The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
I don't think you've thought this through. 600k ish is normal, fine.coopster_the_1st said:
I didn't predict 1% but keep making it uppblakeney said:
Looks like your 1% was clairvoyant. Who’s looking forward to 660,000 dead?coopster_the_1st said:
The only accurate number is deaths.kingstonian said:rjsterry said:
Absolute numbers are less relevant than per capita figures. There is also substantial variation in testing regimes so the numbers of cases do not accurately reflect total infections.surrey_commuter said:
OK, I get yours (and RJST’s) points about the scale but why does this not mean that Boris’s plan is not working and our number of deaths is not outstripping countries who have tried to control the spread.rick_chasey said:
People also seem to forget the y axis isn’t linear...surrey_commuter said:
That looks like we are about to take a decisive leadtailwindhome said:Tracking deaths instead of positives
Personally I would have learnt from the countries on the right of the graph.
The graph is trying to show rate of fatal infections over time. This is of interest given our strategy is to slow the rate of infection rather than prevent it. The graph isn't wrong but the other variables make it dangerous to draw conclusions on whether our strategy is working from this alone. I'm not sure a graph with just two variables will answer that question.
Some other figures
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Although even this has fairly obvious flaws. There is no way we have had 1300-odd cases and only 20 recovered - we just aren't counting the recoveries.
Yep, I've been suspicious of the validity of the "Recoveries" number for a week or so now. The number of "recoveries" had remained at 18 for about 10 days, and only trickled up to 20 yesterday. The true number will be much higher.
Test numbers are now a pointless stat as are recovery stats as how many people have recovered from it at home?
“ Deputy Chief Medical Officer for England Dr Jenny Harries also warns against a "direct comparison" between virus case rates in Italy and the UK, saying this should be done with "caution".
She says that the case fatality rate is around 10% in Italy, as opposed to 4% in the UK - but it depends how cases are counted.
She says there are differences in testing, with more serious cases being tested in the UK, for example.
She adds that they feel the eventual mortality rate for the virus will be around 1%.”
How many of those 660k are going to be double counted deaths?
My guess would be 500k-600k based on 620k people dying each year
If its as bad as 1 percent that's 660k or so dying with/from covid.
Some of those 660k would have been in that 600k, agreed.
But now we have a health system at it's knees for months (with doctors and nurses who would probably not have been in that 600k also dying).
That 600k 'normal' figure is only where it is because we have a functioning NHS.
How many extra people, who would have recieved treatment and recovered, will now die? You have absolutely no idea. How dreadful will it be for those people making those decisions every day?
And that's what you're saying we should just let happen?
The more troubling option is that you have thought this through.sam0 -
Germany has banned public gatherings of more than 2.0
-
2 people is not a gathering. Ok, for full disclosure, neither is 3.0
-
Partial lockdown implemented in two biggest states here, borders “closed” internally, and a raft of other measures. The social distancing concept was mandated last week, but deemed a failure when thousands turned up at Bondi Beach on a nice day to go swimming. Mostly youth / backpackers who at interview appeared indignant that anyone should stop them “living”, and having a good time.
Govt now closed beaches, and advised breach may result in 6 months jail. As of today, pubs, clubs, cinemas, restaurant dine-in, casinos and thankfully also “places of worship” must close.Open One+ BMC TE29 Seven 622SL On One Scandal Cervelo RS0 -
Re-reading my post let me clarify something, I should have said 500-600k over a 2 year period. I have said on another post to get expect around 1000 deaths a day for a long period of time.sampangolin said:
I don't think you've thought this through. 600k ish is normal, fine.coopster_the_1st said:
I didn't predict 1% but keep making it uppblakeney said:
Looks like your 1% was clairvoyant. Who’s looking forward to 660,000 dead?coopster_the_1st said:
The only accurate number is deaths.kingstonian said:rjsterry said:
Absolute numbers are less relevant than per capita figures. There is also substantial variation in testing regimes so the numbers of cases do not accurately reflect total infections.surrey_commuter said:
OK, I get yours (and RJST’s) points about the scale but why does this not mean that Boris’s plan is not working and our number of deaths is not outstripping countries who have tried to control the spread.rick_chasey said:
People also seem to forget the y axis isn’t linear...surrey_commuter said:
That looks like we are about to take a decisive leadtailwindhome said:Tracking deaths instead of positives
Personally I would have learnt from the countries on the right of the graph.
