Re: Coronavirus
 

He has been their best perfomer at the Covid 19 daily briefings along with Whitty and Valance.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And while we try not to get political in the coronavirus thread (ha ha ha) that’s danger for the Labour Party. Hancock is going under the bus, evidently Murdoch has the knives out for Johnson preferring Gove. However worst case scenario Sunak will emerge unscathed, and popular, and would not need a general election until 2024.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's a tricky balancing act corona deaths vs other deaths due to the lockdown and subsequent economic crash, particularly suicides as people loose their homes and jobs.

(Original Telegraph story is behind paywall)

Re: Coronavirus
 

The number of deaths in care homes was advised today as being at least 5,500 by 24 April by Nick Stripe, head of the health analysis and life events division at the ONS
https://www.theguardian.com/world/li...-who-have-died

Re: Coronavirus
 

The UK reported 4,583 new infections yesterday, roughly the same as on 1st April. Within two weeks we were at 1,000 hospital deaths a day.

Does the Professor have any meaningful strategy for keeping the demand for health services below NHS capacity or should we just “see what happens” when you put immune system compromised individuals in virus riddled hospitals?

Re: Coronavirus
 

More infections detected because more screening?

You have to have some hope. If there isn't a hope of normality in any form from the current then people will lose patience and the general compliance we have at the moment will go end and likely we get stronger enforcement of stricter rules.

And again the politicos/epidemiologists etc will look at a big picture and say that n thousand deaths out of n million is acceptable and manageable compared to the financial/societal costs and the impact of those. They are also well aware that every single life is worth saving at whatever cost. Now you try to balance that out.

Finally before the lock down we were requested to self regulate, to not congregate etc but too many people didn't. Same with restrictions on certain goods - we were told there is no shortage, no need to stockpile but people didn't.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Could someone explain why Sir Kier is respecting the 11am 1 minute silence at 11:05? ;)


https://www.cableforum.uk/board/data...ABAAEAAAIBRAA7
https://www.cableforum.uk/board/data...ABAAEAAAIBRAA7https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2020/04/5.jpg

Re: Coronavirus
 

The infection rate has never been a very good indicator of the spread of the virus in the UK because testing rates have been so low. Now testing rates are being ramped up, obviously the infection rate is going to seem to go up. As a means of detecting whether infection is spreading again it is not presently very useful. It will only become useful if we can sustain a large and fairly even rate of testing for a couple of weeks at least. Until then, the only fairly consistent, reliable indicator we have is deaths reported in hospital, which has been recorded with sufficient similarity across the country from the outset.

---------- Post added at 12:08 ---------- Previous post was at 12:06 ----------

I'm going to be charitable and suggest his photographer was also respecting the silence at actual 11am ...

We used to regularly 'stunt up' a photo after the fact on the papers (Local and regional press have rarely been able to get a photographer on scene quickly for anything). Rookie error having a clock in the background though.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Clock fast? I didn't even realise it was today.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Lol, suspect the clock is fast.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

So you’re saying the clock stopped last night? ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Maybe he was doing a 5-minute silence. You know, to show how much more caring he was than everyone else. :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

I believe it was fast, it was like that just before 11am

Re: Coronavirus
 

Must be doing it in his local, landlord has it fast to get everyone out early before closing. :)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Who cares about 5 minutes, or if the clock was fast, slow or correct.

The pettiness of some members is unbelieveable now.

Are you really that desperate to attack someone who was observing the silence, move on.

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://twitter.com/IpsosMORI/status...722401280?s=20

Strong public support for maintaining the lockdown. Only 23% want to restart the economy if Covid-19 not “fully contained”.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That'll be the 23% with all the money, so restart it is.

Re: Coronavirus
 

or the likely true and correct reason for the clock time, was that he and anyone in the room observed the silence at 11am and the photo was taken afterwards.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Never a justification for doing anything in a democracy.

