The big Coronavirus thread

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

The green line looks remarkably like what we might be living. Holds up quite well, might drop a bit quicker because we have suppressed harder than the report suggests.

I can't believe anyone tolerating that massive spike in October?

I struggle to believe anyone that thinks we have a choice, far less being in control.

Keep up social distancing

Only works if everybody adheres. Long term, I am doubtful.
In fact, evidence is very much against.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

Hancock dangerously close to taking responsibility for outcomes just now. He stated that decisions are made by politicians and that the scientists / experts just provide the information on which those decisions are made.

Some on here will no doubt be pleased to hear the emphasis now on test, track and trace and they are still claiming they'll hit that 100,000 a day target on time.

Naturally am deeply sceptical of that claim but hopefully because the issue is logistics more than capacity (for now...!) they can ramp it up sooner.

I bet they will regret saying keeping deaths below 20,000 will be a success...

Maybe Hancock realises he is the patsy so looking to take a few with him.

The capacity has always been there in private labs and universities, the diversification of which would solve many of the logistical problems. The problem is political so maybe if the pressure gets too great they will admit they made a mistake and rectify it.

Fvckers will probably claim the promise was capacity not conducting

sungod

Pross said:

Presumably London based journalist (slight paraphrasing): you said London is 2 weeks ahead of everyone else, any chance you can ease the restrictions on us first please as we're more important?

earlier this week a bristol journalist asked the same question about bristol, non-londoner thinking they're more important

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

https://t.co/0T8QaQFeAx?amp=1

Gilead - China I think. Gilead are one of the big big boys so it’s a real shame.

They are anti-viral specialists.

Ah. Not a vaccine, but one of the trials of existing antivirals.

No idea how they are supposed to work. I'm guessing that Gilead will take these results and try to figure out what the people for whom it wasn't effective (and/or ineffective) had in common. So it might not be a dead end.

If the world has a range of things that help some people, it could knock the corners of this.

First.Aspect

sungod said:

Pross said:

Presumably London based journalist (slight paraphrasing): you said London is 2 weeks ahead of everyone else, any chance you can ease the restrictions on us first please as we're more important?

earlier this week a bristol journalist asked the same question about bristol, non-londoner thinking they're more important

Christ you should try Scotland. The relentless specialness of Scots interests.make you want to scream.

morstar

Does Lockdown threaten broadcast TV? Won't be much original content soon.

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

The green line looks remarkably like what we might be living. Holds up quite well, might drop a bit quicker because we have suppressed harder than the report suggests.

I can't believe anyone tolerating that massive spike in October?

I struggle to believe anyone that thinks we have a choice, far less being in control.

Keep up social distancing

Only works if everybody adheres. Long term, I am doubtful.
In fact, evidence is very much against.

I can't remember where I read or heard it (I listen to a lot of podcasts) but sociologists are pretty sure that this is the case, which is why they were so concerned about the delicate timing of lockdown. They also identify the demographics most likely to decide they know best. Hence my post earlier about young males and, oddly, middle aged males (like me). I'm increasingly worried about the second wave. I kind of hope somewhere else, like Georgia, get a really bad one and the rest of the world learns from it. Sorry to anyone in Atlanta.

coopster_the_1st

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

The green line looks remarkably like what we might be living. Holds up quite well, might drop a bit quicker because we have suppressed harder than the report suggests.

I can't believe anyone tolerating that massive spike in October?

I struggle to believe anyone that thinks we have a choice, far less being in control.

Keep up social distancing

Only works if everybody adheres. Long term, I am doubtful.
In fact, evidence is very much against.

I can't remember where I read or heard it (I listen to a lot of podcasts) but sociologists are pretty sure that this is the case, which is why they were so concerned about the delicate timing of lockdown. They also identify the demographics most likely to decide they know best. Hence my post earlier about young males and, oddly, middle aged males (like me). I'm increasingly worried about the second wave. I kind of hope somewhere else, like Georgia, get a really bad one and the rest of the world learns from it. Sorry to anyone in Atlanta.