The graph is trying to show rate of fatal infections over time. This is of interest given our strategy is to slow the rate of infection rather than prevent it. The graph isn't wrong but the other variables make it dangerous to draw conclusions on whether our strategy is working from this alone. I'm not sure a graph with just two variables will answer that question.
Some other figures
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Although even this has fairly obvious flaws. There is no way we have had 1300-odd cases and only 20 recovered - we just aren't counting the recoveries.
Yep, I've been suspicious of the validity of the "Recoveries" number for a week or so now. The number of "recoveries" had remained at 18 for about 10 days, and only trickled up to 20 yesterday. The true number will be much higher.
Test numbers are now a pointless stat as are recovery stats as how many people have recovered from it at home?
“ Deputy Chief Medical Officer for England Dr Jenny Harries also warns against a "direct comparison" between virus case rates in Italy and the UK, saying this should be done with "caution".
She says that the case fatality rate is around 10% in Italy, as opposed to 4% in the UK - but it depends how cases are counted.
She says there are differences in testing, with more serious cases being tested in the UK, for example.
She adds that they feel the eventual mortality rate for the virus will be around 1%.”
How many of those 660k are going to be double counted deaths?
My guess would be 500k-600k based on 620k people dying each year
If its as bad as 1 percent that's 660k or so dying with/from covid.
Some of those 660k would have been in that 600k, agreed.
But now we have a health system at it's knees for months (with doctors and nurses who would probably not have been in that 600k also dying).
That 600k 'normal' figure is only where it is because we have a functioning NHS.
How many extra people, who would have recieved treatment and recovered, will now die? You have absolutely no idea. How dreadful will it be for those people making those decisions every day?
And that's what you're saying we should just let happen?
The more troubling option is that you have thought this through.
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.
Because C19 is a new virus it is classified as a pandemic but I believe within a few years it be classified as endemic and treated as such with a vacine the same as the yearly flu vacine.
My argument is that anything up to 80% of those who die from C19 would have died in the next 2 years. So 99% of the current UK population are going to have huge economic and mental hardship imposed on us and have to somehow restart when the restrictions are lifted for 0.2% of the population (around 150k). I fear we risk the death and hardship of more than 150k people by taking this panic driven route.
I have also argued we risk the breakdown of society as I can't see society accepting a 6+month shutdown.
In conclusion my approach is Pragmatism not Panic.
0 -
Are they still playing Aussie Rules? I was amazed to hear they started the new season at the weekend albeit behind closed doors.0
-
You haven't answered my question though which is, what about the knock on effect of just letting the pandemic happen.coopster_the_1st said:
Re-reading my post let me clarify something, I should have said 500-600k over a 2 year period. I have said on another post to get expect around 1000 deaths a day for a long period of time.sampangolin said:
I don't think you've thought this through. 600k ish is normal, fine.coopster_the_1st said:
I didn't predict 1% but keep making it uppblakeney said:
Looks like your 1% was clairvoyant. Who’s looking forward to 660,000 dead?coopster_the_1st said:
The only accurate number is deaths.kingstonian said:rjsterry said:
Absolute numbers are less relevant than per capita figures. There is also substantial variation in testing regimes so the numbers of cases do not accurately reflect total infections.surrey_commuter said:
OK, I get yours (and RJST’s) points about the scale but why does this not mean that Boris’s plan is not working and our number of deaths is not outstripping countries who have tried to control the spread.rick_chasey said:
People also seem to forget the y axis isn’t linear...surrey_commuter said:
That looks like we are about to take a decisive leadtailwindhome said:Tracking deaths instead of positives
Personally I would have learnt from the countries on the right of the graph.
The graph is trying to show rate of fatal infections over time. This is of interest given our strategy is to slow the rate of infection rather than prevent it. The graph isn't wrong but the other variables make it dangerous to draw conclusions on whether our strategy is working from this alone. I'm not sure a graph with just two variables will answer that question.
Some other figures
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Although even this has fairly obvious flaws. There is no way we have had 1300-odd cases and only 20 recovered - we just aren't counting the recoveries.
Yep, I've been suspicious of the validity of the "Recoveries" number for a week or so now. The number of "recoveries" had remained at 18 for about 10 days, and only trickled up to 20 yesterday. The true number will be much higher.
