Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Fake News! - what do they know?

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's probably just further investigations to what we already think we know. The Deputy Chief Medical Officer has previously said at a briefing that the virus doesn't do well outside and that was the suspicion already apparently. It is presumably a trait of viruses generally.

We've been told that being outside, alone, has very minimal risk. We've also been told that receiving post and parcels is generally fine because the viruses doesn't do well when it's disturbed and subjected to different temperatures.

But even with all that there is every reason to further learn exactly the impact and exactly the reasons why.

It's a real thing though. He has had quite an increase since the start of the year and most countries saw similar trends. Even Macron was popular for a bit and the French really hate their Presidents, even the ones they liked.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Wow, I honestly never thought I'd see the day when you ad Mr K were so aligned. If Mick expresses similar views on Trump then I think we might be in danger of a forum consensus!

Re: Coronavirus
 

That wouldbe a step too far...:erm:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Saw in passing something about research in France indicating smokers recover better or suffer less than non-smokers. This looks linked to nicotine so was some suggestions giving healthcare workers patches. It certainly didn't endorse smoking.

My initial thought was that smokers have so knackered their throats etc the virus couldn't bind :P.

Sorry no reference, this was on new app on phone early in morning as just scanning through.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

I've seen that smokers are considered less likely to get it but more likely to have more serious systems if they do. The latter making sense as the worst your lungs, the harder you're gonna have it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

A thing that is odd about France, is their advice for social distancing is to stay just ONE metre from anyone.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

In my seven day sabbatical I found some interesting analysis from a Professor at the University of Edinburgh.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...nd-coronavirus

Countries that intervened early such as New Zealand, where Jacinda Ardern insisted defeating the virus relied upon 'going hard and going early', could come out of this economically better off whereas the herd immunity/it'll happen anyway countries could find themselves undergoing years of turmoil as they are unable to recover the trace, track, isolate mechanism of breaking transmission chains.

Somewhat ironic really if steps to 'protect' the economy, against internationally recognised protocols on dealing with pandemics, made the situation worse.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If people need to be told not to inject disinfectant, I'm sorry but the gene pool doesn't need you.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I would point out that NZ is relatively sparsely populated.

Having said that, I await the second wave. Have you looked at Japan?

As I have said consistently, you can delay, but you cannot prevent.

You can quote me on that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The good news is we are neither trying to effectively delay nor prevent, so you can always use the UK up as an example that will prove your point of a second wave being worse than the first. :)

I'm not sure what I'm quoting you on, that failing to adhere to internationally recognised best practice doesn't get desirable outcomes? I'm sure we are in agreement on that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You may find the attached article interesting. Your support of panic reaction is not one that was originally advocated.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...ic-lost-nerve/

In particular:

The point about the national pandemic plan is that it is specifically required to be proportionate to the risk, though it does err on the side of a “reasonable worst-case scenario”. This means that there can be over-responses, as there was to the swine flu in 2009 which turned out not to be as bad as feared.

For coronavirus, the Government was following this framework almost to the letter while preparing the country for what would be a difficult period. But that all changed on Mother’s Day when pictures of people out and about led to a clamour for a lockdown that was never planned for. Prof Heneghan says the Government lost its nerve. Concerned that it would be seen to be putting the economy ahead of the NHS, it is now inflicting worse damage on the country than the virus itself.

---------- Post added at 20:46 ---------- Previous post was at 20:36 ----------

Well, yes, they do! Don't get taken in by Labour propoganda. It's amazing that they should accuse Boris when they have such mega-fibbers in their own party!

Give us a break!

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm interested in your view after this?

https://twitter.com/kenolin1/status/1253746729515704322

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ah, an opinion piece, in the Telegraph, I feel much more educated now, Old Boy.

The Government never had any nerve, which is why it’s didn’t take the necessary decisions early enough or hard enough. The economy will lose more in the long term as we face years of social distancing and restrictions.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yeh, OK, I realise the records still stuck. Wake me up when you've something new to add.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There's no need to quote me if you have no meaningful response. I get that you don't appreciate criticism of the Government, however if the evidence demonstrates that the current response fails us both in terms of health and economics do not find yourself surprised to read me continue to make those points.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

We agree on that then.

---------- Post added at 22:53 ---------- Previous post was at 22:40 ----------

As usual you are totally wrong again. I have no afilliation to this or any other Government over the last 40 yrs or so.

