***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 17 *****
==============================================================
Ongoing discussion
606550
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 11 May 20 at 02:47
|
Is it time to end the lockdown, before the economy is just trashed and not ruined beyond all repair?
We have protected "OUR" NHS -it has the bed-spaces available - which was the alleged purpose of the exercise.
Is it worth ruining the economy to extend, or save, the lives of a relatively small number of people, many of whom are in god's waiting room already?
Cue usual cries of "morals","lives before profits", I expect, but as an old bloke of 84, I'd really like to know folk's thoughts.
|
What's your idea of a relatively small number then Roger. If all current measures are abandoned and the disease is allowed to let rip all scientific evidence points to a massive outbreak which will kill people of all generations, not just the old, and have a massive effect on the economy.
We might have "protected our NHS" but a further surge in cases could easily overwhelm it incidentally killing even more of its staff. You don't seem to believe in morality but are you happy with that?
Of course we must somehow return to a way of life that allows our economy to function but just abandoning all controls would be stupid in the extreme.
|
You are both right IMO. We have to get the country and its people working again, but with due respect to the power of the virus. So, obviously, and orderly return to to a more protected work place, with proper and functioning safety equipment and plenty of planning for what if something goes wrong, either locally or nationally.
There seems to be some simply stuff they can implement, like scanning for raised temperature. if this is implemented sensibly. and not disregarded by the community, on public transport, in public places and in offices, pubs etc there is a good chance that anyone carrying the virus wil be caught before they realise it.
People should, by now, have had some practice at social distancing, and be able to understand and stick to the rules, and know what to look for in themselves and other people.
Companies should take a sensible view that if an employee can work from home then they should.
I'm not sure how to manage over-crowded public transport though.
So I believe a gradual but not too slow return to work should happen, then a more gradual opening of pubs, restaurants and other entertainment etc, all with proper rules to manage public safety. For instance before I left Portugal they had an order that half (or was it two thirds?) of restaurant tables should be removed.
|
I don’t think Roger is advocating that we end lockdown now and return to what was considered normal before Covid 19.
My opinion is that we see what happens with infection rates once other countries loosen up...outdoor seating areas opened up in the hospitality industry, more shops open with social distancing etc. Continue as we are for another few weeks then re assess.
Easy for me to say as I’m not banged up at home self isolating for 3 months. I can get out for long daily walks in open countryside every day should I wish, then socialise with a few friends most evenings in a garden whilst keeping our distance. Our 4 local chippys and curry houses are open for take always, we have a barrel of beer in my pals woodworking shed where we bring our own beer glasses, don’t share nibbles and disinfect the hand pump after every pint is pulled.
Life could be far far worse and I count myself incredibly fortunate.
Some poor old beggars in my area refuse to step outside, even in their own gardens. My brothers MiL, with whom I was chatting a few days ago on her doorstep is one such person. I told her to get in her car and go for a 5 mile drive instead of looking at 4 walls. She had a look of horror on her face at that suggestion. She’s looking very pale, unhealthy and needs to get some fresh air, even if only sitting in her huge garden for an hour a day.
|
"I don’t think Roger is advocating that we end lockdown now and return to what was considered normal before Covid 19."
Perhaps Roger might clarify exactly what he is is advocating then. I think everyone accepts the need for some sort of return to something resembling normality. Its just a question of how you can do this safely. Is that not the policy of the Government?
|
>>She's looking very pale, unhealthy and needs to get some fresh air, even if only sitting in her huge garden for an hour a day.
Probably should get should vitamin D down her.
|
When these rules were set they were aimed at the lowest common denominator as regards compliance and still they did not go strict enough to ensure there was no wriggle room so that those that ignored could be dealt. Too wishy washy and not helped by the College of Policing using terms such as 'reasonable'.
The rest of us can work with responsible social distancing and minimising risks. But it the others that's going to keep this virus going. I was even distancing when I went out in the car for the first time in a month :)
As someone who has a 'shielded' 23 year old temporarily here we are in it for the long haul. Or are we prepared to increase that risk?? We need to know as a family whether we have immunity or be vaccinated.
|
>>Is it time to end the lockdown, before the economy is just trashed and not ruined beyond all repair?
Yes, I think so. We now need to change from isolating everybody to isolating the vulnerable.
COVID-19 is here to stay. We need to begin to live with it, not simply avoid it. Life needs to start again.
Also, of the Government starts to ease up now they will remain in control. If they do not, then they will gradually lose control as increasingly the guidelines/rules are ignored.
What we do need to make sure is that society as a whole is tolerant of those who need to isolate and facilitates that arrangement.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 4 May 20 at 13:56
|
|
Does anybody, including the government, advocate maintaining the existing rules indefinitely? I think most people are looking at how the restrictions can be relaxed without the risk of a massive escalation in infection and death rates. The belief that all regulation can be removed before a vaccine is available without the risk of a massive loss of life is however sadly misplaced.
|
>>Does anybody, including the government, advocate maintaining the existing rules indefinitely?
Not as far as I know, I don't think anybody has been that daft. Although I guess there will always be some effect from this.
However, I think Roger's point was more around when the right time is; and IMO the right time would be now-ish.
|
They announced some demographic tracking testing a couple of weeks ago. When the number of infections is down they can start track and trace. Getting to that point probably requires most of the current restrictions, or at least the current level of infection control, to continue.
The smart thing to do if achievable would be to get more granular in progressively more ways, getting as much of the population as possible back to a modified normal by stages. Maybe the over 70s will have to stay bottled up for significantly longer, except for those with immunity if conferred by catching it.
|
>>When the number of infections is down they can start track and trace.
I think i read somewhere that they're testing an App on the Isle of Wight. I don't see that working, too many clowns will think it fun to screw with it.
|
>> I think i read somewhere that they're testing an App on the Isle of Wight.
>> I don't see that working, too many clowns will think it fun to screw with
>> it.
Was mentioned in the news this morning and Handcock has just announced it as part of today's news conference.
|
>> >>When the number of infections is down they can start track and trace.
>>
>> I think i read somewhere that they're testing an App on the Isle of Wight.
>> I don't see that working, too many clowns will think it fun to screw with
>> it.
That's what I thought. There'll be the ones who object to the tracking, with or without any comprehension of what they are objecting to, and those who report symptoms to get a test, and then the ones who just want to 'incriminate' people they have been near for 'fun'.
I should know better now than to be surprised at how dumb people are.
I reckon there'll be at least 20% resistance to a vaccine, based on the theory that it's part of the same plan as the virus to cull the population.
|
>>
>> I reckon there'll be at least 20% resistance to a vaccine, based on the theory
>> that it's part of the same plan as the virus to cull the population.