Test numbers are now a pointless stat as are recovery stats as how many people have recovered from it at home?
“ Deputy Chief Medical Officer for England Dr Jenny Harries also warns against a "direct comparison" between virus case rates in Italy and the UK, saying this should be done with "caution".
She says that the case fatality rate is around 10% in Italy, as opposed to 4% in the UK - but it depends how cases are counted.
She says there are differences in testing, with more serious cases being tested in the UK, for example.
She adds that they feel the eventual mortality rate for the virus will be around 1%.”
How many of those 660k are going to be double counted deaths?
My guess would be 500k-600k based on 620k people dying each year
If its as bad as 1 percent that's 660k or so dying with/from covid.
Some of those 660k would have been in that 600k, agreed.
But now we have a health system at it's knees for months (with doctors and nurses who would probably not have been in that 600k also dying).
That 600k 'normal' figure is only where it is because we have a functioning NHS.
How many extra people, who would have recieved treatment and recovered, will now die? You have absolutely no idea. How dreadful will it be for those people making those decisions every day?
And that's what you're saying we should just let happen?
The more troubling option is that you have thought this through.
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.
Because C19 is a new virus it is classified as a pandemic but I believe within a few years it be classified as endemic and treated as such with a vacine the same as the yearly flu vacine.
My argument is that anything up to 80% of those who die from C19 would have died in the next 2 years. So 99% of the current UK population are going to have huge economic and mental hardship imposed on us and have to somehow restart when the restrictions are lifted for 0.2% of the population (around 150k). I fear we risk the death and hardship of more than 150k people by taking this panic driven route.
I have also argued we risk the breakdown of society as I can't see society accepting a 6+month shutdown.
In conclusion my approach is Pragmatism not Panic.sam0 -
I don't advocate just letting it happen. I also don't advocate a Spanish style lock down.sampangolin said:
You haven't answered my question though which is, what about the knock on effect of just letting the pandemic happen.coopster_the_1st said:
Re-reading my post let me clarify something, I should have said 500-600k over a 2 year period. I have said on another post to get expect around 1000 deaths a day for a long period of time.sampangolin said:
I don't think you've thought this through. 600k ish is normal, fine.coopster_the_1st said:
I didn't predict 1% but keep making it uppblakeney said:
Looks like your 1% was clairvoyant. Who’s looking forward to 660,000 dead?coopster_the_1st said:
The only accurate number is deaths.kingstonian said:rjsterry said:
Absolute numbers are less relevant than per capita figures. There is also substantial variation in testing regimes so the numbers of cases do not accurately reflect total infections.surrey_commuter said:
OK, I get yours (and RJST’s) points about the scale but why does this not mean that Boris’s plan is not working and our number of deaths is not outstripping countries who have tried to control the spread.rick_chasey said:
People also seem to forget the y axis isn’t linear...surrey_commuter said:
That looks like we are about to take a decisive leadtailwindhome said:Tracking deaths instead of positives
Personally I would have learnt from the countries on the right of the graph.
The graph is trying to show rate of fatal infections over time. This is of interest given our strategy is to slow the rate of infection rather than prevent it. The graph isn't wrong but the other variables make it dangerous to draw conclusions on whether our strategy is working from this alone. I'm not sure a graph with just two variables will answer that question.
Some other figures
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Although even this has fairly obvious flaws. There is no way we have had 1300-odd cases and only 20 recovered - we just aren't counting the recoveries.
Yep, I've been suspicious of the validity of the "Recoveries" number for a week or so now. The number of "recoveries" had remained at 18 for about 10 days, and only trickled up to 20 yesterday. The true number will be much higher.
Test numbers are now a pointless stat as are recovery stats as how many people have recovered from it at home?
“ Deputy Chief Medical Officer for England Dr Jenny Harries also warns against a "direct comparison" between virus case rates in Italy and the UK, saying this should be done with "caution".
She says that the case fatality rate is around 10% in Italy, as opposed to 4% in the UK - but it depends how cases are counted.
She says there are differences in testing, with more serious cases being tested in the UK, for example.
She adds that they feel the eventual mortality rate for the virus will be around 1%.”
How many of those 660k are going to be double counted deaths?
My guess would be 500k-600k based on 620k people dying each year
If its as bad as 1 percent that's 660k or so dying with/from covid.