The only reason I voted this time was that a party existed that would do what I voted for last time i.e. pull us out of the (then EEC) EU. I have not voted nor supported any party between those 2 votes.

So NO! I don't give a shit about any Government nor what they do. In the last 40 odd years there has never once been a political party that would change anything for me.

Enough of politics, I'm not interested. Broken records though normally get thrown out eventually.

Re: Coronavirus
 

True. :cool:

Re: Coronavirus
 

How true this is,:D

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...9&d=1587804085

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

I suspect this pandemic is being used to bury news because it's the only subject mentioned by the media.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That seems to have come from or repeated by Turning Point UK, the offshoot of a very right wing US organisation that has very high profile backers.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_Point_USA

I'm not saying that you shouldn't criticise media when it's due, you just need to be aware of where the criticism is coming from as well.

Re: Coronavirus
 

From 2019 report presented to Parliament.
So this report and the others are just yet another example of the garbage and nonsense from the media. The things reported in there are not that secret and have been mentioned for more than 10 years(ie under Labour).
Report from May 2016

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

The WhatsApp screenshot has come from Tim Montgomerie today - the Turning Point tweet is from 3 days ago.

The fact that it's specifically aimed at the left wing media but shared by those affiliated with the right wing media and politics is in itself bias which is what my point is. Bias works in both directions, and is dangerous without context.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So what?

It's completely on point.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Some people have no sense of humour.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yep, I too was wondering if the lock down was having the effect of numbing the funny bone ;)


oh, and I'm the same as pip, no political affiliation for decades and if something is funny, it matters not who wrote it or who it is about, it's funny :p:

Re: Coronavirus
 

And of course, the Mail, Express, and the Telegraph are the epitome of unbiased journalism... :D

---------- Post added at 12:58 ---------- Previous post was at 12:57 ----------

You're half right... ;)

---------- Post added at 12:58 ---------- Previous post was at 12:58 ----------

You probably need to look up "confirmation bias"... ;)

---------- Post added at 13:01 ---------- Previous post was at 12:58 ----------

You do realise the info was probably leaked by senior Government sources, so I'm not sure how this is persecution by the "left wing" press - the story is also in the Express, Telegraph, Sun, and Mail; are they persecuting Cummings as well?

btw, I don't have an issue with him attending SAGE meetings, as long as he is there to listen, not direct or influence.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Could also have been written by an unwitty one too. ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

<removed>

You only just got back into this topic after a weeks rest for constantly picking fights with everyone - and already you are at it again - are you after a permanant ban from this topic ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

An example of where the scientists and experts missed an important aspect, is over mass event gatherings. Not all of them are created equal. Eg A football match is relatively regimented in the movement of people, Cheltenham Races was completely different. At the races, people were milling about everywhere for hours and for more than one day. A football match may have been considered low risk, but the situation at Cheltenham was different.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nah I'm fine thanks. :)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Apparently:

'Ministers were warned last year the UK must have a robust plan to deal with a pandemic virus and its potentially catastrophic social and economic consequences in a confidential Cabinet Office briefing leaked to the Guardian.'

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...virus-pandemic

Re: Coronavirus
 

But a year is not a long time when dealing with recommendations for future-proofing, particularly when taking account of the fact that we are only just emerging from a period of austerity, with all those pent up demands for increased expenditure.

Nobody expected Cobid-19 to arrive right now. It's easy to be wise after the event.

---------- Post added at 17:37 ---------- Previous post was at 17:28 ----------

Not so. The government is already planning to ease restrictions, according to the press today. I don't see how social distancing can be a viable strategy when everyone is back to work. Just reminding ourselves of how crowded trains and buses are during rush hour puts the futility of such an arrangement into sharp focus. Flexible start and finish times have been mooted, as has working from home where possible, but I doubt that this will be very effective.

Fortunately, it seems that the virus may have a limited lifespan and could well disappear without trace before long, rendering the need for social distancing as irrelevant.

Re: Coronavirus
 

l suggest you read up on Covid 19 OB as you seem incredibly ignorant in your knowledge of it.

---------- Post added at 17:43 ---------- Previous post was at 17:42 ----------

Hmmm social distancing will be with us in some form until a vaccine is found.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Planning and being able to do so effectively without the NHS collapsing are two different things.

Indeed, the difficulty around 100,000 tests a day demonstrates the difference between blue sky thinking and reality.