There is a big risk that if the lockdown goes on to long and we get a good weather day, probably a weekend day, and mass disobedience will start somewhere and roll across the country fuelled by twitter. The risk would have been much bigger had we gone down the Spanish lockdown route but the 1 piece of exercise a day is a good thing as it allows the pressure to be let off.

The length of time to attain herd immunity is one of the reasons why I have always argued that we need to run this hot, as the expression goes. Indirectly it will help maintain the social distancing measures in place at the time as well. The more infection/immunity we have the smaller the second spike will be, if there is even one. I doubt very much Sweden will see a second spike and the risk lowers for them with each passing day.

Or the economic situation could force a fast unwinding of the lockdown. Again the more infection/immunity we have the smaller the second spike.

coopster_the_1st

kingstongraham said:

morstar said:

So, here's the thing some people need to get their head round...

Even with perfect data and with dynamic responses to all feedback...

The government's role will continue to be one of balancing mortality against other factors. It will not automatically become to simply minimise mortality at all costs unless that is considered the optimal outcome.

If mortality were the only factor, speed limits would be 5mph and cars would be wrapped in foam. We all balance risks every single day.

Coopsters position is logical but extreme. Mine is probably fatalistically pragmatic and much less extreme but some seem to be arguing from emotional and naive positions. I think there is an element of collective denial.

I think Coopster's position is misunderstood. It definitely isn't "let it rip" - I think it is very much more like the general consensus, but more fatalistic than me. A summary might be: Keep the vulnerable as safe as possible, keep the health service out of crisis, but don't think you can limit the spread long term.

This is pretty much sums up my position however I would add the longer this goes on the more 'collateral damage' there will be. You can't just focus on the C19 deaths as you miss the bigger picture.

The faster we have heard immunity the quicker the emotional side of relationships can return e.g. kids hugging their grandparents, etc

My position is not extreme, I just put it forward it without the emotion attached. It comes across as harsh because others are distracted by their emotion as @morstar points out.

Pross

morstar said:

Does Lockdown threaten broadcast TV? Won't be much original content soon.

Netflix due to run out of new content in around June or July I think I heard yesterday. BBC will go back to repeats so will basically be Gold without any adverts plus stuff that was previously shown of BBC3 and BBC4.

Pross

sungod said:

Pross said:

Presumably London based journalist (slight paraphrasing): you said London is 2 weeks ahead of everyone else, any chance you can ease the restrictions on us first please as we're more important?

earlier this week a bristol journalist asked the same question about bristol, non-londoner thinking they're more important

Yeah, but I think most people's assumption (certainly on here) is that if it was staggered you'd start with the less densely populated areas that avoided large numbers of cases this time around rather than the area that was worst hit and has by far the largest population concentration.

morstar

Pross said:

morstar said:

Does Lockdown threaten broadcast TV? Won't be much original content soon.

Netflix due to run out of new content in around June or July I think I heard yesterday. BBC will go back to repeats so will basically be Gold without any adverts plus stuff that was previously shown of BBC3 and BBC4.

It's interesting though. I think it is less pressing for Netflix as you select content from a huge library. They will hurt the longer it goes on but broadcasters have to fill schedules. Like you, I drew the analogy to Gold in my head but I think it is a very tired format for most. Especially the younger audience.
It will be fascinating to see what the creatives come up with as a solution.
I think we should dub loads of overseas content.

Pross

Unfortunately from what I've seen so far it looks like the artistic geniuses are going down the 'best of' clips route and trying to force live TV to work through video call input which isn't working well.

pblakeney

morstar said:

I think we should dub loads of overseas content.

That reminds me. My order of the original full 5 hour series version of Das Boot is overdue.

morstar

coopster_the_1st said:

kingstongraham said:

morstar said:

So, here's the thing some people need to get their head round...

Even with perfect data and with dynamic responses to all feedback...

The government's role will continue to be one of balancing mortality against other factors. It will not automatically become to simply minimise mortality at all costs unless that is considered the optimal outcome.

If mortality were the only factor, speed limits would be 5mph and cars would be wrapped in foam. We all balance risks every single day.