---------- Post added at 16:10 ---------- Previous post was at 16:09 ----------

I was only joking with a a few others. Yes that’s the far most likely outcome.

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/new...-face-18163483 The Government are not "following the science", they are choosing which science to follow...

(Which is what I would expect - they have to consider a lot of other aspects)

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-52457324

The Scottish government meanwhile has recommended people cover their faces while in some enclosed public spaces, such as shops and public transport.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think if Johnson hadn't succumbed badly to Coronavirus himself, he may well have agreed more with his prosperous backers that an early restart made sense. However, he's now taking a more measured approach.

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.thenational.scot/news/18...twick-airport/

Tell me this "red tape" story is false.Rip the damn boxes open.Who gives a $%^* about whether the labels are on the outside or inside.Wee burneys no boasting about this if true.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Given its provenance my instinct is to say it must be a lot of bollards. The SNP's house comic is the last place I'd look for news about anything. However, having read it, it actually comes within half a light year of being mildly critical of the SNP, which makes me think it's probably shared copy rather than the Nazional's usual homespun, exceptionalistic stupidity.

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...ision-11980084

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ah well, if Sage has ruled it out I give it about a week before we all wear facemasks out and about.

Re: Coronavirus
 

What does "fully contained" mean ?

I doubt 77% will support maintining the lockdown for another 12 months.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You can’t fully contain it, you can fully contain it about as much as you can fully contain seasonal flu or the common cold.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Do you still think Coronavirus is 'just a bit of flu'?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not what he said - move to strike leading loaded question, m’lud! ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's what he's said before.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...&postcount=757

Re: Coronavirus
 

I doubt it too which is why it's important we get the next few weeks right while public support is strong.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's a type of flu, like SARS and MERS. I don't think anyone is minimising the dangers - what some of us are trying to do is to draw attention to the number of influenza deaths in the UK each year to get matters into proportion.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I believe I went on to clarify that statement and correctly replaced “the” with “a”, which it is.

My point in the post previous that it is a Corona virus like the cold, like the flu, and therefore would be some what difficult to totally contain.

Do you disagree with that assertion?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Andrew Neil is pointing out the death count and the data is bleak:

https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1255191154859147264

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EWtVstTW...jpg&name=small

Re: Coronavirus
 

more that 1 million cases now is USA

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...-days-11980148

Re: Coronavirus
 

Of course we accept statistics from other countries as accurate and Gospel, just our government that are inept n’er do wells that manipulate the numbers.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Has anyone ever tried?

I am curious what beneficial effects the lockdown will have on other diseases.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I doubt they have, as the only way you could “fully” contain it would be for everyone to live in an individual sterilised space and have absolutely no contact ( including sharing airspace) with anyone else.

Re: Coronavirus
 

What you mean to say is that you don't think the efforts to contain it would be cost effective. There's no scientific evidence to suggest it's not containable, if we adequately control human behaviour, restrict movement, test, trace and isolate just like any other virus.

This exercise obviously not helped by Herd Immunity Week.

---------- Post added at 20:11 ---------- Previous post was at 20:08 ----------

That's not true - there's nothing wrong with people in small groups so long as there is no mixing between groups. These could be streets, villages, towns, etc.

That way it eventually can only be exposed to members of the smaller groups making test, track, trace even easier. Whole areas can gradually be declared clear of the virus so long as there's no mixing with groups under investigation.

---------- Post added at 20:15 ---------- Previous post was at 20:11 ----------

A success story of private healthcare provision.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's bound to be higher as the US has a higher population. It is ludicrous to compare infection rates and deaths between countries in absolute numbers. Compare deaths per million and you get a more realistic comparison, but even that takes no account of population density.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Than India or China? You learn something new every day on here.

Actually the best comparison is infections per capita. Deaths doesn't account for the capability of healthcare systems where poorer countries would be disproportionately affected.

Unless of course you are the richest country in the world and don't provide universal healthcare...

Re: Coronavirus
 

I was referring to comparisons with Europe, jfman.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ah selective comparisons. Carry on, Old Boy.