Correct. That's why not everyone will go back to work.

Source? You are the one telling us about a second wave striking other countries that have more effectively managed it then us, and the WHO are sceptical about any meaningful immunity at all.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I have done so, Den, and the likelihood of Covid-19 having a limited life span is a scientific opinion. As you know, SARS and MERS died out naturally after their devastating impact.

---------- Post added at 18:16 ---------- Previous post was at 18:15 ----------

I've already pointed out that this will not be a viable proposition.

Re: Coronavirus
 

These events didn't happen of their own accord, they were supported by strict adherence to WHO protocols on dealing with pandemics.

Neither is hundreds of thousands of deaths which is quite the political dilemma.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It has to be as according to Professor Chris Whitty social distancing is likely to be needed until a vaccine is available for Covid-19 unless you think you know more then him.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I quite understand the medical advice on social distancing, Den!

I'm not questioning the sense of social distancing, I am simply stating the obvious - that it is not a practical proposition when everyone is back at work. The number of people crowded together on public transport will undo any good of social distancing at the workplace.

That's quite apart from those working in close proximity to their customers such as dentists, hairdressers, etc.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Apparently? According to who? It's just a repeat of MANY previous ones going on for MANY years.
National Risk Register report for 2008.
2016 report
Although not sure what those 20-plus products are.



Essex County Fire & Rescue report from a year ago.
All publicly accessible documents. Being prepared for a pandemic has been on the UKs radar since at least 2007ie probably before). Nothing new in any of the figures used, as there is little else to base any on.

Pandemic preparedness report from 2015 on face masks.
UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy
Guidance on preparing for and responding to an influenza pandemic.
Published 22 March 2011
Last updated 5 June 2014
Link to several documents.
That is the source for all the reasoning on recent UK government decision-making. Nothing secret, all referenced to source studies and reports.


As I said earlier, just more garbage and nonsense from the media.:mad:



If I can so easily find out all this and more, why can't or is it won't, the media do likewise? Then perhaps they might properly represent the truth and a true perspective on matters.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I read it in the Daily Telegraph, but as it's behind a paywall, I did a quick Google and found this. You could have done it yourself, jfman.

https://www.accuweather.com/en/healt...-months/679415

Re: Coronavirus
 

Doesn't read like meaningful scientific research to me, Old Boy.

Even he won't stand by his statement in public.

Also published on February 11th. The northern hemisphere is getting warmer and coronavirus is getting deadlier when adjusted for the significant steps by Governments to stop the spread.

Well that needs no response.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If your going to quote something then do it properly.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I was quoting the paragraph above in the article, but thanks for pointing out that he actually said it. I'm unconvinced, and as I pointed out above so evidently is he to the extent he was unwilling to publicly stand behind his findings in February.

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...rim-virus-data

Scientists warning that the lockdown isn't effective enough at this stage to release it and that the necessary "test track track isolate" of cases following lockdown wouldn't be possible.

Before anyone accuses me of being political with this I could not agree less with the leader of the Labour Party who wants the Government to publish an exit strategy.

The public at large aren't clever enough to cope with the intricacies such a plan, nor our media competent enough to report it responsibly, and as such targets that were never intended would be manufactured out of nowhere and the Government expected to abide by them in the absence of any evidence at all.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don't think the new normal will necessarily be the same when there is a return to work. Certainly, I wouldn't rule out everyone wearing face masks and PPE being used by hairdressers, perhaps all 100% appointment. In restaurants and pubs/bars I would expect to see fewer tables to facilitate social distancing. Queuing at the bar may end in favour of table service aided by apps. I think there would be very strict limits on numbers allowed in.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Agreed. Some smaller venues just wouldn't be viable unless they could charge a lot more or were subsidised. At best, they would be mothballed until a vaccination was invented. At worst, they would never re-open.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Three things I don't get about the current situation:
1) Why can passengers still travel to the UK without being quarantined, tested or subject to heat checks?
2) Why elderly people are alloted early slots in supermarkets alongside health workers - surely this is putting a vulnerable group in proximity to those who stand a higher-than-average chance of being carriers? (Or is it that the supermarkets will be very quiet then so there won't be much proximity?)
3) Who the cabinet minister is that got away with adding off-licences to the list of essential businesses? :D (Not objecting to the categorisation. ;))

Re: Coronavirus
 

I find that going to my local Sainsburys in the elderly allotted times it is busier than going in the normal tiles

Re: Coronavirus
 

From what I was taught in school, viruses tend to die out only if they dead-end either by killing their host or enter a host with the antibodies to destroy it.