Coopsters position is logical but extreme. Mine is probably fatalistically pragmatic and much less extreme but some seem to be arguing from emotional and naive positions. I think there is an element of collective denial.

I think Coopster's position is misunderstood. It definitely isn't "let it rip" - I think it is very much more like the general consensus, but more fatalistic than me. A summary might be: Keep the vulnerable as safe as possible, keep the health service out of crisis, but don't think you can limit the spread long term.

This is pretty much sums up my position however I would add the longer this goes on the more 'collateral damage' there will be. You can't just focus on the C19 deaths as you miss the bigger picture.

The faster we have heard immunity the quicker the emotional side of relationships can return e.g. kids hugging their grandparents, etc

My position is not extreme, I just put it forward it without the emotion attached. It comes across as harsh because others are distracted by their emotion as @morstar points out.

I can't fault the logic of your position.
I think the focus solely on the economic imperative in earlier posts is what made it extreme and harder to swallow for many. I think the justification is broader than that. But ultimately, it's semantics. Unless the confidence factor in an early vaccine is extremely high, like you, I think we do need to get through this sooner rather than later.

I think as a society there are parallels to grief and dealing with a severe diagnosis.
Denial, anger, desperation, despair etc.
One of my main points has been that people are judging the UK government against failure to deliver outcomes there is no evidence they are targeting.

surrey_commuter

Pross said:

sungod said:

Pross said:

Presumably London based journalist (slight paraphrasing): you said London is 2 weeks ahead of everyone else, any chance you can ease the restrictions on us first please as we're more important?

earlier this week a bristol journalist asked the same question about bristol, non-londoner thinking they're more important

Yeah, but I think most people's assumption (certainly on here) is that if it was staggered you'd start with the less densely populated areas that avoided large numbers of cases this time around rather than the area that was worst hit and has by far the largest population concentration.

I think we have found out that if you opened up the provinces first then it would be ruined by cock yes fleeing the smoke. If London opened first it would be those city slickers looking after number one.

I suspect to save the potato harvest they will have an inappropriate nationwide policy. Though Sturgeon May put a spanner in those works

TheBigBean

morstar said:

Does Lockdown threaten broadcast TV? Won't be much original content soon.

Currently no finale being filmed to the virus invested world of Walking Dead due to the virus infested real world.

tailwindhome

morstar said:

Does Lockdown threaten broadcast TV? Won't be much original content soon.

The other problems are advertising revenues and an entire summer of live sport gone from the schedules

coopster_the_1st

morstar said:

coopster_the_1st said:

kingstongraham said:

morstar said:

So, here's the thing some people need to get their head round...

Even with perfect data and with dynamic responses to all feedback...

The government's role will continue to be one of balancing mortality against other factors. It will not automatically become to simply minimise mortality at all costs unless that is considered the optimal outcome.

If mortality were the only factor, speed limits would be 5mph and cars would be wrapped in foam. We all balance risks every single day.

Coopsters position is logical but extreme. Mine is probably fatalistically pragmatic and much less extreme but some seem to be arguing from emotional and naive positions. I think there is an element of collective denial.

I think Coopster's position is misunderstood. It definitely isn't "let it rip" - I think it is very much more like the general consensus, but more fatalistic than me. A summary might be: Keep the vulnerable as safe as possible, keep the health service out of crisis, but don't think you can limit the spread long term.

This is pretty much sums up my position however I would add the longer this goes on the more 'collateral damage' there will be. You can't just focus on the C19 deaths as you miss the bigger picture.

The faster we have heard immunity the quicker the emotional side of relationships can return e.g. kids hugging their grandparents, etc

My position is not extreme, I just put it forward it without the emotion attached. It comes across as harsh because others are distracted by their emotion as @morstar points out.

I can't fault the logic of your position.
I think the focus solely on the economic imperative in earlier posts is what made it extreme and harder to swallow for many. I think the justification is broader than that. But ultimately, it's semantics. Unless the confidence factor in an early vaccine is extremely high, like you, I think we do need to get through this sooner rather than later.