>>
...s'no problem. I understand the plan is to deliver it "silently" to the whole population using 5G.....
;-)
|
>> ...s'no problem. I understand the plan is to deliver it "silently" to the whole population
>> using 5G.....
Yeah but the silly people are burning down the 5G masts, now they will never get the vaccine and die of Covid. They just dont think this Scheisse through.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 5 May 20 at 03:17
|
>virus to cull the population.
That's becoming my view! - the Chinese are known to have tried population control (via one child law) and that didn't work, this virus seems to have been created to relieve them of the folk considered useless to the the Country ie the old and infirm that can no longer contribute, the ill and physically impaired that req the state to provide for them etc. However, I do not believe they expected it to go this far, it got away from them and their control, and may have mutated rapidly to affect all ages, this I think has surprised them somewhat.
|
|
Just keep taking the tablets.
|
|
Oh good, our very own David Icke at last... :-)
|
|
Oh good, our very own David Icke at last... :-)
|
I ordered it for you, its on its way
www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Tin-Foil-Hat-For-Conspiracy-Theorists/283508707050?
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 5 May 20 at 11:40
|
...there aren't many justifications for culling the elderly, but there certainly are a few......
;-)
|
|
It would certainly make more bungalows available for buyers seeking such.
|
|
Well we don’t really know what Roger’s point is do we? . If he is in favour of a gradual and measured relaxation of the restrictions starting just as soon as criteria announced by the government allow I think we are in agreement. Perhaps Roger might care to clarify his views.
|
He asked peoples views, which was presumably intended as a discussion-opener rather than
Man: (Michael Palin) Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please.
Receptionist: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?
Man: No, this is my first time.
Receptionist: I see. Well, do you want to have the full argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?
|
I've just been out for my daily high-speed walk, which is damn near killing me I might add.
Santiago had a full quarantine and a military curfew. They then decided they didn't need the full quarantine and so reduced it to two comunas (boroughs). Kind of like having designated areas of the swimming pool to pee in.
They're now back up to eleven comunas, out of 20 or so, and likely to increase further. Bear in mind that Chile is on a far smaller scale than the UK and is also some distance behind time wise. And also the fact that the Health system will NOT cope if it really kicks off here and it is starting to accelerate, though not massively just yet..
Yet the comuna I am in, La Reina, is flanked on two sides by quarantined comunas but is about as busy as any normal Monday.
And on Saturday night the police broke up a party of an estimated 400 people.
WTF are these people on?
|
>> WTF are these people on?
>>
Pisco probably.
|
|
Ooooh. Pisco Sours. Now there’s a memory from 20 odd years ago. One of my worst hangovers ever. I was warned. Blamed it on the altitude!
Last edited by: legacylad on Mon 4 May 20 at 22:01
|
They're ok, very, very variable though. And I can't drink more than one, I certainly couldn't drink enough to get drunk/hungover on them. The Peruvian ones are the nicest.
Caipirinha when I'm in Brazil though, now that's a different matter. I can certainly drink enough of them to get drunk / hungover.
|
|
Well he has my views, clearly stated I think. We just need his.
|
|
I'm sure he'll be back before too long...
|
it seemed to me he was advocating that is was time to kick start the economy at the expense of the elderly and vulnerable, and at 84 he was willing to make that sacrifice.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 4 May 20 at 17:32
|
|
That is a very simplistic view of a complex problem.
|
>> and at 84 he was willing
>> to make that sacrifice.
>>
I would seriously rather suffer some more deprivations and shrinking of the economy to keep my folks safe and well. They are retired and able to self isolate without any real extra cost to them.
I am still working and have more than a decade to go to retirement but I am in a very high risk group. I am lucky in that I can work from home for the time being without being furloughed and am helping companies put finance packages together to survive this.
If I get a bad case of CV19, then that's probably it for me so I say eff off Roger.
Also in an odd turn of events, it strikes me that those right wing nut jobs in the USA who are turning up to their state capitols brandishing assault rifles are the real "snowflakes" because they seriously can't stand not getting a haircut or latte for a few weeks. For heavens sake, this is peoples lives that you are playing with for the sake of a few percent of GDP at the moment.
I do wonder if they are the sort of people what would leave lights on in a black out because that was their "right", regardless of who would get bombed because of it!?
Last edited by: zippy on Mon 4 May 20 at 18:09
|
In the absence of vaccination there are essentially only three paths, sides of a triangle really;
1) No isolation
2) Isolate everybody
3) Isolate the vulnerable.
Isolating everybody is not viable, and anyway people will simply increasingly ignore it.
Isolating the vulnerable is something that the country can facilitate but is a decision for the individual.
No isolation is not really a central decision, it is a product of the extent of 1).
And of course the facilitation of 3) means PPE, Flexible working, etc. etc.
Isolating everybody is failing and that failure will snowball.
If we refer back tot he original Imperial College report it said that 500,000 would die if the virus was left to it's own devices. I presume that would be lower now but even if not, how long should 67 million suffer to one extent or another to predict an ever decreasing 500,000?
I'd say we're about there.
(And I am one of the vulnerable - steroid controlled asthma with repeated instances of pneumonia).
|
We need to be very clear about the consequences.
With a transmission rate of 2.5, the number of cases was initially doubling every 2-3 days. Had we delayed lockdown by a week the number of deaths would likely have been 4 times as high - at its peak around 4000, rather than about a 1000 deaths actually reported. We would have been fortunate if the Nightingale hospitals could have coped.
The impact of a let it rip policy would have had 10-30000 a day dying. NHS completely and utterly overwhelmed. Even simple support to the seriously ill (not just CV-19) would be unavailable. We still don't have reliable figures on mortality - but whatever it is would be made much worse by an NHS melt down.
There would be little alternative to mass burials due to the number of deaths. Within 3-5 months it would all be over - survivors could get back to life as normal - whatever that is.
This scenario is politically suicidal and morally bankrupt. The other extreme of long term lockdown is, as noted, a non-starter as people will simply start to ignore the rules - the government realise that public tolerance was likely to be limited at the outset. In the UK we govern and police based mainly on public consent. Police states behave differently.
The only realistic option is a gradual relaxation of lockdown to limit economic damage and avoid over-stretching the NHS capacity. Test track and trace is part of the strategy - the relaxation of rules can be optimised only if swift corrective action is possible. The alternative is a slower (safer??) process which is more economically damaging.
