirmed it looked like C19 however the swab test performed in hospital around the same time came back negative.

If the 'has it' swab test cannot provide an accurate result for someone who has been hospitalised with the virus, the WHO advice is wrong. As has been stated before a wrong test result is worse than no test.

It really does depend on the frequency of events like this though. Given the scale of the problem, unfortunately a few false negatives are going to occur.

coopster_the_1st

Pross said:

coopster_the_1st said:

For all those thinking that testing is way out of this:

I've been reading an account of someone who was hospitalised after 9 days with C19(all the symptoms), a chest x-ray confirmed it looked like C19 however the swab test performed in hospital around the same time came back negative.

If the 'has it' swab test cannot provide an accurate result for someone who has been hospitalised with the virus, the WHO advice is wrong. As has been stated before a wrong test result is worse than no test.

It will depend on how often it's wrong though. If it's right 99% of the time it shouldn't be a major issue (other than to the person with the virus of course) but if it is regularly wrong and leads to people going to work in a hospital or care home with the virus it becomes a big problem. I don't think the Government is overly confident in it at the moment though.

I agree that the scientists and government are not overly confident in the test currently.

It does feel like the testing uplift is being done in response to the media narrative. It's not like Matt Hancock can respond by saying we only have x% confidence in the current test.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

sungod said:

rick_chasey said:

What I don’t quite understand is why in Italy and Spain the death rate isn’t dropping faster.

Surely if the majority of the nation is being quite strict with social distancing, after 3-4 weeks there should be a really big drop off. Yet they’re still running at 500 deaths a day.

afaik 3-4 weeks isn't long enough

one factor may be that as the pressure eases and experience is gained they are keeping people alive for longer but without a major improvement in recovery rate, i.e. the daily death rate drops, but a similar proportion of people still die, giving a long tail in the numbers

It could also mean people are transmitters for a lot longer than 2 weeks.

We don't know because there isn't enough testing.

I'm sorry but this just isn't true. To the extent we, the entire species (rather than this insignificant northern bit of it) don't know because the pathogen is 4 months old.

Besides, it IS known that people are not carriers after recovery. There are a tiny, tiny number of unverified cases suggesting otherwise, but these are most likely due to errors in early testing and diagnosis. What isn't known is how much immunity builds up or lasts, or how fast it will mutate, or how it will mutate. Are you critical of a lack of time travel and future testing? Or just shouting at the wind?

It is also well understood that there is around a 4 week lag in admissions and fatality figures. This is because most people are dying from pneumonia, which develops after a couple of weeks. Dying of pneumonia then takes a while longer thereafter, so bear with people while they get on with that.

If you insist on banging your little drum Rick, at least do it right.

pangolin

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rick_chasey said:

Even Sunak’s money-printer-goes-brrr has run aground at the delivery point, which is as critical as the policy in the first place at this point.

It's this sort of comment that puts you at the extreme negative end of the spectrum. You post what come across as snide criticisms without posting any detail. It's not helpful.

Also, maybe some of us slightly older than yourself accept that errors will have been made but that those in charge are desperately trying to make good choices for the benefit of us all.

Many of us also understand that short term figures are not a good measure of a medium or longer term situation.

This isn’t snide. It’s a real problem. Businesses that are eligible can’t get the money.

How is that not a critical problem?

You are being a bit vague here. Last I read the means to claim funding for furloughed employees was an online portal due to go live I think 20th April.

Are you referring to the fact that it's not live yet (agree this is not great) or some other deeper issue?

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

For those who can read it, a deep dive into the battle at the heart of the of British science on Corona

https://www.ft.com/content/1e390ac6-7e2c-11ea-8fdb-7ec06edeef84

That one is free to all, I think. Interesting reading.

Some interesting stuff there.

- It demonstrates the complexity of the issue hence the lack of agreement between experts etc
- I understand better now the relationship between track and trace to minimising the number quarantined. But given the fundamental doubts expressed over whether track and trace is workable and various reasons put forward on here, I don't think it is a practically viable strategy.
- The point about only quarantining say 10% of the population points toward what I mentioned before, I.e. a lifting of the lockdown but keeping it in place for the elderly and vulnerable until a vaccine is found - which would make sense in terms of both medical risk mitigation and the economy (given that those who remain in lockdown are less likely to be economically active).