As the USA continues to mismanage this crisis it's only a matter of time before it shatters all records going.

Re: Coronavirus
 

But we're not manipulating the numbers and neither is there a suggestion France, Spain or Italy are.

It does look like we're going to have the worst death toll in Europe.


It is debatable if comparing deaths per million is as effective here because we're talking about managing the spread of virus. The more people there is then the more people it could *eventually* spread too but in the early stages of a pandemic then it's about how quickly it's spreading though a small number of the population.

i.e There is no reason for New York to have a higher death rate than London because the U.S.A as a whole has more people on it. Population density on the other hand....

Re: Coronavirus
 

Err, nope...I didn’t even consider the cost of anything. Just on the practicality of it, it is not possible to be 100% , which is what believe “totally” means. So no you’re wrong in trying to transpose what you think into what I posted.

. 100% ? Totally contain it? ...................with 0% risk to anyone?

I don’t need to see scientific evidence to know that is highly unlikely if not impossible.

This exercise obviously not helped by Herd Immunity Week.

Ok junior virologist, if you can guarantee 0% risk of infection in that scenario, I’ll jump on board with you...............can you?

---------- Post added at 23:21 ---------- Previous post was at 23:12 ----------

It just seems to me......as a pretty sophisticated and switched on country that as we find it difficult to obtain numbers for those that have died, outside of hospital, of COVID, why we should blindly accept figures from other countries as being spot on.


And as I type away, I’m pretty certain that all the stats on this graph are for hospital deaths anyway, from all nations ( happy to be wrong?)

I would disagree until all the data has been processed.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re care homes in other countries

https://ltccovid.org/wp-content/uplo...17-April-4.pdf

Re: Coronavirus
 

Removed.

Completely irrelevant and just a dig at other members, stop.

Re: Coronavirus
 

New Zealand claims 'elimination' of coronavirus with new cases in single digits


https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/27/a...ntl/index.html

Re: Coronavirus
 

That's what happens when you have an effective Govt. that takes quick decisive early action.

We might find that UK citizens are no longer welcome abroad. Looks like the Australian cricket team won't come here this summer, whatever assurances we give. Visiting the UK is too big a risk.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...y_to_clipboard

Re: Coronavirus
 

Then you are just plain wrong then.

You don’t need scientific evidence? :confused: What else should we rely on? Gut instinct? If I’m certain of anything it’s that Coronavirus won’t be resolved, or the economy recover, by ignoring scientific evidence.

Although it’s nice to see you roll back your opinion to “unlikely”.

No need for insults so I’m not going to rise to the bait. These are scientifically proven techniques for controlling virus spread.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Let's take a moment to pay tribute to the wonderful people who helped America get to 1 million cases:

https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/sta...919006210?s=20

Re: Coronavirus
 

I thought CF'ers might find this item that I found on Twitter informative - she explains clearly why lockdown (to get the number of infected down) then track and trace is the optimal policy until a vaccine is available (uses US figures, but I'm sure they are the same for us).

https://twitter.com/rachel_elisse/st...17792488062982

Re: Coronavirus
 

l think that is one million Covid 19 cases Russ.

Meanwhile Trump suggested that doctors study the idea of people receiving injections of disinfectant to combat the virus.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So we win by default,now that's my kind of cricket.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Thanks, amended :tu:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Absolutely every single one of them were trying to talk up the stock market.

---------- Post added at 09:32 ---------- Previous post was at 09:10 ----------

Was that better or worse than 19, den? ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Oh dear another senior moment l am afraid.;):D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Herd Immunity

Allegedly, the infection rate is falling . . how do we know that we aren't already close to it?

There are people out there who probably have the virus but no symptoms.
There are those who have/had the virus with very minor symptoms.
There are those who have/had the virus and put it down to a week with Flu.

Until everyone is tested, nobody knows who has it, has had it, and - importantly - has possibly had it twice.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Rachel seems to contradict herself and is not entirely accurate in her portrayal of this issue.