Some of those 660k would have been in that 600k, agreed.
But now we have a health system at it's knees for months (with doctors and nurses who would probably not have been in that 600k also dying).
That 600k 'normal' figure is only where it is because we have a functioning NHS.
How many extra people, who would have recieved treatment and recovered, will now die? You have absolutely no idea. How dreadful will it be for those people making those decisions every day?
And that's what you're saying we should just let happen?
The more troubling option is that you have thought this through.
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.
Because C19 is a new virus it is classified as a pandemic but I believe within a few years it be classified as endemic and treated as such with a vacine the same as the yearly flu vacine.
My argument is that anything up to 80% of those who die from C19 would have died in the next 2 years. So 99% of the current UK population are going to have huge economic and mental hardship imposed on us and have to somehow restart when the restrictions are lifted for 0.2% of the population (around 150k). I fear we risk the death and hardship of more than 150k people by taking this panic driven route.
I have also argued we risk the breakdown of society as I can't see society accepting a 6+month shutdown.
In conclusion my approach is Pragmatism not Panic.
Somewhere in the middle that takes account of the 99% that will still have to live when this is over is where my view is.
0 -
morstar said:
Can’t believe the IOC still thinks the olympics might happen this July. Not a cat in hells chance.
Yeah, I'm supposed to be taking a youth jazz orchestra to Vienne and Montreux to perform in July, everything organised, but we're really just waiting for the festivals to announce cancellation/postponement. Fortunately we've not got any financial commitments until the beginning of May, but we're really writing off the rest of the season in our minds already.
I've just transferred my Easter Flybe flights to France (should have been flying tomorrow) to the New Year, am assuming I won't get to my place with my 87-year-old mum at the end of May, but just hoping that by the end of July there might be a glimmer for a long solo summer break.
But all that pales into insignificance compared with what's happening right now.
I'm grateful to be in a position where I seem to be able to transfer all or most of my teaching to video link. And given that the majority of my pupils' parents are medics, I don't think they are going to be out of work any time soon and not able to afford lessons.0 -
Just had a cyclist surgeon friend recommend not to go out cycling once I'm out of confinement, in case of an accident, as "you really don't want to be going anywhere near a hospital anytime soon". His views on the numpties out in the sun disregarding distancing advice is unprintable.0
-
What does your friend think of your cycling skills if he thinks an accident requiring hospital treatment is likely?briantrumpet said:Just had a cyclist surgeon friend recommend not to go out cycling once I'm out of confinement, in case of an accident, as "you really don't want to be going anywhere near a hospital anytime soon". His views on the numpties out in the sun disregarding distancing advice is unprintable.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry said:
What does your friend think of your cycling skills if he thinks an accident requiring hospital treatment is likely?briantrumpet said:Just had a cyclist surgeon friend recommend not to go out cycling once I'm out of confinement, in case of an accident, as "you really don't want to be going anywhere near a hospital anytime soon". His views on the numpties out in the sun disregarding distancing advice is unprintable.
...at least it wasn't my gynaecologist friend offering the advice...0 -
It's definitely convenient being able to work almost seamlessly from home. My job is heavily homebased so technically I can carry on as normal and have done to date but, as soon as customers businesses cease normal operations, work will stop. I expect to be stood down in some capacity within a month. Expect the government 80% may be my income in the near future.briantrumpet said:morstar said:Can’t believe the IOC still thinks the olympics might happen this July. Not a cat in hells chance.
Yeah, I'm supposed to be taking a youth jazz orchestra to Vienne and Montreux to perform in July, everything organised, but we're really just waiting for the festivals to announce cancellation/postponement. Fortunately we've not got any financial commitments until the beginning of May, but we're really writing off the rest of the season in our minds already.
I've just transferred my Easter Flybe flights to France (should have been flying tomorrow) to the New Year, am assuming I won't get to my place with my 87-year-old mum at the end of May, but just hoping that by the end of July there might be a glimmer for a long solo summer break.
But all that pales into insignificance compared with what's happening right now.
I'm grateful to be in a position where I seem to be able to transfer all or most of my teaching to video link. And given that the majority of my pupils' parents are medics, I don't think they are going to be out of work any time soon and not able to afford lessons.
