The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
Yours truly has free rein to WFH, and like f*ck am I gonna schlep in for 90 mins each way if no f*cker is going to see me in the office.0
-
In this case there are differing expert opinions, so you can select the one you want.rick_chasey said:Interesting the heat Sturgeon is getting for shutting down schools. Even admits herself it was not done on the basis of 'scientific evidence'.
I know it's BoJo, but I really get the impression the UK is actually doing everything by the letter of the expert, not least as it seems so counter-intuitive.
Electing somebody PM because he is positive may not turn out to have been such a great idea.0 -
This is fairly terrifying for the US.
OK, so it's Twitter, but there is the distinct whiff of testing being made as hard as possible so that the declared number of cases is massively suppressed. With the speed with which this virus spreads, that's not going to end well. And all because of Trump's ego.0 -
Can't have positive tests if you don't test - that's just common sense.0
-
Yeah perhaps. I don't know much so I'm not gonna argue.surrey_commuter said:
In this case there are differing expert opinions, so you can select the one you want.rick_chasey said:Interesting the heat Sturgeon is getting for shutting down schools. Even admits herself it was not done on the basis of 'scientific evidence'.
I know it's BoJo, but I really get the impression the UK is actually doing everything by the letter of the expert, not least as it seems so counter-intuitive.
Electing somebody PM because he is positive may not turn out to have been such a great idea.
The old duffer chief medical guy with his powerpoint and the way that happened made me feel like the Uk govt was doing exactly what he thinks is right, and ultimately, that's how it should be, right?
No-one knows what the right approach is.0 -
We would all like certainty - a protocol that says "in case of X, do action Y" - but a lot of people find it hard to accept that we're in unknown territory: slowly actual data is emerging, but it's incomplete and inconclusive - and even hard data doesn't always tell you what the optimum course of action is.rick_chasey said:The old duffer chief medical guy with his powerpoint and the way that happened made me feel like the Uk govt was doing exactly what he thinks is right, and ultimately, that's how it should be, right?
No-one knows what the right approach is.
At least the "old duffer" is an actual expert in infectious diseases, and has a seriously high rep among doctors.
The issue is that the government genuinely do have hard decisions to make: it's pretty much like wartime - you get to decide who dies and how many deaths are worth it. The flak directed at Johnson for his "loved ones are going to die" message is ridiculous - what was he supposed to do, tell everyone that it was no problem and soon there would be no cases at all?
Even if you think that saving lives takes absolute priority over the economy, just bear in mind that a tanking economy will cause massive extra mortality and morbidity. Anyone up for that?3 -
0 -
I'd like to know the plans for expanding bed capacity in the NHS. For example, if they had currently taken over the Excel centre, were filling it full of beds and medical equipment, and had worked out how to repurpose black cabs to transport people, I would feel a bit more confident.0
-
we can only test 1,500 a day in the UK so will keep the numbers down over herekingstongraham said:Can't have positive tests if you don't test - that's just common sense.
0 -
Even if you think that saving lives takes absolute priority over the economy, just bear in mind that a tanking economy will cause massive extra mortality and morbidity. Anyone up for that?
This.
Regardless of what happens to our own economy, if the airlines, tourism and travel industries take a massive hit then millions of people around the world in developing nations who rely on this for their living will suffer and die. I'm not claiming any expert knowledge here but I have heard of the saying "Using a sledgehammer to miss a nut." and I've also heard of the law of unintended consequence. Whatever the rights and wrongs of how to deal with this we don't want a cure that's worse than the disease.0 -
Does that include all the footballers who manage to be able to get an instant test?surrey_commuter said:
we can only test 1,500 a day in the UK so will keep the numbers down over herekingstongraham said:Can't have positive tests if you don't test - that's just common sense.
0 -
The NHS will have a plan for this. It's not like this is the first potential pandemic in recent history (e.g. SARS, MERS, Ebola, etc)TheBigBean said:I'd like to know the plans for expanding bed capacity in the NHS. For example, if they had currently taken over the Excel centre, were filling it full of beds and medical equipment, and had worked out how to repurpose black cabs to transport people, I would feel a bit more confident.