I am late 60's and in a vulnerable group. Personally I detest the idea of ever having to make use of one of gods waiting rooms - life is for living not a slow death. So I suspect for the older and vulnerable, rather than impose rules it should be left to the individual to decide and manage their own level of risk. Although I hope it is not the case, when I am lying in hospital gasping for a breath I would rather remember the pint in a pub garden 2 weeks earlier, than regret never having had it at all.
|
>> Also in an odd turn of events, it strikes me that those right wing nut
>> jobs in the USA who are turning up to their state capitols brandishing assault rifles
>> are the real "snowflakes" because they seriously can't stand not getting a haircut or latte
>> for a few weeks. For heavens sake, this is peoples lives that you are playing
>> with for the sake of a few percent of GDP at the moment.
One could also argue that it's not about other people's lives, it is about the risk to one's own life.
|
>> Man: (Michael Palin) Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please.
>>
>> Receptionist: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?
>>
>> Man: No, this is my first time.
>>
>> Receptionist: I see. Well, do you want to have the full argument, or were you
>> thinking of taking a course?
No he didn't.
He wanted the full argument session, not the contradiction interlude.
You're wrong again.
Can't you get anything right?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_Clinic
Last edited by: Duncan on Mon 4 May 20 at 22:32
|
Now I can’t figure this out. The small market town where I live has a high proportion of retired folks. Presumably many of them like the great outdoors. So why, with superb walking country on the doorstep, no need to drive anywhere, are so few people out exercising ?
Today was dry, bright, a cold wind on the tops, but perfect for stretching the legs. I wandered out at lunchtime, and kept extending my circular walk. I saw one cyclist on the minor road as I left home, two teenagers out fell running, one elderly lady dog walking, and another elderly couple sheltering behind a dry stone wall. And they were wearing face masks. Up a hill. Miles from anywhere. In the middle of the Dales. FFS.
So 21Kms covered on a lovely afternoon and I saw 6 people excluding the odd farmer. Where is everyone? Are they all paranoid and staying home watching Countdown or Homes in the Sun ?
|
|
Few people walk anywhere. The concept is alien to them. Most people I see out when for a walk are exercising their dogs and the tend not to go far.
|
I suppose the lack of people out on the fells means that the vast majority are adhering to advice not to travel unnecessarily. Normally, even midweek, I’d expect to see far more walkers in the Dales, although my routes are of the more obscure variety!
The usual numpties visiting Malham with their BBQs and beer last weekend. 16 spot fines handed out.
|
|
Maybe they're all at home doing their Joe wicks workouts?
|
>> Few people walk anywhere. The concept is alien to them. Most people I see out
>> when for a walk are exercising their dogs and the tend not to go far.
There's a chap near me that has two dogs, he drives them to the nearest dog walking area. I doubt it's even a 30 secs drive. Seems pretty odd to me.
Similarly there's a woman in the next street over who I see driving to work every day, it's probably no more than 500 yards door to door.
Not sure some people don't walk short distances, laziness I guess.
|
>> Few people walk anywhere. The concept is alien to them. Most people I see out
>> when for a walk are exercising their dogs and the tend not to go far.
Going far is a strange concept, take stewarding at a dog show for example. I will drove 80 miles there and back, but for going "far" it was only 40 miles
Steps at the dog show, I will walk about 15km but go nowhere.
As for exercising the dog, its about 35 km a week, going nowhere, as its always a circular route.
|
I live in an isolated rural area where I rarely meet another person while out walking.
All that has changed o'er the last 4 weeks - whole families out walking now, which is no bad thing.
I don't see the professional dog walkers anymore (for obvious reasons) which is also no bad thing!
|
|
Well I'm in favour of lock-down continuing for a while yet ;) - i'ts so much more peaceful and that suits me fine!, the world has lost it's rush, the rich and powerfull have learnt that they really are not the important ones, but the common folk are! - the only change I would mAKE AT THIS POINT IS TO MAKE THE (OVER-ZEALOUS) Police lose these new found powers, already many of them are abusing them.
|
Cases of over-use are just the stuff of headlines. I expect the proportion of actual cases v. the number of people abusing the rules is minute. And the people involved probably fail the attitude test.
The headlines may be useful because they might make the waverers think twice before disobeying.
And anyway, you can't be in favour of lockdown yet not in favour of it being enforced... :-)
Last edited by: smokie on Tue 5 May 20 at 11:26
|
I think you will find the following:
1/ The Police would rather not get involved in confrontations at this time. (Most of the time really)
2/ There is a section of the population that are going out of their way to create confrontation and and gain the opportunity to belittle and castigate the Police under the pretext that they have had their 'rights' infringed.
3/ There are sections of the population who just don't give a toss or none too bright.
|
The 'lockdown' gives me a rye smile when you guys talk about it...
Come to to sunny South London and believe me the traffic and people out on the street is nearly at pre-lockdown levels, certainly my run into work is about the same as a school holidays, stacks of white-vans/trucks, I was even stuck in a traffic jam on the way home yesterday!
Nobody here breaking up the packs of joggers or advising the queues waiting at bus stops.
If they do unlock region by region then what's to stop somebody from a locked-down area just 'crossing the boarder' to an unlocked area?
Last edited by: Rudedog on Tue 5 May 20 at 13:30
|
>> The 'lockdown' gives me a rye smile when you guys talk about it...
>>
>> Come to to sunny South London and believe me the traffic and people out on
>> the street is nearly at pre-lockdown levels,
The lockdown is slowly breaking down, albeit with some careful and sensible precautions by most, and has been for a couple of weeks. I think government is more or less complicit in this as it stops a massive step change to old ways, and provides good ideas of how life can resume in the new world.
|
If they do unlock region by region then what's to stop somebody from a locked-down
>> area just 'crossing the boarder' to an unlocked area?
>>
Absolutely nothing, but it's not really going to be enforced, if it is indeed brought in. It's more of a you need to be more careful in this area and rely on people's willingness to follow the rules. Pretty much like now really.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Tue 5 May 20 at 13:40
|
>>If they do unlock region by region then what's to stop somebody from a locked-down
>> area just 'crossing the boarder' to an unlocked area?
This is a map of Santiago showing the quarantined areas. In the case of Chile there are armed military checkpoints between comunas to try to maintain the gap. Reminiscent of the checkpoints they used to have in NI.
It doesn't work very well of course, aside from anything else there are too many small roads.
www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1cdg89HnDuW_y4-aenjiJ-hBfO5rRGNF3&hl=es-419&ll=-33.426103839081016%2C-70.60290652747295&z=12
However, I originally saw something from the UK Government saying that 50% effectiveness from the lockdown was acceptable and would achieve what they wanted. I should think that has been achieved everywhere.
|
SWMBO has been going on about this idea of having 10 safe "friends" to mix with, and how problematic she sees that.