However, I just want to highlight two points in particular, as most of this has been done to death already.

Surely, this is the point - you cannot shield the vulnerable - or the rest of the population, for that matter, from this virus. So the lockdown is not eliminating the deaths, it's just slowing down the infection rate. If you locked everyone away so it couldn't get to them, the virus would simply start spreading again as soon as you unlock the doors again, because the virus is out there and people from abroad will keep bringing it in. Only herd immunity or a vaccine is able to thwart it.

It would be bad enough if we managed to deliver a vaccine by September, but it is unlikely that this would be mass produced and given to all the population by the end of the year. That is the best case scenario.

People are already sick and tired of the lockdown and starting to breach it in greater numbers, and we are only in week 5! I cannot understand how people can seriously believe that this lockdown can be sustained until the end of the year, let alone another 18 months, if this is how long it takes to get a new vaccine. I can tell you that the government is not going to be funding 80% of salaries for much longer, and businesses need to get back on their feet pretty quickly or they will collapse, taking all those jobs with them.

No, people have had enough, and that means we have to get to some semblance of normality quickly. Sadly, yes, that will mean more deaths. But which is the less of two evils, and is it really in our gift to control this thing? Waiting in lockdown or partial lockdown for 6-18 months is not at all sustainable.

Incidentally, I have heard many older people say that they are not prepared to spend their final years in lockdown, and they will not comply with these rules beyond the 12-week period. If that's what older people think, how will you control the younger ones? I can tell you, you won't, and this is one good reason why this country needs to relax these restrictions as soon as possible, despite the death toll.

Some may argue that, but I think what those of us who are trying to put this into perspective have been arguing is that the death figures are not all that exceptional, in that you can get something like up to 40,000 flu deaths in a year and people barely notice this. Yet look at the news each night and the figures are sensationalised to the point that some more highly strung people have been terrified by this. But we have only just reached these kind of numbers and the figures are now declining.

The five year average for the number of deaths in the UK have been exceeded now, it is true, but not by a particularly large number - 184,950 in 2020 compared with 174,718 over the same period on average over the last five years. Does the BBC announce these figures throughout the year and agonise over these deaths? No, they don't, and people scarcely notice as a result. The media is scare-mongering big time, and while it is sad that anyone has to die, most of us know that you cannot control nature as some would claim.

The power of human beings to control everything is limited and we need to come to terms with that. We have to ask ourselves whether the ruination of our economy is worth the relatively small impact we can make on the continuing progression of this virus before a vaccine can be found.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That's untrue. If you did lock everyone away until there was no virus as soon as you unlocked the doors - who would they get it from?

We are an island - we can isolate people at the borders for two weeks to limit the spread, only allow people in who were tested in the immediate period prior to travel, only allow people in from other countries that have contained the virus, etc.

There's a number of mechanisms that can be used - again we come back to the idea that you think it would be too hard and you'd rather just open up the economy for 250,000 people to die.

The polling shows the people are in support of the lockdown. Support for this Prime Minister has never been higher.

You are unfortunately continuing to conflate public opinion with your own subjective opinion on these matters.

Anecdotal evidence.

Which again comes back to the question of how Coronavirus got noticed in the first place if it was simply another case of the normal flu.

Understating the figures by 20,000 can hardly be considered sensationalist. If you think it's bad now I hope you weren't reading the papers when Italy and Spain hit 20,000 deaths.

Incidentally, whatever happened to Italy being worse affected because of more intergenerational households and bigger family meals? That pseudoscience didn't last long.

Old Boy you are the one continuing to spread fear and terror on this very forum. We are on the verge of becoming a space-faring civilisation. Something like 0.7 on the Kardashev scale with plans to put a man on Mars.

You are massively understating the capability of the human race if you think that we couldn't delay the spread of a virus until a vaccine is found.