From what I have heard first is cancelling non emergency appointments/surgery and redeploying those medical resources0 -
We can now do 10k tests a day.surrey_commuter said:
we can only test 1,500 a day in the UK so will keep the numbers down over herekingstongraham said:Can't have positive tests if you don't test - that's just common sense.
They are reserbing the testing capacity now to critical areas e.g. hospital patients and medical staff, which makes sense as this is where the most vulnerable are.0 -
I hope so, but I think it would be helpful to get ready in advance. It took China 10 days to build a few hospitals.coopster_the_1st said:
The NHS will have a plan for this. It's not like this is the first potential pandemic in recent history (e.g. SARS, MERS, Ebola, etc)TheBigBean said:I'd like to know the plans for expanding bed capacity in the NHS. For example, if they had currently taken over the Excel centre, were filling it full of beds and medical equipment, and had worked out how to repurpose black cabs to transport people, I would feel a bit more confident.
From what I have heard first is cancelling non emergency appointments/surgery and redeploying those medical resources0 -
Agreed.bompington said:
We would all like certainty - a protocol that says "in case of X, do action Y" - but a lot of people find it hard to accept that we're in unknown territory: slowly actual data is emerging, but it's incomplete and inconclusive - and even hard data doesn't always tell you what the optimum course of action is.rick_chasey said:The old duffer chief medical guy with his powerpoint and the way that happened made me feel like the Uk govt was doing exactly what he thinks is right, and ultimately, that's how it should be, right?
No-one knows what the right approach is.
At least the "old duffer" is an actual expert in infectious diseases, and has a seriously high rep among doctors.
The issue is that the government genuinely do have hard decisions to make: it's pretty much like wartime - you get to decide who dies and how many deaths are worth it. The flak directed at Johnson for his "loved ones are going to die" message is ridiculous - what was he supposed to do, tell everyone that it was no problem and soon there would be no cases at all?
Even if you think that saving lives takes absolute priority over the economy, just bear in mind that a tanking economy will cause massive extra mortality and morbidity. Anyone up for that?
I think gov'ts are more king cnut than anything else in this scenario.0 -
That's my thinking. For some reason people are assuming the Italians are doing it right, presumably as it looks more like taking control to shut a country down. I believe the French have been taking a similar approach to the UK. This morning I listened to the Chief Scientific Adviser; a former professor of medicine at UCL, Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and former head of research at GSK spend about 10 minutes explaining the Government advice. Within 30 seconds of him finishing the BBC read out texts from viewers (no qualifications or medical experience cited) stating how he was getting it all wrong and putting lives at risk. There's no point in a Government paying medical and scientific advisers if they then just follow the crowd and do what everyone else is doing.rick_chasey said:
Yeah perhaps. I don't know much so I'm not gonna argue.surrey_commuter said:
In this case there are differing expert opinions, so you can select the one you want.rick_chasey said:Interesting the heat Sturgeon is getting for shutting down schools. Even admits herself it was not done on the basis of 'scientific evidence'.
I know it's BoJo, but I really get the impression the UK is actually doing everything by the letter of the expert, not least as it seems so counter-intuitive.
Electing somebody PM because he is positive may not turn out to have been such a great idea.
The old duffer chief medical guy with his powerpoint and the way that happened made me feel like the Uk govt was doing exactly what he thinks is right, and ultimately, that's how it should be, right?
No-one knows what the right approach is.0 -
The media have been a problem around this since the start.Pross said:
That's my thinking. For some reason people are assuming the Italians are doing it right, presumably as it looks more like taking control to shut a country down. I believe the French have been taking a similar approach to the UK. This morning I listened to the Chief Scientific Adviser; a former professor of medicine at UCL, Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and former head of research at GSK spend about 10 minutes explaining the Government advice. Within 30 seconds of him finishing the BBC read out texts from viewers (no qualifications or medical experience cited) stating how he was getting it all wrong and putting lives at risk. There's no point in a Government paying medical and scientific advisers if they then just follow the crowd and do what everyone else is doing.rick_chasey said:
Yeah perhaps. I don't know much so I'm not gonna argue.surrey_commuter said:
In this case there are differing expert opinions, so you can select the one you want.rick_chasey said:Interesting the heat Sturgeon is getting for shutting down schools. Even admits herself it was not done on the basis of 'scientific evidence'.