In that my 10 friends may each have 9 other friends, who each have 9 other friends and so on.
I have pointed out that I think it is just another thing to make you think about what you are doing before you commit to it. It's too obvious that it is flawed for it to be a suggestion that they enforce.
|
"It's too obvious that it is flawed for it to be a suggestion that they enforce.'
The idea would be impossible to enforce but, if people thought about it, it would make contact tracing easier.
|
|
I believe the bubble idea is not that we should all have an individual bubble but that the members of the group should agree to only meet with other members of the group. This would enable us to extend our social relationships with others outside the household.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Tue 5 May 20 at 15:11
|
Does that not mean each person's bubble has to have the same 10 people?
My next door neighbour would want his children and grandchildren as well as us, but I wouldn't want them in my bubble. He also might want his close (ex-)work colleagues but I would prefer people from my crib team
I'm missing something aren't I...
|
|
You would all have to mutually agree who is in the bubble. Effectively it just expanding your household group to include a few more people. None of the people in the bubble can associate with anyone else. Your difficulty in grasping the concept indicates it probably won’t work :-)
|
|
Its such a difficult concept to grasp, and make work, that it wont be introduced.
|
>> I think you will find the following:
>>
>> 1/ The Police would rather not get involved in confrontations at this time. (Most of
>> the time really)
>>
>> 2/ There is a section of the population that are going out of their way
>> to create confrontation and and gain the opportunity to belittle and castigate the Police under
>> the pretext that they have had their 'rights' infringed.
>>
>> 3/ There are sections of the population who just don't give a toss or none
>> too bright.
4/ The overwhelming majority of the population have been uncomplaining, understanding, compliant and careful. Had they not the police would have been overwhelmed and completely ineffectual.
|
That's a fair point. Which is generally how policing works. Had they not been then it would have been a matter of letting the virus do its worst or impose Marshall Law and involve the military.
However the understanding and compliance will only last for so long as greater numbers become restless due to confinement or financial implications. We are at that point with fueling from the media.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Tue 5 May 20 at 15:32
|
BBC report that Virgin Atlantic are going for 3000 job cuts and abandoning Gatwick.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52542038
I know Branson doesn't seem to have any friends here and I also get that this may be pressurising the govt to give them a loan but it would be pretty devastating if it happened.
|
but it would be
>> pretty devastating if it happened.
>>
I would think it almost certain.
|
Surely this and BA must be the nail in the coffin for a second runway at Gatwick and maybe questions the third at Heathrow?
See the builders are still ploughing on with HS2 even after the new 'push' to work at home as the future of commerce.
|
>> Surely this and BA must be the nail in the coffin for a second runway
>> at Gatwick and maybe questions the third at Heathrow?
>>
>> See the builders are still ploughing on with HS2 even after the new 'push' to
>> work at home as the future of commerce.
>>
>>
It'll be interesting to see how much of homeworking remains after all this is done or even as the economy opens back up. In many cases it was employees that wanted home working and had to push for it.
I wonder now if that'll be the norm and people will have to push to work from a set place?* I think a fair few people like the going into work, it gets them out of the house, in to a routine, they see people at work etc. You might find people like the separation of home and work. Then there's those without the space or family routine to work from home, I'm thinking those in houses without a study, young children etc.
*for those where it's an option to work from home.
|
In my last role (now 5 years ago) for a major bank, the team was 100 strong but they only had 30 desks of ur. It was first come first served, you couldn't reserve a desk. If you turned up later and missed a desk then you'd have to use one of the conference pods or wherever you could perch.
Ideal for me, as a seasoned home worker, but many didn't want to work from home, particularly younger folk. I think because, as you say, inadequate space or furnishings or privacy, not enough peace and also a desire to spend their hard-earned in the coffee shops and bars with friends around Canary Wharf. I think some also doubted their motivation.
It's definitely not for everyone but it saves and awful lot of money and, potentially, time - though I found myself working at both ends of the day during the period I would have been commuting.
|
>> Surely this and BA must be the nail in the coffin for a second
>> runway at Gatwick and maybe questions the third at Heathrow?
Meh, not so sure.
Take out, for one moment, the financial state of the airlines which is for the large part a result of historical actions and consider the question of demand.
Nobody has been flying empty airlines and they only wanted to fly more planes because there were more people who wanted carrying so there was surplus demand.
Will that demand decrease?
I don't see why recreational travel will decrease. Though if there is a substantial decrease in disposable income that could push a change from long haul recreation to short haul recreation.
Will business travel decrease?
Some, I should think. Less senior people are going to struggle more to get authorisation to travel I expect, but probably only in the short term. But more senior people may well travel more rather than less. Lots of businesses and industries are going to take significant re-engineering and that means a lot of business and consulting travel.
In any case, these are all likely to be short term effect, medium term at worst. Investing in a runway is a long term bet.
The world was the way the people wanted it. I don't think people have changed. The world will return to the way it was. In time, but probably less time than people may think.
If 7million old and vulnerable people died, which won't happen, that'd be 0.1%. Sadly that just won't matter to the world as a whole, though obviously it matters to individuals very much.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 5 May 20 at 17:12
|
>> Surely this and BA must be the nail in the coffin for a second runway
>> at Gatwick and maybe questions the third at Heathrow?
>>
>> See the builders are still ploughing on with HS2 even after the new 'push' to
>> work at home as the future of commerce.
These are all long term projects with a planning/execution timeframe in multiple years or even decades. The payback time is much, much longer. The rationale for any of them cannot be definitively said to be gone. For many years there's been unmet demand at LHR for connecting flights to the regions.
HS2 is predicated on already overloaded main lines out of Euston, Kings Cross and to some extent St Pancras. There may be a case for a pause while Covid19 impacts on commuter and long distance rail travel to the regional cities (and what happens to the 'Northern Powerhouse') but there's no rational case now to stop it or further de-scope.
|
>> BBC report that Virgin Atlantic are going for 3000 job cuts and abandoning Gatwick.
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52542038
>>
>> I know Branson doesn't seem to have any friends here and I also get that
>> this may be pressurising the govt to give them a loan but it would be
>> pretty devastating if it happened.
It would probably have happened anyway, VA is a basket case and the money would have run out sooner or later.
Virgin Atlantic also said it will move its flying programme from Gatwick to Heathrow. It said it intended to keep its slots at Gatwick "so it can return in line with customer demand".
a: I didn't think that was possible, ie its use it or lose it
b: Had any other airline said that Branson would have been making a right old song and dance. Like the exhibition he made of of himself about BA & AA then selling out his airline to yanks.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 5 May 20 at 16:10
|
a: I didn't think that was possible, ie its use it or lose it
>>
The rules were changed a few weeks ago as the airlines were flying empty flights just to keep the slots.
|
>>The rules were changed a few weeks ago as the airlines were flying empty flights just to keep the slots.