This is why they evolve in most cases to be non-lethal to their hosts, and to resist antibodies against a previous form.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

It is typical of you to ask for a source and then debunk it when it is provided on the basis of the news provider or something trivial that you can eke out an argument with. The man is an expert on coronaviruses, having studied this for many years - you know, like you are an expert on economics. :D

If the guy is asking for his views to be kept private, I would venture to suggest that he does not want to tread on anyone elses toes here, or maybe he still has research to do.

Nevertheless, the man is kosher and he has a theory. I never claimed that it was fact. Even the government's advisors point out that nothing is certain because not enough is known about this new virus to compare what has happened before.

As for the seasonal issue, it is not as straight forward as you would like to have us believe. It is still early in the season but as more people get out and about and warmth and humidity increase, the likelihood appears to be that it could either retreat or die off altogether. It is known that the virus does not do well in warmer, humid temperatures, so we shall see.

It will be interesting to see whether the virus returns in winter, something that is perhaps more likely if there has been inadequate penetration of the virus amongst the population. This possibility can be minimised by opening the schools sooner rather than later, and allowing shops to re-open. As many people as possible should be allowed back to work also. This may lead to a rise in cases, but this time it should be more manageable. As I have said many times, we will end up with the vast majority of the population being infected in any case, but most will not even know they've had it.

The people we should be trying to protect are the vulnerable, including people in care homes, but it does seem pretty hopeless based on how many have fallen ill to date, despite visitors being kept away.

Re: Coronavirus
 

We get that you didn't want a lockdown Old Boy but opening up the schools and shops simply means that millions are put at risk, we cripple the NHS and tens of thousands more die, rendering the work done to date pointless.

Coronavirus is spreading in the southern hemisphere where lockdowns are weak or absent, and in countries where the weather temperature is currently comparable or in excess of a summer in the UK.

Have you got a source for the bit in bold - testing for antibodies in the population done to date hasn't indicated that there's a large number of asymptomatic people and there are question marks over their reliability in any case.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020...-be-unreliable

Even further - there is a bigger question mark over whether any immunity exists at all for those who have had the virus.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Absolutely. I can't stand this lockdown. This is the longest I've not been to the gym in 4 years. I can't see my children or my elderly mother.

But the world doesn't revolve around what Russ wants.

My OH suffers with significant asthma, if she caught the Rona then...it doesn't bear thinking about. There are people out there at even more risk than she is.

The NHS is already over-stretched. The economy is not far off being absolutely shot to brown-stuff.

Like it or not we have to look at the greater good, something that a generation of self-titled "why should I?" types (not aiming that at anyone here) are incapable of understanding.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Sage are concerned about reliability of antibody tests and have cautioned against too much focus on the antibody tests.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imp...-Report-16.pdf

Re: Coronavirus
 

Temperature is not the only reason that [some] viruses die out in the summer months. Apparently its also because in the winter time we all keep ourselves indoors, so it transmits between us quicker than in the summer, when we tend to be outside more, and thus [generally] spread apart more. (Natural distancing).

Re: Coronavirus
 

Increased temperature also desiccates the droplets that carry the virus?

Re: Coronavirus
 

That’s what Labour’s Rachel Reeves was asking for this morning on Andrew Marr

Re: Coronavirus
 

I haven't watched Marr however a bad idea is a bad idea regardless of who states it whether it's Old Boy, Rachel Reeves, or anyone else.

The Government plan, which appears to be erring towards the schools not opening fully until at least September in England, is the sensible one.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Any easing of the current lockdown will just lead to an even bigger ignoring of any new rules. The risk is that groups will gather(especially religious ones) where one person can and has in examples around the world, infect a couple of dozen others at a time.
South Korea
US
A very important thing to take away from the US example is this:-
How many other examples around the world have involved coughing or sneezing? I've seen no mention. Sneezing isn't listed as a symptom and coughing symptom is a dry cough, not a wet one.

Simply breathing in the air somebody else has just breathed out is the problem. Calmly breathing in and out through the nose is obviously the least problem. Breathing in/out in a more forceable manner from shouting, singing, exercising(eg jogging), laughing, and to a lesser extent simply talking is the problem. There's not a mysterious aura surrounding people, like from wearing too much perfume or after shave.