The business is a consultancy business and there is a bit of a skills shortage so, making staff redundant is risky as you may have no business left if you let your chargeable resources go. Conversely, if they assume demand will take a prolonged period to return, a reduction in team size is quite plausible.
TBH, I'd quite like to be on the 80% and then able to volunteer my services to the fight against the virus for free but not sure what remote opportunities there will be.0 -
I think they started, had one round and it’s been binned, but TBH I don’t know that for sure. Similarly the NRL (Rugby League) is allegedly thinking they will continue to play, and if I read it right think the government should subsidise their player salaries, because it’s so unfair that a bunch of roided up thugs who seem to spend most of their time in a tattoo parlour or chatting up schoolgirls should have their million dollar a year contracts halved.Pross said:Are they still playing Aussie Rules? I was amazed to hear they started the new season at the weekend albeit behind closed doors.
Open One+ BMC TE29 Seven 622SL On One Scandal Cervelo RS0 -
Seems to me rather than lock down we could follow the German model of no gatherings of more than 2 people - obviously with exceptions for parents with children or people with others who are dependent on them for support. A complete lock down can't be a solution for multiple months but something between that and our current "freedoms" might be.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0
-
It can. It is just unpalatable.DeVlaeminck said:A complete lock down can't be a solution for multiple months but something between that and our current "freedoms" might be.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
It does make you wonder where some people draw the line between their 'freedoms' and the biggest medical emergency in over 100 years.0
-
Accidents happen, and can be caused by all sorts of factors, that's why they are accidents.rjsterry said:
What does your friend think of your cycling skills if he thinks an accident requiring hospital treatment is likely?briantrumpet said:Just had a cyclist surgeon friend recommend not to go out cycling once I'm out of confinement, in case of an accident, as "you really don't want to be going anywhere near a hospital anytime soon". His views on the numpties out in the sun disregarding distancing advice is unprintable.
The older I get, the better I was.1 -
Most accidents occur in the home though 😉capt_slog said:
Accidents happen, and can be caused by all sorts of factors, that's why they are accidents.rjsterry said:
What does your friend think of your cycling skills if he thinks an accident requiring hospital treatment is likely?briantrumpet said:Just had a cyclist surgeon friend recommend not to go out cycling once I'm out of confinement, in case of an accident, as "you really don't want to be going anywhere near a hospital anytime soon". His views on the numpties out in the sun disregarding distancing advice is unprintable.
A friend of mine decided to go for a walk up a local mountain on Saturday and posted photos. The next thing I saw was a photo of her with her daughter in hospital with her daughter having had an operation on her arm. I'm not sure if the two are connected but probably best to take exercise in environments with minimal hazards.0 -
I've noticed since this started politicians have become noticeably less repellent. I think it's because they've largely stopped sniping at each other or trying to score party political points.
Putting my cynical hat back on, I suspect they're all thinking, if we're seen to be handling it well, it will be a real vote winner come the next election.0 -
But for how long? If you can't go for a walk what does that do for mental and physical health?pblakeney said:
It can. It is just unpalatable.DeVlaeminck said:A complete lock down can't be a solution for multiple months but something between that and our current "freedoms" might be.
A vaccine could be 18months away would people stay indoors for 18 months - what about those that have had the virus ? One of the reasons the govt themselves gave for not going straight in with serious restrictions was they knew support for them would wane over time.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Pross said:
Most accidents occur in the home though 😉capt_slog said:
Accidents happen, and can be caused by all sorts of factors, that's why they are accidents.rjsterry said:
What does your friend think of your cycling skills if he thinks an accident requiring hospital treatment is likely?briantrumpet said:Just had a cyclist surgeon friend recommend not to go out cycling once I'm out of confinement, in case of an accident, as "you really don't want to be going anywhere near a hospital anytime soon". His views on the numpties out in the sun disregarding distancing advice is unprintable.
A friend of mine decided to go for a walk up a local mountain on Saturday and posted photos. The next thing I saw was a photo of her with her daughter in hospital with her daughter having had an operation on her arm. I'm not sure if the two are connected but probably best to take exercise in environments with minimal hazards.
And a doctor friend of mine went with her family to a quiet secluded beach on Saturday, and one of them got injured (thankfully only slightly) by a small rockfall. Accidents do happen, but one can reduce the likelihood of them, as my friend has reflected.0 -
I had to visit hospital last week and met with an anaesthesiatist. She was genuinely terrified. We should be too.