Airlines have been flying routes they don't want for years simply to stop anybody else getting the slot, that's why mergers have forced slot releases. Now they get to keep the slots and not have to operate the flights.
It is unsurprising that Virgin with their mentality were amongst the first to take advantage of the opportunity.
|
>> It is unsurprising that Virgin with their mentality were amongst the first to take advantage
>> of the opportunity.
Of that I've no doubt, I should add I don't know how long this relaxation of the rules is due to last.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 5 May 20 at 18:45
|
>>It would probably have happened anyway, VA is a basket case and the money would have run out sooner or later.
Exactly. A great day for bad news and not even their own fault - a dream come true. I wonder how long before Delta offers to pick up some of the Gatwick slots.
>>Had any other airline said that Branson would have been making a right old song and dance
Too true. A pretty unpleasant and difficult man.
|
if there is business to be done after this passes then either VA will continue to trade or someone will pick up the slots/aircraft/personnel (under TUPE).
It's gone quiet on Branson's wanting a govt bailout but as long as the employees are given adequate support meantime then subsidising the present ownership should not be down to the taxpayer. After all this has passed the assets may be owned by different parties to now but that's how capitalism works.
If the taxpayer can gain assets at a good price by taking a stake may be valid but my impression is that the previous track record is patchy at best in terms of positive return.
|
>>then subsidising the present ownership should not be down to the taxpayer.
So if you're not currently paying tax it's nothing to do with you? Government expenditure impacts all people, not just the much lauded taxpayer.
That to one side, Branson was prepared to accept selling shares to the Government because all the other people who might have been prepared to buy shares would be companies unacceptable to Virgin and/or Delta.
The problem is, of course, you'd have to worry about the Government's position on legislation affecting airlines in general, or mergers affecting one airline in particular, if they were heavily invested in it.
|
Ehm pretty much everyone pays tax.....VAT for example. It's surprisingly rare that the true rates of total tax paid in this country are discussed. Income tax is only the start of it. As well as VAT there are duties, and council tax and others. Tot that up and even a non income tax payer is paying much more than many realise.
Apart from borrowing and sale of assets government can only spend tax revenue which comes in some form or another from 99% of the populace. Something about death and taxes ;-).
|
According to some papers the UK has the highest CV19 death toll, surpassing even Italy.
Something has gone wrong. Was it the govt or do we have a high elderly population that succumbs to such things, or is there a mixture of reasons?
If it is a cock up by the Govt - a lack of testing, lack of contact tracing etc then questions need to be asked about the effectiveness of the Govt - look at how well South Korea has done, even with a cell of super spreaders and a population that is densely packed.
If it turns out to be an ineffective govt then they should go, but of course wont.
Another general question, why are we developing our own tracking app when both Google and Apple have combined skills to produce an app for worldwide use?
|
|
How does the approach that Italy has taken to defining and counting deaths compare to that of the UK?
|
>> According to some papers the UK has the highest CV19 death toll, surpassing even Italy.
>>
>>
I think it'll be quite some time before we know if that's true or not.
|
|
I do think it's harsh to blame the government, especially when you have the benefit of hindsight and of course we are now all experts on viruses and the control of. There were lots of things going on, many of which were outside their direct control. I'm sure there are things which could have been done differently and (again with 2020 hindsight) you could say mistakes may have been made but it's not always right or necessary to go looking for someone to blame.
|
It's not about hindsight, it's about good practice and some countries were doing things very differently from the earliest signs of an outbreak, taking proactive measures and testing testing testing.
The consensus at the time was that was the right thing to do.
So why did our leaders suggest herd immunity was the way to go - was it money saving?
Even Boris Johnson was boasting that he was shaking hands after being warned that it was a dangerous thing to do.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 6 May 20 at 02:35
|
>>So why did our leaders suggest herd immunity was the way to go
Because until the Imperial College report that was the direction advised by scientists. AND *that* is the way we are still going. The lock down was not about anything other than slowing the impact on the NHS, it is still the same path toward herd immunity and/or vaccination as originally planned other than the slowdown.
They were open about why they were doing what they were doing and then open about why they were changing to try and slow the impact.
What would you have preferred they did differently? Guess good?
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 6 May 20 at 02:35
|
>> >>So why did our leaders suggest herd immunity was the way to go
If no vaccine arrives its still the only solution.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 6 May 20 at 02:36
|
How about ensuring there was always sufficient PPE in stock. There had been warnings that the UK had insufficient stocks and was unprepared for an outbreak last year at the latest.
There were very early signs of low level rises in cases where there was large scale testing and contact tracing, something we are just getting together now - significantly later. Again South Korea and Germany were always showing figures below other countries. Following their lead would probably have been a good idea.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 6 May 20 at 02:36
|
|
Clearly you are determined to blame someone for something. Stop drainhole gazing, and look forwards to ways we can make society work under the new different circumstances.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 6 May 20 at 02:36
|
>> Again South Korea and Germany were always showing figures below other countries. Following their lead
>> would probably have been a good idea.
Why didn't you tell us that eight weeks ago?
Anybody can be wise after the event.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 6 May 20 at 02:36
|
Test per Million pop.
Italy is 37,000
Germany is 29,000
US is 23,000
UK is 22,000
France is 16,000
South Korea is 12,488
Not quite seeing the correlation between test and death that you seem to want to be there. I think you'll find it's much more connected to the population demographic and condition. simplistically, the better the health care the longer and sicker you can stay alive and thus the more vulnerable you will be to a virus.
In Chile for example if you're old and in ill-health you die. You don't get to hang around another 10 years waiting for a virus to do for you.
Do you not feel that perhaps you just really want the Government to be at fault? Quite common, even natural. to want a scapegoat, but not necessarily logical.
To be honest I think they've done a reasonable job given that they were faced with a new, unknown, significant and sudden problem.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 6 May 20 at 02:36
|
The way deaths are counted can be very different. Overstated if just "present on death certificate", understated if only cases "confirmed by positive test".
I think they should also be looked at in context of 'excess deaths' numbers which are probably not generally available for most countries.
If you take the view that a vaccine might not be found, or might not arrive timeously, then the death rate becomes a key comparison. That is also a minefield. The mortality on confirmed cases varies massively, which is not necessarily a guide to effectiveness of case management. What you really need is death rate of infections, and generally nobody has an up to date number for infections. New York has done some random testing to estimate infection levels, and a programme of 20,000 is planned for UK.