Just come out and say you'd prefer we didn't pay people to sit in the house for 8-12 weeks and prefer they died in low paying jobs just so the FTSE 100 can go up 10-15%. That'd be a much more honest assessment of the matter.

---------- Post added at 09:59 ---------- Previous post was at 09:53 ----------

When levers are gradually released if herd immunity is a thing then numbers won't spike in the same way, indeed they may not rise at all and continue to reduce. If testing is up to scale then that would allow you to accelerate the easing of restrictions every 3-4 weeks with confidence.

There could be valuable lessons to be learned from Germany, Italy and Spain in this respect who are seen as 'ahead' of us in the curve.

Re: Coronavirus
 

They could always try dropping the price and ship it to the supermarkets.

Same story in The Times for those with access.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Like flour is the problem that there aren't the small containers or small container packaging stuff or simple distribution. If you can get the stuff into home size containers I'm sure distributors/retailers would find markets.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Table wine is often sold in 5l plastic barrels on the continent. Even here you can get 3l boxes. The problem is at least partly one of marketing. The industry relies on glass bottles with deep indentations and cork closures to denote product quality.

Re: Coronavirus
 

On a cheap £5 bottle of wine only 31p actually goes on the wine, the rest in tax, packaging, transport, shop margin.
https://www.decanter.com/learn/tax-w...canter-357119/

Re: Coronavirus
 

Flu season is October to March (6 months), and Public Health England estimates that on average 17,000 people have died from the flu in England annually between 2014/15 and 2018/19. However, the yearly deaths vary widely from a high of 28,330 in 2014/15 to a low of 1,692 in 2018/19 - so far nearly 22,000 (and possibly twice that figure) have died in under 2 months from COVID-19.

That’s the perspective I take from this.

Also, you are being selective with your statistics - the average deaths for this time of year have increased.

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/health-51979654[ Latest stats from ONS

Re: Coronavirus
 

Moreover, they have died in under 2 months while extreme measures have been taken to prevent the virus spreading. Such measures are not required in order to keep flu deaths around 17,000 in any six month season, aside from a strictly limited vaccination programme.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Looks like we're now going to be getting timely stats in the UK that cover coronavirus deaths regardless of where they occurred. Good to get this clarity.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/c...-a4426716.html

Re: Coronavirus
 

Brilliant . . 73,448 deaths where Covid19 was present . . expect a social media meltdown sometime in the next few days :rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

A report from The Times this morning ( behind the paywall ) says Germany is ready to tighten lockdown as the coronavirus infection rate climbs again.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/g...gain-jgbsl5xp6

Re: Coronavirus
 

With apologies but the done thing being to find the same Sun article here it is.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/115056...s-cases-surge/

Re: Coronavirus
 

Or even put it in a nicely styled quote box ;)

The Sun and Times share news resources so the same story appears in both but often with a different emphasis

BTW if members want to tame some of the excesses on the sun website then use a script blocker.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The problem with testing thousands more people is . . . you find more people infected


or am I not conforming to the mass hysteria routine?

Re: Coronavirus
 

He didn't say that, you did.

which tells everyone a lot more about you, than it does about him.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I suspect that there is a large groundswell of undetected infection going on with people not realising they've had it. How else are we to explain the rise of infection in care homes?

Once we have a reliable anti-body test then we'll be in a better position to know whether contact tracing will be an effective measure.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That’s why I’m asking him to summarise his position in that manner. If he out and out said it we could all just move on rather than have to regularly engage with pseudoscience, speculation and supposition based on anecdotal evidence he hears from bored “old people” around him.

This forum has done the subject to death. This isn’t just the flu, it would without control kill far more people, overwhelm the NHS and have far wider implications for the economy.

The role of Governments and Central Banks is to support the global economy at this time. What do we pay taxes for 50 years for if it can’t even, for a mere few months, underwrite and support the economy?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

STOP TALKING LIES AND NONSENSE. THERE IS NO WAY OF COMPARING DEATH RATES.