Get your turbo sorted.0 -
Simply look to Italy etc. We will follow whatever they are doing. It is not going to be nice or palatable but expecting any return to normality for the foreseeable is futile.DeVlaeminck said:
But for how long? If you can't go for a walk what does that do for mental and physical health?pblakeney said:
It can. It is just unpalatable.DeVlaeminck said:A complete lock down can't be a solution for multiple months but something between that and our current "freedoms" might be.
A vaccine could be 18months away would people stay indoors for 18 months - what about those that have had the virus ? One of the reasons the govt themselves gave for not going straight in with serious restrictions was they knew support for them would wane over time.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
It's not a binary choice between full lock down and normality though and we don't know how long Italy will remain on lock down. Are you suggesting you expect it to be for 6 months?pblakeney said:
Simply look to Italy etc. We will follow whatever they are doing. It is not going to be nice or palatable but expecting any return to normality for the foreseeable is futile.DeVlaeminck said:
But for how long? If you can't go for a walk what does that do for mental and physical health?pblakeney said:
It can. It is just unpalatable.DeVlaeminck said:A complete lock down can't be a solution for multiple months but something between that and our current "freedoms" might be.
A vaccine could be 18months away would people stay indoors for 18 months - what about those that have had the virus ? One of the reasons the govt themselves gave for not going straight in with serious restrictions was they knew support for them would wane over time.
More? Wuhan didn't require that.
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Statistically yes, however, those that involve being run over by a car, no,Pross said:
Most accidents occur in the home though 😉
A friend of mine decided to go for a walk up a local mountain on Saturday and posted photos. The next thing I saw was a photo of her with her daughter in hospital with her daughter having had an operation on her arm. I'm not sure if the two are connected but probably best to take exercise in environments with minimal hazards.
Reminds of when my son played hockey (and he was very good at BTW). It often involved a trip to A+E to get sorted out, and when in there he would point out other hockey players waiting to be treated. I can tell you, that when it was approaching mid-night+ and we'd already been there for hours, this improved my mood no end.
The older I get, the better I was.0 -
Pretty much, yes.DeVlaeminck said:
It's not a binary choice between full lock down and normality though and we don't know how long Italy will remain on lock down. Are you suggesting you expect it to be for 6 months?pblakeney said:
Simply look to Italy etc. We will follow whatever they are doing. It is not going to be nice or palatable but expecting any return to normality for the foreseeable is futile.DeVlaeminck said:
But for how long? If you can't go for a walk what does that do for mental and physical health?pblakeney said:
It can. It is just unpalatable.DeVlaeminck said:A complete lock down can't be a solution for multiple months but something between that and our current "freedoms" might be.
A vaccine could be 18months away would people stay indoors for 18 months - what about those that have had the virus ? One of the reasons the govt themselves gave for not going straight in with serious restrictions was they knew support for them would wane over time.
More? Wuhan didn't require that.
I take information from China with a pinch of salt. They denied it’s existence to begin with and I expect a relapse when movement resumes.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
They'll blame it coming back on people coming into the country (as they have already with the few new cases they confirmed in the country).pblakeney said:
Pretty much, yes.DeVlaeminck said:
It's not a binary choice between full lock down and normality though and we don't know how long Italy will remain on lock down. Are you suggesting you expect it to be for 6 months?pblakeney said:
Simply look to Italy etc. We will follow whatever they are doing. It is not going to be nice or palatable but expecting any return to normality for the foreseeable is futile.DeVlaeminck said:
But for how long? If you can't go for a walk what does that do for mental and physical health?pblakeney said:
It can. It is just unpalatable.DeVlaeminck said:A complete lock down can't be a solution for multiple months but something between that and our current "freedoms" might be.
A vaccine could be 18months away would people stay indoors for 18 months - what about those that have had the virus ? One of the reasons the govt themselves gave for not going straight in with serious restrictions was they knew support for them would wane over time.
More? Wuhan didn't require that.
I take information from China with a pinch of salt. They denied it’s existence to begin with and I expect a relapse when movement resumes.0 -
I've read stats that talked to almost 5 million people fleeing Wuhan before the lockdown was enforced. So whilst from the lockdown onwards it curbed the rate of infection within the city, the problem really started before then when the horse had bolted.0