Again, 'More or Less' is worth a listen. 'Testing truth, fatality rates, obesity risk and trampolines'
www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000htw2
|
>> It's not about hindsight, it's about good practice and some countries were doing things very
>> differently from the earliest signs of an outbreak, taking proactive measures and testing testing testing.
Italy still has a higher death count per million population, as does Spain as does Belgium so lets not start bleating about numbers shall we
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 6 May 20 at 02:36
|
|
I suspect that one (amongst many) reasons for our high death rate is that the NHS is too good at prolonging the lives of some vey sick eiders who are several years beyond their 'use by' date. I say that because I have found myself sharing a ward where the social workers don't know how they are going to cope with half the patients when they have to leave. I have seen it with my father who lived a miserable final two years in and out of hospital - he would have pneumonia, they would pump him full of antibiotics, and he'd be back out again, hanging on 'til the next time.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 6 May 20 at 02:36
|
Our death rate is the consequence of slow lock down (especially the tube in London) and a fair disease burden coming in from Italy as UK holidaymakers came back from their skiing escapades.
At the start of the outbreak you were far more likely to catch CV from your well-holidayed doctor than vice versa.
Add in the almost total disregard for care homes from Handcock et al and we're reaping the rewards.
I'd also avoid overly comparing different countries' figures - ours are off by a fat chunk (lag with community and care home deaths compared to inpatient deaths) and I have no reason to suspect other countries will not be inaccurate too.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 6 May 20 at 02:36
|
>> I have no reason to suspect other countries will not be inaccurate too.
Here they are utter garbage. Though I have no clue what the true situation might be.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 6 May 20 at 02:36
|
>> According to some papers the UK has the highest CV19 death toll, surpassing even Italy.
>>
>>
>> Something has gone wrong. Was it the govt or do we have a high elderly
>> population that succumbs to such things, or is there a mixture of reasons?
Its not a cock up, it mostly to do with having 63 million people on a very small island, and its to do with how we look after our elderly - which is more about families and social disposition than government.
|
>> Its not a cock up, it mostly to do with having 63 million people on
>> a very small island, and its to do with how we look after our elderly
>> - which is more about families and social disposition than government.
Italy has the highest deaths per million.
|
Maybe not totally unexpected but yesterday we had the message come through that the ‘new’ en-masse testing regime has become overwhelmed and has had to be temporarily stopped in our area.
After the big push at the end of last week we were given the green-light to more or less test anybody coming into the hospital regardless, the labs in our consortium have had so many samples that this has now been stopped and we have gone back to very strict guidelines on testing, so only for patients/staff who are showing symptoms and no re-testing of long term inpatients or patients before they are discharged back to a home.
No idea how long this will last for…
In a clinical setting what we really need is an instant test that gives us a result within minutes, currently we have started a limited elective service for urgent cases but these patients have to have a CV19 test 4-5 days before their date to come in and then are asked to self-isolate so are hopefully still negative when they return for surgery… not ideal as there is always a chance they could have picked up something.
|
SWMBO and I signed up for a Kings College app ages ago (called Covid-19) on which we report daily, even though if no symptoms. It takes seconds. She had the trots reasonably mildly on Sun and Mon which she reported. She has been told to go for a test, which was booked last night at a drive-thru for 10:15 today - so no shortage here apparently (Berkshire).
(I think it is extremely unlikely she has it, as other than walks in the country she hasn't been anywhere. Their email says they are recommending the test as their app is trying to identify indicators so they really want to know whether having the runs (and nothing else) could be a sign.)
|
Well that going to be interesting, My TURBT and chemo has been moved to Monday, but the good news is, I am going into the commandeered private Nuffield where -quote
"BMI The Runnymede Hospital has 52 beds.
Patients are accommodated in single private rooms with en suite facilities, telephone, radio, satellite television and nurse call system.
Visitors are generally welcome from 9am until 9pm.
Patients are offered a range of delicious meals and special dietary requirements can be met with a few days notice. Guests are welcome to dine with patients in their rooms."
The interesting thing is that I have to go for a covid test at Ashford drive through testing centre. Its a swab type, so checking for "I have got it" but not "have I had it"
|
That's what the missus had - two days till response apparently. She was given a 30 minute time slot in which to show up - outside of that she'd have been turned away.
We were last in a queue of three. There were Army people manning it, we spoke to three in total. One as we drove it, then one who explained the test process, and lobbed the test into the car through the back window, then one where you hand the test in as you are leaving.
You swizzle a cotton tipped stick around your tonsils for 10 secs then stick it up your nose for 10 - 15 secs then into the test tube, break it off so it fits, test tube into the bag then to the bloke collecting. Once he's checked it you seal the bag and lob it into his box (except SWMBO managed to miss...). You have already put bar code stickers on the tube, the security bag and a card.
It took her about 10 minutes as she reads then re-reads and re-reads the instructions but could be done in less,
|
"The interesting thing is that I have to go for a covid test at Ashford drive through testing centre."
Is that a requirement before being admitted to the hospital?
|
>> "The interesting thing is that I have to go for a covid test at Ashford
>> drive through testing centre."
>>
>> Is that a requirement before being admitted to the hospital?
Yes
|
"Yes"
So let's hope A) that you get the result back before Monday, and B) that you don't catch it on Saturday night when you sneak off down to the pub.
|
>> "Yes"
>>
>> So let's hope A) that you get the result back before Monday, and B) that
>> you don't catch it on Saturday night when you sneak off down to the pub.
If A: happens I have passed so I dont give a rats thingy if B: happens, cos they wont know.
|
Well here's a possible lockdown Heads - up re Sunday!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLfBz6tg-hc
|
|
Read the comments while remembering that these people are allowed to vote and breed.
|
> Read the comments while remembering that these people are allowed to vote and breed
I hate myself for thinking it, it’s not in my usual outlook to be judgemental on people but over last few weeks I have been thinking more and more these exact thoughts. Maybe too much time on social media I don’t know, but there are some amount of stupid people about.
I don’t mean folk who maybe vote differently to me or have different theories about Covid that’s fine, it’s the ones that you read their comments and think Jeez!!!
My local Facebook page is the worse. Folk complaining about all the fly tipping are the same ones who post willing to pay someone to take away their garden rubbish no questions asked. The ones who ask if there is anyone still doing haircuts “ I know the rules but I badly need an undercut” whatever that is! The ones that as soon as lockdown was announced were proudly posting on how they were going to get round it.
Grrrrrrr.
|
>>" I know the rules but I badly need an undercut" whatever that is!