Eg Two countries with 100m population and 10,000 deaths. Country A only tested the 10,000 that died, country B tested 10% of their population. Country A would have a death rate of 100% of cases, country B would be 0.1%.

Eg Country X had 100 people bringing it into the country, whereas country Y only had 10 people. which country is going to have the more cases?:rolleyes:

That is before you factor in all sorts of complicating issues, mainly related to group behaviours in those countries. Eg if religious groups are in the habit of gathering in large groups, then guess what, it's more likely to spread within that group and beyond.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ah the group behaviours in other countries rears its head. Inter-generational families in Italy wasn’t it before?

What do you think they say in Germany to look down their noses at our death rates? Superiority complex? Stuck in the days of Empire?

You can absolutely compare death rates - you just find them a bit uncomfortable.

---------- Post added at 14:45 ---------- Previous post was at 14:44 ----------

Seph’s on board and I think Carth is getting close, folks. ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

We need to build a pipeline!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Meanwhile, Gal Qaeda are telling us that although more men are dying of CV, women are the actual losers in this :eh:

Re: Coronavirus
 

This is fantastic.

I bet she’s just got an off the shelf template where she inserts the name of the crisis.

“More men might be out working to clear the railways during the beast from the east, but it is hurting women in other ways forcing some back into domesticity from which they thought they had escaped.”

PASTE.

Easy copy if you can get it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You only need one person to come in from abroad whose infection had been undetected to be in direct contact with someone in this country who had not had the virus, and until herd immunity is built up it would start all over again. You are seeing how uncontrollable this perishing virus is when you look at what has happened in Germany as soon as they relax their stiff controls.

My point is, you cannot control the virus effectively without strict lock down measures, and if you open your eyes, you cannot fail to notice that people are already getting restless and flouting the rules after 5 weeks of lockdown! How do you suppose we can continue to control this if we extended lockdown even by another six weeks, let alone six months?

Re: Coronavirus
 

You can, and all they’ll tell is how many are dead.......nothing more.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You are disgusting, jfman. I did not say that and it is not the way I view this at all.

If you cannot understand the futility of attempting to lock the nation down for six months +, there's not much else I can say to you. Except that your solution is a total delusion.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That’s why we need controls on who comes in from abroad. Testing before they travel, quarantine and testing after they get here. Contact tracing. It’s tried and tested science for controlling the spread of viruses.

If it’s no longer economically viable for someone to come to the UK under those conditions then tough shit for them. We’ve a population to protect in the short term and an economy in the longer term.

Confidence in the lockdown and the Government remains high. A confidence that will only increase as infection figures fall over the next couple of weeks and testing ramps up for key workers.

There will always be low level criminal activity Old Boy. We can’t run a country by lowering ourselves to their standards.

If you are confident it’ll die out over the summer by itself what’s the rush?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Old Boy it is you grasping at any straw you can find - herd immunity, it’ll pass by itself in the summer, “it’s just a flu and we don’t shut down the economy for it” to justify condemning hundreds of thousands of people to their deaths. I’m sure others can decide what they find more disgusting.

Nobody, anywhere in this thread, has said to lock the whole country down for six months. Once again to demonstrate being “reasonable” you resort to the straw man approach.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Agreed. People keep on telling us that everything can be controlled once we have testing, but this is simply not true.

People produce varying amounts of anti-bodies, broadly dependent upon how severe the infection was that they contracted. Some people, particularly the majority who have had it but don't realise it, seem to be naturally immune and do not produce antibodies. And yet the proposal is to test people to check for antibodies to see how far the virus has spread. Clearly, this method of testing will not tell us what we need to find out.

Similarly, in terms of testing to see whether or not a person has the virus, this also has an unacceptable failure rate and what is more, it only tells you (unreliably) that you were free of infection on the date the test was taken.

So how anyone can seriously believe that as soon as everyone has a test we can control this contagion, I really don't know!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Source?

Source?

Someone without antibodies catch the virus and spread it to others as they’d be unable to fight infection.