I think as a society there are parallels to grief and dealing with a severe diagnosis.
Denial, anger, desperation, despair etc.
One of my main points has been that people are judging the UK government against failure to deliver outcomes there is no evidence they are targeting.

I don't think I put my point forward very well in the early stages but the economic side was the only point of reference we had. At the time we were not in lockdown, had very little data and that we did was Chinese rubbish, no Nightingale hospitals, Boris healthy, etc. To put some perspective on how fast things have changed, we locked down on this date a month ago.

I wrote this paragraph on 22nd March as part of a longer post and this is what has driven my view of how this will play out.


You are correct I have thought this through. Medical advancement has been great at keeping people alive when 100 years ago they would have died. All over the natural world Mother Nature removes the weak. Human medical advancements has been pushing back against mother nature and will continue to do so. However no matter how much we do, mother nature will eventually get ahead of us and that is Covid-19.

rick_chasey

So to give that 300,000 figure context, Cambridge, my home town, has a population of roughly 120-130,000.

Jeremy.89

morstar said:

coopster_the_1st said:

kingstongraham said:

morstar said:

So, here's the thing some people need to get their head round...

Even with perfect data and with dynamic responses to all feedback...

The government's role will continue to be one of balancing mortality against other factors. It will not automatically become to simply minimise mortality at all costs unless that is considered the optimal outcome.

If mortality were the only factor, speed limits would be 5mph and cars would be wrapped in foam. We all balance risks every single day.

Coopsters position is logical but extreme. Mine is probably fatalistically pragmatic and much less extreme but some seem to be arguing from emotional and naive positions. I think there is an element of collective denial.

I think Coopster's position is misunderstood. It definitely isn't "let it rip" - I think it is very much more like the general consensus, but more fatalistic than me. A summary might be: Keep the vulnerable as safe as possible, keep the health service out of crisis, but don't think you can limit the spread long term.

This is pretty much sums up my position however I would add the longer this goes on the more 'collateral damage' there will be. You can't just focus on the C19 deaths as you miss the bigger picture.

The faster we have heard immunity the quicker the emotional side of relationships can return e.g. kids hugging their grandparents, etc

My position is not extreme, I just put it forward it without the emotion attached. It comes across as harsh because others are distracted by their emotion as @morstar points out.

I can't fault the logic of your position.
I think the focus solely on the economic imperative in earlier posts is what made it extreme and harder to swallow for many. I think the justification is broader than that. But ultimately, it's semantics. Unless the confidence factor in an early vaccine is extremely high, like you, I think we do need to get through this sooner rather than later.

I think as a society there are parallels to grief and dealing with a severe diagnosis.
Denial, anger, desperation, despair etc.
One of my main points has been that people are judging the UK government against failure to deliver outcomes there is no evidence they are targeting.

The economic effects of over running the NHS are not insignificant. Much of the lockdown was already informally occurring before it was made policy.

Companies that have successfully managed to implement working from home are going to struggle to entice people back to the office. What does that mean for city centre coffee shops and restaurants that theoretically could open and maintain social distancing...

It's difficult to see any getting back to normal without a vaccine or a vast improvement in the treatment of this.

coopster_the_1st

rick_chasey said:

So to give that 300,000 figure context, Cambridge, my home town, has a population of roughly 120-130,000.

300k. That was roughly 1 years worth of EU net migration before the Brexit vote. You were arguing that it was an inconsequential number back then...

morstar

rick_chasey said:

So to give that 300,000 figure context, Cambridge, my home town, has a population of roughly 120-130,000.

The numbers are horrific. No joking about that.

But people are dying across the world of avoidable problems in huge numbers all the time. We in the first world have just got used to being a very fortunate position of it always being a long way away.

I am as selfish as anybody in not wanting this hideous virus to directly impact me or my family but I am ultimately quite fatalistic about the fact that mass death has arrived at our doorstep. I don't like it one little bit, but it has.

kingstongraham

Again, how many restaurants could make money when the best they can do is 30% of capacity?

Is somewhere like Alton towers going to open this year? No chance of social distancing there.