Pubes probably.
:o}
|
So it's now reported that the infamous Turkish consignment of PPE is largely useless. It seems a T-Shirt manufacturer can't just knock up surgical protection. Who'd have thought it?
The press is blaming the UK authorities. Would that be the same press who were trumpeting a week or two back how incompetent the authorities were when it was so easy to get it from lots of willing (often new) manufacturers? Most of whom have gone remarkably quiet of late?
|
>> The press is blaming the UK authorities. Would that be the same press who were
>> trumpeting a week or two back how incompetent the authorities were when it was so
>> easy to get it from lots of willing (often new) manufacturers? Most of whom have
>> gone remarkably quiet of late?
A bit like one or two on here?
|
I was working very slowly over the last few days with Mrs Z moaning that my breathing was very heavy and I didn't look well and really ought to see my GP.
Miss Z called to tell me to see my GP but I got very out of breath and she called an ambulance. Confused them as she is 4 counties away.
Right in to A&E with blues and twos. Mrs Z not allowed to attend.
Right to the front of the queue in the RED section - I'm not happy.
Lots of attention from a Polish junior doctor who fetched an Indian consultant. X-ray taken by an Estonian radiographer. More blood tests.
Turns out that I have a bad chest infection and they wanted to keep me in. Got nebulised and pumped with drugs.
Now there were so many people coughing and spluttering around me that I declined their kind offer and got given a box of antibiotics with a warning that I must return if I get any worse.
Get a phone call from my GP this morning (yes a bank holiday) saying that I might not realise it but I should be in hospital.
Whilst I am feeling slightly better, I now have a sore throat now and am worried that I picked something up in hospital. Mrs Z had decamped to the spare bedroom in protest!
(Mentioned nationalities of the staff because it shows how much we rely on these good people from around the world. All staff, British and from abroad were absolutely charming.)
Our dog hasn't left my side all day. She usually treats me with disdain, she clearly senses something is not right.
Last edited by: zippy on Fri 8 May 20 at 21:45
|
Have you informed Miss Z yet that you escaped from the hospital?
Hoping that you feel better soon.
|
>> Have you informed Miss Z yet that you escaped from the hospital?
>>
>> Hoping that you feel better soon.
>>
Thanks!
Yes. She says hospital is probably safer in that they can react to a deterioration immediately.
Miss Z has given orders to Mrs Z to take me to hospital if my breathing gets laboured again.
She said the junior doctor wouldn't call a consultant unless really concerned and wanted a run down of the tests that they did and medicine given and she thinks that they were quite worried with how I was presenting given the extra tests they did and what I was pumped with and wanting to keep me there in the current environment.
Miss Z transferred a young (40's) blues light worker over 100 miles to a major London hospital today. She was very upset over it. Puts things in to perspective.
|
The doctors at the hospital think you should have stayed in.
The GP thinks you should be in hospital
Your daughter thinks you should be in hospital
Your wife thinks you should be in hospital.
But you know better.
I wish you well and I hope you recover quickly, but ffs............
|
>>But you know better.
No. They are correct. I just hate hospitals. People die in them you know.
|
People also die at home.
Pretty selfish move imho, but I wish you well for a good recovery.
|
Self-determination is the cornerstone of good healthcare.
But I'd be a tad concerned if a consultant was recommending I stayed in with a non-Covid complaint just now.
Fevers, delirium, worsening breathlessness (ie finding it increasingly difficult to get out of bed/go for a slash) or dehydration (not been for a slash for 6-8 hours...) should all prompt a 111/999 call.
If it's bacterial and you're on the right stuff you'll start feeling better within 12-48 hours.
But to echo Mark.... Ffs
|
Zippy, you are an intelligent man but like many intelligent people when it comes to making personal decisions, be it financial, relationship or medical the dead portion of your brain kicks in and your decisions are based on desire rather than sound practice. That is exactly what you are doing here, so take the professional advice you are been given and get yourself off to hospital ASAP.
There aren't many posters here now and we can't afford a regular to snuff it, so at least think of us ;-)
|
>> The doctors at the hospital think you should have stayed in.
>> The GP thinks you should be in hospital
>> Your daughter thinks you should be in hospital
>> Your wife thinks you should be in hospital.
Not to mention the dog.
I'd listen to the doctor in the family.
|
I'm pretty sure you are allowed phones in there these days so you will still be able to log on here if that's what's worrying you... :-)
I hope you have a speedy recovery, however you do it...
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52594023
Looks like all incoming passengers will be subject to quarantine which will pretty much kill off air travel and certainly destroy the hopes of any one believing overseas holidays will be back any time soon.
Still look on the bright side - it looks like we are going to be allowed to go to the garden centre. :-)
|
|
I doubt that will happen. Completely unenforceable.
|
Posslbly but it doesn't really have to be. Current restriction are unenforceable but have been quite effective based on public cooperation and peer pressure.
I
|
And how will the peers know who to pressure?
Current restrictions could have been enforceable, though a massive logistical challenge, but they were not. It was not deemed necessary. And in any case, when the standard is "nobody outside" it's pretty easy to detect "somebody outside".
But how would compulsory self-isolation work? How would you even know when I walked down the street whether or not I had been on a flight in the last two weeks?
Somebody is playing games with the media and the easily led to either test a reaction or force one.
Whilst the potential for political stupidity is high, I don't see how anybody is going to make it work or even be able to pretend that they could..
|
>> And how will the peers know who to pressure?
>>
>> Current restrictions could have been enforceable, though a massive logistical challenge, but they were not.
>> It was not deemed necessary. And in any case, when the standard is "nobody outside"
>> it's pretty easy to detect "somebody outside".
Not really a reflection of the rules in place, not in the UK anyway. Theres several reasons you can leave home.
>> But how would compulsory self-isolation work? How would you even know when I walked down
>> the street whether or not I had been on a flight in the last two
>> weeks?
It's not massively different from not knowing if anyone has had a cough or high temperature in the past two weeks and walking past them in the street.
|
As a reasonably regular leisure traveller, if I thought my destination country had an entry condition which might put me in isolation for two weeks it would deter me. I know there are clumps of people who would fight and/or ignore it, and in doing so grab the headlines thereby making us think it is being ignored by all, but like the lockdown I would imagine that most people would take it seriously.
On a tiny sample, there does seem to be a bit of a groundswell against the press and the way it is trying to make the policy rather than just report on it.
Of course their motivation for travel could influence their actions.
|
>>And in any case, when the standard is "nobody outside"
>> it's pretty easy to detect "somebody outside".
>Not really a reflection of the rules in place, not in the UK anyway. There's several reasons you can
>leave home.