Once again you are justifying your position with something absolutely baseless in science.

I’m in the rather ludicrous position here of backing a Conservative Government (which I readily condemn for mistakes made to date), want it to support small business owners (which it’s trying to do) and prop up the economy (which it’s trying to do) and I’m supposedly the extremist here.

If I really wanted a laugh I’d actually back your proposals to open up the economy against scientific evidence. There’d be blood on the hands of a Conservative Government following the advice of six donors just so they can make more money while hundreds of thousands (of the poorest, most vulnerable in society die).

There would be blood on the streets such would the public anger be over this. 250,000 deaths would be millions of families affected.

The Conservatives would be unelectable for a generation.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It is a matter of fact that Covid-19 is a coronavirus, like MERS and SARS were, and everyone knows that coronavirus is a type of influenza.

I am not saying it's 'only' flu, I'm saying it's a type of flu. Nobody is questioning that it has a very speedy infection rate and that currently there is no vaccine.

All those deaths are truly disgusting - who would disagree? What I am saying is that until an effective vaccine is found, we cannot prevent these deaths from happening.

You've only got to look at our care homes to see the futility of the lockdown.

You may be right in saying there is broad support for the lockdown, but the cracks are appearing and most do not expect this to continue for more than another three weeks or so. The position will look rather different at the end of that time, and once company after company goes bankrupt, sending people to the unemployment register, there will be a sea change of opinion.

Despite everything you claim, jfman, the government cannot afford to keep paying the nation's wages and they have pretty well acknowledged that. Faced with not having any money coming in, people will soon want to be getting back to work.

Of course, in your vision of the near future, they will just shrug their shoulders and say "All right, then".

Crazy.

Re: Coronavirus
 

What is crazy is that you don't get something very very simple, By having the lockdown you LESSEN the amount of deaths than if we were to carry on life as normal. It's a very simple fact yet one you do not seem to comprehend for some reason.

As you say, we can't prevent deaths. but we can LIMIT them

Re: Coronavirus
 

If you delay an “inevitable” death until after a vaccine it’s naturally prevented. You also make the false assumption that we could supply a universal and equal supply of healthcare services at all times which we do not.

It demonstrates no such thing. Indeed, the infection will have spread into care homes in many cases prior to the lockdown beginning. For many, it will be too late, however mistakes of the past are no reason to sacrifice more people.

That’s why the Governments and Central Banks need to step up.

I’ve seen nowhere where they have said they are unable to support the economy through the crisis.

Nobody wants to go out in the middle of an uncontrolled pandemic and die for the minimum wage Old Boy, you are frankly being ridiculous if you think that is the case.

---------- Post added at 15:37 ---------- Previous post was at 15:35 ----------

I can only believe Old Boy is deliberately part of a misinformation campaign of some sort to wilfully misrepresent the facts so often.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Incorrect. Coronavirus is not a type of influenza - you’ve got it back to front.

Influenza is a type of coronavirus. Flu, MERS and SARS are all caused by coronaviruses.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

No, you don't. You just delay these deaths. As soon as the lockdown is lifted, the infection rates will increase again. They have already seen that in Germany.

---------- Post added at 16:24 ---------- Previous post was at 16:22 ----------

Accepted.

---------- Post added at 16:29 ---------- Previous post was at 16:24 ----------

Your first sentence I do not dispute. What you are ignoring is my main point here, which is that you cannot sustain a lockdown until the end of the summer, let alone the end of the year, which is the earliest possible time that a vaccine will become available.

Last weekend was evidence that a growing number of people are ignoring the rules. It was very noticeable that there were quite a lot more cars on the road as well.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There is no doubt some are ignoring the rules as the Police has said the roads are definitely busier down here in our city since Monday.

It beggars belief how some of these shops get round the essential rule as one example was a spa that was sold to a customer who went in there.

Now l am not a expert but surely that is not classed as a essential purchase in my view.

That is just one example.