I know it's BoJo, but I really get the impression the UK is actually doing everything by the letter of the expert, not least as it seems so counter-intuitive.
Electing somebody PM because he is positive may not turn out to have been such a great idea.
The old duffer chief medical guy with his powerpoint and the way that happened made me feel like the Uk govt was doing exactly what he thinks is right, and ultimately, that's how it should be, right?
No-one knows what the right approach is.
Newsnight were equally over dramatic last night rather than just reporting on the facts0 -
Just heard the scientist from yesterday - made a lot of sense, and I hope he's right about building up a herd mentality gradually. The difficult thing is that they will need to both a) be right and b) hold their nerve when our numbers go higher.0
-
Presumably they've thought about this. Read that a lot of how it's being communicated is being driven by behavioural science experts. Let's hope they're right.kingstongraham said:Just heard the scientist from yesterday - made a lot of sense, and I hope he's right about building up a herd mentality gradually. The difficult thing is that they will need to both a) be right and b) hold their nerve when our numbers go higher.
0 -
????rick_chasey said:Interesting the heat Sturgeon is getting for shutting down schools
We still here!
0 -
Ah my mistake!bompington said:
????rick_chasey said:Interesting the heat Sturgeon is getting for shutting down schools
We still here!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-51851341
Mass events!0 -
Yep. The idea is that mass events are banned because they take resources, not because of the risk of transmission: it's the events that have to have emergency service cover that are banned.
Although that does leave some of us wondering why you need ambulance and police cover for a fun run with 500 entrants but not a school with 1000 pupils.
0 -
will be interesting to see what ratio of infections that football clubs end up withkingstongraham said:
Does that include all the footballers who manage to be able to get an instant test?surrey_commuter said:
we can only test 1,500 a day in the UK so will keep the numbers down over herekingstongraham said:Can't have positive tests if you don't test - that's just common sense.
0 -
If you could identify a subset that is typical enough of the general population in its habits and contacts to be representative, but privileged and health-aware enough to be sure to be tested thoroughly, then you could get a good rough idea of the actual prevalence.surrey_commuter said:
will be interesting to see what ratio of infections that football clubs end up withkingstongraham said:
Does that include all the footballers who manage to be able to get an instant test?surrey_commuter said:
we can only test 1,500 a day in the UK so will keep the numbers down over herekingstongraham said:Can't have positive tests if you don't test - that's just common sense.
0 -
I do subscribe to the theory that any sample is inherently biasedbompington said:
If you could identify a subset that is typical enough of the general population in its habits and contacts to be representative, but privileged and health-aware enough to be sure to be tested thoroughly, then you could get a good rough idea of the actual prevalence.surrey_commuter said:
will be interesting to see what ratio of infections that football clubs end up withkingstongraham said:
Does that include all the footballers who manage to be able to get an instant test?surrey_commuter said:
we can only test 1,500 a day in the UK so will keep the numbers down over herekingstongraham said:Can't have positive tests if you don't test - that's just common sense.
0 -
At the risk of doing exactly what Pross suggests, it's because of a higher likelihood of injuries and also Fabrice Muamba moments at a run innit? Presumably, a school has a first aid kit, first aiders and one of them DeFib machines already.bompington said:
Although that does leave some of us wondering why you need ambulance and police cover for a fun run with 500 entrants but not a school with 1000 pupils.
(plus a high amount of that sort of first aid work is, "Naaaw, have you got a baddy leg, awwww kiss it better")
We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
I wonder how much of 'everything will be cancelled anyway so we don't need to cancel it' has been factored into the government thinking and messaging
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
never seen so much rubbish in all my years as whats going on in the world at the minute everyone all ar$e clenchers0
-
You're a "get rid of the deadwood" type then?parmos said:never seen so much rubbish in all my years as whats going on in the world at the minute everyone all ar$e clenchers
0