So my personal advice is to talk, etc in a direction away from everybody or from a greater distance than 2m. At the very least it can't harm to do that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The easing of the lockdown has to be lead by the science no matter what any political party thinks.

The science will unemotionally look at the statistics. i.e. number of cases vs number of deaths and what percentage that involves. Yes it's heartless but science cannot let that enter into the equasion.

Consider this, if testing is ramped up and reveals that of the number deaths is say 0.1% of confirmed cases is this acceptable?

The answer becomes a societable problem. Once the media get hold of the figures...

Re: Coronavirus
 

BREAKING: Prime Minister Boris Johnson, returns to Downing Street after recovering from Covid-19 that nearly killed him.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It'll be far higher than that - 0.1% of the population is 66,000 and excess deaths is already at 40,000. It's not credible that 40 million people have already been infected with the virus given at any one time something like 80% of testing done has been negative.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Did it though? Glad to hear he's coming back.

---------- Post added at 20:00 ---------- Previous post was at 19:59 ----------

Merely a scenario as you full well know,

Re: Coronavirus
 

Whatever ones political allegiance is its good to hear that he has recovered fully from being very seriously ill.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes it did, being in Intensive care is one caveat to making you aware that you're close to death, fighting for your life, you're not put in there unless the chances of dying are highly probable without significant medical interventions.

Johnson also said himself, there was a moment when being in Intensive care that the chances of survival verses dying, there was one moment where it could have gone either way. So yes, he nearly died.

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...pert-interview

Interesting article from one of Germany’s specialists.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It certainly is and puts forward a lot of what OB has said.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It was in answer to a specific question about how close were we to herd immunity, rather than "should we go for herd immunity?"...

Re: Coronavirus
 

That’s a single scientific fact answering a direct question asked. I don’t see where he advocates carelessly opening up the economy and tens of (hundreds of?) thousands of excess deaths.

The UK has to acknowledge that, for various reasons, Germany have controlled this better and are well placed to continue to do so. The UK has 10% of the recorded global deaths, and even then we are calling 40,000 the reduced figure of 20,000.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You just love arguing don't you. As he was refering to herd immunity how would you expect it to happen? Continued lockdown?

If he thought herd immunity was impossible don't you think he would have answered that direct question about a single scientific fact with a NO!

Notwithstanding your expertise as an economist and virologist what would you do to balance both the economy and the nations health?

Re: Coronavirus
 

No real interest in arguing, or reading your childish insults as it's obvious I'm simply being baited to try and get me banned.

Herd immunity through vaccination is much more likely - the question is how to get from here to there over the next 12/18 months. Indeed, even those who believe in British exceptionalism have to note that's the stance of our own Chief Medical Officer.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a9478856.html

We aren't obliged to trade off the nations health against the economy - both are achievable if governments around the world are willing to use the right levers.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Perhaps you should stop biting then.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don't think you are correct but that's just my opinion.
No-one asked should we go for it but he did put forward some very good points without ruling it out.

1. To achieve herd immunity we need 60-70% of the population to carry antibodies to the virus.

I think everyone can agree with that.

2.It assumes complete mixing of the population, but there are reasons – in part to do with the social networks people form – why the whole population may not be available for infection at any given time.

They won't be available if in lockdown. Add in 6 degrees of separation and social networks are negated.

3. Networks shift, and new people are exposed to the virus. Such effects can drive waves of infection.

See the answer to 2.

4. Another factor that could impact herd immunity is whether other coronaviruses – those that cause the common cold, for example – offer protection to this one. We don’t know, but it’s possible.

If they do or not does not negate if herd immunity is possible or achieveable.

Re: Coronavirus
 

We all know that letting tens of thousands of people die achieves herd immunity. Indeed, Imperial College London put it at 250,000 deaths.

Nobody has disputed that the concept exists - merely the irresponsibility of achieving it by allowing the virus to spread through in an uncontrolled way.

The UK is in for a rolling period of various stages of lockdown and social isolation measures for the remainder of the year. There's no scientific rationale to deviate from this unless there is a vaccine.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If we can't get a vaccine what then?

Re: Coronavirus
 

There is no policy to let herd immunity just happen. It can only really happen with a vaccine. It is a population state where those who can't or haven't been vaccinated are less likely to get the disease.
Those people need herd immunity to exist or they are at constant risk. I think that covers most of the 1.5m people who are currently "shielding" from the virus.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No one, as far as I know, has ever advocated that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Your plan would wreck the economy. For some perverse reason you either think that's a good thing or it doesn't matter.