I doubt it. The next year's going to be very different, and quite dull.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

So to give that 300,000 figure context, Cambridge, my home town, has a population of roughly 120-130,000.

The SI unit for a large number of people is the "Wembley". 300000 is around 3.3 Wbl's

300000 is roughly 50% of the UK national annual average, for other context. The question statisticians will be trying to answer is how many of the 300k Covid deaths are the same as the 600k annual deaths. Depressingly, that does actually matter.

Stevo_666

tailwindhome said:

Pross said:

Some on here will no doubt be pleased to hear the emphasis now on test, track and trace and they are still claiming they'll hit that 100,000 a day target on time.

It's the only show in town.

You think that will be the only thing we will do post lockdown?

morstar

Jeremy.89 said:

morstar said:

coopster_the_1st said:

kingstongraham said:

morstar said:

So, here's the thing some people need to get their head round...

Even with perfect data and with dynamic responses to all feedback...

The government's role will continue to be one of balancing mortality against other factors. It will not automatically become to simply minimise mortality at all costs unless that is considered the optimal outcome.

If mortality were the only factor, speed limits would be 5mph and cars would be wrapped in foam. We all balance risks every single day.

Coopsters position is logical but extreme. Mine is probably fatalistically pragmatic and much less extreme but some seem to be arguing from emotional and naive positions. I think there is an element of collective denial.

I think Coopster's position is misunderstood. It definitely isn't "let it rip" - I think it is very much more like the general consensus, but more fatalistic than me. A summary might be: Keep the vulnerable as safe as possible, keep the health service out of crisis, but don't think you can limit the spread long term.

This is pretty much sums up my position however I would add the longer this goes on the more 'collateral damage' there will be. You can't just focus on the C19 deaths as you miss the bigger picture.

The faster we have heard immunity the quicker the emotional side of relationships can return e.g. kids hugging their grandparents, etc

My position is not extreme, I just put it forward it without the emotion attached. It comes across as harsh because others are distracted by their emotion as @morstar points out.

I can't fault the logic of your position.
I think the focus solely on the economic imperative in earlier posts is what made it extreme and harder to swallow for many. I think the justification is broader than that. But ultimately, it's semantics. Unless the confidence factor in an early vaccine is extremely high, like you, I think we do need to get through this sooner rather than later.

I think as a society there are parallels to grief and dealing with a severe diagnosis.
Denial, anger, desperation, despair etc.
One of my main points has been that people are judging the UK government against failure to deliver outcomes there is no evidence they are targeting.

The economic effects of over running the NHS are not insignificant. Much of the lockdown was already informally occurring before it was made policy.

Companies that have successfully managed to implement working from home are going to struggle to entice people back to the office. What does that mean for city centre coffee shops and restaurants that theoretically could open and maintain social distancing...

It's difficult to see any getting back to normal without a vaccine or a vast improvement in the treatment of this.

I agree. Keeping under NHS capacity is what I believe to be the extent of UK government policy and I think that is the correct approach.

Jeremy.89

kingstongraham said:

Again, how many restaurants could make money when the best they can do is 30% of capacity?

Is somewhere like Alton towers going to open this year? No chance of social distancing there.

I doubt it. The next year's going to be very different, and quite dull.

Perhaps with lower staffing, more take outs, and reduced rent costs, some resturants could make it work.

There's a good argument that landlords should be prepared to take it on the chin atm, as I cant see anyone coming into the resturant business for a long time.

But basically it's a censored sandwich. There's no magic switch to turn the economy back on, but that would have been the case without the lockdown. At least for the moment we've kept a lid on the deaths.

morstar

Developing world will be interesting statistically.

I posted much earlier in the outbreak how bad things could be in developing nations with poor healthcare.

It could potentially be the opposite with the elderly and frail being statistically far fewer in the developing world.

kingstonian

rick_chasey said:

So to give that 300,000 figure context, Cambridge, my home town, has a population of roughly 120-130,000.

The capacity of Wembley stadium, three times over. And anyone that has stood in Wembley Way waiting to get to the tube station after a game knows how many that is.