True, careless writing on my part. What I mean is that it is far easier when everybody faces the same restrictions (and exceptions). When you're in a position where only a tiny fraction of your inhabitants must self-isolate for 14 days and you have no real way of knowing which ones they are, that is quite different.
|
When you're in a position where only
>> a tiny fraction of your inhabitants must self-isolate for 14 days and you have no
>> real way of knowing which ones they are, that is quite different.
Like I said I don't see it as much different to those that are self isolating with symptoms now. They could just ignore the advice after a couple of days if the symptoms have gone and you'd be none the wiser.
|
|
Australia already has a 14 day compulsory quarantine policy for all incoming passengers. I guess if they can make it work so can we.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Sat 9 May 20 at 16:26
|
>>Like I said I don't see it as much different to those that are self isolating with symptoms now. They could just ignore the advice after a couple of days if the symptoms have gone and you'd be none the wiser.
Absolutely. Because they are a small subset who are not easily identifiable/distinguishable.
|
>> >>Like I said I don't see it as much different to those that are self
>> isolating with symptoms now. They could just ignore the advice after a couple of days
>> if the symptoms have gone and you'd be none the wiser.
>>
>> Absolutely. Because they are a small subset who are not easily identifiable/distinguishable.
>>
If you think they are similar (?) then you think both ideas are unenforceable but useful or unenforceable and of little use or something else?
|
>> Somebody is playing games with the media and the easily led to either test a
>> reaction or force one.
>>
Or perhaps not
“Airlines UK, the trade body for UK registered airlines, has confirmed to Sky News that the move will be introduced by the government for anyone arriving into the UK other than from Ireland, to ease the spread of COVID-19.”
|
>> You do make me smile.
>>
I am always pleased to cheer up the sad and lonely.
|
Were the airlines given a 'heads up' that leaked or is a kite being flown?
Seems odd to wait another 14-21 days when people can return home, as most arrivals are doing, before putting into place something for which there has been a rationale since March.
Odd, even it's a quid pro quo for a co-timed relaxation of lockdown.
|
I think it’s just a logical attempt to avoid a second spike. If we manage to get the infection rate down the we hardly want to import new sources of infection. The government does not wish to repeat its earlier mistake. I don’t think we always need to read ulterior motions in its decision.
|
>>Were the airlines given a 'heads up' that leaked or is a kite being flown?
Well I suppose tomorrow we'll find out for sure, but my guess right now is that a kite is being flown, though it is unclear by which party.
|
>> >>Were the airlines given a 'heads up' that leaked or is a kite being flown?
>>
>>
>> Well I suppose tomorrow we'll find out for sure, but my guess right now is
>> that a kite is being flown, though it is unclear by which party.
This is an example of a very good and effective tool being used by the Gov.
FUD
Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
You plant the fear that, at any time, the Gov can make air travel and arrival into the UK difficult. That in turn stops people making plans to fly to the UK for social and pleasure purposes in the short and medium term. You also kick some airline Butts, and make them grateful to accept costly alterations to flights and seating arrangements. (are you listening Mr O'leary)
|
BBC Report
"Arrests after anti-lockdown protest in London"
".....They had placards and leaflets detailing a wide range of conspiracy theories - their targets included 5G technology, Bill Gates and vaccinations....."
Is there no limit to the depth of their stupidity? What are these people even for?
|
The UK has so far had 32,000 deaths.
A study of deaths in Italy determined that 1% of those who died had no underlying conditions up to 48% who had 3 or more.
I don't have any idea of to how many people the UK offers extensive and/or ongoing healthcare, but surely this must be heading towards making a difference to their ongoing costs? Or is the number simply too small to matter?
|
I think I'm having a stupid moment but I can't see why testing is seen as such a necessity to controlling the virus? It doesn't seem to have correlation to cases or deaths, using the tables here.
www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
I mean, I get that it's nice to know whether you have it or not (and important for those caring for you), and whether you've had it or not (not yet testable) but how does it help prevent the spread? I imagine the statisticians like it too, but in practicality the results take best part of two days to come through, by when you could have had contact with a few people, and they aren't helpful in identifying when or where you caught it.
|
Well a positive result means you can tell them to isolate, and seek treatment if needed, albeit two days later than ideal.
A negative result isn't much use.
Mostly though I think it is caused by the media needing something readily presentable that they can show to their readers and the readers need to think they're understanding.
And, most welcome by media and certain readers alike, it brings the opportunity to criticise and blame.
Event the BBC has slipped back from it's two weeks of being a proper source of objective and useful information and has returned to its preferred gutter of sensationalist reporting constantly seeking some manufactured controversy to report.
|
>> I think I'm having a stupid moment but I can't see why testing is seen
>> as such a necessity to controlling the virus? It doesn't seem to have correlation to
>> cases or deaths, using the tables here.
Knowing how many of your population have been infected is pretty vital, because only then do you know how many are going to get it, how many are gong to be ill, how many are going to die over what kind of timescale. All pretty vital for planning I would have thought.
Currently we known nothing. We have figures but they are pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of things. All we know about is the ants running around outside, not whats happening in the nest.
|
CV has a typical spread rate (R0) of >3 (ie each positive case will infect 3 others on average)
Transmission reduction measures (self-isolation when symptoms start, population lockdown, social distancing, etc) and any innate immunity in the population mitigate the actual spread rate.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number
Prompt testing means within 48 hours of symptoms developing you know if a person has it, and can then trace and test/isolate contacts who are likely to be about to develop the disease before they are infectious.
This leads to the spread rate falling below 1, and the disease becoming controlled.
South Korea are a prime example of this process.
www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/south-korea/
|
|
Good to read the science clearly explained.
|
No mention that the recording of non-hospital CV deaths in Scotland has been quicker than rUK, especially care home figures.
|
|
Thanks, I knew there'd be some logic - except may the positive test result not be known until over 2 weeks from when the person contracted it, due to the potentially long period before symptoms show? I suppose it's better than nothing but it doesn't really seem to me to be that much of a game changer in itself.
|
I suspect the plan will be "you've been a close contact of X who has CV- you need to isolate 7 days - we'll test you in 5 days or if you get symptoms"
This will catch enough to bring R0 down - although it can take 14 days to show symptoms, most do so within 7.
I suspect the number of symptomless cases are actually quite low: in one care home outbreak 90% of residents (about 50) 70% of staff (about 35) tested positive and all were symptomatic with no positive tests for asymptomatic residents/staff.
This may represent the virus burden from close proximity of course, compared to a more typical community case.
|
Coronavirus Volume 15 - Roger.