Or maybe you are working for the Russians to spread alarm and desponency!

---------- Post added at 01:54 ---------- Previous post was at 01:51 ----------

You have no interest in arguing because you don't have answers that address your daft comments, jfman.

I don't want to see you banned, but would welcome a proper debate with you to try to understand your views, which seem very strange and perverse to me.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And workable vaccines don't just turn up that quickly out of thin air as it is likely to take a minimum of 18 months and could even be longer then that and even after that you must industrialise production and then vaccinate the whole population which could take another year.

There is also the added possible problem that some countries might try to exert power to corner it for their own country first.

The Ebola vaccine took a lot longer then 18 months

https://www.statnews.com/2020/01/07/...ebola-vaccine/

https://www.biopharma-reporter.com/A...ne-development

Re: Coronavirus
 

jfman's views seem to me pretty much aligned with the UK's and indeed most Governments' views on this subject. He does not come across to me as the outlier on this debate.

Re: Coronavirus
 

By that "logic", HMG/BJ are maybe working for the Russians to spread alarm and despondency, because jfman is saying the same things as they are.

Perhaps you are working for Vladimir, trying to collapse the NHS by ending lockdown early, OLD BOY - or should we call you старый мальчик? ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Boris Johnson to make a Downing Street statement in the next few minutes.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I won’t even try to hide the fact I’m anti-Tory and anti-Boris.

But he tried and in my opinion failed spectacularly to “fire up the country” by attempting to sound very “Winston Churchill”. Still he is the PM so let’s see how it goes.

Re: Coronavirus
 

l am certainly not a fan of Boris Johnson or the Tories either as l have made clear before but he is the PM at the end of the day and its up to him to see us through this crisis.

Re: Coronavirus
 

As pointed out - I'm making statements in line with UK Government policy, and many other western Governments. I would consider that neither perverse nor strange. Or daft - I'd appreciate if you refrain from the insults.

I've also pointed out that I think the Government should do as much as it can to support businesses during what is essentially only a pause in the economy. There's no reason it will not recover, providing the Government (and worldwide governments) use the macroeconomic levers they can to plug the gap for everyone for a few short months.

Where will the money come from? You ask. What you haven't grasped is that at macroeconomic level trillions of dollars, pounds and euro of debt doesn't really exist in any meaningful way if there's a co-ordinated step by the major economies to exploit quantitative easing and low interest rates.

You've been reading far too much right wing nonsense if you assume that such steps automatically makes us Venezuela. It didn't in 2008 when we bailed out the banks, and it wouldn't now.

Yes, naturally GDP will fall during this pause, however that's only one economic measure and not particularly useful when you know that it is intentional to support dealing with the health crisis. It doesn't measure the wealth of the country, for example.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Was thinking at weekend (it was the barbie that smelled of smoke) about the different strains of the virus and the longer term impact on immunity.

One reason for the common cold returning is that it doesn't make the patient ill enough to produce a strong immune response. Mutations are another but this could combine with the former.

Asia and western US have predominantly been infected with strain A that is less virulent or causes less extreme symptoms than strain C that has been the main form in Europe and eastern US. If a more extreme symptom can lead to a better immune response and the reverse is true -

• Is it possible that Europe/eastern US may develop a better immunity than Asia/western US?
• Is it possible that immunity to strain C (because of it's pathology) could lead to immunity to strain A while those countries hit with stain A and now at risk from strain C?
• Or maybe the reverse that as with smallpox/cowpox that using the weaker pathology agent can be used to vaccinate against the stronger?

Re: Coronavirus
 

The reality is, Den, that there is no way the government will impose a lockdown for 18 months. This one has been in place for just a few weeks and people are already fed up and infringing the rules.

Additionally, we will have run out of money well before even another three more months of this, so anyone who thinks this will carry on until we have a vaccine is going to be disappointed.

Back to work sooner rather than later, chaps.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Spare us your patronising armchair analysis Old Boy.

You've put up a nice straw man there of a lockdown for 18 months - a situation nobody expects and nobody advocates. The UK Government position, based on medical advice, is for social distancing measures to remain and adjusting to a new normal.

Can you evidence that we will run out of money within three months? Or is that merely your own hyperbole.